Sitting of 22 June 1989

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.

  ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL.( By Order)
  Order read for resumed adjourned debate on Question —[23 May]—That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  Debate to be resumed on Thursday 29 June.

  BRITISH RAILWAYS (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 29 June at Seven o'clock.

  LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Wednesday 28 June at Seven o'clock.

  BUCKINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration read.
  To be considered on Thursday 29 June.

  VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [LORDS] (By Order)
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Thursday 29 June.

  HAYLE HARBOUR BILL [Lords] ( By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time on Tuesday 27 June.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    EC Structural Funds
    Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to maximise the share of the European Community structural funds accruing to Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): The Government welcome the designation of Northern Ireland as an objective 1 region for structural aid from the European Community. Following partnership consultations, a development plan for the Province was submitted and negotiations with the Commission on the Community support framework are under way. Work on preparing earning measures is well advanced.
    Mr. Archer: Since the present quota system of allocation will no longer apply after 1992, will the Minister ensure that his Department is ready with projects to assure Northern Ireland of its proper share of the funding? Will he undertake to ensure that every penny of European money will go to increase public expenditure and not to reduce the commitment of the Treasury?
    Mr. Stewart: We are very anxious to ensure that Northern Ireland has the maximum opportunity to obtain the maximum amount of funding for the best possible projects through the earning measures. Work is already in hand and my officials are having another meeting with European Community officials about this next week. With regard to additionality, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, I am fully confident that we shall meet the European Community additionality requirement. I understand from Commissioner Milian that any constraint on the availability of funds is more likely to come from the number of existing commitments in the pipeline than from any problems on our front.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister tell the House how many bodies he consulted in drawing up the strategic plan that he intends to submit to Brussels for action? How have the consultations taken place, why was a very important body—the Institution of Civil Engineers—left out, and are the discussions still going on?
    Mr. Stewart: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that consultations took place between a very large number of bodies. With regard to the formal consultation process, a body with a statutory function in relation to the plan or the earning programme is defined in the Community's rules as being a partner for specific consultations. However, the Government consulted much more widely and included the Confederation of British Industry and the trade unions. If the particular body to which the hon. Gentleman referred has views that it wants to put to us on the use of the programmes and the structural fund we should be glad to hear from it.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: As the most important Euro-route out of Northern Ireland is that between Belfast and Larne and then out through Scotland, will the Minister assure the House that the Belfast-Lame road will be improved as a

    477
    matter of priority in the development scheme being submitted to the European Community? Will he confirm whether the line of the other Euro-route—from Belfast to Dublin, down to the border—has yet been finalised?
    Mr. Stewart: The arterial routes which the hon. Gentleman mentions are important parts of the transport infrastructure for Northern Ireland, both to Scotland and to the Irish Republic. Transport proposals have been put to the European Commission in the context of our plan. It will be for the Commission, but in consultation with us, to establish the priorities within that and if those qualify, I will be glad.
    Mr. Hume: Does the Minister agree that the designation of Northern Ireland as an objective I region, and the strategic plan to be based on that, represent a major opportunity substantially to raise living standards in Northern Ireland if the Commission's objectives are met? Does he agree that the Commission stipulates that special interest groups in Northern Ireland must be consulted and that expenditure must be extra and additional to normal Government expenditure? What steps has he taken, first, to ensure that there has been consultation, not just contact, with special interest groups, and, secondly, to assure the Commission that expenditure will be additional?
    Mr. Speaker: Briefly, please.
    Mr. Hume: Will the Minister assure the House that the final detailed plan submitted in October will include local development programmes for each part of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Stewart: In addition to the consultation and notification that took place before the development plan was permitted, there will be ongoing discussions with interested parties in Northern Ireland. That is in addition to those which have a statutory function and are thus technically partners under the European rules.
    The projects for which we are seeking European funding, when they come forward in our public expenditure system, are bids within our overall bid to the Treasury. The mere fact that they are treated in that way for public expenditure purposes does not mean that they are not additional. They would not exist if EC funding was not forthcoming. To separate them out in accounting terms, as some have suggested, would merely put them at risk if for any reason European funding was not forthcoming.
    Mr. Thurnham: I have just attended a meeting at the Institution of Civil Engineers at which an excellent report was put forward containing a number of proposals for structure investment, a copy of which I will pass to my right hon. Friend. In view of the apparent decline in investment in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider that report carefully.
    Mr. Stewart: I am glad to say that investment in Northern Ireland has been improving in an encouraging way in the past year or two, but that does not mean that I shall not be interested to see the document that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: May I press the Minister a little further on the concept of additionality? He will be aware
    478
    that there is a difference of view between the Government and the EC Commission. Can he say anything about the Government's thinking on that? More importantly, the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that separating the projects out might put them in jeopardy suggested that they would go ahead irrespective of any EC funding. If that is so, the Minister must accept that they are not additional to existing programmes. We need a cast-iron guarantee that in future any EEC funds will be additional to those approved by the House and the Treasury.
    Mr. Stewart: Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman suggests, I see no problems in our conforming with the additionality requirements but the matter turns on the subsequent point that he made. I was trying to explain that if those items were taken out of the main public expenditure block for Northern Ireland, as approved by the Treasury and incorporated in our public expenditure plans, any delay in receiving European funds between one financial year and another which meant that the amounts were not forthcoming in full would mean that those projects could not take place. The current arrangement provides some flexibility for the Government in Northern Ireland. I welcome that flexibility and would not want us to be deprived of it.

    Playing Fields
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many playing fields have been sold for development in the past five years; what was the comparable figure in 1974; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Comprehensive records of playing fields in Northern Ireland are not held centrally. Of those grant-aided by the Department of Education, four were sold for development in the past five years. None was sold in 1974.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that on principle the Conservative Government will make it a priority not to allow development on school or other playing fields or green spaces? Will he contrast that with the behaviour of Labour-controlled Ealing council, which is promoting a building on the Cayton road playing field in my constituency?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a bit wide.
    Mr. Cryer: It is very wide. It is an abuse of Northern Ireland questions.
    Mr. Greenway: Should not those playing fields be saved for children and for environmental reasons?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I know that my hon. Friend robustly defends his constituents' interests. I assure him that we consider every possible opportunity to retain playing fields. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that in the same five years nine major playing field complexes were transferred at no cost to Belfast city council and one to Newtownabbey council.
    Mr. McNamara: I am sure that we all approve of the Minister's last statement, but will he confirm that the Government have a ratio for the number of playing fields appropriate to the numbers of pupils in a school and that

    479
    any surplus land has to be sold off for development and that that is the rule in this country? Perhaps the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) should find out what the Ministry of Education and Science is doing.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am not aware of any ratio. From time to time, due to the decrease in school numbers, land becomes available—[Interruption.] It is not a ratio. We try to retain that land in the public sector for public use where there is demand or need, but occasionally land is sold off for development.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: When land was transferred free of charge to Belfast and to Newtownabbey councils, why were the former playing fields used by the Stranmillis college not transferred to Castlereagh council free of charge?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of that council, knows the answer full well.

    Bill of Rights
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a draft Bill of Rights to guarantee human rights and civil liberties in Northern Ireland, for consultation.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): Human rights and civil liberties are already well protected by existing legislation in Northern Ireland. I am always willing to consider proposals for strengthening the existing safeguards, but I am not convinced that a Bill of Rights is required.
    Mr. Barnes: Later today we shall be discussing direct rule and there will be an opportunity for the Minister to elaborate on the points that he has made. I hope that we can discuss the possibility of a Bill of Rights. It is likely that Front Bench spokesmen on both sides will wax lyrical about the need for democracy in Northern Ireland and then, for the fifteenth time, we shall moot the re-establishment of direct rule. Would not a Bill of Rights help to produce the circumstances and the framework in which we could move towards real devolved government in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. King: I think that if the hon. Gentleman has studied the matter, he will know that there are very real problems about trying to produce a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland without encompassing a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to address the protection of rights, I am certainly determined to ensure that they are properly protected. If that is achieved by separate and individual measures, he will know that one of the rights to which people are entitled is protected from discrimination. The Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill now before Parliament will be a major step forward in that direction.
    Mr. Gow: Will not the human rights and civil liberties of the people of Northern Ireland be best protected if they are governed in the same way as their fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom? Would their rights not be better protected if Northern Ireland Members could move amendments to proposed legislation and if the system of legislating for the Province by Order in Council ceased?
    Mr. King: I have always made it clear that I am ready and willing to listen to any ideas for improving the procedures in the House. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) has said, we shall shortly be debating the continuance of direct rule. I have made clear on three occasions—the fourth is about to arrive—my concern about direct rule and the fact that it is not a satisfactory long-term solution. I should very much like to find better ways to address some of these issues.
    Mr. McCusker: Is the Secretary of State aware that a Bill of Rights is one of the few issues which meets his oft-stated criteria for cross-community support in Northern Ireland? Is he aware that members of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland believe that his reluctance to produce a Bill of Rights has more to do with the fact that he could not continue to govern us by the present totally undemocratic methods if there were a Bill of Rights?
    Mr. King: As that is the first constructive comment that 1 have heard from the hon. Gentleman, I welcome it. He has made some suggestions, whether I agree with them or not, about how one might address the real issue of the government of Northern Ireland, and he has done so on a cross-community basis, claiming that he has ideas which could command support across the communities. I would welcome hearing any further suggestions that he might like to make.
    Mr. Kilfedder: It is 15 years or more since I moved a motion urging the establishment of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom and, failing that, for Northern Ireland, so there is nothing new in that suggestion, although no doubt it will take the Secretary of State by surprise, as so many other matters take him by surprise. Surely the people of Northern Ireland are entitled to decide this matter by a referendum. Let us have a Bill of Rights based on the United States constitution and the amendments thereto.
    Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the proposal that he put forward many years ago was on the basis of a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom. The issue has to be addressed in that way. It is almost impossible to conceive of a separate Bill of Rights which would apply uniquely to Northern Ireland. The issue raises wide concerns and interests. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not a new subject and has been widely debated.
    Mr. Maclennan: Why does the Secretary of State pretend that the hon. Member representing the Ulster Unionists, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), has made a new proposal when his party made the proposal in writing more than two years ago? It has been supported by other parties from Northern Ireland and by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Does he not recognise that if he is unwilling to move in this way he will be seen to be governing against the wishes of all parties in Northern Ireland as well as my right hon. and hon. Friends, and he will face the unattractive prospect of being dragged back to Strasbourg time and again as more and more violations of the European convention on human rights occur.
    Mr. King: Obviously, I did not make myself clear. I was seeking to explain that it is novel to hear constructive proposals from people who until now have preferred to remain silent. I welcome that. I know that this issue has

    481
    been much discussed. It has been much discussed within my party and there have been long-standing discussions. I recognise that there is scope for serious discussion and I have called times beyond number for constructive suggestions.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his remarks to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) about not making constructive remarks in the House will be treated with utter contempt by the people of Northern Ireland in the same way as the contemptuous remark that he made about me during the previous Northern Ireland Question Time? My political demise was greatly exaggerated by the right hon. Gentleman. Will he go back to the pigeonhole and withdraw from it the reports of the Convention and the Assembly which say that we should have a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland supported across the board? Does he not think that in this centenary year, and with his name being King, he should have his Bill of Rights?
    Mr. King: I am much distressed by that intervention because I know the deeply sensitive nature of the hon. Gentleman. The thought that anything that I said caused him distress disturbs me beyond measure. I am thinking of charging for the use of my name in the hon. Gentleman's election address as I noticed that it appears considerably more often than his own.
    Mr. Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that a Bill of Rights for the North of Ireland is incompatible with the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and that until that pernicious legislation is removed from the statute book any positive and constructive discussion about a Bill of Rights is pure pie in the sky?
    Mr. King: It is not accurate to say that. If the hon. Gentleman studies the European convention, he will realise that there are circumstances in which nations seeking to defend themselves against the evils of terrorism may, on occasions, have to take emergency steps which are consistent with, or recognised under, a convention on human rights because of the particular circumstances at the time. Any Bill of Rights would have to recognise those circumstances. The real attack on the rights of citizens and individual liberty comes from those who seek to murder and maim their fellow citizens.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Have not the people of Northern Ireland been deprived of the biggest right of all in a democracy—that the will of the majority should prevail, with safeguards for the minority?
    Mr. King: If my hon. Friend would like to join me, we can debate that subject in much greater detail shortly.

    "Who Framed Colin Wallace"
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has acquired for the Library, "Who Framed Colin Wallace", by Paul Foot, published by the second Earl of Stockton.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: No, Sir. However, I understand that there are already two copies in the Library.
    Mr. Dalyell: Why does the Minister suppose that Colin Wallace has come to be believed by the publishing house of Macmillan and its libel lawyers, by the late Airey Neave, who was happy to have information from Cohn Wallace, and by raging Left-wingers such as the hereditary Earl Marshall, his grace the Duke of Norfolk?
    Mr. Stewart: I cannot answer for publishers or many of the other groups of people whom the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. As far as I know, the allegations that have been repeated in the book concerning the conduct of various persons have been fully investigated over a long period in the past. On the responsibilities of my own Department, I am not aware of anything in the book that would justify any further inquiry.
    Mr. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate, as he might expect from the names on the Order Paper, that the book is first, extremely well published and, secondly, extremely well written and that it will, therefore, be far better than most of the stuff he and his Secretary of State have to submit to during the week? Will he also tell us in detail whether his Department was consulted about the letter that appears in the book which was addressed to the Prime Minister and which set out in detail the reasons why there should have been a proper investigation into the matter and why the demands for an investigation would continue? Was the Prime Minister's failure to reply based on any evidence from his Department?
    Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman's reference to the authorship of the book is a form of benevolent nepotism, which he is entitled to use. The contents of the book and all the allegations raised by Mr. Wallace have been investigated separately by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir George Terry and Judge Hughes, and none of the allegations have been found to stand up. Mr. Wallace was given the opportunity to give evidence himself to those inquiries, but despite the fact that he was given assurances that he would not be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act 1911, he refused to do so. The House can draw its own conclusions from that.
    Mr. McNamara: Only the conclusions of the Terry report were published—not the evidence. When will the public be allowed to judge whether the conclusions follow from the evidence?
    Mr. Stewart: I regard that as a serious slur on Sir George Terry.

    Security
    Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions on 18 May, there have been no deaths due to terrorist action, but one young soldier was killed in an accidental shooting.
    The security threat and incidents remain at a high level, but the determined efforts of the security forces have resulted in 120 people being charged with serious offences, including 13 with murder and 26 with attempted murder since the beginning of the year. A total of 200 weapons, almost 25,000 rounds of ammunition and 435 lbs of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. I

    483
    understand that the Garda Siochana has recovered 60 weapons, approximately 15,000 rounds of ammunition, and a substantial quantity of explosives.
    Mr. Duffy: What representations has the Secretary of State received from Ulster Television and the National Union of Journalists about the two soldiers who posed as a television camera crew while filming outside a polling station in Derry on 17 May, during the local government elections?
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman takes an interest in Northern Ireland affairs, but his supplementary question made no mention of the security forces and sought to find immediately a point on which he could seek to criticise, without even a welcome for the tact that, for the first time in my experience, I have been able to tell the House that there have been no security force fatalities in the period since I last reported. On the specific point that he raised, as far as I am aware I have had no representations but I know that that matter is being looked into by headquarters, Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Maginnis: What value does the Secretary of State attach to maintaining the morale of the RUC? In the words of his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, may I suggest that it is monstrous under the circumstances that he has failed to deal with the manner in which the deputy chairman of the Police Authority totally devalued her position as a member of that body? It does not matter whether it was at a private dinner party paid for out of public funds, or a public function at which Mrs. Phyllis Bateson behaved in such an outrageous manner. Will the Secretary of State consider whether she should still, after all this time, remain a member of the Police Authority? Will he take to heart the cliche "in vino veritas" or, as my grandfather would have said, "If it is not in when you are sober, it won't come out when you are drunk"?
    Mr. King: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is thoroughly pleased with that contribution. He would be one of the first to say, "Why don't more Catholics support the RUC? Why don't more Catholics who accept office and serve on the police authority"—
    Mr. Maginnis: Many do properly.
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's contribution has been of no value whatsoever. He is simply seeking to repeat a private conversation, of which I have no personal knowledge which, in any case, is the subject of some disagreement. I respect very much indeed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members will support—[Interruption.]—yes, the RUC, of course, but also the members of the Police Authority who accept appointment, effectively without reward and at considerable personal risk, especially if they are Catholics and represent the Nationalist community. They do that, and when they are vilified in that way it does the hon. Gentleman—.[Interruption.] There is a nasty stench about the comment and I am not the only person in Northern Ireland who deplores it.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Secretary of State agree that many people in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom have expressed disquiet about the whole issue of the deputy chairman of the Police
    484
    Authority? Does he further agree that it is interesting that at no time has the deputy chairman denied that she said those certain things about the former Chief Constable or about the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Without getting the Secretary of State's hackles up, does that not cause him concern, and is he not concerned that people in Northern Ireland should have confidence in those who are guiding the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Police Authority? One final question—[Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State tell the House what embarrassment that said person caused him in the doorway at the end of the night?
    Mr. King: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement was wrong—
    Rev. William McCrea: No it was not.
    Mr. King: A denial has been issued by the person concerned—
    Rev. William McCrea: No.
    Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman would do me the courtesy of listening, he would hear me say that the person concerned has issued a denial. It would have been a courtesy for him to have respected that from the start.
    Rev. William McCrea: That is a false statement.
    Mr. King: I am not a bit surprised to find the hon. Gentleman joining in; it is exactly what I would have expected of him. I am sure that the House will judge accordingly.
    Mr. Ashdown: I join the right hon. Gentleman in his repudiation of the distasteful question asked by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).
    Has the right hon. Gentleman given further consideration to the issuing of plastic bullets to the UDR? Is he aware that if he approved such a measure he would be issuing a highly controversial weapon to what has come to be regarded in Northern Ireland as a highly controversial force?
    Mr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his initial comments. The UDR is receiving training in the use of plastic bullets for protection in certain circumstances. No decision has yet been taken about the deployment of those weapons. I want to make it absolutely clear that were a decision to be taken to issue those weapons, there would he no change in the UDR's role or in deployment; it would be decided merely on whether the UDR needed them for its own protection while carrying out its existing tasks.
    The alternative—as happened recently—would be to leave the UDR with no option other than to resort to the use of live rounds because it had nothing between either retreat or the use of lethal force. I think that the right hon. Gentleman would understand the problems in that sort of circumstance.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Did my right hon. Friend see the "Cook Report" about the various organisations that give commercial backing to the IRA through various devices such as estate agencies? In particular, did he see the footage showing an IRA unit using a general purpose machine gun against an unarmed Lynx helicopter? Can he assure the House that in future helicopters will have proper protection and armament against possible attack?
    Mr. King: I saw that programme, which I felt underlined something to which I had already drawn the attention of the House on a number of occasions, which is the importance of tackling—as we are seeking to doߞgangsterism, extortion and the various illegal fund-raising activities that support and underpin terrorism. On my hon. Friend's latter point, I do not know how genuine the film was, but nevertheless the threat of machine-gun attack against helicopters is real. A number of steps were taken some time ago to give all possible protection to helicopters in the important work that they do.

    International Fund for Ireland
    Mr. McCusker: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all those countries and organisations which have contributed to the International Fund for Ireland, showing the amount each has contributed to date.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The United States has contributed $120 million over the period 1986 to 1988 and has committed itself to a contribution of £10 million during 1989. Canada has agreed to provide up to 10 million Canadian dollars over a period of 10 years and New Zealand has contributed a one-off payment of 300,000 New Zealand dollars. The European Community is contributing 15 million ecu this year with the prospect of similar amounts during 1990 and 1991.
    Mr. McClusker: The right hon. Gentleman appears to have achieved a fair degree of success in that novel way of treating public expenditure priorities in Northern Ireland. Why has he not rattled the begging bowl in Australia, Japan or Korea? Even South Africa might be a reasonable place to try that. In view of the money from charitable sources that we have sent to Ethiopia, why does he not go to Addis Ababa and rattle a begging bowl there? If a begging bowl approach is to be part of the future of Northern Ireland, will the right hon. Gentleman talk to his colleagues about introducing begging as a topic in the education syllabus for Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that there is something undesirable about contributions to the international fund being made available to support the interests of his constituents and those of other Members in Northern Ireland. I find that a difficult proposition to accept. It seems to me that the international fund is an important expression of international support for the British and Irish Governments in what they are trying to do to counter the adverse effects of terrorism in Northern Ireland and in the adjacent areas of the Republic.
    Mr. Nicholas Baker: As a counterpart to the contributions to the international fund to which my right hon. Friend is referring, may I ask how successful he has been in getting the United States Government to prevent contributions from going to Noraid and similar terrorist support outlets?
    Mr. Stewart: The answer is that we have made considerable progress. The United States Government, both the present and previous Administrations, have been helpful in that respect.
    Dr. Godman: The Minister mentioned a European contribution of 15 million United States dollars. Will be
    486
    give an assurance that where the European Community contribution is used to assist the shipbuilding industry, such purchases of goods and services aided by those funds will be confined to firms in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Stewart: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the contribution from the European Community was 15 million ecu, not 15 million dollars. As for the destination of the funds, the board of the fund is independent and I do not think that it would be proper for the board to earmark specific contributions for specific purposes. But its priorities are to stimulate private enterprise in Northern Ireland and to promote economic and social development more generally, rather than being aimed specifically at individual industries in the way in which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Mr. Mallon: It seems clear to me from what the Minister has said that, like me, he is puzzled by the attitude of the representatives of some parties towards this international fund, even though some of their members, both in the official Unionist party and in the DUP, have benefited enormously from it. Will the Minister assure me that the British Government will make every attempt to ensure that the money goes to the deprived areas where it is most needed, rather than to people who use it to feather their own nests?
    Mr. Stewart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is an important part of the policy of the international fund that priority should be given to areas of greatest need, and I strongly support that.
    Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House that the international fund comes almost entirely from the United States and that it was called the international fund only to try to stave off criticism that once again America was endeavouring to interfere in our affairs at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
    Mr. Stewart: That is a rather odd perception of the way in which the fund was established and contributions to it were provided. The United States is a very large economy and the contribution which it makes is most welcome. What my hon. Friend says suggests that contributions from Canada, New Zealand and the European Community are to be disregarded or treated as unwelcome. I welcome them, and if other contributions to the fund were available from other sources overseas, I am sure that we would all welcome those, too.

    Schools (Expenditure)
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was spent by his Department on (a) Catholic schools, (b) Protestant schools, (c) non-religious schools and (d) other categories of schools in the last year, and what is the trend in such expenditures.
    Dr. Mawhinney: This information is not available in the form requested. As a best estimate, expenditure on controlled schools, which are attended mainly, but not exclusively, by Protestants, was £196·9 million in 1987–88. Expendiure on maintained schools, most of which are under Roman Catholic management, was £158·2 million, and expenditure on voluntary grammar schools, which have a variety of management arrangements, was £59·2 million over the past three years. This represents an

    487
    increase of 32·9 per cent. for controlled schools, 37·5 per cent. for maintained schools and 31·8 per cent. for voluntary grammar schools.
    Mr. Allen: The Minister may not agree with me publicly that many children grow up under a curse of religious education, that they would benefit from a secular education and that that would help to resolve the troubles in the Province. Does he agree with me, however, that the cross-contact scheme represents a small flame in trying to get greater understanding between children in the Province and that we should wish it every success? What is he doing to strengthen and encourage that important development?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the concept of cross-contact between schools in Northern Ireland. He will know that, when I announced the scheme two years ago, the proposed budget for this year was £200,000. He will be pleased to know that the actual budget this year is £650,000, and that is because about 340 schools in the Province, or a quarter of all schools in the Province, have now voluntarily joined the scheme to pursue projects together.
    Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware that his grants to the integrated school sector, to the disadvantage of the voluntary and state sectors, are causing growing concern in Northern Ireland? Will he ensure that the application of educational funds is on an equitable and just basis? Many schools in the voluntary and state sectors have been waiting for capital and development programmes for almost a decade, whereas the integrated school system that he favours seems to be privileged in that respect.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we are talking simply about capital expenditure. He knows that, for the past 65 years, all Government expenditure in Northern Ireland has been directed either to state schools or to Roman Catholic schools. Parents who wished to have integrated education were discriminated against to the extent that they got no capital provision at all. It seems to the Government a matter of justice that, for a few years, a degree of preference should be given to integrated schools capital programmes to help to redress that imbalance.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Gwilym Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings today, including attendance at the plenary session of the Australia-United Kingdom conference on trade and investment.
    Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend convey the warm greetings of the whole House to the Prime Minister of Australia on his visit to the United Kingdom? In turn, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking the initiative to give renewed vigour to the relationship between our two countries which share so much history and which can achieve so much together in future.
    The Prime Minister: I gladly take advantage of the opportunity that my hon. Friend presents. Mr. Hawke and his fellow Ministers who have come here for a major consultation between Ministers and Prime Ministers have had very great success. It has been a longer and more extensive visit than usual, and it has been carried out splendidly. The trade and investment conference that is taking place today will also be extremely important. Australia and Britain are vital allies and both are very important to peace in the Pacific and to dealing with the problems that now face us there on a much larger scale than ever before—altogether a very great success.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister has rightly expressed horror and outrage, which we all share, at the barbaric actions of the Chinese Government against their people seeking democracy. Will she take action in support of her condemnation, and, in Madrid next week, urge our partner countries in the European Community to impose economic sanctions against China until the regime stops the killing and the persecution?
    The Prime Minister: I am among the first to condemn the killing and the execution and the other results that have followed on the latest policy of the Chinese Government. I must say that I think that it would be much too precipitant to do what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, particularly as many of us are very anxious indeed not to precipitate a situation that could cause great panic in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Kinnock: Would it not he wrong for this democracy and other democracies in the European Community to leave those young people in China with nothing but their own courage to sustain them? Since the kind of people running China simply do not respect words, may I urge the Prime Minister to take a lead now in pressing for combined action against them by the Community?
    The Prime Minister: May I put this to the right hon. Gentleman—we are responsible right up until 1997 for the five million and more people in Hong Kong. I think that what the right hon. Gentleman proposes could precipitate a very dangerous position. We have been the first to condemn and we have also stopped high level visits and arms contracts. Further measures are being considered, but in my judgment what the right hon. Gentleman proposes could be very dangerous for people for whom we are responsible.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gorman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to improve employment prospects for women throughout Europe is to expand the economy by the kind of measures that the Government have introduced and not to try to force employers—I stress the word "force"—to provide special facilities for women? Will she bear that in mind when considering the social charter in Madrid, which among other things calls ominously for intensification of action against employers on the implementation of equality?
    The Prime Minister: I agree in the main with what my hon. Friend has said. The Government's policy has been to

    489
    set conditions to create jobs. We have been outstandingly successful in that, with the highest number ever of people in employment. We have the highest number of jobs that we have ever had. It has worked particularly well for women. The United Kingdom is the only country in the European Community where the unemployment rate is lower for women than for men. We have done excellent work in lowering the rate for men too. The proposed social charter would place additional burdens and restrictions on businesses and so lose jobs rather than create them, especially for women.
    Dr. Owen: In view of today's findings that more people than ever before support and approve of the National Health Service—90 per cent. of family doctors and 85 per cent. of those in the hospital service—would it not be wiser not to destabilise the NHS but to introduce reform cautiously with development projects, as advocated by the royal colleges, and to evaluate scientifically their success?
    The Prime Minister: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has at last come round to that view. He could have said it any time, any month, in the last 10 years, but he did not for 10 years, although the Health Service has continuously and steadily been improved by extra resources, extra doctors and extra nurses—[Interruption.] —from what it was when his Government left office, when there were strikes, and hospitals and cancer beds were left untended. He has had 10 years to admit that we have done far better. I am delighted now to hear him say it. It is the best service that it has ever been.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the adoption earlier this week of the European second banking directive which, by allowing banks to operate more freely throughout Europe, will provide a tremendous boost to this very important sector of our economy? Does she also agree that this is further justification of the Government's policy of extending competition and deregulation within the single European market, rather than the grandiose schemes of European economic union and a social market with which the Opposition seem to be so obsessed?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. We have been negotiating the second banking directive for a very long time. Its passage is very welcome because it will improve greatly our chances of having a free market in financial services which we offer to other people but which they have not always offered to us. So it is a great plus for our people in financial services. Also, we hope that it will soon be followed by an investment services directive. It is, of course, greater prosperity, not only in manufacturing but in the services sector, that enables us to offer higher levels of social services and social protection.
    Mr. Michael: Now that the Prime Minister has had a little more time to consider the results of the recent European elections, does she not believe that to withdraw the Health Service White Paper would be in the best interests of the health of the people of Britain and of her own political health?
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper carefully, he will find, as many protesters have found, that it was quite different from the one that he was led to believe. I hope that we shall be able steadily to continue to improve the Health Service in the future, as it is now acknowledged—even on the Opposition Benches —that we have done in the past. We have one of the best Health Services in the whole Community.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Knowing of the Prime Minister's deep concern and sympathy for the anxieties of the people of Hong Kong, does she agree that we could take an initiative by going to the Commonwealth and asking it to provide rights of abode for all the people of Hong Kong— on the basis that each Commonwealth country took a quota of people—if it became necessary?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, these matters will be raised at the Commonwealth conference. I do not think that it will be easy to get the results that my hon. Friend seeks, any more than it has been easy to secure other results with other refugees, although it has been very good in taking genuine refugees from Vietnam. It would be a considerable step for the Commonwealth. I have also to report that the Commonwealth—especially Australia and Canada—have been very active in taking in the entrepreneurs from Hong Kong to the advantage—[Interruption.] Of course, I do not expect Opposition Members to agree about people who create wealth—they can only spend it. Many of them have gone to Australia and Canada. It has given them peace of mind that they have somewhere to go and they have also brought great comfort to Australia and Canada.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the recently announced student loan scheme be extended to students from European Community countries who come to the United Kingdom for their higher education?
    The Prime Minister: No. No more than grants will be extended, unless they are part of the overseas grants service where grants are given to specific people. They will not be given as a general right.
    Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that the strike at the Liverpool passport office is now over and that, therefore, the threat of disruption to those who wish to holiday abroad has been lifted? However, will my right hon. Friend also join me in condemning the actions of those who wish to prolong the dispute and who have issued a leaflet which says that an all-out strike now, at the beginning of the tourist season, will give the passport workers the chance to give the Tories a bloody nose? Does that not prove that, whatever the place, whatever the issue and whatever packaging is used to try to convince people otherwise, here in Britain Socialists are still the strikers' friends?
    The Prime Minister: I agree. Those who protest loudly about the greater needs of the public service are the first to say that they do not give tuppence for the public's rights, whether it be to get passports or to come to work. It is

    491
    undoubtedly the public sector which is serving the public less, and it is such services as the privatised buses that are continuing to run. They genuinely do serve the public.
    Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Howarth: The Prime Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), dealt very firmly and effectively with racists within his party. In view of the comments made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) in the House two nights ago, effectively restoring the old chestnut of repatriation, will the Prime Minister take similar effective action against him?
    The Prime Minister: I did not hear the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but may I make it absolutely clear that there is no racism in this party—[Interruption.] —and we utterly and vigorously defend the rights of all people on an equal basis.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposed European social charter represents an attempt by other Community countries to impose on us the higher aggregate labour costs from which they currently suffer? To accept that charter in its current form would be to abandon an important competitive advantage which we currently have and, furthermore, the levels of investment, employment and output in this country and in the Community would he lower than they would otherwise be as a result.
    The Prime Minister: We accept, of course, that there is a social dimension to Community policy. We also accept —[Interruption.] Of course, because we were very prominent in our time in trying to steer that social dimension—[Interruption.] Oh yes—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Interruptions take up a great deal of time.
    The Prime Minister: —in trying to steer that social dimension, and successfully steering it, to the creation of jobs. Mention any country in the Community that has created more jobs in the past five years than we have. There is not one. We were trying to steer to the creation of a very expensive system of training, because we believe that the most important thing is the creation of jobs.
    With regard to the rest of the social dimension, we believe that that is a matter for each country and if that particular charter were made compulsory for many countries, most of them could not afford the social services we have, and they acknowledge that. It would then be said that there would have to be considerable subventions and subsidies paid from other countries, which, of course, the Labour party could not possibly help with because it just spends wealth, it never creates it.
    Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after business questions.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Frank Dobson: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26 JUNE—Opposition Day (15th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on community care. Afterwards there will be a debate on the coal industry. Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Remaining stages of the Road Traffic (Driver Licensing and Information Systems) Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY 27 JuNE—Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill [Lords].
There will be a debate on parliamentary pensions on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 28 JuNE—Opposition Day (16th Allotted Day). Until seven o'clock there will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party entitled "Scotland in Europe".
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
THURSDAY 29 JUNE—Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 3o JUNE—There will be a debate on policing in London on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 3 JULY—Opposition Day (17th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject for debate to be announced.
Mr. Dobson: Why are the Government insisting on rushing ahead with the Football Spectators Bill next week before the recommendations of the Taylor inquiry into the Hillsborough disaster are known? The Government's Bill is irrelevant to the safety of people in football grounds —so irrelevant that, at present, crowd safety is outside the scope of the Bill. The Prime Minister promised that the Bill would be able to take account of any interim recommendations from the Taylor inquiry. Will the Leader of the House confirm that that could be done only if next week the House passes an instruction requiring the Committee on the Bill to consider safety aspects?
Does not the Leader of the House recognise that the Government's inadequate and partisan proposals are simply not up to the job? If they go ahead with their proposals, the result will be a mess. Surely it would be better for Ministers to get together with everyone concerned and put forward proposals on which everyone can agree as practical solutions to the problems facing football clubs. If he does that, the Opposition can guarantee to give the measure a swift passage through the House.
The present Bill does not produce any practical solutions to the problem, and it is nothing more than a half-baked, partisan product of the Government's machine—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it.] Apparently, Conservative Members want me to get on with it. What we
494
want to get on with, and what we would like the Leader of the House to guarantee, is the opportunity to consider a Bill that will do the job that needs to be done.
Will the Leader of the House note that, although the Opposition have chosen to give up half an Opposition day to debate care in the community, that does not relieve the Government of their obligaton or their promise to have a debate on their response to the Griffiths report on care in the community when that becomes available? The Government received the report as long ago as 12 February 1988.
Why have we not had a statement about—it would appear that we are not to have the opportunity to debate —the general practitioners' contract? The Secretary of State for Health rushed gleefully into the House to announce that the doctors had accepted the contract, but appears to be reluctant to come here now that the GPs' representatives have recommended that the matter should go to a ballot and the GPs should turn it down.
Now that we have received a statement from the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when shall we have the promised debate on the Government's proposal to substitute students loans for students grants?
When will we have an opportunity to debate the Select Committee on the Environment's report on toxic and hazardous waste?
I hope that my final question will meet with approval from both sides of the House: do the Government propose to give the House the opportunity to debate the outcome of the Madrid summit?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman asked six questions about next week's business. First, I do not accept for a minute what he said about the Football Spectators Bill. We are not proceeding with indecent haste; the Bill has been before another place since January and was introduced in this House last Monday. I announced a full day's debate for Second Reading, which is appropriate. The policy matters which he raised are best left until Second Reading. I agree that it would be helpful for safety matters to be debated and I shall arrange for an instruction to be tabled, if that is appropriate.
I have indicated that the Government hope to bring forward proposals in relation to the Griffiths report before the summer recess. The question whether we have a further debate would best be considered at that time.
We are, of course, disappointed that the conference of GPs rejected the contract which their own leadership had commended to them. I cannot provide Government time for a debate, but I have just announced three Opposition days. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise the matter, perhaps he should consider using Opposition time.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand the Government's policy on top-up loans. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science made it clear on Monday that he would welcome a debate, and I believe that the timing should best be secured through the usual channels.
I have no immediate plans for a debate on the Select Committee's report on toxic waste, but we can return to that matter.
It is likely that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement about the Madrid summit at the appropriate time next week.
Sir Bernard Braine: My right hon. Friend will know from questions to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister week after week, and from the front pages of our leading journals, of the widespread interest and concern in many international questions—what is happening in China, Hong Kong, Tibet and eastern Europe, and the implications of glasnost and perestroika for all of us in Europe. Can my right hon. Friend find time before we rise for the summer recess for us to turn our attention to these pressing matters?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my right hon. Friend, and I am extremely conscious of the interest in a general debate on foreign affairs and on some of the specific subjects that my right hon. Friend raised. I shall be looking for a suitable opportunity for a debate soon.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Does not the visit of the Australian Prime Minister provide a timely reminder that nuclear test personnel in Australia are paid compensation while the British Ministry of Defence will not pay a penny in compensation to British nuclear test personnel? Can the Leader of the House explain that discrepancy, and, if not, will he provide time for a debate on this matter next week?
Mr. Wakeham: I regret to say that I cannot find time for a debate next week. The right hon. Gentleman has raised this matter with me before. The basic point of difference is that the British Government do not accept the basis of the claims that the victims, or so-called victims, are making.
Mr. Allan Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the House will be able to consider the Government's domestic airports policy before the summer recess? Is he aware of the continuing anger and puzzlement among the Scottish business community, interested commentators and local authorities such as Glasgow district council at the Secretary of State for Transport's idiosyncratic and irrational refusal to consider the case for allowing transatlantic flights from Glasgow airport?
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot promise a debate before the summer recess, but 1 shall look at the matter and will refer the point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. David Winnick: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 995?
[That this House pays tribute to the students and workers who demonstrated in Tiananmen Square, Peking, and in other cities in China, for basic democratic rights and reforms; deplores the armed attack by the army on 4th June on the demonstrators in Tiananmen Square which resulted in numerous deaths and injuries; and further calls upon the Chinese authorities to cease the present persecution of anyone considered to have been involved in the demonstrations and not to carry out the sentences of death which have been passed by military courts.]
Following the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, will there be an opportunity early next week for a statement to be made by the Foreign Secretary on the wave of executions in China? Is the Leader of the House aware of the feeling of revulsion about what is happening? Does he agree that as the leadership of China, these bloodstained murderers, believe that they can get away with what they are doing without
496
any international repercussions, a statement expressing the feelings of the House of Commons and the British people is essential?
Mr. Wakeham: We support the feelings expressed in the motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers, as was made absolutely clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a short time ago and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in his statement to the House on 6 June. We deeply deplore the execution of the Shanghai three, in spite of the appeal for clemency made by the EEC Twelve in Peking on 17 June. We regard the death sentences as totally disproportionate to the crimes committed.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: Although the announcement this week that there is to be a code of conduct for estate agents is welcome, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House turn his attention to whether this goes far enough? Bearing in mind the fact that we are dealing here with most people's most important financial transaction of a lifetime, may we have a debate to ascertain whether it is the feeling of the House that for an individual who was a window cleaner or a bus driver last week to be able, without let or hindrance, to be an estate agent this week is not sufficient?
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumers Affairs announced yesterday new measures to deal with estate agents who provide an unsatisfactory service. It is proposed to have a voluntary code of conduct, underpinned by the power to ban estate agents who are engaged in undesirable practices. This combination of self-regulation and statutory provision will give consumers protection without reducing competition. I know that my hon. Friend has studied these matters carefully, and if the need for a debate arises I shall look at the matter again.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: In view or the spate of industrial strikes taking place around the country as a result of the Government's role in respect of trade union laws, does the Leader of the House think that it is time we had a debate about restoring the position o- the trade union movement so that it can effectively represent its members instead of finding itself constantly before: the courts?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has the wrong end of the stick. The trade union reforms which the Government have introduced have helped to improve the position for the public. If the unions had as much regard for the wishes and desires of the public, there might be less industrial action.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: When will my right hon. Friend bring forward proposals in this House to ensure closer co-operation between this House and British Members of the European Parliament to ensure that matters that come before the European Parliament are adequately and thoroughly discussed in this House?
Mr. Wakeham: As my hon. Friend is aware, we made a very modest step towards closer co-operation between Members of this House and Members of the European Parliament, which was opposed by the Opposition at the time. I have always sought to make progress by agreement

497
across the Floor of the House and I am always ready to consider matters when I think that I can find agreement to make further progress.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Is the Leader of the House aware that the people of Sheffield are reminded almost daily by the Sheffield Star, Radio Sheffield and Radio Hallam and through the proceedings in their own town hall of the horrors of the Hillsborough disaster? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the ordinary people are less likely to be impressed by his arguments about the niceties and technicalities of implementation of legislation ultimately than by what now seems to be the Government's determination to push through the Football Spectators Bill while Lord Justice Taylor is still receiving evidence, let alone having had a chance to evaluate it? They will see the Government's action as an act of monumental insensitivity.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not think that that is a reasonable assessment of the situation. The Government are bringing forward legislation which will enable us, after the Bill has become an Act, to implement, subject to the approval of this House, any recommendations which will be acceptable in connection with Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) is a caring man, but it is strange that, as he represents Sheffield, he does not want to make all speed to avoid these terrible tragedies which have claimed more than 300 deaths since the war. We should take the first opportunity to try to prevent them. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), from the Opposition Front Bench, said that the Opposition would undertake to give a speedy passage to any recommendations from Lord Justice Taylor, whose report we have not seen. However, they would not agree to implement the Popplewell report, which has been published.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: We heard earlier that there is to be a debate next week on the coal industry. Will my right hon. Friend find time before the summer recess for a debate on the nuclear power industry? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to show that those who are really concerned about our quality of life and about the protection of the atmosphere should go for a nuclear option.
Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that important points can be made. However, as we approach the summer recess I must be very careful about what extra debates I promise my hon. Friend.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Leader of the House accept that it is a great disappointment that no statement was made today on yesterday's meeting of the EEC Fisheries Council? The Fisheries Council's failure to act means that the British fleet, and the Scottish fleet in particular, faces a bleak future for the rest of the year. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement early next week so that we can press on him the need to take action as sympathetic words are no good for people whose livelihoods are at stake?
Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 997 about the visit of F. W. De Klerk?
498
[That this House considers the impending visit of F. W. De Klerk to Britain unwelcome, untimely and damaging to the prospects of dismantling apartheid in South Africa and establishing peace in Southern Africa; considers that, as leader of the ruling Nationalist Party and President-in-waiting, F. W. De Klerk has a major responsibility for the continuing repression in South Africa; notes that his government has recently reimposed the state of emergency for the fourth year in succession, resumed the execution of political prisoners, and placed hundreds of ex-detainees under stringent house arrest, concludes that totally committed to ensuring white domination, De Klerk is as unwelcome as was his predecessor P. W. Botha in 1984; also believes that De Klerk's visit is aimed at rehabilating the apartheid regime and easing its foreign debt crisis and has nothing to do with negotiations aimed at ending apartheid; believes that only the release of Nelson Mandela and all other political prisoners and detainees, the ending of the state of emergency and lifting of bans on organisations, as called for by the Commonwealth and the European Community, can begin to create the climate in which the commencement of meaningful negotiations and the dismantling of apartheid become possible, therefore deplores the Prime Minister's invitation to F. W. De Klerk, which can only send the wrong signals to both black and white in South Africa and encourage Pretoria to persist in its current policies; and calls upon the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to cancel their proposed meetings with F. W. De Klerk.]
Does he accept that it will be wholly obscene for the Prime Minister to sit down tomorrow to talk with the leader of a racist regime which continues to detain its people, which murders and tortures its children and which ought to be the pariah of the international world?
Mr. Wakeham: I have in mind having a debate on the fishing industry when the proposals for 1990 are known, but I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's points to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
We reject early-day motion 997. The Government's policy is to maintain contact with all shades of opinion in South Africa. We use such contacts to press the need for change, and that is a sensible policy.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that information reached me only last night that the British Rail Property Board is putting up for sale by auction on 6 July the last part of the former Great Central railway track bed between Aylesbury and Rugby? Its sale will preclude any future operation of trains on that railway line, which is one of the options being looked at by some of those interested in freight traffic for the Channel tunnel route.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons that we should have learnt in the past few years is that selling redundant railway track bed precludes reintroducing services when transport patterns change? Therefore, will he ask the Secretary of State for Transport to consider the urgency of the matter and to make a statement to the House next week? If he cannot do that, may we at least have an assurance of a debate on the matter before the summer recess?
Mr. Wakeham: Without accepting everything that my hon. Friend has said, I give him an undertaking that I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.
Mr. Ron Brown: Before the right hon. Gentleman takes up another job, will he understand that security is important to the House? In particular, will he remember that it was alleged that some Labour Members were involved with the Soviet Union and had been blackmailed? Will he admit now that the source of that misinformation—that smear—came from the south of England, from a former Select Committee employee? Will he comment on that now, because it is so important?
Mr. Wakeham: I shall do no such thing. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would realise that security matters are so important that they should not be discussed across the Floor of the House.
Mr. John Watts: My right hon. Friend will be aware that a number of Conservative Members are opposed to the Football Spectators Bill, not least because it seems to have no relevance to the central issue of crowd safety, and, as presently drafted, such matters are outside its scope. In reply to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), my right hon. Friend said that he would be happy for such issues to be debated on Second Reading on Tuesday. Should the Bill receive a Second Reading, will my right hon. Friend table an instruction to the Committee for it to consider matters of crowd safety?
Mr. Wakeham: Yes. If that is required in order to discuss those matters in Committee, I shall see that it is done. I agree that questions of safety go right to the heart of the matters that are of concern.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Is it not completely unsatisfactory for the important matter of the Fisheries Council meeting in Luxembourg yesterday to be dealt with by the Government in the form of a written answer? Does not the Leader of the House realise that the jobs of thousands of Scottish fishermen are at stake in the decisions or non-decisions that were made yesterday in Luxembourg? Is not the failure of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to face the House today a sign of the confusion and complacency which mark Government policy towards the fishing industry? When will the Government give the industry the priority to which it is entitled?
Mr. Wakeham: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done a good job for the British fishermen, and that should be recognised. Whether statements are written or oral is always a matter of judgment. If we have too many oral statements, there are complaints that debates are curtailed; and if they are written there are complaints because they have not been made orally. I shall refer the matter to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. Friend has announced that there is to be an Opposition debate on 3 July and that the subject is to he announced. Will he have discussions through the usual channels to find out whether the Opposition will arrange a debate on their policy on nuclear defence so that the House can discuss the interesting philosophical achievement of the Leader of the
500
Opposition in his twin-track policy of supporting multilateral disarmament and at the same time being a member of CND?
Mr. Wakeham: The subject for debate is obviously a matter for the Opposition and not for me, but my hon. Friend makes his point well. He will be aware that we shall soon reach the time of the year when we have a number of debates on defence matters. With his usual ingenuity, he might be able to make his points then.
Mr. Denis Howell: The Leader of the House should understand that many people will find it grossly offensive, especially to those who died and to those who were bereaved, for us to press on with the Bill in the way that the Government intend.
Mr. Dickens: Which Bill?
Mr. Howell: The Football Spectators Bill—I do not have the intellect of the hon. Gentleman.
Is it not a fact that the Government Whips are making it clear to the Opposition that they want to finish the Committee stage of the Bill by the end of July—in one month? Is it not also a fact that whatever Lord Justice Taylor recommends cannot possibly be incorporated in the Bill? What the Government have done in another place, which is a deception, is to allow for an order to debate it here. One has to be in this place for only five minutes to know that orders cannot be amended. That means that the Bill cannot possibly take account of anything that Lord Justice Taylor might tell us about the lessons from Hillsborough. That is absolutely ludicrous. It is offensive to the people who have suffered and to every parliamentary concept that we should not be able to amend a Bill in the light of the recommendations of a very senior High Court judge.
Will the Leader of the House kindly consider those points and tell us how much Committee time we shall have to take on board Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations, whatever they might be?
Mr. Wakeham: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the proceedings. This is an enabling Bill. Subsequent to the Bill being passed, there will be debates in the House about setting up any football management authority and about any recommendations. There will be plenty of time for points to be made. The right hon. Gentleman should make his points in Tuesday's debate.
Mr. John Redwood: Will my right hon. Friend make time available for an early debate on the relative jurisdictions of the European institutions and this Parliament in the light of the confusion now developing in many areas of Government over who is responsible and which power or body has the necessary control, particularly in the light of the Bill tabled today by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) setting out clarification of the relative powers under the treaties?
Mr. Wakeham: That is obviously an important subject and I should like to find time for a debate. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the immediate future, but no doubt these matters will be raised under different headings in the near future.
Ms. Joan Walley: Is the Leader of the House aware of the early-day motions which express great concern that there are deadly levels of dioxin

501
in the food chain and call for the urgent publication of the Government's report? Does he agree that it is deplorable that that report is being publicised by the Department of the Environment and we do not have the opportunity to debate it in the House? Will he arrange for an urgent debate on the report? Does he agree that it is most urgent that we take every possible action to eliminate deadly dioxins from the environment?
Mr. Wakeham: As the hon. Lady knows, the purpose of the report is to put before the public the best information available on dioxins in terms of human health and environmental impact. In recent years, there have been considerable reductions in the release of dioxins into the environment, and more are planned. In particular, current plans should reduce emissions from incinerators by 90 per cent. and the use of unleaded petrol should reduce emissions from vehicles by 80 per cent. I recognise that it is an important subject and one that we should find time to debate. However, I cannot promise a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Tony Favell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind when deciding what to do about the Football Spectators Bill the fact that a great deal of heat is being generated by the football industry about the so-called problems of a national membership scheme? Yet four times as many people each week go to licensed bingo clubs as go to football matches and they have a membership scheme which has not caused any problems.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend has made his point carefully. I shall look forward to the debate next week.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Is the Leader of the House aware that the overwhelming responses to the Government's proposals on the National Health Service are hostile? Given that, may we have a special debate on those responses before the end of the parliamentary Session? Is the Leader of the House aware that a ballot conducted in my constituency on Saturday produced 1,020 votes against the proposals and 19 for, with six spoilt papers? It was an independently conducted ballot, and if it was carried out across the country the Government would be in even worse trouble than they were last week with the European elections.
Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the hon. Lady's analysis of the situation. I am interested in the expressions of interest in my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State's proposals for self-governing hospitals. It is an appropriate matter for debate, but I cannot find time for one next week. I suggest that the hon. Lady has a word with her hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House to see what he wants to do.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Would it not be a wiser and worthier set of priorities for the Government in the conduct of their business next week if, instead of pushing ahead with the Second Reading of the Football Spectators Bill before the publication of even the interim report of Lord Justice Taylor on the Hillsborough tragedy, they allowed time for a foreign affairs debate on the situation in China? The only hope of the freedom-loving people in China who demonstrated for democracy and the rule of law is the pressure of
502
international opinion on their behalf. Ought not the House to be mobilised to provide that pressure at the earliest possible date?
Mr. Wakeham: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of a debate on foreign affairs, particularly on the terrible events that have occurred in China. However, I do not agree that the Government can duck their responsibilities with regard to violence and hooliganism at football grounds. We have a clear responsibility to act, and we believe that this is the right time to do so. We will enable any recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor which are appropriate and which the Government accept to be incorporated into the action we take. It is right that we should go ahead with the Bill.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Does the Leader of the House realise that there will be much anguish in Liverpool at the decision to race ahead with the dreadful Football Spectators Bill? If the Leader of the House is adamant that it is an enabling Bill, how does he know, before even the interim report of the Taylor inquiry, that any of its recommendations can be embraced by the Bill? Is it not the case that it enables only a football membership authority to carry out the madcap scheme of the Prime Minister? Is it not time that Ministers ceased to be doormats for every disgraceful whim of the Prime Minister?
Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The enabling powers will enable matters wider than those he mentioned to be dealt with. These are matters for discussion when the Bill is before the House. The central point is whether the Government and the House will accept their responsibility to take action.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Now that we are to have a code of practice for estate agents, may we have a debate on the need for a code of practice for property developers? Is there not a breed of rogue elephant property developer who has no respect for covenants and our heritage, who needs no protection and who, at the least, needs his tusks removed?
Mr. Wakeham: I guess that there are such cases. I cannot promise my hon. Friend a debate in the near future. There are other ways in which he may raise the matter which he considers to be of concern.
Mr. John Fraser: Has the Leader of the House seen the reports in The Independent today of the threatened resignation of the Attorney-General? Assuming that the resignation is not to make a place for another Queen's Counsel in the Cabinet, does that not underline the importance of debating the Lord Chancellor's Green Paper on legal reforms?
Mr. Wakeham: If rumours in newspapers of what will happen to Ministers were the basis for debates in the House, we should be doing nothing but debating the changing scene. I do not take too much notice of what is in the newspapers these days. On the more substantive point of whether we should have a debate on the Green Papers issued by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, I agree that, ideally, it would be nice to have a debate in the House. We shall, of course, come to those matters at a later stage. I cannot see time for a debate at the moment.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I support the calls for a debate on events in China so that the hollow calls of the Labour party can be exposed as cries for unworkable sanctions? Labour Members have no proposals for that difficult situation other than simply calling for action that they know they cannot deliver themselves.
May we also have an early debate on the report issued by trade unionists today alleging that there is higher inflation in London than the national average? It is true that parts of London such as Ealing, where the rates have been doubled by the Labour council in two years, have higher inflation.
Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend is right to add to the calls for a debate on China and to note the slightly strange proposition put to the House by the Leader of the Opposition which will, no doubt, feature in any debate we may have. Rates in Ealing are a disturbing matter. My hon. Friend will have to use his ingenuity to raise the matter, and he will no doubt find a way.
Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Leader of the House find time, if not in the coming week at least before the summer recess, for a debate on the future of the Health Service in Wales? Will he bear in mind the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales said in this Chamber on 1 March that he was about to publish papers parallel to, but different from, those for England setting out the way in which the proposals would be implemented? He has not done so, which places right hon. and hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies at a considerable disadvantage, as they do not know what he is planning. Will the Leader of the House persuade his right hon. Friend to publish those papers so that we can have an informed debate, especially as the Secretary of State for Wales said in the debate on 1 March that he looked forward to such a debate?
Mr. Wakeham: I will do a deal with the hon. Gentleman: I will certainly put the points to my right hon. Friend if the hon. Gentleman will listen to me for one moment. The Opposition had the choice of subject for the last Welsh Grand Committee meeting on 26 April. They did not choose the Health Service in Wales. For the next meeting on 28 June, the choice of subject falls to Conservative Members. It is of great importance to Wales that the Committee should debate the valleys programme in the month of its first anniversary. At the next meeting of the Committee after that, the subject for debate will, once again, be the Opposition's choice. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales hopes very much that they will choose to debate the Government's plans for the Health Service. That will provide an opportunity to demonstrate this Government's fine record compared with the disaster of the last Government, when nurses' pay was reduced in real terms, when there were fewer doctors and fewer nurses, and far less was spent on the Health Service.
Mr. Michael: Before the recess?
Mr. Wakeham: I will do my best.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people will welcome the introduction next week of the Football Spectators Bill? It would be a grossly missed opportunity if we were to let a
504
parliamentary Session go by without having that enabling legislation. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, if Lord Justice Taylor produced an interim report saying that the national membership scheme would not be the best way forward, there would be no necessity to use the enabling legislation that we shall be passing through the House?
Mr. Wakeham: Business questions are not the right time to discuss the substance of the Bill. Such points can be made in the debate. Like my hon. Friend, I recognise that the basis of the membership scheme was the previous report by Mr. Justice Popplewell.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate in the near future on race relations, bearing in mind the serious rioting in Bradford last Saturday in connection with a campaign about the book "The Satanic Verses", and the fact that organisations such as the Bradford Council of Mosques are pursuing that campaign with apparently no regard for the damage being done to race relations? During such a debate, the Home Secretary could elaborate on any links that there might be between groups of Iranians promoting violence and that campaign. We could also emphasise the fact that "The Satanic Verses" is published under the law and that people want the right to read the book and to have that right sustained.
Mr. Wakeham: I have some sympathy with part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Certainly I cannot condone any acts of violence, from wherever they come. I recognise that Iran could do a great deal if it were to renounce publicly the use or the threat of terrorism or violence. It behoves everybody on all sides of the argument to stick strictly within the law and not to resort to violence.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has the Leader of the House noticed that you, Mr. Speaker, in your wisdom, have granted my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) an Adjournment debate next week on the conviction of Colin Wallace? Who will answer that debate? May I suggest that it would most properly be answered by the Attorney-General?
May we have an assurance that, whichever Minister answers the debate, he will at least have read the book, which I mentioned during Northern Ireland questions this afternoon, by Paul Foot, "Who Framed Colin Wallace?" Could that Minister politely approach No. 10 Downing street, possibly through the Lord President, to get a comment that can come only from the Prime Minister on what Mr. Foot has written about the late Airey Neave? The best speech that I ever heard the Prime Minister make was from the pulpit of St. Martin-in-the-Fields when she paid tribute to her friend. Some of us believe that what has been said about Airey Neave in the book must be cleared up one way or the other.
Mr. Wakeham: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer to the question of who will respond to the debate next Thursday, but I can give him the undertaking that the points that he has made will be drawn to the attention of whichever Minister replies to it and I can assure him that the Minister will give a satisfactory and correct answer.
Mr. Tony Banks: Once again, may I ask the Leader of the House for an early debate on animal conservation, especially in the light of the worrying figures that have just been published about the dramatic

505
decline in the world's whale population? May I draw his attention to my early-day motion 1009 on bull-fighting in Spain?
[That this House expresses its continuing disgust at the so-called sport of bull-fighting in Spain; believes that the breeding and slaughter of bulls for spectator enjoyment is cruel and uncivilised and should have no place in modern Europe; calls upon the Spanish government to ban bull-fighting; and urges all British tourists concerned about animal welfare not to holiday in Spain until bull-fighting is banned.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is a particularly nasty form of sport? I hope that he will go along with my recommendation about not taking a holiday in Spain, were he to be considering a holiday in Spain in view of the time that he might have on his hands later. We are on his side, and if letters of support from this place can help him, we are ready to write them.
Will the Leader of the House tell the Prime Minister when she goes to the Madrid summit in Spain to make sure that she declines any invitation to a bull fight and that she uses her iron handbag to good effect on the Spanish to try to persuade them to ban that nasty and despicable so-called sport?
Mr. Wakeham: With all the hon. Gentleman's charm, I did not know that he also wrote letters. I am glad that I do not receive too many of them. Among all the verbiage, he raised a serious point about bull-fighting in Spain and referred to his early-day motion 1009. We understand the feelings expressed in that early-day motion, but animal welfare in Spain is entirely the responsibility of the Spanish Government. The Spanish authorities are aware of the strength of feeling about bull-fighting among some people in the United Kingdom.

Question Time
4.15 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your guidance. Following the deliberately evasive answer given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to my question during Question Time, I should have liked to give notice that I would seek to raise an Adjournment debate at the earliest possible moment. Is it in order for me to give such notice now?
Mr. Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true that informal contacts are a very important part of the political process and that, as such, they should be treated with utter confidentiality? Is there any possibility of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) being reminded that the very distasteful way that he related that which was confidential at a dinner hosted by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has harmed the political process? Is it not the duty of the House to protect not just what happens on the Floor of the House, but those informal contacts and discussions that are so essential to our lives as politicians?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time, when we had a long run on the question—
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is to the point.
Mr. Speaker: Order. No. I regret that because of that long run we did not get very far down the Order Paper. There are to be two very important debates on Northern Ireland in just a few moments.

BILL PRESENTED
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (REAFFIRMATION AND LIMITS OF COMPETENCE)
  Mr. William Cash, supported by Mr. John Redwood, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Roger Knapman, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. John Bowis and Mr. Nicholas Bennett, presented a Bill to reaffirm the commitment of the United Kingdom to the European Community; to reaffirm the scope and limits of the competence of the European Community Treaty including the Single European Act; to affirm the rejection by the United Kingdom of the economic and monetary union and of political union within the European Community; to reject the Charter of Fundamental Social Rights proposed by the European Commission; to reaffirm the Luxembourg Accord and the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament; and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 July and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

Ordered,
That the Brunei (Appeals) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Second Reading Committee.—[Mr. Sackville.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
Ordered,
That European Community Document No. 8066/88 on waste be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Sackville]

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES:
Ordered,
That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:

Class XVI, Vote 1, Agriculture Support, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 2, Agricultural Services and Fisheries, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 3, Regional and General Industrial Support, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 4, Training Agency, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 5, Regional Assistance, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 6, Roads, Transport and Environmental Services, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 7, Local Transport, Water, Sewerage & Environmental Services, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 8, Housing Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 9, New Towns and the Urban Programme, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 10, Privatisation of the Electricity Supply Industry, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 11, Administration of Justice, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 12, Police Grant, Legal Aid & Criminal Injuries Compensation, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 13, Legal Proceedings, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 14, Prisons, Hospitals and Community Health Services, Etc, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 15, Education, Arts, Libraries &

507
Social Work, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 16, Student Awards, Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 17, Health (Family Practitioner Services), Scotland

Class XVI, Vote 21, Scottish Office Administration

Class XVI, Vote 26, Privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group—[Mr. Sackville.]

Northern Ireland Act 1974
4.17 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.
This is the fifteenth time that I or my predecessors lave come before the House to invite it to renew the system of direct rule that was introduced under the 1974 Act. I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) last year, when he described direct rule as patronising, undemocratic, unaccountable, remote and inefficient, and said that it had gone on too long—
Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.
Mr. King: I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman with me.
Every democrat in this House will endorse the feeling that this is not a satisfactory democratic system. It was intended to be temporary and it is on all our consciences that as yet we have not found a better alternative. I hope that I do not embarrass the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North by referring to him again, but he referred to that as the highest common factor on which there could be agreement for the government of Northern Ireland.
I agree with that assessment, other than in one respect —and this does not condone the system—that being his description of the system as "inefficient". I do not think that it is inefficient and I shall seek to put before the House some of what I believe to be the real achievements o r the past year. That is not to say that I am in any way seeking to justify the system. Despite the regrettable absence of a more democratic and accountable system, as far as is possible we are seeking to provide for the Province as efficient, as accountable and as open a system of government as we can—and in that I include not just myself, but my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office and those with responsibilities in the Northern Ireland departments. I shall, as I did last year, comment on the economic and security aspects and then deal with sonic of the political issues.
When I opened the equivalent debate last year, I was able to draw the attention of the House to the fact that unemployment in the previous year had fallen by 10.000. I am proud to stand at the Dispatch Box this year and draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the past year the headline total has fallen by a further 10,000.
The Northern Ireland Economic Council said in its 1989 report that the local economy had performed better in the last year than at any time during the 1980s. The figure for investment by Northern Ireland companies was the highest ever last year, at £;400 million. That is the mainspring of the improvement in the economy—I shall come to the question of inward investment—because the most important contribution is coming from the success and expansion of companies already located in the Province and from people there starting their own businesses.
We have also had some encouraging new industries. Since we debated this matter last year, I was able to announce the investment by Montupet, which will be

509
moving into the old De Lorean factory. Hon. Members may be aware that the company is now starting recruiting for that important establishment, which will employ 1,100 and which offers an exciting prospect for the future as a major employer in Northern Ireland.
I hold the same view about our first investment by a major company from the far east, which we have achieved in the shape of Daewoo. It is interesting to record, when people wonder how Northern Ireland can perform—I hope that every Northern Ireland Member will take pride in this fact—that it was only in November that I joined in the ceremony of cutting the first turf on a green field site in advance of the construction of that factory.
Since then, 100,000 sq ft of new production facility has been constructed and the first dispatch of video recorders has been made from that factory. Considering that we started from scratch in the middle of November, that is a fair indication of what Northern Ireland can achieve. I hope that that will prove to be the first of a number of valuable new investments.
When I stood at the Dispatch Box last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) intervened to ask if I had anything to say about whether the Government had any intentions over the possible privatisation of Shorts. The House will be aware that it is only a few days since I was able to stand here, after having scarcely embarked on that process at this time last year, to announce what I hope will prove the successful completion of that exercise.
In respect of both Shorts and Harland and Wolff, I had real concern last year lest neither of those companies would be able to continue. It is no secret now—we are able to tell the truth—that Shorts was running losses at a level that were unsustainable. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will remember that, because he intervened in that debate to urge on me the "ultimate dream", about which we had reservations. I made clear to him at that time my concern for the future of the yard, which faced the prospect of no orders at all and a rapid demise.
I genuinely believe that the acquisition of Shorts, if it is successfully completed by Bombardier of Canada, and the involvement now in Harland and Wolff both of Mr. John Parker and his management and employee buy-out project, together with the crucially important private sector involvement of Mr. Fred Olsen and his investment, offer better prospects for Harland and Wolff—and, with Bombardier, better prospects for Shorts—than have existed for a long time. Far from being concerned about their possible collapse, I now look with considerable optimism at the prospects that they may have before them. Of course nothing can be taken for granted. Many hurdles must be crossed, but the opportunity now exists. If those companies were to start growing, particularly Harland and Wolff after a period of such prolonged contraction, the impact that it would have on the general strength of the Northern Ireland economy can be well understood.
There have been developments in the past year. There was the exciting announcement of a £100 million investment by British Telecom, supported by the European Community, in the new fibre-optic link. It will provide a service to the whole of Northern Ireland and could provide more jobs in the service sector. The
510
Government have announced jobs in the Department of Social Security, and offices in Lewisham, Brixton, Hither Green and in other parts of London will be directly linked to the service in Belfast. That will initially provide 350 jobs and, we hope, in time lead to 500. There may be one or two more interesting announcements shortly, showing the way in which we can take advantage of new technology and obtain jobs for Northern Ireland.
In the past year, we have seen a further expansion in retailing activity. There has been an improvement in retailing facilities, and there have been major construction projects, both outside and inside Belfast, and certainly in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). There is new optimism and a new sense of opportunity. Although there is certainly a long way to go and a very big hill to climb, bearing in mind the level of unemployment in certain parts of the Province, perhaps for the first time people are beginning to see a real way of tackling problems. It is against that background that I look with optimism to the economic prospects for the Province.
Those achievements have occurred in spite of and in staunch resistance to the campaign of terror that still seeks to ruin the lives, jobs, hopes and future of many young people in Northern Ireland. That campaign can damage the economic prospects not only of everybody in the Province but of people throughout the island of Ireland.
We must, as we have on other occasions in the House, pay tribute to the security forces' tremendous courage and determination over the past year and the work that they have done in preventing casualties and deaths. This is the first time that I have stood at the Dispatch Box and not had to report any deaths due to terrorism during the period since I last answered questions on security matters. That is not because the danger is over. Hon. Members will have noticed that I drew attention to the fact that the threat still remains, and there is still a need for vigilance and the closest co-operation with the security forces. Through their determination to resist these onslaughts, the people of Northern Ireland have shown where they stand. We shall certainly seek to ensure that they have the sort of support from the security forces to which they are entitled.
The debate last year was just after the summit meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach. They drew attention in their communiqué to their wish for close co-operation in the fight against terrorism. I want to put on record again our appreciation of the very good relationship between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana, and the substantial work that has been done, not least in arms finds and the successful seizure of primed bombs, primed mortars and caches of explosives and weapons by the Garda. Certainly we can look back on real achievements by the security forces.
That is not to say, sadly, that this year has not been marked by some tragic incidents arising from the terrorist campaign. We forget them perhaps all too easily. I have to refresh my memory of Ballygawley; of Benburb where a granddfather and his grandaughter were tragically in the wrong place at the wrong time when coming home from bingo; of the good neighbours in the constituency of the hon. Member for Foyle whose reward from the IRA for concern about a neighbour who might be in distress was their own death; of the tragic murder of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan; and of the murder of the young girl in Warrenpoint. Some of those incidents the IRA might have regarded as successful

511
attacks in its awful vocabulary, but others it has recognised as mistakes in its craven apologies, yet all of them show the awfulness of the terrorist campaign.
Against that background, we have sought to ensure that not only the security forces but the instruments of law are fit and proper to enable us to protect the community against the assaults that it faces. We face a sustained attack not merely on the community but on the whole system of justice, whether by the attempts to murder judges, the attempts to murder witnesses, or the attempts to intimidate the whole community so that the terrorists may be above the law. At the centre of my concern has been not only the consideration that in any society it is important that innocent people are not convicted, but the important responsibility of the Government to ensure that guilty people have a reasonable prospect of conviction. We have faced the determined attack on the whole system of justice by trying to ensure that terrorists cannot put themselves beyond the possibility of successful prosecution and conviction.
I mention that merely to put in context the background against which we made changes during the past year. One move was the introduction of genetic fingerprinting to strengthen forensic evidence. We also made changes to allow inferences to be drawn in certain circumstances when people remained silent. We also took steps to ensure that when people are convicted of serious crimes they serve a proper sentence and that if they become reinvolved they will face the full rigours of the law.
Hon. Members will know that a feature of our approach to the prison regime and sentencing in the past year has been to give sympathetic consideration particularly to some who were caught up in the early troubles when very young and who found themselves facing a severe sentence, which meant that effectively they spent all their youth in prison. But that sympathy does not extend to those who become reinvolved after serving a determinate sentence. I have given fair warning to any who think of getting involved again in evil paramilitary terrorist activity that sympathy will not extend to them.
A feature of the past year has been to recognise that in our approach against terrorism we need to use not merely the instruments available to the security forces, but to recognise the need to tackle the evil in every aspect and to deal especially with the terrorists' resources which sustain so much of the terrorism. Some hon. Members have some understanding of the measures that we have taken and the arrangements that we have made to ensure that we are now assembling a much more effective response to gangsterism, smuggling, protection rackets, extortion and intimidation. A feature of the year ahead will be the growing evidence of a more effective counter-attack in those areas, in which we have the very full, active and interested co-operation of the Irish Government, who suffer especially from many of the losses associated with smuggling.
Against that background, I was considerably interested in certain aspects of the recent election results. It is difficult to tackle intimidation when people, with little protection, are understandably, in fear of standing up for what they believe. We can take some real comfort and encouragement from the fact that in the privacy and secrecy of polling booths people are increasingly walking away, especially from the principal party, Sinn Fein, which has been an open advocate and supporter of violence. I note that Mr. Morrison's vote in the European election fell
512
from 91,000 to 49,000—virtually halving. I am encouraged, too, that in the Republic Sinn Fein's pitifully small and inadequate achievement of 1·9 per cent. in the previous general election moved downwards to 1·2 per cent. in the last election. That shows the complete absence of political support throughout the Republic for the evil intentions to which Sinn Fein subscribes.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: In recent weeks I have been in the middle east, where the point was made to me that there is a comparison between the problems there and those in Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has just made the point that Sinn Fein, the political wing of the provisional IRA, gets an extraordinarly low vote, and, in the country from where the violence emanates, the SDLP has done so much better. Does that not show what nonsense it is for people in this country to say that we must talk with Sinn Fein, because often in the past we have said that there should be no talks and leaders have become Prime Ministers? Parties must get votes and Sinn Fein has done extremely badly. I hope that the Foreign Office will point that out in many parts of the middle east.
Mr. King: I know that that is a favourite analogy that Sinn Fein would seek to make with those, as it were, who have been imprisoned by the British in the past and have then come out to take up respectable democratic positions. There are two fundamental differences. First, they have found themselves in prison because they were leading protest movements in circumstances where they were denied the vote. As we know, in the circumstances of Northern Ireland there is a full opportunity for people to vote for and to support their party. Secondly, not only were those organisations with which Sinn Fein seeks to compare itself denied the vote, but, when they got the vote, they got the majority of the votes. I am on record as saying after the last election that their derisory level of support would not begin to justify a local campaign of civil disobedience, let alone remotely justify the sort of terrorism and violence which Republican terrorists commit. Against that background, we have seen real progress in the economy and in the movement away from support for violence.
I sense that, in Northern Ireland, there is a greater optimism and a real sense of hope. I believe that many others share that feeling. We have sought to reinforce it by a positive campaign aimed to help those areas of real need, particularly in the bigger cities. We have also considered how to help those areas where, undoubtedly, the unemployment levels are far too high and where that optimism and hope have not yet been felt.
In the past year we have made progress elsewhere as well. We have continued our steady work under the Anglo-Irish Agreement and, as I recently reported to the House, we have reviewed the workings of the conference during the past three years. I have published a record of develoments since that conference began. The House will have seen that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not the great dangerous conspiracy that certain people have tried to dress it up as, as though it was a pernicious attempt to undermine the fabric of society, but that it has resulted in steady, useful and co-operative work. There is increasing recognition of areas of common interest between North and South.

513
I was struck by the fact that the central issues under debate in the recent Irish elections were, without entering into their merits, unemployment, worries about emigration and the state of the economy. Those are the very issues that are of concern to people in Northern Ireland and, given our level of unemployment, it is extremely understandable. We recognise the need for a stronger economy and both Governments recognise the need to wipe out terrorism, which is such an obstacle to improving the opportunities for people in both our countries.
Stripped away from all the rhetoric and the shouting that accompanies some comments about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I believe that people increasingly recognise that the conference has not been the greatest bogey suggested by some people. We have worked steadily together. I accept that some Unionists do not particularly like the agreement, but the honest ones say that it has not proved to be the great disaster that they feared and that they can see some benefits deriving from it. Many people in Northern Ireland put the problems of terrorism at the top of their list of concerns, and if the Anglo-Irish Agreement has helped to establish a much better relationship between the RUC and the Garda that is of obvious benefit.
In this debate we are seeking to renew the system of direct rule, but, having recognised the progress that has been made in the past year, I also recognise where progress has been virtually non-existent—in the political arena. In this Chamber now are the only people who can change that. We can easily say that we should just go on as we are. Some people may argue that, in the end, the Government will tell them what they have decided they want to do. Perhaps those people will shout, scream and complain about it, but then say that they do not need to suggest anything themselves.
I have heard one or two stories suggesting that I have some sort of hidden agenda, that there is some secret plan that I have tucked away and that come October, I shall impose it on everyone. Colleagues in this House know me well enough to know that I will tell them straight what the situation is: there is no such plan. I do not believe that there is any point in having a plan unless I have a clearer idea of what the people would be willing to accept and what might provide the basis on which people could move forward. There is no point in the British Government handing down tablets of stone which give the parties an opportunity to squabble and row about them. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who has much experience in this matter, knows exactly what I am talking about. I have respect for his experience.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Surely there is one change as a consequence of the results of the district council elections when there was a high turnout in the Province. It showed that the people of Northern Ireland are concerned about their local government. It is also true, however, that in the past 17 years no attempt has been made to reform the structure of that local government, although in this country we have had no fewer than four local government Acts, one of which went through the House only last night. Why do we expect the political parties to do in their Province that which in this country we do first by an inquiry set up by an independent group, which brings forward proposals that are then debated,
514
argued about and ultimately made into legislation? Why do we not use the same procedure in Northern Ireland? Why do we always say that the obstacle lies with those of us who have our various party political allegiances, which, of course, limit us anyway, when we could so easily go out to independent people who could undertake the initial task and inquiry for us instead?
Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he approaches this matter in a constructive manner and he has put forward proposals as to how we might tackle it. We need to address those issues.
We may now have an opportunity, if people wish to take it, with or without Government, by independent inquiry or in whatever form, to make progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) took one message from the local council elections, and I was equally impressed by another. We are here with Unionist Members who will not talk with any Minister. At the moment, they are still stuck with a situation whereby they are unable to represent their constituents. They were the only people in this House who declined to represent their constituents' concerns about education, health or other issues that are of great importance to every hon. Member.
Those Unionist Members feel paralysed and unable to address such matters on behalf of their constituents, but a new opportunity arose at the local council elections. I was struck by the number of councillors wo have chosen to elect a member of one party as chairman or mayor while also accepting the legitimacy and respectability of another party through their willingness to support a member of that party as vice-chairman, deputy mayor or whatever. I am not sure of the previous situation, but such co-operation is something that can be undertaken across the parties.
At local government level, it seems that people have demonstrated that they are there to serve their electorate's concerns. Without abandoning their own responsibilities and their principles they have shown that they will do their best to serve the interests of the people in their community. I welcome that. If it is possible to do that in local government, is it impossible to do it in the Province as a whole? I know that it is not, because I was much assisted in the difficult issue of Harland and Wolff when the leaders of the parties came together and had meetings with me. I asked those leaders to come with me to talk with the Prime Minister and to represent directly to her the concerns of the people of Northern Ireland about that issue. I make no secret of the fact that those meetings were helpful to me in achieving my desired goal. The Prime Minister was able to hear at first hand some of the concerns about this issue.
It is important to remember that, because of the exercise undertaken, Harland and Wolff saved 2,500 jobs. But we have 105,000 unemployed people in Northern Ireland and we cannot stop there. We need now to address the wider issues. I hope that Unionist leaders will not stand back and say that they were willing to do it for Harland and Wolff, but they will not help if there is a problem in Londonderry or elsewhere. I believe that they are prepared to stand up and say that they will join in discussing such important issues.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has asked why we cannot get together to promote the Province. The outside world is still trying to represent Northern Ireland as a permanent scene of division and

515
battle, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should show that people can come together and are willing to work together for things that are of benefit to the entire community. I am not saying that I do not want constructive and, at times, pretty strong criticism. I believe that the elected representatives have a role to monitor and to hold the Executive to account. They have a duty to challenge the Secretary of State and to question his actions. At other times, they should come together and work for the Province.
I hope that, following these developments, we can find ways in which we can work together for the benefit of the people in the Province. I hope that hon. Members will take the opportunity to come to me, or my colleagues with responsibility for education, industry or health, to talk through the issues that are of direct concern to them and their constituents.
One interesting point about Northern Ireland which is not sufficiently stressed is the unaccountability of direct rule. Unionist Members nod their heads, but direct rule is not as unaccountable as they seek to make it. Northern Ireland Members have far greater access to the Northern Ireland Ministers who take the decisions than have any other hon. Members. There are about 650 hon. Members and, often, there may be 500 different Members wanting to address a Minister on a particular subject. I hope that the hon. Members feel that the Ministers are pretty quickly available to see them when they wish to do so.
Northern Ireland Members should not say that their constituents are unrepresented. They will be unrepresented only if their representatives are not using the channels which are more accessible to Northern Ireland Members than to any other Members by virtue of the presence of direct rule, which means that there are six Northern Ireland Ministers and only 16 Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. That gives Northern Ireland Members an unequalled opportunity to represent their constituents, particularly with the open door policy, which I want my right hon. and hon. Friends to maintain. However, that opportunity means nothing, and will be of no benefit, if it is not used.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, who takes a keen interest in these matters, said that surely it must be possible to make progress and, of course, he is right. There is absolutely no problem about designing structures and coming up with different concepts for the administration of Northern Ireland. I have deliberately chosen my phrases and, as my hon. Friend knows, I avoid the slogans of the past. I do not talk about power sharing or what is widely acceptable to both communities, but about ideas that might have a chance of working. I am prepared to consider any approaches or options which people want to put forward.
Does the refusal to talk spring from a tremendously strong and firmly held principle or is it a sort of paralysis which comes from not being sure about the way in which anybody wants to go? One issue that worries me is that I have never been convinced that people are clear about what they want to do. If they cannot make up their minds, they will be unable to make any contribution to constructive discussions.
We shall continue to do our best, and I have sought in the account which I have given to show that we have done our best to discharge our responsibilities. Today I have been able to report to the House some measures of achievement, and those, allied to the spirit, courage and
516
determination of the people of Northern Ireland, are the reason why there is a greater sense of optimism and hope in the Province now than there was two or three years ago. However, we must still overcome the problem of finding out how we can establish a more democratic approach.
The solution to the problem lies not in structures or blueprints, but in willingness. I begin to feel that local councils are showing us the way. It would be tragic if Unionists, as Members of this Parliament of the Union, felt that at this level of parliamentary representation we could not reach a level of co-operative and constructive discussion.
I hope that this debate will show that the opportunity will be taken and that we can point a way forward. I have made it clear that I am prepared to discuss any genuinely constructive and helpful approaches which people wish to make which will be of benefit to the people in the Province. If we believe in democracy, we must be prepared to make that effort. Terrorism cannot win, and 20 years on nobody has any excuse for not knowing that terrorism will not win. In the end, democracy must win, and it can do so if it is given the chance. We shall continue to discharge our responsibilities under direct rule.
I look forward to the day when good will and the constructive approach of the elected representatives in the Province will at last offer the prospect, not merely of progress, but of progress with democracy and justice, which is in the interests of everyone in the Province.
4.56 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened to what the Secretary of State had to say about not having a secret plan for October. I hope that nobody else has a secret plan for him for October because one feature which he has brought to the role of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, even though I have frequently disagreed with his decisions and actions, has been a dedication and concern for the Province. That must be recognised by people who might find some of his decisions, perhaps because of his ideological background, somewhat surprising.
Nobody in this Chamber today can be satisfied that we are once again discussing the renewal of direct rule over Northern Ireland. If we look at the title of the provision, the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1989, and think of those 15 years, we could say that rather than an interim measure it has, instead, become the manifestation of our failure to find any democratic solution which is acceptable in Northern Ireland.
I shall not be surprised if, later, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) suggests that the interim nature of the 1974 Act is a major factor in the continuing conflict in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Ian Gow indicated assent.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman nods his head in agreement but his is a mistaken view. The continued necessity for the 1974 Act reflects our failure to find a solution, but is not the source of the conflict.
The problem is that Northern Ireland has never enjoyed any degree of confidence in its future. Legislation on Northern Ireland has always been considered as an interim measure. That has been a constant theme, as shown by the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the permanent crisis atmosphere of the Stormont regime and even the Ireland Act 1949. It is quite clear that few people in Northern

517
Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom have ever believed that Northern Ireland's position has been fixed in perpetuity. Direct rule was never intended to be a long-lasting form of government. It was meant to be an instrument for crisis management when the power sharing executive fell. It was hoped that it would allow for the creation of a stable, democratic system of devolved government. However, this has not happened and, because of the absence of purpose, there is a danger that direct rule will simply institutionalise the permanent crisis, as did the Stormont regime.
In many respects, all parties and all Governments have failed to make any advances with Northern Ireland. Perhaps we have stumbled on a more modern and sophisticated system of crisis management, one which is sufficient to secure agreement that it is the best form of government in the worst of all possible worlds.
Today, the Secretary of State expressed a sentiment which I knew he shared with us. He suggested that nobody had any great ambition to preside over a mere system of containment. Northern Ireland will be secure from the threat of political violence and instability only when it has a system of Government which commands the consent of the people of Northern Ireland, not merely their passive and resigned acquiesence.
This debate gives us a useful opportunity to take stock of the extent to which the application of the 1974 Act in the past 12 months has assisted in achieving the objective of a stable and democratic form of Government. I am afraid to say that the record is not too good, as the Secretary of State has said. He referred to economic matters, security matters and the political aspects of the last period of direct rule, and I shall follow his agenda. I shall not say a great deal about the economic situation, as the debate on the appropriation order later this evening will provide an opportunity for some detailed debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) will be less than happy if I shoot all his foxes. The Opposition welcome any sign of improvement in the economic prospects of the Province, particularly in respect of employment. We welcome the fall in unemployment, but at 15·5 per cent. it is still the highest rate in these islands and still higher than it was in June 1979.
The position is not as bright as the Secretary of State would like us to believe. The Government's figures show that, on most of the major economic indicators, Northern Ireland has been lagging behind the rest of the United Kingdom. As the consequences of the mismanagement of the British economy become more and more apparent every day, the impact on Northern Ireland is not conducive to optimism. If we catch a cold on this island, they get pneumonia in Northern Ireland.
The Government have announced the arrival of a number of new industrial projects, and we welcome them, but I cannot help but feel that these efforts would be more successful if the Secretary of State and the Minister responsible for economic development had not been preoccupied with their plans to privatise Shorts and Harland and Wolff. It comes strange from the Government, who are prepared to write off so much in capital debts and capital loans, to claim that those companies were underfunded, when they as the owners had the ability, the strength and the means to supply the
518
funds and the orders and to make sure of the training and the market. They are now looking to the privatised sector to deal with the problems that they had caused by their lack of investment.
The decision to take powers to prepare the ground for privatisation of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service does not augur well. I wonder how the Government of competition expect to find competition for the NIES in Northern Ireland. Given the high energy costs that prevail in Northern Ireland—higher than in the rest of the kingdom—the Government should be more concerned about preventing a price increase than about increasing profits and, therefore, industrial and domestic consumer costs. Just as night follows day, as NIES is fattened up for a profitable slaughter, prices will increase.
The Secretary of State has paid tribute to the work of the security forces. On behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I associate myself with that tribute. He mentioned the happy fact that there had been no deaths to members of the security forces recently. That is to be welcomed, and we hope that it will continue, but there have been serious injuries. A marine from my locality was seriously injured by a bomb last week. The problems are still there. However, the problem for us as democratic politicians is that we have been relying on the security forces to hold the ring while we fail to find the political solution. It is incumbent upon us democratic politicians not to become Lundies but to sit down and try to work out how to prevent such deaths and maimings.
It is also incumbent on us to avoid making the performance of the duties of the security forces more difficult. The Government have a duty to pursue policies to undercut the causes of violence, but they must also ensure that the security forces are sensitive to the difficult environment in which they operate. The real world in Northern Ireland must be recognised in the House. We pay tribute to the police and soldiers who daily risk their lives, but until they are fully accepted in Northern Ireland, the risks will continue. Therefore, it is imperative that the security forces avoid needless friction with local residents, that complaints are speedily dealt with and rumours effectively scotched.
It is also essential that the Government do not undermine the work of the security forces by ill-advised measures. It is not the views of the House that matter so much as those of the citizens of Northern Ireland. It is an undeniable but unfortunate fact that the minority community does not regard the Ulster Defence Regiment as a peace-keeping force. It views it in a less favourable light than the regular Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Therefore, I am concerned about the consideration being given to the extension of the use of plastic bullets by issuing them to the UDR. This would be an unwise move because it would show that the concerns and wishes of the nationalist community, and not simply that decreasing minority who support Sinn Fein, have been ignored. No more should be heard of this foolishness. Neither should the UDR be placed in a situation where it feels the need to use plastic bullets.
Furthermore, if the decision is made, the temptation will be there for the military defence to use the UDR for crowd control and riot control, thus relieving the regular Army of this role at a time when demographic considerations are forcing the Ministry of Defence to re-assess the roles and tasks of the regular Army. It would be a tragedy if that were to happen, and the temptation

519
were to be there. I trust that, even though the Secretary of State has said that training will go ahead, it will be stopped. There are only two possible justifications for direct rule. The first is that it offers a possiblity of tackling a fundamental cause of the conflict in Northern Ireland. The second is that it allows the Government to maintain the initiative. On both counts, the Government have not had a good year.
The Government have introduced a series of violations of civil rights this year. This is not the place to rehearse in detail the arguments for and against the various measures. Suffice it to say that the broadcasting ban, the abolition of the right to silence and the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 have not enhanced the Government's reputation. These measures were all attempts to suppress the symptoms of the failure to find a political solution, not constructive efforts to eliminate the causes of conflict and the Government, in those circumstances, have been reacting to an agenda set by the men of violence.
I trust that the Government will not be foolish enough to endorse the claim of Sinn Fein that the broadcasting ban was responsible for the fall in the Sinn Fein vote in the district council and European elections this year. Not only would that be short-term opportunism, but Sinn Fein is already claiming it as its alibi for its disastrous results in both parts of the island in recent elections. It would be foolish of the Government to assist the IRA in its attempts to dismiss its dismal performance on the ground that it was not able to broadcast. The immorality and futility of the murder of its fellow Irishmen and women have cost it its vote. Perhaps the most striking sign of the bankruptcy of the Republican movement is what it is doing to close the Belfast-Dublin railway. In ideological terms, it could not be doing more to copper-fasten partition, and one wonders what it is up to.
The Secretary of State spoke about the legislation that he has introduced. I reiterate the Opposition's stance on Government legislation. We shall examine it carefully, and where we think that it is proper, does not in any way interfere with cherished civil liberties and is not counter-productive and has been properly examined, we shall support it. However, as an Opposition, it is our duty and our right to point out to the Government where we believe that they are making errors in their legislation. We believe that they have made errors in the past year, as we have stated in previous debates.
So far as seizing the initiative is concerned, the Government have clearly run out of ideas, as was clear from the latter part of the Secretary of State's speech. All too often in the past, there has not been enough clearly thought out or articulated policy. Events have decided what the Secretary of State was going to do, not his sense of direction. That was shown by the reaction to the tragic massacre in Ballygawley. The Government do not seem to have a sensible or coherent strategy and they allowed themselves to react to the men of violence in a counter-productive way.
However, the Government have done some things this year which are to their credit. They have not totally lost sight of the need to tackle the sources of conflict. The first step in any solution, no matter what one's views may be about the future of the Province, is to ensure equality between the two communities. Progress has been made on the issue of discrimination in employment. For much of last year the Secretary of State, the Minister responsible at
520
the Department and the Opposition were locked in constructive debate on the terms of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill.
It is one thing to pass legislation but another to see that it is implemented and carried forward vigorously and monitored. We will be looking for that and rapid progress in the months ahead. Having passed the legislation. we hope that the Government will not feel that that is all that they must do.
The Minister responsible for the Department of Education in Northern Ireland has taken action on cultural equality, particularly with respect to the Irish language, on education for mutual understanding and in his recent and welcome initiative on community relations. In particular, he has not leaned specifically in the direction of one community. He has said that there are two traditions, two communities and two ideas and concepts which must be savoured, supported and understood. I am sure that that is the proper way for him to act and he must owe much of his success to the advice extended to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam).
That is the constructive side of direct rule. However, the Opposition hope that the Government have not lost sight of what has too often happened in the past. If we wish to avoid the perpetual cycle of terror and repression, we must place more emphasis on the constructive possibilities of direct rule. The Secretary of State gave some signs of that today.
Having berated the Secretary of State, I now feel an obligation on behalf of the Opposition to offer him some guidance for the future. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that in the spirit in which it is intended. The Anglo-Irish Agreement can be exploited in a much more constructive way than hitherto, as is shown by the document which emerged from the review which seemed to adopt many of the suggestions put forward by the Labour party. In particular, the agreement can be used to tackle the economic problems of the Province. Given an expansion of Community structural funds, it makes good economic sense for both parts of Ireland to exploit jointly their objective one status and to make joint approaches to the European Commission for joint ventures in the interests and to the benefit of both parts of Ireland. There are large areas of economic and social life where such co-operation can be only beneficial. However, that can happen only if the Government do not try to be too clever by half, as they were this afternoon with regard to the use of additional funds and the concept and doctrine of additionality.
An example of the type of co-operation to which I have referred is that between Northern Ireland Railways and Irish Rail on the scheme to upgrade the Belfast-Dublin rail link to produce faster and more direct communications between the two principal cities of the island. Similar projects could go ahead. We heard earlier this afternoon about arterial roads between the different parts of the islands and their importance to the infrastructure of the islands as a whole. Projects in agriculture, energy and tourism would be eligible for EEC support and objective one status if both Governments can come together. Those projects are of the utmost importance if Ireland is to avoid the isolation with which it is threatened as a result of the Single European Act and the single market in 1992.
Perhaps the Secretary of State's most important comments came at the end of his speech this afternoon. Now that the elections are over and there is a period of

521
stability in Northern Ireland, the opportunity exists for both communities to come together. That is ultimately desirable and necessary. The Secretary of State referred to decisions that were being taken as a result of direct rule. However, I believe that matters could rightly, properly and more efficiently be dealt with in the Province. Social matters, education, industrial development and similar policies should be decided by the people in Northern Ireland in their own assembly and councils, working together. That would be far better in the interests of the Province and far better for the self-esteem and dignity of the people in Northern Ireland.
While party representatives in this House are so obdurate in their attitude towards a devolved Government, a whole generation is being lost to politics. That generation could come together and learn to compromise. They need not be Lundies, but they could learn to work together and accept other points of view which, on occasions, must be accommodated even if that is not what people want. People from both communities could work together for the good of their communities within Northern Ireland.
Direct rule and the Anglo-Irish Agreement share the characteristic that they fill a vacuum which the party leaders in this House are capable of filling to give their own people in the North of Ireland the opportunity to take part in the positive direction of their political lives and the future of their own Province. I look forward to a time when orders on direct rule will cease and when the parties come together to present the British Government, the Opposition and this House with a scheme which they have been able to work out. The answer lies in the people in the Province, within both parts of Ireland, coming together, working it out and deciding how they want to see their island governed. That will be the decisive factor. Any British Government can act only to hold the ring for a certain length of time. They can try to help to create the circumstances in which the parties can feel that it is to their advantage to come together.
In the long run the Opposition, the Government and the House can hope only that this will be one of the last of the interim orders on direct rule. We can hope only that we can create the conditions and give what help we can to allow the people of Northern Ireland to assume the responsibility for so many things which are now decided for them in this House.
5.18 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), drew attention to the uncertainty which has hung over the Province since 1920 about its ultimate destination. I hope that he will not think that it is inappropriate for me to state that one of the factors making for that uncertainty has been the attachment of the Labour party, however qualified, to the idea of a united Ireland. That idea has naturally loomed large in the minds of many people in the Province as they naturally feel that, who knows, there may one day be another British Government less attached to the Union than the present Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will consider that
522
when he estimates the value of the practical suggestions put to him by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North.
It might have been better if the Government had granted our request to hold a debate before the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That request was not granted. The review, prolonged, has taken place. The mountain has moved. I am not sure that it has produced much more than a mouse. Ministers have mainly taken credit for the improvement in relations between the RUC and the Garda. That is welcome news but every Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, from Lord Whitelaw onwards, has give us the same diet of hope. It is difficult for us, as we do not have all the information, to measure how important that improvement is. The conclusion that I find difficult to escape is that, although there has clearly been an improvement in relations between the RUC and the Garda, the IRA has also become a good deal more sophisticated. I am not sure where the balance of advantage lies in dealing with the terrorist situation.
On the economic side, we welcome my right hon. Friend's success in extracting money for Shorts. We trust that that will have a happy ending. I worked for a long time on the side of Shorts when I was Minister of Aviation and there is nothing that I would more gladly wish to see.
I come to the guts of the matter—the political situation. Here there is, as my right hon. Friend said, a stalemate. Dr. Fitzgerald tried to suggest that the SDLP was trying to encourage the minority population to co-operate with the RUC. Lord Fitt shot that down pretty effectively in his letter to The Times. From the Unionist party—the majority party—there is clearly no co-operation available for my right hon. Friend.
What is the origin of all this? It is not all that difficult to see. As my right hon. Friend said, he was not using phrases such as power sharing. But for 20 years now the Northern Ireland Office has had a perfectly simple formula —devolved government based on power sharing and an Irish dimension. Without the Irish dimension, the minority population will not co-operate. With the Irish dimension, the majority population will not co-operate.
What conclusion can be drawn? Listening to my right hon. Friend, I felt that I was in a curious time warp. Many years ago I was Under-Secretary of State, Colonial Office, when we still had a Colonial Office. Listening to my right hon. Friend, I could see Oliver Lyttelton and Alan Lennox-Boyd at the Dispatch Box saying, "Look here, our proposals are completely reasonable, but the natives simply won't listen. It is extraordinary. We have put forward what must seem to everybody to be the most sensible possible proposals, from which everybody will benefit. But do you think that they will listen? Not at all." It was exactly the same sort of language. I found it impressive and yet depressing. I remember supporting it as the Under-Secretary of State. It was splendid stuff—the call for power sharing between the Kikuyu and the Masai, the Greeks and the Turks, the Jews and the Arabs. It was much the same, but it never fitted the bill.
The truth is that the longer this colonial situation goes on, the more remote my right hon. Friend must become from the population. He is the governor of a colony. As the governor, he has to be even-handed. Any sign of being more favourable to the Turks than the Greeks, to the minority than to the majority, and his position becomes acutely embarrassing. He has to keep a beady eye on that.

523
Where do we go from here? I honestly think that the situation cannot long continue. The consequences become more serious as long as we try to pursue a policy that has now failed. It failed at Sunningdale and the "Jim Prior" Assembly; and the Anglo-Irish Agreement has failed.
What is to be done? It is not all that difficult. The first thing is to restore full local government. My right hon. Friend should not be frightened by all the tales about local authorities refusing to collect the rubbish and discriminating against one community or the other. He can suspend local government at any moment if he so wishes. He has all the powers to do that. Twenty years have gone by. He should trust the people a hit more. Let us see how they will repay his trust. That is the first thing.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend called for the representatives of the Province to exercise their rights. But we do not give them the chance to do so. He said that they can all talk to him and his colleagues, but much more important than that would be to have some sort of Northern Ireland Grand Committee. Of course it would have to be staffed by Conservative Members in order to get the business through, but at least Ministers would be forced to debate the arguments at a reasonable time of day with the representatives of the Province. They are here —17 of them. That is really quite a lot. That would be a much more sensible system. At least they could have a debate. So, we need local government, and a Grand Committee here.
Then we come to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Perhaps we should let it turn into a security agreement between the Garda and ourselves. It does not look as if it will work any other way. But if we want to go further, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and the "Friends of the Union" have put forward the noble concept of enlarging the Anglo-Irish Agreement to make it a general agreement between the Republic and the United Kingdom so that the Republic would have some oversight of all the United Kingdom, including the large Irish population here, and we would have an oversight of the way in which it handles its affairs—the economy, its neutrality and so on. That is a three-point programme which would not involve any great legislation.
As this is a short debate, I shall conclude with this thought. For 20 years, the Northern Ireland Office has been obsessed with the idea of power sharing and an Irish dimension. That has been attempted on three major occasions. All have failed. My experience of Government Departments, such as it is, is that they will make 20 mistales to try to prove that they were right the first time that they made a mistake. They will never change their minds on their own. Only a strong Secretary of State can make the break and force his Department to take a new departure. I beg my right hon. Friend to do so while he is still there.
5.27 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: The Secretary of State reminded us that this is about the 15th time that we have been called upon to renew what was originally a temporary order. None of us would quarrel with that statement. He was modest enough to avoid going on to draw attention to the fact that that 15th anniversary coincided with the 10th anniversary of the coming into power of the Administration of which he is a distinguished
524
member. If the newspapers are to be believed, he has great things in store for him, but it is not for me to comment on that. I have enough difficulties as it is.
Whatever our political views may be, and wherever in the House we may sit, we have to admit that the Prime Minister and her Administration have been successful in implementing the manifestos and policies that they have adopted, particularly their strategy for the whole of the United Kingdom, not just Northern Ireland, which was set out way back in 1979. Opposition parties do not like those policies, but they cannot deny that, for better or for worse, they have been firmly implemented.
There has been one notable exception. They have failed to implement the policy for Northern Ireland. They have failed not because they have been obstructed or defeated by the warring factions in Northern Ireland or the awkward Northern Irish parties—as our colleagues in the House are inclined to call us—but because they have been defeated by two Departments of State. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who has long experience in these matters, drew a clear distinction between the Conservative party and a Conservative Government. The Government have been obstructed by the Northern Ireland Office, aided and abetted by the Foreign Office.
The right hon. Member for Pavilion said that that obstruction was not deliberate, and nor was it muddled thinking. It is something which the two Departments have latched on to, and so far we have not been able to divert them. The right hon. Gentleman was correct to say that only a very strong Secretary of State would be able to do that. I do not think that he was criticising the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, any more than I am. If the present Secretary of State had the united support of the Government, the understanding, if not the full support, of the Opposition parties and the near-unanimous support of the Conservative party, it could be done.
I am not suggesting that distinguished civil servants in those Departments should be humiliated, but they have to be told that they have tendered advice after advice, submission after submission and drafts for initiative after initiative, and where have they got us? The second state has always been worse than the first. There has always been an obsession with trying something out on the high wire act in the circus when it would be sensible to lay solid foundations and to build a structure brick by brick upon those foundations. There are enough of us in the House representing the parties in Northern Ireland—I am not excluding anyone—who have it in our power to ensure that that structure will endure. I say that with great respect to the Secretary of State and in support of what has been said by the right hon. Member for Pavilion.
The Secretary of State admitted that direct rule is not satisfactory. He went on to make the curious remark that so far it had not been possible to find an alternative. I want to return to what the Conservative party—as opposed to the Government—had in mind all those years ago as a workable alternative. As time goes on, it seems more and more workable. At Question Time today, when we were discussing a Bill of Rights, the Secretary of State asserted that only today for the first time had he received constructive suggestions from the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. I know that he will be generous enough to admit on reflection that his statement was not quite accurate.

525
Before the Secretary of State took up his present post in Northern Ireland, we published a document called "The Way Forward", and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a parallel suggestion. Our document attracted considerable support and attention at the time. It was hailed as a breakthrough in providing constructive proposals, but it all ran into the sand. Shortly afterwards, the New Ireland Forum report was produced and somehow that was thought to be the bee's knees— something which would resolve all our problems. But that document was not based on reality. With all our faults, we managed to put together a document which, however deficient it may have been in some respects, dealt with political reality.
As the Secretary of State has since discovered, the section of "The Way Forward" dealing with a Bill of Rights occupied the best part of two pages in which we set out the reasons why it should be considered in Northern Ireland. While I share the Secretary of State's view that the objective would be best served by a Bill of Rights embracing the entire United Kingdom, I do not think that that is an insurmountable barrier between us. "The Way Forward" contained constructive proposals for meaningful local government. That point has been raised today by the right hon. Member for Pavilion and the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir. M. McNair-Wilson).
I want to refer to the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and for South Down (Mr. McGrady). I know that the SDLP has reservations about the powers of local government. While I do not accept the validity of those reservations, I understand why it feels that way. But with great respect, I ask the hon. Members to remember that there is a whole range of functions which do not involve advantage or disadvantage to any political party or any creed in Northern Ireland. They should also be reassured by the fact that, for the foreseeable future, there will be a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Perhaps it will not be the same person, but there will be a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of whichever party.
An hon. Member said that, if power were given to local government, local councils would not empty bins for people they did not like. Ministers will remember that one council refused to do that on a point of principle. A Minister of the day, who is no longer on the Front Bench, but is still a Member, came to me in a state of anxiety. I asked him what he was going to do. He said, "If they do not carry out their duties, I will have to do the job from the Department of the Environment over their heads. Will you not talk to them to prevent that?" I said, "I shall do no such thing. You are the person who should talk to them." He issued a fairly stiff letter to the council warning that if it refused to carry out its duty the Department would do the job over its head and charge the cost to the council and the ratepayers. Honour was satisfied as the councillors could say, "We have no option. It has to be done, because the Minister has taken a grip on the situation. He is forcing us to do it. What can we do but obey him?" We all know that such situations occur in Great Britain. It is a question of checks and balances and no one but a fool would attempt to deny that it works if the responsibility is shared.
526
I shall quote briefly from "The Way Forward". Why should anyone fear the devolution of powers to district councils to repair and maintain roads? The document states:
"Roads owe no allegiance to those who travel upon them and, for the traveller, such roads are neither green nor orange but only good or bad. It would be a start if the travellers were given a chance to repair them."
That is an interesting point.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: As the right hon. Gentleman is the leader of the majority party and people in Northern Ireland, I thought that he would draw an analogy between the collection of bins and the potholes in roads and a solution to our problems. He may be about to do that. As a representative of the minority community in Northern Ireland, I look forward to hearing his views on the real issue that is at stake today—how we proceed to a solution—rather than how we collect the bins.
Mr. Molyneaux: I accept that bins were a facetious example but that is not untypical of the functions to which local government councillors are restricted now. I am saying, give them more power and see whether they can be trusted.
Before the local council elections it was said that if the councils were not restrained, the majority in a given council would grab a monopoly of seats. I accept that that still happens. However, there are many different examples and I think that the Secretary of State had one in mind. My party would usually represent the majority on Armagh council. The hon. Member for Antrim, North will confirm that the chair of the council is held by a member of the Democratic Unionist party and that the vice-chair is held by a member of the Social Democratic and Labour party. That was the point made by the Secretary of State. It may seem to be small beer to some hon. Members, but it points to a happier future.
The hon. Member for Newbury asked in his intervention why, in view of the turnout at the local government election, there was supposed to be widespread frustration over the lack of progress. A total of 59·5 per cent. of the electorate turned out to vote and I seem to remember a parliamentary by-election in Vauxhall not long ago at which there was a staggering turnout of 42 per cent. Given that 59·5 per cent. of the electorate turned out, are those people not entitled to expect that the powers of their newly elected councillors will be increased, not diminished?
The Secretary of State referred to access to Ministers. I remind him that that was made use of in 1985 when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was being drafted. I talked to the present Home Secretary when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and urged him privately to go cautiously and not to follow the route that had been mapped out in the newspapers over eight or nine months. I advised against the course upon which the Government seemed to be embarking. The hon. Member for Antrim, North and I met the Prime Minister late on a Friday night at Downing street at the end of August in that year. We put to her not just our objections—we would have been shirking our duty if we had simply said "no"—but specific proposals as an alternative to those being designed. Our proposals are on the record.
The Secretary of State will remember that when he took office halfway through the operation he was kind enough to arrange a meeting with the Prime Minister. When the

527
hon. Member for Antrim, North and I met the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State we had a lengthy discussion. We elaborated upon the proposals we had put at the previous meeting and pleaded with them to avoid confrontation. They listened politely, but when the agreement appeared in its final form it was clear that our suggestions had been ignored. A civil servant who retired fairly recently from the plush seats explained a few months ago why we had to be ignored, why we could not be further consulted and why we could not be taken into the Government's confidence. He said that they did not consult the Unionists because they might have objected. That is a curious and defective way to conduct democracy.
After the new Parliament was elected at the 1987 general election the hon. Member for Antrim, North and I talked to the Secretary of State and his senior colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office for seven months. The hon. Member for Antrim, North will confirm that we were given the impression that we were getting somewhere and that there was good faith on both sides of the table. At the end of those months we drew our thoughts together and put them down on paper. Even more importantly, we put forward outline proposals for a better and more workable British-Irish agreement and for workable structures within Northern Ireland itself.
I say to the Secretary of State without anger, what good did that do? Why do Her Majesty's Government behave as if we had refused to make constructive suggestions when they know, from the Prime Minister downwards, that those proposals are still on the table?
I have put forward in this debate a proposal on local government. I suggest also that in regard to the Anglo-Irish Agreement Her Majesty's Government should at least match what appears to be the Dublin Government's willingness to consider an alternative agreement. That is not an unreasonable suggestion. Also, significant powers should be given, with safeguards, to the district councils. The Secretary of State and his Ministers will know from experience and from watching the pattern of nominations, elections and so on that unless some progress is made, all the parties in Northern Ireland will find it difficult to recruit competent people to represent the electorate and the ratepayers in the council chambers. We cannot continue in this powerless state for another term.
I want to make another suggestion that has already been touched upon. We should have legislation by Bill rather than by Order in Council. In my simple view that should have been done in 1972. When Stormont was abolished, Her Majesty's Government should have said— it was a Conservative Government, although fortunately not the same Prime Minister—"We have taken power to ourselves and we are now going to legislate for Northern Ireland in the same way as for the rest of the United Kingdom." That is not integration. If it is, the Conservative Government at the time should have realised what they were doing. I do not want to reopen old wounds, but the parties in Northern Ireland that advocated and brought about the abolition of Stormont should have recognised that they were taking a step closer to integration. The move to legislation by Bills was not taken in 1972 and it should have been taken in 1974 when the present Northern Ireland Act was introduced. Fifteen years is far too long.
Mr. Amery: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is coming to a point I tried to raise. Would he be in favour
528
of a Northern Ireland Grand Commitee where all matters affecting Northern Ireland could be debated? No doubt the Government would have to have a majority on the Committee, but the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could debate in detail with Ministers issues affecting Northern Ireland.
Mr. Molyneaux: That would be an attractive suggestion, but it would have the same defect as the Northern Ireland Committee which still exists on paper. As long as the Anglo-Irish Agreement remains in force it would be futile to engage in such an operation because, willy-nilly, it would become part of that infernal process. We have been through all this before. Ministers would never come to the Committee and explain precisely why they were introducing certain items of legislation which had already been referred to and foreshadowed in a communiqué from the Anglo-Irish Conference. They cannot say that the Dublin Government do not have an influence when that Government and Her Majesty's Government boast that they have agreed on the promotion of certain legislation in specific areas.
The Secretary of State repeated his request for suggestions and I—
Mr. Tom King: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is getting into a bit of a muddle. I thought that he was asking for greater opportunity to debate measures. The suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir J. Amery) was that that should take place on the Floor of the House and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be willing to participate in such debates. If that is not possible, my right hon. Friend talked about the possibility of some form of Grand Committee and I also thought that the right hon. Gentleman said he would participate in that. I thought that he was looking for more time to debate issues affecting Northern Ireland. However, when another forum is suggested he says that he would not be prepared to participate. That does not seem to be consistent.
Mr. Molyneaux: As the Secretary of State will concede, the relevant part of the mechanism, the equivalent of the Floor of the House, is the Committees dealing with Northern Ireland legislation. We and all other parties have representatives on them. The Northern Ireland Committee, as presently constituted, is a toothless body and unless the Northern Ireland Grand Committee were given powers greatly in advance of those of the Scottish Grand Committee, it would not be an attractive idea for the reason I have given. However, it would be at least worth considering.
The Secretary of State repeated honestly and openly a request for suggestions on what we might like to see. I return to my opening sentences. The present Prime Minister and the late Airey Neave, backed by the then Shadow Cabinet, brought forward proposals for a master plan which was set out in brief in the manifesto that was endorsed by the electorate of the whole of the United Kingdom when it elected a Conservative Government in 1979. The manifesto contained firm proposals. It provided for making a start—I stress that it was not an end in itself —on restoring some degree of control and responsibility to elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. That was an important objective. Yet that is the only part of the manifesto that has not yet been implemented after 10 years.

529
Armed as we are with the results of two elections in Northern Ireland, I am not sufficiently arrogant to stand here in the House and demand the implementation of Ulster Unionist policies. I will settle for something far more reasonable and modest than that. I simply ask a Conservative Government to consider getting around to the implementation of Conservative party policies.
5.51 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: I shall not disappoint the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I will begin by asserting my belief that the most important single factor in prolonging the tragedy in Northern Ireland is uncertainty about the constitutional future of the Province. I want to follow up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). He referred to the days when he was an Under-Secretary of State at the Colonial Office. He did not remind the House, although he might have done, that he was also Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
I want to illustrate by example how uncertainty can bring about the very evil it is sought to redress. After the 1979 election, it was clear that the Republic of Argentina was stepping up its claim to the territory of the Falkland islands. It is, of course, the duty of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to seek to resolve all disputes by peaceful means. Thus, although it was, and remains, the policy and conviction of Her Majesty's Government that sovereignty over the Falkland islands remains lawfully and properly with the Crown, the idea was dreamed up that if one was able to transfer ownership of the islands to Argentina and then take a 99 year leaseback, that would settle the problem of the claim by the Argentine to the British territory of the Falkland islands.
Precisely the wrong signal was sent to the men of violence when that suggestion was made by the British Government. When the junta understood that, although was said that there was no validity in the Argentine claim, nevertheless we would transfer the islands and then lease them back, the Argentine Government believed that we would not be serious in defending the rights of the British people of the Falkland islands.
I will give another example and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion may think that I am straying into the world of fantasy. I do not think so. The Republic of Ireland has always claimed—and its constitution still claims—the territory of Northern Ireland. That claim is denied by Her Majesty's Government. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office dreamed up another scheme which was that we would give the Republic a position of special privilege in relation to Northern Ireland; that we would give the Republic the right to put forward views and proposals about how one part of this Kingdom should be governed;, and we laid a duty on Her Majesty's Government, if they disagreed with those views and proposals, to make determined efforts to resolve the differences.
Many people believed that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would never have been signed unless it had been preceded by a prolonged campaign of terrorist violence. What signal was sent by the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the men of violence? I assert that the same signal was sent by the
530
proposal for a transfer and leaseback of the Falklands to the men of violence in the south Atlantic, as was sent to the men of violence in Ireland by the signing of the Anglolrish Agreement. It added to the constitutional uncertainty of the Province. Northern Ireland has become a bit greener, and it is that perception that has encouraged terrorists to believe that if they can go on a bit longer, they will wring even further concessions from Her Majesty's Ministers.
I want to mark to the House how significant has been the change in policy, even of my own party, in recent years. I want to begin by quoting with approval the words used by my right hon. Friend's friend and mine, Airey Neave. I will quote what he said in Belfast on 7 April 1978, when he was addressing a meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was present. He said:
"I am able to speak of fundamental principles…Foremost of these is the Conservative faith and belief in the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland…Let no-one in Dublin be under any illusion".
He might have added, "Let no one who is contemplating violence be under any illusion," He continued:
"the Conservative Party stands four-square for the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
That was a ringing declaration of purpose made in April 1978.
I want now to quote with approval from a speech made only two months later by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. She too had gone to address the Ulster Unionist Council in Belfast and, again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley was present. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
"Our two parties"—
that is, the Ulster Unionist party and the Conservative and Unionist party—
"share one over-riding common purpose—the maintenance and strengthening of the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."
That was said 11 years ago.
I then turned to the manifesto on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I fought the last election. Do we find a ringing declaration similar to that made by Airey Neave and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in that manifesto? We do not. This is what my own party had to say about Northern Ireland:
"There will be no change in the present status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom unless the people of Northern Ireland so wish it."
I wonder whether the House can mark the contrast between the assertion of our last manifesto, which is without any conviction or declaration of policy and what was said in 1978 by the then Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the then Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion was right when he referred to the policy of the Labour party. The Labour party's manifesto stated:
"We believe in an united Ireland: to be achieved peacefully, democratically, and by consent."
The Labour party has moved its policy objective towards a united Ireland. In the most solemn declaration that one could make—a party manifesto—my own party has abandoned the language that was used in 1978. I believe that the abandonment of that language and of the commitment to maintain and strengthen the Union is prolonging the tragedy in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Tom King: I regret the line of argument that my hon. Friend is taking. I do not believe that he is seeking to

531
say to the House that the views of either my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or of myself have changed in respect of the Union. He knows that that is not true. He knows our policy and he knows where we stand on those matters. He knows that we have made our determination to support the position of the majority in Northern Ireland absolutely clear. I have made no secret of that. I often wonder whether my hon. Friend has reflected on something that worries me, which is that by implying that somehow that determination has changed he perhaps falls into that trap which it was his concern to avoid in raising this matter in the first place.
Mr. Gow: I do not follow my right hon. Friend's intervention, but if he is telling the House that there has been no change in the view of the Prime Minister or in the Prime Minister's choice of words, I shall reply by giving him a quotation. On 29 July 1982 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House of Commons—I remember it because I was her private secretary at the time—
"no commitment exists for Her Majesty's Government to consult the Irish Government on matters affecting Northern Ireland. That has always been our position. We reiterate and emphasise it, so that everyone is clear about it."—[Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 1126.]
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not quarrel when I say that those were the words used by the Prime Minister in this place on 29 July 1982, and that those are not words that the Prime Minister would be able to use now. I am simply saying that there is a contrast.
I agree with the suggestions made by my right hon. Friends the Members for Lagan Valley and for Pavilion. However, why has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is now the longest serving Secretary of State for Northern Ireland ever, abandoned the policy that was worked out so carefully during the four years when Airey Neave was a shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? I have never had a convincing answer from my right hon. Friend about why we abandoned the policy in the manifesto.
Why have we not tried to set up a regional council in Northern Ireland with widely devolved powers over local matters? What is the objection to trying to do that? What is the objection to giving modest additional powers to the 26 district councils and to setting up a regional council? What is the objection to ceasing to legislate for Northern Ireland by Order in Council? When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State replies to the debate, will he tell us why he will not confer modest extra powers on those 26 district councils? Will he tell us why he will not seek to set up a regional council and why he continues to insist on legislating for Northern Ireland by Order in Council?
Mr. Ken Maginnis: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions, I say simply that it is because the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland recognises that we are moving towards 1992 that that process has begun. With the present arrangement between the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom it will, de facto, be possible to absorb Northern Ireland into an administrative all-Ireland arrangement. That is what is satisfying to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and that is why he has not given the hon. Gentleman a proper answer to his question.
Mr. Gow: I find myself in fundamental, but of course, respectful, disagreement with the hon. Gentleman because
532
I do not believe that the reasons that he attributed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have ever entered his head. My right hon. Friend can dissent—
Rev. Ian Paisley: It may not have entered the head of the Secretary of State, but his partner at the Anglo-Irish conference, Mr. Lenihan, said exactly that and spelt it out in all the newspapers at the election.
Mr. Gow: I have expressed my view, which is that the views of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) have never entered the head of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
There are many ways in which Her Majesty's subjects living in Northern Ireland are disadvantaged when compared with her subjects living in Brighton, Bridgwater or Eastbourne. In Bridgwater, as in Brighton, people are able to vote for councils with fairly substantial powers —the district councils. The people of Bridgwater and of Brighton are able to vote for county councils. The Members of Parliament for Bridgwater and for Brighton are able to table amendments to legislation affecting their constituents. The people of Bridgwater and of Brighton are to have conferred upon them from 1 April 1990 the inestimable benefits of the community charge. Those benefits are being denied to the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley and to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Why those differences? Why treat unequally and disadvantage the people of Northern Ireland.
I was depressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion using the colonial analogy and talking about "natives". However, from what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seemed to be saying, I advise him that he cannot make any progress in improving the quality of government in Northern Ireland because the Social Democratic and Labour party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party either will not talk to him or will not reach agreement with him.
I advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that when those concerned cannot reach agreement, it is the task of statesmen to proceed with the policy and system of government that is best. After all, we have a system of government now which even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State says is not the best. If the people of Bridgwater are tolerably well governed under the system of district and county councils and by legislation which is amendable, why not treat the people of Northern Ireland in the same way? To say that the people of Northern Ireland are somehow constitutionally different is further to encourage those who believe that if they continue with terror long enough, somehow the resolve of this House and of the British people will weaken. The more that we govern Northern Ireland differently from the remainder of the kingdom, the more we will add to that uncertainty.
My right hon. Friend will not gain agreement among all the parties in Northern Ireland on the right form of government. Indeed, there is no agreement on the present form of government. Why not show leadership and give modest additional powers to the district councils? Why not try a little local government, as Airey Neave recommended? Why not try giving those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland seats that right to amend prospective legislation that is conferred upon every other hon. Member? What reason can there be for denying them

533
the rights conferred on us? Why cannot there be a community charge in Northern Ireland? Is it because the Republic does not like it, because my right hon. Friend does not like it, or for other reasons? When my hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will tell us why those great advantages are to be denied to the people of Northern Ireland.
This debate is about the government of Northern Ireland. The proposals by the hon. Member for Eastbourne are hardly revolutionary or dramatic. In fact, they add up to giving the 1·5 million people of Northern Ireland those rights that my right hon. Friend believes should properly be conferred upon the people of Somerset, Essex and east Sussex. They are not very dramatic, but they would be a signal to those who believe that the more we govern Northern Ireland differently, the easier it will be to detach Northern Ireland. They will serve as a signal to friend and foe alike.
Two hon. Members represent the Social Democratic and Labour party in this place. To my great regret, their role and the role of the nationalists in Northern Ireland has been undermined by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It actually confers upon the Republic that duty to represent nationalists that properly rests with the elected nationalists. I honour, acknowledge and respect constitutional nationalists in Northern Ireland, as I acknowledge, honour and respect constitutional nationalists in Scotland and in Wales.
The hon. Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) are as vigilant as ever in the interests of their constituencies in this place, but they have been undermined by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I say to them that, if we could have equal treatment for the people of Northern Ireland with the people of the remainder of the kingdom, certainly the place of Nationalists would be protected under a just law. If any of the fears of either of those two hon. Members about wrong doing and discrimination by certain district councils should ever come about, blessedly it would be possible —as has been the case with the Local Government and Housing Bill—to build in protections and have a specially empowered ombudsman to protect the interests of the minority.
I hope that, when we next debate this subject, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will come to the House with proposals, rather than just saying, "I am paralysed unless and until there is agreement among the political parties in the Province."
6.14 pm
Mr. Seamus Mallon: This debate has been in many ways most interesting and in many ways most distressing. From the start, we have listened to the various strands of Unionism in this House propounding their particular form of Unionism—with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
We have listened with great interest—indeed, almost great intrigue—to the Unionism of the time warp, as expressed by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I hope that no offence will be taken if I say that it reminded me of a line that every nationalist in Ireland has
534
been aware of since childhood—"The ghost of Roger Casement is knocking at the door." It is almost as if the ghost of Airey Neave, who was very much respected both inside and outside the House, is still knocking at the door of that section of Conservative party Unionism in a way that is now an anachronism. The Unionism that has been expounded by Conservatives today is anachronistic. It is not part of the 1980s and nor will it be part of the 1990s. It is certainly not the basis to take us into a new century.
Another sort of Unionism is that expressed by one section in the North of Ireland. I listened with great interest for something within that that would allow me, as a representative of the nationalist tradition. the opposing tradition, to come out of the debate with the hope that somehow, before our next debate next year, something would allow us to move from the present position. I was disappointed. We did a tour of potholed roads, we did a tour in the dustbin lorry, but we came nowhere near that sign of hope.
The playright Pirandello, who certainly did not run in the European elections for an Italian constituency, once wrote a play entitled "Six Characters in Search of an Author". The North of Ireland is becoming almost analogous to that. It is almost as though the political parties in the North of Ireland are sitting on that stage hoping that someone will write the script for them, put in the stage directions, give them the motivation for the plot and, somehow, somewhere, drop from the skies and provide everything to turn it into the theatrical performance that it would be. We could amend the title of the play to "Six Counties in search of a solution." One of the great advantages—probably the only great advantage —of having two elections one after the other in the North of Ireland is the message heard by everyone involved in the elections about the desire for a solution in the North of Ireland.
Today we should not be discussing what happened in the past, and not become involved in the time warps; we should be recognising that there is now a mood and aclimate within the North of Ireland that wants to solve the problems. Rather than throw theories at each other —which is what we have done so far with local government, regional councils or whatever—we should be trying to lay a basis for a solution, and that basis should be that we are willing to move constructively and substantially towards finding that solution, whatever it may be. Today is not a day for writing into the record the sort of solution that any Unionist or, indeed, any nationalist party might want. Today is a day to get that resolve built into the body politic both in the House and in the North of Ireland. That, somehow, will give those Six Counties at least the beginnings of the solution that they very much crave.
That is essential for a number of reasons. I do not want to go over the recent past or the events of the past year —indeed, I do not want to go over the past at all—but I challenge the assumption inherent in the thesis of the right hon. Member for Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and in the remarks of the hon. Member for Eastbourne and of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), that others, not us, in Northern Ireland should assume the onus for solving the problems that we face.
They seem to believe that by some means, perhaps by having, say, another Committee upstairs, there should be

535
a different way of considering legislation—but that others, whoever they may be, should bear the brunt of finding the solutions to our problems.
That is a cop-out. It is cowardly, although I accept that it is not meant to be. After all, we are the senior political figures who have been elected in the North of Ireland. To borrow a phrase from President Truman, the buck stops here. It stops with the senior people elected in Northern Ireland, and that means us. It does not mean district councillors, most if not all of whom are part-time political representatives, most of whom do not have the resources or time to do what we have asked of them in relation to this measure. That is an essential fallacy in the time warp proposition that hon. Members have made in the debate.
Our job is to lead in search of that solution, and the only way in which we can start to give that leadership and lay the basis for finding that solution is to start to talk. Is there not something unbelievable, if not obscene, given the violence in the North of Ireland, that the constitutional political parties have not engaged in any dialogue for I forget how many years? Is there not something which will condemn us all in the eyes not just of our opposition but of those whom we represent when we have not sat down at a table together to try to talk about the problem and reach a solution to it? We all stand indicted and condemned for that. If we are to move forward, talking must be the first step.
The comments of the Secretary of State deserve a response. He was right to say that no Secretary of State or anyone else can come to the North of Ireland with a proposition and say, "There is the initiative. There is the solution to the problems." Such a solution does not exist. If we have learnt anything from the past—from the last year or 20 years or 70 years—it is that the single immutable factor which will not change is that, irrespective of what happens here or anywhere else, the people of Northern Ireland—the nationalists, the Unionists, the Catholics and the Protestants—will go on living there cheek by jowl.
They can live in the way they are living now, with violence all around them, in a shaky and unstable political situation and with all the disadvantages which derive from that shaky and dubious type of political situation. Or they can ask, "Why should the world pass us by? Why should we not have all the advantages that we can get? Why should we not take part in the building process as the rest of Europe around us builds? Why must we in the North of Ireland always be the people who get the raw end of every stick?"
Those questions should be asked and answered, and unless we start to answer them—and I am not one for making predictions—we shall see a disintegration of the political process in the North of Ireland.
Take a close look at the results in the urban areas of the local government elections. Let us not forget that in Northern Ireland now there is an enormous divide between the urban and rural areas. The percentages reach 58, but not in the urban areas; in those parts they reach perhaps 32, as in the European elections. That is worrying, because it is the beginning of a lack of confidence in the political process, and I fear that that is writ large on all the gable walls in Belfast, Derry, Newry, Dungannon and everywhere else. If we do not heed that, we shall be putting the future of the North of Ireland in peril.
I said that I did not wish to rake over the past. The past is over. If we want to, we can engage in rhetoric and give examples of why we should or should not do anything. The
536
past is there and it is our job to create the future. Now there is an opportunity for all political parties in the North of Ireland to respond to the Secretary of State and to say in unequivocal terms, "Yes, we are prepared to enter into discussions with you or without you about the future of the people whom we represent."
We have the opportunity to say that now, and I wish to put on record on behalf of my party that we wish to say, "Yes, the time for talking is now." We wish to see the response to that. We wish to set the time and date for those discussions, however long they may take or difficult they may be. So long as they do not deal in peripheral matters and so long as they are aimed at getting a solution to the problems, we can start talking, and this debate will have been worth while.
But if we do not get a positive response in that way, the message will go out clearly from this House that the age-old quarrel still exists, that the past is that to which we hark, rather than to the future, and that the political process is again about to fail the people of the North of Ireland.
Mr. Maginnis: What the hon. Gentleman says sounds fine. The offer, coming from where he stands now, sounds as though it is genuine, but let me ask him a simple question. Is he prepared to disagree with the Fianna Fail manifesto which professed that the only solution to the Northern Ireland problems was within an all-Ireland context? Will he say here and now that he disagrees with that opinion, and hence give us an opportunity, without any veto, to take up his offer?
Mr. Mallon: I have not read the Fianna Fail manifesto.
Mr. Maginnis: Take my word for it.
Mr. Mallon: I will certainly take the hon. Gentleman's word about its contents. I was too busy with two elections in Northern Ireland to be reading Republic of Ireland election manifestos. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to state my political position in relation to the ultimate solution in the island of Ireland, he can have it clearly. He knows well that I and my party believe in working peacefully and constructively towards persuading others that unity within Ireland is the ultimate solution. I believe that to be the ultimate position and that it can be positive and constructive.
Mr. Maginnis: Now answer the question I asked.
Mr. Mallon: I was kind enough to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I willingly give way to him again if he wishes to restate the question, and he may make a better job of doing so.
Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman say that there is a solution, or the possibility of a solution, to the problem in Northern Ireland that does not entail the condition that it must be within an all-Ireland context?
Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) for his intervention. I have made it abundantly clear time after time that I regard the creation of Irish unity as the lasting solution. I am talking today about starting to solve the problems. I have made it clear also that, irrespective of what happens, the people of the North of Ireland will live cheek by jowl with each other, and they will do so for a considerable period. I advise anybody who wishes to wait for the ultimate

537
position that I espouse not to hold their breath, or they will be in severe difficulties again. The problems are the challenges of today. We can indulge in debating our political positions, but while we are doing that, the people of the North of Ireland—those on the housing estates, on the small farms and on the streets—are suffering and being neglected, and we are denying them hope. I ask all hon. Members to read Hansard tomorrow and, for the first time in a long time, see a glimmer of hope.
I began my speech with an analogy from the theatre. I will go from Pirandello to Shakespeare. We should closely examine the last scene of "Hamlet", when all the protagonists are lying dead on the stage. Who mounts the throne? It is young Fortinbras who had gone off to war. The analogy is stark. If the problem continues, all the protagonists, many of whom are present, will be the victims of the loss of confidence in the political process in the North of Ireland. Who might young Fortinbras be?
6.31 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: In this debate, an attack was launched against the Ulster Defence Regiment. My first duty in the House, as a representative from Northern Ireland, is to defend that regiment. I will defend it simply by quoting the statistics that were used by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) at his own party conference. They are not doctored, exaggerated Unionist statistics; they are statistics given by the leader of the SDLP. At his conference on 26 November, he was asked:
"Up till last Saturday 2,705 people have died in the 20-year period of the current troubles…who killed all these people?"
His answer was:
"The statistics are devastating. 44 per cent. were killed by the provisional IRA and 18 per cent. by their fellow travelling 'republican' paramilitaries. 27 per cent. were killed by Loyalists. 10 per cent. were killed by the British Army. 2 per cent. were killed by the RUC and 0·28 per cent. by the UDR."
So of all the people indicted for killings or responsible for killings, the UDR was responsible for 0·28 per cent. I wonder why such attacks are launched against the Ulster Defence Regiment when it is not responsible for the large number of killings that are included in such statistics.
It is very strange that the spokesman of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) should take such an attitude against the Ulster Defence Regiment. It is even stranger for the leader of the Liberal Democrats or Social Democrats, or whatever they like to call themselves, to make such remarks against the Ulster Defence Regiment. I cast those remarks back into his teeth. I strongly consider that the view of the people of Northern Ireland should be stated in the House today. I will leave the matter there.
Hon. Members heard pleas for democracy today, not least from the Secretary of State. I stand appalled that the Secretary of State had the audacity to go to the Dispatch Box and make a plea to the representatives of the majority community in Northern Ireland now to yield to democracy. Let us look at the record of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and at what successive British Governments have done for democracy in Northern Ireland. If ever democracy in Ulster has been slaughtered, it has been slaughtered by politicians on both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) spoke with great feeling. He vividly and dramatically traced the
538
change of attitude, change of face and, to Ulster Unionists, the right about-turn in the Conservative party's commitment to Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. I remember asking the Prime Minister whether she believed that any other Government but her Government, any other Parliament but this Parliament and any other people but the people of Northern Ireland have the right to decide the future government of Northern Ireland. She affirmed that her Government, this Parliament and the people of Northern Ireland were the only people who should be concerned with the government of Northern Ireland.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was hatched without any effort to deal with Unionist opposition. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) quoted the words of a prominent civil servant who said that the Government could not just have listened to the words of the Unionists, for they would have objected. What is the Anglo-Irish Agreement? It is an agreement to have a conference at which everything in regard to the government of Northern Ireland is discussed in secrecy by the representatives of Her Majesty's Government and of the Dublin Government. The representatives of this Government have given a clear undertaking that they will seek agreement where there is disagreement. Also, boards in Northern Ireland have some little authority, but the South of Ireland has the right to suggest who should serve on those boards, but representatives in this House from Northern Ireland have no right or authority to do any such thing.
Democracy in Northern Ireland has been killed by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The hon. Member for Eastbourne is right. It delivered to the Anglo-Irish Conference representatives from Dublin the rights of the nationalist representatives who should have been fighting the case for their own people.
We are told that the Unionists are paralysed, that they have nothing to offer. The Unionists have put their proposals to the Secretary of State. I have a letter from the Prime Minister in which she admits that they are concrete, constructive proposals, yet they are now forgotten. We are not paralysed. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said something that I hope will go to the hearts of all hon. Members. He said that democracy will be destroyed in Northern Ireland if the ballot box is not listened to. The ballot box is not being listened to. The House has tried to destroy the ballot box in Northern Ireland. That is why people are reticent about voting. They ask, "What is the use of voting, when election victories do not bring us any nearer to being listened to?" Those are the facts that the House has to face.
My plea is simple. The Government should say, "We took a wrong turning. We should have consulted the majority. Let us lay aside the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the working of Maryfield. Let the people who really feel that something can be got to satisfy at least the majority of the people on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland have a say. Let the parties come together and discuss, not in the cage of the Anglo-Irish Agreement but in freedom."
I will not negotiate at any table where the sword is drawn and is hanging over my head. I want to negotiate in freedom. That is all that the Ulster Unionist people ask. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot prolong my speech. I promised to sit down at 20 minutes to 7, and I shall keep my word.
6.41 pm
Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, I shall be extremely brief. The vision of the Anglo-Irish Agreement being a sword over anyone's head or a threat to anyone in Northern Ireland is a profound travesty of the truth. All the parties within Northern Ireland have the ability to take away from the Anglo-Irish Agreement those elements where the Government of the Republic have the right to intervene. They have the power by agreeing on a form of devolved government and on the powers that it should have. As the parties go to a devolved assembly in the North of Ireland, so they go away from the intergovernmental conference and Maryfield.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) did not listen carefully to what I said about the Ulster Defence Regiment. I said that it is an unfortunate but undeniable fact that the minority community does not regard the UDR as a peace-keeping force; indeed, it views the UDR in a much less favourable light than it does the Regular Army and the RUC. That is a fact. It is not a question whether it is something with which I agree or disagree, or which I purport to support or not to support. It is a tragedy that, when we want people to have confidence in the administration of security matters in Northern Ireland, the UDR is not acceptable. That is part of the challenge faced by the regiment and by the Government.
Mr. Gow: I think that it would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman could bring himself to say that he has confidence in the Ulster Defence Regiment.
Mr. McNamara: I believe that there is every potential for there being confidence in the UDR. I believe that many members of the regiment go out to do their duty correctly, properly and in a disciplined manner. Indeed, they do their duty courageously on many occasions. I do not deny that, but it does not take away from the fact that there have been bad apples in the barrel or from the fact that is not the way the regiment is seen by the nationalist community. That is the problem to which I was referring.
I shall not delay the House further. The Minister wishes to reply and we wish to know how he has been pursuing his investigations and his discussions with the parties.
6.44 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): In terms of membership of the House, I am among the most junior of those who have taken part in the debate. Yet this is the 11th debate on Northern Ireland in my time here, and I have attended them all. I think that the substance and the tone of the debate have been more constructive than any that I can remember.
The debate is set against a world that has changed since we discussed the subject 12 months ago. Perhaps the greatest change is reflected in the fact that we have had two elections in Northern Ireland in that time. As the debate is about democracy and about the governance of Northern Ireland, I turned to the election manifestos of the three main parties. I noted in the manifesto of the Official Ulster Unionist party that it wanted to give its representatives more control over a variety of matters affecting the day-to-day lives of the people. It went on to say that it wanted
"unrigged devolution of real power—now."
540
I welcome that statement. The debate has been in part about how we will enable the official Ulster Unionist party to implement that pledge that it made to all the Unionists who voted for it in the local elections.
I turned to the manifesto of the Democratic Unionist party and read:
"The DUP will work towards an alternative to and a replacement of the failed Agreement."
To be fair to the DUP, it went on to lay a precondition on talks, but I welcome the fact that it offered its supporters a commitment to work towards a new future.
Then I turned to the manifesto of the SDLP and I read:
"We believe that there is ample scope and opportunity for all politicians to enter into a dialogue, which can lead to serious negotiations about the creation of future structures that will settle our ancient quarrel. No surrender of principle or loss of face is necessary for that dialogue to take place."
As with the other quotations that I have read, from the Official Unionist manifesto and the DUP manifesto, I welcome that commitment also to the people who support the SDLP.
One thing that has changed since last we debated this subject is that all three major political parties in Northern Ireland have sought the support of the electorate on the basis of statements about the future that are constructive and that lay foundations upon which we can all build.
In a sense, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State perhaps set the agenda when he said in a speech on 14 February:
"What I want to see is the development of ways in which we can work together for the good of Northern Ireland, and I want to know how people feel we should proceed. We know that it makes sense to talk together, we know we can do it when the issues are important enough."
We come to the direct rule renewal debate in the fortunate position that the three main political parties in Northern Ireland, together with the Government, all recognise that there is a need to project forward, to care for the interests of the people of Northern Ireland and to talk. Perhaps I, above all of the ministerial team, can say that it is ironic that part of the debate has centred on the difficulty of talking, because talking has never been a problem to Ulstermen. Occasionally not talking has been a problem, but talking has never been construed as a difficulty with which Ulstermen have had to grapple. We have a fortunate basis on which to conduct the debate.
Unless it should be thought that manifestos were specially written for the occasion, I turn to something which the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said in a Radio Ulster talkback show on 4 April. He said:
"We can surely talk about matters of life and death without anybody suggesting that they have abandoned their principles."
I agree with him, and I think that the House agrees with him, too. That was the view expressed again by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) made a speech on 18 March to the Unionist Council annual general meeting. He said—I believe that I quote him correctly—
"The three Northern Ireland parties can and do make common cause on matters of common concern to those whom they represent. The latest example was Harland and Wolff when no exotic structures were required to enable us to put our case."
Mr. Molyneaux: That is right.
Mr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his endorsement that I have quoted him correctly.
Mr. Molyneaux: Another outstanding example was when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) promoted his Bill on disability. On that occasion he had the agreement and support of all the Northern Ireland parties in the House.
Mr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me and the House of that fact.
We welcome that view. We welcome the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley stating that view. We understand him when he says that he does not want exotic structures to enable the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to sit down together, and together with Government, to think ahead. I do not offer the right hon. Gentleman any exotic strucures this evening. However, I offer him the opportunity to sit down and to look at those matters of common concern. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that, if the jobs of a section of Northern Ireland were important enough to bring the parties together with Government for the common good —the future governance of Northern Ireland and the future of the people whom he and other hon. Gentlemen represent in Northern Ireland and whom the Government seek to govern fairly and to the best of their ability—surely there is enough concern for that common cause to seek to build constructively on the example that the right hon. Gentleman himself has set.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Mawhinney: Forgive me, but I will not give way, because I have a number of points to answer.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said that he wanted us to build structures. We want to build structures, but, again, we offer him no exotic structures from which to start. We want him and his colleagues to contribute to that building process. We are ready, if he is. I could not help but notice that part of his speech in which he reflected on many discussions that he has had with Northern Ireland Ministers over the years. He pointed out that they were speeches of a constructive nature. I ask him if the time has not come to start that constructive dialogue again.
I understood the points made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I know that he holds strongly to his view. He knows that I do not share it, but I do not disregard the strength or the sincerity of it. However, I must say that the logic of his case should impel him to the table rather than away from it. If he does not believe that democracy is safe in the hands of the Government, without any restraint in Northern Ireland— a proposition which I do not share—the best way in which he can protect the democratic interests of his people is to sit down and see how in his terms that democracy may be bolstered.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was an impediment, and that was a view reflected by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are fully committed to the agreement and to the principles that it embodies, but we have agreed that, if it were to appear that the objectives of the agreement could be more effectively served by
542
changes in the scope and nature of the working of the conference, consistent with the basic provisions and the spirit of the agreement, the two Governments—not just this Government—would be ready in principle to consider such changes. I believe that, when he reads his and my speeches tomorrow, he will see that I have answered the point that he raised.
The issue is not just about talking, though it is worth noting in passing that since we last met to debate this issue, the Archbishop of Armagh, the Moderator of the Presbyterian church, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Down and Connor and the chairman of the Police Federation have all made their contributions to suggesting that the time for talking has now come. The issue is not about talking. The issue is not even ideas about the future. Those who have said in the debate that there are plenty of ideas about the future governance of Northern Ireland are right. We are coming down with ideas. When we get around the table, it will be weighed down with ideas. Ideas are not the problem.
The problem is political will. Northern Ireland has not got where it is today because the leadership of the main parties took a view similar to that of Mr. Micawber, who simply hung around hoping that something would turn up. Positive leadership was offered—leadership that was designed to effect change and to build and shape a future. I put it to the House that it is that leadership and that political will—or perhaps the absence of it—which are the only things now stopping the people of Northern Ireland being represented around the table so that their future can be considered. That future is at the heart of our debate.
Since we last debated the matter, we have seen politicans of note and ability leaving the Province. Mr. Currie, Mr. Cushnahan and Mr. Millar have left.
Mr. Seamus Mallon: What about Vauxhall?
Mr. Mawhinney: Ms. Hoey left too.
My general point is that, whatever hon. Members thought of those men, they were all seen as political leaders in Northern Ireland. They were all representatives of the next generation of political leadership. Like those politicans, the young people of Northern Ireland are also leaving. It is not just the political leaders who are leaving, but the future engineers, scientists and entrepreneurs. Young people are leaving because they do not see a future. They look back over the last 20 years and they ask themselves, "Do the next 20 years have to be the same or can they be more constructive?"
The next 20 years can be more constructive. There is a mood in the Province—
Mr. Mallon: No word for those who have stayed.
Dr. Mawhinney: Those who have stayed are playing their part. They have had their recognition at the ballot box and that recognition from the public is worth more than recognition from me.
The future of the Province concerns all the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke about the need to live together in mutual respect and harmony, cheek by jowl. It is now time to move that process forward and, in the meantime, I commend the order to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 156, Noes 8.

Division No. 259]

[7 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Forth, Eric

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Fox, Sir Marcus

Amos, Alan

Freeman, Roger

Arbuthnot, James

French, Douglas

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Gardiner, George

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Gill, Christopher

Bidwell, Sydney

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Boswell, Tim

Gow, Ian

Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bowis, John

Gregory, Conal

Brazier, Julian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Ground, Patrick

Buck, Sir Antony

Hague, William

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Burt, Alistair

Hanley, Jeremy

Butterfill, John

Hannam, John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Haselhurst, Alan

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Carrington, Matthew

Hind, Kenneth

Cash, William

Hordern, Sir Peter

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

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

Chapman, Sydney

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

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

Hunt, David (Wirral W)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hunter, Andrew

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Irvine, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Jack, Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Janman, Tim

Corbett, Robin

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Cormack, Patrick

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Cran, James

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

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

Knapman, Roger

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Devlin, Tim

Knox, David

Dixon, Don

Lawrence, Ivan

Dorrell, Stephen

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Dunn, Bob

Lightbown, David

Durant, Tony

Lilley, Peter

Evennett, David

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Favell, Tony

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Fearn, Ronald

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fishburn, John Dudley

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

544

McNamara, Kevin

Shelton, Sir William

Mans, Keith

Sims, Roger

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Mates, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Maude, Hon Francis

Steen, Anthony

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Stern, Michael

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stevens, Lewis

Miller, Sir Hal

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Mills, Iain

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Mitchell, Sir David

Summerson, Hugo

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Moss, Malcolm

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Nicholls, Patrick

Thorne, Neil

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Norris, Steve

Viggers, Peter

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Page, Richard

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Paice, James

Waller, Gary

Patnick, Irvine

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Wareing, Robert N.

Pike, Peter L.

Warren, Kenneth

Porter, David (Waveney)

Watts, John

Portillo, Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wilkinson, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Wilshire, David

Riddick, Graham

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Roe, Mrs Marion

Wood, Timothy

Rowe, Andrew

Sackville, Hon Tom

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shaw, David (Dover)

Mr. David Maclean and

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Mr. John M. Taylor.

NOES

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Skinner, Dennis

Cohen, Harry

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Kilfedder, James

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Tellers for the Noes:

Nellist, Dave

Mr. Roy Beggs and

Paisley, Rev Ian

Mr. Peter Robinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland)
Mr. Speaker: It might be helpful if I made it clear that the debate on this order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Police and security are the principal excluded subjects.
7.12 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 8th June, be approved.
On 8 March the House voted on account for 1989–90 sums totalling £1,669 million and the present draft order authorises further expenditure totalling £2,195 million. Taken together with the relevant appropriations in aid, these sums constitute the voted elements of Northern Ireland Departments' expenditure total of £4,951 million as shown in the public expenditure White Paper. Expenditure on law and order, amounting to £626 million in 1989–90, is outside this total, being included in Estimates laid for the Northern Ireland Office by the Treasury.
A key objective of the financial expenditure provided by these Estimates is that of strengthening the economy, and during the last year there have been a number of encouraging developments in this respect. Over the last six months unemployment has been falling at an average rate of 600 per month, and growth in employment has been accompanied by growth in output. The latest figures show that output of the production and manufacturing sectors increased by 6 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively between the fourth quarters of 1987 and 1988. The arrangements announced in recent months for the future of Harland and Wolff and Shorts help to remove uncertainty about major industries in the Province, while substantial new investment by the Korean company Daewoo in Antrim and the French Company Montupet, close to west Belfast, will contribute to reducing the dependence of the Northern Ireland economy on an old and narrow industrial base.
With an ample supply of young people coming into the labour market in the next few years, Northern Ireland provides an excellent opportunity for inward investment which is increasingly being recognised in other parts of the United Kingdom, the European Community and further afield. The public expenditure provision that we are debating is designed to strengthen the foundations on which all the people of Northern Ireland can face the future with greater confidence.
The services to which public expenditure is to he devoted during the current year are, as usual, detailed in the Northern Ireland Estimates. I should, however, like to draw attention to a number of particular matters arising in the case of each department. Provision for agriculture is divided into two-vote I, relating to support measures which are applied throughout the United Kingdom; and vote 2, in respect of measures that apply to Northern Ireland only. Under the first, provision is being made for expenditure of over £7 million under the recently introduced farm and conservation grant scheme and the farm woodland scheme. I am also pleased to say that
546
farmers have been responding positively to the investment opportunities provided within vote 2 by the agriculture development programme revived last year.
The three votes for the Department of Economic Development cover a wide range of provision for industry, investment, employment and training. I remind the House of the importance that the Government attach to the promotion of equality of opportunity of employment in Northern Ireland, and our determination that the Fair Employment Bill, which has already completed its passage through this House, should constitute a powerful and effective weapon against discrimination in the work place. This process will be greatly assisted if the number of available jobs increases, and we have taken a number of positive steps towards that end. Some £93 million is being provided through the Industrial Development Board for selective financial assistance to industry and £16 million is required for the provision and maintenance of industrial land and buildings as part of our efforts to attract new inward investment.
I am pleased to say that one third of the total of more than 5,600 new job promotions through the board last year, itself a record number, related to projects involving investment from outside the Province. In the last financial year, the Local Enterprise Development Unit also promoted in excess of 5,000 jobs, bringing to almost 40,000 the total number of such jobs promoted since the unit was established in 1976. An allocation of almost £30 million is now being sought to meet LEDU's job promotion target of 5,500 in the current year.
Vote 3 includes a wide range of measures for the encouragement of enterprise, the provision of training and work experience, and support for the labour market. This year a number of important changes have been made. In order to ensure that every unemployed young person under the age of 18 is guaranteed a training place, £37 million is being sought for the youth training programme to provide a total of approximately 14,000 training places in all. For those in the 18-to-24 age group, the previous qualifying period of 12 months unemployment for entry into the action for community employment scheme, or ACE, has been reduced to six months, and £50 million is accordingly being sought to enable the scheme to provide an average of 10,000 jobs over the current year. For longer-term unemployed adults between the ages of 18 and 60, the job training programme is being expanded to 2,500 places during 1989–90 by the provision of £6·7 million; and 500 of these training places are to be provided within the Making Belfast Work programme. This package should not only offer greater hope to the unemployed, but make an important contribution to the continuing economic recovery through a well-trained work force.
Finally, with regard to DED expenditure, I should explain the situation regarding assistance to the aircraft and ship building industries. The privatisation of Harland and Wolff is now expected in the early autumn. Within vote 2, the £60 million already contained in the public expenditure plans will provide support to the company in the interim and help meet part of the costs of the management buy-out. The full costs will, however, be somewhat higher, and it is our intention to seek additional provision at the Supplementary Estimate stage when the arrangements have been finalised. With regard to Short Brothers, hon. Members will recall that £390 million was provided during March, within the last financial year, but the sale of the company to Bombardier, for which heads of

547
agreement were signed two weeks ago, will require further Government funding, the phasing of which is not yet settled.
Details of the additional provision required in 1989–90 will be put before the House at the earliest opportunity. I am sure that the House will understand that the complexity of the arrangements for Harland and Wolff and for Shorts are such that it has not been possible to achieve full definition in time for provision to be included in these main Estimates, but we are committed to the provision of the necessary funding to enable these two great enterprises to return to private ownership with their finances in a healthy condition.
For the Department of the Environment, an additional £8 million is included under vote 1 this year in the roads programme for extending the structural maintenance of carriageways and footways in the Province. The Belfast cross-harbour road and rail bridges projects are planned to start in 1991, and £5·5 million is accordingly being sought to enable land and property acquisition to proceed.
The Department of the Environment vote 2 covers the important sector of housing, for which £220 million is required, mainly to provide finance for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and for the voluntary housing movement. The House will recognise that commendable progress has been made in dealing with Northern Ireland's housing problems in recent years, but more needs to be done and this is reflected in the Government's public expenditure contribution to housing of some £310 million this year, within a total gross budget of almost £545 million.
I should also like to draw attention to the fact that £32 million is included in the Department's vote 4 for urban regeneration. These measures are aimed primarily at improving the economic and environmental condition of areas suffering from urban dereliction. An important element of this policy is the encouragement of partnership between Government and the private sector, exemplified by the urban development grant scheme in which each £1 of public money generates approximately £3 of private finance.
Provision for education this year amounts to £891 million. To ensure effective delivery of the education reforms, which are crucially important for young people, as well as for the future economic and social progress of the Province, an additional £30 million is being made available over the next three years, the first tranche of which is included in these Estimates. These enhanced resources will support the implementation of the reforms in a variety of ways, including extra specialist accommodation and equipment for schools. Teachers, too, have an essential part to play in the reforms. The provision in vote 1 is therefore set to cover extra in-service training for teachers, while allowing the pupil-teacher ratio to be maintained at its level of 18·3.
Grants to universities and awards to students are based on the principle of maintaining broad parity of provision with Great Britain, and within education's vote 2 some £109 million covers expenditure on Northern Ireland's two universities, on the Open university and on teacher training. In addition to money for arts and museums, youth, sport and community services, this year an additional £2 million is being provided within this vote for the initiative to help promote community relations in Northern Ireland, which was launched by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) in
548
February. This includes £250,000 to expand the already successful cross-community contact scheme, which brings together young people from the two communities, and £1 million for the cultural traditions programme, announced last week, which will provide support for cultural heritage and traditions through the museums, the Arts Council and local history, heritage and cultural groups. The additional funding will also cover the establishment of the new community relations centre announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough last Monday, to assist district councils in the development of community relations projects and to enable other bodies to expand their programmes in this sector.
We are also providing for capital expenditure of about £62 million on education projects. This will enable a programme of new building works to commence, and we have already announced the start of nine major school projects in 1989–90. Meanwhile, a contribution of nearly £3 million to the Making Belfast Work initiative will include capital development at White Rock adult education centre, provision of three new nursery schools and a major school-industry links project, all aimed at improving opportunities in the inner city.
The Government have also increased funding to the five education and library boards that are responsible for the main education services in Northern Ireland. This year we are providing £279 million, an increase of 9 per cent. over last year's figure. This includes an important addition of £7 million for spending on school maintenance, bringing the total for maintenance of building and grounds to an estimated £19 million this year. There is also a special injection of £4 million to improve standards of provision in the classroom.
The bulk of the provision of £836 million for vote I in the Department of Health and Social Services this year will be devoted to maintaining existing services. It is also designed to cover some important developments in regional medical services—for example, in respect of neo-natal intensive care, cardiac surgery, frequent treatment for renal failure and additional breast and cervical cancer screening. The £37 million included for capital expenditure will permit the continuation of a substantial programme of works, including development of a major new area hospital at Antrim and completion of the new block at the Mater in Belfast. This funding will also allow work to commence on the construction of a new geriatric unit at Londonderry and on the extension of the cardiology services at the Royal Victoria hospital.
I hope that these comments on the main items of expenditure will have been helpful to hon. Members, and I commend the order to the House.
7.24 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: I thank the Minister for taking us carefully and thoroughly through the main items of expenditure. I do not intend to follow the path that he has laid out, but it was useful to have those items spelled out so clearly. I am sure that the House will agree with that sentiment.
I noticed that the Minister, like the Secretary of State earlier today, drew attention to the Government's economic achievements. As on previous occasions, I am prepared to concede that there have been economic successes. However, it is as well to remember that the Province remains the most economically deprived and

549
backward of any of the regions. No matter which economic indicators one takes, those in Northern Ireland are below the national average.
Because of the economic measures that the Government have had to take to control inflation, throughout the United Kingdom economy in the next year the outlook is less buoyant, and this applies particularly to Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that the expected slowdown in the United Kingdom economy as a result of Government measures will present major economic difficulties in Northern Ireland. This emphasises the vulnerability of the Northern Ireland economy to any downturn in the national economic activity, and highlights the need for the Government and the private sector to consolidate economic achievements and advancements.
Both Ministers and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about the level of unemployment. The Government praised themselves, and rightly, for the fall in unemployment over the past 18 months or so, but 15·5 per cent. unemployment is still unacceptably high. Male unemployment is even higher, at 19 per cent. Far more has to be done, through public expenditure, private expenditure and attracting further investment to the Province, if we are to make a real and sustained attack on high unemployment.
The Government repeatedly tell us of the triumphs of inward investment. I do not wish to decry that, whether it comes from France, Japan or Canada, but there is a theory, leaving those big industrial investments aside, that many of the smaller investments are creating jobs that are low-scale, part-time, predominantly for female workers and at the bottom of the technology ladder. Nevertheless, they are welcome. If Northern Ireland is to have a prosperous future, it needs above all highly technical jobs for highly skilled people so that it can compete not just in the United Kingdom economy but in the broader European single market economy post-1992.
There is also a fear that the privatisation of Shorts, which the Government consider a triumph, could lead to further job losses, particularly in the high skill sector. If that happens, it will be to the detriment not just of the economy of Belfast but of Northern Ireland as a whole and the island of Ireland.
Having referred briefly to the general economic situation, I want to refer to more specific spending areas. I want to spend some time, but not a great deal of time, in discussing spending programmes in social security, health and housing.
The Minister will know that pensioners in Northern Ireland did not greet the recent statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security with universal acclaim, and the Minister will know the reasons for that. They found it difficult to understand how the Secretary of State could say:
"It is simply no longer true that being a pensioner tends to mean being badly off. For most people retirement is now a time to look forward to with confidence."
I wish that that was so in the North of Ireland. The Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should remind the Secretary of State for Social Security that in Northern Ireland two thirds of pensioner households still rely on state and other benefits for most of their income.
550
The Secretary of State for Social Services should also tell pensioners in Northern Ireland that a single pensioner is £10 a week worse off and a married couple £16 a week worse off under this Government than they would have been if the Government had not abolished the link between earnings and pensions. Pensioners in the North of Ireland certainly find it difficult to understand this new-found access to wealth which the Government claim that they have miraculously achieved over the past 10 years.
In an earlier debate my colleagues and I warned the Government that the changes in social security benefits were inadequate to protect living standards. Unfortunately, I must remind the House, although I take no pleasure in saying this, that my prediction has come true. The Minister will be aware that a recent survey by the citizens advice bureaux in Northern Ireland showed the way in which those changes were adversely affecting many people in Northern Ireland. The survey showed clearly that income support is not sufficient to compensate for the loss of additional requirements, single payments and the necessity to pay the first 20 per cent. of rates. It also showed that housing benefit was almost universally reduced for all groups of claimants and that 88 per cent. of those surveyed had lost their entitlement altogether. I believe that the Government's social security policy continues cruelly to pay scant regard to the needs of the least well off members of our community. That is as apparent in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I want now to consider health. The estimates provide for an increase of only 3·5 per cent. in health spending on the outturn for 1988–89. If we bear in mind, as I am sure that the House will, the fact that, overall, inflation is running at 8·5 per cent. while internal inflation in the NHS is much higher than that, we do not need to be geniuses to understand the implications of the figures. They mean that the service will come under increased pressure and that more cuts will have to be made.
I reminded the House in an earlier debate that the health profile in the North of Ireland compares unfavourably with all other regions in the United Kingdom. A statistic which underlines that is that Northern Ireland has the worst infant mortality rate in the United Kingdom, with 10.4 deaths per 1,000—that is the figure for 1986, which, I understand, is the last year for which figures are available. That figure and all the other socio-economic indicators of deprivation show that the Government should be providing more money for health in the North of Ireland.
If we consider the fabric of the hospitals in Northern Ireland, it is obvious that many hospitals are in a disgraceful state of disrepair. The Minister and the House will recall that the Ceri Davis report estimated that it would cost between £18 million and £20 million to clear the backlog of maintenance in the Royal group of hospitals alone. Over the past three or four years the Royal group has been able to spend only £1·8 million on maintenance. It is estimated that the Craigavon area hospital requires £·5 million to be spent on its fabric. I am sure that hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland can highlight hospitals in their areas which urgently require additional expenditure on repairs and maintenance.

551
Having made one or two general statements about the Health Service, I want to put several specific questions to the Minister which refer in particular to Belfast city hospital.
Why have two operating theatres at the Belfast city hospital been closed since Monday 5 June, and to my knowledge still remain closed, when the waiting list for operations at the hospital is more than 3,000? That waiting list includes 945 for vascular surgery, 768 for urology, 300 for gynaecology, 817 for ear, nose and throat and 525 for general surgery. Why have the number of intensive care beds at the Belfast city hospital been reduced by 50 per cent.? I understand that there are now four out of eight intensive care beds in use.
I want the Minister to comment next on a rumour, although he may he loth to do so. Will he comment on the rumour that 30 per cent. of the bed complement at the Belfast city general hospital is to close within three months? Rumour has it that two paediatric wards are to close with the loss of 47 beds; two gynaecological wards are to close with the loss of 30 beds; the Jubilee maternity unit is to close with the loss of 64 beds; one neo-natal ward is to close with the loss of 15 beds; and an accident and emergency unit is to close with the loss of 15 beds.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as so many beds appear to be becoming available, it seems nonsense to squander more than £40 million on a new hospital in Antrim?
Mr. Marshall: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I have been involved in arguments like that from time to time. However, I do not want that argument to be drawn into the specific questions to which I am seeking answers now. I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) will put his point to the Minister if he has an opportunity to do so—although hopefully not at too great length. I repeat that I have been referring to a rumour. However, I understand that it is a rumour with solid foundations, and I should like to hear the Minister's reply to my points.
I notice that the Minister praised the Government's achievements in housing. He will recall that in previous debates I have concurred with the praise that has been heaped on the Government's shoulders. But the Estimates show that, good though the progress has been, the funds being made available are still insufficient to meet the demand. If my reading of the Estimates is correct, they show an overall reduction in proposed expenditure of 11 per cent. compared with the 1988–89 provision.
Again, if I have read the Estimates correctly, the housing grant to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is down 9 per cent. and renovations and enveloping grants are down 29 per cent. This is at a time when the Housing Executive is having additional responsibility imposed upon it by recent legislation to meet the housing needs of the homeless. Further finance is required if we are to bring the general level of the housing stock in the Province up to the standard that is found in England.
A great deal still remains to he done. To put that into perspective, let me remind the Minister of one or two statistics. In Northern Ireland, 8·4 per cent. of dwelling stock is deemed to be unfit compared with 4·9 per cent. in England, and 5·5 per cent. of its dwelling stock lacks one or more basic amenities, compared with 2·5 per cent. in
552
England. Those statistics show that the money needed to rectify the neglect by undertaking repairs and new build is virtually double that required in England.
Having made those general points, let me make two specific points. The first may seem small, but I intend to make it. Why is the grant to the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations and the National Housing Association been reduced from £66,000 to £55,000? That may seem a negligible figure in the overall context of the budget, but it is vital to those two bodies. That reduction seems petty in the light of the Government's commitment to the voluntary housing movement.
Secondly, the Government are giving priority to community care projects in the housing association sector. The Minister will be aware that the Government agreed to provide the bridging finance for such projects until funds were released as a result of the closure of acute beds and other hospital facilities. Those two aspects are no longer synchronised because the finance has not been released from the closure of beds and other facilities. In reality, housing money is being spent on community care projects instead of straight housing. When will that situation be rectified?
Northern Ireland still faces daunting social and economic problems, many of which can be tackled only with continuing and increasing high levels of public expenditure. Ministers in Northern Ireland are, to their credit, more successful than their counterparts in other Departments in obtaining finance, and they are to he congratulated on that. Nevertheless, I urge them to redouble their efforts and to argue more vociferously and stongly with their Treasury colleagues to obtain increased public expenditure for Northern Ireland so that we can begin to take greater steps forward in alleviating the social and economic problems that undoubtedly still exist in the North of Ireland.
7.44 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), especially on the social and economic problems that face the Province. They can be resolved only by a high level of public expenditure. It is no use the Government saying that they are against massive public expenditure because Northern Ireland, on the periphery of the United Kingdom, needs vast amounts of public money to be invested in it.
I urge the Government to deal without further delay with the appalling number of temporary classrooms which exist in North Down. That is just one example of what is required in Northern Ireland. I am sure that North Down is not unique and that there are plenty of temporary classrooms elsewhere in Northern Ireland.
Every penny spent on our young people is money well spent. We must invest in them and in their future. In doing so, we invest in the future of Northern Ireland and in everybody in the Province, Protestant and Catholic. It is fitting that children should have a proper place in which to receive their education. It is no use their being taught in what I would describe as pre-fab classrooms whose "temporary" existence has, in many cases, lasted a great number of years.
The hon. Gentleman referred to pensioners. There must be more than 10 million pensioners in the United

553
Kingdom, about 5 million of whom are below or just above the poverty line. As a result of the Social Security Act 1988, which I opposed in the Division Lobby, millions of pensioners have become even worse off with considerable cuts in their rent and rates rebates.
The recent increase in the retirement pension, amounting to approximately £1·65 a week, was insulting to our senior citizens. The only way to ensure justice for pensioners is to restore the link betweeen pensions and wages. That would mean an increase of at least £10 a week for a single pensioner, bringing the United Kingdom into line with some European countries which pay their pensioners double what is paid to the British pensioner.
The pensioner in Northern Ireland may suffer more than his counterpart elsewhere in Britain. The cost of living in Northern Ireland is higher than in England and electricity is more expensive. Elderly people need heat, so they consume a considerable amount of electricity in order to heat their homes. About two thirds of pensioners in the United Kingdom are women. Many of them are widows and quite a number live alone.
The Government should make every effort to ensure that pensioners can live their retirement years in comfort and dignity. They could ease the lot of women pensioners to some extent by allowing them to have free transport at the age of 60, when they qualify as pensioners, rather than having to wait until their husband retires at the age of 65.
More could be done for pensioners by providing free television licences, or at least by giving them a concessionary rate. I have been raising that matter in the House for the past 21 years. Some pensioners who live in dwellings with a warden pay £5 a year for their colour television licence, while others who may live just a street away have to pay the full £65. That anomaly is unacceptable in this day and age. The only way to deal with the injustice is to give all pensioners a colour television licence, either free or at a greatly reduced cost.
I shall not elaborate on the unemployed in the Province as the hon. Member for Leicester, South has covered the issues so eloquently. He mentioned that employment in Northern Ireland is currently 15·5 per cent. For statisticians, that is just a figure and does not convey any of the hardship involved in the dole queue. More than half the unemployed in Northern Ireland are long-term unemployed. They find it almost impossible to be considered for a job vacancy. The stress and hardship of being unemployed is acute. That is easily discovered by talking to an unemployed person whether he is old, young or has just left school.
I think in particular of the young people in the Province who are full of idealism and eager to become wage earners after they leave school. Many have to endure the dole queue or take a job which in no way provides an opportunity or a challenge to their capabilities. The youth training programme goes some way to soften the blow, but it does not resolve the problem and if one dwells too much on the programme one ignores the problem. We must do more to create jobs in Northern Ireland.
The IRA is waging war which is aimed in part at destroying the economic life of Ulster, and it is partnered in this evil work by Noraid which is campaigning in the United States for the states in America to adopt the MacBride principle. That campaign must have frightened
554
many American investors from investing in Northern Ireland. Of course, its purpose is, jointly with the IRA, to destroy the economic base of Northern Ireland. I am sure that the Minister will agree that not one job has been created in Northern Ireland by the MacBride principle's campaign, but that campaign has robbed a great many Ulster people, young and old, of jobs that could have been created in the Province. That message needs to be conveyed to people in America, especially to state legislatures which adopt the principles as in doing so they are creating hardship in Northern Ireland. They must accept that. The only way to deal with it is to defeat it in the state legislatures and to make sure that money is invested in all parts of Northern Ireland for all people in the Province.
Last week, when the Secretary of State made his statement about Shorts, I repeated the appeal that I made in the House nine months before—according to the Secretary of State he had never heard it before, although I made it in his presence—that instead of English Ministers going to America, there should be an all-party delegation of Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland who could speak directly to people in America about the jobless in the Province and get jobs for all parts of the Province, including Strabane and other black areas in Northern Ireland.
There are many good aspects of the Province and I am sorry that the media, particularly television, carry an awful image of Northern Ireland abroad. Tourism is essential to Northern Ireland. Fortunately, despite the IRA's vicious campaign of terrorism, many foreigners visit the Province, although not in the numbers who came before the present violence. Perhaps when the Minister replies to the debate, he will deal with the subject. He set up a committee to review tourism in the Province. Perhaps he could say when the report is likely to be published. Everything must be done to enhance the image of the Province. In doing so, not only will we attract tourists from abroad, as well as from England and Scotland, but we will help to improve the prospect of investment in the Province.
Tourism requires good roads. The local people, industry and commerce require good roads especially as 1992 and the single European market approaches and 1993 when the Channel tunnel opens, which will bring the hordes from France, Germany and Spain into Britain. I hope that some of them will come to Northern Ireland. Capital expenditure on roads in Northern Ireland has dropped by 50 per cent. in the past ten years, while it has almost doubled in other parts of the United Kingdom. Although I am sure that he will not be able to answer the question now, perhaps the Minister will look into the matter of the Belfast-Bangor road. When will it be updated? When will it be made into a dual carriageway to take the enormous traffic between Bangor and Belfast.
Mentioning roads is like mentioning trees, because it leads me to talk about dogs. Dog control has caused widespread debate throughout Britain, with more reports of terrible attacks by ferocious animals. In Northern Ireland, the number of stray dogs does not seem to have been affected by the requirement of a dog licence with a substantial fee. The number of stray dogs in Bangor seems to be on the increase and the present law is not being enforced properly. Dog excrement is to be found on pavements everywhere, on the grass where children play, on the beaches and on the piers. It is time for the law to be amended.

555
Owners should be required to register all dogs by means of a simple injection of a transponder under the skin of the dog which will give a unique number when read by a reading device. Dogs cannot be controlled effectively without such registration. Dogs without a transponder could then be rounded up.
It seems fashionable nowadays to keep ferocious dogs. Perhaps it is part of a macho image which some people wish to project and certainly special attention should be given to the danger presented by such animals to old people and young people. I read in the local paper, the County Down Spectator, last week of a couple of young children who were exceedingly frightened by a doberman on the beach at Ballyholme esplanade. The Minister will agree that more people are needed to control dogs. Although it is a matter for local government some guidance helps and perhaps finance will be given and some of the unemployed could be used to round up stray dogs in Bangor.
I turn to one of the problems faced by traders in Bangor and in the North Down borough council area. I urge the Government to investigate the matter of trade waste collection. Traders in the North Down borough council area have been told by the council that they must pay enormous sums to have waste collected from outside their premises. The council states that it is required by the Department of the Environment to make what I regard as exorbitant charges. It says that it has no alternative. My advice to the traders was that they should arrange to have their waste collected privately. I am sure that they could do that for half the cost charged by the council. Traders already pay colossal sums in rates. The rates in the North Down area must be more expensive than in many other parts of Northern Ireland and I do not see why the traders should be further penalised.
As the hon. Member for Leicester, South mentioned, there is an urgent need for additional expenditure on hospitals in the Province. The waiting lists are intolerably long. I receive many complaints of patients waiting for an operation. I refer them to the Eastern health board or to the appropriate Stormont department which then refers them to the health board. Bare figures do not convey the stress imposed on patients waiting for treatment. In fact, there is more than stress because there is often pain and the relatives have to suffer, watching the person in pain and agony.
I must also mention the charge for eye tests introduced by the Government and their proposal for a two-tier eye examination. I received a letter from an optometrist who lives in Bangor in my constituency. He said that he and his colleagues are appalled by what the Government have done. In rebutting what the Secretary of State for Health said a short while ago, he said:
"It is impossible to prescribe spectacles by refraction alone."
The Secretary of State said that is a cheap way of providing an eye test. He goes on to add:
"Around 5 to 10 per cent. of my patients are referred … via their family doctor due to suspected ocular or systemic disease. Some may be sight threatening, others life threatening, and in the majority the patient come for routine examination with no symptoms that could be directly related to the cause of referral without further investigation. Many ocular diseases do not affect visual acuity and the patient would be unaware."
Finally, he said:
"it has been suggested that a healthy young man does not need a full eye examination for a pair of spectacles. It is not young men who will take advantage of a cheaper sight test
556
—it will be the pensioner who is not eligible for a free eye examination but is still on the limits of poverty which account for a high percentage of patients. It is also impossible for a young man to tell whether his eyes are healthy—only the optometrist or ophthalmic medical practitioner can give such assurances."
I mention that subject and quote from the letter so that the Government are made aware of a problem that they have created. I hope that they will review what they have done, because I would hate to think that the eyes and health of people will suffer.
8.4 pm
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: Once again, I take this opportunity to object to the method in which this iniquitous order is imposed upon the Province. In my view, it is morally wrong and completely indefensible that elected representatives cannot subscribe in a tangible way to the needs of their constituents under the terms in which the order is made. To illustrate my concern, I should like to bring to the attention of the Government and the Minister some matters under the various sections outlined in the order.
I have spoken many times in the House during the presentation of the orders of my concern for the Alliance areas in Protestant Ardoyne in north Belfast. The Minister will know that that interface is divided by an unsightly corrugated iron fence. He will also know that there was a proposal to erect an environmental wall to replace that monstrosity. There was also a proposal to carry out some judicious planting in the area and then to have some limited building as a means of restoring confidence and encouraging people to return. That proposal has now been abandoned, as has the proposal to build a sheltered complex in the same area. The proposal came from a well-known housing association and, as far as I am aware, the Government leaned on the association and said that they were not giving permission for building there.
I have heard from sources within the Housing Executive that the area is of low priority. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that a blatant policy of discrimination is being waged against that beleaguered community in the hope that the people will be forced to leave. I request, as a matter of extreme urgency, that the Minister gives the matter his immediate attention and reverses the diabolical decision.
The Minister must also know that there are serious divisions within the Ardoyne community where many killings have taken place. When it is perceived by the Protestant residents there that such discrimination is being practised by the Housing Executive, the stage is set for a full-scale revolt. I know that many would welcome that, particularly those who could then justify a decision to do nothing because of unrest in the area.
I wish also to draw the Minister's attention to the blight that has been allowed to develop in the Cambrai-Ohio street area. I lay that directly at the feet of the civil servants who are supposed to run the housing branch in Stormont, because, as far as I am aware, they do not appear to know what is not being done in the area. The local housing association that has been working there for some years has been trying to obtain action on the project for about five years. It has had no success. There was some limited development by the Minister's predecessors in an effort to inroduce some stability into the area. However, because of the lack of progress since then, the area is now completely blighted.

557
I know that the Minister responsible is not on the Treasury Bench, but I hope that the Minister who is there will tell him of my plea. He should now leave his ivory tower and visit the two areas to see for himself what is going on. As he looks at the beautiful Catholic housing on the Crumlin road opposite the Ardoyne chapel and sees the excellent new build and rehabilitation schemes that have been provided in Catholic Ardoyne, I have a feeling that he will be forced to agree that there is justification for my accusations of blatant discrimination in the decisions affecting those areas.
I also want to voice the concern of the many reputable housing associations in matters concerning their future. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) touched on this matter. I am concerned that the decision to bring the associations under the control of the Housing Executive was a retrograde step. It gives the executive a role in the affairs of those associations that it should not have. It was evident that this role would be abused. The record of achievement by the associations in respect of price and quality, together with sound design, caused the executive extreme embarrassment. What was predictable has now happened. The executive is now depriving the associations of work in an effort to reduce their effectiveness.
What is more disturbing is that the executive now proposes to carry out this work itself. Department of Health and Social Services and community care programmes are specialised, necessitating high building and architectural skills. Such work was always the domain of the housing associations and cannot be carried out by the executive. Steps should be taken to allow the housing associations to pursue their aim of providing excellent schemes for the benefit of the whole community.
I am also most perturbed about the suggestions to close or amalgamate viable controlled schools in north Belfast. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who is responsible for education, has now left the Chamber. I was going to say to him that he always prided himself on his adherence to the concept of allowing parents a choice in selecting the schools that their children would attend. How does he square that with any proposals to interfere with the status of the Belfast model schools, where the overwhelming majority of parents have opted for those schools to provide their children's education?
On nursery schools, I noticed that the Minister has authorised the setting up in west Belfast of three of those necessary planks in formative education. That is at a time when the education authorities are withdrawing support for nursery education in my constituency of Belfast, North. I want to make the Minister aware that in one small community in my constituency there are 80 children on the waiting list, but only 26 places available. North Belfast is just as deprived in an educational sense as west Belfast. Its people suffer perhaps more than those in west Belfast from the results of the troubles. Its children have the same rights as those in west Belfast to nursery facilities. I hope that the Minister will take it upon himself to look at the whole question of nursery education as it relates to my constituency, with a view to redressing that glaring imbalance.
558
I will stay with my constituency and its problems of unemployment and lack of facilities. I am most disturbed about the large allocation of money being given to west Belfast, especially as that area is described incorrectly as north and west Belfast, which gives a completely false impression. I am concerned especially about the vast sums being channelled to community projects headed by Bishop Daly and Father Matt Wallace, when areas such as Black Mountain and Springmartin have been completely ignored.
I am also perturbed that the New Lodge has been given priority treatment when neighbouring Duncairn gardens and York road have been virtually forgotten. The impression in my constituency is that the Government are endeavouring to combat insurrection by throwing money at it and that Protestant north and west Belfast is not being considered seriously for much needed funding. There are many community projects that could be funded by the Belfast action teams or by "making Belfast work" money, and those projects should have immediate attention from those or similar agencies.
Another significant question that must be asked is why the Protestant areas of Ballysillan, Silverstream, Tyndale and Joanmount were deliberately excluded when the action teams drew up their territories, especially when it is recognised by everyone there that those areas are the most deprived. I request that another action team should be set up and appointed to look after those specific areas.
The small units being managed by the Industrial Development Board have proved successful in my constituency because they have given small companies the opportunity to create jobs and to subscribe to the community generally. I am appalled by the decision to increase rents by 40 per cent. If that decision is implemented, some of the units will inevitably be vacated, thereby creating unemployment and encouraging vandalism. The tenants have more than enough with which to contend and many of them are existing on a knife edge. I ask for an immediate investigation into that scandalous proposal, and I ask that steps be taken now to peg the rents at an acceptable level.
I draw the Government's attention to a problem in our Health Service which causes me great concern. I am referring to what are known as magnetic resonance scans, which are necessary to investigate orthopaedic problems. The only machines available to carry out such scans are in London or Dublin. My other area of concern is the lack of lithotrypter machines which can remove kidney and gall stones by high frequency sound waves. The only machines available are in Manchester and Dublin. The pain and suffering caused to patients who are forced to go to London and Dublin must be quite unbearable, apart from the costs involved. In 1988, 48 patients were sent to London for magnetic resonance scans at a cost of £32,015. So far in 1989, 43 patients have been sent and the number of requests is rising steadily. Patients are now being asked to go to London on the 7·15 am flight on Saturdays, as that is the only day available for them to be looked after in London. The irony is that in Belfast we have specially trained operators, but because of cuts in Health Service provision we have not purchased the necessary machines.
Mr. Kilfedder: What is the cost of the machine?
Mr. Walker: I do not know the exact price of the machines, but I understand that they are fairly expensive.

559
I was looking at the matter in the light of the suffering caused to people. I was also looking at it in relation to the fact that Dublin always pleads poverty, yet it can afford to have those machines. We also know that London has them. It would, of course, be difficult to send members of the security forces to Dublin for scans. Such scans are often required because of the orthopaedic problems cropping up in the security forces as a result of terrorist activities. I hope that the Minister will at least take my requests on hoard as an act of compassion. I can assure him that he will be helping many disabled prople to cope with a very painful condition.
On planning, I refer to the new shopping complex at Sprucefield roundabout. As the Minister knows, it was the subject of great controversy between the local planning service public representative and the Minister himself. It resulted in some mixed feelings in the business community, which has loyally supported Lisburn town and its population.
I am now concerned to hear that in an effort to widen the scope of their operations and to attract more customers than shop there now, entrepreneurs have descended on that rural area and are now in the process of considering the provision of small specialised retail units similar to those already existing in the Bow street complex. There is even a suggestion that those same nameless people are approaching landowners in the vicinity and offering to purchase their land at extremely high prices.
If there is any substance in those allegations, the Minister should be aware that such a proposal would be in direct contradiction to what has already been ruled, which is that no development would receive planning permission for a floor area of less than 30,000 sq ft unless it were for a garden centre, when the floor area would be reduced to 10,000 sq ft. I ask the Minister to confirm in his reply that that is the case and that he is not aware of any such proposal which would sound the death knell of the small business community in Lisburn, which is finding it increasingly difficult to make a living in the present economic climate.
8.20 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I wish to raise just three issues that arise from the order. I shall speak only briefly on the first. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to throw some light on this subject because it relates to his Department. I trust that if he is listening to my speech he will be able to say something about what progress has been made on the Harland and Wolff buy-out proposition. Many people imagined that because, in a flurry of publicity, the Secretary of State and the Minister announced a heads of agreement arrangement with Mr. Parker and with the Norwegian Mr. Fred Olsen, all the problems were over. However, many other issues remain to be resolved, principally those affecting the work force at Harland and Wolff. It would therefore be valuable if the House could hear an account of what progress has been made since the announcement was made in the House.
The second issue that I wish to raise follows directly from some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), whose closing remarks dealt with planning issues. By way of explanation, I should say that planning is dealt with far differently in Northern Ireland than it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. Local government in Northern Ireland has only a
560
consultative role in planning matters. The planning division of the Department of the Environment attends district council meetings with a schedule of planning applications on which it has indicated merely whet her it is recommending that approval should be given or that the application should be refused. The district council has the ability to make its opinion known to the planning department.
The planning department then reconsiders its initial recommendation against the backcloth of the council's opinion. It then arrives at a conclusion. Councils frequently ask the planning officer to reconsider the recommended verdict. Consistently in my experience—if experience varies in other parts of the Province I should be interested to hear it—the planning department simply reaffirms its original decision. That shows that the consultative process is merely a rubber-stamp exercise because the department reaches its decision, passes it under the council's nose, and then stamps it with either the approval or the rejection that it had originally intended.
That process also shows that there is only a small role for the elected representative. I must advise the Minister that it is those local elected representatives, most often acting without regard to party and on most occasions acting unanimously, who know what the local community thinks and feels about a planning application and who also know the way in which an application will affect the local community. Even when the planning officer returns, having reaffirmed his original opinion, the council can ask the planning directorate to review that decision.
In my local council I have seen that process eight or nine times and on each of those occasions the planning directorate has simply rubber-stamped the planning department's decision. On no occasion has the planning directorate changed its mind on the issue. That shows that local elected representatives do not have a worthwhile role in planning matters. The planning department must be encouraged to listen to the local elected representatives.
I shall give an example from the most recent meeting of my local council in Castlereagh. A Mr. Ewart, who has premises on the Ballygowan road, leading out towards Ballygowan and Moneyreagh, put in an application for a vehicle sales office. He submitted with his application the views of the local community by way of a petition which showed that the overwhelming feeling in the area was in favour of his proposition. There were no objections to his planning application. Many members of the council viewed the site and recognised that far from detracting from the area, the project would have improved the area and would have offered an added service to its people. If we are to have a planning service, whom is it serving if the local people and the local representatives want a facility, but the Department thinks that it knows better than everybody else?
That is the kind of bureaucracy that we have in Northern Ireland. I do not want to cover ground that should have been covered if we had the time to do so in the previous debate, but I must stress that there is no democracy in Northern Ireland if even the unanimous views of elected representatives can be pushed to one side while the views of faceless bureaucrats enjoy the overwhelming support of the planning department and of the Minister who refuses to change his opinions on such issues.
Also on planning, I must deal with the same subject as the hon. Member for Belfast, North. There has been an

561
announcement that in the east Belfast area there is to be a massive retail, recreational, office and industrial complex, covering 35 acres. If I read the proposal properly, it is proposed to knock down the existing Connswater industrial estate. I have been asked about this by its employees. Indeed, I attended a meeting at which the employers of 39 companies on the industrial estate were present. The selling point that was given publicly was that the new project would bring approximately 600 jobs to east Belfast. What a tremendous prospect. The thought of the loss of jobs at Harland and Wolff and at Shorts was swept aside as we thought about the 600 new jobs that would be created by the project.
However, what the blurb did not tell us was that about 500 jobs would be lost as a result of clearing the land to make way for the site of the retail and leisure development. There is great concern in the area that the company should make public its proposition so arbitrarily and without consulting those who are already on site. There is certainly the suggestion that a wink or a nod was given by the planning department before the money was spent on the project.
Will the Minister tell us—I shall be generous in the way that I phrase this—what consultation there was between the planning department and that major company, which is based on this side of the Irish sea? Were any reassurances given to the company? Have the Government considered the impact of that company's proposal on the proposal that they are backing for the Laganside development? It would surely devastate that proposal if there were two similar projects so close to each other. I accept that it is not the Minister's departmental responsibility, so he may not feel able to answer my questions, but I shall be happy to receive answers in writing from the appropriate Minister.
Many of us were led to believe that the Belfast urban area plan would be published in January 1989, but it was not. I now understand that it is unlikely that it will be published before Christmas. That is causing great concern to the construction industry—not just the housing sector —because there is a virtual standstill on major planning applications for housing, industry and recreation. Jobs are already being lost because of the delay. Surely the planning department can get its act together and do rather better than it has done on many past occasions.
Another example is the Carryduff area plan. I do not wish to tread on the territory of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), but I do not think that he will mind my mentioning this matter. The hearing on the plan took place only last week. It deals with Carryduff's building programme for the years 1987 to 1991. However, it appears that the plan will not be published until the mid-1990s. That is a nonsense. It shows the way that the planning department deals with major inquiries. Surely there could be better programming and better timing so that events come in the right order.
The next issue of concern to me is health. I concur with the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). I am deeply concerned about the decline in the Health Service in Northern Ireland. As other hon. Members have already said, it is outrageous that there are such long waiting lists for operations and hospital treatment. Although my constituency does not have a
562
major hospital, the Ulster hospital lies on its periphery. That hospital has empty wards because there are no resources to fund the staff necessary to look after patients.
Yesterday, I was part of an all-party delegation that toured the accident and emergency department of the City hospital. The delegation was united in its condemnation of the Eastern health and social services board for what it is contemplating for that department. There have previously been several proposals, but they have all been overridden by the current proposal, which may go before the board some time next week or, if rumour is right, it may be put off until October. The proposal is that the department should close on alternate evenings; that the accident and emergency department at the Mater hospital should close every evening; that the accident and emergency department at the Royal Victoria hospital should remain open; and that the City hospital should alternate with it. The impact of that on the service being provided would be devastating.
Perhaps the Minister could explain how someone in great need—perhaps he has cut off a finger while doing a job in his home—could possibly stop and think, "Do I rush to the Royal Victoria or the City hospital? Which one is open tonight?" He may go to the doors of the City hospital only to find a sign telling him he has it wrong and that he must go to the Royal Victoria hospital. It is complete nonsense.
The proposal does not take any account of the community issue. Whether we like it—and I hope that none of us do—many people in Northern Ireland recognise that there are areas where they are not safe. Many people, especially the security forces, would be loath to go to the Royal Victoria hospital. Indeed, the security bosses would not allow their forces to go there without an armed presence to guard them.
We are told that the reason for the proposal is that the health board might save about £50,000 in heating, lighting and staff wages. How can people be so wrong-headed? Do they think that on alternate nights the hospital can simply turn off the heat and the lights and send the staff away? Perhaps they intend that the staff who will not be required at the City hospital on alternate evenings will instead go and work at the Royal Victoria. We can all imagine the effect of that on the service as the staff try to familiarise themselves with different hospitals on different eveningss. Perhaps they intend to recruit staff to work on, for example, Monday, Wednesday and Friday evening. What would that do to the sleep pattern of doctors and nurses? It is absolute nonsense.
The proposal is also financial nonsense. If the accident and emergency department at the City hospital is closed on alternate evenings, some sort of security would be necessary to look after the empty areas of the hospital where vast quantities of dangerous drugs are stored and where patients' records are kept. Currently there is no need for such security because the nurses and the doctors are always there. If security has to be provided, there will be a need for heat and light, so no savings will be made there. The security staff will have to be paid, so there will be no saving there.
The hospital will have to staff itself on the basis of the unexpected happening. Who will tell someone who comes to casualty desperately needing attention that he must go away, possibly to this death? I cannot believe that anyone will do that. The hospital will have to have some staff as back-up, so where is the financial saving there?

563
We must contemplate the reality of life in Northern Ireland. What happens if a disaster occurs in the Belfast area? Will the one hospital be able to cope? We may not be talking about a terrorist disaster: it could be an air disaster. One hospital could not adequately cope with such a major event affecting the Belfast area.
I appreciate how people who are not aware of the local circumstances in Northern Ireland might look at a map of Belfast, see three dots close together—representing the Royal Victoria, Mater and City hospitals—and think that some arrangement could be made to save money. In practice, it does not work that way. Not only would such a cut not work, but the results could be disastrous. Ask the nurses.
There will be queues of people waiting for attention, and queues mean violence to nurses. The patience of people in need of attention can become frayed. Many problems will arise, particularly on Friday and Saturday evenings, and there is already great concern among the nursing staff. Many of the nurses I spoke to yesterday made it clear that if this proposal goes through, there will be no place for them in Belfast City hospital. There are plenty of jobs for them in private nursing homes and elsewhere, often at more attractive wages than they are now receiving.
I urge the Minister to bring to bear what influence he has on the members of the board that he appoints to ensure that they do not put through such a perverse proposal to close on alternate evenings the accident and emergency department of Belfast City hospital.
8.42 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for this opportunity to participate in the debate. The Minister and the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) have dealt with, as it were, the macro-economics of the measure. I shall deal with some of the smaller figures behind the grand millions that appear in the schedule accompanying article 5.
It is appropriate, perhaps, that the first section of that article deals with agriculture, especially as I represent a basically rural and agricultural constituency. I perceive with joy the fact that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has announced that at long last the less-favoured areas submission has been made to the European Commission. In view of the financial consequences of that submission, I urge that as much pressure as possible is brought by the Department of Agriculture on Commissioner Ray McSharry, who is now responsible for that matter in Brussels and who, because of his experience and the similarity of the problems in the North and South, should have a receptive ear to the speedy implementation of the less-favoured areas provision.
One reason why I am anxious to have that issue brought forward as quickly as possible is the inordinate delay that has already taken place. The less-favoured areas were designated in Northern Ireland several years ago, but only yesterday were they submitted to the European Commission despite the fact that in the meantime the agricultural development programme, of which advantage could have been taken by people in the newly designated areas, is already rolling. They have not had the opportunity to enjoy the enhanced support and grant system that the less-favoured areas arrangement would give them.
564
Because of lack of finance or lack of proper management or administration, a dangerous situation seems to be arising in the administration of the agricultural development programme. When an application is made, an acknowledgement is sent to the farmer giving him permission to start a project, but it does not give him any undertaking that the project will receive grant aid. The substantive reply arrives six or seven months later.
That state of affairs is totally unacceptable. There is sometimes an unfortunate temptation for the local farmer immediately to start a project, to get banking finance and to go ahead with the expenditure, only to find at the end of the day that he will not receive the grant aid which, albeit incorrectly, he thought he would get. That happens either because of lack of funds to ensure proper administrative staff or lack of adequate administrative arrangements. I urge the Minister to examine that point carefully, along with the question of delay in making payments to those whose projects have been approved under the agricultural development programme.
The other form of agriculture is marine agriculture. The Minister will be aware that two of the three major fishing ports in Northern Ireland are in my constituency, at Ardglass and Kilkeel. He will also know that great disadvantage is being caused to the fishing fleet because of the sand bars that have been created by previous governmental expenditure at the entrances to both harbours.
In bad weather, particularly at Kilkeel, boats running for cover cannot pass one another at the entrances to the harbours. There are schemes afoot to have that remedied, but the finance has not been made available.
The severity of the situation can be appreciated by the statistic that out of the possible 98 days' fishing that the fleet could have—thereby providing income and jobs in that sector, including processing, fish sales and exporting—only 47 days are available because of that physical disbarment at the harbour of Kilkeel. A similar problem, because of the silted harbour bar, exists at Ardglass. Could some urgent financial provision be made to eradicate that debilitating situation for the fishing industry in South Down?
I have listened with interest not only to this debate but to the earlier one on direct rule, in which the Secretary of State recited the enormous strides that have been made in employment and Government investment. I envied, but was not jealous of, the hundreds of millions of pounds that have been promised for job preservation in certain parts of Northern Ireland. I should like to think that some of that rich lode could be transferred to my constituency for industrial promotion and that a more active, positive programe from the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit could be applied to the development of jobs in local areas.
I have heard arguments to the effect that that would not be financially viable, but in the context of the overall budget that we are discussing—considering the drift to the cities and centres of population, with consequent school, hospital, roads, car parking, environmental pollution and other costs—it would be cheaper to bring the jobs to the workers in rural areas than to take the workers to the jobs in the conurbation.
The second factor that affects the economic development of my constituency is tourism. It is no idle boast that it is the most beautiful part of Ireland in terms of mountain, sea and other scenery and facilities, but it

565
requires promotion overseas. The Minister's colleague in the Department of the Environment has recently restructured part of the development process, but we need local units with executive functions and finance to promote a concept that is appropriately designed for each area. The Mourne area, not only because of its natural beauty but because it is St. Patrick's country, is a seller, if it can be properly and commercially packaged. That area and Newcastle are the most developed and have the highest tourist input in Northern Ireland. Europe and North America have many links with St. Patrick's country. Most cities in Europe were founded by people from South Down, from the old monasteries of the fourth to the 10th centuries. That connection still exists and should be exploited.
I was pleased to learn a couple of months ago that the fibre-optic link programme was endorsed, signed and proceeded with by the Government. It is the most exciting development that the North of Ireland has seen. 1992 has often been quoted. One of my greatest fears is that the North of Ireland and Ireland as a whole will be marginalised in the European Community because we are on the Atlantic north-west coast of of that Community, and things naturally tend, both commercially and economically, to drift to the centre of any empire. A commercial empire is being created, so we must be more vigilant, ready and properly equipped than anybody else to sustain the onslaught of 1992. I was particularly pleased that the Government have accepted the fibre-optic link in principle and, I hope, in practice.
Will the Minister confirm that the nodes that are attached to those links will be available to small rural towns of South Down and elsewhere? If they are not, the Government will be failing to provide the infrastructure of electronic communications that are so important to our development post-1992. I hope that the Minister's department will examine economic development in the context of bringing industry to workers in rural areas and that sensitive low-level buildings can be provided in advance for the transportation of jobs not only from England but from Europe and North America. That has already happened in Castletown in County Kerry; the New York State Insurance Co. has transferred its entire administrative operation to the little village of Castletown because of the fibre optic links.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Belfast, north (Mr. Walker), who mentioned the so-called rationalisation of schools. The rationalisation of schools affects the area that I not only represent but live in. I refer to Downpatrick, east Down and Lecale generally. The South-Eastern education and library board intends to close in one fell swoop three secondary—intermediate schools at Crossgar, Downpatrick and Castlewellan and to abolish the grammar school status of what is known as the Down high school at Downpatrick. That was done without any consultation.
I was hoping to get an answer from the Minister at Question Time today. I asked him what consultation took place with the parents of pupils at those schools. He replied that there were statutory development procedures for school reorganisation proposals, that these provided an opportunity for interested parties—including parents
566
—to make representations to the Department of Education, and that school authorities would normally consult parents before publishing a proposal.
The parents at those schools were not consulted by either the South-Eastern education and library board or anybody else. The board made an on-the-spot decision to close three rural schools that are catering for the education and future of the children of those areas. Schools should be more than establishments for education. They should be allowed to be the social fabric of small towns and villages. I ask the Minister to convey to the Under-Secretary of State the grave concern of parents of children at those four schools that those decisions were taken without consultation.
My area has two further difficulties in education. One is the lack of provision for autistic children. Presumably for financial reasons, the education authority has set its face against providing a modicum of specialist services in normal school provision. That could easily be done with little expenditure. The second difficulty is the provision of veterinary education. There is great concern in rural communities such as mine about the proposal to close the veterinary school in Glasgow to which all veterinary students in Northern Ireland normally go. It would be a great pity if that link between Northern Ireland and Glasgow were abolished.
I now refer to the appropriation for health and social services. I have heard hon. Members talking about £33 million for the Antrim hospital. I do not begrudge that expenditure. It is the second time in my experience that an almost identical amount of money has been allocated to that hospital. Downpatrick hospital must be replaced. A new hospital was to be built in 1956—over a quarter of a century ago—and the money, unfortunately, was diverted to Antrim hospital. I have a sense of déjá vu—It has happened again over a quarter of a century later, without any change.
The amount of expenditure that is required to make Downpatrick a good general hospital, as proposed by consultants and vetted by competent experts, is only about £8 million to £10 million. That would make it a comprehensive, general, geriatric and maternity hospital. Geriatric and maternity facilities have already been put on site.
Perhaps more immediate is the Department's inability to force the Eastern health and social services board to provide a third anaesthetist for the Down hospital. The absence of this anaesthetist is jeopardising the provision of operational services. The board has prevaricated time and again. It uses the excuse of the lack of finance. As the Minister has already indicated his support for the appointment, it is proper that he provides the money for it.
I also wish to draw the Minister's attention to the inadequacy of the staffing of occupational therapy departments. In my area and, I am sure, in many other areas in Northern Ireland there is a two-year wait for the delivery of aids for handicapped people. That is scandalous when such items do not involve a great deal of expenditure. After diagnosis and after assent has been given for the provision of the aid, surely it is not right that physically disabled people should have to wait two years for the provision of an aid.
I echo the comments of the hon. Members for Leicester, South and for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) about the plight of pensioners following the social security changes.

567
Pensions were raised in April, but for many pensioners the increases have been completely negatived by the withdrawal of the transitional payment allowance. Many pensioners have less money in their pockets than they had before the pension increases. Surely that was never intended at a time of rising costs. I ask the Minister to consider that point sympathetically.
I congratulate the Minister's colleague in the Department of the Environment on his speedy intervention in the aluminium sulphate scare at Foffany reservoir. He has appointed an independent investigator to find out how the aluminium sulphate got there. The incident is reminiscent of what happened in south-west England, but it is on a much smaller scale. I urge the Minister to expedite the results of the inquiry so as to allay the fears of the local people. To link that with what we are debating, lest you pull me up, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the local feeling is that the withdrawal of workers and the rundown in the number employed at the Foffany works by the Department was probably a contributory factor to the pollution. Aluminium sulphate is a potent toxin in the water supply.
On housing, I draw the Minister's attention to the Policy Studies Institute survey which looked into the disadvantage between Catholic and Protestant in the probability of allocation of housing in Northern Ireland. I do not want to debate the merits and demerits of allocation on a sectarian basis. I simply suggest that the imbalance in allocation of houses on a 2:1 ratio is partly because of the cut of £40 million in the housing budget this year. The Housing Executive has said that, because of these cuts, its modest proposals—I emphasise the word "modest"—cannot be met. In the three-year financial cycle up to 1992 the loss of grant will be £109 million. At a time when there is a downturn in the provision of new build by the private sector, surely the resources of the Housing Executive should not be cut.
Like other hon. Members, I try to make a contribution to the debate, but I would lke a response to the points that I raise. Often for good reasons, in the time available a Minister cannot reply to all the points. If the Minister cannot reply tonight to all hon. Members, I urge him to reply by letter. It is meaningless for us to take part in a debate if we do not get a reply, good or bad, positive or negative, from the Department or from the Minister to whom we have addressed our inquiries.
9.3 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: Partly as a result of door-to-door canvassing for the recent local government elections and the European elections, some of us have had much closer contact with the people affected by Government decisions than the Ministers who make the decisions or, indeed, by those who advise Ministers in Northern Ireland so badly from time to time. I hope that in future real consideration will be given to the views expressed by those of us who endeavour to represent our constituents.
I realise, as do other right hon. and hon. Members, that nothing we say tonight will change the order. Nevertheless, in order to bring the attention of Ministers and officials issues which have arisen, we do not want to give the impression that we are always on the attack. There are various sections of the order that we recognise as being of value. I welcome the efforts to ensure success of Harland and Wolff and, indeed, Shorts. I congratulate the
568
Department of Economic Development, the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit on their achievements to date in job creation.
We all realise that there is still a long way to go and that the level of unemployment in Northern Ireland, including that of some highly skilled young people, is far too great. Only when terrorism is defeated will we see the kind of inflow of inward investment, that will rid us of the scourge of unemployment that has existed for far too long.
Under vote 3, the Department of Economic Development, I welcome the fact that continuing emphasis is being given to the provision of community projects, youth and industrial training and employment schemes and services, including services for the disabled. I am pleased, too, to support the provision of funding for Enterprise Ulster, which serves the whole community of Northern Ireland extremely well, and most communities have benefited from the excellent environment and amenity schemes that have been carried out over the years. Those schemes have given much satisfaction to the long-term unemployed, and we are glad to see them continuing.
We are especially pleased to see the increase from 8,000 to 10,000 places under the Action for Community Employment—known as ACE—provisions. I support the priority that is to be given to those between 18 and 24 years of age. There will be emphasis on structured training to assist those who are fortunate enough to obtain places on that scheme to acquire skills that will enable them to move to more permanent employment and to compete for jobs on the open market. I welcome the steady growth in places under that scheme, but I believe that in future it will have to be further expanded. I trust that funding will be made available for that purpose.
Funding of the Fair Employment Agency and the Equal Opportunities Commission alone will not achieve fair employment or equal opportunity. We hope that we will not see frightened employers, who have been fair employers, blatantly discriminating against Protestants to raise the number of other groups on their list which will have to be furnished to the Fair Employment Agency.
I agree that the unfair attacks by the promoters of the MacBride principles in the United States have done more damage to the prospects of all sections of the unemployed in Northern Ireland. Without their intervention, it is quite possible—in fact one would have expected—that there would have been more inward investment from the United States. We as Unionists have stated clearly that we have no desire to direct employers to specific areas where only Unionists will benefit. We believe that new industry should be located so that all sections of the community can benefit from the job opportunities created on the basis of their own merit. I hope that we will see continuing inward investment and new job opportunities for all to share.
I also hope that those companies that are investing heavily in producing alternative sources of energy will, in the event of the privatisation of the electricity industry, be guaranteed an outlet for the surplus electricity that they can generate and that that will be taken at a fair price. If such a guarantee is not binding, the Government grants that have encouraged the alternative generation of energy will prove to have been a waste of resources.
Under the Department of the Environment vote 1 expenditure, I would like to have seen a greater allocation of funds for upgrading the street lighting system

569
throughout east Antrim, and at a faster rate than presently possible. There is also a need to provide more off-street car parking for housing estates. Portland place, Magheramorne, is on the main Larne—Carrickfergus road, an extremely busy road, and householders have to park on that road. There is land available and I am sure that Blue Circle would be more than delighted to negotiate with the Department to make some land available for that purpose.
I regret that I could not identify any planned expenditure to complete the dual carriageway on the Lame-Belfast road from Gingles corner to Corr's corner. We have been waiting nearly 20 years for action to upgrade that Euro-route. I appeal to the Minister to get personal experience of the congestion caused by commercial and private traffic travelling to and from Larne harbour. If it is too much to expect funding to be provided from Europe all at once for the completion of that project, at least the Government should be working towards phasing the work until such time as it is all completed. That would improve overall road safety and traffic flow. I believe that such a decision would command the sympathy and support of those who administer the European regional development fund.
It is many years since the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), in his capacity as a Member of the European Parliament, and other colleagues had a European development fund commissioner in Larne. If our Government had proposed the project, we might have good reason to expect support for it. Given the real danger of EC funds drying up in a few years' time, I hope that the project will be completed before then. We are confident that we will obtain the commitment and support of our newly elected European Members of Parliament and of any Commissioner they invite over. With that support, our Government should feel confident enough to get that proposal through.
Glynn village, just outside Larne, was promised a bypass about 10 years ago. It should have been completed by now but, in common with many other projects, it has been put on a long finger. Money has been spent on upgrading the main road through Glynn, but if two articulated lorries were to meet on that road it would be almost impossible for them to pass each other. The narrow footpath there will not accommodate a young mother with a pram on the way to the railway station. I hope that further consideration will be given to the possibility of a Glynn bypass.
Will the Minister look favourably on the recently completed Glenarm village study? We need substantial expenditure on the coastal area between Glenarm and Carnlough where there is high unemployment and great potential for creating employment. Larne borough council has acquired the derelict harbour and funds are urgently needed to enable the Eglinton limeworks to be relocated to the back of the village, where there are new workings. With the proper support, we can encourage entrepreneurs to set up small businesses and improve the general economy for the community.
I was pleased when the Minister said that at long last the cross-city rail link would become a reality. We could
570
look forward to more visitors passing through the Larne harbour area if they were able to travel through Belfast more conveniently.
I emphasise the continuing need to provide funding for renovation and enveloping grants in areas where improvement and redevelopment by the Housing Executive has been agreed. The voluntary housing associations in Northern Ireland continue to be worthy of our fullest support. They should be able to retain their own identity and should not be absorbed and mismanaged by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, a bureaucratic monster which is far too large to be properly managed.
I recently wrote to Mr. Blease, the chief executive of the Housing Executive. I said:
"I respectfully suggest that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should seek, if necessary, authority to obtain a deposit in respect of every future allocation of residential accommodation. The deposit should be sufficient to cover the cost of inspection, repair of damage and, where necessary, steam cleaning and fumigation. Where tenants are linked to a trail of filth and vandalism, the public at large should not be held responsible for the cost of putting things right. Inspection reports should be exchanged where transfers between housing districts occur and should have some bearing on whether an exchange or transfer application is approved within a housing district."
I am grateful to the Housing Executive for the prompt response which came within a few days of receipt of my letter. It was properly addressed to me in Larne, except that it was intended for the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker). I do not know how the mistake had arisen; he must have been on their mind or something. I shall certainly ensure that he receives a copy of the letter in case he has communicated with the executive along the same lines and has not received a reply.
I am concerned because I know from experience that we must take action. The Minister responsible must assist the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to cope with the sort of problems which I have witnessed in my constituency and which no doubt are common in other areas. At the request of pensioners, and young married couples with babies of only a few months old, I have visited properties which have been allocated by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. If I were to describe some of the conditions left behind, it would provoke illness. It almost makes me sick to think about it again.
I shall give a watered-down report, which I hope will be palatable, which comes from an environmental officer. His description of the property which had just been offered to tenants said:
"Water closet basin insanitary (heavily stained and dirty). The glazed surface to the bath was damaged, normal use of the bath could not account for the small indentations in the bottom of the bath.
Kitchen area:
Rotten woodwork to window frame.
Holes in the floor and in a section of stud wall.
The cupboards were dirty and in a state of disrepair.
The house in general was dirty and strewn with rubbish."
The Housing Executive is naturally interested in getting income, whether the rent is paid by the Department of Health and Social Services or by those young couples who are desperate for accommodation and who will accept accommodation in virtually any condition. It is a disgrace that young people are offered two rent-free weeks to clean the muck and filth left by somebody else. The Minister should take a good walk round sometimes to see the

571
neglect, mismanagement and lack of supervision. He should take steps to give powers to his officials or staff in the Housing Executive to do something about it.
The Housing Executive should not give an existing tenant alternative accommodation until it has inspected the state of the dwelling that the tenant occupies. No dwelling should be reallocated to anyone until it has been inspected, cleaned out, refurbished and repaired where necessary. There should be a thorough inspection of the roof space, the front and rear gardens areas and any other outbuildings. If any tenant has a record with the Housing Executive, the RUC or the environmental health department of causing disturbance or annoyance to adjacent tenants by noise, from whatever source, this record or offence should be taken into account by the Housing Executive if the tenant is being considered for transfer or reallocation either within the district in which he resides or to any other district.
These problems are constantly before us, especially those of us who still serve as elected district councillors. They are the problems being forced on the councils in Northern Ireland, which have few resources, so that the burden of work on the environmental health department is unnecessarily increased. I hope that the Minister will encourage the Housing Executive to take action, and that he will assist it with whatever new powers are needed to improve the situation and to implement some of these suggestions.
I am concerned that I have to raise this next matter in the House. It is a case that has come to light recently, and I trust that there are no other similar cases, although I have suspicions that there are. Under the vote for expenditure for housing, I have reason to call on the Minister as a matter of urgency to stop proceedings in respect of the Cregagh flats phase 2 contract. The Minister should hold an inquiry in the public interest to determine whether certain procedures regarding the action of the executive's consultants have been proper in all respects about the selection and approval of sub-contractors for window supply and installation.
In Larne in east Antrim a company called Sterne Fenster manufactures and markets Starglaze upvc windows. That company was encouraged with support from another Government Department to set up in Northern Ireland. It has successfully tendered and had a verbal indication that its price had been used by the main contractor to win the contract for phase 2 at the Cregagh flats. Starglaze got on to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive approved list on 13 February after, I suspect, ministerial intervention. Obstacles had been placed in the company's way. Starglaze would not join a cartel of manufacturers and be part of a cosy little club which could jack up the prices. Its windows are approved by the British Standards Institution and are made to a very high specification and that is why the company is on the approved list. The windows have been tested for wind resistance and water penetration. Under very high wind loading, no damage, deformation or water penetration occurred to the frames.
Starglaze has been blocked at every stage from supplying windows to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. For a consultant architect employed by the executive to exert pressure on the main contractor not to use Starglaze frames while saying that, if Starglaze was nominated by the main contractor, its name would go forward to the Housing Executive is quite despicable. To,
572
allege that the company has no track record in Northern Ireland is a deception designed to ensure that the company does not get a contract in Northern Ireland and is put out of business.
Starglaze has installed windows in the Brighton hotel after it was refurbished. It has installed windows in a 14-storey block of flats in the borough of Milton Keynes. It has installed windows in three blocks of 11-storey flats in the metropolitan borough of Stockport. It has installed them in two 14-storey blocks in the metropolitan borough of Sefton and it is scheduled to install its windows in five more blocks in Stockport. Those are but a few examples of the track record behind Starglaze and its high quality windows.
Starglaze has not been fairly treated. It produces high quality windows and doors at keen prices, and that is surely in the public interest. The executive's consultant architect did not give the Starglaze representative a fair hearing. The consultant architect was adamant that Starglaze window frames would not be used. I believe that the main contractor has been frightened off by the consultant architect's attitude.
The Starglaze representative made an appointment with the consultant architect and took a sample of a Starglaze tilt-and-turn window. He waited 40 minutes in the foyer of the consultant's office. Eventually the consultant architect walked past on his way to another appointment with a partner or an employer. He did not give the representative a chance. He was not interested in discussing what was happening.
Starglaze had been increasing its work force in Larne and naturally that is of special interest to me. The contract for Cregagh flats, for which Starglaze submitted the lowest tender, would have created more jobs in my constituency and enabled the company to demonstrate its capability for even larger contracts for its high-quality products delivered on time and at competitive prices.
I have tried to resolve that problem through the proper channels but without success. In a communication from the Housing Executive's acting regional director, I was informed:
"It is the main Contractor's prerogative to nominate any sub-contractors he wishes to use and provided the sub-contractors' products are on the Executive's approved list and there are no other impediments to the ue of the sub-contractor, the Executive will accept the nomination."
The products are on the approved list, so why did the contract not go to Starglaze? What is behind the comment:
"provided … there are no other impediments"?
I know of none. The letter goes on to say:
"I have been assured by the Executive's consultants for this scheme that if the main contractor submits his list of nominated sub-contractors, it will be passed to the Executive for approval using the criteria applied in any other scheme."
I want an inquiry. I want the project stopped because justice must be seen to be done. That will be possible only when the practice has been exposed as unfair and the contract has gone back to Starglaze. The power of consultants to obstruct a successful tender by a manufacturer must be examined and diminished.
Who will pay the higher costs incurred by the main contractor who has recently accepted the next lowest suitable tender? Will that result in an extra cost to be paid by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to the main contractor? We must support fair competition and ensure that there is value for money in all public expenditure.

573
The money voted to the Department of the Environment in vote 4 covers expenditure on land registry. Earlier this year the Minister, in a written answer to me, said that a comprehensive review of land registry functions in Northern Ireland would be under way by mid-1989. We have arrived at mid-1989, and I had hoped that the Minister who gave me that reply would have been here to report progress. There are still unreasonable delays in processing transactions, with thousands of queries in a permanent log jam at the land registry office in Belfast.
I have constituent pensioners in Rathcoole, Newtownabbey, paying full rent out of their pensions for the homes that they tried to purchase several months ago. That £22 per week is causing unnecessary hardship. The money to pay for the houses is available on completion of the information that is needed for the transaction from the land registry, and that must be completed as a matter of urgency. I appeal to the Minister to provide additional temporary staff at the land registry in Belfast pending the outcome of the efficiency review that should be under way.
My constituents in east Antrim and those elsewhere whose homes were built nearly 30 years ago can reasonably expect funding for rewiring, central heating, improvements to old-fashioned and inadequate kitchens and the replacement of warped metal window frames which cannot be permanently straightened. In the interests of energy conservation alone, it would make a lot of sense to replace those metal framed windows immediately in all Housing Executive houses.
Will the Minister also bear in mind the many people who were encouraged to buy their homes from the Housing Executive? As first-time buyers they knew nothing about caveat emptor. The executive in my area has been replacing thousands of faulty flues. First-time buyers are committed to mortgage repayments and cannot raise another £600 to replace a faulty flue. Surely it would not be unreasonable to devise an entry point into the grants scheme which would enable people who have bought faulty homes from the Housing Executive at least to have some grant aid and assistance to replace a faulty flue. We still have a responsibility to those who have purchased properties which could put their health at risk and we should not duck out of it.
Vote 6 on page 4 of the order makes provision to fund the Northern Ireland fire authority. I and my constituents appreciate that the Northern Ireland fire authority serves all sections of the community well. There are limited numbers of full-time firemen in Northern Ireland, so the service is dependent on volunteer, part-time firemen who are on either 24-hour or 12-hour call. I should like to make an appeal to the Secretary of State through the Minister that suitable provision should be made to enable all the trained, part-time firemen who are employed in Government Departments, education and health boards, district councils and the private sector to respond to call-outs for the fire service during normal working hours. Employers should encourage that, provided that no one in their place of work is endangered if they respond to a fire call.
I trust that none of the money voted in the order is planned for capital work in connection with the proposed residential fire training depot at Old Manse road, Jordanstown, in Newtownabbey, in my constituency. The
574
peace and privacy of that residential area would be adversely affected if such a proposal were to go through on appeal in future. There are much more suitable sites for a residential training establishment for the Northern Ireland fire authority. I hope that the Minister will use his influence and will be seen to support the residents in their objections, the views of Newtownabbey council and the objections that I have lodged, and encourage the Northern Ireland fire authority to withdraw the appeal which is pending with the Department of the Environment or seek to have the application refused.
I join other hon. Members who register concern about the long waiting list for urgent treatment in our hospitals. Long waiting lists are not acceptable and should not be condoned, especially by the representatives of a Government who endeavour to project themselves as a caring Government.
One of my constituents, a pensioner, a lady who had had a hip replacement operation nearly 18 months ago, has been waiting to have her other hip replacement. Her husband pleaded with me to do something. She refused to say at which hospital she had been treated and she refused to name the consultant, as she said that she appreciated what they did for her so much that she did not want to get anyone into trouble. She suffers discomfort and some bad pain, and there must be many others who could be relieved of pain if it were possible to shorten the waiting lists. I hope that that will be possible. No hon. Member could sit idly by and look at his mother or a relative in the same circumstances without urging that something be done quickly. Not everyone can afford private medicine and those who are in genuine need and cannot afford private treatment should not have to wait 18 months for necessary medical attention.
We in Larne are well served by Moyle hospital. The Moyle action committee has been endeavouring to persuade the Minister and the Prime Minister that the grand hospital plan for Antrim is not in the best interests of the people of east Antrim and is not necessary. The Estimates, according to my interpretation, show that at present rates over £40 million could be spent on the Antrim hospital. I want the people of Antrim to have adequate hospital facilities, but we have heard tonight about the closure of wards in existing hospitals. How can we justify spending millions of pounds to build new hospitals when existing facilities are not being fully utilised? Like the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), I think that small expenditure on Moyle hospital would provide us with adequate hospital facilities for a lifetime. Proper use of the teaching hospitals and facilities in Belfast would be a much better use of public money.
Over the past 15 years successive Ministers, goaded on by officials, have supported that out-of-date proposal. The Ministers and the Ministers' nominees on the health boards—they are not elected and are not accountable to anybody—are the main supporters, together with a few who will benefit directly from new specialist employment and major posts created at Antrim.
I wish to record my opposition to the running down of Moyle hospital in Lame and to state clearly that the expenditure proposed for the Antrim site will not provide value for money. Unfortunately, the Public Accounts Committee cannot investigate the expenditure until it has taken place. It is a pity that its powers could not be extended to examine some of the proposals being made.

575
I know that other hon. Members wish to make a contribution, so I shall conclude. I welcome the provision that has been made for expenditure at Larne high school in my constituency. I regret that there is no mention of the funding for the final development at Lame grammar school. It is a pity that, when the contractors were on the site and the parents had raised the money to complete the project, the work could not be finished. I suspect that it will now be on the long finger.
With respect to the moneys voted to the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Education, I ask the Minister to take a chance and bank on the fact that in Northern Ireland we tend to underspend, so the Minister should anticipate sufficient underspend to allow for the provision of an additional speech therapist at Hillcroft special school in Newtownabbey. The parents of handicapped children there have been greatly distressed because more children were enrolled and statemented because they required speech therapy. To cope with that transitional problem, many of those who have been receiving speech therapy and who have no other means of communication and so are dependent on the help of speech therapists no longer have that benefit because time has been allocated to the younger handicapped children.
To provide an extra therapist would not be a major item of expenditure. It is a safe bet that more than the salary of one speech therapist will be left behind in the underspend before the end of the year. If even one additional child is statemented as requiring speech therapy in another special school in my constituency, additional staffing will be required there. It would be appropriate for the Minister to authorise the appointment of one additional speech therapist in east Antrim. If necessary, that speech therapist could be peripatetic and employed between the special schools where definite needs have been established.
Other hon. Members have already referred tonight to the long list of children awaiting the opportunity to receive even limited nursery education. Carrickfergus and other parts of my constituency have the same problems as those to which other hon. Members have referred. The principals of nursery schools are embarrassed. They have 90 or 100 children on the waiting list, but they are allowed to enrol only just over 20 children. Of those 20, they have to accept six or so because they have been recommended by health visitors or others for good reasons. The education and library boards cannot deal with that matter on their own because of cuts in successive years. They do not have the funds to provide sufficient nursery places. Surely such education could be provided at less cost if it were possible to utilise existing vacant classrooms in our primary schools. Where that is not possible, a definite commitment in the east of the Province would be welcome. The Government could signal to the North Eastern education and library board that money could be used to provide nursery school places, and I hope that that will be possible.
I also ask the Minister to deal sensitively with the proposals put forward by the South Eastern education and library board. The hon. Member for South Down earlier referred to the problems associated with state education in that area. I gladly and wholeheartedly support his comments. If the Minister accepts the proposals coming from the South Eastern education and library board and refuses to take account of the opinions of parents and
576
teachers in the area, there will be a greater exodus, so great that they will need no state schools in South Down. That is happening at a time when the Minister is saying that parents must have choice. I therefore appeal to him to listen to what they are saying.
South Down also experiences high unemployment. If the status of Down high school is destroyed, it will be difficult to encourage into the area the young executives who we hope will set up new industries. If Down high school's status is changed from that of a grammar school, many parents will be forced to send their children far beyond the area of the school. That school has a good history, a good tradition and an excellent record, and should be retained as the grammar school for the area.
I hope that the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland will not contribute to driving out the people who maintain an interest in Down high school and who represent a diminishing group in the state sector in that area.
9.50 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: I begin by giving my full backing to what the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) has just said about Down high school and to the other hon. Members who spoke earlier when, unfortunately, I was not able to be present.
This is a serious matter. I have raised it in the House previously and I do so again tonight because that grammar school is the only gramar school for the Protestant community in that area. If it disappears, the Roman Catholic children will still have the opportunity of a grammar school education, but Protestant children will not. Working-class protestants will be bereft of grammar school schooling while those who are wealthy will be sent to schools in Belfast where they will have to be resident. Working-class children will not have that opportunity.
As the hon. Member for Antrim, East has just said, there will be an exodus from the area. That is not only my view; it has been put to me by the governors of the school and the residents of Downpatrick. The Minister must take that view on board because, if he does not, as one governor said to me, we shall be forced to come to the conclusion that there is deliberate discrimination against one section of the community whose children will not be offered proper schooling. I trust that the Minister will take on board the other issues raised about school closures. He must pay careful attention to this serious matter.
This is a tragedy, because the small schools in the rural areas of Northern Ireland have been a cement in the community. We talk about keeping the community together, but the cement is being removed and the fabric destroyed. The community will be without the facilities that keep it together and that contribute to a whole society.
I turn now to the equally serious matter of Mitchell House school which provides residence for severely physically handicapped children. Recently, without notice to any of the parents, the staff were suddenly told that they would all be made redundant and that the resident part of the school would be closed. Physically handicapped children will no longer have the opportunity to reside there. Indeed, the parents have now been told that the children who were resident will be sent back to their homes. The facilities to give respite to the parents of

577
seriously physically handicapped children will be taken away. It is a terrible indictment of the Government that, in this age, such facilities are to be taken away.
I want additional facilities made available so that those parents can have the break that they need. I hope that tonight the Minister will give some ray of hope to them. He should talk to them and recognise their frustrations and the problems that they are up against. He should understand the condition of their children and the necessity for them to be treated humanely. The Government should take quick action in this matter.
Some 20 or so years ago the Northern Ireland roads system was second to none. Many good improvements were made and the Province was moving forward. Now, because of the deterioration in the infrastructure, many strategic roads are outdated and capital funding has been over-restricted for many years. I have had a peep at the pamphlet "Roads for Prosperity" that covers roads in England. I trust that a similar document will be prepared for Northern Ireland.
A strategic plan for Northern Ireland has been proposed, and I hope that it will show what will happen to the roads in the Province. I am greatly disturbed by the proposal that all the main traffic to the Channel tunnel should go over the border and via Holyhead to Wales. Associations within Northern Ireland local government have made representations about that. I hope that the Minister will tell us about his plans. There appears to be a dragging of feet on the subject of the roads to Larne. If the Lame port is to retain its prosperity—something that has been helpful to the whole east Antrim district—we need to know what is in the Government's mind for the extension of proper road facilities in that area. I trust that the people of Northern Ireland will soon be told what the Government intend to do.
There is congestion on the west link to Belfast, which will be further increased with the construction of the New Cross harbour bridges. What does the Minister intend to do about relief work to deal with the congestion?
Will the Government consider the construction of lengths of dual carriageway or climbing lanes on the roads to ports which support heavy lorry traffic? I understand that a large grant is going to the Irish Republic for the culverting of roads that are out of date. If so, and if the Irish Republic is to receive a large grant to update its roads, may we be assured that Her Majesty's Government have made application to ensure that, when heavier traffic comes on to the roads of Northern Ireland, we will be able to take advantage of EEC grants?
When is it expected that the dual carriageway into Ballymena will be completed? Will it take 10 years, the time stated at the inquiry? I have also been asked to mention the concern of many people about the Newry bypass. When will that be completed?
I am reliably informed that it will cost £200 million to bring the water service in Northern Ireland up to EEC standards. Is that money available? Is it a fact that when that work is done, £200 million having been spent on it, there will be no more water available than is available now? Will there be reserve capacity to take account of future industrial expansion in Northern Ireland? Has that
578
been taken into account in forward planning? New industry and more jobs in Northern Ireland will require a good reserve capacity of water.
I confirm what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, East about the Housing Executive. Why does it not have a plan to bring all the houses under its control, when they are being rehabilitated, up to a common standard? I have in mind houses in Ballymena with old steel windows. It seems strange that the Executive puts new wooden windows into some houses, and then argues with the tenants of other houses that their old steel windows are fine, that the wind and rain does not get through them and that they must be content to live with them.
The Minister had better consider this issue. I regularly go into houses and see, for example, newspapers stuffed between the brickwork and the steel windows, and the tenants tell me that the housing executive intends to take the old windows out, straighten them and put them back again. I can think of one area, Wilson avenue in Ballymena, where there has been almost civil commotion about the fact that the management will not renew the windows properly. The time has come for the Housing Executive to accept that a common standard should apply to all houses.
Matters of this kind cause great concern to tenants, especially when they have the upheaval of the Housing Executive moving in to do rehabilitation work. Hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies will appreciate the commotion that occurs when that happens, with people being forced to live in one bedroom. I visited a house recently in which all the floorboards had been taken up, with only two boards being left to enable the tenants to cross the floor to get to bed.
In other places, the Housing Executive moved the people out and made other provisions so that they could be outside while the work was being done. We have heard about the repair of flues. I have been in houses in my area when people have been called in to repair flues, and they have almost destroyed the whole house. I have seen the mess that they have made with soot and so on. The Housing Executive said, "We will not give you a new carpet even though the carpet has been destroyed." Suits of clothes hanging in wardrobes were completely destroyed, and then there was an argument about compensation. Housing Executive tenants must be dealt with humanely. There must be an opportunity for them to have their rights. Those matters have concerned hon. Members in our constituency work.
Why can the University Grants Committee back-up scheme, which is available in the rest of the United Kingdom, not be made available to Northern Ireland so that Northern Ireland students can benefit from it? Hon. Members will know that, apart from all the other troubles in Northern Ireland, basic matters concern the well-being and life of the community. They must have priority. The Government and the Northern Ireland Office must take those matters into account.
It is impossible for the Minister to answer all the questions that have been raised tonight, but we would appreciate a written answer to those questions that he cannot answer tonight so that we can go back to our constituents and say, "This matter was raised in the House; here is the answer," and then take it further.
10.2 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: My approach to the appropriations is similar to the approach that I would have taken if there had been time to call me in the debate on direct rule, although what I want to say now is different from what I would have said in that debate.
I see Socialism and democracy or aspects of Socialism and democracy as essential in resolving major problems faced by working people, whether they be Catholic, Protestant or of any other denomination or loyalty. Democratic and Socialist solutions seem to me to be appropriate. I see Socialism and democracy as interlinked concepts. Socialism without democracy becomes bureaucratic abuse. Democracy without Socialism, as we experience it throughout the United Kingdom, is shallow and inadequate. Just as devolved government with a Bill of Rights could allow the healthy development of nonsectarian politics in Northern Ireland, we need an economic and social transformation in Northern Ireland on Socialist and democratic terms, with the democratic and participative transformation of the economy, or at least we need to do what we can about nudging it in that important direction.
How can the Protestant and Irish working class co-operate and aid one another if they are expected to be passive recipients or victims of the economic process? If they are expected to be victims of a system that operates cut-throat enterprise activities and a cut-throat enterprise culture, those are not the conditions and circumstances in which the co-operation that is required in the Province can be nurtured and extended.
The voting patterns of hon. Members from Northern Ireland on the Government's enterprise culture initiatives is likely to prove instructive. It is something that in future we might look at closely in terms of debates concerning appropriations.
Let us look at the economic plight of Northern Ireland which these appropriations and Government policy do nothing to improve. Like Wales and the north-east of England, Northern Ireland is an area of industrial decline, shipbuilding and textiles being at the centre of the loss of its manufacturing base. Northern Ireland has shared little in the claimed recovery of the British economy, having a low GDP per head of the population. It is not seen by overseas investors and many others as an attractive area for capital location, and has little inward investment.
There was a rise of foreign investment in the 1960s, especially from the USA, with movements at a peak in the mid-1970s, with transnationals concentrated in mechanical engineering and textiles. Following the 1973 oil crisis, energy costs soared in the Province and areas such as artificial fibres went into terminal decline. Previous gains were often lost. In 1981, transnationals accounted for 23 per cent. of manufacturing jobs; by 1983, that was down to 16 per cent.
Bombardier—a most unfortunately named firm to come to Northern Ireland—is being given Short Brothers, with Government funding, without appropriate public control of the equity that is being provided. Most of Northern Ireland's economic problems rest on a change of direction in the United Kingdom economy, and perhaps in the world economy, away from closures, contractions, mergers and movements of high finance and corporate
580
headquarters to the south of England, away from tax and benefit cuts which open up the inequality gap, and away from the enterprise culture.
Economically, socially and politically, Northern Ireland needs something like the popular planning models that are recommended in a publication by the Transport and General Workers Union, which calls for a regional development bank to co-ordinate investment and target funds, with local authorities drawing up structure plans in association with their communities and trade unions, conducting job audits of the impact of total public sector activity and identifying business opportunities. Local projects would be integrated into an overall strategy, supported by community education and training programmes, with roles for bodies such as trade union resource centres similar to the Belfast unemployment centres project under the EEC's anti-poverty programme.
Essential for such measures of economic democracy is a context of political democracy, a devolved government with a Bill of Rights giving some scope for socialist policies, and interests which require that conflicts of race, gender, religion, sectional interests and sectarianism are overcome. Economic and political aspects of Socialism and democracy are appropriate to handling the problems within Northern Ireland. Those are the principles that I would have propounded in the earlier debate, had time been available. I have given some indication of what economic and social advances can be made within the Province. I would associate them with similar political developments of a constitutional nature that are required.
10.14 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I apologise for the fact that I was not in the House for the beginning of the debate. I sat through the last debate without being called and I feel that I have an opportunity to say now some of the things that I had wished to say then.
Rather than deal with the specifics of the appropriations, I shall deal with the generalities and, to some extent, with our problems. Those problems are not caused by the lack of finance—I doubt if anyone taking part in the debate has complained that Northern Ireland is under-financed—but by the fact that the administration of the affairs of the various departments in Northern Ireland leaves so much to be desired that the finance is to a large extent wasted. The reason for that is partly the direct rule system, which, when influenced by the Anglo-Irish Agreement, means that Ministers are constantly junketing around Northern Ireland, almost begging for approval from the populace for the way in which they administer the area.
Two Ministers are especially adept at that. The Ministers with responsibility for educational matters and for health and environmental matters are for ever junketing around the Province telling us about the money that they have found for this and for that project. However, what they are really doing is distributing in a belated manner money that has already been allocated to Northern Ireland. They are distributing that funding in a piecemeal fashion, and that makes it difficult for civil servants to plan ahead.
Most hon. Members will know that last week the Public Accounts Committee suddenly found that the Northern

581
Ireland Housing Executive had valued certain horticultural stock at more than £500,000, when, in fact, the true value of that stock was £45,000. We would be making a grave mistake if we put the blame squarely on the shoulders of those working with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The problem is that Ministers do not allow their departmental staff the scope to plan ahead to ensure that such errors do not occur.
I am not suggesting that all is well within the Civil Service. When one has the sort of direct rule system that we have had in the past 15 years—with, for example, the Secretary of State attempting to rule almost like a viceroy, and his junior Ministers following his example—of course we will find much the same problem or attitude permeating the Civil Service. The belief is that there is no accountability and no need for accountability in Northern Ireland. As an elected Member I probably suffer more directly than my constituents in trying to deal with that attitude.
That attitude permeates right down to the girl on the switchboard. Only yesterday at about three minutes to 1 o'clock I phoned one office and asked the girl on the switchboard to put me through to the head of the department. While I was doing something else I listened as the telephone rang, rang and rang. I suddenly realised that it was now five minutes past 1 o'clock and I set the telephone down and phoned back immediately only to be answered by the porter. I complained to him that I had not been put through to the head of the department and he said, "Ah well, he has probably gone to lunch." That was reasonable, but I thought that it was unreasonable that the young lady on the switchboard had plugged the telephone in but had then left her post to go to lunch and left me hanging on the other end. Her attitude appeared to be that if the person was there he would answer.
I had identified myself when I first telephoned and if such treatment is given to a Member of Parliament, what on earth happens to my constituents who try to get a service from that department or other departments? Where does the blame lie? I believe that it lies fairly and squarely with Ministers, although there is no doubt that senior civil servants should ensure that their departments are properly administered.
A more poignant, tragic example of what happens to my constituents involves a man who suffers from multiple sclerosis. By December 1988 he found it necessary to write to the Housing Executive to suggest that he needed an entrance into his little Orlit house so that a car could drive in rather than his being wheeled out to the roadway to get into a vehicle.
That matter was dealt with by the district housing manager, who got a report from a hospital consultant. She was unable, however, to make a decision and had to refer the matter to a welfare officer in her department. A further process had to be gone through and the welfare officer had to refer the matter to an occuptional therapist. That therapist eventually managed to get a report together and by March of this year the district office had approval, as far as that went, for a roadway into the side of that man's house. It was then necessary for the district officer to refer the proposal to an engineer at regional level for approval. The regional officer approved it, but then had to pass the matter on to the road service department, a different
582
section within the Department of the Environment. Once again it was deemed to be necessary that the alteration should be made to the entrance and the work was regarded as feasible, but that was not enough, as the matter then had to be referred to the planning department. It was at that stage that it arrived with me; meanwhile there had been a seven-month delay.
When I rang the planners they promised that the matter would be attended to within a week. I thought it reasonable therefore that I should ring the regional engineer and suggest to him that he could go ahead quickly and begin to get things in hand. Imagine my surprise when he told me that he would be unable to deal with it because there was no direct labour organisation within his department to do a job which was worth slightly less than £1,000. He said that when he had received approval from the planning department he would have to refer the matter to an outside consultant because it would have to go to public tender. Therefore, a £1,000 job had now become a £5,000, £6,000, £7,000 or even £8,000 job. It was likely that at least a year would have elapsed before my unfortunate constituent would be able to drive, or have a car driven, up to the side of his house so that he could travel around.
I apologise for boring the House with that story, but it was worth the few minutes that it has taken to demonstrate the frustration faced by hon. Members such as myself when trying to ensure that our constituents' needs are given proper attention. The problem is not due to lack of funding, but to the bureaucractic machine which grinds slowly and, sometimes, not so surely. If we are to make the best use of the funding assigned to the Province, we must trim down the bureaucractic process under which we have suffered for the past 15 years. That process is destroying the opportunity for many good things to take place within the Province.
Earlier today, I listened to the Secretary of State talk about the need for good relations between the two communities in Northern Ireland. In the district council area in which I live, work and serve as a district councillor, very reasonable working arrangements exist between the two communities. Indeed, I would not be exaggerating if I said that we might be a little ahead of 25 other councils. Be that as it may, what reward do we receive for our efforts to share responsibility within the community?
Dungannon district council, along with Lame district council, is one of the two councils that do not have a proper leisure centre. Over the years, we made plans to provide a leisure centre that would be comparatively modest and would adjoin our present swimming pool. Initially, the Department of Education for Northern Ireland suggested that we were being too ambitious. Therefore, we went back to the drawing board and came up with a modest project costing £1·1 million.
Just as we had arranged with the permanent secretary at the Department of Education that we could begin to think about moving ahead and providing the leisure centre, the Minister responsible sent us a letter, the first two paragraphs of which read:
"You will be aware that in the course of the last few months the Minister has made a number of announcements about specific capital projects—mainly in the schools sector —which have been given approval to start in 1989/90."
Those were the various projects that had motivated a junket out to a certain part of the Province where he told us that he had found money to enable them to go ahead. The letter went on:

583
"I have to inform you that, apart from these projects, the Department will be unable to facilitate any other new starts in this financial year.
On the District Council front this means that the Department is unable to offer grant-aid on current applications in respect of sporting, recreational, community and arts facilities provision under the recreation and Youth Service".
In other words, the Minister had indulged in a con game. He had pretended to have extra money. He had gone out and distributed this money, and then promptly returned to his office to write to the rest of us and tell us that there was no money left for us—that to a council which was under-provided for, and one that provided good cross-community provision for its people.
Is it any wonder if I am sceptical when the Secretary of State says piously from the Dispatch Box that, if only the communities would come together and work more agreeably together, the problems of Northern Ireland would be sorted out? I am inclined to think that the Minister looked at Dungannon district council and said, "What a peaceable bunch. We can cut them out at this stage. We will send the money to somewhere that is slightly less agreeable."
It is not just the Minister with responsibility for education who acts in this high-handed and arrogant way. Recently, an organisation called the Goodman organisation sought planning permission to build a meat factory in my constituency, on a roundabout which is on the main route from the M I to Omagh and Enniskillen, so it is busy. The factory was planned to go outside a village and adjacent to a voluntary secondary school, a housing estate and a number of private houses. Immediately, there was local opposition to the proposal, and I conveyed that opposition to every department involved in the decision to allow planning permission to go ahead. Initially, I was assured by the planners, the roads people, the water people, and the Department of Agriculture drainage division that there was no difficulty. They were opposed to a project in the area, but the whole matter had to be referred to an article 22 inquiry.
The ordinary objectors to the project did not have the finance to engage a barrister, and finance is not made available to such people. The organisation was able to bring along a high-powered team and senior counsel to represent it. Some of us, realising that we were in difficulty, went along to the inquiry and drew to the attention of the commissioner the danger of building a factory on that site. One of the matters that we drew to his attention was that if the organisation were allowed to build a factory in that location, it would be creating a monopoly—something to which the Government are supposed to be opposed.
The commissioner agreed with us in his findings. With regard to roads he said:
"I share and support these apprehensions about the advisability of introducing this access at this point, in spite of the Road Service's stated acceptance of it."
The road service had told me earlier that it was opposed to the proposal.
In terms of water, the commissioner said:
"the effect on the natural habitat of the river by the abstraction of such a percentage at low river flows has not been investigated. It would seem to me that such an abstraction rate was bound to have some effects downstream."
The commissioner was equally derogatory about effluent:
"The effluent treatment plant, skin shed and stomach content storage area will also be visible from the Omagh
584
Road. I have noticed that at all the plants that I have visited there is some area for dumping unwanted waste. I am sure that it is required for emergency use, if not the normal running of the plant. In the case of this site it would have to be close to the river, at the lowest part of the site, or in a prominent position by the A4 or A5."
He concluded by rejecting the planning application.
In terms of employment, the commissioner recognised that the claims that the factory would provide 200 new jobs were false. As a result of the factory being built beside Ballygawley, 80 jobs in the same firm proposing the new factory would be lost in Enniskillen. The claimed 200 jobs would be reduced to 120. I was able to tell the commissioner that another plan to build a small boning factory providing 40 jobs would have to be abandoned if a monopoly developed. Therefore, the claimed 200 jobs were really only 80.
Members of the Ulster Farmers Union and other informed sources went further and suggested that Mid-Ulster Meats with 50 or 60 jobs, the council abattoir in Dungannon with a considerable number of jobs and other meat factories would ultimately be forced out of business. The Goodman Meats project would actually cause a net loss of jobs.
When the Minister was approached about this matter, he informed people that he did not know anything about it. He said that it had not arrived on his desk. For months it appeared that it had not arrived on his desk. Then the district councillors in Dungannon caught on. As soon as we approached the council elections, we realised that the announcement was going to be made and there would be no one there to object. We decided to try to stop that happening. A senior person in the planning department was telephoned and asked to state that that would not happen. A very clever assurance was given. We were told that it would not happen before the election. We should perhaps have understood that we would be misled. It did not happen before the election; it happened the day after, before we got back to our councils. That is the sort of trickery that we have to live with day by day, week by week and year by year.
There are many—I hope that I am one of them—who try to be reasonable. [Interruption.] I did not make it clear that the announcement was that planning permission would be given for the firm.
There are not many hon. Members here today, but those who read Hansard tomorrow might well look at Goodman International's background. It is based in the Irish Republic. There is nothing wrong with that: we do a great deal of business with the Irish Republic. But the firm is reported to be close to certain members of the Fianna Fail Government. In fact, it is supposed to subscribe heavily to that party's election expenses. No doubt it was able to bring influence to bear through the Anglo-Irish Conference or through other connections to circumvent the recommendations of the commissioner who investigated the planning application.
Let me quote from the Irish Farmers Monthly of April 1989. It says that the Goodman outfit
"has the ability to house over 25,000 cattle on nearly 50 acres of concrete."
The important part says:
"The cattle are fed on what is probably the cheapest feed in Ireland with usual ingredients including imported corn, gluten, meat and bone meal from his own factories, molasses and the inclusion of chicken litter at up to 20 per cent. of the diet. A recent visitor to the feed lots expressed surprise at the

585
feeding of such a high level of chicken litter. But he was told, in a matter of fact way, that over a third of the diet had comprised of chicken litter on occasion".
That is the entrepreneur whom our administrative team is inviting into Northern Ireland to create a monopoly which will put our other abattoirs out of business, and which will ultimately result in the backbone of our economy, the farming industry, getting lower prices for its cattle. That is the irresponsibility that we have to face week after week, month after month, year after year.
But there is more. A FEOGA grant—processed through the Department of Agriculture at Stormont—worth £750,000 was agreed for that project long before planning permission was even considered. Because I insisted on an answer at the inquiry I managed to extract a letter that had been sent to the Department of Agriculture from the Goodman organisation saying that it had been confidently assured that planning permission would be agreed in May or June 1988. Yet the inquiry was not due to take place until September or October. To enlighten hon. Members, let me say that on no previous occasion have I ever found a FEOGA grant being awarded to any organisation until it could prove that it had planning permission to go ahead with a project in a specific place.
We shall have to deal not only with the £750,000 FEOGA grant but with a large grant from the Industrial Development Board—none of us will be told for how much—to put our other abattoirs out of business, to create a monopoly and to undermine our agricultural industry with an organisation that uses 20 per cent. chicken litter and bonemeal in cattle feed. What would the Minister responsible for environmental and health matters have to say about that? It is a pity that he is not in the House tonight to hear what we have to say.
While a massive organisation can ride roughshod over the interests of the community I represent—and Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office allow it to happen—the little fellow—
Mr. Sydney Chapman: Disgraceful.
Mr. Maginnis: It is disgraceful. I am glad to have an accord with the Government Whip. I hope that he will advise his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office of his feelings on the matter.
The little fellow who tries to run a bus and coach hire firm and wants to provide an adequate service for my constituents—a firm such as Lakeland Tours in County Fermanagh—is balked every step of the way. Ulster Bus is allowed to prevent the development of a service for my constituents. The Department of the Environment road transport licensing branch permits that to happen. In an effort to provide an express service for students travelling the 90 miles from Belfast to Enniskillen each weekend, going out on a Friday and returning on a Sunday night, a group of enterprising constituents decided to set up a travel club and hoped to engage Lakeland Tours to provide that service.
The road transport licensing branch sent them a letter warning them that it would be irregular, that Ulster Bus provided an adequate service, that they should not cut across that service and to do so would be in contravention of regulations. But what happened a week or two later?
586
Ulster Bus announced a special weekend commuter fare and a new service on exactly the lines that had been proposed by the private operator—Lakeland Tours.
The little man is neither cared for nor cared about. I have example after example of that type of irregularity in dealing with the affairs of Northern Ireland. That irregularity means that the people I represent are getting neither value for the money that is there to be spent nor any opportunity to make proper representations, and I do not have the opportunity to make day-to-day representations on their behalf.
I am not allowed to have meetings with permanent secretaries by order of Ministers, one of whom is sitting in the Chamber now. He forbids his permanent secretary and senior civil servants to see me and other colleagues unless we agree to talk to him. That is the disgraceful way in which we are treated and I want it to be put on the record fairly and squarely. I want the Minister, if he disputes that, to stand up and do so as fairly and squarely as I have made my comments. We will then know where we stand in the future. I will know that there is a means whereby I can properly represent the interests of my constituents without having to submit to the bully-boy intimidation I have suffered for the past three and a half years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I would be happy to see the hon. Gentleman and any other Member of Parliament at any time, because that is the normal etiquette observed between Members of Parliament and Ministers. As for the hon. Gentleman saying that it is not possible for him to put his point of view across, he has done so for the past 36 minutes. If he continues for much longer, there will not be an opportunity for me to reply to the debate.
Mr. Maginnis: I certainly will not—
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you tell us when the debate has to end?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): The debate has to end at 11.30 pm at the latest.
Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful for that advice. I do not intend to take any of the time available to the Minister. I believe that he and his colleagues have a great deal to answer for.
As I said at the beginning, the people I represent do not suggest that they are underfunded or that they are not properly catered for financially. I could make many more points but—
Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the ban on Members of Parliament seeing permanent secretaries does not extend throughout the entire Northern Ireland Office? For example, I can meet the permanent secretary at the Department of Agriculture. When an attempt was made by the Minister, Lord Lyell, to stop that meeting, I received a personal apology from the permanent secretary who said that he would meet me at any time to discuss the matters I wanted to raise.
Mr. Maginnis: I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point. Perhaps the Minister will explain why he and some of his colleagues are so adamant that we have to meet him and only him and why we cannot discuss with senior civil servants issues that should not and would not normally take up the time of a Minister. I will say frankly

587
to the Minister that some of his senior officers are willing to meet me and my colleagues but are keen that the Minister does not know that they have infringed his directive.
I will take the Minister's hint. Obviously, he will make amends. He is about to explain why we have such a bureaucratically inefficient system and why the firms from outside, one of which I have mentioned at length and which may turn out to be another De Lorean, are dealt with in a privileged manner and why some of the smaller firms—the backbone of our community and economy—are treated in such a despicable and offhand way.
I am grateful for the opportunity to have brought those facts before the House. I can stand by those facts. Let the Minister, when he replies, contradict me if he dares. Let him tell me that I cannot stand by those facts. He knows that that is not true.
10.54 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): Northern Ireland appropriation debates, especially those on main Estimates, are always wide-ranging. Hon. Members have raised many points on the spending plans and policies for particular services. I am anxious to have an opportunity to deal with as many of those as possible. I noted that earlier in the debate, which I have sat through for the past four hours, there was a comment that Ministers have not always found it possible to deal with points at the end of the debate. I accept that comment. On previous occasions, I have found that I have been squeezed out of the debate because hon. Members from Northern Ireland were so anxious to take part that it seemed right to give way to them. However, I was anxious to deal with as many points as possible.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was good enough to say that he recognised that it would not be possible to deal with all the points raised. Indeed, the number has been so many that it will not be possible to deal with them all. However, I give the House the assurance that I will deal with as many as possible and I will ensure that the points cannot be dealt with in debate are drawn to the attention of my ministerial colleagues as they relate to their Departments and letters will be written to hon. Members accordingly.
Before I deal with specific points arising from the debate, I want to add briefly to the comments that my right hon. Friend made in his opening remarks on the broader economic and public expenditure context within which the estimate provisions are framed, especially the industrial and economic areas for which I have responsibility.
Hon. Members will be aware that, when giving details of the outcome of the 1988 public expenditure round for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reaffirmed the priority within public expenditure that we attach to strengthening the economy. That objective is second only to the overriding priority of combating terrorism through the programme on law and order and I am pleased to say that there are clear signs that our public expenditure strategy is contributing to improvements in the economy.
It is also the case, of course, that Northern Ireland has benefited from the high levels of growth on the United Kingdom mainland and future prospects will be similarly linked to developments at national level. The combined effect of national economic growth and our public
588
expenditure strategy has been reflected in, for example, the growth of output over recent years in the textile and clothing industries. There is also evidence of current growth and strong growth potential in a number of other sectors such as plastics, plastic packaging, information technology, electronics, including software production, and certain sectors of the food processing industry.
Another notable feature of the Northern Ireland economy in recent years has been the buoyancy of the retail sector. In the year to December 1988, the number of employees in retail distribution rose by some 1,300 or 2·7 per cent. and further increases can be expected. We are looking forward to welcoming the new Debenham store which is to open in Belfast city centre, and which will create 500 new full and part-time jobs.
Employment in manufacturing industries has also risen, from 100,530 in March 1987 to 102,190 by March 1989, with nearly all major sectors experiencing growth. Overall, the total number of employees in Northern Ireland increased by 6,370 during the same period.
Comments were made during the debate, notably by the hon. Members for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) and Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), that some of those jobs were not necessarily of high quality and that they were, perhaps, low-tech jobs. I must say in parenthesis that I know that the hon. Member for Leicester, South wished to be here for the end of the debate, but it was simply not possible. He wishes to tender his apologies and he was good enough to say so to me.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: He has to attend the funeral of a close friend early in the morning.
Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, South will be grateful that that is on the record.
I must say to the two hon. Gentlemen who raised the point about the quality of jobs that that opinion would not be shared by those at Standard Telephones and Cables and Du Pont and by those now working at the Antrim technology park. I am proud of the quality of the jobs created across the sector of employment, from the large companies through to the small companies. There has been substantial growth on a long-term, viable basis. As my right hon. Friend said in his introductory remarks, at the same time the trend in unemployment is downward. Since January 1987, the seasonally adjusted figure has fallen by almost 17,000. Moreover, the prospects for continuing economic improvement are good. The latest survey from the Confederation of British Industry reports a positive balance in business confidence in all sectors of the economy.
Notwithstanding this background of economic improvement, we recognise the need for public expenditure allocations which address Northern Ireland's comparatively high levels of need, within the necessary constraint of national economic policy. The hon. Member for Leicester, South made a substantial point of that in his introductory remarks. We recognise that, although falling, unemployment levels are still around twice the national average; and even that disguises much higher rates of unemployment in certain areas, with male unemployment posing a particular challenge. Similarly, housing unfitness was still over 8 per cent., though again declining, in the

589
1987 housing survey; and Northern Ireland has a proportionately larger school population to educate than other parts of the United Kingdom.
Therefore, I advise hon. Members representing other parts of the United Kingdom, who may feel that special and perhaps excessive provision is given to Northern Ireland, that it is right and proper that public expenditure should continue to run at a higher level per capita than the United Kingdom average. Indeed, it runs at about 40 per cent. above the average for the rest of the United Kingdom, although one would not necessarily recognise that fact when one hears the complaints from hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies.
Reflecting those needs, the main estimates before the House tonight incorporate a number of important increases over the previous plans for 1989–90. These include an additional £24 million to the Industrial Development Board for its job promotion activities; and an additional £25 million for Action for Community Employment and job training.
I must advise the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) who commented on the tragedy of highly trained people being unemployed, that 70 per cent. of the long-term unemployed have no educational qualifications, which is why we are now switching so many extra resources to the link between training and employment and why we are seeking to promote the training elements in our schemes including the Action for Community Employment scheme, which now has a 20 per cent. training element.
We have also found an extra £23 million for priority roads, education and health programmes and an extra £15 million to continue the "Making Belfast Work" initiative as part of a £55 million overall programme.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked about progress on Harland and Wolff and on Shorts— a most important subject. My right hon. Friend said in his introductory remarks that additional provision will be sought through Supplementary Estimates for the full 1989–90 costs of the privatisations. We are convinced that the future of those companies lies in the private sector, and we are happy with the heads of agreement that have been exchanged in each case. They provide a real chance for a much brighter future for those who work for the companies. However, more remains to be done before the privatisations are fully concluded, but I am confident that it will be achieved.
As to Harland and Wolff, since the signing of the heads of agreement with the management buy-out team and Mr. Olsen, significant progress has been made in preparation for the formal completion of the sale. Discussions between my officials and the MEBO-Olsen team and their respective advisers are continuing to finalise the legal contracts and other matters associated with the sale of the company. A formal notification of the terms of the disposal has been submitted to the European Commission and I am hopeful that we shall receive an early and positive response.
Mr. John Parker, the chairman of Harland and Wolff, and his senior management team have held a series of what I understand to have been constructive meetings with the work force and we await the outcome of his negotiations. Subject to EC Commission approval and the satisfactory
590
conclusion of the other pre-contract conditions and procedures, I would expect that the sale would be completed in September as planned.
We have been working consistently to achieve moving Shorts to the private sector since my statement to the House on 21 July last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement on 7 June about the heads of agreement for the sale of Short Brothers to Bombardier of Canada. There will be a further opportunity for hon. Members to consider further the details of the privatisation agreement with Bombardier when Supplementary Estimate provision is sought. The agreement with Bombardier has opened the way for the transfer of Shorts from public ownership to the private sector, and we believe that this will give the company the best possible opportunity for a bright commercial future. We are satisfied with Bombardier's commitment to making a success of Shorts as a single company in Northern Ireland. We believe that during the next few years developments will prove exciting both for Shorts and for Northern Ireland. We look to the company to make a major contribution to the Northern Ireland economy.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South commented on the low percentage increase in spending on health and personal social services. Total expenditure will amount to £946 million, including £7·7 million for the 1989 review body pay awards for which Supplementary Estimates will be taken later. I think that perhaps the hon. Gentleman had not taken account of the fact that a reduction from 1 April 1989 in the rate of employers superannuation contributions has created savings of some £15 million. Together with the health and social services boards' cost improvement programmes yielding some £6·5 million, those savings mean that effective spending on the programme will be about 8·5 per cent. above last year's level, and not the figure that the hon. Gentleman quoted.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about bed closures in hospitals. During the past year the Eastern health and social services board has closed a number of acute beds, but that is in line with targets in the regional strategy for 1987 to 1992. I have been assured that services to patients have not been reduced as a result. Indeed, I understand that the number of patients receiving treatment continues to rise, reflecting a more efficient use of the resources available.
The hon. Gentleman asked about theatre closures at the Belfast City hospital. The recent theatre closures are a temporary measure brought about by a nursing shortage that arises from sickness and unexpected difficulties in recruitment. The normal theatre nursing complement of 62 has been reduced to 47, with the result that there are only four theatre teams instead of the usual six—that is, one to cover each theatre. The six theatres are used in rotation; no theatre has actually been closed. It is hoped that a fifth theatre nursing team will be available in two or three weeks and that a return to normal will follow in the near future.
The hon. Gentleman commented on hospital waiting lists. Of course, we are very concerned about that. The Department has recently had discussions with four health and social services boards about the validation and medical management of waiting lists and waiting times. Departmental guidance on the completion of waiting list returns has been reissued and a clinicians' guide to waiting list management will be published to promote better practice.

591
The hon. Gentleman referred to expenditure on the Health Service at large, to Northern Ireland's health profile and to the need to provide resources to deal with the health problems in the region. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government have recognised the special needs of Northern Ireland, which is why programme costs are more than 20 per cent. higher per capita than in England and Wales. That is precisely in recognition of Northern Ireland's higher needs.
The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) raised the issue of temporary classrooms. As my hon. Friend mentioned in his opening speech, nine new school projects with a total cost of £11 million have been allocated resources to enable them to start in 1989. A major aspect of that programme is the replacement of substandard facilities to meet the needs of the modern curriculum and to rationalise the existing stock of school buildings. I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the hon. Gentleman recognises that matters are moving in the right direction.
The hon. Member also asked, as did the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), about the tourism review that I commissioned in October of last year and which I received at the end of April. It will be published soon. I can give the hon. Gentlemen a preview by saying that the review has recognised that a comparatively small proportion of those who come to Northern Ireland do so as genuine holidaymakers or tourists. We believe that much more can be done to promote Northern Ireland as a tourist location and we intend to pursue that policy vigorously. As I say, the policy document will be published soon. We recognise the great importance of this area and agree that much more can be done.
The hon. Members for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and for Antrim, North referred to the level of roads expenditure. As I travel around Northern Ireland, I am surprised by the number of roads that are being improved and built. I appreciate that that is casual comment, and on one recent long journey it seemed that almost every paving stone was being replaced along the length of the road.
As my right hon. Friend said in his opening remarks, an additional £8 million is included in this year's roads programme for extending the programme of structural maintenance of carriageways and footways. The total provision for roads in 1989–90 is about £129 million, which the House will agree is a substantial allocation indeed.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) raised the question of the rationalisation of controlled secondary schools in his constituency. I hope he will accept that some further rationalisation is necessary. Some of the schools in question are already too small to provide a properly balanced curriculum for their pupils. The Belfast education and library board is currently considering how best the rationalisation might be achieved, but has not yet reached a final conclusion. When the board reaches firm proposals, they will be subject to the statutory development proposal procedures, which will give all interested parties an opportunity to comment on them before decisions are taken.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the resources that have been allocated under the "Making Belfast Work" initiative and suggested that certain parts of his constituency had been unfairly treated. I would not wish to minimise the problems in his constituency, but the Government are confident that the allocations for deprived areas of Belfast have been made in good faith.
592
We have tried to direct them to the areas of greatest need, and I believe that they are being effective in achieving their results.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North also raised a point about MRI, and I have in the last hour or so learned more about magnetic resonance imaging than I ever thought would be necessary for me. The provision of MRI remains an objective in the current regional strategy. I understand that the clinical efficacy of this equipment is still undergoing evaluation. A number of studies are in progress and the results of a major evaluation being carried out by the Medical Research Council are expected to be made available later this year. Also, the technology is rapidly changing and I understand that, as development progresses, new models are likely to become available which will be considerably cheaper to install and run and which will offer a wider range of clinical applications. The significant investment of resources required for MRI will also be a factor in the timing of its introduction.
By pointing out that resources were available in Dublin and London, the hon. Gentleman asked, as it were by implication, why no such resources were available in Northern Ireland. The capital costs per MRI installation are currently about £1 million, and revenue costs are estimated at £275,000 per year. If, as he said, it is possible for his constituents and others in Northern Ireland to enjoy the benefit of these resources by travelling to London or Dublin, as they wish, that appears to be a sensible use of resources at this stage, although obviously the matter will be kept under review.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North also spoke about the increase in IDB rents—I think he referred to Industrial Development Board rents rather than to Local Enterprise Development Unit rents—for small businesses. He said that some small businesses were being driven out of business by rent increases. If that is the case, I would wish to know about it, and I shall institute an inquiry and see what can be done. I hope I shall discover that the increases are fair and reasonable, but I shall take note of the point and ensure that no firm is driven out of business by such increases in rent.
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I will identify to the Minister within the next day or so the business about which I was speaking.
Mr. Viggers: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Without more information, I cannot comment further, but obviously I want to know the details, and I shall pursue the matter myself.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked about the Belfast urban area plan. The plan was published on 17 November 1987, and the closing date for submitting objections was 15 January 1988. The number of objections received was 2,400, and a public local inquiry into them by the Planning Appeals Commission was held in mid-1988, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know. The commission is expected to report to the Department later this year and, after considering the report, the Department will issue its response and adoption statement. Although it is hoped that the plan will be adopted in late 1989, it depends on the date on which the commission reports to the Department and on the issues raised by the report.
The hon. Gentleman asked also about planning consultation, and expressed concern about the lack of consideration given to representations made to planning

593
officials. Any planning applicant has the right to appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission if he or she is not satisfied with the Department's decision to refuse planning permission for a project.
The hon. Member for South Down raised further points about school rationalisation. For some time, the South Eastern education and library board has been considering the future of controlled secondary grammar school provision in South Down, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It has, however, suspended further consideration of the matter until it is in a position to take into account the effects of the education reform proposals that were recently announced by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science. When the board comes to a final decision on the matter, it will have to publish a development proposal outlining its proposals. There will be ample opportunity for all interested parties to comment on the proposal during the statutory consultation period, and the Department will take those comments into account before either approving or rejecting the proposal. There is no action which the Department can take until a proposal is published by the board.
The hon. Gentleman expressed some dissatisfaction that it had taken so long to submit the United Kingdom case for the less-favoured areas extension to Brussels. As he is probably aware, the criteria for designation of land are strict, and tests are necessarily time-consuming, and there is a significant extraction process in the presentation of statistical data relating to various economic and demographic tests. However, the matter is now in the hands of the EC Commission, and we hope that it will be able to reach a decision quickly.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the Policy Studies Institute report on housing. I noted his comments. It is no surprise that, among its other findings, the PSI study finds no evidence of any sort of discrimination against Catholics. We welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to the star fibre optics programme, which we regard as an important element in selling high technology investment into Northern Ireland. He asked whether the star programme will apply to all areas of Northern Ireland. I confirm that that will be the case, because spurs from the fibre-optic ring will run into different regions. However, the hon. Gentleman does not need to rely on the spur in his own constituency, because the ring runs through the hon. Gentleman's constituency. He will be among those who are most able to take most advantage of the star programme.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East referred to accident and emergency services. The recommendations arising from a complementary study, carried out by a number of members of the eastern board into all the services provided at the Belfast City hospital, the Mater hospital and the Royal Victoria hospital, were included in the eastern board's draft operational plan as a basis for consultation. Proposals to implement some of the recommendations of the report are expected to go before the board shortly. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for health matters will want to discuss the proposals with the board chairman when the board has come to a decision.
594
The hon. Member for Antrim, East asked about delays at the land registry. There is still a backlog of registrations. We are aware of the difficulties caused by delays in registration, and an efficiency scrutiny under the auspices of the efficiency unit is due to issue its report on the operation of the land registry on 31 August 1989, which I think is the date that the hon. Gentleman was seeking.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to window contracts at the Cregagh flats. He will appreciate that I am not in a position to respond to his concerns tonight, but I will ensure that his points are drawn to the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East expressed concern about the future of Moyle hospital at Larne. There are no proposals from the Northern health and social services board to close the hospital. The opening of the new hospital at Antrim will, however, necessitate a realignment of acute service, particularly those currently provided at the Moyle and at Waveney hospital in Ballymena. The role of these hospitals will change to that of supporting the new hospital. The precise range of services to be provided at the Moyle is a matter for the Northern board. The board's proposals will ultimately have to be approved by the Department of Health and Social Services.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North raised the issue of Mitchell House school. I am advised that this is a far from simple issue. My hon. Friend will note the points that have been made by the hon. Gentleman and I undertake that he will write to him.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the cost of complying with the EC water directive. We take our obligations under the directive seriously and we will be assessing the resource implications in the context of public expenditure planning arrangements. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is too early to be specific about the allocations which will be made for this purpose.
The effect of the Channel tunnel on road communication and transportation, particularly of freight, was also referred to by the hon. Gentleman. I would find it most surprising to discover that the normal pattern whereby transport companies in the Republic of Ireland use the ports of Northern Ireland, because of their increased and better efficiency, would be reversed as a result of the Channel tunnel. I will arrange for the hon. Gentleman to receive a letter on the subject when we have given it careful consideration.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) made a speech which I thought fell below his normal standards of objectivity. He commented on the service by the Northern Ireland Civil Service and told a horror story about a telephonist who had left him hanging on at lunchtime because it was her lunchtime and she was going off. I was shocked by the hon. Gentleman's story because I know it to be so unfair to the standard of service provided in Northern Ireland. If he comes across a case of inefficiency or lack of courtesy, I hope that he will draw it to the attention of Ministers because we would wish to pursue it.
We have the privilege of knowing the very high standard of service provided by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The levels of courtesy and industry are exceptional. As one who comes from outside Northern Ireland, I have been greatly impressed by the Northern Ireland Civil Service. I believe that, man for man and woman for woman, it provides a better service than is

595
provided in any other part of the United Kingdom. I say too that it ill becomes the hon. Gentleman, if he is seeking to assist in promoting the interests of Northern Ireland, to talk down the people who seek to serve Northern Ireland. By comparing the service provided, for instance, by the Passport Office, by the DHSS and by telecommunications in Northern Ireland with the service provided elsewhere, we know that the people of Northern Ireland are very well served.
I have sought to deal with the points that were raised during the debate. I recognise that it has not been possible to deal with everything. I repeat—
Mr. Maginnis rose—
Mr. Viggers: I am sorry; I do not wish to give way at this point.
Mr. Maginnis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure that there is a great deal that you
596
can do about it, but you will recall that the Minister asked for time to respond to the serious allegations which I made. I immediately gave way so that he could do so. I should like you and the House to note that he has not answered one single point about the administration in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Viggers: I was coming to a conclusion. I will simply say that I have tried to deal with the various points raised during the debate. I am grateful to hon. Gentlemen for the concern that they have expressed on behalf of their constituents which enables us to seek to provide a better service in return.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 8th June, 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.
  DESIGNS
  That the draft Design Right (Semiconductor Topographies) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 6th June, be approved.

  RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES
  That the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Sale and Purchase and Share Subscription Agreements) (Goods) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 22nd May, be approved.
  That the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) (Amendment) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
  Question agreed to.

Peak National Park (Flood Damage)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]
11.24 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise the pressing need for urgent action to be taken to repair the damage that was suffered in the Wildboarclough valley and in a limited number of other areas in my constituency as a result of the devastating cloud burst and flash floods of 24 May. The exceptionally heavy rainfall on the dry baked mountain sides poured off into Todd Brook, which runs north through Kettleshulme and south into Clough Brook which runs through the Wildboarclough valley.
The floods left one man dead, Dr. Donald Hatch, when his car hit a swirling flood of water near Todd Brook and Kettleshulme on the A5002, and was swept into the raging brook. Two brave firemen built a make-shift bridge from three ladders and, with the help of passing drivers, lowered it across the water to the car. Using what I can only describe as that precarious device, the firemen eventually reached the car, sadly, only to find the driver drowned and pinned beneath his car. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in expressing our sympathy to the family and friends of Dr. Hatch.
The main disaster, however, was in the Wildboarclough valley and the effect of the floods upon the area involved was dramatic. Seven road bridges were extensively damaged and two miles of highway were virtually destroyed. It is too early as yet to assess the full impact of the disaster upon the local community, but it is important that we begin now to plan for the future to ensure that the unique character of the beautiful area of the Peak district national park can be properly and fully restored.
The intensity of the rainfall over a period of just 40 minutes caused extensive damage; the total list of which, in fact, includes 13 highway bridges, an unknown number of footbridges, substantial lengths of retaining walls, sections of the highway and hundreds of dry-stone walls. Local farmers, householders and businesses have suffered severe damage not just to the fabric of their buildings, but to their incomes and, what is more, to their whole environment.
Whatever additional resources are offered, it will take many months—perhaps a year or two—before the scars of this freak storm are removed. It was a once-in-a-hundred years storm.
I have visited the affected area and met not just with local residents, farmers and others in business, but with the local councillors and the Cheshire county council director of highways and transportation, whose responsibility it is to co-ordinate much of the response to the damage and to carry out the necessary repairs.
The county will be approaching the Government, with my full support, to ask for special grant aid to help it cope with a repair bill which could, if the valley is to be returned to its former state, come to a staggering £2 million or more. I hope that the Minister will listen sympathetically not just to the request for additional resouces to make good the roads and bridges which have been damaged, but also to repair the dry-stone walls and other damaged property in such a manner as is in keeping with the character of this most scenic and valuable of areas. The dry-stone walling in particular is a hallmark of the

599
countryside of the Peak national park and to replace it, for example, with wire fencing, timber fencing or other more modern materials would be to lose for ever one more piece of our rural heritage, and a piece which is a major tourist feature of the Peak park and east Cheshire.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will take that point and do what he can to reassure local people, and those many thousands more who visit this beautiful area, that every possible step will be taken to restore Wildboarclough to its former state.
I accept quite willingly that some of this assistance may be channelled through the Peak Park joint planning board, not least the grants for the restoration of the dry-stone walling. I make no pretence, however, that I am asking for anything other than a major commitment from the Government. I also understand that it may be necessary, or perhaps wise, to seek additional emergency assistance from the European Community. I am sure that my hon. Friend will do all that he can to advise local authority representatives on the best way to make such an approach and that he will do all that he can to support such an application should it be made at some time in the near future.
So far, however, I have done no more than paint a broad-brush scenario of the situation that has arisen in an important small village in my constituency and the adjoining areas since 24 May. The House will appreciate that such a general picture is nothing compared to the impact upon the individuals who live there and their way of life.
Hill farmers, already facing difficulties, have been seriously affected, Mr. Lionel Belfield of Chambers farm, Macclesfield forest, saw his access drive and the bridge that supported it swept away almost in their entirety. Mr. Mike Richardson of High Ash farm, Wildboarclough, saw many of his trees washed away and his approach road swept away, Mr. John Eardley of Clough house farm saw one of his access roads and bridges completely destroyed. Mr. Derek Wild, a resident and the owner of Edinboro cottages in the centre of Wildboarclough, a superb terrace of stone cottages, saw them awash with flood water which left a legacy of mud and slime.
Mr. Fred Bailey of Brough farm lost a hard core road, the land drains that he had just installed as well as stock. Mr. Will Eardley of School cottage lost a number of ewes and lambs. Mr. Robert Webberley, who had just purchased Dingers Hollow farm from Piers Holmes Smith, who is moving to Scotland, found the flood pouring through his house and farm buildings. Mr. John Bowler found his dry-stone walls demolished, and he lost 34 ewes and 19 lambs from his farm, Torgate.
For local businesses the difficulties have not finished there. With the damage to local roads has come an interruption to the passing trade which was the lifeblood of many local men and women. The Crag inn, run by Mr. and Mrs. Woodward, has had virtually no custom since the disaster struck. Through no fault of their own—their customers—ramblers, sightseers, lovers of the countryside simply do not pass through the village any more and their trade joins them in their absence. The Higton family of the Brookside cafe are suffering the same fate as is the landlord of the Stanley Arms inn. I have sampled the hospitality of all three places, and I can recommend their hospitality and their fare to anyone who would call.
600
With road signs saying "Road closed" on all approach roads to the village and valley, business is now almost non-existent except for the locals, who account for no more than 20 per cent. of usual trade.
Throughout the crisis the people of Wildboarclough have stood together and have sought to help each other. The local parish council, chaired by Mr. John Bowler, a much-respected local farmer—I have already mentioned the losses he has sustained—supported by the clerk of the parish council, Mr. Robert Ashley, has served as an excellent co-ordinating body. It has ensured that the problems experienced by local people have been drawn urgently to the attention of the officers of the Cheshire county council and the Macclesfield borough council, which are the responsible local authorities. It has also drawn those problems to the attention of the Peak Park joint planning board. The local branch of the National Farmers Union and its secretary, Mrs. Sally Hodgson, have done their best to advise and to help all the farmers who have been affected.
I must tonight make mention of Mr. Bill Livesley, the local borough councillor, and Mr. David Palmer, the local county councillor, both of whom I have worked with closely. They have visited Wildboarclough to see first hand the damage which has been done, and we have arranged a public meeting tomorrow evening in the Old School Room in Wildboarclough at which all those involved in the many different roles can exchange information about the precise work which needs to be done, its likely cost, the period during which it will be carried out and the possible sources of financial assistance. I am sure that, this evening, my hon. Friend will want to send a clear message and indication to that meeting that he is aware of the problems and that all possible action will be taken to provide the necessary financial and technical assistance to restore life to its normal pattern.
The list of those to whom special acknowledgement is due would not be complete without reference to the local police force, the fire brigade, and the officers and men of the two local authorities, the Cheshire county council and the Macclesfield borough council. I wish to pay particular tribute to the officers and councillors of Cheshire county council under the chairmanship of their newly installed chairman, because they made a thorough site inspection a few days after the disaster to see for themselves precisely what had happened in that valley.
I am sure that the House will be interested if I refer briefly to the extract from the report prepared for the county council and me by the director of highways and transportation, Mr. Brian Nielson, for whom I have the greatest regard and who has certainly left no stone unturned to try to help the people of Wildboarclough. His report states:
"On Wednesday 24th May at approximately 14.15 hours a radio call was received at the Macclesfield Area Office from an Area Supervisor in the Wincle area"
—Wincle is an adjoining village—
"that heavy rainfall was occurring and causing extensive flooding in Wincle and Wildboarclough and that assistance would be required to clear these floods from the carriageway.
Up to lunchtime of 24th May the weather had been hot, dry and sunny and this type of weather pattern had been existing in this area since 27th April and therefore ground conditions on the hillsides at the time of the storm were exceedingly dry …
Further reports were received from members of the public that severe storm damage had occurred in the

601
Wildboarclough area and it was becoming apparent that damage to highways, culverts and bridge structures had occurred.
At 15.50 hours a report was received from the Cheshire police that severe flooding was occurring at Reed Bridge, Kettleshulme, some miles from Wildboarclough and that a car had been swept off the carriageway into adjoining farmland by the severity of the flood at this location. Acting on this information from the Police the B5470 was temporarily closed. Immediately Direct Labour Organisation personnel were instructed to proceed to Kettleshulme area to erect suitable barriers to warn traffic of the road closure at this location."
The report continues:
"Reports were now being received by radio from County personnel that extreme severe storm damage had occurred in the Wilboarclough area and that extensive damage to bridge structures, culverts and carriageways had occurred. Also on the A537 in the area of Shining Tor, landslides had taken place partially closing the carriageway.
At approximately 16.30 hours the Bridges Section of the County Highways Department were informed of damage which had occurred to structures and a request was made for Bridge Engineers to be despatched to the Macclesfield area immediately. Direct Labour had been put on to full mobility for providing barriers to roads in the Macclesfield Forest, Wildboarclough, Saltersford and Kettleshulme areas as these roads were impassable.
All the bridges crossing the Clough stream had been extensively damaged. It was also noticed that culvert head walls, highway boundary walls and the highway structure had either been severely damaged or washed away completely.
At 22.00 hours a sweeper from Macclesfield Borough Council was organised to commence clearing up heavy deposits of gravel from the main A537 Buxton Road and Old Buxton Road, Macclesfield Forest. DLO gangs were deployed to commence clearing roads of heavy deposits of stone walling particularly in the Clough road from the Stanley Arms Public House to High Ash Farm where extensive flooding had occurred. Contact was also made with the residents of Edinboro Cottages who requested assistance in clearing up flood damage to their premises."
That is a record of some of the action taken by the end of that first day, 24 May. The work continued over the following days and was matched by sterling efforts from the police, the fire brigade and the borough council.
The severity of the storm and the extensive damage which occurred has had a devastating effect on the local community, especially the farmers within the area. Several have land on either side of bridges which are now impassable and are having to do a considerable mileage in detours to be able to feed and attend to their livestock, tend their land and receive winter feed and other deliveries. One farmer in particular, Mr. George Turnock of Lower Barn farm, Wildboarclough, is experiencing difficulties in gaining access to his premises as the only road in at the present time is alongside the Clough stream which is very narrow and in a dangerous condition in many places and exposed to any further flooding which may occur. Unless access is facilitated in the very near future for his winter fodder and to enable him to transport his beasts to market, he will suffer severe financial loss.
Wildboarclough was a picturesque valley in the Peak national park, and is a popular area for visitors, for walkers, for cyclists, for school parties and many others who love the beautiful countryside of the Peak Park and east Cheshire. The devastation caused by the flash flood has to some extent been exacerbated because of the environmental need to restore the valley, including the highway, to its former condition. Rebuilding the highway does not present major engineering difficulties, but the cost
602
will be substantial if the retaining walls, culverts and so on are to be restored, as I hope that they will be, to their original character and specification.
It is in this major task that the people of Wildboarclough, few in number but important none the less, need the assistance of Government at all levels, perhaps from the European Community, from the Countryside Commission, from the North-West water board and from the Groundwork Trust, in addition to the many bodies to which I have already referred. Wildboarclough and the Clough valley may be unknown to many people, but to the people of Cheshire and the north-west it is a delightful spot. We want to restore it. I hope that the Government will respond positively to my request on behalf of my constituents.
11.40 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Richard Ryder): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for initiating this short debate. He has most movingly and clearly described the extent of the devastation caused by the flash floods in Wildboarclough valley on 24 May, I have seen his photographs and those taken by my officials of the devastation caused on that day.
Let me first offer my most sincere condolences to him and to the family and friends of Dr. Hatch who was so tragically killed in this disaster. Clearly the effect of this sudden storm on the local community has been devastating and I offer it all my sympathy in the difficulties that it now faces. I must also say that the initiatives that the local community has taken to itemise the damage and seek assistance in repairing it are first class. I would particularly like to single out the contribution of Mr. John Bowler, the chairman of the parish council who has personally suffered a good deal but who has, none the less, given a lead in the recovery effort.
My hon. Friend underlined that point. I have the impression of a strong and compassionate local community which has responded with great fortitude and speed to an entirely unforeseen disaster. It has my admiration as well as my sympathy and the promise that Government will do what they can within their powers to help put right the damage.
Clearly, a great responsibility here rests on the local community, the local authority and other organisations in the area as well as a number of Departments of State. Though I shall want to concentrate tonight on the assistance that my Department can offer and on its involvement so far in advising farmers, perhaps I can first address myself to the question of local authority assistance and repairs to the damaged highway. As my hon. Friend has said, there has been significant damage to the main access road through the valley. I know that he has already written to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Transport, to bring to his attention the sad events in Wildboarclough. He has now, I believe, received a reply to his letter. The position on this, as I understand it, is as follows.
The primary responsibility for dealing with emergencies like the devastation in Kettleshulme and Wildboarclough and, in particular, damage to major roads, lies with the local authorities. They have wide discretionary powers to

603
spend money for such purposes under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972 and normally include an amount in their budgets for such contingencies.
At the same time, however, the Government recognise that it would be unreasonable to expect the entire burden of this extra local authority expenditure to fall on the ratepayer.
Under a model scheme designed to deal with extraordinary costs arising from emergencies, known as "the Bellwin Scheme", my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment can in certain circumstances, provide special financial assistance to local authorities. These circumstances include a situation where, as a consequence of an emergency, authorities would otherwise incur an undue financial burden in carrying out immediate works to safeguard life and property or prevent suffering and severe inconvenience to affected communities. That burden is defined as expenditure above and beyond a threshold which represents what the local authority might normally be expected to budget for.
The Bellwin scheme has been used only twice so far. Once, following the emergencies created by the severe weather during the winter of 1986–87 and, again, after the great storm of 1987. If the county council considers it has a case for assistance of this kind, then I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would be prepared to look at a detailed and fully costed application.
Clearly, in an emergency of this kind, it is essential to be able to make an early estimate of the extent of the damage and disruption and to identify all those organisations which may be able to assist in putting things right. My hon. Friend has already told us that a meeting has been arranged for tomorrow evening in Wildboarclough. I understand that representatives of the county council, the borough council, the Peak Park board, the Countryside Commission, the North West water authority rivers division, and the Groundwork Trust have been invited together with my hon. Friend and a representative from Lord Derby's estate. I shall be very happy to ensure that a record of our debate tonight goes to the chairmen of these organisations. I am also delighted to say that officials from my own Department will be attending tomorrow's meeting as will representatives of the National Farmers Union. I look forward to seeing a full report from my officials. I would here echo my hon. Friend's tribute to the role which Mrs. Sally Hodgson the secretary of the Macclesfield branch of the NFU has played in advising and helping farmers in the wake of catastrophe.
My own officials have also been deeply involved. They have already written to all the farmers concerned asking them to state exactly the amount of the damage which they have experienced. They have also ensured that all these farmers are fully familiar with the farm and conservation grant scheme provisions since we believe that under this scheme a good deal of useful assistance will be available towards repairing the damage.
My hon. Friend has already said that this is an area of particular beauty and that the dry-stone walling which is a characteristic feature of the landscape contributes greatly to its beauty. The floods have wrought particular devastation here. My hon. Friend has said that to replace those dry stone walls with wire or timber fencing would mean the loss of a precious part of our rural heritage. I am entirely at one with him on this. As he will know, we as a
604
Government, attach very high importance to assisting farmers to build and maintain traditional stone walls and to plant and lay hedges. That is why the highest rates of grant available under our new farm and conservation grant scheme are precisely for this kind of work. Fencing, by comparison, attracts a very much lower rate of grant.
Because Wildboarclough is in a less favoured area we are able to offer grants to the farmers concerned of 50 per cent. of the costs involved in reinstating the stone walls. Those grants may also cover incidental items such as gates, stiles and footbridges. It is also possible under our capital grant arrangements for farmers, if they wish, to charge for the cost of their own labour in rebuilding the stone walls. I am sure that this facility to charge at a standard cost rate will prove helpful to those concerned.
In addition to the grants which we are able to offer, the national park authorities have discretion to top-up the amount available to a maximum of 80 per cent. of the full cost of the work. We have been holding exploratory discussions with the Peak Park board to see whether it is able to contribute in this way and I very much hope that these will be successful. We understand from the local NFU that there may be some concern that the farmers involved will have already exhausted their entitlement to grant-aidable investment work. My officials have looked into this aspect and I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that we do not expect any difficulty on this score. If I may, I would like then to advise all the farmers concerned to contact the ministry as soon as they can with a full survey of the rebuilding work which is necessary. It is of course important that they seek Ministry advice before embarking upon significant expenditure on which they hope to get grant.
There is one other aspect of the capital grant arrangements where I trust that we may be able to offer some flexibility to assist the farmers concerned. This relates to farmers who hold an improvement plan qualifying for Ministry grant aid. In ordinary circumstances, the content of such plans constitutes a contract between the farmer and the Ministry. The work in the plan may not be significantly varied and the farmer is obliged to complete all the investments set out in that plan. In these exceptional circumstances, however we shall look sympathetically at any individual cases in which a farmer is now unable to complete his approved plan because of the effect of the floods. The farmer will then be free to withdraw from his plan without penalty, or to change it to include new investments made necessary as a result of the impact of the flood damage. For farmers holding plans under the agriculture and horticulture development scheme or the agriculture improvement scheme, this could include some work on the rebuilding of farm roads and related items. Again, if there are any farmers who may stand to benefit from this flexibility, I urge them to seek advice and help from local Ministry staff as soon as possible.
I hope that I have been able to demonstrate to my hon. Friend that we are anxious to play the fullest part that we can in a co-ordinated effort to remedy the devastation caused in one of our most beautiful areas.
My hon. Friend has also suggested that an application should be made to the European Community for assistance from its disaster fund. On this I have to say that I am rather less sanguine. The Commission's criteria for offering assistance are extremely tight. It is generally prepared to intervene only in cases of very large-scale

605
damage rendering many people homeless. For example, in 1987 we received some limited funding from the Community in the aftermath of the October storms. However, that was allocated to individuals and families, and to the Red Cross for emergency feeding and housing. In other cases, such as the Arkengarthdale floods in 1986, where the damage was similar to that in Wildboarclough but much more widespread, we were unable to attract Commission assistance. I can give my hon. Friend the commitment that we will help if we can on this, but we must not raise our hopes too high.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Government are unable to intervene to pay compensation towards losses which could have been insured. That would, I fear, rule out compensation for the loss of livestock and damage to private housing.
606
However, that said, there are a number of other ways in which Government can help through other departments, and I have outlined some of those this evening. I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that we will work closely at the local level with those affected and with all other organisations involved in the repair work. I again extend my sympathies to all those who have been adversely affected and my congratulations on the positive way in which the local community has responded. My Department will do everything within its powers to contribute to the vital task of restoring this area and to reinstating it as a place much loved, not only by those who live there but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, by the many visitors there too. My hon. Friend has, as ever, done a great service to his constituents by raising this issue in the House tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Kurdish Refugees
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of his reply to Charter 87 on the Government's treatment of Kurd refugees in the Library.

  Mr. Renton
  I hope to be able to reply shortly to Charter 87's letter of 8 June and will place a copy of that reply in the Library.

  Punishment in the Community
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list all those organisations and individuals who responded to the Green Paper "Punishment, Custody in the Community", Cm. 424 and indicate which of them were in favour and which against(a) direct payment of compensation awards to victims of crime via court funds, (b) mediation by the probation service, (c) alterations of the minimum 40 hours for community service, (d) increasing the maximum period for attending a day centre, (e) greater use of tracking, (f) giving courts powers to require offenders to stay at home, (g) negative restrictions in probation orders, (h) judicial supervision of the proposed supervision and restriction order, (i) increasing the age limit for the juvenile court to 18 years, (j) giving magistrates or GPs the power to determine in which courts 16 to 20-year-olds should be heard, and (k) the setting up of a new organisation to take responsibilities for the arrangement of punishment in the community;

  (2) if he will make copies of the responses of the organisations and individuals who have responded to the Green Paper "Punishment, Custody in the Community", Cm. 424 available to researchers and other interested bodies.

  Mr. John Patten
  The main organisations that responded to the Green Paper "Punishment, Custody and the Community" were set out in reply to a question from the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) on 2 May. It is for those who responded to decide whether to make their comments available more widely.

  Remand System
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list all those organisations and individuals who responded to the Green Paper, "Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System" Cm. 434 and indicating which of them were in favour and which against(a) privately managed secure bail hostels (b) the privatisation of remand prisons and (c) the privatisation of escort services;
  190
  (2) if he will make copies of the organisations and individuals who have responded to the Green Paper, "Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System" Cm. 434 available to researchers and other interested bodies.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Eighty five organisations and individuals submitted comments on the Green Paper. These are listed as follows. Copies of the responses (except that from one organisation which commented in confidence) were placed in the Library when my right hon. Friend made his statement of 1 March at columns 277–78. A wide range of views was expressed on many aspects of the issues raised in the Green Paper, and it would be misleading to attempt to summarise the responses in the form requested. The responses are available for inspection on application to the Remands Unit, Home Office, Room 723, Thames house south, Millbank SW1P 4QJ.

  Organisations and individuals who responded to the Green paper "Private Sector Involvement in the Remand System" (Cm. 434)

  1. Mr. J. Hunter, Governor, Her Majesty's Prison Highpoint

  2. Mr. A. Samuels, Barrister

  3. Sir Leon Radzinowicz (letter to The Times)

  4. Mr. E. Knapman, Assistant Chief Probation Officer, Northamptonshire Probation Service

  5. Correctional Medical Systems Inc. (USA)

  6. Mr. P. E. Ford, Grade VI, Her Majesty's Remand Centre Feltham

  7. Mr. D. Waplington, Head of New Entrant Prison Officer Training, Prison Service College, Wakefield

  8. Mr. A. Booth, Grade VII, Her Majesty's Prison Gloucester

  9. The Detention Corporation Limited

  10. The Magistrates' Association

  11. Mr. P. Turnbull and Mr. P. Quinn, Her Majesty's Remand Centre Risley

  12. Northumbria Probation Service

  13. Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees

  14. Justices' Clerks' Society

  15. Mrs. M. McCarey

  16. Trades Union Congress

  17. National Schizophrenia Fellowship

  18. International Hospitals Group Limited

  19. Conservative Group of Councillors on Lewisham Council

  20. Dr. Keith Soothill, Member of Board of Visitors, Her Majesty's Prison Preston

  21. Association of Chief Police Officers

  22. Police Superintendents' Association

  23. National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders

  24. West Yorkshire Probation Committee

  25. Bedfordshire Probation Committee

  26. Securicor Limited

  27. National Union of Civil and Public Servants (Lord Chancellor's Department Group)

  28. Berkshire Probation Service

  29. Institute of Psychiatry

  30. Mrs. B. Bingham, Education Officer, HMP Latchmere House

  31. Professor Anthony Bottoms

  32. Association of County Councils

  33. Tarmac Construction

  34. Standing Conference of Clerks to Magistrates' Courts Committees

  35. Home Office Trade Union Side

  36. Board of Visitors Co-ordinating Committee

  37. The Education Department, Her Majesty's prison Holloway

  38. Dr. David Wilson, Her Majesty's prison Grendon

  39. National Association of Probation Officers

  40. Association of Chief Officers of Probation

  41. Howard League for Penal Reform

  42. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation

  43. Mr. John Greenway MP: Selsdon Group Paper

  44. Prison Reform Trust

  191

  45. The Mothers' Union

  46. Prison Governors' Association

  47. Mr. C. Lloyd, Member of Board of Visitors, Her Majesty's prison Sudbury

  48. Mr. T. C. Newell, Governor—Her Majesty's prison and Remand centre Winchester

  49. Police Federation

  50. Lord Chancellor's Department Trade Union Side

  51. United Kingdom Detention Services

  52. The Law Society

  53. London Diocesan Board for Social Responsibility

  54. Metropolitan Police

  55. Prison Officers' Association

  56. Prison Service Chaplaincy

  57. Contract Prisons PLC

  And the Boards of Visitors at the following establishments:

  58. HMYCC Aylesbury

  59. HMP Bedford

  60. LIMP Birmingham

  61. HMP Brixton

  62. HMP Cookham Wood

  63. HMYOI Dover

  64. HMP Erlestoke

  65. HMP and YCC Exeter

  66. HMYCC and RC Feltham

  67. HMP and YCC Grendon/HMP Spring Hill

  68. HMYCC Hatfield

  69. HMP Haverigg Camp

  70. HMP Hindley

  71. HMP Holloway

  72. HMP Hull

  73. HMP Latchmere House

  74. HMP Lewes

  75. HMP Leyhill

  76. HMRC Low Newton

  77. HMP Nottingham

  78. HMP Preston

  79. HMP Reading

  80. HMRC Risley

  81. HMP Sudbury

  82. HMP Swaleside

  Population of open prisons1

  Number of unoccupied places in open prisons1

  Number of category D prisoners in closed prisons2 3

  Prison service region

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Midland

  849

  —

  33

  —

  390

  North

  958

  315

  52

  35

  550

  South East

  955

  75

  96

  0

  600

  South West

  591

  —

  3

  —

  370

  TOTAL

  3,353

  390

  184

  35

  1,910

  1 On 9 June 1989. Open young offender institutions are not included.

  2 On 31 March 1989, the most recent date for which information is available. The figures are known to contain some inaccuracies.

  3 Males only. Females are not categorised in the same way as males.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the average daily prison population and (b) the number of places in open prisons each year from 1966 to 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is published annually in the report of the work of the prison service (appendix 4 of the latest issue, for 1987–88, Cm. 516).

  Television (Scotland)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been raised through the ITV levy from Scottish companies for S4C in each of the years since S4C was established.
  192

  83. HMP The Verne

  84. HMYOI Whatton

  85. HMP and RC Winchester

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take to ensure that 15 and 16-year-olds cease to be remanded in custody to prison department establishments.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We are considering the present arrangements for juvenile remands in the light of responses to last year's consultation paper on the unruliness certification procedure and other representations.

  Hull Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve facilities in B wing of Hull prison; and what resources are being provided for this task.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A programme of work is in hand to improve conditions in B wing at Her Majesty's prison, Hull. To date, the bathing areas have been upgraded and the wing has been redecorated throughout. In addition, a library has been provided and existing classrooms extended; these are now used for association purposes in the evening. Fire precautions have also been improved, and polycarbonate windows are now being installed. The work to date has cost approximately £130,000.

  Prisons
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) occupied places in open prisons, (b) unoccupied places in open prisons and (c) prisoners categorised as category D but held in closed prisons, there are in each prison department region.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Mr. Renton
  S4C is not funded from levy income. All ITV companies pay a fourth channel subscription to the Independent Broadcasting Authority, which is used to fund both Channel 4 and S4C. The IBA determines the proportion of this subscription to go to S4C, which may be up to 20 per cent.

  Fourth channel subscription payments by Scottish ITV companies in the years since S4C was established were as follows:

  Year ending

  STV

  Grampian

  Border

  Total (rounded)

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  December 1982

  2·35

  0·12

  0·05

  2·52

  December 1983

  6·11

  0·46

  0·11

  6·68

  March 1985

  7·21

  0·53

  0·12

  7·86

  193

  Year ending

  STV

  Grampian

  Border

  Total (rounded)

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  March 1986

  9·76

  0·59

  0·16

  10·50

  March 1987

  11·11

  0·55

  0·16

  11·82

  March 1988

  12·46

  0·40

  0·16

  13·01

  March 1989

  13·20

  0·39

  0·16

  13·75

  Total (rounded)

  62·20

  3·03

  0·92

  66·15

  These figures do not represent the net cost of the fourth channel subscription to the ITV companies. The subscription is offset by reduced levy and tax liabilities and fourth channel advertising revenue. Precise figures on the extent of these offsets are not available.

  Drug Abuse
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the initiatives that he is taking to combat abuse of the drug known as crack.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) on 15 June 1989 at column 1113.

  Gambling
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make representations to other Governments in the European Community that they only authorise gaming competitions on conditions that invitations to forward stakes are not sent through agencies or otherwise to countries whose laws forbid such lotteries within their national territories;

  (2) To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has made to other Governments in the European Community to prevent the unauthorised sale of foreign lottery tickets in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has approached the authorities in the Federal Republic of Germany to explore means of stopping the posting of invitations to participate in lotteries based there to people in Great Britain, as the promotion and conduct of foreign lotteries here is unlawful under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. We have no evidence of need to ask for a similar approach to be made to the authorities in any other member state of the Community, but we would certainly do so if necessary. Our understanding is that gambling legislation is a matter for each member state of the Community, as in any other country; and the means, if any, necessary to achieve respect for the law on lotteries in another country is a matter for national determination.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he has received from the European Commission on whether national legislation on gambling games is justified on grounds of public morality and consumer protection.

  Mr. John Patten
  None.

  Official Secrets Act 1989 and Security Services Act 1989
  Mr. Livingston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date the Official Secrets Act 1989 and the Security Services Act 1989 will come into force.

  Mr. John Patten
  As soon as practicable.

  Tamil Refugees
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received concerning Navaratnasingam Vathanan, a Tamil who was returned to Colombo in February 1988; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what representations he has received concerning Vythialingam Skandarajah, a Tamil who was returned to Colombo in February 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Renton
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: A judicial review of our decisions to refuse refugee status to these two cases and to four other Tamils was dismissed by the House of Lords in December 1987 and they were returned to Sri Lanka in February 1988. On 13 March 1989 an adjudicator upheld appeals against refusal of leave to enter in five of these cases. My right hon. Friend sought leave to appeal to the tribunal on 22 March but on 19 April the tribunal decided that it had no jurisdiction to consider this appeal because of a clerical error in the service of the papers. On 12 May my right hon. Friend sought leave to move for judicial review of the tribunal's decision and leave was granted on 17 May. We have received a number of representations about the cases from hon. Members, organisations and individuals.

  Pop Concerts
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will urgently examine existing legislation governing the holding of mass outdoor pop concerts and similar functions to assess the need to strengthen any provisions concerning (i) sound levels and decibel controls, (ii) prior warnings to local residents and (iii) provisions against exceeding any licence terms including time limits.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 14 June 1989]: The powers conferred on local authorities for the granting of public entertainments licences under the London Government Act 1963 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 are already very wide and should, in my view, be sufficient to enable them to regulate these matters.

  PC Gerald Corley
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ask the chief constable of Manchester to list the complaints made by members of the public against former PC Gerald Corley and the action taken in each case.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: Responsibility for the investigation of complaints against police officers and for consideration of disciplinary action rests with the chief officer of the force concerned, subject

  195
  to the provisions of part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. My right hon. Friend has no part to play in these procedures.

  It is not the normal practice to reveal details from a police officer's personal file. I understand from the chief constable of Greater Manchester, however, that complaints were made by members of the public against ex-PC Corley on 19 occasions from December 1977. All these complaints were fully investigated in accordance with the statutory procedures in force at the time. Where a complaint was withdrawn prior to the completion of the investigation it was reviewed by a senior police officer in accordance with force procedures.

  In only two cases were complaints against Mr. Corley found to have a sufficient measure of substantiation to justify action being taken against the officer. Both concerned allegations of irregularity in procedure. On both occasions Mr. Corley was interviewed by a senior officer.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  "Phones on the Move"
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether there has been any further developments following the publication of the discussion document "Phones on the Move" in January; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has considered carefully the responses to the discussion document in the light of our wish to select at least two operators to provide personal communications networks (PCNs) in the 1990s. We have also received advice from the Director General of Telecommunications.

  The director general has advised us that the capacity of Mercury Communications Ltd., a subsidiary of Cable & Wireless plc, to provide the full range of telecommunications services in competition with British Telecom is limited by the lack of a mobile radio network to compete with Cellnet, in which BT has a majority stake. We have therefore accepted his advice that a consortium led by Mercury or Cable & Wireless should be a prospective operator and in due course be offered one of the licences to operate a mobile communications network within the frequency range 1·7–2·3 GHz. This is subject to the submission of an acceptable proposal, both in regard to the consortium and in business and technical terms, by 14 September.

  On the advice of the director general, we intend to identify one, or possibly two, other prospective operators by the end of the year. We are issuing notes for the guidance of applicants today. Copies of these notes have been placed in the libraries of both Houses. The closing date for applications is noon on Thursday 14 September.

  Applications may be made by any company, whether or not it responded to the discussion document. The exceptions are Cellnet and Racal Vodafone, their associates and main shareholders. Since the new networks are intended to compete with these companies' existing cellular radio operations, we have decided, on the director general's advice, that they should not be able to participate in their development or operation either in their own right or as a member of a consortium. We will, however, keep
  196
  under review their needs for additional frequencies in the light of the progress they make on the pan-European cellular network and the development of competition in the United Kingdom.

  We have also considered the choice of PCN technology, which will govern the appropriate technical standards. The two technologies which emerged strongly from the consultation period were those being developed for the pan-European digital cellular radio system and the digital European cordless telephone. it is our intention that the PCNs should operate according to a common technical standard, in order to ensure competition between the operators. It would be highly desirable for this to be based on a technology developed in Europe. Accordingly, we have decided that applications must be based on one or other of these technologies, and applicants may, if they wish, put in separate proposals based on each. The selected common standard will be announced when the choice of operator is made and will take account of developments in Europe.

  We have also considered the major cost of linking the small radio cells needed to provide a true PCN. To aid the planning of these networks for the 1990s, we have decided that the operators will be able to provide their own radio-based network infrastructure between individual radio cells. However, the links to the public switched network, which provides the basic telecommunications service of conveying messages over fixed links, will still be provided by British Telecom or Mercury pending the outcome of the November 1990 duopoly review. In order to protect the position of the new entrants, any request by the existing cellular operators to provide similar radio links for their own networks will be considered in the light of their progress in implementing the pan-European cellular network but will in any event not be implemented until two years after both of the new PCNs have entered service, provided there are no undue delays in the introduction of the new networks.

  We have been aware of the possible affect of this initiative on the four Telepoint operators we announced in January. We do not believe that the PCN initiative should significantly affect their prospects for success. The new networks will offer two-way call initiation aimed to compete with cellular radio, with its relatively expensive and sophisticated technology, and will not begin service until 1992 at the earliest. By contrast the inherently lower cost one-way Telepoint technology has already been developed and we expect it to be introduced into the marketplace well before the end of the year. We have, however, asked the director general to pay particular regard to any new ideas from the Telepoint operators themselves as to how the Telepoint concept could be further developed in the future and to advise us as necessary.

  The "Phones on the Move" discussion document put forward our vision of the future in PCNs and companies responded to it with enthusiasm and imagination. We intend to maintain this momentum, and to encourage industry to make this vision a reality in the early 1990s. We do not anticipate any further major developments in new mobile telecommunications systems for some time. As a result of our announcement today and previous announcements on Telepoint, cellular radio, private mobile radio and paging, the Government have opened up new markets and provided for effective competition. We

  197
  hope that all the companies involved in this field will continue to respond vigorously and to exploit the opportunities that have been created.

  Public Houses and Clubs
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any evidence, in the form of comprehensive and reliable consumer surveys, on the state of consumer satisfaction or dissatisfaction with public houses and clubs in Britain.

  Mr. Forth
  I am aware of two surveys which are relevant. First the Consumers Association conducted a survey of 2,175 adults in May 1987, which formed the basis of their evidence of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation into the supply of beer. A number of questions were asked which related to consumer satisfaction. According to the Consumers Association, of those respondents who said they visited pubs less often than two years previously, the largest single reason was that drinks in pubs were too expensive.

  Two thirds of respondents agreed that all pubs should be allowed to sell draught bitter from more than one brewer, and 61 per cent. agreed that pub prices were too high compared with supermarkets and off-licences. More recently, Haig Whisky has published results from a MORI poll of 1,037 adults who go to the pub at least once a month, carried out in 65 constituency sampling points in the second half of May 1989. This survey was carried out to examine attitudes towards the MMC's recommendations for changes in the brewing industry. It showed a majority in favour of the Government implementing the MMC recommendations. Eighty-four per cent. said landlords (that is publicans) should have more freedom to introduce other beers. Sixty per cent. thought the quality of pubs would increase as a result of the MMC recommendations.

  The Consumers Association and Haig Whisky have published documents containing the detailed results of their surveys. I am aware of recent reports that a survey commissioned by the Brewers Society comes to different conclusions, but I have not yet seen the details.

  International Organisations
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the continued location of the International Sugar Organisation and the Wheat Council in London; what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the anti-competitive foreign subsidies being deferred to those organisations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 25 April, the Government welcome the location of these organisations in London. They have based themselves here for many years because of the merits of London as the leading international trading centre for their products. The Government are therefore prepared to give the London chamber's proposal their full support including a financial contribution in equal partnership with the private sector. The Government will, of course, also provide the usual rates concessions to the two organisations. We shall continue to work to discourage subsidised competition so that different locations can compete fairly on their merits.

  Frag 12
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in respect of which countries export licences have been applied for in respect of the weapon known as Frag 12; and what is the result of the application in each case.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  [holding answer 20 June 1989]: No application has been received for a licence to export the Frag 12 fragmentation grenade from the United Kingdom.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Clinical Cytogeneticists
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the level of pay and recruitment of university clinical cytogeneticists.

  Mr. Jackson
  It is for the universities as employers to determine the level of pay and recruitment of their staff.

  English Teaching
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects his proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study for English for pupils in junior and secondary schools to be published for consultation.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I have now formulated our proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study in English for pupils in key stages 2 to 4 (broadly ages eight to 16). Our proposals endorse without modification the relevant recommendations of the national curriculum English working group, and build on the provisions in the order covering English in key stage 1 laid before Parliament on 31 May. We are grateful to the group for its clear and helpful advice.

  I have today referred our proposals to the national curriculum council to start the consultation in England required by the Education Reform Act. My right hon. Friend will be initiating separate consultations in Wales as required by the Act. I have placed a copy of our proposals and the working group's report, together with a copy of my letter to the national curriculum council, in the Library.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Radio Broadcasting
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what information he has available and what information is available to hon. Members concerning the scope and extent of reportage by sound radio of proceedings in the Chamber of the House of Commons throughout its sittings.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am not aware of any recent systematic monitoring carried out, either by the House or on its behalf, of the use to which the sound feed from the Chamber is put. So far as the broadcasters themselves are concerned, I am advised that the BBC does not collate statistics of the degree of detail implied by the hon. Gentleman's question and that to do so would be a time-consuming and costly exercise.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what guidance is issued to departmental Ministers on the criteria to be observed in determining whether to answer parliamentary questions tabled during the previous day's sitting.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Ministers are expected to follow the provisions of Standing Order No. 17.

ENVIRONMENT

  Community Charge
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will publish the full set of community charge practice notes; to whom the public should apply for these notes; and when applications should be made.

  Mr. Gummer
  Community charge practice notes are published jointly by the Government and local authority associations. Nineteen notes have been issued so far and copies are available in the Library of the House. The notes are detailed, technical manuals intended for the use of local authority practitioners rather than the general public. A separate series of explanatory booklets are available to the public free of charge from Community Charge Leaflets Section PO Box 622, Bristol B599 1TR.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidelines he has issued on the evidence which is acceptable for poll tax purposes, that an individual is entitled to severe disablement allowance or to invalidity pension; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  Detailed guidance on the evidence required to satisfy an exemption from the community charge on grounds of severe mental impairment is contained in community charge practice note No. 19, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities have indicated to his Department that their costs in implementing the community charge are likely to be(a) less and (b) more than the amount granted for the purpose by Her Majesty's Government.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information we have on the revenue costs to authorities of implementation suggest that about 15 per cent. of them will be spending less than has been provided in the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement; most of the remainder intend to spend more.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the proportion of total community charge implementation costs Her Majesty's Government have provided.

  Mr. Gummer
  The actual costs of implementation will not be known until next year but the figures contained in authorities' budget returns suggest that Government provision will support about half of authorities' estimated revenue expenditure on preparation. Similar figures for 200
  capital are not available. It was never the intention that resources received by individual authorities would necessarily meet in full the estimated costs of their own preferred plans. This would give no incentive to efficient implementation. We believe the resources we have made available—£110 million in the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement and capital allocations totalling £160 million—are sufficient to support reasonable levels of local authority expenditure in preparation.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received that his Department arrange for a survey to be made of the costs actually incurred by all local authorities on implementation of the community charge; whether he will undertake such a survey; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  We have received no such representations and have no plans to carry out such a survey. The usual financial returns from authorities to the Department will provide this information.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to exempt from the provisions of the poll tax those who are mainly or wholly dependent on moneys provided to victims of Nazi persecutions.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have no plans to introduce a poll tax.

  Individuals are exempt from the community charge if their circumstances conform to one of the categories set out in schedule 1 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many newspapers printed his recently circulated articles on the community charge.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on 23 May at column 488.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests for community charge practice notes have been refused.

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 12 June 1989]: Community charge practice notes (which are produced jointly by the Government and the local authority association) contain guidance on technical details of the new system for the local authority staff who will be operating it. Copies of each note are provided free to all local authorities and others with a specific need for the information, and are placed in the Library of the House. Copies of the notes have not been made generally available to other bodies or the public. We have prepared a range of leaflets for that purpose.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether itinerant workers under the community charge will have to pay a personal charge at their permanent address and a collective charge if they are living in a designated dwelling at or near their workplace levied by their landlord.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 June 1989]: A person registered for the personal community charge at his or her sole or main residence who stays in a

  201
  property designated for the collective community charge will pay contributions towards the collective charge payable by the landlord or owner of the property.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sites of special scientific interest have been designated each year since the inception of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and how many he estimates will be created in the next 12 months.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provides for both renotification of sites of special scientific interest originally notified under the National Park and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and notification of new SSSIs. The number of such sites are:

  Financial year

  Number of new SSSIs notified in the year

  Renotifications

  To 31 March 1989

  3,187

  New notifications

  1981–82

  0

  1982–83

  35

  1983–84

  183

  1984–85

  268

  1985–86

  358

  1986–87

  261

  1987–88

  274

  1988–89

  282

  In addition the Nature Conservancy Council expects to renotify 135 sites and notify a further 250 sites in the current financial year.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the total number of sites of special scientific interest have been(a) destroyed and (b) damaged since the inception of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No information is available prior to 1 April 1984. I am informed by the Nature Conservancy Council that since then the numbers of SSSIs which have sustained damage are as follows:

  Number

  Per cent.

  1984–85

  192

  6·77

  1985–86

  151

  4·84

  1986–87

  205

  6·86

  1987–88

  139

  4·36

  This includes damage of all kinds, whether significant or not, and to both those SSSIs notified under the 1981 Act and those notified under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and not yet renotified. The number of SSSIs suffering significant damage averaged about 1 per cent. over the period.

  Over this period three SSSIs were destroyed, two in 1984–85 and one in 1985–86.

  Full information is provided in the NCC's annual reports copies of which are in the Library.

  Bristol Channel (Discharges)
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many sources of industrial and trade effluent discharges there are into the Bristol channel; and where they are located.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Responsibility for the control of discharges of industrial and trade effluent to the Bristol channel rests with the Welsh, Wessex and South West water authorities. Details of consents granted by the authorities in respect of such discharges are held on the registers maintained by each authority.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will tabulate what a single person living in the london borough of Waltham Forest would pay(a) in community charge and (b) in a system of capital value rates plus local income tax paid in proportions of 80 to 20, respectively if the person earned (a) £40,000, (b) £80,000 and (c) £120,000 and lived in (i) property owned by that person worth £90,000, (ii) property owned by that person worth £120,000 and (iii) property owned by that person worth £150,000, making the same assumptions as in his reply to the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) on 22 March, Official Report, column 626.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is provided in the table.

  Illustrative annual liability in Waltham Forest under a system of capital value rates combined with local income tax, 1988–89

  Single persons earnings

  Property value £90,000

  Property value £120,000

  Property value £150,000

  £40,000

  1,375

  1,655

  1,935

  £80,000

  1,940

  2,220

  2,505

  £120,000

  2,510

  2,790

  3,070

  The figures are based on illustrative tax rates placed in the Library on 23 June 1988 and are for 1988–89. It is assumed that the person lives alone and taxable income is taken as earnings less £260·5, the single person's allowance, in each case. The illustrative 1988–89 community charge in Waltham Forest is £269.

  Public Rights of Way
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to introduce legislation in response to the Rubinstein case on definitive maps of public rights of way.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have announced their intention to introduce legislation to enable genuine errors in definitive maps to be corrected when there is a suitable opportunity.

  Hong Kong Citizens (Housing)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations to allow large scale construction of new properties in the Yeovil constituency to accommodate citizens of the colony of Hong Kong claiming right of abode in the United Kingdom.
  203
  Mr. Trippier
  None, as yet. It would need about 1¼ million new homes to accommodate 3¼ million people.

  HOTCHA Scheme
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to be able to announce a replacement to the HOTCHA scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Housing Corporation has published proposals to introduce an incentive scheme in 1990 to help housing association tenants to move out and buy homes on the open market. The corporation is considering the responses.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of student certification for the community charge in England and Wales.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989 were laid before the House on 17 March. They provide for certification officers in all relevant educational establishments in England and Wales, and place a duty on them to issue a certificate in the prescribed form to each person pursuing or about to pursue a full-time course of education. The regulations will come into force on 1 October 1989.

  Fossil Fuels (Pollution)
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about reducing pollution from burning fossil fuels; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We have received many representations on this topic. The commitments agreed by the Government under the large combustion plants and motor vehicle emissions directives of the European Community will lead to very substantial reductions in the emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.

  London City Airport
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received an application to extend the runway at London City airport.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Nuclear Waste (Storage)
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the development of sub-sea bed dry storage for civil nuclear waste.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  UK Nirex Ltd. has been established to identify and develop a disposal facility for low and intermediate-level radioactive waste. Nirex is currently investigating a repository in the form of a mine under the land. The Government have endorsed this programme. The possibility of investigating other locations at a later stage, or of utilising offshore options cannot be ruled out.

  Bathing Beaches
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has had about imposing a statutory requirement on local authorities(a) to clean European designated bathing beaches of litter and (b) to clean any beach regularly used by the public after an oil spill.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have had no specific representations on these subjects. We have, however, announced our intention to place local authorities under a duty to keep land clean. This is one of a number of proposals for legislation on litter which my right hon. Friend intends to announce soon.

  Childhood Cancer
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decision has been reached by the steering committee of the London School of Hygiene's small area statistics unit as to whether to proceed with an investigation into the incidence of childhood cancer in Humberside.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 20 June to explain that existing information is being considered by independent export members of the steering committee so that they can advise the committee when it next meets.

  Pollution (Wales)
  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for the control of environmental pollution in Wales.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the Department's publication "Protecting Your Environment—A Guide" a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Pages 2 and 3 give a succinct but complete summary of the respective responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales for environment protection.

  Rugby Union
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives of rugby union; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I have no plans at present to meet representatives of the Rugby Football Union.

  Dioxins
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the report on dioxins will be published; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of the Environment has today published a report, "Dioxins in the Environment", in the pollution paper series. It is the report of an interdepartmental working group on poly chlorinated dibenzo-para-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. The report is the culmination of work on dioxins which began two years ago. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The main purpose of the report is to make available the best information we have on dioxins from the United

  205
  Kingdom and elsewhere. There is an analysis of what this means in terms of possible human health effects and environmental impact.

  Advice on the health effects of dioxins from the Department of Health's independent advisory committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment is also included in the report.

  It recommends that the major sources of dioxins should be identified and appropriate measures taken to reduce inputs of dioxins to food, consumer products and the environment.

  The Government welcome this advice and have already taken steps to implement the committee's recommendations.

  The report has been compiled jointly by the central directorate for environmental protection in DOE, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Health and Safety Executive.

  Drinking Water
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of which of the standards set in the European Community drinking water directive are regularly exceeded by each of the water supplies in England which have been granted derogations.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 14 June 1989]: A list has been placed in the Library of those supplies which regularly exceed the EC drinking water directive in respect of the standard indicated and have been granted derogations by the Department under the terms of article 9 of the directive. Such derogations can be granted only where the situation is due to the nature and structure of the ground and there is no public health risk.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, following the agreement of European Community Environment Ministers in Luxembourg on 9 June on the use of catalytic converters in small cars from December 1992, he has made an assessment of the increased contribution to the greenhouse effect that will be caused by carbon dioxide and water vapour released in exhaust gases from United Kingdom-based cars, in the period to the year 2000.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: Yes. A United Kingdom fleet of 3-way catalyst cars would emit about 7·5 million tonnes per annum more carbon dioxide than a fleet of vehicles conforming to the standards of the common position reached by Environment Ministers last November. The emission of water vapour from cars does not have a significant input on the greenhouse effect.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress on phasing out aerosols containing chlorofluorocarbon propellants; and if he expects to introduce legislation making the sale of such items illegal.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 June 1989]: Members of the British Aerosol Manufacturers
  206
  Association are well on course to meet the objective of eliminating the non-essential use of chlorofluorocarbons in their products by the end of this year. Legislation to this effect is not needed in the circumstances.

  English Heritage
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if English Heritage has any plans to commission a study of the archaeology of waterlogged urban centres.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 June 1989]: I understand that English Heritage intends to fund a number of archaeological surveys in urban areas. These will include waterlogged sites.

  Environmental Impact Assessment
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to issue guidance to archaeological bodies on environmental impact assessment and monitoring.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 June 1989]: No. The broad principle of requiring information on the effect of proposed development being available before planning applications are considered will be discussed in guidance on "archaeology and planning", which is being prepared for local authorities, developers and archaeologists.

  Repairs Grants
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date English local authorities were first informed of changes in the amount of mandatory repairs grant from 75 per cent. to 20 per cent. for landlords under sections 130 and 131 of the Housing Act 1988; and on what date they came into effect.

  Mr. Trippier
  Local authorities in England were notified of proposed changes in the rate of intermediate and mandatory repairs grants for landlords in a letter from the Department dated 14 December 1988, following consultation with the local authority associations in November. These changes were given effect by the Grants by Local Housing Authorities (Appropriate Percentage and Exchequer Contributions) Order 1989 (SI 1989 No. 72), made under sections 509 and 517 of the Housing Act 1985, which came into foce on 19 January 1989.

ENERGY

  Fossil Fuels
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent disussions he has held on concepts of fossil fuel utilisation fiscal devices to enhance or reduce the consumption of such energy sources.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I have had a number of recent discussions with my officials and others about the details of the levy on fossil fuel use for power generation, provision for which is included in the Electricity Bill now before Parliament.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr.Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he intends to make any further appointments to regulatory posts covering the privatised electricity industry.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  No. Under the terms of the Electricity Bill it is the Director General of Electricity Supply who will be empowered to appoint the staff of the Office of Electricity Regulation, subject to Treasury approval of their numbers and conditions of service.

SCOTLAND

  Sheriff Courts
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects publication of the report by Dr. Carol Jones of Edinburgh university on contested cases in the Scottish sheriff courts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Dr. Carol Jones' report on contested cases in the Scottish sheriff courts has not yet been submitted in final form. The question of publication will be considered after it has been submitted.

  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects publication of the report by Dr. Kenneth Miller of Strathclyde university on delays in summarising clinical cases in the sheriff courts in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I hope to be able to publish Dr. Kenneth Miller's report on delay in summary criminal proceedings in the sheriff courts during the summer.

  Hectares

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  NP

  R

  NP

  R

  NP

  R

  (a) Forestry Commission direct planting

  130

  2,890

  3,860

  3,980

  60

  1,720

  (b) Planting under woodland grant scheme

  150

  150

  150

  160

  20

  10

  (c) Planting under farm woodland scheme

  110

  —

  10

  —

  —

  —

  (d) Planting under other Forestry Commission grant schemes

  1,490

  2,180

  22,270

  2,090

  900

  250

  (e) Other non-assisted

  140

  100

  40

  —

  —

  —

  The figures given for categories (b), (c) and (d) are the areas on which planting grant was paid by the Forestry Commission during the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989.

  The situation in Northern Ireland is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Health Service
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been achieved as a result of competitive tendering in the National Health Service in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Since the last general election savings from competitive tendering have increased from £600,000 to £29 million from 81 contracts for ancillary services. That represents substantial additional resources for patient care in Scotland's Health Service over the next three to four years. Almost three quarters of the contracts have been won by in-house teams. The success

  Forestry Commission Land
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the value of sales so far of Forestry Commission land; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Receipts from the disposal of land and property from the start of the disposals programme in 1981 to 31 March 1989 amounted to some £124 million.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to sell off, and over what period of time, Forestry Commission woodland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. and learned Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) on 16 June at columns 544–45.

  Tree Planting
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the total planting between 1 April 1988 and 31 March 1989 in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively, in each of the categories(a) Forestry Commission direct planting, (b) private planting assisted by the woodland grant scheme, (c) planting under the farm woodland scheme, (d) other assisted private planting and (e) other non-assisted planting.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information, showing new planting (NP) and restocking (R), is as follows:

  of the competitive tendering programme so far has encouraged health boards to press ahead with further tendering.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the water supply at Lochaber is in breach of European Community guidelines for aluminium content, or for any other additives, metals or pesticides.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: Lochaber district is served by numerous public water supplies; which have differing qualities. These supplies are the responsibility of the Highland regional council from which information on any particular supply may be obtained. A number of supplies in the area contain naturally derived aluminium at concentrations which occasionally exceed the European standard but on average are below it. Work to reduce the lead content of water at consumers' taps

  209
  in lead-plumbed properties is virtually complete. No supply has been found to contain other metals or pesticides in excess of the EC standards.

  Forestry Commission (Wildlife)
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the last advice he received from the Nature Conservancy Council concerning the practice of blocking of badger setts and digging of fox earths by fox hunters on Foresty Commission land.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 June 1989; c. 127]: The Forestry Commission has an earth stopper's code which is designed to prevent undue interference with badger setts and fox earths.

  Reasons for refusal of Social Fund loans and grants 1988–89

  Grants

  Loans

  Number of times reason given

  As percent of total times reason given

  Number of times reason given

  As percent of total times reason given

  OFFICE: Eston ILO

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  3

  0·9

  0

  0

  Not in receipt of IS

  n/a

  n/a

  107

  6·4

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  n/a

  n/a

  300

  17·8

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to become entitled

  30

  8·9

  n/a

  n/a

  Excluded items

  11

  33

  81

  4·8

  Excluded persons

  11

  3·3

  2

  0·1

  Amount <£30 (not travelling expenses

  9

  2·7

  52

  3·1

  Total debt of £1,000

  n/a

  n/a

  1

  0·1

  Previous application and decision for the item

  10

  3·0

  78

  4·6

  No serious damage or risk to health or safety

  n/a

  47

  2·8

  Inability to repay

  n/a

  8

  0·5

  Help available from another source

  6

  1·8

  6

  0·4

  Insufficient SF funds, priority too low

  8

  2·4

  929

  55·1

  Suitable alternative available

  1

  0·3

  3

  0·2

  Loan refused because CCG awarded

  n/a

  n/a

  31

  1·8

  Other

  248

  73·6

  40

  2·4

  337

  1,685

  OFFICE: Hartlepool ILO

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  3

  0·6

  2

  0·1

  Not in receipt of IS

  n/a

  —

  156

  25·4

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  n/a

  —

  434

  24·9

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to become entitled

  72

  13·4

  n/a

  n/a

  Excluded items

  26

  4·8

  81

  4·6

  Excluded persons

  10

  1·9

  2

  0·1

  Amount <£30 (not travelling expenses

  18

  3·3

  52

  3·0

  Total debt of £1,000

  n/a

  —

  1

  0·1

  Previous application and decision for the item

  22

  4·1

  78

  4·5

  No serious damage or risk to health or safety

  n/a

  —

  77

  4·4

  Inability to repay

  n/a

  —

  84

  4·8

  Help available from another source

  9

  —

  62

  3·6

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table, similar to the one printed on 15 May,Official Report, columns 76–78, in reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West, (Mr. Battle) but in respect of his Department's local offices at Eston, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Stockton, showing reasons for social fund loan and grant refusals during the period April 1988 to March 1989.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 9 June 1989]: The information requested is set out in the table.

  The proportions have been calculated as percentages of the total number of reasons for refusal. The total number of reasons for refusal may equal or exceed the total number of refusals because the social fund officer can give more than one reason for refusing an application.

  I refer the hon. Member to my pursuant reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) today.
  211

  Grants

  Loans

  Number of times reason given

  As percent of total times reason given

  Number of times reason given

  As percent of total times reason given

  Insufficient SF funds, priority too low

  25

  4·6

  583

  33·4

  Suitable alternative available

  4

  0·7

  17

  1·0

  Loan refused because CCG awarded

  n/a

  —

  31

  1·8

  Other

  350

  64·9

  85

  4·9

  539

  1,745

  Office: Middlesbrough ILO

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  7

  0·6

  3

  0·1

  Not in receipt of IS

  n/a

  —

  283

  8·1

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  n/a

  —

  562

  16·1

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to become entitled

  88

  7·1

  n/a

  —

  Excluded items

  42

  3·4

  180

  5·2

  Excluded persons

  67

  5·4

  3

  0·1

  Amount < £30 (not travelling expenses)

  23

  1·9

  103

  3·0

  Total debt of £1,000

  n/a

  n/a

  3

  0·1

  Previous application and decision for the item

  40

  3·2

  132

  3·8

  No serious damage or risk to health or safety

  n/a

  n/a

  199

  5·7

  Inability to repay

  n/a

  n/a

  77

  2·2

  Help available from another source

  8

  0·6

  17

  0·5

  Insufficient SF funds, priority too low

  124

  10·0

  1,600

  45·8

  Suitable alternative available

  11

  0·9

  38

  1·1

  Loan refused because CCG awarded

  n/a

  —

  128

  3·7

  Other

  829

  66·9

  163

  4·7

  1,239

  —

  3,491

  —

  Office: Redcar ILO

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  5

  1·1

  0

  0·0

  Not in receipt of IS

  n/a

  —

  90

  8·1

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  n/a

  —

  273

  24·5

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to become entitled

  56

  12·1

  n/a

  —

  Excluded items

  30

  6·5

  84

  7·5

  Excluded persons

  0

  —

  2

  0·2

  Amount < £30 (not travelling expenses)

  14

  3·0

  31

  2·8

  Total debt of £1,000

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0·0

  Previous application and decision for the item

  8

  1·7

  36

  3·2

  No serious damage or risk to health or safety

  n/a

  n/a

  40

  3·6

  Inability to repay

  n/a

  n/a

  46

  4·1

  Help available from another source

  5

  1·1

  19

  1·7

  Insufficient SF funds, priority too low

  162

  35·0

  404

  36·3

  Suitable alternative available

  1

  0·2

  1

  0·1

  Loan refused because CCG awarded

  n/a

  n/a

  55

  4·9

  Other

  182

  39·3

  32

  2·9

  463

  —

  1,113

  —

  Office: Stockton ILO

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  3

  0·2

  1

  ·0

  Not in receipt of IS

  136

  10·5

  265

  10·2

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  n/a

  n/a

  453

  17·5

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  to become entitled

  136

  10·5

  n/a

  n/a

  Excluded items

  49

  3·8

  149

  5·7

  Excluded persons

  260

  20·0

  8

  0·3

  212 213

  Grants

  Loans

  Number of times reason given

  As percent of total times reason given

  Number of limes reason given

  As percent of total times reason given

  Amount <£30 (not travelling expenses)

  24

  1·9

  73

  2·8

  Total debt of £1,000

  n/a

  —

  0

  ·0

  Previous application and decision for the item

  65

  5·0

  117

  4·5

  No serious damage or risk to health or safety

  n/a

  n/a

  134

  5·2

  Inability to repay

  n/a

  n/a

  251

  9·7

  Help available from another source

  13

  1·0

  39

  1·5

  Insufficient SF funds, priority too low

  17

  1·3

  885

  34·1

  Suitable alternative available

  2

  0·2

  10

  0·4

  Loan refused because CCG awarded

  n/a

  —

  118

  4·5

  Other

  588

  45·3

  91

  3·5

  1,293

  2,594

  n/a—Not applicable.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, further to his reply on 4 May,Official Report, column 220, he will categorise the reasons for the remaining social fund loan refusals and community care grant refusals for the year 11 April 1988 to 31 March 1989.

  Reasons for refusal of Social Fund loans and grants 1988–89

  Loans

  Grants

  Number of times reason given

  As a per cent, of all reasons for refusals

  Number of limes reason given

  As a per cent, of all reasons for refusals

  Savings over £500 sufficient to meet cost

  938

  0·3

  2,498

  1·7

  Not in receipt of IS

  35,613

  9·6

  n/a

  n/a

  Not in receipt of IS for 26 weeks

  99,907

  27·0

  n/a

  n/a

  Not in receipt of IS and unlikely to become entitled

  n/a

  n/a

  15,842

  10·6

  Excluded items

  30,759

  8·3

  9,563

  6·4

  Excluded persons

  1,094

  0·3

  13,734

  9·2

  Amount < £30 (not travelling expenses)

  11,952

  3·2

  3,707

  2·5

  Total debt of £1,000

  198

  0·1

  n/a

  n/a

  Previous application and SFO decision for this item

  14,639

  4·0

  5,071

  3·4

  No serious danger or risk to health or safety

  24,266

  6·6

  0

  0·0

  Inability to repay

  14,971

  4·0

  0

  0·0

  Help available from another source

  8,281

  2·2

  2,136

  1·4

  Insufficient SF funds, priority too low

  84,027

  22·7

  13,419

  9·0

  Other agencies not providing back-up

  n/a

  n/a

  85

  0·1

  Suitable alternative available

  3,978

  1·1

  1,177

  0·8

  Loan refused—CC6 awarded

  14,725

  4·0

  n/a

  n/a

  Other

  25,113

  6·8

  82,400

  55·1

  Note: Percentage may sum to move than 100 due to rounding.

  amily Credit
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims for family credit were made, how many were decided and how many awards resulted in each week since the beginning of April 1989; how many renewal claims, decisions and awards were made; how many existing awards expired and were not renewed; and what was the net increase in the number of current awards.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: The available information is as follows:
  214
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 May 1989 c.76–78.]: I regret that the reply given has been found to contain an error. The information requested with the amended figures is as follows:—

  Registrations1

  Decisions

  Awards

  New Claims

  Week ending:—

  7 April

  7,639

  7,535

  4,383

  14 April

  8,697

  7,656

  4,597

  21 April

  16,995

  8,554

  4,660

  28 April

  22,867

  10,926

  5,018

  5 May

  17,881

  10,975

  4,191

  12 May

  24,166

  15,740

  5,541

  19 May

  26,267

  17,141

  6,038

  26 May

  26,586

  14,003

  4,714

  2 June

  17,803

  12,990

  4,150

  215

  Registrations1

  Decisions

  Awards

  9 June

  20,927

  23,886

  8,744

  16 June

  17,014

  21,968

  8,391

  Renewal claims

  Week ending:—

  7 April

  7,795

  6,615

  5,799

  14 April

  7,600

  7,152

  6,394

  21 April

  7,425

  7,115

  6,325

  28 April

  6,475

  6,912

  6,124

  5 May

  4,770

  5,044

  4,371

  12 May

  7,705

  5,978

  5,207

  19 May

  8,572

  5,902

  5,100

  26 May

  9,115

  4,652

  4,025

  2 June

  7,552

  4,263

  3,592

  9 June

  8,713

  8,854

  7,662

  16 June

  6,938

  8,381

  7,213

  45,964 awards expired in April, and 64,345 in May, and 44,038 are due to expire in June2.

  1 Some claims received each week were not registered until the following week. On 16 June, 1,127 claims were awaiting registration.

  2 Figures for awards expiring are available only on a monthly basis. No information is available about how many of the awards expiring were not renewed.

  The number of current awards is not available on a weekly basis. At the end of March 253,500 awards were actually in payment, and at 18 June this had risen to 255,702.

  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average amount of family credit awarded in each week since the beginning of April 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 13 June 1989]: I regret that the information requested is not available. The latest information relates to all awards of family credit in payment on 18 June 1989, when the average amount was estimated to be just over £25. This is broadly the same as the average amount in payment in March 1989.

  Form RR4
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if form RR4 is available in all post offices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 16 June 1989]: Leaflet RR4 "Housing Benefit—new rules" is no longer available in all post offices.

  From mid-June 1988 to the beginning of April 1989 the leaflet was on display in all Crown post offices. It was removed two months ago at the time of the benefit upratings and changes in some benefit rules. In Crown post offices the four A5 format leaflet display space that the department purchases is now occupied by information on family credit, housing benefit, NHS costs, and in Scotland, community charge rebate.

  In sub-post offices, whilst leaflets such as RR4 are sent to all of them, neither the Department nor the Post Office has the power to instruct that these leaflets should be displayed or given out. As independent retailers sub-postmasters/mistresses can only be requested to do so.

TRANSPORT

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to implement 216
  recommendation 23 of the efficiency scrutiny into his Department's activities in relation to local authorities' capital expenditure on roads, published in November 1988, which would allow accident investigation and prevention schemes on local roads to be eligible for transport supplementary grant.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  When the efficiency scrutiny report was published last month, I said that there were seven recommendations which the Department wished to discuss with the local authority associations. Recommendation 23 is one of those.

  Officials of the associations reported the views of their members on the matter at a meeting on 7 June. I expect that it will be discussed when my right hon. Friend and I meet representatives of the associations on 4 July.

  LRT (Fares)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are his current instructions to London Regional Transport concerning the level of fares; when they were published and in what form; which instructions or guidelines they replaced; and when he modified his instruction that fare increases should, in general, parallel changes in the cost of living index.

  Mr. Portillo
  An initial remit has been given to the new LRT chairman, Mr. Wilfrid Newton. This was set out in a written answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes on 22 March at columns 594–95. It asked the chairman for proposals for a management, investment and financial strategy which aims to give London safe and reliable rail and bus services; provides good value for money; and, so far as possible, transfers costs from the taxpayer to the passengers and other beneficiaries. It gives no specific instructions on fare levels. This remit replaced the objectives given to the then chairman of LRT on 20 July 1984.

  Computer Reservation Systems
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 8 June,Official Report, column 219, whether he will summarise the additional requirements concerning the disclosure of personal information described in the code of conduct about computer reservation systems produced by the European Community.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Subject to national legislation on security, public order and data protection, personal information concerning a consumer and generated by a travel agent may be made available by the system vendor to those not involved in the transaction only with the consent of the consumer.

  M25
  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many possible routes of the proposed motorway from the M25 to Chelmsford he has asked his officials to investigate;

  (2) when he expects to appoint consultancy engineers to determine the route of the proposed motorway from the M25 to Chelmsford.
  217
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We expect to appoint design agents later this year. When they have carried out preliminary investigations we shall have an indication of practicable options.

  Mr. McCrindle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what environmental considerations will be taken into account in determining the route of the motorway from the M25 to Chelmsford.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Choice of route is generally a balance of environmental, economic and operational considerations. Subject to that, we shall seek to adopt the route and solution which does the least environmental damage. On deciding on the options we shall as usual carry out a full environmental assessment.

  Coastal Waters (Chemicals)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he holds concerning chemicals in drums or containers which have sunk within 100 miles of the British coast in the last 30 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Portillo
  On each occasion of a loss of packaged chemicals into the sea from a ship being reported to the marine pollution control unit a decision is taken on scientific advice as to whether it is necessary to relocate and recover the chemical to protect the marine environment. Where it is not, no permanent record of the incident is maintained and the location of the lost chemical is generally unknown. Accordingly, the only detailed record held by the Department stems from the only chemical salvage operation carried out by the MPCU to date. This was after the mv Perintis sank in United Kingdom waters near the channel light vessel in March, 1989. All 12 of the drums of Cypermethrin and 16 of the drums of Permethrin carried by the vessel were successfully recovered, leaving four 50 kg drums of Permethrin which could not be found. 5·8 tonnes of Lindane from the same vessel floated off from the wreck in a commercial container was subsequently lost in the approaches to Cherbourg while under tow by a French tug, and its location remains unknown.

  Four tonnes of PCB contained in four electrical transformers were lost in the Piper Alpha disaster in July, 1988 and remain unlocated.

>HEALTH

  National Health Service (Reform)
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received to date on the White Paper "Working for Patients"; and how many have been critical of the Government's proposals.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have received over 7,500 representations on the White Paper, "Working for Patients". Many ask questions, many support all or some of the proposals, some refer only to specific aspects. It is not possible to distinguish the letters in the way the hon. Member suggests.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many letters from members of the public about the 218
  proposed changes in the National Health Service, to which he has replied, have resulted in further correspondence from the writer.

  Mr. Mellor
  We have dealt with over 5,500 letters from members of the public about the White Paper "Working for Patients"; a very small number has resulted in further correspondence from the writer.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct the chairman of the Wakefield family practitioner committee to arrange a meeting between the full family practitioner committee and local Members of Parliament to discuss the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: No.

  Speech Therapy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to develop speech therapy services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  It is for individual health authorities to determine the appropriate level of provision of their speech therapy services, having regard to local circumstances, competing priorities and available resources. The number of speech therapists employed in the National Health Service in England has risen by nearly 75 per cent. since 1979 and expenditure on speech therapy services has increased by 100 per cent. in real terms over the same period.

  Census Questions
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is taking to inform the public in advance of the census; what purpose is intended in including in the census questions on educational qualifications; what use will be made of the answers to these questions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the White Paper "1991 Census of Population", Cm. 430, published on 19 July 1988, a copy of which is in the Library. Publicity and information about the census is covered in paragraphs 45 and 46 and a statement on the purpose and uses of the proposed question on higher educational and professional qualifications is given at paragraph 23.5.

  Patients (Documentation)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has any proposals to expedite the transfer of patients' National Health Service administrative documents between general practitioner practices, when required by patients' removal, avoiding processing by family practitioner committees and the central registry in Southport; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The computerisation of the central register due in 1990 should speed up the transfer of records. In addition, where necessary, special arrangements can be made by telephone between family practitioner committees and general practitioners for records to be transferred urgently. We attach importance to speedy transfers.

  Midwives (Grading)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will now make a statement about the recommendations from the Social Services Committee on midwives grading; and if he will provide a date for their implementation.

  Mr. Mellor
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) on 10 May 1989 at columns 450–51.

  Treatment Costs
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the variations in cost of treatment between different health districts.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on 18 May, at column 283.

  Tobacco Advisory Council
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet the chief executive of the Tobacco Advisory Council to discuss its recent distribution of literature to hon. Members on 13 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  We are aware of the literature concerning environmental tobacco smoke which the Tobacco Advisory Council has sent to hon. Members, but we do not feel that a meeting with the chief executive is necessary. The Government accept the finding of the independent scientific committee on smoking and health concerning environmental tobacco smoke, that there is a 10–30 per cent. increased risk of lung cancer among non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke through most of their lives than for non-smokers not so exposed. This increase could account for several hundred deaths per year. The Tobacco Advisory Council's literature reflects the fact that it disputes this position, but the council, like all other representative organisations, is entitled to draw attention to its own viewpoint.

  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from the Tobacco Advisory Council about smoking and health; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The Tobacco Advisory Council has recently made written representations on the draft EC recommendation on banning smoking in public places (which was adopted as a mixed resolution at the Council of Ministers on 16 May), and on the draft EC directive on the advertising of tobacco products. In addition to this, officials have had meetings with the Tobacco Advisory Council at which a range of tobacco-related issues have been discussed.

  Allocation of Resources
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of what would be the allocation of resources to each regional health authority in the current year if it was done on the basis of the formula proposed in the White Paper "Working for Patients".

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 25 May 1989]: It is not possible at this stage to produce reliable estimates of
  220
  notional regional allocations for the current year. Such notional figures would in any event have little meaning since the application of the new formula will be carefuly phased in and will not take full effect until 1992–93.

  West Lancashire Family Practitioner Committee
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report details of (a) the numbers of general practitioners employed, (b) the numbers of patients registered and (c) the cost of the general practitioners service, in the area covered by the West Lancashire family practitioner committee for 1979 and 1988 respectively.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 15 June 1989]: The figures for Lancashire family practitioner committee, using the latest available year, 1987–88, are:

  Date

  Figures

  Numbers of unrestricted principals

  October 1978

  578

  October 1987

  673

  Numbers of patients registered

  October 1978

  1,395,862

  October 1987

  1,434,464

  Cost of the service

  1978–79

  £10,543,000

  1987–88

  £38,328,000

  This represents an increase in real terms of £16,690,000, a rise of 78 per cent.

  Family Practitioner Committees
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the circumstances in which chairmen of family practitioner committees act as agents of the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) on 6 June 1989 at column 105.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the powers of chairmen of family practitioner committees.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on 24 January 1989 at column 538.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines about their responsibilities he gives chairmen of family practitioner committees on appointment.

  Mr. Mellor
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: General guidance for chairmen, members and staff of family practitioner committees is issued as and when necessary in order to enable them to discharge the varied responsibilities placed upon them. The guidance takes many forms. The Department customarily invites newly appointed chairmen to a specially arranged seminar for this purpose.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Mr. Roc Sandford
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Attorney-General what were the reasons for the Director of Public Prosecutions'
  221
  decision not to institute criminal charges against the officers involved in the prosecution of Mr. Roc Sandford for possession of drugs in October 1985.

  The Attorney-General
  After careful consideration of the evidence the Director of Public Prosecutions concluded that it was insufficient to justify criminal proceedings against any of the officers concerned.

  Police Computers
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General what is his policy on prosecuting under the Official Secrets Act unauthorised disclosures of personal data from police computers; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer the hon. Member to my previous written answer to him on 12 May 1989.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish in full in the Official Report, the recent correspondence between the Treasury solicitors department and immigration adjudicators concerning the application of the immigration rules in appeals tribunals.

  The Attorney-General
  No. I refer to my reply to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on 9 June, at column 255.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has concerning the level of enforcement of Sunday trading laws by local authorities; and whether he has any plans to issue guidance to local authorities on the enforcement of such laws.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer to the answer of the Solicitor-General on 14 November 1988 at column 738: and to my answer on 17 April 1989 at column 26 which I have drawn to the attention of a number of local authorities.

  Fiat Applications
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Attorney-General how many applications have been made to him in each of the past 10 years for his fiat; in respect of what proceedings such applications were made; and in how many and what percentage of such cases in each such category he granted and withheld his consent, respectively.

  The Attorney-General
  Records are no longer available for the entire period. In so far as records are available, the task of collating them so as to provide the information sought by the hon. Member could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost to the taxpayer.

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Information
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister whether she will raise during the course of her next meeting with Sir Leon Brittan, Vice-President of the European Commission, the implications for the treatment of sensitive documents pertaining to financial affairs of 222
  companies transmitted by Her Majesty's Government to the European Commission in the light of the recently revised Cabinet Office guidance on Government Information.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  United Nations General Assembly
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next expects to pay an official visit to the United Nations General Assembly.

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will visit the United Nations General Assembly in September.

  NATO Summit
  Mr. John Browne
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the recent North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit.

  The Prime Minister
  No. There is a general agreement that the summit was a success for the Alliance, for the reasons I set out in my statement on 6 June.

  Poland
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the recent elections in Poland.

  The Prime Minister
  When I met General Jaruzelski on 10 June, I told him that we welcomed the holding of the elections in Poland, and the confirmation by the Polish authorities that they would stand by the results.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding the common agricultural policy.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government frequently receive representations about the common agricultural policy. Reform of the CAP is well under way. The measures agreed at the February 1988 European Council, particularly those dealing with budgetary discipline and stabilisation of agricultural production and expenditure, represent the most significant steps to date. The Government's policy is to build on those major reforms in EC negotiations, and to work with our GATT partners to fulfil the commitment to achieve progressive and substantial reductions in agricultural support and protection.

  Energy Conservation
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received representations regarding energy conservation.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a number of representations regarding energy conservation and energy efficiency.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will pay an official visit to the Nottingham, North constituency to explain Her Majesty's Government's policy on the poll tax.
  223
  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so. The Government have no plans for a poll tax. The purpose and application of the community charge has been admirably explained in the leaflets published by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office.

  Civil Service Records
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister where personal records of Downing street civil servants covering January 1986 are to he stored on their retiral from the Civil Service.

  The Prime Minister
  Personal records of any kind are stored in accordance with instructions given in general circular GC/228 issued in February 1984.

  Heads of Government Meeting, Madrid
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will state the matters that are now due to be place on the agenda of the forthcoming European Council, Heads of Government meeting, in Madrid.

  The Prime Minister
  The European Council in Madrid is likely to discuss monetary co-operation; social issues; progress on the single market; frontiers; the environment; external issues and other current Community subjects.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

  Mr Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 June.

  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, including attendance at the plenary session of the Australian-United Kingdom conference on trade and investment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Security Forces (Complaints)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what complaints have been received about alleged violence by members of the security forces in the Ballymurphy area during the second half of May.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary is currently investigating three complaints concerning the behaviour of soldiers in the Ballymurphy area of west Belfast. No complaints were made against the police.

  Licensing Law
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received about the Licensing (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989; and if he will make a statement.
  224
  Mr. Needham
  The Government have received representations from various sources, including district councils, church bodies and trade organisations. The majority of respondents strongly supported the proposals and in particular the proposed extension of the ban on off-sales of alcohol after 9 pm. The Federation of the Retail Licensed Trade and other trade interests opposed the extension and suggested several other changes to the licensing laws.

  The Government will consider very carefully all the views expressed in finalising the contents of the draft order to be laid before Parliament.

  Debt
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to repeal the payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent meetings he has had with groups seeking a repeal of the payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  There are no current plans to repeal the Act and there have been no meetings on this subject recently. The need for the legislation is kept under review in the light of prevailing circumstances.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were subject to deductions from(a) wages and (b) welfare benefits under the Payment for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 in the years 1979 to 1989 inclusive.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 20 June 1989]: The information requested is as follows:
  (a) The number of people from whom deductions from salaries have been made in the last two years under the Payments for Debt Act is approximately as follows:

  Numbers

  1987–88

  1,862

  1988–89

  1,809

  These figures are the total numbers of people from whom deductions from wages or salaries have been made on behalf of Northern Ireland Electricity, the Northern Ireland gas undertakings, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the rating division of the DOE (NI).

  Figures for 1983–84 to 1986–87 are contained in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on 2 November 1987 (Official Report, column 612). Equivalent information for the years prior to 1983 could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  (b) Information in relation to deductions from welfare payments is not available.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what total levels of debt existed in each of the years from 1979 to 1989, inclusive, in each category for which deductions were made from debtors in those years under the Payment for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  [holding answer 20 June 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon.

  225
  Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) on 12 February 1988 at column. 396. Comparable information for 1987–88 and 1988–89 is as follows:

  £ million

  1987–88

  1988–89

  NIHE (Rent, Rates, District Heating)

  16·8

  18·2

  NIE (Electricity)

  6·5

  6·0

  Rating Division

  8·5

  8·1

  Belfast Gas

  2·2

  1·9

  Prison Reform
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he last met a pressure group campaigning for a reform of the prison system.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet various bodies with an interest in prison matters. The last such occasion when prison matters were raised was during a meeting between myself and NIACRO on 12 May 1989. I have also recently invited comments on proposals to improve conditions and facilities for visitors to prisoners.

  Local Government
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will now set up an inquiry into the structure of local government in the Province.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have no such plans, although I am ready to consider and discuss any proposals which elected representatives from Northern Ireland and others may wish to put to me.

  EC Funding
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps he has taken to maximise the share of European Community structural funds assigned to Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what efforts he is making to ensure that Northern Ireland's share of European Community funding is maximised.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).

  Education (Reorganisation)
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the proposed degree of parental consultation on current proposals for the reorganisation of state education in certain areas of Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  There are statutory development procedures for school reorganisation proposals. These provide an opportunity for all interested parties—including parents—to make representation to the Department of Education. School authorities would normally consult parents before publishing a proposal.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy to reject any 226
  proposals by the South Eastern education and library board to amalgamate Castlewellan Quoile and Killyleagh secondary high schools with Down high school, thereby removing grammar school status from Down high.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  No. Article 14 of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 places a statutory obligation on the Department of Education to consider all proposals submitted by an education and library board.

  Security
  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make an assessment of the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation.

  Mr. Tom King
  I refer the right hon. Members to the answer that I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy).

  Terrorism
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much terrorist activity has cost in terms of damage to buildings and to businesses, investment and jobs in the last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  In the financial year ended 31 March 1989 the total cost of compensation for property damaged by terrorist activity was £18·7 million. This includes £9·4 million for damage to buildings, the balance including compensation for stock and contents, consequential loss, expenses and vehicles. These figures do not include damage to property held by the Crown or other public bodies who bear their own costs. The precise information which the right hon. Member seeks on the effects of terrorism on businesses, investment and jobs is not available, but terrorist activity cannot improve the perception of Northern Ireland as a location for investment which would reduce unemployment.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with Ministers in the Government of the Republic of Ireland about granting to the police and armed forces of the Republic and of the United Kingdom reciprocal rights to enter the territory of the other in pursuit of suspected terrorists.

  Mr. Tom King
  Within the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference both Governments have regular discussions about ways of improving the effectiveness of security co-operation. My hon. Friend will understand why it is not possible to go into detail on the content of those discussions.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current level of unemployment in the Province.

  Mr. Viggers
  The latest unemployment figures, released last week, are encouraging. They show that at 11 May 1989
  227
  the seasonally adjusted level of unemployment in the Province stood at 107,200, which is its lowest level for almost six years.

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any proposals to change the composition, and if he has assessed the level of commitment, of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have no plans to change the composition of the Police Authority for Northern Ireland. I meet members of the authority on a regular basis and appreciate the commitment and courage of its members in fulfilling their responsibilities in relation to the police force in Northern Ireland.

  Security Forces (Vetting)
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review arrangements for vetting members of the security forces in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he has taken to improve vetting arrangements for members of the security forces in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Vetting arrangements for the RUC and RUC Reserve are the responsibility of the Chief Constable, and those for the remainder of the security forces in Northern Ireland are a matter for the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Catholics (Discrimination)
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in reducing discrimination against Catholics in employment since 1979.

  Mr. Viggers
  Since the introduction of fair employment legislation in 1976 there have been significant increases in the proportion of Catholics employed in various sectors of employment, most notably in the public sector which accounts for 42 per cent. of Northern Ireland's working population. The proportion of Catholics employed in the public sector as a whole is now more closely in line with their representation in the population. Improvement in the position of Catholics elsewhere in employment has however been less marked and it is this problem that the radical and far-reaching legislation now before Parliament is largely designed to address.

  Assembly
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he now has any plans to introduce a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland; and if he has considered the impact of such a proposal.

  Mr. Tom King
  I have no present plans.

  Harland and Wolff Ltd.
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the disposal of Harland and Wolff Ltd.; and if he will make a statement.
  228
  Mr. Viggers
  Since the signing of the Heads of Agreement on 22 March significant progress has been made in preparation for the formal completion of the sale. Discussions between officials and the MEBO-Olsen team are continuing and officials have submitted the formal notification of the terms of the disposal to the European Commission. Subject to Commission approval and the satisfactory conclusion of other pre-contract conditions and procedures completion is planned for September.

  Physically Handicapped School Children
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the level of provision of boarding facilities for physically handicapped school children in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Provision of boarding facilities for physically handicapped children at schools in Northern Ireland is a matter for the education and library boards in the first instance. I have not had any proposals from boards for any change in that provision.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was discussed at the last Intergovernmental Conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Tom King
  The last meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference in Belfast on 24 May completed the review of the working of the conference provided for in article II of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Copies of the joint statement issued after the conference and the communiqué on the review were placed in the Library.

  "Who Framed Colin Wallace"
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the activities of the security services documented in the book "Who Framed Colin Wallace", by Paul Foot.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  No.

  Planning Procedures
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to give objectors the right of appeal to the Planning Appeals Commission against the granting of planning permission.

  Mr. Needham
  No, Sir.

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the fencing and planting at No. 35 Ballygelagh road in the borough of Ards have not been provided in accordance with the conditions of planning permission; what proposals the Department of the Environment, planning division, has to ensure the implementation of the planning approval conditions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: The occupier of the new development adjacent to No. 35 Ballygelagh road submitted a planning application on 18

  229
  January 1989 for the retention of the dwelling without compliance with the condition requiring the erection of the screen fence. Since there was no reasonable ground for refusal, planning permission was granted on 23 May 1989.

  Mental Handicap
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was his Department's participation in the first European national conference for vocational training for mental handicap which took place in Maastricht, Holland, in April; what lessons have been drawn from this event; and what efforts are being made to implement the findings of the conference in the Northern Ireland context.

  Mr. Viggers
  Two officials from the Department of Economic Development attended the conference together with a representative from the Industrial Therapy Organisation in Northern Ireland. The conference provided an opportunity to learn how other countries are dealing with this particular disability group and the experience gained will be valuable in the planning of future provision in Northern Ireland.

  Turbines (Rivers)
  Mr. McCusker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, further to his written answer to the hon. Member for Upper Bann, 25 April,Official Report, column 483, he will list the principal statutory responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Departments of Agriculture, Environment and Economic Development, for installations affecting the flow in a particular water course for water abstractions and for health and safety at work considerations arising from the operation of such turbines.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The information requested is as follows:

  (i) If the installation of any structure is likely to affect the flow of water in any particular watercourse, the consent of the Department of Agriculture is required in accordance with article 32 and schedule 6 of the Drainage (NI) Order 1973. The Fisheries Act (NI) 1966 contains requirements to provide and maintain fish passes in dams constructed, re-built, reinstated or heightened since 1842; and to close mill sluices for 24-hour periods at weekends or when mills are not in use.

  (ii) The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland has power under section 14 of the Water Act (NI) 1972 to make regulations to control the abstraction of water from waterways if it is considered expedient to do so. No such regulations have yet been made.

  (iii) Where turbines form part of an undertaking for which the Department of Economic Development is the enforcing authority for health and safety at work legislation, the principal health and safety enactments which apply to the operation of turbines are the Health and Safety at Work (NI) Order 1978 and the Factories Act (NI) 1965.

  Table 1: Non industrial staff at headquarters and regions at 31 March 1988 and 31 March 1989

  At 31 March

  Housing and planning

  Technical services and direct labour organisation

  Finance

  Personnel and management services and information technology

  Information and Secretariat

  Total

  Belfast

  1988

  494

  253

  23

  56

  3

  829

  1989

  516

  262

  23

  49

  3

  853

  North East

  1988

  277

  84

  12

  23

  1

  397

  1989

  281

  91

  11

  19

  1

  403

  North West

  1988

  278

  95

  9

  25

  2

  409

  1989

  269

  88

  12

  27

  2

  398

  South

  1988

  258

  97

  13

  28

  2

  398

  Social Security
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many people awarded transitional protection as a result of the implementation of the new social security legislation from 11 April 1988 at each of the social security offices in South Down are no longer entitled to such a payment; (2) how many people were awarded transitional protection as a result of the implementation of the new social security legislation from 11 April 1988 at each of the social security offices in South Down.

  Mr. Needham
  This information is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many prisoners in Northern Ireland, who were under 20 years of age when convicted, have now served 10 or more years in prison.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  Forty-two. Of these, 16 are Secretary of State's pleasure cases. The remaining 26 are life sentence prisoners.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a table in the Official Report showing the number of persons recruited and employed in the headquarters, and in each regional and district office of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each of the last two years, broken down as far as possible into the various departments of the organisation, or as much of such information as is available to him.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 20 June 1989]: The information requested in so far as it can be readily provided is set out in the following tables. The figures shown for industrial and non-industrial staff represent permanent staff in post and do not take account of temporary staff as the numbers of such staff could not be disaggregated between various locations except at disproportionate cost. The figures for temporary non-industrial staff at 31 March 1988 and 31 March 1989 were 193 and 145 respectively. The figures for temporary industrial staff at 31 March 1988 and 31 March 1989 were 207 and 487 respectively.

  Information on the composition by departments of non-industrial staff at district office level and figures for recruitment of industrial staff cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.
  231

  At 31 March

  Housing and planning

  Technical services and direct labour organisation

  Finance

  Personnel and management services and information technology

  Information and Secretariat

  Total

  1989

  255

  103

  12

  27

  2

  399

  South East

  1988

  288

  103

  10

  24

  2

  427

  1989

  296

  103

  13

  22

  1

  435

  West

  1988

  130

  71

  6

  22

  4

  233

  1989

  149

  63

  7

  19

  2

  240

  Headquarters

  1988

  62

  139

  206

  153

  19

  579

  1989

  53

  118

  205

  165

  19

  560

  Total staff in post

  1988

  1,787

  842

  279

  331

  33

  3,272

  1989

  1,819

  828

  283

  328

  30

  3,288

  Table 2: Non Industrial Staff in Post at Regional and District Offices at 31 March 1988 and 31 March 1

  Region and Regional Head quarters and District Office

  Staff in Post at

  31 March 1988

  31 March 1989

  Belfast

  Regional Head quarters

  457

  464

  Belfast 1

  45

  47

  Belfast 2

  54

  55

  Belfast 3

  56

  59

  Belfast 4

  47

  52

  Belfast 5

  52

  52

  Belfast 6

  45

  46

  Belfast 7

  73

  78

  Sub Total

  829

  853

  North East

  Regional Head quarters

  164

  165

  Antrim

  43

  46

  Ballycastle

  15

  15

  Ballymena

  41

  41

  Ballymoney

  22

  23

  Carrickfergus

  28

  30

  Larne

  23

  23

  Newtownabbey 1

  31

  30

  Newtownabbey 2

  30

  30

  Sub Total

  397

  403

  North West

  Regional Head quarters

  181

  169

  Coleraine

  41

  41

  Limavady

  27

  27

  Londonderry 1

  38

  40

  Londonderry 2

  33

  33

  Londonderry 3

  29

  29

  Magherafelt

  25

  24

  Strabane

  35

  35

  Sub Total

  409

  398

  South

  Regional Head quarters

  197

  193

  Armagh

  29

  32

  Banbridge

  27

  27

  Craigavon

  25

  24

  Kilkeel

  10

  10

  Lurgan

  27

  27

  Newry 1

  30

  32

  Newry 2

  28

  29

  Portadown

  25

  25

  Sub Total

  398

  399

  South East

  Regional Head quarters

  192

  188

  Bangor

  35

  36

  Castlereagh 1

  27

  27

  Castlereagh 2

  21

  21

  Lisburn 1

  32

  36

  Lisburn 2

  20

  21

  232

  Region and Regional Head quarters and District Office

  Staff in Post at

  31 March 1988

  31 March 1989

  Lisburn 3

  20

  21

  Newtownards 1

  27

  30

  Newtownards 2

  19

  18

  Downpatrick

  34

  37

  Sub Total

  427

  435

  West

  Regional Head quarters

  131

  133

  Cookstown

  20

  20

  Dungannon

  26

  29

  Enniskillen

  31

  32

  Omagh

  25

  26

  Sub Total

  233

  240

  Total

  2,693

  2,728

  Table 3: Recruitment of non-industrial staff during years 1987–88 and 1988–89

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Belfast Regional Office

  34

  38

  District Offices

  8

  33

  North East Regional Office

  1

  6

  District Offices

  2

  12

  North West Regional Office

  3

  9

  District Offices

  0

  2

  West Regional Office

  1

  4

  District Offices

  0

  5

  South Regional Office

  3

  12

  District Offices

  1

  6

  South East Regional Office

  9

  8

  District Offices

  0

  16

  Headquarters (including Linenhall Street and Carlton House)

  20

  30

  Totals

  81

  184

  Table 4

  Industrial staff in post at Regions and depots at 31 March 1989

  Depots

  31 March 1988

  31 March 1989

  West Region

  Cookstown

  28

  22

  Dungannon

  40

  35

  Eniskillen

  37

  33

  Omagh

  37

  32

  Total

  142

  122

  233

  Depots

  31 March 1988

  31 March 1989

  South Region

  Amargh

  39

  39

  Banbridge

  21

  17

  Carn

  61

  59

  Kilkeel

  13

  13

  Newry

  56

  54

  Total

  190

  182

  North West

  Pennyburn

  59

  56

  Drumahoe

  47

  41

  Strabane

  42

  40

  Coleraine

  36

  34

  Limavady

  19

  14

  Castledawson

  28

  28

  Total

  231

  213

  Belfast

  Gardiner Street

  114

  105

  Grosvenor Road

  98

  87

  Paulette Avenue

  85

  85

  Total

  297

  277

  North East

  Ballycastle

  11

  13

  Ballyclare

  31

  44

  Ballymena

  37

  52

  Ballymoney

  26

  27

  Total

  105

  136

  Grounds Maintenance Staff

  Belfast

  33

  27

  South East

  29

  29

  North East

  32

  28

  South

  28

  28

  West

  29

  29

  North West

  37

  36

  Total

  188

  177

  Ancilliary Staff

  Housing centre

  51

  42

  Belfast

  96

  92

  South East

  28

  30

  North East

  32

  30

  South

  31

  31

  West

  16

  17

  North West

  34

  30

  Total

  288

  272

  Total staff in post

  1,441

  1,379

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are his Department's estimates for the numbers of people aged 65 to 74 years, 75 to 79 years, and over 80 years in Northern Ireland in the years 2000 and 2020; and what percentage increase this represents in each category over the actual figures for the last year in which they are available.
  234
  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 19 June 1989]: The information requested is as follows:

  Age groups

  1988 Mid-year estimates

  Year 2000

  Percentage change

  Year 2020

  Percentage change

  65–74

  113,000

  110,000

  - 2·7

  135,000

  + 19·5

  75–79

  41,000

  41,000

  0·0

  46,000

  - 12·2

  80 and over

  39,000

  47,000

  + 20·5

  54,000

  + 38·5

EMPLOYMENT

  Tourist Industry
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will now publish the report of the review committee into the tourist industry which he established in July 1988.

  Mr. Lee
  I have no plans to publish the report.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish in the Official Report (a) the number of ET starts (b) the number of people who have left the scheme and finished their courses, (c) the number and percentage of those leaving and finishing who obtained a nationally recognisable qualification and (d) the qualifications obtained for the latest available date.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To 9 June, the latest date for which information is available, 317,800 people had started on employment training. Information broken down as requested about trainees who have left the programme is not available.

  Training
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the sources for the figures for the number of single parents on employment training schemes at December 1988, given by his Department to the Gateshead metropolitan borough council's special programmes committee on 25 January.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 15 May 1989]: The information provided to the special programmes committee of the Gateshead metropolitan borough council about the number of single parents joining employment training was provided by the Department's officials from the normal management information system. It relates only to those people who entered the programme under the special arrangements for lone parents in receipt of income support on an order book through the Department of Social Security. In addition, lone parents may enter under other eligibility conditions, including the main one of being unemployed for six months or more.

  The information I provided on 7 April about single parents on employment training to the hon. Member in my reply to his previous question is correct; there is no information presently available about the total number of single parents on the programme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  China
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the application for asylum by a member of the Chinese educational mission in Middlesex.

  Mr. Renton
  I have been asked to reply. An official of the Chinese embassy walked into Ealing police station on 11 June and asked for political asylum. The application is under consideration.

WALES

  Derelict Land (Shotton)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call a conference on Clwyd county council, Alyn and Deeside council and Deeside town and community councils with a view to discussing how 7,000 new jobs might be created on the derelict industrial land adjacent to Shotton steelworks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Clwyd has clearly benefited from the success of the Government's policies to revitalise industrial and economic performance in Wales. Unemployment in the county has fallen by 4,860 in the last 12 months. Regional aid approvals since January 1988 are associated with capital investment of £590 million, including £200 million inward investment, forecasting some 11,300 new jobs.

  I am confident that this progress will be maintained and I see no reason to convene a meeting along the lines proposed.

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has had formal talks with the chairman of the Welsh Fourth Channel S4C; and what plans he has for further meetings.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has visited S4C twice since becoming Secretary of State, most recently last month. He has had informal discussions with the chairman and members of the authority, as well as with senior staff, on both occasions.

  Radiation
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he now intends to conduct an aerial survey for radioactivity in the restricted area of North Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  No.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those sites for which he has given authorisation for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste during the last five years.

  Mr. Grist
  A list of current authorisations for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste issued in the last five years is as follows:
  236
  Clwyd

  North East Wales Institute of Higher Education

  Kelsterton College

  Connahs Quay

  Wales Gas Board

  Maelor Works

  Marchwiel

  Wrexham

  Clwyd Health Authority

  Maelor General Hospital

  Croesnewydd Road

  Wrexham

  Clwyd Health Authority

  Ysbyty Glan Clwyd

  Bodelwyddan

  Porton Products Ltd.

  Unit 9

  Ash Road

  Wrexham Industrial Estate

  Wrexham

  Pilkington PE Ltd.

  Glascoed Road

  St. Asaph

  Dyfed

  West Wales General Hospital

  Glangwili

  Carmarthen

  Penglais Estate

  University College

  Aberystwyth

  Welsh Plant Breeding Station

  Plas Gogerddan

  Aberystwyth

  Animal Health Research Unit

  Peithyll

  Capel Dewi

  Aberystwyth

  Withybush General Hospital

  Haverfordwest

  Gwent

  Nevill Hall Hospital

  Brecon Road

  Abergavenny

  ReChem International Ltd.

  Pontyvelin Industrial Estate

  New Road

  Panteg

  Pontypool

  Royal Gwent Hospital

  Newport

  St. Woolos Hospital

  Newport

  Allt-Yr-Yn Hospital

  Newport

  BT Consumer Electronics Ltd.

  Cwmcarn Factory

  Cross Keys

  Newport

  Mayer Cohen Industries Ltd.

  Newtown Industrial Estate

  Cross Keys

  Newport

  237

  Monsanto plc.

  Corporation Road

  Newport

  Gwynedd

  University College of North Wales

  Department of Marine Science

  Menai Bridge

  Anglesey

  Gwynedd Health Authority

  Gwynedd Hospital

  Penrhosgarnedd

  Bangor

  Mid Glamorgan

  Simbec Research Limited

  Merthyr Tydfil Industrial Park

  Cardiff Road

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Mid Glamorgan Health Authority

  East Glamorgan General Hospital

  Church Village

  Pontypridd

  Mid Glamorgan Health Authority

  Abcrdare General Hospital

  Aberdare

  Mid Glamorgan Health Authority

  Bridgend General Hospital

  Bridgend

  Perkin-Elmer Limited

  Llantrisant Trading Estate

  Pontyclun

  Miles Limited

  estern Avenue

  Bridgend Industrial Estate

  Bridgend

  Prince Charles Hospital

  Merthyr Tydfil

  Princess of Wales Hospital

  Bridgend

  South Glamorgan

  South Glamorgan County Council

  South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education

  Western Avenue

  Llandaff

  Cardiff

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Cathays Park

  Cardiff

  South Glamorgan Health Authority

  University Hospital of Wales

  Heath Park

  Cardiff

  South Glamorgan Health Authority

  South Wales Radiotherapy and Oncology Centre

  Velindre and Whitchurch Hospitals

  Cardiff

  South Glamorgan Health Authority

  Llandough Hospital

  Penarth

  Welsh Regional Blood Transfusion Centre

  Rhydlafar

  St. Fagans

  Cardiff

  Dow Corning Ltd.

  Cardiff Road

  238

  Barry

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  King Edward VII Avenue

  Cathays Park

  Cardiff

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  Aberconway Building

  Colum Drive

  Cardiff

  University of Wales College of Cardiff

  School of Pure and Applied Biology

  Newport Road

  Cardiff

  Biotal Ltd.

  5 Chilton Close

  Ty Glas Industrial Estate

  Llanishen

  Cardiff

  RSR Ltd.

  Avenue Industrial Park

  Pentwyn

  Cardiff

  South Glamorgan Health Authority

  Prince of Wales Hospital

  Rhydlafar

  St. Fagans

  Cardiff

  The Public Health Laboratory Service

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  Newport Road

  Cardiff

  The Public Health Laboratory Service

  Public Health Laboratory

  University Hospital of Wales

  Heath Park

  Cardiff

  Cardiff City Council

  Environmental Health Department

  City Analysts Laboratory

  Roath

  Cardiff

  Amersham International plc

  Cardiff Laboratories

  Forest Farm

  Whitchurch

  Cardiff

  South Glamorgan Health Authority

  Cardiff Royal Infirmary

  Newport Road

  Cardiff

  West Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan Health Authority

  Neath General Hospital

  Neath

  West Glamorgan Health Authority

  Singleton Hospital

  Sketty

  Swansea

  West Glamorgan Health Authority

  Morriston Hospital

  Swansea

  British Steel Corporation

  Welsh Laboratory

  Port Talbot

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many people aged 18 to 25 years have been unemployed for six months or more in Wales; and in each of the parliamentary constituencies of Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  Unemployed person aged 18 to 24 years1

  Parliamentary constituency areas

  Total all durations

  Total over six months2

  April 1987

  April 1989

  April 1987

  April 1989

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,141

  640

  595

  225

  Clwyd North West

  1,696

  1,027

  934

  448

  Clwyd South West

  1,144

  704

  571

  292

  Delyn

  1,221

  629

  668

  213

  Wrexham

  1,341

  823

  721

  311

  Carmarthen

  1,050

  633

  534

  283

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  1,107

  629

  513

  264

  Llanelli

  1,353

  793

  682

  290

  Pembroke

  1,785

  1,150

  833

  498

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,489

  1,108

  756

  493

  Islwyn

  1,011

  724

  512

  285

  Monmouth

  876

  484

  438

  182

  Newport East

  1,434

  830

  813

  357

  Newport West

  1,634

  960

  951

  426

  Torfaen

  1,503

  1,107

  767

  479

  Caernarfon

  969

  733

  487

  335

  Conwy

  1,175

  765

  623

  304

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  563

  275

  275

  108

  Ynys Môon

  1,287

  944

  728

  434

  Bridgend

  1,042

  633

  505

  233

  Caerphilly

  1,609

  1,019

  944

  402

  Cynon Valley

  1,228

  953

  636

  408

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  1,562

  1,248

  766

  560

  Ogmore

  1,161

  794

  650

  322

  Pontypridd

  1,368

  886

  740

  392

  Rhondda

  1,648

  1,087

  989

  506

  Brecon and Radnor

  701

  340

  360

  127

  Montgomery

  511

  221

  234

  64

  Cardiff Central

  2,017

  1,189

  1,195

  591

  Cardiff North

  684

  352

  363

  137

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  1,559

  924

  987

  444

  Cardiff West

  1,709

  1,046

  998

  476

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,346

  883

  709

  371

  Aberavon

  1,265

  713

  613

  274

  Gower

  1,016

  626

  577

  267

  Neath

  1,171

  751

  825

  302

  Swansea East

  1,542

  1,098

  838

  499

  Swansea West

  1,794

  1,201

  1,111

  551

  WALES

  48,772

  30,922

  26,056

  13,153

  1 Specific totals for the age group 18 to 25 are not available.

  2 Data quoted do not include persons unemployed for up to and including six months

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in the Official Report the number of long-term unemployed people, male and female, indicating in each instance how many are under the age of 25 years in Wales and in each of the parliamentary constituencies of Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Parliamentary constituency areas

  All

  Male long-term unemployed1 Less than 25 years2

  April 1987

  April 1989

  April 1987

  April 1989

  Alyn and Deeside

  1,152

  496

  205

  58

  Clwyd North West

  1,557

  794

  344

  145

  Clwyd South West

  932

  519

  182

  69

  Delyn

  1,573

  567

  261

  64

  Wrexham

  1,400

  696

  294

  78

  Carmarthen

  986

  650

  129

  85

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  1,031

  525

  123

  61

  Llanelli

  1,301

  695

  210

  85

  240
  (2) how many people aged 18 to 25 years are unemployed in each of the parliamentary constituencies of Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The latest available figures are shown in the following table. This includes figures for two years earlier. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the substantial fall in the number of unemployed young people over the last two years.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The latest available information, for April 1989, is shown in the table. This includes figures for two years earlier. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the substantial fall in the number of long-term unemployed over the last two years.
  241

  All

  Male long-term unemployed1 Less than 25 years2

  April 1987

  April 1989

  April 1987

  April 1989

  Pembroke

  1,483

  1,082

  219

  142

  Blaenau Gwent

  1,857

  1,236

  286

  175

  Islwyn

  1,236

  702

  206

  95

  Monmouth

  844

  433

  121

  53

  Newport East

  1,634

  810

  352

  121

  Newport West

  1,892

  965

  400

  154

  Torfaen

  1,584

  845

  258

  138

  Caernarfon

  1,094

  656

  167

  104

  Conwy

  996

  617

  169

  85

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  422

  213

  64

  30

  Ynys Mon

  1,527

  840

  275

  122

  Bridgend

  1,019

  539

  160

  62

  Caerphilly

  2,079

  964

  422

  122

  Cynon Valley

  1,524

  1,034

  277

  133

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  1,847

  1,211

  367

  215

  Ogmore

  1,689

  868

  314

  120

  Pontypridd

  1,523

  943

  325

  158

  Rhondda

  1,822

  1,033

  456

  205

  Brecon and Radnor

  581

  280

  94

  32

  Montgomery

  480

  140

  52

  12

  Cardiff Central

  2,073

  1,139

  447

  212

  Cardiff North

  782

  380

  150

  43

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  2,034

  1,116

  419

  171

  Cardiff West

  2,245

  1,260

  434

  200

  Vale of Glamorgan

  1,321

  753

  236

  105

  Aberavon

  1,154

  515

  227

  83

  Gower

  897

  420

  183

  46

  Neath

  986

  552

  151

  79

  Swansea East

  2,103

  1,174

  385

  197

  Swansea West

  2,180

  1,284

  516

  197

  Wales

  52,840

  28,946

  9,880

  4,256

  Parliamentary constituency areas

  All

  Female long term unemployed1 Less than 25 years2

  April 1987

  April 1989

  April 1987

  April 1989

  Alyn and Deeside

  360

  173

  97

  24

  Clwyd North West

  525

  243

  194

  43

  Clwyd South West

  375

  185

  113

  44

  Delyn

  428

  155

  113

  23

  Wrexham

  380

  198

  102

  45

  Carmarthen

  387

  219

  116

  42

  Ceredigion and Pembroke North

  411

  195

  109

  31

  Llanelli

  421

  193

  143

  36

  Pembroke

  547

  308

  192

  74

  Blaenau Gwent

  401

  235

  123

  49

  Islwyn

  276

  161

  77

  24

  Monmouth

  343

  174

  110

  31

  Newport East

  465

  236

  155

  49

  Newport West

  537

  252

  180

  55

  Torfaen

  451

  273

  139

  59

  Caernarfon

  300

  177

  85

  33

  Conwy

  323

  205

  110

  41

  Meirionnydd Nant Conwy

  177

  102

  44

  14

  Ynys Môn

  534

  381

  192

  85

  Bridgend

  292

  137

  66

  21

  Caerphilly

  392

  176

  138

  34

  Cynon Valley

  305

  190

  107

  38

  Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney

  369

  229

  140

  64

  Ogmore

  273

  141

  83

  21

  Pontypridd

  359

  183

  124

  38

  Rhondda

  398

  233

  160

  56

  Brecon and Radnor

  256

  118

  73

  15

  Montgomery

  208

  65

  49

  15

  Cardiff Central

  540

  293

  211

  84

  Cardiff North

  198

  118

  45

  17

  Cardiff South and Penarth

  387

  209

  152

  60

  Cardiff West

  456

  243

  186

  56

  Vale of Glamorgan

  447

  243

  134

  57

  Averavon

  311

  100

  106

  23

  Gower

  310

  137

  88

  32

  Neath

  359

  167

  109

  39

  242 243

  All

  Female long term unemployed1 Less than 25 years2

  April 1987

  April 1989

  April 1987

  April 1989

  Swansea East

  444

  236

  158

  65

  Swansea West

  509

  275

  185

  76

  Wales

  14,454

  7,558

  4,708

  1,613

  Source: Employment Department.

  1 Data quoted are for claimants who have been unemployed for more than 52 weeks.

  2 Claimants aged 16–24 years.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to allow children whose first language is Welsh to take national curriculum testing at seven through the medium of Welsh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Yes. Children taught through the medium of Welsh will be assessed in Welsh. Organisations contracted to develop standard assessment tasks are preparing them in both English and Welsh.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to publish a Welsh Language Bill; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have made clear to the chairman of the Welsh Language Board that I will consider very carefully any specific proposals that the board might make.

  The strategy document that the board has published today makes clear the board's view that all those with an interest should have the opportunity to shape future policy in support of the Welsh language. The strategy document is the starting point in that process and the board will be consulting on it widely.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the representations he has received concerning national curriculum testing of pupils at the ages of seven and 11 years and whose first language is Welsh; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  A number of the respondents to the consultation exercise on proposals for attainment targets and programmes of study in English 5–11 commented on assessment and testing; most of these supported the Secretary of State's proposals. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to list the respondents and to list those who subsequently responded to the consultation on the proposal to exempt pupils taught in Welsh from assessment against the attainment targets for English.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet the county councils of Wales to discuss his Department's proposals to enhance the status of the Welsh language; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet the Welsh county councils to discuss the Welsh Language Board's proposals in relation to the Welsh language. The Welsh Language Board will however be consulting all those organisations with an interest.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy under the national curriculum on testing in English of pupils whose first language is Welsh at 11 years; and if he will make a statement.
  244
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Pupils who are taught through the medium of Welsh will be assessed in Welsh. At the age of 11 all pupils, whether taught in Welsh or English, will be assessed against the same attainment targets for English.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he proposes to meet the Welsh Language Board to discuss the board's suggestion concerning the possible contents of a Welsh Language Bill.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend regularly meets the chairman of the Welsh Language Board to discuss any proposals that they make.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those district councils in Wales which have published(a) bilingual poll tax forms, (b) English-only forms with a reference to provision of Welsh language forms if requested and (c) English-only forms with no such statement.

  Mr. Grist
  This information is not held centrally. A welsh translation of the model community charge canvass form circulated in practice note 8 was sent to all district councils in Wales. Camera-ready copy of this translation was also made available on request.

  Language Teachers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will call a conference in Wales of local education authorities, teachers unions, parent-teacher associations, trades unions and employers organisations to discuss the shortage in Wales's high schools of teachers of modern languages; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will call an all-Wales conference to discuss the shortage of Welsh language teachers with the local education authorities of Wales; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what initiatives he plans to end the difficulties of recruiting to the high schools of Wales sufficient numbers of Welsh language teachers; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what plans he has to enable the recruitment in the high schools of Wales of sufficient teachers of (a) German, (b) French and (c) Spanish before 1992; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) what steps he has taken to ensure that there are sufficient numbers of teachers of the Welsh language to meet the requirements of the national curriculum in (a) local education authority secondary schools and (b) private secondary schools.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  There are no immediate plans to call a national conference to discuss shortages either of Welsh language or of other modern language teachers. The Department will shortly be consulting each of the Welsh
  245
  local education authorities about the number of teachers needed, including teachers of Welsh and other modern languages, to meet the requirements of the national curriculum and to discuss how the demand can be met.

  Officials are also in close touch with the training institutions and we intend to promote liaison between the Department, the Wales Advisory Body and the Universities Funding Council, over the distribution of initial teacher training places within Wales, to ensure that targets are set as high as demand requires and realistic recruitment expectation justifies. Measures to encourage recruitment both from traditional and non-traditional sources have already been taken in conjunction with the Department of Education and Science. The teaching as a career unit has developed a specific programme to attract more Welsh language and Welsh-medium students.

  We have no plans to ensure the supply of teachers to private schools but, in setting overall targets of teacher demand, full account is taken of the numbers of trained teachers expected to transfer to or directly enter the private sector.

  However, encouraging teacher recruitment, either direct from training or of teachers returning to the profession, represents only part of our strategy for staffing schools to deliver the national curriculum. A very large part of the demand will need to be met by the re-training of teachers already in service. A framework for delivering the necessary in-service training is in place under the local education authority training grant scheme. My right hon. Friend has made expenditure provision for £223,000 under the scheme in 1989–90 for Welsh language training and a further £2·8 million for other training related to the national curriculum, including that necessary for modern languages. A further allocation of £582,000 for school management is intended to help heads and senior staff to manage the changes arising from the Education Reform Act.

  We again expect to give a high priority to these training categories when the scheme allocations for 1990–91 are announced later this summer.

  Education Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will convene a conference of the local education authorities of Wales to discuss with directors of education and chairmen of local education authorities the (i) financial and (ii) professional consequences to the schools service of local management of schools and the national curriculum;

  (2) if he will visit each of the local education authorities in Wales to discuss with them the (i) financial and (ii) professional consequences of local management of schools and the national curriculum; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  No request has been made to my right hon. Friend by local education authorities to meet and discuss the consequences of the implementation of the Education Reform Act 1988. At official level discussions on these issues continue to take place through working groups on which all local education authorities are represented.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list in the Official Report all Government documents issued to (a) local education authorities and
  246
  (b) schools as a consequence of the Education Reform Act listing both the number of pages and the cost of the document; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  The following documents have been issued by the Welsh Office to local authorities and schools as a direct result of the passing of the Education Reform Act 1988. Most of these documents were produced within the Department and costs cannot be separately identified. I am ensuring that copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Length and Control of School Sessions: Draft Circular
  Admission of pupils to County and Voluntary Schools: Circular 47/88
  Charges for school activities: Circular 4/89
  Religious Education and Collective Worship: Circular 6/89
  Grant Maintained Schools: Circular 49/88
  Local Management of Schools: Circular 36/88
  Statutory Approval of Qualifications: Circular 33/89
  National Curriculum Mathematics and Science Orders: Circular 14/89
  The School Curriculum and Assessment: Circular 15/89
  Local Arrangements for the Consideration of Complaints made under Section 23: Circular 26/89
  Modern Foreign Languages in the National Curriculum: Circular 32/89
  Governance of Maintained Further and Higher Education Institutions: Circular 37/88
  Local Management of Further and Higher Education Institutions: Planning and Delegation of Schemes and Articles of Government: Circular 38/88
  Local Management of Further and Higher Education Colleges: Circular Letter

  Mathematics fin. Ages 5–16:

  Proposals of the Secretaries of State 1988
  Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Mathematics) Order 1989
  "Mathematics in the National Curriculum" (Associated document to above).

  Science for Ages 5–16:

  Proposals of the Secretaries of State 1988
  Education (National Curriculum) (Attainment Targets and Programmes of Study in Science) Order 1989
  "Science in The National Curriculum" (Associated document to above).

  Design and Technology for Ages 5–16:

  Proposal of the Secretaries of State 1989
  National Curriculum Implementation: Circular Letter to Headteachers
  National Curriculum: Draft Statutory Regulations—Exemptions from English at Key Stage 1: Consultation Letter
  National Curriculum Temporary Exceptions for Individual Pupils: Draft Regulations and Circular
  LEA Training Grants Scheme and ESG—National Curriculum Development Plans: Guidance Note
  National Curriculum: Task Group on Assessment and Testing (TGAT): Report
  Education Reform: The Government's Proposals for Schools: Booklet
  School Governors: How to Become A Grant Maintained School: Booklet
  School Governors: A New Role: Booklet
  Shouldn't You Become A School Governor: Booklet
  School Governors: A Guide to the Law for County and Controlled Schools: Booklet
  English for Ages 5–11: Booklet
  English in the National Curriculum Key Stage 1: Booklet

  Cancer Patients
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he proposes to make public his plans to improve the facilities in north wales for cancer patients; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Central funds have been made available to Clwyd and Gwynedd health authorities to improve facilities for cancer patients. A comprehensive study of cancer treatment services in north Wales, commissioned by the Welsh Office, is nearing completion and I will wish to consider it carefully, with the health authorities involved, in planning the further development of services.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of BSE infected cattle at EEC-approved slaughterhouses in Wales have been identified.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Two.

  Environmental Pollution
  Mrs. Clywd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for the control of environmental pollution in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the current acreage of the Forestry Commission in Wales;

  (2) what is the estimated acreage in Wales of Forestry Commission land planted with (i) broadleaves, and (ii) conifers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  At 31 March 1989 the Forestry Commission managed the following areas of land in Wales:

  Hectares

  Broadleaved woodland

  6,000

  Conifer woodland

  124,000

  Other land

  13,000

  Total

  143,000

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated value of the assets of the Forestry Commission in Wales.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The estimated value of the Forestry Commission's fixed assets in Wales at 31 March 1988 was as follows:Plantations (land, roads and timber) £440 million.
  Other tangible assets (land, buildings, machinery, plant and equipment) £11 million.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Scrapie
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will ban food 248
  stuffs made from scrapie-infected sheep for all fowls, animals and fish following the Southwood report's recommendation of a ban on such feeds for ruminants;

  (2) whether only ruminants were being fed with scrapie-infected feed when the Southwood report recommended banning it.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The Southwood working party was aware of the fact that protein derived from ruminants was fed to types of animal other than ruminants, and recognised the fact. The working party endorsed the action that the Government had already taken in banning the feeding of ruminant-based protein in ruminant rations. There are no plans to include feed for other types of animal in this ban.

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations the British Government has made and will be making to the Council of Europe concerning its current discussions on fur farming.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My officials attend these meetings at which recommendations for the welfare of fur-bearing animals are being elaborated. They are seeking to negotiate the most suitable recommendations for the welfare of these animals bearing in mind the Farm Animal Welfare Council's view that there is not enough evidence to set specific cage sizes and that further research is needed into some aspects of fur farming.

  Whales
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Community Council of Fisheries Ministers the continual slaughtering of whales by the whaling fleets of certain maritime nations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The European Community does not have competence on whaling matters as such, but those members with an interest in whaling are members of the IWC and we consult them in that forum. At the recent 41st annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission, the commission passed resolutions asking Japan, Iceland and Norway to reconsider their scientific research whaling programmes and rejected Japan's request for its small coastal whaling boats to take 320 minke whales off Japan. I welcome those decisions.

  Rabbits
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if there have been any reports in the last year of viral haemorrhagic disease in rabbits in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what steps he is taking to prevent viral haemorrhagic disease in rabbits entering the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  There have been no reports of viral haemorrhagic disease in rabbits in this country. Imported rabbits are subject to six months quarantine and this is an effective safeguard against the introduction of the disease.
  249
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish in the Official Report figures for the importation into the United Kingdom of frozen rabbit meat and live rabbits, and the countries of origin, for the last five years.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Data on imported rabbit meat are not available for the years prior to 1988. For 1988, imports of frozen rabbit meat were not separately identified. But imports for 1988 of all presentations of rabbit meat (fresh, chilled, frozen and edible offal) were:

  Country

  Rabbit meat and offal (kg)

  France

  113,800

  Poland

  1,700

  China

  2,314,100

  Imports of live domestic rabbits and countries of origin for the last five years were:

  country

  Live rabbits (kg)

  1984

  France

  1,076

  Irish Republic

  3,000

  1985

  France

  720

  1986

  France

  412

  1987

  USA

  490

  1988

  USA

  3,362

  Food Labelling
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is yet in a position to make an announcement about the outcome of his consultation on the proposed guidelines by the Food Advisory Committee on the use of the word "natural" and similar terms in the labelling and advertising of food; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  We have received a large number of comments on the proposed guidelines from consumer, trade and enforcement bodies and from others with an interest in the proposals. I am pleased to say that there has been general support for the principle of the FAC's guidelines and for the voluntary approach proposed. However, concern has been expressed about the detail of certain parts of the guidance and some clarification has also been requested. In view of this, I asked the FAC to consider all the responses received and advise whether, in the light of these, they wished to amend their guidance.

  My colleagues and I have now received the committee's further advice. After careful consideration the committee has reaffirmed its recommendation for voluntary self regulation, in the first instance, in this area of labelling. The committee has also agreed some important revisions to the text of the statement, which I believe directly address many of the concerns raised by respondents, generally by clarifying or expanding on certain principles in the statement to ensure that they are as clear and unambiguous as possible. My colleagues and I consider
  250
  the committee's revised statement to he a sensible basis from which answers to problems in this area of labelling might be developed.

  I am sending the FAC's advice out to all interested parties in the United Kingdom with a firm suggestion that in future, when considering food labelling, they observe and adopt the principles that the Food Advisory Committee has set out. I shall watch carefully to see whether this voluntary approach achieves the desired results, and will consider whether further action would be appropriate.

  The FAC has also reaffirmed its advice that an advisory group of interested parties, to which cases of doubt could be referred, would ease adoption of the principles proposed. The committee has emphasised that it is not their intention that such a group should in any way circumvent the legal process but simply assist in interpretation of the guidance for particular cases. I cannot see, however, how such a group could operate effectively without becoming involved in matters of legal interpretation which are the responsibilities of the courts. I shall therefore not pursue this idea, but I shall ask my officials to inquire from the various interested parties, In 12 months' time, how the FAC's guidelines are working out in practice.

  I have also written to the European Commission enclosing the FAC's advice, and commending this approach to them in formulating their own policies for Community rules in this area of labelling.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Marland
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 20–21 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Together with my right hon. colleague, Lord Sanderson, Minister of State, Scottish Office, I attended the Council of Fisheries Ministers in Luxembourg on 21 June 1989.

  We secured agreement to an important amendment to restriction on beam trawl lengths that would have applied on 1 July. This will assist our inshore beam fleet and allow them to continue their operations without incurring costly modification. This is most welcome.

  We also secured in the negotiations a commitment from the Commission to review urgently this year's total allowable catch for Channel cod and other precautionary TAC's.

  After a difficult discussion the Council adopted a regulation laying down common marketing standards for preserved sardines. I ensured that our traditional sardine pastes and pates could continue to be marketed to the benefit of consumers.

  On quota-hopping, I stresed the Community-wide nature of the problem and expressed my hope that the Commissioner will come forward urgently with a Community solution. I received strong support from five other member states, and the Commissioner undertook to examine the problem and present the proposals to the Council. The Commissioner also undertook to ensure that in enforcing Community rules there would be no discrimination between member states.

  As we requested last December, the Commission reported on recent scientific advice reviewing the TACs for

  251
  North sea cod and haddock. We have to accept that there is no case for increasing these this year if we are to safeguard the future of these stocks.

  Set-aside Scheme
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much land he expects to be taken out of agricultural production under the set-aside scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much land has been set aside under the set-aside scheme.

  Mr. Ryder
  United Kingdom arable farmers who joined the scheme for the 1988–89 crop year have set aside some 55,000 hectares of land. The scheme is open until 31 July 1989 for applications from farmers wishing to join for the 1989–90 crop year. The amount of additional land entered for the scheme, in this and future years, will depend on the decisions of farmers in the light of their own circumstances and the continuing reductions in support for arable crops under the stabiliser system.

  Multi-annual Guidance Programme
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made by the United Kingdom and other European Economic Community countries towards meeting the targets set in the fisheries multi-annual guidance programme.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  A number of member states are deemed by the Commission to have made sufficient progress towards meeting their programme targets. The United Kingdom is currently considering with industry representations various options for reducing fleet capacity.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the largest number of cases of BSE recorded on a single farm; what is the average number of cases per affected herd; what is the proportion of affected herds which have had a single case; and what is the proportion of all dairy herds that have had one or more cases.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  The information is as follows:

  —largest number of confirmed BSE cases on a single farm—18

  —average number of cases per infected herd—1·5

  —proportion of affected herds having a single case—71 per cent.

  —proportion of all dairy herds having one or more cases—6·5 per cent.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Caerphilly of 19 June, when he intends to introduce recording of the information concerning the incidence of BSE at EEC approved and non-approved slaughterhouses.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  This is already in hand. The results will be collected each quarter beginning with the period April-June 1989.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the public policy 252
  considerations which underlie the decision to operate a slaughter with compensation scheme for cattle infected with tuberculosis but not for deer infected with tuberculosis.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I announced on 16 June at column 563, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmoreland and Lonsdale, (Mr. Jopling) my intention to introduce a slaughter with compensation scheme for deer suffering from tuberculosis.

  Animal Disease
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of which notifiable animal disease he operates a slaughter without compensation scheme; and if he will list such schemes together with details of the appropriate authority.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  None.

  Divisional Headquarters
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the divisional headquarters offices of his Department.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  My department's regional and divisional Offices are situated in the following locations in England:

  Eastern Region

  Regional office:

  Cambridge

  Divisional offices:

  Chelmsford

  Huntingdon

  Lincoln

  Norwich

  Midlands and Western Region

  Regional office:

  Wolverhampton

  Divisional offices:

  Crewe

  Nottingham

  Preston

  Worcester

  Northern region

  Regional office:

  Leeds

  Divisional offices:

  Beverley

  Carlisle

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  Northallerton

  South Eastern region

  Regional office:

  Reading

  Divisional offices:

  Guildford

  Maidstone

  Oxford

  South Western region

  Regional office:

  Bristol

  Divisional offices:

  Exeter

  Gloucester

  Taunton

  Truro

  253
  Staff of my Department's Agricultural Development and Advisory Service are also located in Wales, but the Welsh Office is responsible for their accommodation.

  Price Fixing
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with which organisations he or his ministerial colleagues had meetings to discuss the price fixing of agricultural produce prior to their agreement in Brussels in 1988.

  Mr. MacGregor
  In 1989, as in 1988 and previously, Agriculture Ministers and senior officials held meetings with a number of organisations to discuss the Commission's price fixing proposals. In 1989 these discussions involved, in particular, the following bodies:

  Agricultural and Allied Workers National Trade Group of the Transport and General Workers Union

  Consumers in the European Community Group

  National Farmers Union, Scottish National Farmers Union, Ulster Farmers Union

  Farmers Union of Wales

  Food and Drink Federation

  A number of other organisations were offered invitations to attend meetings to discuss the Commission's price proposals but declined to do so.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to designate all the areas on the original list submitted to him by the Countryside Commission and Nature Conservancy Council as environmentally sensitive by the end of 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  I have no plans at present to designate any further ESAs. All the areas shortlisted for ESA status in England by the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council have been designated. These schemes are being monitored and I plan to carry out a full review of ESA policy before the first agreements terminate in 1992.

  Farm Diversification Grants
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of grants approved under the farm diversification grants scheme; and the number that were rejected on environmental grounds.

  Mr. Ryder
  During 1988, 669 applications for capital grant were approved under the farm diversification grant scheme; 137 applications were rejected but none were on environmental grounds.

  Between 1 January and 31 May 1989, 332 applications were received and 87 were rejected. I regret that information on the reasons for rejections during this period is not readily available.

  Hedgerows
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will list the names of all grant 254
  schemes available to farmers for planting hedgerows, giving their date of introduction, when they ceased; and whether they are still available, since 1959;

  (2) if he will list the names of all grant schemes available to farmers for renewing hedgerows, giving their date of introduction, when they ceased, and whether they are still available, since 1959.

  Mr. Ryder
  Grant was available under the following schemes for the provision, replacement or improvement of hedges:

  Name of Scheme

  Dale Introduced

  Date Closed to Applications

  Farm improvement scheme

  1 September 1957

  31 December 1970

  Horticulture improvement scheme

  14 April 1960

  31 December 1973

  Hill land improvement scheme

  14 August 1967

  31 December 1970

  Farm capital grant scheme

  1 January 1971

  30 September 1980

  Horticulture capital grant scheme

  1 January 1974

  30 September 1980

  Farm and horticulture development scheme

  1 January 1974

  30 September 1980

  Agriculture and horticulture development scheme

  1 October 1980

  30 September 1985

  Agriculture and horticulture grant scheme

  1 October 1980

  9 July 1985

  Agriculture improvement regulations

  1 October 1985

  28 November 1988

  Agriculture improvement scheme

  1 October 1985

  29 November 1988

  The closing dates quoted are those for the receipt of new applications. Expenditure incurred before the closing date could be claimed subsequently and where the applicant held an approved plan of investments, the expenditure too could be incurred after the closing date. Claims are still being accepted from holders of approved plans under the agriculture and horticulture development scheme and the Agriculture Improvement Regulations.

  Grants of 50 per cent. in the less favoured areas and 40 per cent. elsewhere for the provision, replacement or improvement of hedges are currently available under the farm and conservation grant scheme which was introduced on 20 February 1989.

  Training Courses
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of training courses given on protectiing rivers and streams from agricultural pollution by the agricultural development advisory service officers on(a) a national basis and (b) a regional basis; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  ADAS provides routine training for new entrants and specialist and general advisers on pollution avoidance and control measures. The training is undertaken at national and regional level as an integrated part of discipline training, but records are not available of the precise number of courses held.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of training courses given on conservation of wildlife and landscape by
  255
  the agricultural development advisory service offices on (a) a national basis and (b) a regional basis in each year since 1981; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Since 1981, 35 national training courses have been held by ADAS on conservation of wildlife and landscape involving approximately 900 advisory officers. Information on regional training over the same period is not available, but since 1987 more than 20 conservation courses have been held in regions. Conservation is also included as an integral part of discipline training for new entrants and ADAS advisers.

  Planning Applications
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many planning applications he has commented on(a) within national parks and (b) outside national parks since 1986; and in each category how many were opposed;

  (2) how many planning applications he has commented on (a) within environmentally sensitive areas and (b) outside environmentally sensitive areas since 1987; and in each category how many were opposed;

  (3) how many planning applications he has commented on (a) within areas of outstanding natural beauty and (b) outside areas of outstanding natural beauty since 1986; and in each category how many were opposed.

  Mr. Ryder
  The statistics on consultations with MAFF by planning authorities about development involving agricultural land are not kept in the format requested. The information is, therefore, not readily available

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army (Vetting)
  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any proposals to improve the arrangements for vetting members of the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Neubert
  The procedures aimed at ensuring members of paramilitary or extremist organisations are excluded from service in the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland or any other part of the armed forces are kept under constant review.

  Photonics
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any research programmes are under way concerning the use of photonics for communicating with Royal Navy submarines.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our practice to comment on operational matters of this kind.

  Transmitters
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites of all current and proposed extremely low frequency, very low frequency and low frequency transmitters in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  I am not prepared to comment on security grounds, beyond acknowledging the proposed trial of an 256
  extremely low frequency transmitter at Glengarry, which has been the subject of several previous answers to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans his Department has to increase the number of low frequency transmitters in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what plans his Department has to increase the number of VLF transmitters in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  I am not prepared to comment for security reasons.

  Submarine Communications
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans his Department has to increase the number of systems available for communicating with the Trident submarine fleet;

  (2) what water space management agreements exist to ensure that United States and United Kingdom SSBNs do not encounter each other whilst on patrol.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our practice to comment on operational matters of this kind.

  Submarines (Communications)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the reasons why a TACAMO-type system of very low frequency communication with submarines was rejected for the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there are any plans to equip Royal Navy submarines in order to receive Oscar or Lasercom signals.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our practice to comment on operational matters of this kind.

  Tornado Aircraft (Storage)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado aircraft are currently held in storage at RAF Leeming.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado aircraft are currently held in storage at RAF Coningsby.

  Mr. Neubert
  No Tornados are held in storage at RAF Coningsby. However, as the RAF's receiving point for new Tornado F3s, at any one time a small number of aircraft may be held there in reserve while awaiting allocation to their operational squadrons.

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Tornado GR 1 aircraft were held in storage on 1 April in each year since 1981;

  (2) what is the average length of time for which individual Tornado GR 1 aircraft have been held in storage since 1981.

  Mr. Neubert
  No Tornado GR1s were held in storage on 1 April of any year since 1981 with the exception of
  257
  1983 and 1984. Although detailed records are no longer held, it is estimated that seven and 18 Tornado GR1s were held in storage on 1 April 1983 and 1984 respectively, while awaiting allocation to their operational squadrons. The average period in storage of each aircraft is estimated to have been between six to nine months.

  RAF St. Athan (Aircraft Storage)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the(a) average and (b) peak total number of aircraft held in storage at RAF St. Athan in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Neubert
  RAF St. Athan is a major maintenance depot and is used routinely for storing attrition aircraft and aircraft awaiting servicing. Records of the number of aircraft held in storage are not kept in the form requested. However, it is estimated that, on average, about 50 aircraft of various types and ages are held at RAF St. Athan.

  Land (Cunninghame, North)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans exist for acquisition of additional land by his Department in the Cunninghame, North constituency.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are at present no such plans.

  Nuclear Deterrent
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley of 2 March,Official Report, columns 253–54, if he will make a statement as to what factors Her Majesty's Government consider to be the essential constituents of a fully effective, reliable and survivable deterrent.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the second memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Foreign Affairs Committee on 11 May 1988, which was published on pages 35 to 37 of the minutes of evidence in its third report of the 1987–88 Session (HC280). Paragraphs 6 to 8 in particular contain the information he seeks.

  Sea-based Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to(a) withdraw some of the sea-based tactical nuclear weapons on Royal Navy vessels and (b) re-evaluate the utility to United Kingdom national defence of sea-based nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Neubert
  As part of the studies related to modernising the United Kingdom's theatre nuclear weapons capability, consideration is being given to the replacement of the full spectrum of United Kingdom tactical nuclear weapons, including sea-based systems. However, no decisions have yet been taken.

  F111 Aircraft
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States Air Force F111 aircraft were withdrawn from bases in England in 1988; and what was the reason for their withdrawal.
  258
  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  "Who Framed Colin Wallace?"
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on allegations concerning the forging of CIA documents used by former serving army officers and civil servants reported in the book "Who Framed Colin Wallace?" by Paul Foot.

  Mr. Neubert
  The hon. Member made allegations as to the forging of CIA documents during the Adjournment debate of 20 June last year, but they are not repeated in Mr. Foot's book. I have nothing to add on this matter to the many answers the hon. Member has already received, for example in the letter sent to him on 15 August 1988 by my predecessor, a copy of which was placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Reserve Establishments
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations of all Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Marines Reserve establishments in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Neubert
  Not all Naval reservist units have their own establishments; some are accommodated with other service units. The following is a list of all Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Marines Reserve units with their locations:

  RNR

  HMS Calliope, Tyne and Wear

  HMS Cambria, Cardiff

  HMS Camberdown, Dundee

  HMS Caroline, Belfast

  HMS Ceres, Leeds

  HMS Claverhouse, Edinburgh

  HMS Dalriada, Greenock

  HMS Dragon, Swansea

  HMS Eaglet, Liverpool

  HMS Essex, Shoeburyness

  HMS Ferret, Ashford

  HMS Flying Fox, Bristol

  HMS Forward, Birmingham

  HMS Graham, Glasgow

  HMS Hallam, Sheffield

  HMS Mercia, Coventry

  HMS Northwood, Northwood

  HMS Palatine, Preston

  HMS Paragon, Middlesbrough

  HMS Pellew, Exeter

  HMS President, London

  HMS Salford, Manchester

  HMS Scotia, Pitreavie

  HMS Sherwood, Nottingham

  HMS Southwick, Fareham

  HMS Sussex, Brighton

  HMS Vivid, Plymouth

  HMS Wessex, Southampton

  HMS Wildlife, Chatham

  RMR

  RMR City of London, Bermondsey, with detachments in:

  Chatham

  Portsmouth

  Henley (being established)

  RMR Scotland, Glasgow, with detachments in:

  Grangemouth

  Greenock

  Dundee

  RMR Bristol, Bristol, with detachments in:

  Cardiff

  Lympstone

  Plymouth

  Poole

  259
  RMR Merseyside, Liverpool, with detachments in:

  Manchester

  Birmingham

  RMR Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne

  Recruitment Offices
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those cities and towns in the United Kingdom which have recruitment offices for(a) the Army, (b) the RAF and (c) the Royal Navy.

  Mr. Neubert
  The information requested is given in the following tables.

  The Royal Navy have recruiting offices in the following towns:

  England

  Barnsley

  Birmingham

  Blackburn

  Brighton

  Bristol

  Cambridge

  Canterbury

  Carlisle

  Chatham

  Chelmsford

  Coventry

  Derby

  Dorchester

  Exeter

  Guildford

  Hartlepool

  Hull

  Ilford

  Ipswich

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  London

  Central

  Blackheath

  Croydon

  Luton

  Manchester

  Milton Keynes

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  Northampton

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Oxford

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  Reading

  St Helens

  Scunthorpe

  Sheffield

  Shrewsbury

  Southampton

  Stoke on Trent

  Sunderland

  Swindon

  260

  Truro

  Watford

  Wolverhampton

  Worcester

  York

  Scotland

  Aberdeen

  Dundee

  Edinburgh

  Inverness

  Wales

  Cardiff

  Swansea

  Wrexham

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  The Army have recruiting offices in the following towns:

  England

  Aldershot

  Andover

  Ashford

  Ashington

  Barbury

  Barnsley

  Barnstaple

  Basingstoke

  Bath

  Bedford

  Birkenhead

  Birmingham

  Bishop Auckland

  Blackburn

  Blackpool

  Bolton

  Bootle

  Boston

  Bournemouth

  Bradford

  Brighton

  Bristol

  Burnley

  Burton on Trent

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Cambridge

  Cannock

  Canterbury

  Carlisle

  Chatham

  Cheltenham

  Chester

  Chesterfield

  Chichester

  Colchester

  Corby

  Coventry

  Crewe

  Darlington

  Derby

  Doncaster

  Dover

  Durham

  Exeter

  Gloucester

  Grantham

  Grimsby

  Guildford

  Halifax

  Harlow

  261

  Hartlepool

  Hastings

  Hereford

  High Wycombe

  Horden

  Horsham

  Huddersfield

  Hull

  Ipswich

  Kettering

  Kings Lynn

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  London

  Central

  Acton

  Blackheath

  Camberwell

  Crayford

  Edmonton Green

  Finchley

  Forest Gate

  Holloway

  Norbury

  Penge

  Romford

  Surbiton

  Wandsworth

  Wembley

  Lowestoft

  Luton

  Maidstone

  Manchester

  Middlesbrough

  Milton Keynes

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  Newport (IOW)

  Northampton

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Nuneaton

  Oldham

  Oxford

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  Reading

  Redruth

  Rochdale

  St. Albans

  St. Helens

  Salisbury

  Scunthorpe

  Sheffield

  Shrewsbury

  Slough

  South Shields

  Southampton

  Southend

  Stockport

  Stoke on Trent

  Sunderland

  Swindon

  Taunton

  Telford

  Torquay

  Tunbridge Wells

  262

  Wakefield

  Warrington

  Warwick

  Watford

  Weston Super Mare

  Wigan

  Wolverhampton

  Worcester

  Workington

  Worksop

  York

  Scotland

  Aberdeen

  Ayr

  Bathgate

  Dumbarton

  Dumfries

  Dundee

  Dunfermline

  Edinburgh

  Elgin

  Galashiels

  Glasgow

  Glenrothes

  Greenock

  Hamilton

  Inverness

  Irvine

  Keith

  Maryhill

  Paisley

  Perth

  Springboig

  Stirling

  Wick

  Wales

  Bangor

  Cardiff

  Llanelli

  Merthyr Tyfil

  Newport

  Pembroke Dock

  Pontypridd

  Rhyl

  Swansea

  Wrexham

  Northern Ireland

  Belfast

  Coleraine

  Omagh

  Portadown

  Channel Islands

  Jersey

  The Royal Air Force have recruiting offices in the following towns:

  England

  Bedford

  Birmingham

  Blackpool

  Bournemouth

  Bradford

  Brighton

  Bristol

  Cambridge

  Canterbury

  Carlisle

  Chatham

  Coventry

  Darlington

  Exeter

  Gloucester

  Grimsby

  Guildford

  Huddersfield

  Hull

  Ilford

  Ipswich

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Lincoln

  Liverpool

  London (Central)

  Luton

  Manchester

  Middlesbrough

  263

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  Norwich

  Nottingham

  Oldham

  Oxford

  Peterborough

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  Preston

  Reading

  St Helens

  Sheffield

  Shrewsbury

  Southampton

  Southend

  Stoke on Trent

  Sunderland

  Swindon

  Taunton

  Truro

  Wolverhampton

  York

  Scotland

  Aberdeen

  Ayr

  Dundee

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  Inverness

  Wales

  Bangor

  Cardiff

  Newport

  Swansea

  Wrexham

  Northern Ireland

  Aldergrove

  Nuclear Depth Bombs
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what increase there has been since 1980 in the number of Royal Naval helicopters capable of dropping nuclear depth bombs; what plans are in existence or under consideration to increase this capability; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The number of helicopters capable of dropping nuclear depth bombs has remained broadly constant since 1980. Our plans in this area, as in all others, are kept under regular review.

  NATO (Report)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has received a copy of the report "New Directions for NATO: Adapting the Atlantic Alliance to the Needs of the 1990s" by the Institute for Resource and Security Studies and the Institute for Peace and International Security.

  Mr. Neubert
  Yes.

  BAOR (Security)
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are involved in the maintenance of security at the British Army of the Rhine base at Osnabruck.

  Mr. Neubert
  A range of measures, including the use of service personnel, is taken to maintain security at the base but, for security reasons, I am not prepared to disclose details.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are involved in the maintenance of security at British Army of the Rhine bases.

  Mr. Neubert
  For security reasons it is not our policy to divulge such details.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has about the reported bombing of Quebec barracks at the British Army of the Rhine base at Osnabruck; and if he will make a statement.
  264
  Mr. Neubert
  At 0130 hours on 19 June 1989 an explosion took place at Quebec barracks at Osnabruck. The attack involved five high explosive devices, only one of which exploded. Shortly before the explosion, an unidentified intruder was challenged by a German civilian employee. The intruder was armed and a shot was fired. The German civilian was then struck in the face by the intruder, sustaining minor injuries. As a result of the shot being fired, the occupants of a nearby accommodation block were roused, the alarm was raised and several suspected devices were discovered outside the accommodation block. The building was successfully evacuated before one of the devices exploded. There were no casualties. Police inquiries are in progress in Germany and elsewhere.

  It is worth noting that, like the failed attack on Clive barracks at Tern hill on 20 February this year, the terrorists' intention of causing significant casualties was thwarted by the vigilance and prompt action of on-duty personnel. In the case of Quebec barracks I would like to pay tribute to the action of the German employee who, though unarmed, challenged the intruder.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the annual expenditure on physical security arrangements for British Army of the Rhine bases in each of the last five years;

  (2) what was the annual expenditure on physical security at the British Army of the Rhine base at Osnabruck for each of the last five years.

  Mr. Neubert
  It would require disproportionate cost and effort to identify such figures.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the last co-ordinated test and evaluation of security at the Osnabruck British Army of the Rhine base was carried out.

  Mr. Neubert
  A co-ordinated test and evaluation of security at Quebec barracks was last carried out on 9 June 1989.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any civilian workers at British Army of the Rhine bases have any involvement in the maintenance of security at those bases.

  Mr. Neubert
  For security reasons it is not our policy to disclose this information.

  Blind Take-off Manoeuvres
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the purpose of the practice of blind take-off manoeuvres; how frequently this manoeuvre is carried out by(a) RAF aircraft based in the United Kingdom and (b) United States Air Force aircraft based in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Take-off manoeuvres by aircraft of the Royal Air Force or the United States Air Force stationed in this country are not carried out "blind".

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

Prisons: Overcrowding
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What specific measures they are taking to reduce and eliminate overcrowding in the most overcrowded local prisons.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, we are providing 2,000 new prison places at existing establishments during this financial year. We have invited the private sector to produce proposals for the design and construction of three remand centres. We have given approval to proceed with two of those and negotiations are continuing in respect of a third remand centre. Nine of the new prisons which are currently planned or are under construction around the country will be local prisons.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Earl is clearly trying to be helpful and I am grateful for that. Does he agree that the problem of overcrowding is particularly acute in a hot summer and that it is also geographically concentrated? Is it not the case that one-third of the deficit of places—about 5,500—is concentrated in Leeds, Birmingham, Bedford and Manchester? Will he tell us what specific relief can he expected in those places?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that, if there is overcrowding, it is obviously exacerbated in hot weather. But the fact of there being overcrowding is bad in the first place, whatever the weather, and we are taking a great deal of action to prevent it. With regard to the particular places that the noble Lord mentioned, the worst are Leeds, Leicester, Bedford, Birmingham, Manchester and Reading. We are doing a great deal of additional building. By the mid-1990s, 25,000 new prison places will be available. In the last financial year, £911 millon was spent on the prison service and £205 million was spent on prison building. During the forthcoming year, £405 million will be spent on prison building, so a great deal is being done to rectify the problem about which the noble Lord is correctly concerned.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I welcome what the noble Earl has told us about the three new remand centres, but can he give us any information about additional provision for after-care since a reduction in recidivism would obviously go a long way to reducing overcrowding in gaols?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I think that that is a somewhat wider question. What we are concerned with here is how to get over the business of immediate
302
overcrowding, but I shall certainly look into the point that she has raised and write to her.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, perhaps I may thank my noble friend the Minister for the letter that he has written to me today concerning Hull prison, where there is serious overcrowding of young remand prisoners. Perhaps I may also thank him for, and indeed congratulate him on, the action that has been taken there. However, is he able to tell us whether the various recommendations that he has made concerning the buildings could be brought forward? He says that B wing, for instance, will be improved within three years. Would it not be possible to bring that forward?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I can only tell my friend that all those matters are being dealt with with the greatest expedition. I shall certainly see whether it is possible to bring that forward, but I would doubt it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not the case that a large building programme may be of little value unless it is combined with a determined attempt to reduce the number of prison sentences that are being passed? In view of the wide variation between one court and another as to whether, upon conviction, a sentence of imprisonment should be passed, might it not be time to review and tighten up the relevant statutory provisions so as to reduce the unnecessary use of prisons, particularly remand prisons, in our country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will know full well that sentences are a matter for the courts. It is a matter for the courts whether they decide to place people on remand. We have promoted and encouraged the use of non-custodial alternatives to prison sentences such as probation and community service. We have also done a great deal to encourage the use of bail hostels. About 98 approved probation bail hostels in England and Wales provide about 1,850 places. An additional 500 bail places are to be provided at approved hostels by April 1991, so there is quite a lot being done to meet the point made by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House something about the standard to which the new places are being constructed? For instance, will he undertake to confirm that none of them will make necessary the disgusting habit of slopping out in cells which accentuates any degree of overcrowding that there may be?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, slopping out is a practice which I think is offensive to most people. We are taking every step to remove slopping out from existing prisons and that will be done over the course of the next few years. But there has to be a programme. New prison buildings will not require slopping out.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, in view of the very serious situation regarding the rise in the

303
number of suicide attempts among young remand prisoners, can the noble Earl say whether there are any new cases of suicide attempts in the overcrowded local prisons to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, suicide in prison is always a distressing event, and we are taking all possible steps to prevent it. There is careful screening on reception to identify those who may be at risk; and thereafter there is constant vigilance by staff. We are constantly seeking to improve the procedures. Last month new instructions on suicide prevention were issued.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, following the questions put by the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Ewart-Biggs, is the Minister aware of the disgraceful conditions in which young prisoners aged between 15 and 21 years are held not only in Hull Prison but also in Leeds Prison? Is he further aware that in Hull Prison numerous attempts at suicide have been made and in Leeds Prison no fewer than seven suicides have occurred in the past 18 months? How do the Government reconcile that situation with a constructive and humane penal system?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows very well, this is a matter which concerns us greatly, as it has concerned all governments. One can never prevent suicides. All that one can do is to take as much action as one can to see that the chances of it happening are as small as possible. As I explained to the noble Baroness, we have taken further action just recently. The real trouble is the overcrowding in those remand centres. The only way to get over that problem is to build new ones. We are doing that at a far greater rate than ever before; but it is bound to take a certain amount of time.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister give me a figure of any attempted suicides in the prisons mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have no figures for attempted suicides; but I shall see whether figures are available and, if so, let the noble Baroness have them.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, perhaps I may remind the Minister of a debate that took place in this House on some of these topics about seven months ago in which he outlined certain proposals. Can he report any progress on three of them: setting a limit on dates for trials; electronic tagging; and tightening the criteria for the remand of juveniles in custody?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have introduced a pilot scheme to test the viability of electronic tagging on remand prisoners. Of course it will be necessary to see what success that achieves before we can comment upon it. I am afraid that I failed to hear the noble Lord's last question.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I realised that the Minister was interrupted by his friends. One of the other two proposals concerned fixing a time limit for trials, on which some progress had been made. Speaking on 30th November, he held out hopes of more trials. He also said that consideration was being given to tightening up the criteria for the remand of juveniles in custody.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with regard to the fixing of time limits, I shall have to acquaint myself with the exact position. I shall get in contact with the noble Lord.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I should like to put a small practical question to my noble friend regarding the slopping out system that was mentioned. If an aircraft with its limited space and all its problems can overcome the situation as efficiently as it does, why cannot that system be applied in the prisons?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if I may say so, I thought that that question, coming from my noble friend, was a rather naÎve one. On the whole, an aircraft carries perfectly law-abiding human beings who do not normally do nasty things when they are let out of their seats. That is not always the case with the prison population. Care has to be taken about what happens when they are allowed out of their cells.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am sure that the House will agree with the Minister that sentencing is a matter for judges. However, where there is an absolutely scandalous situation as regards overcrowding of prisons, does he not agree that it is the job of Parliament to set out certain principles of policy? Does he not further agree that one of those principles of policy is the reduction of the time within which many remand prisoners stay in prison? Will he confirm that the figure of 80 per cent. of those offenders who are put on community order schemes together with probation order schemes successfully complete those schemes? Is that not an indication that those schemes ought to be expanded and used more often by the courts?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Of course Parliament has to set the parameters (which it does) within which the courts may carry out their sentencing. The difficulty is that when there are many people being sentenced, and crimes are getting worse, there is quite a clamour of opinion for the sentences to be heavier. We have ensured that, so far as possible, those who ought not to be in prison do not go there. The noble Lord may be quite right; I do not have his exact figures but the indication that he gave is quite right. However, that is only to be expected. Those who are given probation orders or community service orders are specifically chosen as being those who are most likely to succeed and not to abscond.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, is the Minister aware—
Lord Denham: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? We have spent 12 minutes on the first Question. Through a Procedure Committee Report which has been accepted by the House, it is on record that, if possible, Questions should be limited to 20 minutes for the four of them. Thirteen minutes is rather excessive. Perhaps the House would think it right now to go to the second starred Question.

The Disabled: Discharge from Hospital
3.20 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they plan to implement Section 7 (about discharge from hospital) of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the Government cannot at present indicate when they will implement Section 7 as they are still in discussion with the local authority associations about the cost.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I am not sure whether or not to thank the noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that on 8th July we shall see the third anniversary of the failure to implement this section? Are the statements in today's newspapers true that the Government are slowing down the discharge of patients into the community from long-stay mental hospitals? Does it mean that the Government have at last realised that their avowed policy of care in the community compared with care in hospitals cannot be carried out without the powers of assessment and notification provided in this section for this precise purpose?
Lord Henley: My Lords, yes, I am aware that 8th July will be the third anniversary of this section being passed. However, the Government made it clear from the outset that implementation of the Act could take place only as the necessary resources were identified and made available. On discharges from hospitals, as I said on another occasion, it is for consultant psychiatrists advised by professional colleagues to decide whether a patient could benefit from a move to more independent living outside hospital or whether he needs continuing in-patient care.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, can the Minister say whether or not the reports in today's newspapers are true?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I have not seen those reports. I shall have to let the noble Lord know.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the unimplemented sections of the Act—namely, Sections 1, 2, 3, 7 and 11—are fundamental to the provision of community care, is consultation with regard to these sections being undertaken in association with the current Government's review on the Griffiths Report which we are very anxious to see published?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am well aware that the noble Lord would like to see our response to the Griffiths Report. I can only repeat that our response will be coming soon.
On the other sections, as required by Section 11, a report will be laid before the House before the end of this year. We accepted the view of the local authority associations that work on Section 7, which is now in hand, should take priority over detailed work on the remaining sections; that is, Sections 1, 2 and 3.

Channel Tunnel Link: Infrastructure
3.23 p.m.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to ensure that the essential infrastructure needed for the United Kingdom to take advantage of the commercial benefits arising from the Channel Tunnel is in place by the time the tunnel opens in 1993.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, plans for the necessary road and rail infrastructure are well advanced. The Government have given approval in principle for expenditure of over £600 million by British Rail. There are a number of major schemes in the road programme to provide good access to the tunnel and Channel ports.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware of the concern felt by some British commercial companies that there may be a shortage of suitable industrial and warehousing space near the Channel Tunnel when it opens in 1993? Is he further aware that in consequence some British companies are seeking facilities further afield, in particular in the Pas de Calais region where French and British commercial development is already under way?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on commercial development, the recent report of the Kent impact monitoring study shows encouraging progress, with, for example, schemes to accommodate producer services and high-tech industry, a business park, a distribution centre and hotel developments. The Kent impact monitoring study made a comparison of the competitors of Kent and the Pas de Calais. The conclusion was that for growth activities Kent should be at least as competitive as the Pas de Calais, and perhaps more so.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, how soon after the opening of the tunnel is it expected that direct rail services will be able to reach the North of England? What progress has been made to have on-train Customs and immigration facilities?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, direct rail services to points north of London should start when the tunnel opens. There is sufficient capacity on the existing lines to accommodate them. The noble

307
Lord—I cannot remember at the moment the current name of the Benches from which he speaks—will remember that when this Bill went through your Lordships' House we made provision for on-train Customs services to be provided on trains to the north of London.
With regard to London trains, the Government's present intention is for the Customs control to be at the terminals. Arrangements for immigration controls are under review.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, despite the answer that he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is it not correct that the Bill provides that British Rail must submit its plans for both international passenger and freight transport for the tunnel by the end of this year? Irrespective of the plans of British Rail, will the Government insist on there being an adequate number of properly sited transhipment centres with adequate roads to those centres in order to achieve the maximum benefit from freight traffic?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall have to see British Rail's proposals, which under Section 40 of the Act are indeed due by the end of this year. There are already plans for developments in a number of places in the country in advance of those plans.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will the Government insist that such facilities are provided? That is the important point.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is up to British Rail and those interested—the local authorities and commercial interests—to come forward with plans. We shall have to see what they propose.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with the steps being taken by British businessmen to take advantage of the Channel Tunnel? What help are the Government giving to them?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, there has been a substantial programme of events to highlight the benefits of the Channel Tunnel. Most recently there was such an event in Scotland which was most successful. It may interest my noble friend to know that in Kent, for example, the proportion of firms who expect the tunnel to benefit their trade has increased from 18 per cent. to 59 per cent. as the project has progressed and confidence has grown.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, has the Minister resolved the problems of the people who have the misfortune to live on the route of the Channel Tunnel?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, if the noble Baroness is talking of the new proposed high speed line to the Channel Tunnel, that is a matter which will have to be resolved by Parliament when British Rail comes forward with its Bill.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, is there any proposal to build a trunk road from the neighbourhood of the tunnel in the direction of Portsmouth along the north side of the South Downs?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I refer my noble friend to the most recently published White Paper. It will give details of all the road schemes in the area.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, will the Minister agree that the need for essential infrastructure also applies to the port of Dover? It handles now, and will continue to handle, large volumes of cross-Channel continental traffic. At present the area is somewhat inadequately served, certainly in the last few miles, by single-lane and sometimes dangerous roads.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the M20 will be the main route to the entrance to the tunnel. It will continue as a dual carriageway into Dover, and it is very much hoped that it will be complete by the time the tunnel opens.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the main freight depot for the North-West is to be at Crewe? Can he further confirm that British Rail has so far done nothing to modernise or expand the facilities at Crewe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot confirm that the depot is to be at Crewe. I suspect that we shall have to wait until British Rail comes forward with its Section 40 plans.

Community Charge: Social Security Budgets
3.32 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they can estimate the cost of the community charge to the social security budgets (a) in Scotland and (b) in England and Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, the most recent estimates were that if the community charge had been in operation across Great Britain in the year 1988–89, the cost of the rebate scheme would have been £165 million in Scotland and £1,585 million in England and Wales. However, we expect to revise these estimates shortly. Actual expenditure next year will of course depend on the actual levels at which the charge is set and on the uprating of benefit levels.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that these are considerable items in the social security budget? Can he indicate how much of these sums represent the cost of administration, and therefore whether that is a useful method of robbing Peter to pay Paul?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, they are certainly substantial sums. It may help the noble

309
Earl to know that provision has been made available by the Department of the Environment for the authorities' preparation costs for the community charge as a whole, including benefit. I believe that capital allocations, for computers and accommodation, for example, of £135 million and £25 million have been made available to authorities for 1988–89 and 1989–90 respectively. A further £100 million has been distributed through the rate support grant settlement for administration purposes.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what arrangements are being made for this money from the social security budget to go to the local authorities, which will be looking for the money from the community charge in order to carry out their services?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, rather like housing benefit, the money from the rebated community charge will be in the hands of the local authorities in the same way.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many people would be interested to know exactly how he arrived at his figures? From indications that I have received from Berkshire County Council, which is Tory controlled, my community charge—I am supposed to be one of those who will benefit—for two people will be as much as my rates are at present and for my family of four the sum will double. In those circumstances it seems to me that the Minister's figures may not be as accurate as we should like them to be.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, £246 a year is the most recent illustrative estimate of what the community charge would have been in 1988–89 had it been in operation. That compares with an average rate bill of £480. Two community charges are roughly, as the noble Lord indicated, equivalent to one rate bill. But clearly the objective of the Government's policy is to spread the financing of local government rather more widely across all adults. Therefore another two adults in a house will mean another two adult rates of community charge.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes, my Lords, but is the Minister aware that Berkshire County Council has given figures which will show the average charge to be not £265 but £500 a year?
Lord Skelmersdale: No, my Lords, I think that must be per couple. But if the noble Lord would like to send me the evidence he has of these figures, I shall certainly look at it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, is it the case that everybody is expected to pay one-fifth as a minimum of the community charge? On the figures that the noble Lord has given, does it mean that the poorest will be bearing a bill of about £400 million?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on the figures I have given, they will be bearing an amount of 94·5p per week. Having said that, I should point out that
310
people have been given more money in income support to help towards the payment of this 20 per cent.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, do the Minister's figures include inner London estimates, because no borough in inner London will be charging less than £500 each for the community poll tax?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my figures are the expected averages across the whole country. We expect all authorities to be submitting estimates of community charge levels for next year, when the community charge will be coming in, and therefore we shall be able to do a more precise calculation of benefit expenditure later this year.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I appreciate the reply that the Minister gave to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, that the objective was to spread the financing of local government wider. Does the circular process that he has described contribute anything towards achieving that objective?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if fewer people were to pay the community charge, clearly the community charge bills would be even higher. I think that the answer to the noble Earl's question is yes.

Business
3.35 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Social Security Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about one hour and that during this adjournment the Committee stage of the International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Bill will be taken.

Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Lyell to advance the Second Reading of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill from Friday the 30th to Wednesday the 28th of June.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hearing Aid Council (Amendment) Bill
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Allen of Abbeydale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security Bill
3.38 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Abolition of Treasury supplement to contributions]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 34, (numbered 18), at end insert—
("(2) A review shall take place on or about 31st March 1992; should it then seem necessary to reinstate the supplement in order to maintain or improve benefits, appropriate action shall be taken.".
The noble Baroness said: As the Committee will know, Clause 3 abolishes from April 1989 the existing provisions for a Treasury supplement to be paid to the National Insurance Fund. My amendment is to some extent probing because I want to know what the Government's intentions are about the system of social insurance that we have.
The scheme that we have had since the war, which was based on the Beveridge Report, is essentially tripartite, with contributions from employers, from employees and from the state. The intention was that there would be a basic system of insurance for everyone so that the hazards of working life could be effectively insured against on a social basis. Everyone would pay contributions. When unemployment, illness, death or other disasters occurred benefits would be received as of right because they had been paid for.
This Government have gradually eroded that scheme. The supplement from the Treasury has been reduced to 5 per cent., as it is now, from 18 per cent., which is what it was in 1979. The Bill proposes that it should go altogether. At the same time, benefits have been cut. The first to go was the earnings related unemployment pay. The industrial injuries scheme has been gradually eroded. There have been reductions in the number of people entitled to claim unemployment pay, and further steps in that direction are contemplated in the Bill. We shall no doubt be talking about those later in Committee.
There appear to have been two aims in that progressive disqualification process. First, there has been an attempt to save money; secondly, I am sure that it is intended to drive people into lower paid employment. We shall deal with that matter later when considering other clauses.
Now we have the proposal to do away altogether with the Treasury supplement on the ground that the fund is in surplus. I believe that it is in surplus
312
because there has been a cut-back on benefits. Of course, it would have been possible for the Government to deal with the surplus in another way. They could have reduced the contributions paid by employers and employees, or they could have increased benefits. However, according to the Bill, they have now decided to cut back on the Treasury supplement altogether.
My amendment envisages an opportunity for a review of that situation. In other words, I should like to know whether it is the Government's intention that there will never again be a Treasury supplement to the National Insurance Fund. Do they envisage a situation in which the system of social insurance will be gradually run down? I hope not, because we on these Benches favour a comprehensive system of social insurance. However, if that is the Government's ultimate aim, they should say so. If it is not, there should be support for the amendment because it envisages a review in 1992. Should it then appear necessary to reinstate the supplement in order to maintain or improve benefits, appropriate action will once again be taken to provide for a Treasury supplement. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: The amendment does not place a duty upon anyone to carry out the proposed review. The Treasury supplement which is to be abolished by Clause 3 would not be revived by the amendment because it makes no provision for that. Neither would the review revive the supplement. That would require primary legislation which we have before us. It is just as well that the noble Baroness said that her amendment is probing because I am sure she does not wish the Committee to divide on the issue.
Looking round at the Members of the Committee I appear to be the only one present who was a member of the Standing Committee of another place which considered the National Insurance Act 1946, the foundation of the Bill. It was then agreed by all concerned that in order to make the national insurance scheme effective and worthwhile, and to provide the kind of security that everyone wanted for the country as a whole, taxpayers would have to supplement the insurance contributions. They were made by people in their various capacities—employers, employees, self-employed and so forth—towards the cost of the scheme.
The reason for that Treasury supplement was perfectly clear. It was that after the war the economy was in a low state and people had a low standard of living. Even the best wages were quite modest. People could not afford to contribute enough from their earnings, nor could industry from its gross takings, in order to make the scheme worthwhile. We are glad to find that since then the economy has expanded and the standard of living has greatly improved. Dare I say that it has improved especially during the past 10 years?
Until 1980 the Treasury supplement remained at a constant 18 per cent. of the total amount which had to be found for the scheme. Since then it has been reduced annually and the present supplement is only 5 per cent. of the total. Therefore, the noble Baroness is not asking for a great deal, but we should not look at the matter in that way.

313
The National Insurance Fund is now solvent and the taxpayers have supplemented our general system in various helpful ways. For example, I agree that these matters are outside the scheme, although closely connected with it, and the two impinge upon each other. However, all income-related benefits —such as mobility allowances, attendance allowances and so forth—are now financed by the taxpayer. I do not know the total amount but it is considerable; I believe much more than the 5 per cent. Treasury supplement made on behalf of the taxpayer.
This is a natural part of the evolution of our social security system. The Treasury supplement towards the National Insurance Fund should be abolished, as provided for in the Bill. An attempt to revive it would not be sensible.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before responding to the two points which have been made in relation to the amendment I should like to welcome back to his place the noble Lord, Lord Banks. It would be very strange to talk on this subject without his presence and I am delighted that he is here at least to listen to us after his illness.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Skelmersdale: I was grateful to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, say that this is a probing amendment because I must confess that when I first saw it on the Marshalled List I was rather shocked. The clear intention behind it is that in March 1992 the government of the day should be bound to reconsider the decision embodied in Clause 3 to abolish the Treasury supplement.
I must point out that the proposed amendment is defective. It does not specify who will be responsible for the "review". It does not define what might make it "seem necessary" to reinstate the supplement and, as my noble friend so cogently pointed out, in passing Clause 3 there will be no supplement left to review. However, I understand the spirit in which the amendment is made.
I must confess to some surprise that Members should feel it necessary to insist that we review the state of the National Insurance Fund in, of all periods, 1992. The Government review the levels of national insurance contributions annually in accordance with the requirements of Sections 120 and 121 of the Social Security Act 1975. It does not need the inducement of an amendment to this Bill to lead us to take any action which we decide to be appropriate. Without stressing the point, I hope that the noble Baroness does not have her eyes on the next election.
I reject the suggestion that the Government have been responsible for an erosion of benefits. Social security spending now amounts to a massive £51 billion—10 per cent. of gross domestic product; one-third higher in real terms than the level we inherited ten years ago. The Bill, including our proposals to do away with the pensioners' earnings rule, bears witness to our commitment to make
314
improvements to social security where that is justified.
It might surprise the Committee to learn that at the end of the financial year 1989 the balance in the fund will be £10 billion, equivalent to about 37 per cent. of benefit expenditure. Therefore, even with the enormous expenditure from the National Insurance Fund as a result of passing Clause 1 of the Bill and reducing the income into the fund, as suggested by the noble Baroness, there will still be a sufficient amount in the fund to pay for the benefit expenditure going out of it.
I can also dispel any suggestion—I accept that no suggestion has yet been made, but no doubt it will be made during the course of today—that there are demographic pressures lurking round the corner a few years away waiting to throw the state of the fund into the red. The ratio of working age population to that over pension age is set to remain remarkably steady at around 3·3 or 3·4 workers to pensioners throughout the whole of the next decade. I hope that that gives the noble Baroness sufficient fuel for thought and that she will find that a satisfactory answer to her probing amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I should like to thank the Minister for his reply, and also the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his intervention. Of course, I am aware that the contribution to the fund now only stands at 5 per cent. It was concern lest the cessation of the contribution altogether could involve some designs upon the whole system of social insurance for the future that led me to table the amendment. I shall consider very carefully what the Minister said.
I accept that the wording of the amendment is defective, which is why I said at the beginning that this is a probing amendment—to try to find out what is at the back of the Government's mind in making a proposition in this Bill that the Treasury supplement should finish altogether. There was nothing very special about 1992 except that that is a date in everybody's mind at present. However, as I said earlier, this is a probing amendment and of course I shall withdraw it.
Before I do, perhaps I could add to what the Minister said and to say how pleased we are on these Benches to see the noble Lord, Lord Banks, back in the Chamber. We have always appreciated the great contribution he has made to social security debates in this Chamber and we are glad that he is now able to rejoin us for this debate. Having said that, I shall withdraw this amendment and look carefully at what the Minister said in Hansard to see whether there is any point in bringing something back on Report.
Baroness Phillips: Before my noble friend withdraws her amendment, perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there is any further hope for my Bill on age discrimination. He mentioned the possibility of earning money over the age of 60. Perhaps that means that he is going to encourage people back into the labour market, in which event, therefore, I hope that my Bill will receive his commendation.
Lord Skelmersdale: That was a very clever parliamentary fast ball, one which I hope I can hit back towards the noble Baroness by saying that I made the Government's views on her Bill perfectly plain on Second Reading and at present I have nothing further to add.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Russell: Before I discuss the matter of the clause, I should like to thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, for their kind words about the noble Lord, Lord Banks. Of course, we too are quite delighted to see him here today.
On this clause, I concede a number of matters which were said by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I concede that at present the fund is in surplus. What concerns me is that this clause has the effect of slamming doors. I concede that there is a certain superficial tidiness in the argument put before us. In Standing Committee in another place the Minister said:
"There is sense, logic and tidiness in having a system whereby the contributions that are made to the National Insurance Fund pay for the contributory benefits and then the taxpayer pays for the non-contributory and income-related benefits. I cannot say that demographic movements in future years will enable the principle to hold for all time".
The Minister may not be surprised that I intend to begin with the Minister's last sentence. I concede what the Minister said, that a demographic crisis is not just around the corner, but it should be one of the advantages of the constitution of this Chamber that it is capable of thinking a little bit further than the next election.
It seems likely that the age ratio will deteriorate significantly sometime during the first quarter of the next century. When that happens, the possibility exists of a quite significant crisis in the financing of the fund. I am sensitive to that because I happened to be in the United States in 1980–81 when that country experienced a crisis in the financing of a strictly contributory social security scheme. That country would have been very glad indeed to have had this option available to them. I do not see why the Government need to rule that out and force their successors to sit through a hot summer day reversing this piece of legislation.
The Minister may say that in a sense this is a notional question as to who pays. He may say that it is a question of either we pay, or we pay. That is not quite the case. There are some people who contribute to taxation and not to national insurance. I have in mind the wealthy pensioners to whom the Secretary of State very recently drew our attention. Indeed, he was generous enough to say that modern pensioners have a good deal to contribute. There may be a certain scope for argument about whether there are quite as many wealthy pensioners as the Minister suggests, but there are certainly some. I do not see why they should not contribute to the financing of our social security system.
316
There is also a possibility that at some future stage we may be in a position to consider seriously the integration of tax and benefit schemes. That matter has been discussed before. It is the sort of measure which some people feel may be too good to be true but such measures have, in the end, come into being. If that were to happen this clause would be a very substantial obstacle to it and I do not wish to make that road any more difficult than it is already.
Another door that this clause slams is the door towards using the existing surplus for uprating existing benefits. Here, we have something very much equivalent to the overall surplus on the revenue account and to the question of whether we use that for public sector debt repayment or to provide more immediate benefits for those living on social security. Therefore, that is a fourth door which this clause slams.
I know that the Minister knows his Belloc and he will understand what I mean when I say that I am sorry that he should be given to this furious sport.
4 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not sure that slamming stable doors is a furious sport, but never mind. This clause embodies in legislation the contributory principle that the cost of benefits to which contributions give entitlement should be met from those same contributions.
Surprisingly I do not recall the noble Earl mentioning the scheme envisaged by Beveridge back in 1948. He envisaged taxation contributing about one-third of the income of the National Insurance Fund. But we have not heard about why Beveridge was forced to compromise this pure contributory principle by introducing this Treasury supplement to his scheme in the first place. Other aspects of the national insurance scheme have changed so much over the years that, happily, we need continue that compromise no longer.
Beveridge's scheme was based on a flat rate contribution. Once an employee earned above a minimum level, the level of those earnings made no difference to how much each employee paid. On the contributory side of the fund's income, therefore, better off employees contributed no more to the cost of benefits than those who were less well off. If it had been funded purely through flat-rate contributions the cost of such a contribution would have had to be set too high for many lower paid employees to manage. Given that all but those on the lowest incomes were to benefit from contributory benefits, the contribution to the fund from general taxation was the only solution. It provided an earnings-related element to the fund. Indeed, I am almost picking up what the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said a few moments ago. But we now no longer have a flat-rate contribution system, and I pay tribute to the Labour Party for that.
Since 1975 liability for employee's contributions has depended on the level of earnings up to an annual limit. As the level of the fund increased it has become increasingly anomalous to have two earnings-related sources of income. The buoyant yield of contributions has permitted a progressive

317
reduction of the Treasury supplement. Last year it stood at a mere 5 per cent of fund income. It is now no longer required at all.
We are now reforming employees' contributions still further and Clause 1 of this Bill, to which the Committee has just agreed, will mean that the level of contribution for the most lowly paid employee entering the scheme will be a mere 86 pence a week. Above that, lower level contributions are to be levied as a percentage of earnings. They are, in a word, still earnings-related. I might observe at this point that the Opposition's desire to fund some part of the fund from income tax in addition to contributions seems at odds with their proposals for contributions themselves. Their policy review document, I believe misguidedly, proposes that contributions should be structured along the lines of income tax with a contribution-free allowance and no upper earnings limit. In that context their adherence to a Treasury supplement as well seems somewhat strange.
That is not, of course, to say that the taxpayer will no longer meet the cost of benefits. Non-contributory benefits are met entirely from general taxation and will continue to be so. Last year they accounted for a massive £20 billion. That compares handsomely with the £26 billion met from the National Insurance Fund.
It has been argued that the Treasury supplement ought to be retained so that we can build up an even larger balance in the fund to spend on improved benefits. The fact is that our expenditure on benefits is enormous—£51 billion on social security as a whole this year, which is a real terms increase of a third over the decade. The abolition of the pensioners' earnings rule will give further substantial help to pensioners. But the fact is that money from general taxation does not have to go through the National Insurance Fund to improve benefits for pensioners. I can confirm, in answer to an earlier question from the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that we firmly believe in the contributory principle for that set of benefits which really ought to be contributory. Taxpayers will also be making a further very considerable contribution to assist pensioners who are less well off. General taxation will be footing the bill for the additional £200 million to be added to the pensioner premiums in income support from this October.
All pensioners are not liable to pay national insurance contributions. We believe that people of working age should pay their contributions and pay for the cost of benefits. Well-off pensioners pay towards the cost of non-contributory benefits through taxation—this is in answer to the noble Earl—because pensions have, of course, always been taxable in the same way as any other income.
The noble Earl also asked about the abolition of the supplement being a barrier to tax benefit integration. I should not like to speculate on what legislative changes would be necessary to bring about tax benefit integration—an objective with, I believe, as I have said on other occasions, some rather severe drawbacks. The presence or otherwise of a Treasury supplement strikes me as the least barrier to such a change. It would be necessary to re-vamp the entire National Insurance Fund and it would not be this
318
clause we would be debating but a completely new structure of paying for these benefits.
Finally, I see no reason why we should increase benefit expenditure with the sole object of reducing the balance in the fund. I remind the Committee that the previous government left office running a balance in the fund at a comparable level, as a proportion of benefit expenditure, to the present one. Of course we have not, in anticipation of this clause being agreed to, put any extra money from the Treasury into the National Insurance Fund this year. The Treasury supplement is no longer needed in practice and is wrong in principle. As for slamming the stable door, it is not exactly that but more a gentle closing. If one subscribes to the zig-zag theory of politics, as I do, the noble Earl will appreciate that no government can bind their successor. I am sure that neither the noble Earl nor I would want to try.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I should like to add to a point on this clause which has only been touched upon. In debating the amendment the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, gave us a quick description of the origin of the national insurance scheme which is based on the Beveridge Report. My noble friend Lord Renton gave us the benefit of his experience on the Standing Committee in another place in 1946. Both drew attention to the fact that what Lord Beveridge and his colleagues were considering was everything to do with employment. The scheme was based on whether or not a person was in work. Only people who were in work or available for work were contributors. Benefits were mainly for people who lost work or had retired.
About 20 years after my noble friend was on the Standing Committee some of us in another place were going into the fact that there was no provision in the scheme for people who had been born with serious disabilities or who had suffered severe disabilities from early youth. It had not been realised that such people were not in the scheme because they were not available for work and did not have national insurance numbers. They simply did not exist. They were being coped with in the community, often by parents and friends, and that brought in the whole question of new benefits for the severely disabled.
My noble friend touched on attendance allowances and mobility allowances as examples of allowances which came in later and in which I was involved in one way or another for people who were not in the national insurance scheme. Those allowances were paid for by the taxpayer. That is a development of which I believe everyone in public and political life approves, but it has meant that the taxpayer plays a much larger part in those circumstances because the national insurance scheme did not cover them.
Therefore, it seems to me that the way in which the Government are proceeding through this clause is completely consistent with the fact that the taxpayers are covering an area which was not even thought of when the national insurance scheme was initiated.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: I should like to make one small comment on the demographic point made by the noble Earl. I understand—and I think my noble friend will agree—that the Government Actuary's recommended holding of benefit expenditure at about £4·4 billion represents about nine weeks. I assume that an actuary is a man who is accustomed to forecasting what we are to expect in the future. I assume that his view takes into account the demographic curves we expect. As we stand currently I understand that we have 20 weeks of benefit, which compares very readily with the benefit which existed in 1978–79 of about £4·1 billion whereas today's figure is £9–9 billion.
Lord Skelmersdale: My noble friend is right. The £4·4 billion is the Government Actuary's advised figure of nine weeks of benefit of, so to speak, extra insurance. This means that if there is a sudden rise in, for example, unemployment or a sudden rise in pensioners, there is enough money in the fund to pay the expenses which flow therefrom. There is way and above the nine weeks of benefit, as my noble friend points out; there is a surplus of around 20 weeks of benefit and that is another reason why we no longer need the Treasury supplement. However, as I pointed out earlier, we are also reducing the income to the fund by the operation of Clause 1. We are increasing the expenditure, or the expected expenditure, because of the abolition of the pensioner's earnings rule, which was widely welcomed in all parts of the Chamber.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for those very careful replies, to which I have listened with interest. I shall read them with interest. I wish to quickly reassure the Minister on a couple of points. First, I did not suggest that any parliament should bind its successors. I would not have dreamt of any such thing. All I was suggesting was that a parliament might possibly think of saving its successors the task of passing unnecessary legislation. Secondly, I also wish to reassure the Minister that I did not suggest increasing benefits simply in order to reduce the surplus in the fund. I am not that kind of an accountant. It seems that we are constantly being told that we cannot afford to do various good things. I wonder whether this might be an opportunity for saying that just once in a blue moon we can afford to do them. With those two caveats, for the time being I shall not oppose clause stand part of the Bill. I thank the Minister, and I shall read his reply with a great deal of care.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Increase for child benefit.
In section 63(2) of the Social Security Act 1986, after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa) which increases the sum specified by virtue of section 5(1) of the Child Benefit Act 1975 by a percentage not less than the percentage by which the sum prescribed for the purposes of section 21(6)(a) above in respect of a child aged less than 11 years is increased by the up-rating order; and" ").
The noble Baroness said: As the Committee knows, the uprating of child benefit has been frozen for two years. It stands now at £7·25 per child. Many people in this country are concerned that child benefit, if frozen every year, will eventually be eroded. Because of the freeze these past two years many people surmise that eventually child benefit will go. I am sure that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be able to reassure us on this matter.
The purpose of this new clause is to require the Secretary of State to increase child benefit each year from 1990—not this year, but 1990—by at least the same percentage as the under-11 child credit in the family credit scheme. I use the formula of under-11 because in family credit the child credit varies with age. For convenience we have chosen the under-11 rate. This formula would not tie child benefit to the index of prices or earnings but it would ensure that family credit was not allowed gradually to replace child benefit.
With all its virtues, family credit is not an acceptable substitute for child benefit. At present child benefit is of right and 98 per cent. of mothers with children receive it. In contrast, family credit is means-tested, and until very recently it had only a 50 per cent. takeup. The Government have spent £5 million on advertising family credit; this has raised the takeup percentage to possibly 60 per cent. But it has also left many thousands of families bitterly disappointed because, having filled in a very complicated claim form to prove their poverty, their claims have been turned down.
The advantage of child benefit is that it is given to the mother specifically for the children. Men are persuaded to take low-paid jobs supplemented by family credit. That is a good thing. Therefore the man regards the benefit as part of the family budget and not specifically for children. I concede that those in receipt of family credit—namely, those who are working—may not gain from an increase in child benefit because of the convention of the Department of Social Security that any increase in that benefit is knocked off the family credit rates.
I wish to make a plea to the Committee for those families who are just above the family credit level, in work, but managing with very great difficulty, as well as for the 40 per cent. of those entitled to family credit who have not obtained or claimed it. For instance, let us consider the young curate on a low stipend; the young teacher, married, and just out of college, and teaching; the young social worker and the young lecturer. I have visited all these categories of people. They tell me that they would not apply for family credit, even if they were eligible, as many of them are, because they would not want to be means-tested. I have to say that being means-tested is a very unhappy experience.
I know that £5 million has been spent on advertising family credit and that a proportion of those eligible have applied. Many will not apply and that is not hypothetical but factual. Tax allowances are being increased with inflation while child benefit is frozen, so that families without children are benefiting at the expense of families with them. Since 1979 the value of child benefit has fallen by 12 per

321
cent. in real terms. On the other hand, tax allowances have increased by 22 per cent. It may be argued that the rich should not receive child benefit as of right, though nobody argued about the child tax allowances which the child benefit replaced.
How this question may be dealt with I shall leave to the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, who, as a banker and financier, can better explain how it can be done. He will also point out the effect of the rising cost of living on families with children, based on the Department of Employment's general index of retail prices.
I have given great thought and study and made practical grass roots inquiries before writing this speech. Since then my noble friend the Leader of the House, Lord Belstead, has seen me. That was after my lunch today but before his, I regret to say. In fairness, I wish to thank him for dealing with this amendment. I believe that underlines its very great importance. He has pointed out three things to me. In fairness and loyalty to the Leader of the House, to my party and also in fairness to the three Members of the Committee who are supporting this amendment, I should make to the Committee the points that he made to me. The first point concerns the unintentional effect of this amendment. He pointed out to me that if child benefit were tied to family credit, then it would be not only very costly, but it might stand against the very poor families because it might not be possible to raise family credit.
The second point concerns one that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, will speak about. It relates to the very wealthy drawing child benefit. That is not covered by this Bill. It is a finance matter and as such can be dealt with only in another place. Nevertheless, it was a point which my noble friend Lord Belstead made to me.
The three points made by my noble friend the Leader of the House concerned the wealthy being paid child benefit, the cost of the payment and the effect of the family credit scheme. It is right that I should put these points to the Committee. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Belstead for also doing so. I think it is right that supporters of the amendment should know of these points. I beg to move.
Baroness Jeger: I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee have listed carefully to the noble Baroness and appreciate that she speaks with wisdom, experience, understanding and sincerity. I should like to thank her for passing on a message, if I may put it that way, from the noble Lord who failed to give her lunch.
Baroness Faithfull: He did not fail.
Baroness Jeger: I was rather amused that the noble Lord seemed to think that we were unintentionally going to cost the Treasury a good deal of money. This follows the news that the Treasury supplement to the National Insurance Fund is to be abolished. I found that somewhat inconsistent. I am sure that we shall hear more about that later.
322
I cannot understand why the Government seem to be turning their back on views that have long been held by all parties on the issue of child benefit. I remind the Committee that it was only in 1985 that we had that enormous government social security review. It was supposed to put everything right for ever. In the review it was said:
"It is right that families with children of all income levels should receive some recognition for the additional cost of bringing up children".
That is what child benefit is about. It is a recognition of the additional cost of bringing up children compared with the cost of living for people with no children. Now we have this strange upturn which puzzles many people.
Those involved at the beginning of the child benefit scheme did not look on it as a social security handout. It was part of the Government's overall fiscal policy which recognised that there must be some policy for families with children. Before the 1975 Act there were income tax reliefs for children: £305 for a child over 16 if in education; £275 for a child aged 11 to 16; £240 for a child under the age of 11. I cannot remember a single Conservative spokesman protesting that this tax handout was going to people who did not need it. This should be set side by side with the fact that people below the tax threshold were receiving only five shillings a week for a child. We decided to pull this all together. I do not know why the Government are now taking this carefully thought out scheme to pieces. I cannot see who it will help.
Unlike France and many other of our EC friends we in this country have no coherent government policy for the family. We have heard rumours that the Government think that we ought to do something about the family. I should like to give the Prime Minister, through the noble Lord opposite, my advice. She should start with uprating child benefit. That would do more for the family than more bureaucracy or any speech that she might wish to make. Child benefit is the only recognition in the tax and social security system of the extra cost of bringing up children. We have heard a good deal about targeting—how right it is to take from the rich and give to the poor. But that is not what happens. What is being proposed is that only people with children should help other people with children, and that people with no children should not share in this process.
The Government must accept this and save themselves £7 million—the noble Baroness gave the figure of £5 million—on advertising this targeted group of poor children. The British people do not like being targeted. They do not like their children being targeted. They do not like the setting aside of one group from another in their schools where they are playing, and earlier in their nurseries. Many people are suffering because child benefit has not been uprated in line with inflation. At the same time all this money is being spent on trying to find people who will fill in that enormous form and probably in the end be refused the benefit.
I do not want to sound patronising but a very respectable man came to see me the other night. He said that he could not possibly fill up that form

323
because on the last occasion he went to the social security office he was required to give details to a bit of a girl—I told him that that was very chauvinist of him—of his most private affairs to do with his marriage, his mortgage and so on. He said that with child benefit the old lady got it and she could spend it on the children. This is a severe difficulty for many people who need the help. I hope that the noble Lord can tell us how much money has been saved by not uprating child benefit in line with inflation, and how much of that has already gone to these targeted children.
I can only assume that the Government are bad at finding their targets. Most of us on this side of the Committee do not want them to continue trying. We want to see child benefit uprated, perhaps even above the cost of living. People will then feel that there is genuine public interest in the future of our children and that they will not be denied their share in the standard of living which for many people is rising. Support for the failure to uprate child benefit in line with inflation comes strangely indeed from noble Lords sitting in the Committee who may be receiving index linked pensions, tax concessions on mortgages and increases in personal income tax allowances. Not one voice has been raised to say that such handouts from the taxpayer are not needed. I must ask: is it only children that this Government want to penalise in their fiscal policies?
Those are but a few of the reasons why I support the noble Baroness opposite; I hope that we shall both be supported later this afternoon.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may first express the hope that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has now been able to have some lunch. It is, I think, the basic principle of the social security system that one must eat. It would be a great cause of regret to me if a social security debate deprived a Member of this Chamber of the chance to have his lunch.
I was much impressed by the speech made on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. I listened to his speech with care and, indeed, I read it with equal care. I must confess that I have been exercised by the Government's argument that some of this money may go to people who do not need it. I have never in my life protested at the rate of tax which I have paid and I do not mean to begin now. However, I think that the principle of graduated taxation—that is, that people on the same incomes pay the same tax—is of considerable importance. But, if we consider incomes per capita, as I think we should, the consequences are interesting.
I understand that the Government have a hostility towards tax allowances on the grounds that they distort the market. But, when we look at the per capita income of a couple with children and a couple without children, on the same salary, we may well ask just who is distorting the market. There is no doubt that a childless couple is much better off than a couple on the same income but with children. That fact is not merely true, but is indeed becoming truer.
324
The pattern of government policy is shifting the costs further towards falling on parents.
I shall give but two examples. One is the matter of income support for teenagers, and the other is that of the parental contribution towards student grants. Therefore, if we are not to have a child benefit regularly up-rated, there would then, I think, be an almost unanswerable case for a child tax allowance. That would be very much worse targeted than child benefit. The objections the Government make about the money going to the wrong place would apply a fortiori. Thus I think that the Government may get away more lightly if they accept our case in this connection.
I can see a certain obvious attraction to the concept of targeting. However, the trouble is that when we talk about the Secretary of State indulging in targeting, we find that he is like the young man of Madrid in the limerick: his aim is very bad. The young man of Madrid was told to practise awhile; but, in this case, the Secretary of State's hands have not improved. If your aim is bad, to hit a target you will need a shotgun and not a rifle. In other words, you need to achieve a very considerable scatter.
As regards the problem of targeting, there is a very real difficulty in communicating with the public. I do not think that we always face up to quite how difficult the problem is. The public now receives a vast flow of information. I am sure that all of us find that there is a point beyond which information comes to us at such a rate that we cannot continue to take it in; we reject it. That seems to be happening with much of the information which the public is receiving as regards means-tested benefits. That is perhaps not quite so surprising when we remember that a considerable proportion of the public believes, for example, that Mr. Nigel Lawson is a trade unionist.
There is a further difficulty. Where we are dealing with means-tested benefits, which are very rightly and necessarily uprated, potential claimants often have information which may be a year out of date or even, in some cases, two or three years out of date. In other words, you may pick up your figure after it ceases to apply. I think that that will always be a difficulty with regard to means-tested benefits.
However, there are further difficulties beyond that one. Reading the London labour market survey, I was quite shocked to notice that unprompted only 5 per cent. of the London unemployed knew that those on low earnings may sometimes be entitled to family credit. I appreciate that the Government have undertaken an advertising campaign to tackle the problem. I am glad that they have done so. However, I shall be even more glad when I see that principle applied to other benefits. But, such a campaign is expensive. Further, it is conveying complicated information, which takes time. We do not all instinctively remember financial limits; but we all know what a child is.
Child benefit is a comprehensible benefit. It meets the test of comprehensibility which the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, enunciated on Second Reading. Moreover, it is paid to the mother, and that does matter. In some situations it may matter

325
considerably; for example, in situations such as a sudden matrimonial break-up or a failure to meet maintenance payments, a situation more common than perhaps we would wish. Further, because it comes immediately it may avoid quite alarming problems.
I recall a case which occurred just recently in a social security office in the borough of Brent, where I live. A woman was applying for what I think must have been income support. She was told that it would take three days to process and post the cheque. She had absolutely nothing left and a young baby with her. Finally she exclaimed, "Well, you feed her then!" She plonked the baby on the counter and walked out of the office. That is the sort of situation from which up-rating child benefit may perhaps serve to relieve us.
I also think that there is a great deal of force in the argument which Lord Beveridge used as regards child benefit and the poverty trap. We want to achieve a situation where families with children have enough to eat and where there is also a substantial gap between the benefit level and wage levels. Lord Beveridge argued that unless there are substantial benefits for children paid both to families in work and those out of work, this objective cannot be achieved.
Finally, there is the argument of trust. I have read the Conservative Party manifesto on this issue many times. I appreciate that what has happened is within the plain and literal words of that document. However, it may possibly be misleading. When such a situation arises, I think that the resulting reactions rub off on all of us as a profession. On Second Reading I noticed that when the Minister spoke about Clause 22 he said that,
"Social Security benefits will continue to be paid as now".—[Official Report, 25/5/89; col. 566.]
For a second I almost jumped out of my skin. However, I realised after a moment's thought that there was no need for any anxiety. But I should not have needed to have that moment of anxiety. I think that we shall all be in a great deal more comfort if we go ahead with this amendment and if the Government, after reflection, accept it.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps I may put the record straight. On the occasion referred to I said that child benefit will continue to be paid as now; I did not refer to social security benefits.
Earl Russell: I have with me a copy of the Official Report if the Minister wishes to read it.
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case, I must put the record doubly straight. I did not intend to say that; I was talking about child benefit at that moment.
Lord Seebohm: I think that we are all now convinced, after what we have heard, that there is no doubt that families with children are financially considerably worse off than those who have no children. We cannot escape from that fact. However, by removing tax benefits—under the provisions of the 1975 Act—we relied from then on on child
326
benefit in order to give families with children some benefit.
I think that it has been accepted for many generations—if not for centuries—that there is justification in making some wealth redistribution between those who do not have children and those who do. I believe that that is absolutely true and has been accepted by all for a very long time. In the 1975 Bill there was no intention whatever that this should simply be to relieve poverty. It was a form of social justice to ensure that families with children received a little more help and that the children should not suffer.
It is worth recalling that when the Labour Government introduced the Bill in 1975, the Conservative Opposition introduced an amendment to raise child benefit every six months in line with inflation. I believe that the Labour Party turned the amendment down. The right honourable Kenneth Clarke, MP—noble Lords will have heard of him—said on 20th June 1975 (at col. 150 of Hansard) that he could not see how a reputable case could be raised against it. Surely, freezing the amount of child benefit is indefensible while 30 per cent. of children are in families on or below the poverty line.
What made the Conservative Government change their opinions between 1975 and now so completely, not only in what they are doing but in the basic policy and principle of the Child Benefit Act? Clearly in theory targeting help to those most in need makes economic and social sense. But when this help reaches only 50 per cent. of those in need, as we have heard, yet child benefit reaches 98 per cent. of all families with children, let us be practical and keep child benefit as it was always intended to be—un-means tested, untaxed, unfrozen and available to all families with children.
Why is it that 50 per cent., or perhaps as many as 60 per cent. of families receive family credit and yet two families in five are still without it? I know perfectly well why. There are two main reasons. One is simply that they do not understand it, it is a complicated matter. The other is, quite frankly, that many people find it humiliating to go with a begging bowl to talk to a clerk over a counter and stand naked in all their affairs, telling him or her what their earnings are, what is in the building society, if anything, what children there are, and with what special problems, handicaps and so on. A great many people feel intensely humiliated by this; they will not do it. What child benefit does is to give those people some income for the children.
I keep asking myself, "What do the Government have in mind? Why are they taking this line?" I find it very difficult to understand. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, gave three reasons; first, that some people do not need it but they get it. What an awful thought. I have seen the figures given in Hansard in another place in answer to a Written Question. They were in a table showing that those with children who receive benefit but who earn £25,000 or more per year are only 10 per cent. of the whole. I can see the dead hand of the Treasury on this, or the Treasury breathing down the necks of the Government in order to save 10 per cent., just to overturn what I

327
consider to be one of the best policies we have ever had for children and families.
The second reason given is that it would cost a lot more money. In real terms we are not asking for it to cost any more. We are merely asking for it to keep pace with the family credit system. If the country feels generous enough to increase family credits in real terms, it is only fair that child benefit should also be increased on the same sort of basis. So I rule out both those arguments. I cannot remember the third reason. Perhaps the noble Baroness will remind me of it.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The third point was the unavoidable effect. If child benefit is tied to family credits, it is very costly. The Treasury feels that it must keep down family credits in order not to cost the country a great deal of money.
Lord Seebohm: I do not even need to argue about that. I believe that I have made the case, and I do not need to say a great deal more. It is absolutely tragic that one of the best Bills in the past for family life and children in this country will be overturned for reasons which I cannot understand. I hope that everyone will support the amendments.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: I wish to speak very briefly since I originally supported the first Bill when it came through Parliament. As the noble Lord said, it was supported by the Conservative Party that there should be this child benefit scheme. I agree with every word which my noble friend Lady Faithfull said on the subject. She knows an enormous amount about it. I spent a great deal of my life as chairman of a children's committee dealing with these matters, and I am certain that this is one of the very best allowances we have ever put into legislation.
There are two reasons for that. One is that it goes to the woman, the mother. She can spend it on the children and she is the person responsible. Other benefits are not so well distributed. Therefore it is vital that it should continue. Secondly, I do not believe that we can say that it should never be increased because we all know that we suffer from inflation. If nothing is done about child benefit, its value will go down. Surely that is not what we want.
My last point is that I have received information and I have no doubt that many people have received the same information from various organisations. The last communication I had was a letter from a child benefit organisation. I believe that there are 80 voluntary organisations of every political and non-political aspect and they all want the child benefit scheme to remain as it is. I cannot believe that the Government wish to harm some 80 voluntary organisations which are all behind this scheme. I hope that they will realise that they are dealing at the moment with something which is vital and which must not be altered in any way to hamper the great benefits given to families.
Baroness Seear: I wish strongly to support the amendment. I should like to spend one moment on the argument which is superficially attractive to a great many people. It is, "We want the money to go to those who need it most". I am often told by people, "Isn't that sensible".
However, we, or rather the Government, are totally inconsistent in the principle of the application of targeting, if principle it is. What could be less targeted than mortgage interest relief, in which a higher percentage goes to the people who have the biggest incomes and the largest mortgages? If we could save something there we should have plenty of money left for updating the child benefit scheme.
Targeting is sometimes right, but I beg the Government not to treat targeting as a dogma. On this occasion I believe that targeting is totally wrong, for the reasons which many other people have given. It is wrong because—and I speak as a single woman—it is obvious to a great many of us and surely to the whole world that people with children have expenses which we single people do not have. We are taxpayers, and I think that if the Government asked most single people, they would wish for a redistribution from the people without children to the people with children.
Further, as regards the poverty trap, the fact that child benefit is not reduced as earnings go up means that it does not affect people's willingness to take employment. Surely that is something which should appeal to the Government.
Finally, one more word about the value of the benefit going to the mother. My noble friend Lord Russell referred to women not being able to get the money, to the cases where maintenance failed and cases of separation. It is not only in those cases that the women cannot get the money. I remember occasions on which men asked that the increases in their pay should not be made public because they did not want their wives to know that their money had gone up. These were seemingly happily married couples. The fact that it is the woman who receives the money and has it to spend on the children is enormously important, not just for deserted wives, important though they may be, but for very ordinary, happy wives whose husbands think they are doing fine by them when that is not the case. For all these reasons I beg the Chamber as other Members of the Committee have, to support this very sensible and very highly respected benefit, and to maintain it along the lines suggested in the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have two questions for my noble friend on the Front Bench. We know all the facts which prove that child benefit is a very attractive way of helping people with children. However, we also know that circumstances have changed enormously since the scheme was initiated. One wonders whether the scheme can continue as it is, and be uprated in the way that is suggested. I should like my noble friend to help me on this matter. First, is it true, as I have read, that nowadays the taxpayer pays £1 billion a year in child benefit to families who are earning over £20,000 a year? That seems an extraordinary figure, but I have read that. Secondly, I hope that my noble friend will tell

329
us the cost of the implications of the amendment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. She has told us that it would cost a lot of money, but we need to know how much it would cost. I know the amendment is designed to try to meet a very complicated problem, which is that, if benefit is uprated it would give very little help to better-off people in proportion to their income, and yet give no help at all to the poorest people. That is the problem. I know the amendment is designed to try and alleviate that situation, but we need some hard figures if we are to make a judgment on it. I hope that my noble friend can answer my two queries.
The Earl of Onslow: We know the answer to the £1·5 billion that goes to people earning over £20,000 a year because my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale sent all the Tory Back-Benchers a letter explaining that. Therefore, I do not quite understand why my noble friend wants that confirmed. Further, when child benefit was introduced, it replaced an allowance deducted from tax. That, needless to say, did not count as government expenditure; it counted as non-raised revenue. The present benefit counts as government expenditure for slightly odd Treasury reasons. If we think that this Government would not have been proud to have raised child allowance, had we still had it, by more than the rate of inflation, I should be very surprised. This benefit is by far the most efficient social security benefit that we have. I sincerely hope that this amendment is carried for those two very good reasons.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I wish to reiterate strongly one point that has been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and, I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and others. It is that child benefit should go to the mother who is the person responsible for the children. Income support in a two-parent family goes to the father. Anything can happen to it. It can be spent at the pub, on the dogs, on the nags or on other women. In addition, a great many men just do not understand how much things like children's clothes and shoes cost. For that reason alone, I think that child benefit should be retained and uprated in line with inflation.
However, there is another point here. Families may get into financial difficulties, perhaps as a result of their income support not arriving. They may have temporary problems through being self-employed and running a business where the customers have not paid, so they are short of cash, or there may be a death in the family or some other problem. In the old days, many long years ago, people shopped for food and household necessities at shops where they were served by shopkeepers and other human beings. Those human beings knew their customers. If a mother was in difficulties, the shopkeepers would often let her have the necessities of life on tick. Nowadays, most of those little shops have gone and have been replaced by big, multiple supermarkets which do not follow such practices. Without money, one cannot obtain anything, short of shoplifting. For that reason, too, I think we should retain child benefit.
330
Finally, the Government were elected by the people of this country, a large number of whom are mothers with children. Mothers want to keep child benefit, and child benefit which is uprated every year in line with inflation. That is what the people want. If they do not get it, they will be very unhappy. I believe that the Government are hell bent on suicide as regards what they are doing with child benefit.
Lord Joseph: I rise to speak against this new clause. I recognise that I seem to be speaking against the tide of opinion as so far expressed. I get the impression that the Committee believes that if this new clause were adopted, the poorest people of whom they have spoken would get child benefit, and that the child benefit would, as child benefit does, get paid into the hands of the mothers. But that is an illusion. We know that any increase in child benefit would be deducted from family credit. I think that that is correct. Therefore, the condition of the people whom the Committee is most eager to help would not be improved one jot by this particular new clause.
I speak as one who is interested for many reasons in this whole subject. I was responsible for introducing family income supplement all those years ago. That was the predecessor of family credit which plays a large part in what we are now discussing. I speak also as one who is not altogether convinced that the system—that is the combination of the tax system, the insurance system and the income-related benefit system, the welfare system—takes enough account of the acknowledged difference between families with dependent children and families without dependent children. I am not convinced that enough distinction is made there. I was a little disturbed by a paragraph which appeared at the very end of the speech of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security at col. 725 of the Official Report of another place. In that speech my right honourable friend measured, admittedly average figures, as indicating a gap of 3 per cent. on average between families with dependent children and families without dependent children.
That, I know, conceals a whole mass of different situations, but it is not convincing to me that 3 per cent. is a sufficient gap. So since I am not convinced on the total success of our systems in distinguishing between families with children and families without children, why do I rise to oppose my benign and noble friend Lady Faithfull? I think she would be at least equal top if there were a poll in your Lordships' House on benignity. Others might equal her, but I cannot imagine that anyone would exceed her. I rise because we have really created such a welfare archipelago.
Both parties when in government have added—I was one who added—to the welfare archipelago with massive good intentions. We all have good intentions. The elements of this welfare archipelago—involving the tax system, the income related benefit system and the insurance system—overlap; they interact, they sometimes leave unintended gaps and they sometimes do not leave

331
intended gaps. They have benign results and I think I can say that they also sometimes have perverse and unintended results. We must be very careful before we, as this new clause proposes, bind the hands of future Ministers. It would take more than a scholar, it would take a whole squadron of scholars, to decide what the result would be if we were to pass this new clause, taking into account the complexity of the well-intentioned archipelago that we have created.
I emphasise to the Committee again that, if we pass this new clause, we do not automatically benefit those whom noble Lords and noble Baronesses intend to benefit; not unless another whole range of changes are made. I emphasise also that Ministers in this House and in another place have surely been put on warning about the concern of noble Lords and of honourable Members in another place about the poorest families with dependent children. The Secretary of State concerned must realise that he has a weakness in his argument, the weakness that I faced when I introduced the family income supplement; that is, that the take-up—I have to hesitate to get the right phrase—of family credit, at least at this stage, means that he is not putting into the hands of all the poorest the benefits that they would get, which would, admittedly, be reduced if this new clause were passed to offset any increase that would come from child benefit.
In these circumstances, having warned the Government by the speeches being made today here and the speeches made in another place, we should really leave discretion in the hands of the Minister. I beg noble Lords and noble Baronesses to recognise the complexity of what we would do if we were to tie the hands of Ministers on one element in this archipelago.
5 p.m.
Lord Seebohm: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I put one point to him? He said that the new clause would not help child benefit at all, because the total would come down. What he should have said, I suggest, is that the whole package would not alter. Certainly, the child benefit would increase and that goes to the mother. The problem about these families is budgeting and she will get these payments. That is terribly important.
Baroness Strange: May I rise briefly to speak through the archipelago of my noble friend's amendments and try to find some firm and sure rock like child benefit, which seems to me an absolutely firm and sure rock? Therefore I am supporting my noble friend Lady Faithfull. Child benefit would be paid direct to the mother or the person caring for the child, and that therefore means that the money would reach the child.
Of course it is quite clear that with this blanket benefit, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has pointed out, some parents and children will benefit who are quite able to provide for themselves without extra help from the Government. There is nothing in this clause to prevent those who consider themselves sufficiently well-off not claiming benefit.
332
At the moment, 98 per cent. of this benefit is claimed, but for family credit, where parents have to fill in forms with statements of income and so on, only 50 or 60 per cent. of those who should receive benefit take it up. This may be because they find it difficult to fill in forms—and most people do—or because of the very real social stigma attached to having to claim for these benefits.
Nobody likes admitting that they have less money than other people. It happens to us all at some time in our lives and it is very unpleasant. I can only tell your Lordships from personal experience that it was very nice to have child benefit and to be able to buy oranges and extra shoes for the winter. I enjoyed claiming it very much indeed.
What I am saying is that child benefit is received by all, like the rain, raining on the just and the unjust; those who need it and those who do not. We pride ourselves on being a caring society. Let us therefore support my noble friend and vote for continued child benefit, which, like that well-advertised lager, reaches the parts that other benefits cannot reach.
Lord Trafford: I have some amusement in one sense in following the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, who preceded my noble friend, because 18 years ago I think I made his speech in another place and he got up and rejected it. He may not recall the occasion but at that time—and subsequently I have not seen any reason to change my point of view—the failure to tie together the insurance scheme, the taxation system and the benefits system led to these complications where there are so many winners and losers when benefits are changed. He described the welfare archipelago which arises. One gets into a tangle. It may look like a perfectly straightforward system, but when one increases something like child benefit, in the end you have to reduce another benefit under the family credit scheme by the same amount, as the noble Lord pointed out.
During the course of this debate what we have heard are two things. First, there have been a number of self-evident truths, such as that childless couples are better off than couples with children. One could go further and say that single people are better off than married people. So they are on the whole. Those are self-evident truths.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, commented that we have targeted tax relief on mortgages and said how wrong it was. I am not arguing with her that that is not a targeted relief. I accept that. But the fact that, as she sees it, that is one wrong does not prove that another wrong, as she sees it, is right. So it seems, in some ways, an argument mostly about the question of means testing and targeting. It is not an argument, and I have not heard anybody suggest, that support for children or general support for families should be reduced. I have heard many comments that this should be concentrated. I believe that the noble Baroness on the opposite Front Bench made a comment about the necessity for a more comprehensive programme of support for the family, and I do not think anybody would disagree with that.

333
What concerns me greatly is not just the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, but also that there is a feeling that, if one in any sense tries to target or to means test, in some way you are demeaning either the person or the population. We have had examples given by a number of noble Lords about how awful it is to have to state what your mortgage is, what your wife earns and what allowances you have, although in practice many of us spend much of our time filling up incomprehensible income tax forms and so on giving exactly the same sort of information.
We are always giving this sort of information to people from whom we require mortgages or insurance, and we give even more information when we require loans and so on. I agree that many people who might be involved in making claims for family credit are less competent in some respects than those who fill in income tax forms. I accept that.
I also accept that the form on which the claim is made in the family credit system is far too complicated, far too long, far to difficult and takes far too long a time to process. But those are not defects of the scheme; they are defects of the operation of the scheme. In the same way, to propose that one targets with benefits those whom one wishes is not in itself wrong; but a valid argument could be put forward regarding the method by which we try to achieve that and which involves the complicated forms, the delays, the difficulties, and the fact that people have to go to specific places at specific times.
So it is not that we have the targeting wrong; it is that the system by which we try to operate it is ineffective because people do not know about it—that is part of the question of take-up—because it is too complicated and they cannot be bothered; because they find out that, one way or another, they lose nearly as much as they gain; and finally, as I said, because many of the people are not in many respects in a position—as many of us are with regard to other forms—to deal with the matter. That point also needs to be taken into account.
I started by commenting, at the expense of my noble friend Lord Joseph, on the negative income tax sheme. That problem would not arise under such a scheme. Provision would be virtually automatic, but I am assured by the powers that be, not least by my noble friend the Minister, that that is much too expensive, and could not possibly be introduced at the present time. I shall not therefore pursue that point, but I should make the point that it is that type of situation that we should criticise, not the aim to target or to use the family credit system or to give money to those in work as well as those out of work. There are many respects in which the operation of the amendment—I believe that one example has already been demonstrated and I shall not go into it again—could be somewhat defective. I emphasise that the fact that one happens not to agree with the amendment has nothing to do with whether or not one wishes to support the general benefit to the family, the child or the mother. I believe that most of us would concede that it was a useful move to give it to the mother.
334
I believe with some reservations that the amendment might lead us into further trouble. The archipelago to which my noble friend referred would be enhanced and increased. It could therefore be damaging to the very objectives—laudable objectives—that my noble friend Lady Faithfull seeks to promote.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: This amendment gives rise to a fundamental problem which I cannot believe has been considered by those noble Lords who have so far supported it. It is a point that has not yet been mentioned, and it is this; namely, that, if we pass the amendment, we shall create a statutory contradiction or conflict.
Perhaps I may explain. It is a very simple point. Under Section 5 of the Child Benefit Act 1975, the Secretary of State has complete discretion. He has an obligation to consider annually whether there should be an increase and what the increase should be. But, apart from that one obligation, he has free discretion to consider what the rates of child benefit should be in the following 12 months,
"having regard to the economic situation as a whole, the general standard of living and such other matters as he thinks relevant".
The amendment acknowledges that discretion on his part; it even mentions Section 5(1) of the 1975 Act. But the amendment would require him to increase all child benefits annually by a percentage not less than the amount by which provision is made for a child under 11 years old under the family credit scheme.
We therefore have—or would have, if the amendment were passed—a very strange situation if noble Lords were, to put it bluntly, so misguided as to support it. It would mean that a statutory discretion given to the Secretary of Stare and allowed to remain on the statute book would be fettered by a statutory obligation created by the amendment. It is a strange situation.
We must not blow hot and cold or make a legislative contradiction. I hope that, with that fundamental difficulty in mind, those noble Lords who have thought of supporting the amendment, will realise what they are doing.
Lord Coleraine: I have listened with great interest to what my noble friend Lord Renton has just said; but I propose to support my noble friend's amendment this afternoon as a means of giving the other place another chance to look at the problem which was before them a few months ago. I agree that the amendments are defective, but there will be another chance for them to be put right elsewhere.
I want to touch for a moment and target the "punchy" statistic that has been bandied about in the press and elsewhere that those in receipt of £20,000 a year income receive a billion pounds' worth of child benefit. I am sure that that is correct and I find no embarrassment in it. My noble friend Lord Trafford told us that it was commonplace and self-evident that those with families would have lower net incomes after all their expenses had been taken into account than those without families. However, he did not take that point any further.

335
I go along with what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says: it has always been recognised that there should be some measure of redistribution at all levels of income between those with families and those without. If I look again at the £20,000 a year family and at my own Benches, I should point out that some of those people earning £20,000 a year will be trying to educate their children at independent schools and will have considerable expenses which I think should be recognised as an example of relative deprivation.
I am not sure that what we are doing is redistributing. When someone earns £20,000 a year, he pays £4,000 a year in income tax. What he gets back from that, as he would have done before under child's tax allowance, is about £375 a year per child. I do not think that anything is being redistributed to him. I think that he is just paying a little bit less tax than he would otherwise pay. I think that that fact makes all the difference.
Another point that we have not yet touched on arises from the fact that, in my opinion, the Government, with the best will in the world, have determined that child benefit is to wither and die on the vine. Reference has been made—I shall listen carefully to what my noble friend says when he comes to wind up—to the statutory up-rating that must be made each year and to the thought that the Secretary of State must put into the matter. We are left with the impression that child benefit might possibly be up-rated this year.
However, I think that one must look again, as did my noble friend Lord Renton, at the words in the statute and at what happened last year. If one compares the failure to up-rate last year with the words in the statute, one sees that the Government have, as it were, devised a Catch 22 situation from which there is no escape for child benefit. The words that I am now looking at in Section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986 oblige the Secretary of State to see whether there has been a rise in the cost of living. Then,
"if he considers it appropriate, having regard to the national economic situation and any other matters which he considers relevant",
he will either up-rate it or not.
I look at the words "national economic situation" and take them as meaning that if the country is in a hard way maybe it is child benefit that will suffer. Then I look back at what happened last year and see that people were told that because of the prosperity of the country and the drop in the standard rate of income tax by 2p in the pound, families were doing very well and the benefit did not need up-rating.
It seems quite clear that whatever happens, win or lose, child benefit will not be up-rated. I hope that the Committee will think about that very carefully and listen closely when my noble friend comes to wind up to what he says about the Government's intentions with regard to up-rating generally.
Lord Belstead: I recognise the commitment to the cause of family life of noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon in this debate. However,
336
I should like to make the point that it is a cause shared on this side of the House equally by the Government. On these Benches we agree absolutely about the importance of improving help available to families. But I have to say that we disagree about the way in which this amendment seeks to achieve it.
Perhaps I may illustrate briefly how I believe the Government have shown their commitment to the family. It is a fact that during the past 10 years there has been a very great improvement in the prosperity of people in work. Quite rightly that has benefited families. The prosperity has been due not only to increases in take-home pay—£20 a week for a man on average earnings last year—but lower tax rates and higher tax thresholds. The reforms in national insurance contributions, which incidentally will benefit around 70 per cent. of families with children from next October, have also played their part.
What I find contradictory is that this amendment would require child benefit to be up-rated across the board, regardless of incomes each year, by at least the same percentage as the increase in the family credit under age 11 rate. The difficulty about that is that, despite what has been said from the Benches opposite, the law—which has been exactly the same under both Labour and Conservative governments since child benefit was introduced in 1977—requires something very different. The law requires that the Secretary of State should review the level of child benefit each year, taking account of all relevant factors.
The reason for that requirement was made crystal clear when the Child Benefit Bill was debated in the House of Commons in 1975. The then Labour Secretary of State said:
"There is a difference between routine National Insurance benefits and this new benefit. Indexation of the child benefit is inappropriate. National Insurance benefits are a major means of support when earning capacity is interrupted, but the child benefit is a tax-free supplement to families whose major source of income is earnings".
On the assumption that what was said on that occasion was correct, perhaps I may point out that this amendment would not enable the Secretary of State to take account of all relevant factors when considering a child benefit increase. Under this amendment the Secretary of State would have to give an automatic increase to child benefit. That would be most unfair in that it would give no help at all to the least well off families—those on income support—because the child benefit increase in effect would be totally taken into account and offset against that benefit. The Secretary of State would indeed have to ignore the fact that, among families who stand to gain from an increase in child benefit, around 70 per cent. have incomes above average earnings. Yes, the question of my noble friend Lady Carnegy was correct: there would have to be an ignoring of the fact that of the £4.5 billion spent on child benefit each year about £1 billion goes to 1.25 million families each earning over £20,000 a year.
As I have already said, this amendment requires that child benefit should be up-rated by at least the same percentage increase in the family credit under age 11 rate, which, it so happens, was increased this year—and I take pride in that—by over 20 per cent.

337
If this amendment had been in force this year, expenditure on child benefit would have had to have been increased by some £675 million, which is well over three times the amount needed had child benefit uprating been linked to the retail price index. I ask the Committee to bear in mind what I am putting to it. A vast sum of money is involved in this amendment which would have gone to families with the highest incomes, middle incomes and slightly lower incomes. But those on the very bottom of the income scale would have been denied that benefit because of it having to be taken into account in setting the level of their income support. I for one cannot see the fairness in that. It is because of the ability given to us by the law, which was enacted by the Benches opposite in 1977, to look at the full picture that this year we were able to give additional resources to the neediest families who would have gained nothing from a blanket increase in child benefit.
So from this April we have spent £200 million more than was spent in the previous year to the very great benefit of some 3 million children in the least well off families; in other words, those on income-related benefits. That is made up of £135 million to maintain the real value of the income-related child allowances and, in addition, £70 million which was put in on top. So almost all families on these income-related benefits are getting the amount needed to maintain the real value of benefits and an extra 50p a week for each child on top of that—an addition that they would not have got from increasing child benefit.
Therefore I say that we are genuinely and, I think, honestly trying to see that help goes to those families who need it most—incidentally, none more so than those who are in receipt these days of family credit, which is the successor to the wonderful brainchild of my noble friend Lord Joseph who introduced the original family income supplement. This family credit benefit provides a great deal of extra help and is available to people surprisingly far up the income scale. For example, a family with two teenage children can obtain family credit these days with gross earnings of up to £10,500 a year.
It is perfectly true that some noble Lords, including some of my noble friends, have expressed concern about the take up of that benefit. I shall give an absolutely straight answer. Family credit take up by expenditure was about 65 per cent. last year but it was only about 50 per cent. of eligible familes who were receiving it. Obviously this indicates that those who need the benefit most are, in considerable part, getting it. But we must try to improve the general take up. That is why recently we have had a major publicity campaign, which I am very glad to say has been very successful, more than doubling the number of claims for family credit received each week.
I begin to draw to a close. Speaking from this side of the Chamber, I believe that we can take pride in the fact that we have been able to hold the real value of child benefit—or its equivalent before the tax allowances went—for families with young children to a level which, if noble Lords opposite will forgive me for saying so, has been better than the levels that
338
they achieved during the time they were in office in the 1970s until just one month before they left office.
That said, I should like to reply to my noble friend Lady Faithful. I want to make it absolutely clear that the decisions made on child benefit in the past two years do not pre-empt the review which the Secretary of State is required statutorily to make later this year as to the level of child benefit from April 1990. The rate of child benefit will be reviewed along with the other social security benefits when the time comes and decisions will be made in the light of circumstances at the time. That is what has been done since child benefit was introduced.
Why am I so against this amendment? It lies in what my noble friend Lord Renton said. He rose at the end of our debate to point out that under this amendment a mandatory increase in child benefit is being made compulsorily attaching it to a discretionary up-rating of family credit. My noble friend wondered where this would lead us. It would lead us into three very serious problems which my noble friend Lady Faithfull most fairly set out to the Committee at the beginning of the debate.
First, the amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from using family credit a s a means of directing extra help to those families who most need it. That is something we did this year. The reason that would happen is because any extra family credit help given to the neediest families in the country under this amendment would have automatically to be matched by a corresponding universal increase in child benefit. Secondly, it would mean huge extra costs. I quoted the sum of £675 million to Members of the Committee earlier on. Before any noble Lords jump down my throat and say that I am being niggardly, the third and most serious reason is that the extra money under this amendment would go in increased child benefit to the wealthy, the not so wealthy, those with middle incomes and to those a little below that, but those who are on income support—the very poorest in the land—would be denied any increase because their increases would be offset against their benefit.
I question the propriety of compulsorily increasing child benefit by tying it to family credit. It would be a disincentive to improving family credit. It would be denied to the very poorest people in the country. Although I much respect the motives that lie behind what has been said this afternoon, honestly, I think that we should not accept this amendment.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: Before my noble friend sits down, I should like to ask this. With regard to the review that will take place at the end of the year, can he give an indication that child benefit will be increased at least in line with inflation? If that were the case, I should have no hesitation in voting for my noble friend. If he cannot say that, I shall have to abstain.
Lord Belstead: If my noble friend will forgive my saying so, for a moment perhaps he ceased to listen with his customary attention. I said earlier that the law is that the Secretary of State must review the

339
level of child benefit each year taking account of all relevant factors.
One of the matters that has been very interesting to me in researching the matter is consideration of the history of help to children and families. During the period from the war to the 1970s we had tax allowances and family allowances. In a period of 25 years, family allowances were up-rated only five times, and child tax allowances only four times. It is not therefore an area where governments of all parties have always every year put up the allowances.
Perhaps I may refer to the beginning of my speech. No less a person than the Labour Secretary of State of the day pointed out that when child benefit was introduced the government of the day needed to look at all the relevant factors. That is what we shall do next October.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: Before the noble Lord sits down again, can he comment on the point made by so many of us that child benefit goes to the mother, whereas family credit goes to the father?
Lord Belstead: With great respect to the noble Lady, I thought the same before this debate. However, family credit—unless there are exceptional circumstances—has to go to the mother.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken in this debate. In particular, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House. Nine Peers have spoken for the amendment. Although my noble friend Lady Carnegy asked two questions, she spoke against the amendment. Therefore five noble Peers have spoken against it.
I support all that was said in favour of the amendment. Therefore I shall not go through the list of people who have spoken for it because clearly I believed what they said. Perhaps I may say something to those who disagree with the amendment.
Perhaps I may say this to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, and to my noble friend the Leader of the House. They maintained that the poorest families would be less well off. I find that difficult to understand. I have trundled to supplementary benefit offices with parents. Factually, the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, was right—but only because of the convention of the Department of Health and Social Security—when he said that those families in receipt of family credit would not benefit because their family credit would be adjusted in relation to family credit and family income support. I cannot find such a provision written in the Bill. It is a convention of the department which could, without difficulty, be altered.
I have great sympathy with my noble friend the Leader of the House. Why should the wealthy draw so much family benefit when they least need it? I know some very wealthy men who do not give their wives the amount that they should give them. They certainly do not let them know what they earn. My noble friend Lord Alexander has drawn to my attention that at one time the miners wished to be
340
paid in cash so that their wives did not know what they earned. I am very fond of men, but there are some who do not do the right thing either by their wives or their families.
On the question of the wealthy drawing the benefit, surely it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for the other place to consider this matter. We cannot do so because it is a finance matter. However, if Members of the Committee feel strongly that the wealthy should not draw family benefit, two things can happen. Either the wealthy can voluntarily not draw it, or some arrangements can be made for a cut-off point. I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House considers that a cut-off point presents difficulties, but everything presents some difficulty at some time.
Lord Joseph: My noble friend surely meant child benefit, not family benefit. The better off are not entitled to family benefit. I think that for once my noble friend made a mistake.
Baroness Faithfull: I am not sure that I understand my noble friend Lord Joseph.
Lord Joseph: My noble friend referred to another place, if it so wished, being able to withdraw the power of the more prosperous to draw family benefit. However, the more prosperous are not entitled to family credit. My noble friend was surely referring to child benefit.
Baroness Faithfull: I beg your Lordships' pardon. If I said family benefit, I meant child benefit. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Joseph, for putting me right—not for the first time.
My noble friend the Leader of the House stated that child benefit is reviewed every year. It has been frozen for two years, and none of us knows why it was frozen. I have tried to find out the reasons for child benefit being frozen. I have been unable to find any. I find it odd that it was frozen because, in the general index of retail prices produced by the Department of Employment, fuel and light have gone up by 5·7 per cent.; non-seasonal food by 5·8 per cent.; clothing and footwear by 5·4 per cent.—a pair of shoes for a small child costs £20—fares and other travel costs have gone by 7·4 per cent. What has not gone up is the cost of television. I expect that that will go up shortly.
My noble friend Lord Coleraine said that he realised that there might be difficulties in the amendment, and asked why not consider it and let the other place think again. A house divided is a house that falls. I really feel like falling, because on the one hand it is against one's instincts and against one's feelings to be disloyal to the Leader of the House—a Leader whom we much admire—and to our party. I belong to the Conservative Party and support the Prime Minister.
On the other hand, it has been my work throughout life to support and work for the children of this country. Equally, I believe that politically it would be a disaster not to deal with the child benefit along the lines of this amendment. I realise that it needs to be reconsidered in the other place, and also that something must be done for the poor of this country.

341
I know that some people say that damage will be done to the poor, but I know from personal experience that there are many in this country who are doing a wonderful job of work and who would not apply for family credit or family income support. I will not say that they are dependent on child benefit but it makes a world of difference for them. With very great regret I feel that I must ask the opinion of the Committee.
5.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 94.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Adrian, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Lawrence, L.

Amherst, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Blackstone, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blyth, L.

McNair, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bottomley, L.

Meston, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Molloy, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Monson, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Moyne, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L

Nathan, L.

Carter, L.

Nicol, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Coleraine, L.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Phillips, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Ennals, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ezra, L.

Rochester, L.

Faithfull, B. [Teller.]

Rugby, L.

Falkender, B.

Russell, E.

Falkland, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Fitt, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gallacher, L.

Seear, B.

Galpern, L.

Seebohm, L. [Teller.]

Gibson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shackleton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Shannon, E.

Grey, E.

Shaughnessy, L.

Grimond, L.

Simon, V.

Guildford, Bp.

Stedman, B.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Hampton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hanworth, V.

Strange, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Vernon, L.

Hunt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hylton, L.

Walston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

White, B.

Ilchester, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jeger, B.

Willis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

John-Mackie, L.

342

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Joseph, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Layton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Belstead, L.

Luke, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marley, L.

Braye, B.

Merrivale, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Milne, L.

Camoys, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mottistone, L.

Carnock, L.

Munster, E.

Clitheroe, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Norfolk, D.

Colville of Culross, V.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Orkney, E.

Craigavon, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Penrhyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reay, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Redesdale, L.

Dundee, E.

Renton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Elles, B.

Saint Albans, D.

Elton, L.

St. Davids, V.

Erne, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Somers, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Swansea, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Havers, L.

Trafford, L.

Hemphill, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hesketh, L.

Tryon, L.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Windlesham, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Wolfson, L.

Hood, V.

Yarborough, E.

Hooper, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.51 p.m.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Mobility allowance: increase of age limit to 80 years]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 42, at beginning insert —
("( ) In section 37A of the principal Act (mobility allowance) at the end of subsection (I) insert "or is deaf and blind or is suffering from severe mental handicap such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so without physical control by another person".
( ) In subsection (2) of that section leave out "physical".").
The noble Lord said: The amendment has support from all parts of the Committee. It is intended to correct an anomaly in the operation of the mobility allowance for which a small number of people with severe mobility problems are unable to claim or are refused payment. Such people are physically able to walk but they cannot make use of that ability because they are deaf/blind or they suffer from a mental handicap and need continuous and physical control

343
by another person. Section 37A of the Social Security Act 1975 provides that mobility difficulties must be as a result of a physical disablement: such that the person is either unable to walk, is virtually unable to walk, or the exertion of walking would endanger their life or lead to a serious deterioration in health.
The term "virtually unable to walk" has caused considerable difficulties in interpretation, especially for mentally handicapped and deaf/blind people. A commissioner's decision taken in 1984 restricted the interpretation of "walking" in relation to the mobility allowance to the physical ability to move the legs and put one foot in front of the other. However, further commissioners' decisions —notably in 1986—interpreted the phrase "virtually unable to walk" as covering problems of balance and behavioural interruptions and the need for physical support or control from another person.
The decisions remain inconsistent and many are later reversed on appeal. The claimants and their carers are confused and adjudicating authorities find it hard to interpret and apply the regulations. There is a general belief that a system which can award a mobility allowance one year and take it away the next, or award it to one person but refuse it to another with identical problems, is unjust and must be changed.
The allowance is intended to help severely disabled people by making a contribution towards the additional cost incurred just to get out and about. I refer to the problems of the deaf/blind. Many such claimants have difficulty in qualifying for the allowance even though they are incapable of independent mobility. They may require a skilled guide at all times when walking out of doors, or they may have severe problems of orientation which are aggravated by difficulties in communicating other than by using the deaf/blind and manual alphabet. That means that they must take taxis for all but the simplest of journeys, and because they can physically put one foot in front of the other they receive no assistance towards the extra costs.
A number of mentally handicapped children face similar difficulties. They may be able to make the physical movement of walking hut, because of the behavioural problems associated with their condition their mobility is severely restricted. They can run away, have tantrums and refuse to walk. It is found that public transport is impossible, and for the parents a car is essential. The same problems also affect a number of mentally handicapped adults.
The disability organisations and the All-Party Disablement Group have been discussing the problem with the Government for a considerable time. In 1987 the All-Party Disablement Group met the then Minister, Mr. John Major. He was sympathetic and appeared to imply that the problem was largely one of definition. He agreed to conduct a survey into the number of people involved.
A few weeks ago the group met the present Minister, Mr. Nicholas Scott. I was a member of the delegation. To our dismay we found that the survey which had been promised by the previous Minister, although completed, had not been written up. The
344
present stance seems to be one of sympathetic inertia and a decision to wait for the OPCS surveys to be completed and published by the end of July.
I expect that in reply the Minister will produce the argument of having to wait for the OPCS, but that will not stand up. If the surveys are produced by the end of July there must then be consultations with all the interested organisations followed by legislation. All that could take years. We can only compare the time that it has taken to implement the Disabled Persons Act 1986 in full, referred to in Question Time today, and the Government's response or lack of it to the Griffiths Report.
Further, the OPCS surveys are not relevant because the numbers and the cost are known. The latest report of MENCAP reveals that the number of people involved would be less than 8,000, at a cost of about £8 million. That would be less than 2 per cent. of the half-million people now receiving the mobility allowance. The cost of £8 million is about 1.5 per cent. of the total cost of the allowance of £650 million.
We do not propose a new allowance or a new category of disabled people. We describe the people who should receive the allowance and who the Government agree should receive it through the regulations. The Bill gives us the chance to put the matter right.
All Members know of harrowing examples of the effect of the problem I have described. I propose to quote only three. The first is of a child with Down's Syndrome. His walking is totally unpredictable and he is a danger to himself. His parents applied for the mobility allowance and were turned down by the DSS doctor. On appeal the application was accepted by a DSS medical board.The DSS then appealed to the Medical Appeal Tribunal, which granted it and refused the mobility allowance. The parents are now appealing to the Social Security Commissioners. I believe that the parents of a child with such problems should not be put through that agony.
The second example is of a woman aged 23 diagnosed as having a mental handicap, probably due to brain damage at birth. She has a mental age of between five and six years, poor balance and little speech. Her mobility problems require continual physical assistance while walking, with the support of pulling or pushing. She trips and stumbles as a result of poor balance and because she does not lift her feet high enough she is unable to co-ordinate her mental processes with her foot movements. I could go on to describe her condition in even more detail. If there is an attempt to force her to move she struggles, kicks and bursts into tears. Yet, her mobility allowance claim was disallowed by the tribunal. It agreed that she had a physical disability but that she should make conscious decisions to stop that behaviour. However, there is no evidence that she is capable of making a conscious decision about anything.
The other case is of a man aged 28 who has a profound mental handicap, no speech, abnormal and unco-ordinated vision and suffers from epilepsy. He has mobility problems and needs constant physical asistance while walking due to his lack of

345
co-ordination, poor balance and so on. Even with continual physical assistance he throws frequent tantrums when he screams stamps and lashes out. He applied for a mobility allowance but was turned clown on appeal to the tribunal.
There are mutiple examples and it is clear from them that the mobility allowance is not operating as it should. This amendment seeks to ensure that the people who should receive the mobility allowance under existing regulations actually receive it. It was revealed in Committee in another place by the Minister that three out of four claimants qualify on appeal to the medical tribunal. If that is the case, the legislation should be amended to reflect that and to save the parents and carers of severely disabled people the harrowing and lengthy task of going through the appeal procedure. This amendment has all-party support in this Chamber; there were over 100 signatures from all parties on an Early Day Motion in another place; and all the disability organisations involved in this matter support the amendment. I repeat that we are only referring to a very small number of people, under 8,000, at a minuscule cost in terms of the cost of the mobility allowance. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I was very glad to add my name to this amendment and I should like to say a few words in support of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.
I was one of those who went on this rather disappointing deputation to the Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled, which I believe is his proper title. The Minister claimed that over the years case law had met many of the difficulties surrounding this allowance in this particular area. However, I fear that significant gaps remain and such improvements as have been achieved have been at the cost of a large number of appeals, with all the expense, delays and frustrations involved. I believe that of the 2,000 deaf and blind people who already receive this allowance for one reason or another, the majority had to make at least two appeals.
The Minister argued that if the rules were changed, there would still be difficult cases open to argument. However, no one expects to attain perfection and there is no doubt that the position would be greatly improved if this amendment were accepted.
In particular, the Minister raised questions about the numbers who might be involved, especially the mentally handicapped and, therefore, the expense which might be incurred. Earlier estimates put to the department suggested that a total of some 10,000 to 12,000 might be included in the two groups covered by the amendment. We thought, in our innocence, that that figure had been accepted by the department but, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, the main argument was about wording. When we arrived, we found the Minister talking about mentally handicapped people perhaps running into figures of over 100,000 people.
346
Therefore, we thought that we should have another go at making a calculation ourselves. We calculate that those who are both deaf and blind and do not already receive the allowance cannot exceed more than 3,200. The numbers of those with in the relevant age groups are known with considerable accuracy. We also calculate that the numbers of mentally handicapped covered by the restrictive terms of the amendment would not greatly exceed the same figure.
Originally, some calculations were based on the MENCAP project for the profoundly retarded and multiply handicapped, but on looking at the matter again we thought it better to take some official figures as our working hypothesis. In 1971 a White Paper entitled Better Services for the Mentally Handicapped, Cmnd. No. 4683, gave the results of surveys carried out in three areas and divided the numbers up among different degrees of incapacity. If one extrapolates the figures for the severely mentally handicapped with behaviour difficulties requiring constant supervision, there is a total of about 4,400 for the country. Some of those could be ruled out on grounds of age and some will already be receiving the allowance for other reasons. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the two groups together, that is the two groups covered by the amendment, would not be likely in sum to exceed 7,600 and could be less.
I appreciate that I am taking figures relating to 1971 but the position cannot have altered very much since then. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, explained, the cost of all this would come out at less than £10 million compared to the total cost of this allowance of some £550 million.
In the past Ministers have expressed sympathy for these two particular groups but they have suggested that it would be wrong to tinker with the allowance pending a full review in the light of the forthcoming report of the OPCS survey, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carter, referred. However, Clause 8 already tinkers with the scheme and if that particular piece of tinkering is justified as an interim measure, I for one should be quite content that those covered by the amendment should be dealt with as an interim measure for, as has been pointed out, they do not involve any startling departure from the types of case already covered.
If that is not done now and we have to wait for the OPCS survey, for the report to be digested, for the consultations to take place and then for the results to be translated into statutory form, it would mean that those unfortunate people will have to go on waiting for yet more years. They have waited long enough.
The changes proposed would do much to ease despair and frustration. They would save many appeals and much expense, and the cost of the appeals must run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. They would simplify the task of the adjudicators and would show that Parliament cares. If the words which we have selected in the amendment will not do, let the Government produce their own but let us somehow do justice to these poor people.
Earl Russell: As Mary Holland of MENCAP said:
"At present the law is discriminating between groups with equal disabilities, which is quite wrong".
That puts the case for this amendment in a nutshell. The tendency—and I shall put it no higher than that—has been to restrict mobility allowance to those whose inability to move is purely physical, and not merely physical but confined to the legs.
There are many parts of our anatomy, other than our legs, in which we may suffer a disability which restrains us from moving around. To start with, I mention balance. There is also the possibility of mental disorders causing severe difficulties; indeed, making it unsafe to move about. I add only one more to the cases mentioned. A case was reported last week in my local paper, the Kilburn and Willesden Recorder. This concerns a boy who suffers so badly from autism that he is unable to understand a word that is said. He has extreme hyperactive fits which make it quite unsafe to take him anywhere near traffic because he runs out into the middle of it. He was found to be "too naughty" to receive mobility allowance. That is a concept of original sin which I think right reverend Prelates might tell us would have been regarded as extreme even by John Calvin in his prime. In fact, there is a theological concept which is rather more appropriate to the case—that of invincible ignorance. Such cases have as much claim to mobility allowance as those who suffer disability in their legs.
I am concerned also about the Scrooge-like spirit in which appeals are conducted in this area and which were described in a moving article by Michael Daly in the Independent on 13th June. I give only one fact from that article. In the quarter ending September 1988, out of 359 appeals only seven were successful. I wonder whether the very small saving achieved from this great exercise is really worth it. In pure Benthamite terms, can one really claim that balancing the pleasure against the pain is worth this very small saving? I very much doubt whether we can. I know that the Minister will say that we must wait for the OPCS survey, but do we really need the OPCS to tell us that we should treat like equally with like?
Lord Renton: I must declare an interest. I am happy to say that I am a past president of MENCAP. Also, I have a daughter, and in the words of the amendment I have to describe her as suffering from,
"severe mental handicap such that [she] is … unable to walk…without physical control by another person".
I hope that my recollection is right when I say that she receives constant attendance allowance all the time that she is at the home where she is cared for, at the Ravenswood Foundation; but when she comes home and stays with me the constant attendance allowance is dropped, and she then receives a mobility allowance. I think that is the position.
The case for this amendment, or something to the same effect, has been strongly made out. It surprised me to find that the person who is both deaf and blind is not able to obtain mobility allowance because such people are in a helpless state. I hope that the Government will not wait for perhaps many months or a year before there is a review based on some
348
statistical abstract, before at any rate those people who are deaf and blind can receive what obviously they need.
I must endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, about the mentally handicapped. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be very sympathetic to this amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: No one in this Committee who has experience of people who are both blind and deaf or suffering from mental handicap can fail to be moved by the eloquent way in which noble Lords have spoken. I do not have any such experience but I can certainly say that I have been very clearly moved by what has been said, as many Members of the Committee will have been. I am also very much aware of the fact that there is considerable support on an all-party basis for the groups which the amendment is intended to assist.
In listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, I am surprised that there is no amendment on the Marshalled List about the rights and wrongs of the mobility allowance. That allowance has been of great and growing concern for several years. Indeed, to do the noble Lord credit, he made a big point of that in his speech on this amendment.
At this point I think I should say that the difference between Clause 8 and this amendment is that Clause 8 is to prevent existing recipients from losing their allowance. The amendment, as the noble Lord and others have said, changes the eligibility criteria to help more people to claim.There is nothing wrong in that, but it is a fact. Therefore, let us look at this amendment. The fact is that when the mobility allowance scheme was introduced in 1976, the eligibility criteria built on those which were already in existence for the invalid vehicle scheme. Although help became available to people who were unable to drive, the criteria were still very much linked to the physical ability to walk.
Over the years, since the allowance was introduced, the criteria have remained essentially the same but the case law—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen—has been widened considerably. Although the legislation refers to physical disablement, it has been held that a person who has a mental handicap—stemming, for example, from a physical cause such as brain damage—can qualify for the allowance if unable or virtually unable to walk. Furthermore, there is guidance available for the independent adjudicating authorities, based on judicial and commissioner decisions, on how to assess walking ability where it is interrupted by behavioural problems associated with mental handicap. It is also now clear that people who need physical support to walk because of balance problems, which are often associated with deafness and blindness, can qualify for the allowance. In other words, it is possible for many people who either have a mental handicap, or who are deaf and blind, to qualify for the allowance under the current rules; but not all of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will recognise.

349
I put it to the Committee that there is another important benefit which is available, on occasions, to those people. To assist Members of the Committee who are not fully familiar with the complexities of the current system I should add that many of the people the amendment is intended to help may qualify for attendance allowance. However, I emphasise that there is nothing to prevent the two benefits from being paid at the same time; and I thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his reference to that.
I sometimes have the impression that this is considered a mean and uncaring government, particularly in regard to social security allowances. Perhaps I should therefore, at this point, give an indication of how mobility allowance has grown over the years. Over the past 10 years, the number of recipients of the allowance has risen from 95,000 to a current figure of 575,000. Expenditure on the allowance is now running at about £¾ billion a year, which is an increase of over 5½ times in real terms over the same period.
What we therefore have to decide, when we look at all the OPCS findings—which will not be available until towards the end of July—is whether this substantial allocation of resources is responding to needs of people with mobility problems, and whether there are better ways of providing help within the disability benefit provision to those who need it most. As mobility allowance has always been aimed at an effect of disability—namely, difficulty in getting out and about—I really do not think that this is the right time for making provision for particular diagnostic groups. If we decide to change this criterion, then it will be perfectly right. But we have to consider other factors; namely, the whole range of social security benefits on which we spend in the order of £48.5 billion per year. That is £24 billion for the National Insurance Fund that we discussed earlier, and £24 billion for all the non-contributory benefits, of which the mobility allowance is but one. We should consider all those issues on their merits.
I am aware of the representations made on behalf of people with disabilities who fail to qualify for the allowance. But whether a person does or does not qualify, whatever the criteria, it is ultimately a matter of medical opinion. The amendment will not provide the consistency that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said he was seeking. We shall never be able to eliminate altogether the sense of disappointment which is felt by people who fall on the wrong side of the threshold to qualify for the allowance wherever that threshold is drawn. We are certainly well aware of the sense of disappointment that people feel under the current system.
I doubt whether this will be the only occasion on which I shall stress the importance of the biggest survey ever undertaken by the Government of the social and economic consequences of disability, handicap and impairment. This is leading, as I have indicated earlier, to an examination of all the social security benefits for such people. But this cannot be completed until we have studied and learnt the relevant lessons from the reports already published, and from the two which have not yet been published.
350
As I said just now, we shall be getting these reports by the end of July.
The needs of disabled people are serious and complex matters; I am sure that all Members of the Committee will accept that. The opportunity will shortly present itself to consider them all, to identify the most effective ways of meeting them and to ensure that help goes to those who need it most. With this in mind I believe it is premature to seek a solution to the difficulties arising with the mobility allowance. I know, because it has been made very clear in the debate that has taken place, that noble Lords who have supported this amendment will feel a sense of disappointment at what I have said. But I must emphasise, as I have made clear on previous occasions, that we are totally committed to using this unprecedented volume of information to help judge how the current system responds to the needs of people with disabilities. In doing so, we shall have very much in mind the representations that have been made to us on behalf of people who are deaf, blind or mentally handicapped.
The noble Lord, Lord Allen, said—and this I recognise—that Members of the Committee are pressing for action today rather than after the publication of the OPCS findings. I can assure them that we are anxious to consider the findings and to reach conclusions as quickly as possible, allowing time of course for public discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Allen, was not very kind about that because he tried to compare the speed of the track of the Disabled Persons Act—was it not the noble Lord? I apologise, It was a noble Lord.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: I would willingly have done so, but the point had already been made.
Lord Skelmersdale: I apologise. It was not the noble Lord, Lord Allen. I know that he is such an enthusiast for the Disabled Persons Act and I was surprised. I understand it was the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who made that point. I am glad I have now got that right.
The question was about the cost of implementation. The Government have learnt a great many lessons from that experience and Members of the Committee would have expected us to do so. When the reports are out and we have considered them, we expect to have to make needs at that point for the monetary provision to implement what the Government want to do. So the situation is quite different, as opposed to the Disabled Persons Act, where there has to be a colloquy that goes on and on between the local authorities and central government.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: The Minister is surely using an argument which tells against himself. We discussed Section 7 of the Act that was passed three years ago. That went into new territory. What we are talking about now is not some new innovation but simply an extension of the existing categories. We ask, why should they have to wait until there has been the survey, it has been considered and there has been legislation? We are talking in terms of two or three years' hence, even if it is implemented immediately.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, I do not believe I was arguing against myself. I was trying to make the point that we shall be getting on because the giving of the money is totally in our own hands. We shall be getting on with, first, the review, and then, secondly, our implementation of it as quickly as we conceivably can. That is very different from the situation as regards the disabled persons Act, where we made it very clear at the very beginning—even at Second Reading in your Lordships' House, if my memory serves me right—that we could not implement it until we had agreed the resources between central government and local authorities. There is a very distinct difference. With respect, I do not believe I am arguing against myself.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: Perhaps I may interrupt the Minister once again. Immediate action will be taken but you still need statutory powers. That is years ahead unless the present opportunity is taken. That is the point of the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: If Members of the Committee would like to cast their minds back over the past 10 years, I shall be very surprised if they can remember a parliamentary year when there was not a social security Bill. I cannot of course pre-empt the Queen's Speech. I believe that noble Lords will be perfectly reasonable in drawing the same lesson from the past as I have and applying it to the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, again argued that the reports are not relevant. I believe that he overstates the point. They are relevant because they provide evidence of the actual extra cost incurred by different disabled people, though I accept that the rarity of deaf-blindness means that there are very few in the survey sample. The reports will also lead to conclusions about the overall structure of disability benefits of which this is a specialised aspect.
It is surely better at this stage to consider the overall benefit provision for people who are disabled in a comprehensive way rather than to try to plug gaps in a way which could only add complexities when we bring forward our long-term proposals. I therefore commend to the Committee that we await the full findings of the OPCS survey, which are now imminent, and our overall proposals based on them before we amend the mobility allowance criteria. I can again assure the Committee that we are well aware of the representations which are made on behalf of the groups covered by the amendment.
Lord Renton: Before Members of the Committee opposite intervene, let me ask my noble friend to clarify one or two points that were not quite clear to me though they may have been clear to some others. In the early part of his speech he seemed to be suggesting that even under the present law the mobility allowance, as a matter of discretion and circumstances, can be granted to people who are deaf-blind. As I mentioned in the case of my own family, it can be granted to those suffering from severe mental handicap if they cannot walk or if they have to be held up too long. That is already the case under the present law.
352
If this amendment were accepted would there be any extra cost to public funds bearing in mind that the mobility allowance can be awarded already to the people covered by the amendment? I shall be grateful if the Minister can clarify those points. The next point is this, and I refer to the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. Can the Minister confirm that if nothing needs to be done as regards this amendment, we shall have to wait until this time next year when the OPCS statistics have been considered, public opinion has been sounded, decisions have been made on it, and another social security Bill has been drafted and enacted by both Houses of Parliament? That would mean waiting a year, would it not?
6.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: The answer to my noble friend's last question is yes. That is what it would mean. My second point is that the amendment, as I read it—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will confirm this—is intended to help people who do not qualify now. Some people do qualify, so clearly there would not be double provision for those if we passed the amendment. Nonetheless, there will be a cost but it is an unspecified cost. I have not been able to ascertain from my advisers what the cost will be. I do not know whether the noble Lord has been able to make an estimate of it.
Lord Ennals: My intervention will be brief because my noble friend Lord Carter and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, stated the case. I intervene because it was my responsibility as Secretary of State to introduce the benefit. I give absolute credit to all those who since that time have ensured that the number of people receiving mobility allowance, which when we introduced it was a pioneering new benefit—many people knew that it ought to be provided but it had not been provided—has expanded. That has happened during the past 10 years, and credit should go to the Government for that.
It has been said that case law would enable some of those in these two groups to receive a benefit. That is true. The fact that case law has said so is an argument for putting it into legislation. All too often a different decision is taken by different tribunals. There is no certainty. When the original application is made the applicant is not certain what the terms are. It is important that the law should be clear. I was glad that in the Minister's speech the question of cost was not a central issue. My noble friend Lord Carter said that we are talking about a relatively small sum. He gave a figure of £.10 million at the most. This change would involve a small proportion of the people concerned and of the money concerned.
We are not talking about a cost factor. We are talking about two groups of people whose needs are fundamentally very great indeed. This is recognised by those who have worked with the mentally handicapped and with the deaf and blind. I have done so through my son Paul Ennals who works for SENSE. This organisation has been deeply involved in the campaign. An enormous amount of work has been done over the years. The case has been made

353
and in some courts has been accepted. The argument the Minister makes for a further delay is one which, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, is not justified. It would not be just one year; it would be two or three years. Next year we would be told again that the survey had just been carried out and that it was too early to make the change.
For this sum, and for people whose needs are so great, it is right that noble Lords should act now. A great deal of work and knowledge has gone into this and a good deal of preparation has been made by those whose daily work involves working with people covered by the amendment. I hope that the Committee will decide to act tonight.
Lord Carter: I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I understand that the Minister is personally sympathetic to the problems that we have described. However, I find the Government's attitude extremely hard to understand. The cost would be virtually nothing in terms of the total cost of mobility allowance. It would be of the order of £8 million to £9 million. It would help 7,600 severely disabled people. We know the numbers. We do not need the OPCS to tell us. The Government are not able to answer the argument and have to hide behind the survey, which has no relevance. We know the numbers. We are not proposing a new allowance or a new category of people.
If the amendment were accepted it would not in any way upset the thrust of whatever the Government decide to do as a result of the survey and the proposed review of benefits, which, I was a little alarmed to learn the other day, is not to be independent but is to be conducted within the department as an internal review. The Minister referred to the fact that we did not attempt to deal with the rights and wrongs of the legislation as it is currently drafted. In fact we drafted an amendment on those lines. I know that if I had brought it forward the noble Lord would have said that we were trying to write regulations into the Bill and he would have rejected it. We have tried to draft the amendment extremely tightly to enable a group of people, whom we feel the Government want to receive the mobility allowance, to receive it.
The guidance is just not working. The people who should qualify are not doing so. That is why we have tried to be specific. The noble Lord referred to the problem of balance, of which account is now taken in guidance. There are problems with autistic children. For no reason at all they will dash into the road or will stop and refuse to move. They can be assisted only by this continual and physical control. The noble Lord almost said that the time is not ripe, a phrase I have heard from the Government in other connections. We have referred to the numbers—fewer than 8,000 out of a total of 575,000, the noble Lord's own figure. The cost would be £8 million to £9 million out of a total cost of £750 million. We have had to wait a long time for a response to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986. We have had to wait a long time for the response to the Griffiths Report. The Minister and the Committee
354
will understand our reluctance to wait even longer perhaps for the results of the survey.
The noble Lord referred to those who will always be on the wrong side of the threshold. Of course there will always be some. Let us reduce the number on the wrong side to a very small figure indeed. I have heard the arguments and I have heard what the Minister had to say. The best thing to do is to read again what he has said and try to see if we can get some idea of the timetable if the Government intend to press ahead and deal with the problems I have described. Therefore, with the agreement of my noble friends, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should explain that Amendment No. 4 pre-empts Amendment No. 6.
Baroness Jeger Baroness Jeger moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 8, line 42, leave out from ("allowance)"), to end of line 44 and insert—

("(a) in subsection (5)(a), the words "or over the age of 75" shall cease to have effect;

(b) in subsection (5)(aa), the words "but under the age of 75" shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. We very much welcome the fact that the Government have increased the age for mobility allowance from 75 to 80. We think that is so generous that we cannot understand why there is a limit of 80. Some of us should perhaps declare an interest. We would be distressed to know that we were about to lose our mobility allowance. I put this as a fair question. Let us suppose that an old gentleman of 79 is in receipt of mobility allowance and is enjoying it. He wakes up on his 80th birthday and goes through his birthday cards. Among those cards he finds a brown envelope from the Government which says that as from the next day his mobility allowance is stopped. No one should open a brown envelope on his birthday, least of all his 80th birthday. In all seriousness we wondered whether in raising the age from 75 to 80 the Government had in mind a moving upwards of the age from year to year.
We cannot see anything very special about being 80. I did not put down an amendment to raise the age to 90 or 100 because I did not want to appear dogmatic. We should like to know the Government's thinking behind this. Perhaps they can tell us whether they have it in mind to take away this arbitrary age limit. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: With all her knowledge, I am rather surprised that the noble Baroness is not aware that the first people to feel the effect of the existing cut-off at the age of 75 will only do so as from next November. Therefore this Bill is designed to ensure that the brown envelope—about which she is so worried—arriving on the 75th birthday, will not in fact arrive, and that attendance allowance will continue to be paid under the provisions of the Bill until the person reaches the age of 80.
Baroness Jeger: We are discussing mobility allowance!
Lord Skelmersdale: I must apologise to Members of the Committee; I meant to say mobility allowance. The noble Baroness made me so confused when she talked about the ages of 75, 80, 90 and 100 that I subsequently confused the Committee. Nonetheless, it is a fact that the first people to feel the effect of the existing cut-off at the age of 75 will not do so until next November.
The Government have made no secret of the fact that the new cut-off at the age of 80 is simply an interim measure, pending any further far-reaching changes which may affect mobility allowance in general, and especially its age limits. However, taking up the point made on the previous amendment, we have a five-year period before we need to make a further change. Surely, with the best will in the world, every Member of the Committee will accept that we can carry this out within five years. I hope that we shall be able to do so very much more quickly than that.
Earl Russell: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Seear. I also wish to support Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 8.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Earl must recognise that we are at present discussing Amendment No. 4. It seems that noble Lords on the Front Bench were under the impression that these amendments were grouped. The grouping is unofficial. However, if they are to be grouped, then it is for a noble Lord to say so.
Lord Skelmersdale: With leave of the Committee, I should be most happy if the amendments were so grouped.
Earl Russell: These amendments attempt to achieve the same effect by slightly different routes. We on these Benches are not particularly wedded to one form of words or another. We left the words to stand in the hope that the Minister might possibly have a slight preference for one form of words over another.
The Minister has made what I can only describe as a speech of Damocles. He has held back the threat of the brown envelope but keeps it suspended over the heads of those concerned for another five years. Would it perhaps be unkind to suggest that the Minister hopes that another government may be left with the task of dropping it? I think that we might be just a little more generous than that.
I was much taken on Second Reading by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He produced the delightful image of reaching the age of 80 when a sudden rejuvenation takes place, mobility returns and the spring comes back to the step. It was great fun. But, alas! it is not always like that. The problem does not always go away—so why should the solution go away if the problem does not? I cannot believe that the cost of the proposals contained in these amendments would be very great. I cannot see that they would fatally threaten the integrity of our public finances. I put the case in
356
favour of these amendments finally in two words: why not?
Lord Skelmersdale: Clearly, I must apologise to the Committee because I rather jumped the gun in my eagerness to answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. However, I must say to the noble Earl that even more difficult issues of principle arise in relation to Amendment No. 5. What is proposed not only removes the new interim cut-off at the age of 80 for payment of the allowance, as in the first amendment, but it also removes the other upper age limit whereby the allowance must be claimed before the age of 66 and only in respect of disability existing before the age of 65.
Amendment No. 6, tabled in the name of the noble Baroness Lady Seear, appears to be broadly similar in intention, except that by completely deleting the existing legislation on age limits she has also removed the lower age limit at the age of five. I do not know whether that was her intention; but obviously this has difficulties in relation to very young children for whom restricted mobility, and the need for assistance in getting about, is a normal fact of life—not a consequence of disability.
We estimate that the cost of removing all age limits for the allowance, so that it can be claimed at any age, would have an eventual cost in excess of £1 billion. That is a prodigious sum of money—so large that I feel it is necessary for me to persuade Members of the Committee that it is no exaggeration. Why should it cost so much to allow people to claim mobility allowance for disability occurring after the age of 65? The answer is not too hard to find in the twin facts that locomotion disabilities are by far the most common of all disabilities. Indeed, we have already discovered that fact by examination of the OPCS reports which show that between the ages of 16 and 59 the prevalance is 31 per 1,000; between the ages of 60 to 74, the prevalance is 195 per 1,000; and at the age of 75, or over, it is an enormous 464 per 1,000. I could dilate for some time on this subject, but I shall merely repeat what I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger. As it stands, Clause 8 now gives us a breathing space of five years. That is ample time in which to resolve and implement whatever changes may be needed generally concerning the allowance.
Having said that, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness have made some valuable points in this connection. We shall most certainly take such points into consideration when we finally decide upon what happens to mobility allowance.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: I thank the noble Lord for that slight touch of encouragement. In view of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. However, I assure the Minister that we shall return to the point at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause:
("Attendance allowance.
In section 35(2) of the Social Security Act 1975, after the words "Attendance Allowance Board", there shall be inserted the words "as being a peiod of not less than 6 months or for the length of a person's life throughout which he is likely to satisfy the condition mentioned in-subsection (1)(a) above or that mentioned in (1)(b), or both, or".").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns people who are terminally ill. Attendance allowance is an important Department of Social Security benefit of £23, or £34.90 per week. It is paid to people who need a lot of help from another person because of mental or physical disability. Further, it is tax free and non-means tested. It is a vital benefit which helps people with disabilities. It helps those who are in a hospice or in a hospital and also—I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will support me on this—carers who are looking after such people in their own homes.
However, the law lays down that such people cannot apply for this benefit for six months. If such people are terminally ill, they need much more care. In fact, they very often need continuous care both night and day. Therefore the amendment seeks to allow people who need an attendance allowance to apply for it without waiting for the relevant period to expire.
It is impossible to put a group of people into a category and say, "These people can go against the provisions of the Bill because they are dying." First, there is just the outside possibility that they may not die; and, secondly, when people are dying their relatives sometimes feel that they cannot tell them this, or in some cases such people just do not want to know. Therefore I move the amendment with the hope that my noble friend the Minister will give it consideration. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, pointed out, it applies not just to people going to hospices but to the large number of people who are being looked after in their own homes. There is a special reason why it is valuable for such cases; that is that the invalid care allowance is dependent upon the attendance allowance. If a person has had to give up work because he or she is looking after someone who is terminally ill, he or she can get the invalid care allowance only if the attendance allowance has been awarded. That means, as the law stands, that they cannot obtain the allowance until the six-month period is up. That is a difficult period of time to span in those circumstances and in some cases it means that, by the time such people are eligible for the allowance, they are dead and the invalid care allowance is never given. I hope that the Government will find a way to accept the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: I too support my noble friend. I have a 91 year-old sister who is going through the six-month waiting period at the moment. Happily, she has the resources to pay and we arranged for ladies to help her in her own home so that she did not have to go into a home, which is so destructive for people of that age. I have seen some of them die
358
because they have been taken away from their own surroundings and put into a home.
I do not know about the costs, but if my sister had not had the resources we should have had to do something else. If there are those good places and those splendid people who will help, that is something which everyone should have the opportunity to use. As I understand it, the payment, when it comes is retrospective and so it is not as if the Government will save money only if people die in the interim. It seems to me to be rather cruel. If I am wrong about retrospective payment that puts a different complexion on it. Before we finish the debate, perhaps my noble friend will be able to clarify that point. I hope that great sympathy will be shown to the amendment or something similar.
The Duke of Norfolk: I understand that my Amendments Nos. 35 and 61 are grouped with Amendment No. 9, and I shall speak to them. The noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Seear, have covered some of the fundamental ground and detail of the attendance allowances. I want to call the Committee's attention to patients who have reached the terminal phase of cancer, AIDS and similar illnesses. The vast majority of those patients survive for nothing like six months and so they can never qualify for the benefit. St. Joseph's Hospice in Hackney operates an extensive medical and nursing service for patients dying at home. The average period of care by the home care service from referral to death is just nine weeks. This most valuable benefit for the chronic sick can rarely be paid to those whose sickness is mortal.
My amendment is a simple one. It introduces a new subsection to Sections 35 of the main Act. It will exempt dying patients from the six-month rule. The amendment draws a tight definition of those who will benefit. They must be suffering from severe and progressive incurable disease. They must be receiving palliative care. Palliative care is a euphemism for terminal care. It is a speciality of medicine recognised by the professional Royal Colleges. When curative treatments are no longer possible or practical against a disease which is progressive and ultimately fatal, palliative care is appropriate. It relieves pain and other distressing symptoms while accepting the terminal nature of the disease.
We use the term "palliative" rather than "terminal" because many doctors are reluctant to write the word "terminal" on a certificate which the patient might see. Although many patients are aware of their disease, the word "terminal" is too harsh and brutal. We have therefore drawn a tight definition to ensure that my amendment will apply only to patients in the last weeks or months of life, and who are so severely ill that they will never make the six-month gateway. We have drawn that tight definition because I am well aware of the Government's reluctance to see a change in the attendance allowance regulations which would open the floodgates to new claimants.
In another place, the Minister of State for Social Security said that to abolish the six-month rule altogether would cost the Exchequer £225 million in

359
a full year. My amendment, by contrast, is meagre. Dr. R. J. Donaldson of the Social Security Advisory Committee estimates that my amendment would cost £18 million in a full year. Moreover, the measure has potential savings. Such patients often need constant care and have to be admitted to a hospital or hospice if they cannot receive that constant care at home. The cost of maintaining a patient in a hospital bed is many hundreds of pounds a week. The cost of keeping a patient in a voluntary or NHS hospice is £600 a week. It is common sense and good value to care for dying patients at home.
The Social Security Advisory Committee has called for this change. Many members of the Committee did the same on Second Reading and on many other occasions before that. The amendment has the support of the Help the Hospice movement, the Hospice social workers and, unanimously, the many hospice doctors who have been consulted. Amendment No. 61 is consequential upon Amendment No. 35.
Baroness Jeger: From these Benches we should like to associate ourselves with the amendments which are now before the Committee. When estimating the costs and benefits, there are not just the savings which can be effected by keeping people at home but the unquantifiable gain in comfort and serenity at a difficult time. Hospitals can be horrible places for people when they are very ill.
We should not want to feel that the change was concerned only with people who had no prospect of living for six months. I know from experience as the wife of a doctor with a practice in the East End, that very ill people often live longer than six months. Unless we change the regulations, they will still have to wait six months before they receive any help. I know one case of a young man who had severe head injuries and brain damage as a result of a motor cycle crash. His parents were anxious to keep him at home, but they did not receive anything for the first six months. A good case can be made out for a change in the rule. I look forward to hearing positively from the Minister tonight.
Lord Kilmarnock: I support mainly the amendment tabled by the noble Duke. As some Members of the Committee will be aware, for the past two or three years I have had some connection with the problems caused by the AIDS epidemic. It is particularly in that connection that I wish to speak briefly.
There are two main points here. First, the six-month delay for attendance allowance, as has already been said, has the effect that the award of the benefit sometimes comes in on the very day on which the person concerned has died. Secondly, as my noble friend Lady Seear said, it also acts as a passport to certain other benefits. The one which in my mind is particularly relevant in the case of AIDS sufferers is the disability allowance. It is of great importance in supplementing the diet and extra expense with which people with the HIV are faced when they live alone or even at home with their families.
360
The effect of the noble Duke's amendment, if accepted by the Government—as I very much hope it will be—will be to speed up the process of opening up the further disability allowance. I hope that I may use this occasion for saying to the Committee that the lower disability allowance of only £13.70 a week is extremely inadequate for the category of people about whom I am talking. In many cases they need special diets, ranging in cost from something like £20 to £34 a week. The real effect is only brought about by the higher level of the disability allowance, for which the attendance allowance is one of the passports, but various other passports are required.
This is a complicated area of social security law, as the noble Lord himself will know better than many. In the process of supporting the noble Duke, I wish to ask one question of the Minister. I asked him some questions for Written Answer on both the disability premium and the attendance allowance. In his reply he said:
"My honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and the Disabled has promised to consider the detail of this premium structure in the light of his monitoring of the Income Support scheme and all the reports of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on disabilities in Great Britain".—[Official Report, 11/4/89; col. 240.]
In that reply the Minister spoke of the premium structure, which embraces both the attendance allowance and the disability allowance, as they are so intimately related.
I wish to take this opportunity of asking the Minister whether his honourable friend has proceeded any further in the review of the complex of benefits as they relate to the problems of people suffering from AIDS and living at home. As has already been said, when that is the case, there is a considerable saving made for public funds as opposed to hospital stays. I shall not continue on the AIDS point because it is not the specific subject of the amendment. If the noble Lord can give me some hope on this complex of amendments in that area I should be grateful.
7 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone that anyone with more than a drop of sympathy in their veins must be moved by the intention behind these amendments: to give help to people who suffer disability in the course of a terminal illness. Members on all sides of the Committee have spoken persuasively about the grim situation of those people whose illness progresses to the point where they satisfy the disablement criteria which govern the entitlement to attendance allowance but then die before they have completed the six-month qualifying period.
At this point I am afraid I must get slightly technical in order to answer some of the points as regards the circumstances under which the attendance allowance is paid. If I got her words right, I believe that my noble friend Lady Faithfull said that one cannot apply for an attendance allowance before there has been six months of disability. I can reassure her that that is not so, if she meant "apply". A claimant can apply before six months of disability but will not be awarded the attendance allowance until the disablement criteria have been satisfied for

361
the six-month period. But the earlier application will ensure that the benefit is paid as promptly as possible.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone asked about retrospectivity. As I said, the attendance allowance cannot be paid before the date of the claim unless an earlier supplementary benefit, or in these days an income support claim, was treated as an attendance allowance claim, which the rules say it can be. But if at the time of the claim the attendance allowance board or its delegated doctor decide that the disablement criteria have already been satisfied for six months, the benefit can be awarded immediately.
I shall come to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, in a minute. I am sure that those Members of the Committee who have spoken in support of these amendments will freely acknowledge that they are not the first to raise the issue with us. A little while ago the Duchess of Norfolk came to see me, with colleagues from the Help the Hospices movement. This was the latest of a number of occasions in recent months on which Ministers or officials have met people concerned about the problem. From the outset we have shared that concern and have therefore been thinking deeply and hard about a specific exemption for terminally ill people who would be eligible for the allowance, but for the qualifying period. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger.
I am the first to admit that it is an attractive prospect for solving the problem affecting terminally ill people in one fell swoop. However, abolishing the qualifying period for all people eligible for attendance allowance would cost £200 million. I am not sure that that would be right, bearing in mind that the attendance allowance has always been intended as a benefit for the long-term sick and disabled.
Making the money available for what we want to do rather than for what we do not want to do within the social security budget for this specific exemption is obviously an essential precursor, and our estimate of the costs, including consequences for income support and the invalid care allowance, is that they could be as much as £30 million. But securing the necessary money has been a minor consideration beside our concern as to whether a specific exemption would work in practice humanely and effectively.
The concern which we originally had for some long time was that there was no satisfactory definition of terminal illness around which an exemption could be constructed. But it has been put to us, and we now accept, that there is a consensus about what constitutes terminal illness. In broad terms that consensus is conveyed by the amendment and the new clause in the name of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. For that reason, I have to confess—and I hope that my noble friend Lady Faithfull will understand this—that I prefer the amendments of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk to that of my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
However, even if the definition exists and can be applied in the clinical selection of patients for hospice care, it is a different matter to apply it in
362
a benefit system based on principles of universal entitlement. Selection for hospice care is almost always accompanied by open recognition of the prospect of death and provides access to special services for the relief of distress—emotional as well as physical. But only a small minority of terminally ill patients receive hospice care each year.
What we need to do is to make sure that we reach all terminally ill people for whom open recognition of death and the support needed cannot be assumed. We have to consider whether it is the patient himself, his personal representative or his doctor who should initiate action inevitably involving difficult and sensitive judgments, more especially so when it entails an unequivocal statement that the patient is dying. We must also be careful to see that what my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk is seeking to achieve in his amendment is achieved in practice. We also wish to avoid what could be the distressing misunderstandings of specific exemptions.
Let me emphasise in mentioning these difficulties that I am not seeking to delay action on this important measure. But it is important to deal 'with the detail and the practical arrangements as well as the principle. The Committee will be relieved to hear that I shall not mention the OPCS report, except in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. He was asking about the OPCS report and how my now right honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled is getting on with his review. The answer is that he is getting on very well. However, that review cannot be complete until we have received the final two OPCS reports. However, I assure the noble Lord, as I assured the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, earlier, that this is on a very fast track indeed.
I shall now return to the amendment of my noble friend. Because we are not yet clear exactly how best to direct help to the people concerned, we think it would be premature to accept this particular amendment tonight. However, I can assure the Committee without equivocation that the Government have now resolved at the very highest level that the problems must be overcome, and that help must be given soon to the people specified in the amendment. I therefore give a clear declaration of intent that the necessary legislation will be laid in the next Social Security Bill, and that it will be implemented speedily thereafter. With this assurance, I hope not only that my noble friend, heeding my earlier words, will be able to withdraw this amendment, but also that my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk will feel it is not necessary now to move his amendments when we get to them.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I wish to ask my noble friend the Minister two questions. First, he said that anyone can claim the allowance, but it cannot be awarded for six months. Is that correct? I must say that if a patient is being cared for in his own home, and the person caring for him—I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, will agree with me here—has a very low income, that person has no option but to run into debt or, as my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk said, have the patient admitted to hospital.

363
That being the case, would it not be possible for a relative to apply for the attendance allowance, and for it to be handed over before the six-month period had elapsed?
Secondly, we were all very grateful to hear my noble friend say that the Government were sympathetic to those in this very difficult situation. We were also grateful to hear my noble friend give an absolute assurance that the problem will be dealt with in the next Social Security Bill, though I am simply appalled at that thought. The thought of dealing with this Bill is bad enough, and to have yet another one seems to me simply dreadful. However, there it is. When will the next Social Security Bill be introduced? I think my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk will admit that this problem exists now. If the next Social Security Bill is not introduced for two or three years, the situation will become extraordinarily difficult. Before we make a final decision as regards what to do with the amendment, I hope my noble friend the Minister will answer those points.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think it would be easier if I answered the final point first. I am not sure whether my noble friend Lady Faithful] was present when I said earlier that I had no doubt that the Committee could draw lessons from the past 10 years. My noble friend will remember that in the past 10 years, to the best of my knowledge and belief—no Member of the Committee contradicted this—there has not been a year when a Social Security Bill has not been introduced. While I cannot, of course, pre-empt the Queen's Speech, I cannot see why we cannot draw the lessons of the past into the future. I hope that that will help my noble friend.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ennals: I hope the Minister is not saying that he hopes there will be a Social Security Bill every year. That is a terrible thought.
Lord Skelmersdale: I have said what I have said. I think the Committee is in quite a strong position to accept my assurances. If that is not the case, I am sure that all Members of the Committee will leap down my throat like—perhaps I had better not mention any dogs at the moment, as they are a rather difficult subject on various fronts. However, I see the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is in the Committee.
The other question asked by my noble friend Lady Faithfull concerned the attendance allowance being claimed by a relative. That is ingenious, and we shall consider it in considering this whole matter. However, at the moment, even under these amendments, the attendance allowance rules will still state that the attendance allowance is to be awarded to the disabled person, and not to a relative. I hope that that helps my noble friend.
Lord Kilmarnock: Has the noble Lord considered that even if a Social Security Bill is introduced next year, which, on past performance, as the noble Lord has said, is extremely likely, a whole year will have
364
passed and that consideration will be of very little comfort to people who are terminally ill or their relatives at this present point in time, or indeed for the next twelve months? This is a relatively simple matter. Is there any reason, therefore, why, whatever substitute the Government have in mind for the amendment of the noble Duke, it should not be introduced at the Report stage of this Bill while we have it before us in this House?
Lord Skelmersdale: As I said earlier, I appreciate the feelings of all Members of the Committee, and especially the point that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has just made. However, I explained earlier that there are very real difficulties in the attendance allowance approach. I referred for example, to the difficulties of doctors outside the hospice situation telling a patient that he was getting palliative care. I know that is a euphemism for death within a very short period, but I do not believe that the great British public is stupid. I believe the real meaning of that phrase would get around very quickly. I want to do something, and quickly, but I want to get it right. That is the final message I wish to leave with the Committee.
Baroness Cox: I must declare an interest because I am on the council of management of St. Christopher's Hospice. I must say that this matter is regarded as one of the utmost urgency. What my noble friend the Minister has just said could be regarded with great dismay, given the fact that it will indicate a continuing period of quite appalling suffering for many people who are caught in this situation at the moment.
I wish to put a question to my noble friend. This question has been put to me by people who are very concerned about these matters. It relates to the principle of means testing. I should greatly value clarification and perhaps reassurance on this matter. I understand that at present the principle operates that one needs to have less than £500 savings in order to qualify for the allowance. Many people will realise that elderly people, and particularly those who understand that they are terminally ill, will want, for the sake of dignity and self-respect, to put a certain amount aside towards the cost of a funeral. Funerals cost, on average, about £700. Will people who wish to anticipate events and who, for the sake of self-respect, for the sake of dignity and for the sake of their families, put aside a certain amount for their funeral, disqualify themselves from help in this area? Many people would value clarification on that point.
Lord Skelmersdale: The attendance allowance is not means tested.
The Earl of Onslow: I wish to ask one question for elucidation. There are absolutely understandable difficulties as regards someone wishing to know whether he is terminally ill. That is a very real and major difficulty. However, I cannot quite understand why this provision is any more difficult at the initial discovery than it is six months afterwards. If we are going to say that people can obtain this allowance after six months—that is absolutely right—why can

365
they not have it immediately? I cannot understand why all the difficulties, which my noble friend rightly points out, should be any more difficult after six months than they are initially.
Lord Skelmersdale: The answer to that is that short-term sickness benefits are available in the social security system. Attendance allowance is always intended to be a special allowance for those who have proved to be long-term sick and disabled. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, with his great experience, can confirm that. The Committee is asking me in this special case—I have accepted that it is a very special case—to remove that long-term criterion. I am quite prepared to do that but, as I have said over and over again, I wish to get it absolutely right.
The Duke of Norfolk: Having put down my amendment, I received an immense groundswell of support from all sides of the Committee and also from many people outside who knew that it was down. We also had very sympathetic meetings with the Minister, and I fully understand now that the Government are looking at the hospice movement with great care and with a comprehensive force about its future.
I personally am very happy with the detailed assurances given by the Minister. I have been promised that there will be a social security Bill almost certainly next year and I gamble that there will be one. If there is, I am quite convinced that the Minister will put something in to my satisfaction. So I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Faithfull: While absolutely agreeing with the amendment of my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, I am dealing exclusively and only at this moment with Amendment No. 9, which is my amendment. Despite the fact that my noble friend has taken on board my ingenious suggestion of a relative, and in view of the fact that he has shown very great sympathy with this amendment at this stage, I will read in Hansard what he has said and think again and perhaps bring it forward at the next stage of the Bill. Therefore, at the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley: I wonder whether this might be a suitable moment to adjourn our discussion on the Committee stage of this Bill. I suggest that we resume at twenty past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Government and Housing Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.

International Parliamentary Organisations (Registration) Bill
7.22 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Montgomery of Alamein.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Register.]:
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("are in receipt of an annual grant-in-aid to").
The noble Viscount said: These amendments are, in fact, all related and I hope that the Committee will agree that I should speak to all of them as a group. In due course I shall have to move them separately, but I hope the Chair will agree that I can move Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 en bloc.
The Committee will recall that I explained at second Reading that these amendments were needed for technical drafting reasons. The objectives of the Bill are to set up a register of publicly-financed international parliamentary organisations which are in receipt of grant-in-aid to fund both the British and the international secretariats. In fact, it is these additional words about grant-in-aid that are included in Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 in Clause 1 and in the Title.
So far as Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are concerned, the deletions become necessary as the three organisations concerned are constituted and funded under entirely different systems and should not have been included in the Bill in the first place. I hope that those brief comments will explain what I have in mind, which I explained at greater length during Second Reading, and that the amendments will have the support of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: May I take the opportunity on behalf of the Opposition to welcome the amendments moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery. I am glad that he has been able to resolve the technical difficulties of this Bill, because its general aim—that is, to further the work of the Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association—is a thoroughly commendable one. I hope that we shall now be able to complete its passage through this House without delay.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur): May I say that I listened with great care to what my noble friend has said. I confirm that we have no objection; indeed, we thoroughly understand why he has put forward these amendments.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for their support in this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
In the Schedule:
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein moved Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 en bloc:
Page 2, leave out line 4.
Page 2, leave out line 6.
Page 2, leave out line 7.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein moved Amendment No. 5:
Line 2, after ("which") insert ("are in receipt of an annual grant-in-aid to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.28 to 8.20 p.m.]

Social Security Bill
House again in Committee.
Clause 9 [Extension to personal pensions of occupational pension provisions relating to the abatement of unemployment benefit and the meaning of "earnings']:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 9, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) The level at which occupational and personal pensions is subject to abatement of unemployment benefit shall be reviewed annually by the Secretary of State, the figure then being uprated in accordance with the Retail Price Index.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a fairly simple amendment, and I believe quite a modest one as well. The Committee will recall that, when we had a discussion in this Chamber on the last Social Security Bill, we had before us the proposition, which is now enshrined in legislation, that people who at the age of 55 and over received an occupational pension of between £35 and £66 per week would have entitlement to unemployment pay abated until the level of £66 a week was reached. It was felt that a person receiving a pension had no need for a total unemployment entitlement, despite the fact that many such people would regard themselves as available for work and still a part of the workforce.
We lost out on our amendments on that occasion with the result that that proposition is now a part of legislation. But it seems to me that the injustice continues in that the levels of pension, from £35 to £66 per week, have remained the same since 1981. In this Bill the Government are extending the arrangements in respect of occupational pensioners to people who have personal private pensions. In other words, making matters level between those who have occupational pensions from a collective scheme and those who have taken out individual private personal pensions.
Nevertheless, the £35 to £66 has remained the same since 1981 and that seems to be an injustice. All that we are suggesting in this amendment—agreeing, perhaps, that one cannot go back over the past—is that the figures should be up-rated regularly by the Secretary of State in line with the retail prices index. That would still mean that people who reach the age of 55 and had either occupational pension or personal pension provision would have their entitlement to unemployment pay abated. However, it would at least attempt to make a little more justice in that the figures would not be kept at the low 1981 level. There would be some alleviation because they would be increased in line with the retail prices index. That would be done on a regular basis.
I am not saying that the wording of the amendment is perfect. We on these Benches want to see the Minister's response to our submissions. I well remember that, when we had discussion in the Chamber on the last Social Security Bill with regard to this issue, there were a number of Committee Members who agreed that the £35-£66 should be reconsidered in line with the retail prices index, and they were not all on this side of the Chamber. In the light of that point, I hope that the Minister will feel disposed to look with some favour upon the principle of the amendment, even if he does not like the wording very much. I beg to move.
Lord Stallard: I think that the proposals in the Bill are much worse than that now, and certainly merit the reconsideration for which my noble friend has asked. Not only does the proposal now apply to unemployed people, but, as I understand it, under the 1988 Act, the age has been reduced to 55, so that is five years less. That was in an attempt to include women. We had to make sure that we catch everyone in the £35 cut-off.
As has already been said, the £35 limit has been here since 1980–81. If it were to be increased now and brought up, as it should be, into line wih inflation or whatever, it would now be about £80. That represents a tremendous difference for people in those circumstances. A person must be in those circumstances before that can happen to him. It is happening to people at that earlier age, before they have qualified for the retirement pension, if they receive a fairly small occupational pension. So many people will be put to even more hardship with regard to their benefit income.
The cruel thing is that, in the main, these are people who have accepted the Government's advice to take out personal pensions and to go in for all these plans. We have all been snowed under with

369
applications from every insurance company in the country, and abroad, requesting us to take out a personal pension plan. No one said that, if one takes out a plan, is thrifty enough, sacrifices enough and puts in enough money so that one receives a reasonable sum from it, one must lose a pound for every pound of unemployment benefit. No one tells that to the people when they are sold those schemes. It is being kind to say that it is a cruel thing; it is almost a con trick to try to push people. People have been pushed. It is a fact of life that a contract of employment now almost always includes a requirement to join an occupational pension scheme. One would not get the job if one did not agree to join the scheme. Those are the changes that have taken place. As soon as one joins the scheme, if one receives more than £35, one stands the risk of having one's benefit abated. That is the new word for "deducted" or "reduced". We now call it an abatement. It is a particularly unfortunate proposal.
I believe that the amendment is very mild. We are merely asking for the figure to be up-rated. I think that we should ask for the whole thing to be abolished, or at least not accepted, but it is too late now; as my noble friend said, it is water under the bridge. However, there is nothing to prevent the Government complying with this simple, modest amendment and at least to up-date the figure by the amount of inflation in the retail prices index.
I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the effects and implications of the measure on the people who can least afford it. Those people are already down when this happens to them and cannnot take much more. The least that the Minister can do is to recommed to whomsoever it concerns that we should increase the figure in line with the retail prices index.
Lord Skelmersdale: I think that there has been a slight misunderstanding concerning the basis of the amendment. I welcomed the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that she would not rake over the cold coals of last year's Bill, which is the 1988 Act. That did not last very long because she went on to refer to it, not at some length, but certainly in a significant portion of her speech, as did the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
As the noble Baroness said,it is a fact that anyone who qualifies for unemployment benefit can receive his benefit in full along with an occupational or personal pension of up to £35 a week. When his pension exceeds £35, unemployment benefit is abated at the rate of lop for each lop of pension. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, must accept that anyone who is on unemployment benefit and has an occupational pension is always better off than someone who is on unemployment benefit without an occupational pension under the current law. In order to bring parity into the situation, it was felt right that at this stage we should take up—as the noble Baroness said on Second Reading—an idea produced by the Opposition in connection with last year's Bill to bring in the clause and to put personal pensions on the same basis as occupational pensions.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Stallard: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I follow his reasons, but is he in fact saying that this deduction is really a tax on thrift? Of course a person who only has unemployment benefit is worse off than someone who also has an occupational pension. Is the noble Lord then saying that one should not have an occupational pension beyond a certain amount; if so, we shall take some of it back? Are the Government saying that one should not be thrifty? That is a strange policy for a government which are pushing occupational pensions.
Lord Skelmersdale: I was not saying quite that. The noble Lord made the point that these are very poor people, and I was responding by saying that they are less poor than some of the poorer people to whom is rightfully given their contributory unemployment benefit. I do not intend—and I do not think that noble Lords would expect me—to go into the arguments that we adduced in connection with last year's Bill.
Currently, some benefit remains payable up to the point at which the pension exceeds £91 a week for a person with a dependant, and £69.70 a week for a single person. Each year, unemployment benefit is up-rated in line with the retail prices index and—I think that this is where the confusion arises—everyone in receipt of benefit, including those with occupational pensions as high as £91 per week for a couple receives the full value of that increase. In addition, because the effect of the up-rating raises the upper level at which unemployment benefit is finally extinguished, each year a small number of people with occupational pensions which are marginally higher than the maximum level begin to receive some benefit.
The effect of this amendment will be to provide an enhancement to the annual up-rating for this specific group of unemployment benefit recipients. The Government's aim is to ensure that available resources are concentrated on those areas of greatest need. I cannot accept that it is right to use those limited resources on a group which already enjoys the support which a substantial occupational or personal pension provides.
I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will accept that those people who have part of their unemployment benefit abated gain each year from the rise in benefit rates. Therefore I hope that they will not see fit to press the amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I find that a rather unsatisfactory response. The noble Lord is saying that the unemployment pay is up-rated, which of course everyone understands. But that is not what we are talking about. We are speaking of people who have made a contribution and, as a result of that contribution, receive either a private personal pension or the benefit of an occupational pension.
I understand that in 1981 the amounts were set at £35 to £66 for a single person. Those figures of £35 and £66 have not been up-rated since 1981. For the life of me I cannot understand why it should be thought that they should not now be reconsidered. Since 1981 there has been a substantial increase in

371
the cost of living yet those basic pension figures have not been up-rated. It seems to me that unemployment pay, for which people pay contributions, is a quite separate issue from either a private personal pension or an occupational pension to which people have also contributed.
This often concerns people who have voluntarily taken redundancy and as a result have a lower pension than otherwise they would expect to receive. They still regard themselves as part of the labour market and are looking for work, and so on. That is the argument that we had the last time round on the 1988 Bill. I do not want to repeat the arguments that were produced on that Bill. From what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, had to say, it is clear that on this side of the House we still feel quite angry about the way in which it was decided to take account of those small pensions when assessing entitlement, and thus take many more people off the unemployment register. However I cannot see any argument for resisting my suggestion about up-rating figures that were regarded as all right in 1981, which is so many years ago. I just do not understand the argument at all.
I cannot accept what the noble Lord has said. At this hour of the night I shall not press the amendment; but I shall certainly think further about it and consider whether to bring it back again on Report. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Unemployment benefit: requirement to seek employment actively]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("actively").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I should also like to speak to the other amendments in the group; namely, Amendments Nos. 14, 17 and 18. With these amendments, we come to what I would describe as the centre or core of this Bill: the provision that the Government now seek to introduce that people applying for and receiving unemployment pay should actively be seeking work.
The Government's White Paper Employment for the 1990s acknowledges that most benefit claimants are keen to work but then argues that a significant minority lacks motivation and is not actively seeking work. It is suggested that some of those people may be claiming benefit fraudulently and not be available for work at all. However, even if they are looking for work the White Paper seems to imply that many claimants do not pursue vacancies with enough frequency, energy and determination.
As was said at the Second Reading debate, a number of noble Lords on this side of the House believe that the existing law on availability is already fairly stringent. As the law stands, availability is not a passive state. According to social security commissioners' decisions, which are now regarded
372
as basic instructions to officials who apply the guidelines, it is for the claimant to prove his availability for work on each of the days for which benefit is claimed, and that some active steps are being taken by the person concerned to draw attention to his availability. I repeat, that is not a passive state.
According to instructions given to supervisors in employment benefit offices:
"The question is not whether there is employment available for the claimant. It is whether the claimant is available for employment. If a doubt arises, the employment service will make enquiries to ascertain what active steps the claimant has taken to draw attention to his unemployment and his professed availability".
As was said at Second Reading, all new claimants are now requested to complete a form which is a very lengthy questionnaire designed to test their availability for work. From April 1989 this system will be administered by new client advisers. Claimants going to a restart interview now every six months are also required to fill in a further detailed questionnaire about their availability. It is quite clear that there is a substantial degree of monitoring taking place already in regard to people who are claiming unemployment pay.
Why therefore are the Government introducing this new wording? It seemś to us on these Benches that there can only be one objective, which is to try to ensure that people are forced into employment that is lower paid than they would want or for which they are qualified, and that to some extent they are harassed into jobs which are not suitable (and we shall talk about appropriate or suitable employment when we come to discuss other amendments). That seems to be quite unsatisfactory.
According to the Financial Memorandum attached to the Bill, the Government aim to save £100 million in a full year. It is therefore quite clear that they expect that certain people who are currently able to claim benefit will not be able to obtain benefit in the future. I do not think that there is any real evidence that a lot of fraudulent claiming is going on; nor do I think that there is much evidence that people who have been unemployed for quite a long time are not seeking work and do not want to obtain work. In fact all the evidence appears to point in the opposite direction. With those comments, I beg to move.
Earl Russell: Members of the Committee may know from that great work of history, 1066 And All That. of the form to be filled up at Warwick the Kingmaker's, which included the proposition that no one is ever really king but Edward Mortimer ought to be. Should one compose a similar document for social security? I suspect that it might be one of the rules that none of us is ever quite right but Mr. Frank Field ought to be.
I have been much impressed by the argument deployed by the honourable gentleman in another place. I agree with what he said. There is no objection in principle to the argument that the unemployed who are claiming benefit should be actively seeking work. The concern is about the measure in this Bill, put forward in this way, in this context. Even if one

373
supposes that there may be such persons as work-shy people, it is not the major problem. Nothing is done at the moment to address the problem of the unwillingness of employers to consider applications from the long-term unemployed. Were the Minister to give us an assurance that either in an employment Bill or in a future social security Bill we may find some attention given to that question, it could be a great deal of help to us.
Another matter that concerns me arises from the propaganda in favour of this Bill. It has given the impression that it might be possible to blame the unemployed for the amount of unemployment. Unemployment is a state for which, when it happens, a great many people find it tempting to blame themselves because that makes the situation explicable. Society finds it tempting to accept that explanation. In this context unemployment has perhaps a certain similarity with rape because there the victim is tempted to assume the blame and society is tempted to complicity in that assumption. Therefore to suggest that the unemployed should be pushed into putting in more applications because they might be to blame themselves is a little like an enactment that ladies who have been the victims of rape should be made to wear skirts two inches longer than everybody else. I can imagine the reactions to such a proposal.
If this requirement—which in itself is not necessarily bad—is to go forward, it should be put in a rather different context. There should be more attempts to persuade employers to take on the long-term unemployed. There should be more willingness to recognise that unemployment is not normally the fault of those who suffer it. A great deal of thought must be given to how the clause is to be administered.
I am deeply grateful to the Minister for the copy of the regulations. I have found that they have relieved some of my misgivings. I am very glad to read them. It seems to me that the Minister is still on a fork with this Bill. Either he administers it in a humane way, in which case it will not change very much. It will not produce a substantial reduction in the number of claimants. Alternatively, he administers it in a harsh way, reduces the number of claimants and produces a great deal of injustice. I do not see any way in which the Minister can get off that fork. If there is one I shall be glad to hear of it.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may put this point to him. All that is required is that employers should notify the Jobcentre of all vacant posts. People who are unemployed should be sent from the Jobcentre for posts for which they are qualified. We do not need this battle that seems to be going on about whether or not people are actively seeking work. What should be required is that they conform to the rules that exist. These provide that they have to take jobs which are offered them and for which they are qualified or they lose their benefit. The Government could move in that direction instead of the way in
374
which they are moving. Why are the Government not tackling the problem in that way?
Lord Stallard: I support these amendments. I shall not go over the arguments or the points that I raised on Second Reading. As has already been said, we consider that the word "actively" is unnecessary having regard to the various restrictions that already exist. I pointed them out at Second Reading. I do not wish to repeat them now. They are sufficient.
In moving the amendment, the noble Baroness pointed to the fact that the chief adjudication officer has judged that it is not in a passive state that a person makes himself available. He has to take active steps. The Government have then said that the phrase "active steps" has not been defined. There is then another form to fill in with 18 questions. Applicants have to have another interview to prove such active steps and to give the local adjudication officer time to judge whether or not the steps that have been taken have been active. Everything is in place to make sure that these work-shy individuals—as we are led to believe most of them are—are actively seeking work.
We on this side have never sought to defend work-shy individuals or to say that they should be other than actively engaged in seeking work. In fact it was an Act of a Labour Government that introduced most of these measures to ensure that people were actively seeking employment. It has also been said that it is not just the fact that people will have these restrictions placed on them but that, on top of these restrictions, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has pointed out, the employers place another one. Employers will not interview, let alone employ, the long-term unemployed. Employers put all the barriers up for interviewing long-term unemployed people. There are many obstacles in the way of such people. Employers who sit in this Chamber will recognise, and probably admit, that fact.
I understand that in a survey, out of a number of employers in this country who were asked, 50 per cent. said that they would not interview or employ the long-term unemployed for a variety of reasons. That is an area which can be looked at.
The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, has mentioned discrimination. The jobs that might be suitable, or could be made available, to long-term or other unemployed people, do not always go to the Jobcentre. They are advertised in elite journals which people who are unemployed could not buy anyway. Therefore they may have no access to jobs that might be available, or for which they could apply, because they are not told about them, and the posts are not available at the Jobcentre. That is another hindrance that is put in the way of people who are looking for work.
I read in a magazine recently the implication that the unemployed get used to living on the dole. They find out that the benefits are an adequate income on which to live. That is an insult to most of the genuinely unemployed whom I know. These are people who are eating their hearts out to obtain a job. They will go to any lengths to obtain a job. I mean that. They will travel miles in search of work. People come to London to find work but discover

375
that if they get a job they cannot find somewhere to live. All these problems are on top of the unemployment, both short and long-term. Nothing is being done about that. Yet we are constantly adding to all the other measures that exist already to make sure that these fellows are actively seeking work.
We are already doing all that is necessary to make sure that such people are actively seeking employment. What we are not doing is to make sure that jobs that they could do are actively available for people who are seeking them, as well as the housing facilities if they are fortunate enough to obtain a job. I support the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: Looking around the Chamber, I might be the only one who has been unemployed in his time. What I do not understand is why noble Lords opposite are homing in on the word "actively". Why is that so important? From what the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has just been saying, most of the people I know are actively seeking work, so why take exception to it? It seems to me that the amendment picks out a particular qualification which does not need amendment. People actively seek a job. They do not naturally take a position of this kind. It is possible that after a time they get terribly weary about seeking a job, but they are still potentially able actively to do so. The paper which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I have had from my noble friend on the Front Bench talks about the steps to be taken. They are all logical steps and that is what I understand the word "actively" to mean.
I do not believe that this is one of the words in the Bill that is worth attacking, because we are all agreed that the people concerned will seek work to the best of their ability and the word might just as well sit in the Bill.
Lord Stallard: The Government are not agreed. That is why we have put the amendment down. I am saying that people are actively seeking work and the noble Lord is saying the same. We know that most people are indeed actively seeking work, so why put the word in? If it is not there, we still understand what it means—
Lord Mottistone: Why not?
Lord Stallard: Because if one can say, "We do not think—and we have found some obscure regulation—that you have actively sought work last week: we are suspending your benefit", that will happen. A survey was taken of 1,000 appeals against suspension of benefit and 17:1 were found to be in error, but the benefit had been suspended. It can take anything from three to nine months to have that benefit re-instated. If it is re-instated, the fellow has won his case, but that is a long time, just because somebody said "We do not think you were actively seeking work". He was proved wrong at the end and we were right, but it has cost that man a lot of hardship and distress for himself, his wife and his family just because that word does not have to be there.
Earl Russell: I wonder whether I could ask the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, a very brief question? I take the points that he is making. What gets under the skin of a number of us on this side of the House is the imputation of the moral guilt of the unemployed. If we on this side of the House withdrew our opposition to the word "actively", would the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, join in trying to persuade the Government that one cannot explain unemployment by blaming the unemployed?
Lord Mottistone: We must not spend too long on this amendment. I shall talk to the noble Earl outside.
Lord Skelmersdale: Do I recognise the declaration of a truce between the noble Earl and my noble friend?
The current position, as I explained in one of my recent letters to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that claimants are required simply to be available for work. Without rehearsing all that I said in that letter, it is a fact that commissioners' case law allows that a claimant can establish his availability by doing no more than attending a Jobcentre. Existing legislation, therefore, does not ensure that unemployment claimants should actually look for jobs.
Availability for work, which would be the formulation left in the Bill were the amendment to be accepted by the Committee, does not embody a sufficiently strong element of positive action on the part of claimants to fit with the current labour situation. There are jobs to be had, but there is no explicit requirement for claimants to seek them out and secure them.
It is against that background that we have sought to include the word "actively" in the clause. There has been a little discussion between my noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in particular, on their belief that to a great extent people do actively seek work. Yes, I agree, but we have discovered from interviews by the counsellors in the Jobcentres that there are those who readily admit that they have not been actively seeking work. Therein lies the problem. If there are not as many as we believe there are, clearly we shall not make the savings to which noble Lords and the noble Baroness referred and which are mentioned in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum.
We think that it is right that a claimant should be able to show that he has taken step commensurate with his skills and experience, as well as relevant to the local labour market, in order to find work. If we did away with this word "actively", that sentence would be agreed by all members of the Committee. A person in that position should not simply sit back and wait for someone to offer him a job, nor should he make half-hearted or bogus attempts based merely on his wish to continue to receive benefit. He should continually be considering how best to find work and be ready to pursue every opening to this end that is reasonable in his case.
Do noble Lords really believe that it is acceptable that unemployed people should just wait for a job to materialise? I cannot believe that that is their position. The unemployed must look for work—how

377
else can they find it? And they must expect in return for benefit to look vigorously and repeatedly. It has been said before—and I say it again now—that it is a claimant's responsibility to find work. Taking responsibility in this way is a positive move, an active move, towards securing independence. It is a way of taking control of one's own destiny and I am sure we agree on the importance of this.
Of course we must help those who need it to find work. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Clearly putting pressure on employers, as the noble Earl suggested, is not right for a social security Bill, but it might be right in certain circumstances for an employment Bill. I take his point on that. The noble Earl will know that there is an employment Bill just around the corner. He might like to consider amending that perhaps in the way he desires. However, having said that, the Government take every opportunity to change employers' attitudes towards unemployed people. Noble Lords will have read my right honourable friend's recent White Paper Employment for the 1990s in which that is stressed very strongly.
There are barriers both of prejudice and lack of knowledge to overcome. We believe that the best way to overcome these barriers is not by legislation but by encouraging and persuading employers to amend their personnel policies where necessary. When taking details of vacancies Jobcentre staff—which is another way we attack this problem—try to persuade employers not to impose often arbitrary and usually unnecessary and pointless restrictions on the type of candidate they will consider. They try to convince employers that many unemployed people have valuable qualities and experience to offer. We all agree with that.
Of course we must help those who need it to find work. This is a role which the employment service carries out on a day to day basis. It will continue to offer advice in future to unemployed people and indeed adapt it to the new environment of the actively seeking work test. The employment service will certainly offer a claimant a job where it can and this will be a test of the individual's willingness to work. However, it does not test whether someone is doing all that he should himself to look for work. This is what we want to achieve.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, mentioned following up opportunities advertised in newspapers, for example. There is nothing unreasonable about that proposal. Indeed we have taken great pains to ensure that the provision is applied flexibly and fairly. When it comes to the regulations-making stage that will be quite apparent.
We intend to require that a claimant should take the type of steps which are likely to lead to the kind of employment which he has a prospect of securing and which are reasonable in his case bearing in mind a number of factors. What he will need to do will thus vary from claimant to claimant. This flexibility and sensitivity to circumstances is vital. Noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading have received a note summarising what we envisage that the regulations will say. A copy of that note is incidentally in the Library. These amendments strike at the heart of
378
a measure which has considerable support in the country and for which there is every justification.
I do not think that I can productively say any more in answer to the group of amendments proposed by the noble Baroness.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I do not believe that the Minister has anwered me. I put to him a method of dealing with this matter and I do not believe that it has been sufficiently explored. It is all very well for the Minister to say that the Jobcentre will inform the unemployed person of vacancies. I am suggesting a way in which the Government can make sure that unemployed people are aware of vacancies which exist in a particular area. It is by making arrangements for employers to inform the Jobcentre of all vacancies. That may well require regulations but I do not believe so. An agreement is required with the employers that that should be done. If such an agreement is reached, then whenever an unemployed person goes to a Jobcentre it can say where there are jobs. If there are no jobs, so be it.
At present, the Government are asking an unemployed man to spend a lot of money travelling around looking for jobs. That is not fair. On the other hand, if there are jobs which are available through a centre, there is a way of making sure that the unemployed person knows about them and a way for authority enforcing the requirement that he accepts jobs suitable for his qualifications. That is where attention should be focused. I am not satisfied from the Minister's answer that he sees the position in that way. I believe that it is a way of dealing with the matter.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have listened with interest to what the Minister said and I found it disappointing. He described what is happening now. If that is so, what is the necessity for a change in the wording as proposed in the Bill?
As I said on Second Reading, in the 1920s we had a similar definition; a "genuinely seeking work" definition. However, that test lasted only a few years because there was widespread opposition to it. People felt that they were being pressurised, that they were expected to look for work where plainly there was none and that the required tests were not satisfactory and humane. As a result a committee investigated the matter and in 1930 it recommended that the test be abandoned. It appears that in this form of wording we are going back to pre-1930. I find that to be quite unsatisfactory.
I do not accept what the Minister said because, if we are concerned only with making sure that people are trying to obtain work, such provision already exists. The "availability for work" test is no passive test. There are commissioners' decisions which make sure that people must fill in forms and state what they have done and intended to do, and there is restart counselling. There is plenty of monitoring of the unemployed. There are different situations in different regions. In some regions, no matter how you try, it may be difficult to find work. In other regions the situation might be entirely different.
There is also the demoralising effect on the unemployed when they live in a region with a high

379
level of unemployment and are expected to make masses of applications in the hope of obtaining a favourable response in order to qualify for unemployment pay. For all those reasons I feel disposed to press my amendment even at this late hour of the night.
9.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 49.

DIV1SION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Buckmaster, V.

McNair, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Russell, E.

David, B.

Seear, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Stallard, L. [Teller.]

Dormand of Easington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jeger, B.

Underhill, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

White, B.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Hemphill, L.

Beloff, L.

Henley, L.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hooper, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Carnock, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mountevans, L.

Colwyn, L.

Norfolk, D.

Craigmyle, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dormer, L.

Seebohm, L.

Dundee, E.

Selborne, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Faithfull, B.

Swinton, E.

Ferrers, E.

Trafford, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Harvington, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.13 p.m.
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 41, at end insert ("or is undertaking a course of training or education designed to improve the prospect of securing employment").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to improve upon the existing position, where at present, if someone is undertaking training or education for more than 21 hours per week, he is not eligible for unemployment benefit.
Having regard to the grossly under-trained nature of the labour force, and also having regard to the fact that people who are unemployed can greatly enhance opportunities for obtaining work if they are
380
trained and obtain qualifications or are well on the way towards obtaining qualifications, it seems only sensible to remove that limitation on the amount of time which can be spent in taking courses by removing the disqualification implied in the existing regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I wish I could be as brief as was the noble Baroness in moving the amendment but I am afraid I have a lot which I ought to say.
I am grateful, in speaking in response to this group of amendments, to have an opportunity to applaud the efforts of many hundreds of people engaged in voluntary work and to acknowledge the efforts of those who are striving to learn new skills to enhance their employment prospects. As regards people on courses of training and education, it is more than commendable that unemployed people spend their time usefully and perhaps gain qualifications which might help them to find work.
The current position is that an unemployed claimant can receive benefit while he is studying or training, provided he is still available for work. To qualify for benefit at present he needs to show that his commitment to the cause does not prevent him going to job interviews or taking up immediately any suitable job offers, which, of course, at present he does not have to seek actively. Once he finds a job he must accept it or risk a benefit penalty.
The amendment proposed by the noble Baroness would have the effect of enabling a person who is training or studying to carry on doing so despite having found a job, despite having accepted the job and simultaneously to receive unemployment benefit. I do not believe that that can be right.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Carter: I have my name to Amendment No. 20, which is grouped with the amendment moved. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could confirm the point about voluntary work. I had a letter from him only this morning and had I received it earlier I should not have needed to table the amendment. Will the noble Lord confirm that where a person is engaged in voluntary work that will be taken as evidence that he is available for and actively seeking work? If that is the case, I shall not need to move Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
Lord Skelmersdale: As I said in the communications to which I have already referred, I cannot countenance an exemption of voluntary workers from the need to seek work actively per se. However, I do regard it as reasonable for the adjudication officer, when considering whether a claimant has taken reasonable steps to seek work, to take account of the voluntary work undertaken. I think that is the confirmation that the noble Lord seeks.
Baroness Seear: I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, though not necessarily in the terms of this amendment. The noble Lord has agreed that it is highly desirable that people should undertake training and that any obstacles that are put in the way should be discouraged, not only from the point

381
of view of the individuals concerned but because we urgently need to train more people. The 21-hour limit is an unfortunate block.
I see the point about the need to be available for work, but would it not be possible for an amendment to be produced at a later stage which would embody the intention to encourage people to take on serious training while meeting the requirement that if a job comes along they can take it? I cannot see any difficulty in that. There are various ways to meet the problem. Training can be terminated or continued on a part-time basis. An arrangement can be made with the employer to have daytime release. There are many ways of getting round the problem.
If the amendment as it stands is unsuitable but the Government sympathise with its objectives, would it not be possible to find a way to overcome the objections? That would achieve the aim of getting more people trained. The noble Lord is aware that one of the discouragements in the employment training scheme, for example, is that there is not much money in it. People do not take up training because it is not worth it. We want to make training more worth while for the people who undertake it. If this conflicts with existing regulations, can we not see whether there is a way in which the aim of the amendment can be served while meeting the objections put forward by the noble Lord?
Lord Skelmersdale: We all agree with the need for training and the need to encourage training, but I am not sure that it is right to achieve this desirable end through the mechanism of the Social Security Bill and in the context of unemployment benefit. Having said that, I will most certainly take up the request put by the noble Baroness and have this matter studied much more fully than it has been.
Baroness Seear: In the light of that relatively encouraging response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations shall provide that if a person is deemed not to be actively seeking work he shall be given written notice of not less than three weeks, by a duly authorised person, before his benefit is withdrawn. At the same time, he should be informed of the appeal procedure.").
The noble Baroness said: The grouping for this amendment includes Amendments Nos. 16 and 22. Personally, I do not agree with Amendment No. 22 being grouped with Amendments Nos. 13 and 16. Therefore I propose, in moving Amendment No. 13, to speak also to Amendment No. 16 only. I move this amendment as a social worker. When a man falls out of work, or his benefit is stopped without warning, it causes tremendous family problems. Having worked in social services, when you are presented on a Saturday, Sunday or Monday—mostly a Saturday or a Sunday—with a crisis situation in the family, you cannot do what is best for that family. You cannot have a programme of preventive work.
I ask the Minister whether in regulations it would be possible, when a crisis has occurred and benefit
382
is likely to be withdrawn, for the local authority social services department to be notified so that it may help the man and the family and not take the children into care. Would it also be possible through regulations to work out a preventive programme with the family?
In addition, as regards regulations, will the man be notified of his right of appeal? In other areas of life, for example, in dealing with your bank, your account is not closed at once if you go into the red. You are given a good deal of warning. I am trying to remember when that last happened with me, but I cannot. At any rate, you do get a good deal of warning. I should not dream of pressing this amendment tonight because it is really a probing amendment for information.
I shall now speak to Amendment No. 16. It refers to people in whose family some rather serious event has occurred. It may be the death of a relative, a shock of some kind or even an accident. I believe it right that the man should be given three weeks' notice or some notice. The social services should be informed and the man asked to go to them for help and for a preventive programme to be worked out for the family. As regards these two amendments I am taking into account the whole family situation. One cannot look simply at the man: one must look also at his wife, the children and the family situation. At the end of the day, if a preventive programme can be arranged for that family, then the local authority, the state and the family will be saved a great deal of expense. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I want to try to kill three birds with one stone and to speak to all three of the amendments in this grouping. I wish to take them in the order of Amendments Nos. 13, 22 and 16. I can add very little to what the noble Baroness has said as regards Amendment No. 13. I would hesitate to describe anything that happens to a person on social security benefit as a bolt from the blue, but at least deprivation of benefit may be a bolt from the pale grey. I believe that deprivation of benefit is a severe penalty and it may have serious effects. They may be much more easily avoided if there is some degree of notice to give time to find a lost aunt in Dover, to appeal to a charity or to do any of the things that may occur to the person in question.
I believe that this amendment may save trouble in the long run. It may even produce a net benefit to public funds. It is a key point of Amendment No. 13 that it provides for giving the person notice of his right of appeal. Therefore it seems to be logically linked with Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 13 specifies that there should be 21 days' notice and Amendment No. 22 specifies that the appeal should be heard within 14 days. The Minister may wish to object to the time. However, there is scope for adjustment. What matters about the grouping of the two amendments is that the time allowed for the appeal should be shorter than the time elapsing before the deprivation of benefit. Some appeals are successful, and I do not see why people should suffer the severe penalty of deprivation of benefit for a cause which turns out on appeal to be unjustified.

383
Amendment No. 16 seeks to allow for special circumstances. As my noble friend Lady Seear said at Second Reading, it is a little unreasonable to expect people to go from the graveside to the Jobcentre. This amendment makes it possible to allow discretion for a small pause to recover breath in that journey when it is necessary to do so. It allows scope for exercising discretion about, for example, the effects of marital breakdown, or in the case of someone recovering from drug dependence or alcohol abuse, or recovering from the common situation which we were discussing yesterday of having to care for a dying relative. It lasts only for a defined period. If accepted, the amendment will make re-entry into employment a great deal easier and thereby improve people's chances of coming off benefit, something which should be welcomed in all quarters of the Committee.
Lord Seebohm: I agree entirely that one has to be responsible in matters of unemployment and the working of the system. I support the three amendments because unemployment is a horrible thing. As far as possible the system must try to preserve a human face. That is all the amendments seek to do. They do not make any great changes but seek to make the system a little more human.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have little to add to what has already been said in support of the amendments except that we on these Benches thoroughly support them. We agree with the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, that they give the Bill a more human face. It is compassionate to ensure that people are notified if their benefit is to be withdrawn and also that at the same time they are informed about how they should set about making an appeal. That is important to people in these circumstances.
This links with Amendment No. 22 because the appeal itself should be heard with all possible speed. Such people will not be well off or they would not be in this situation. The withdrawal of benefit can be a severe blow to them. For these reasons I support the amendments and commend them to the Committee. I hope that the Minister may feel disposed, if not to accepting them as they are worded, then at least to accept the feeling behind them. If he does not accept the wording perhaps he will come back with his own wording at Report stage.
Baroness Blatch: I rise tentatively to take a different view on the amendments. It is important to make the distinction between somebody who is not actively seeking work where the judgment made is a legitimate one and somebody in respect of whom an error has been made. That is why I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 22. Whether 14 days is the right amount of time I do not know, but where a judgment has been made that somebody who is unemployed has not actively been seeking work, it is important that the appeal should be heard and the judgment substantiated or not as soon as possible. I hope that there will be some sympathy for the proposal that the appeal should be heard quickly.
Where somebody is not actively seeking work we have to remind ourselves of the awful truth
384
that all benefits—whether for the disabled or the unemployed—come from the taxes of both the rich and the relatively poor in society. We owe it to everybody to ensure that those taxes are deployed properly.
The Bill as drafted provides a disincentive for people to disregard the need actively to seek work if they are unemployed. I think that where such action is positively avoided, there must be some kind of sanction. If three weeks' notice is given, followed by an appeal procedure—despite all the problems as regards the family which has been referred to by my noble friend Lady Faithfull—I believe that the way to avoid such a situation would be for the person concerned actively to seek work. That point must be borne in mind.
There is a way of avoiding the grief which would be put upon a family as a result of someone not actively seeking work: the person must actively seek work. Where an error has been made, I am entirely sympathetic with the contents of Amendment No. 22. I am not sure whether the period of 14 days is right, but I think that appeals need to be read and heard very quickly so that the situation is properly clarified.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: I disagree with my noble friend. I think that these amendments are right in principle, although I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that the wording could perhaps be improved. I think that the view just expressed by my noble friend is theoretical rather than practical. I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will give sympathetic consideration to these amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: I should just like to make two points before the Minister replies. We are also discussing Amendment No. 22 here, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that I should perhaps have included that in my speech. My up-to-date information is that appeals take between three and four months to be heard. This is really a very serious matter. I wonder—as I wondered in connection with other matters—whether some provision could be made by way of regulation to cover this situation so that such appeals would be heard much quicker than they are at present.
I must also say that I disagree with my noble friend Lady Blatch. Obviously she has not worked in a social services department where she may well have been presented with a family who had no money and four children. In such a situation something must be done and done quickly. It is far better in such circumstances to have a little time to consider the matter and make proper plans.
Lord Renton: As regards Amendment No. 22, I am afraid that it is not practicable to suggest that the appeals must be heard within 14 days. Let us suppose that the chairman of the appeal tribunal is taken ill on the morning of the case. What will then happen? I appreciate that there must be some flexibility; but these cases should not take a long time. However, just to enact it like this, I am afraid, would not be workable.
Baroness Faithfull: I think that what my noble friend Lord Renton said is rather strange. I say that because in such a situation there would surely be a vice-chairman who could take over. For example, in a court case if the chairman of the Bench is not present then the number two on the Bench takes his place. Therefore, I am not sure whether my noble friend's argument holds water.
Lord Renton: That is so, if the person is available. However, that is not always the case.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to those Members of the Committee who tabled these amendments because they will enable me to clear quite a lot of ground work. They will also enable me to give a good explanation of how we see Clause 10 actually operating.
Amendment No. 13 allows a claimant a period of at least three weeks' grace between a decision that he is not actively seeking work and its implementation; in other words, the loss of his benefit. It also suggests that appeal rights be made known to the claimant when an adverse decision is given. I can dispose of that secondary matter very quickly. It is already standard practice that attention is drawn to the appeal procedure whenever an adverse decision is given, and that will continue.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether the right of appeal is notified when an adverse decision is given. The answer is, yes; that is already the situation and, again, it will continue so to be. I wonder whether Amendment No. 13 has its genesis in a misunderstanding. When the claimant first becomes unemployed and goes along to the unemployment benefit office, he will be interviewed by an executive officer known as the "new client adviser". The adviser will discuss a number of issues. If a claim for benefit is then made he will issue general advice about how to actively seek work. Additionally, he will suggest particular ways in which, taking into account the sort of job being sought and other factors, the claimant may show that he is actively seeking work.
If later the employment service wonders whether a claimant is doing sufficient to satisfy the condition, he will be interviewed once again. Further advice on what steps should be taken may be necessary. Following that interview, the employment service officer will write on the same day concerning the details of the discussion, reminding the claimant of the suggestions made for possible future steps. Additionally, the letter will contain a reminder that the claimant has actively to seek work to qualify for benefit. Those are facts which the complainant will already have taken firmly on board; in other words, the claimant will know and be reminded of what conditions he needs to fulfil to keep the benefit.
I stress that at that stage benefit has not been stopped. If, however, even after all that advice and reminder of the conditions for benefit, the claimant fails to take such steps as are reasonable in his case, the question would of course be put to the independent adjudication officer for a decision. Since by then there would be genuine doubt about a claimant's entitlement it would not be right to
386
continue benefit and it would thus cease. However, the Committee will know that unemployment benefit is claimed and paid for a past period, so it is only a question of the immediate past period—in a typical case two weeks—that would be put to the adjudication officer. There is no question of payment for a future period being prevented. All the claimant has to do in subsequent weeks is to take sufficient steps, when his benefit will be paid once more.
Baroness Seear: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he raised an important point when he said that the claimant would have warnings, meetings, discussions and so on and that the matter would then go to the adjudication officer. In view of all those warnings, it would be assumed, before the adjudication officer's decision, that the claimant was guilty because the penalty would be inflicted before the trial had been held. That is an odd reversal of justice. Surely the man is not guilty until the adjudication has been settled. It would be odd if a court inflicted a penalty before the case had been heard, which seems to be what happens here.
Lord Skelmersdale: No. If we felt that that was an appropriate thing to do we would not turn the matter over to the adjudication officer at all; we would let the claimant adviser judge the issue. I agree with the noble Baroness that that would be wrong.
The claimant adviser, about whom I have been talking, would interview once, twice or perhaps three times and would have a doubt. He will not be allowed under the terms of the Bill to resolve that doubt. He will have to put it to an independent adjudicator. I am sure that that is right, which is why we wish to proceed in that way.
We have taken care to ensure that claimants are treated reasonably under the measure. They are given advice, both general and specific, and on several occasions they are reminded of the conditions of benefit. If after all that there is still a question about whether they are seeking work then, I repeat, it will not be the counsellor who makes that decision; the matter will be referred to the adjudication officer.
Baroness Jeger: I wish to be clear. The Minister said that those people will be given advice and information. Will they be given benefit during all that procedure?
Lord Skelmersdale: They will continue to be given benefit until the adjudication officer has made up his mind, in which case, if he makes up his mind in favour of the claimant, unemployment benefit will continue for the past period, but if he makes an adverse decision, unemployment benefit will stop; but only for the period that I have described earlier. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness.
With regard to Amendment No. 16, I hope that it is clear from the notes that I have circulated to Members of the Committee that our watchword is flexibility. The steps to be taken by a claimant shall be such as are reasonable in his case. Account may be taken of a variety of factors. Job search may be undertaken in a number of ways. In certain circumstances claimants will be deemed to have

387
satisfied the conditions. We shall have the chance to thrash out those issues when the regulations come before this place in due course for affirmative resolution.
The amendment is unnecessary. There is already the flexibility that I have outlined. By the same token, claimants will always have some action to take in the course of a week, even if only to check that the labour market situation is as it was when last investigated. However, it must be remembered that, just as the labour market does not stand still, so what is reasonable for a claimant to do will vary over time. As I have already explained, the claimant will be told of the ways of actively seeking work that are appropriate for him. If, either then or at a subsequent interview, or, for example, at a restart interview or another routine interview, a doubt arises about whether the claimant's job search is adequate, it will be the independent adjudication officer who will make the decision in this case.
I now turn to Amendment No. 22. There is currently no statutory time limit within which an appeal has to be heard by a tribunal. In practice, the time taken depends on a number of factors: for example, how long it takes for further investigations to be made on matters raised by the appeal; the length of time it takes the adjudication officer to prepare his formal submission to the tribunal; the time taken by the claimant to put in further evidence; and the administrative arrangements necessary to convene a tribunal and arrange a hearing. On that, I heard an interesting little interchange behind me. It involves, among other things, copying the appeal papers to the appellant and all the other parties to the proceedings and giving them the statutory 10 days' notice of the hearing. Therefore 14 days would be far too fast.
I think that the worry at the back of the minds of many Members of the Committee, especially that of my noble friend Lady Faithfull, is the financial situation of the families and children of unemployed men particularly, but of course it might be women. The unemployed person may be able to receive some money. There is currently a provision in income support legislation whereby a person who is required to be available for work but fails to show that he is so available can nevertheless receive benefit if he or his family would otherwise suffer hardship.
It is intended that income support legislation will in future provide for this arrangement also to apply to claimants who fail to show that they are actively seeking work. Thus it is not true that if people fail to satisfy the new condition they face destitution. Hardship payments of income support will be made, if appropriate.
Lastly, my noble friend Lady Faithfull asked whether local authority social services should or could be notified when the claimant is likely to lose benefit. No, I think it would be totally presumptive for the employment service to make the decision that, because a claimant was in danger of losing his benefit, his family was also at risk, for the reasons I have just given as regards the income support. It may be that the threat of loss of benefit results in
388
the breadwinner getting a job, or he may have other ways of supporting his family. Far from providing help and reassurance, as my noble friend hopes, such a move could well increase family pressures at a most difficult time. Moreover—and I think this is equally important—it would require a breach of the rules of confidentiality, which I think no one would like.
I know that I have not done full justice to these amendments but I hope that I have been able to say enough to explain the Government's intentions in this area.
Lord Carter: Before the noble Lord sits down, can he say what are the circumstances where the threat of the loss of benefit could help a person to secure employment? Can he explain that? I did not understand it at all.
Lord Skelmersdale: It could be that the threat of loss of benefit results in the breadwinner getting a job. If the counsellor thinks that it is doubtful whether the claimant is actively seeking work, as I have explained, he will refer the matter to the adjudication officer. That already happens in other areas of unemployment benefit, as the noble Lord will know. We know from experience that sometimes this is just the extra push needed for the unemployed person to obtain a job. That was the point I was making. I assure the noble Lord that I was not being devious.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord said that 14 days was far too short, and that may well be right. However, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said that her information was that the appeals often wait two to three months. That must surely be too long. Can the noble Lord tell us whether he has any information about what the median period is for an appeal to be heard? If so, and if it is as long as we have been told, surely it is worth while trying to make it a shorter period. No one should have to wait from two to three months, if that is the period of time involved. I have no idea what it is, but that was the period of time given to us.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I agree with the noble Baroness that that is far too long. I am surprised that from two to three months is anything but an extreme length of time in particularly difficult circumstances. There is no reason why the period should be two to three months in the case of seeking work. I am advised that, on average, the period is 17 weeks. That is still not very good, but it is slightly better—
Noble Lords: That is more than four months!
Lord Skelmersdale: I am as horrified as the noble Baroness and other Members of the Committee are to learn that. I shall obviously have to cross-examine my advisers and find out what on earth is going on. I regard this as a very serious matter indeed.
Baroness Seear: As I was given that figure, I wish to put something on the record. I find it quite astonishing that the Department of Social Security

389
has allowed that situation to continue without doing anything about it.
Baroness Faithfull: I wish to intervene in fairness to the advisers. The three to four-month period does apply. However, there has been a downward curve just lately.
Lord Skelmersdale: In defence of the department which I am proud to represent in this Chamber, I would say that the department itself does not organise appeals tribunals. Appeals tribunals come under the auspices of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. That is still no excuse, but it offers perhaps some excuse for officials who work so hard and so diligently in my own department.
While I am on my feet, I wish to correct something that I said in error earlier on the subject of when benefit ceases. After the claimant has received advice and warnings, if at a subsequent interview—which usually occurs, as I said, two weeks after the warning—he still appears not be actively seeking work, the matter will be put to the adjudication officer. Benefit will stop, pending that decision. I made an error on that subject, and I apologise to the Committee. I understand that I said that benefit would continue. However, that was wrong, and I apologise.
Baroness Seear: If the Minister was wrong about that, it is the case that the penalty is inflicted before the judgment, is it not? That seems to me an extraordinary way of conducting justice. That would not occur in a magistrates' court. Imagine fining a motorist for a parking offence and then taking him to court. Actually, that is a very bad example because if a parking offence has been committed that does occur.
Lord Skelmersdale: I still do not think that applies for the reason I tried to give to the Committee earlier; namely, that it is the adjudication officer who makes the decision. Once the matter is taken out of the adjudication officer's hands and goes on to further appeal through the social security system, that is a different matter. However, the matter is not prejudged in the sense that I believe the noble Baroness means. I shall have to study this exchange very carefully, and follow this up if I am wrong. However, I hope the noble Baroness and I are not talking at total cross-purposes, because neither of us would get any benefit—if I may use that word—from that.
Lord Trafford: I have listened to this exchange with interest and some fascination. Am I right in thinking that when a claimant is warned, and as that case goes to the adjudicator, the benefit ceases; but that if it is decided subsequently by the adjudicator that the warning was invalid, so to speak, the benefit is restored for that period of time? Then of course benefit will continue. If, however, the adjudicator decides that the claimant was unjustified, he does not get any benefit. The point which was discussed at cross purposes was that the decision is taken before the adjudicator has decided, and only if he decides in favour of the claimant is that period then restored to the claimant. I think that was the point that the noble Baroness and my noble friend on my
390
right were raising. Can the Minister confirm that, or perhaps he might write to us to explain definitively what happened?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, in the circumstances I had better write as a result of these exchanges.
Baroness Blatch: May I add to the list of questions that have been posed to my noble friend the Minister? First, it is a very serious business to stop the benefit of somebody who is unemployed. Therefore anything that can be done to speed up the process to determine whether it is a legitimate thing to do seems to me absolutely essential. All that we can do to speed up that process should be done.
But in view of the explanation that my noble friend has given about all the information and about the warnings and counselling that are given leading up to the recommendation or referral to the tribunal, it seems to me that, at the end of that period of counselling and of giving warnings there must be a fairly clear idea that somebody is not actively seeking work. Therefore, I would be interested to know the number of cases that end up at the tribunal that are found to be wrong referrals; in other words, where benefit had been stopped needlessly when the person was actively seeking work. I expect it is difficult to find that answer at the moment, but I should be very interested to know.
It seems to me that my noble friend has given a very comprehensive explanation of all the efforts made by the people in the Jobcentres which help a person to get back to the business of actively seeking work.
Lord Skelmersdale: The only response I can make to that is that it will be a rather longer letter than I originally intended.
Baroness Faithfull: I always hesitate to bring an exchange to an end. This exchange has been extraordinarily interesting and amusing, though it is a pity that it has been on such a tragic subject. But I am grateful to my noble friend for the long explanation. Perhaps it is our fault that we have not fully understood it.
I should like to say that I see his point that a case cannot be referred to the social services because of confidentiality. But if the adjudicating officer is informing an applicant that he can go to appeal, perhaps at the same time he might advise him to go to the social services for help or advice, bearing in mind the needs of the family. I shall read with great interest what my noble friend has said, and with that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 14 to 18 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 10, line 17, at end insert—
("(2C) If, in any case, a question arises as to whether a person is or was actively seeking employed earner's employment in any week, the adjudication officer shall determine that question in that person's favour unless he is satisfied that that person was not actively seeking such employment.").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 19 is of some importance to these Benches. The point is to

391
assert that those threatened with loss of benefit shall be deemed innocent until they are proved guilty. It is a basic rule of English law that penal statutes are to be construed strictly. I know that by the strict rules of common law loss of a benefit cannot properly be described as penal. Nevertheless in practice the effect is very much the same. So deprivation of benefit is something not to be undertaken lightly, wantonly or uninvitedly. It is a field in which injustice may occur.
Alleged failure to seek work may possibly be wrongly alleged. It may be alleged on inadequate documentation. The keeping of records by employers leaves a great deal to be desired. We are led to understand that the unemployed are supposed to keep the records. First, if they are homeless, where are they supposed to keep records? Secondly, a good many of them admit to having literacy problems. One in 10 of the unemployed in London admits to having literacy problems. Such problems may well limit the keeping of records. Should they be penalised for their limited literacy?
That is not a frivolous question. It brings back a memory seared into my consciousness. When I was eight, my father had to apply for a new ration book and signed it perfectly correctly as a Member of this House, "Russell". He was told that he must put a Christian name. He explained why not and was told that he was illiterate and therefore could not have a ration book. It was the "therefore" which was the alarming part. Fortunately, it so happened that John Strachey, the Minister of Food, was a personal friend and was prepared to listen to the story, but it was borne in upon me thus at a very early age that that sort of thing could have happened to someone who was much less well able to deal with it, and that there was no just reason for thinking that lack of literacy should deny one the right to eat. So I believe that the point about the unemployed's records not necessarily being adequate is one to be taken seriously.
If one should become entangled in the social security system and get on the wrong side of it, one may well find that one is in a situation sounding uncomfortably like something out of Kafka. That situation may be very difficult to handle, so all I ask the Committee is that, before we deprive someone of benefit on the grounds that he is not actively seeking work, may we try to make certain that we are quite sure? I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope that I need not spend quite as long on this amendment as I have spent on other amendments since we had dinner.
In making his decision, any adjudication officer, whether in the employment or social security field, must always be satisfied that, in the light of the facts of the case, it is the right one. It is of course subject to the normal appeals procedure—a point that I made earlier—which provides an additional safeguard for the claimant. The adjudication officer will weigh up the evidence and make his decision on the balance of probabilities. I am perfectly confident
392
that the standard, long-established approach of adjudication officers is quite suitable for the purpose of deciding whether the "actively seeking work" condition is fulfilled. I see no reason to make exceptional and, indeed, dubious arrangements for that sort of decision.
In passing, perhaps I may just point out that "is or" in the amendment is redundant since adjudication officers will be dealing with questions for past periods. Unless they are very exceptional, cases will not have reached the adjudication officer without the claimant having received counselling, advice and a reminder about the need to satisfy the condition. I applaud the noble Earl's concern for the interests of the claimant. In his usual witty way, he made a serious point, but I hope that there was not an implicit suggestion that the Government would seek to victimise people with such drawbacks as he described.
We do not want to impose unfair burdens on any claimant. That is why we have put forward the concept of a claimant taking steps that are reasonable in the circumstances. His abilities, the area of job search, the type of job being sought and so on will be taken into account. If the claimant cannot read or write we shall not expect him to write letters to employers or indeed to read advertisements in newspapers. However, he may be expected to enlist help from friends or agencies to carry out these functions. When I referred earlier to our very flexible approach, of course I included what I have just said in the appositeness of my word "flexibility".
Earl Russell: I must confess to finding that a somewhat disappointing reply. I take the points made by the noble Lord about the amount of care that is put into the system. The care does not always come through to the point of delivery and everything that the noble Lord said still stops short of a firm commitment to the basic legal principle that a person is innocent until proved guilty.
I did not intend to allege that there was a deliberate government desire to victimise. If I implied any such thing, I withdraw the implication, which I did not intend. Nevertheless, I believe that there is here a basic difference of approach, which emerged in the exchange between the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, about the threat of deprivation of benefit possibly having a useful effect. I think that it is an objective common to all parts of this Chamber to get people off benefit and into employment where possible. Where we differ is that the Government seem to think instinctively of employing the stick. Very often what we want them to do is to think sometimes of offering just a little bit of carrot as well. That principle underlies a great many amendments that are behind us and many that are still in front of us. However, though I am disappointed, at this time of night I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 22 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 10, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In regulation 12(1)(c) of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983, for "twenty-four hours" substitute "fourteen days".").
The noble Earl said: This amendment bears on the question of the provision of child care as it affects someone who is offered a job. It arises from a point made at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, and the Minister's reply. I thank the Minister for his letter on this subject, which is welcome and which I have read with care.
Though I welcome the Minister's letter, there is still a basic difference between us on this matter because he thinks that child care arrangements should be in place before a person is offered a job. It seems to me that, especially in London, this is simply not practicable. I do not understand how one can make adequate child care arrangements until the hours when one will be employed are known and one knows where one will be employed.
Combining a job with small children is at the best of times a problem of fox and goose and cabbage. But if, say, for the sake of example a parent has to travel from Clapham to Balham for child care facilities and also travel in the opposite direction from Clapham to Putney for work, there will be a very considerable problem. Moreover, suppose, for example, a person is offered a job working in the service of this Chamber. That person is likely to find that the hours for which child care has been arranged bear little relation to the hours of work. It simply does not seem to me to make sense to expect people to arrange for child care before they know the situation for which they have to arrange that child care. That is a simple and plain matter of practicality.
If it is once accepted that child care has to be arranged after an offer of employment, it seems to me that two weeks is by no means an excessive amount of time in which to allow people to look for it. After all, the care of one's child is something that we should like to see done properly. One does not wish to take on someone casually simply because they can solve an immediate problem. One wants someone who will look after the child concerned. It means that one needs to know a little about the person. That takes time. I hope that the Minister will consider this amendment with a degree of sympathy. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I should like to support this amendment, not least because of the totally inadequate amount of child care provision available. We are not talking about people who will hire a nanny—although that would take more than 24 hours. We are talking about people who have to try to find a place in a nursery. We know that the provision of places is so low—it is the lowest in Europe—that unless one is in the deprived categories, one will be extremely lucky if one gets one's baby in a nursery, let alone within 24 hours. It is totally unrealistic to think that people can find places for children in day nurseries in 24 hours.
394
If they have to put them into the highly paid nurseries—I have been involved on this subject only this evening—they may find themselves spending up to £100 a week. Therefore they have to be careful that they have a rather special job before they embark on such payment. It is quite unrealistic to think that one can arrange this within 24 hours.
Baroness Faithfull: I should like to support this amendment following the debate that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, initiated in the Chamber yesterday on the question of working women in particular having to find a place for their children before work. Members of the Committee will remember that the childminding association is going to set up a panel of child minders. Employers will be able to use this childminding service as they did with meal vouchers. However, such arrangements will take time. In our debate yesterday—perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, will confirm this—we said that we hoped that the interests of the child were paramount when a woman goes out to work. It takes time not necessarily to find a good childminder, but to find the right one for that child.
Also, if one is trying to put a child into a playgroup or nursery, one nursery will suit one child and another nursery will suit another. Therefore in the interests of child care I support this amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: From these Benches I should like briefly to support the amendment. I shall not add to what has been said so ably in its support. We had a comprehensive and good debate yesterday on the question of child care. It was agreed on all sides that child care arrangements in this country are quite inadequate. There are not enough child minders. Those who are available are often not registered. Therefore the mother will have to make many inquiries to make sure that the childminder on offer can provide sufficiently appropriate facilities. There is a lack of local authority provision and there are only very few workplace nurseries available. I believe that according to a recent survey about 20 employers were providing workplace nurseries. Those that exist are mostly in the public services. Therefore anybody looking for child care will have to spend quite a bit of time to ensure that the child care is adequate and appropriate for the child. The amendment is therefore most sensible. I hope that the Minister will see his way to accepting it.
Lord Skelmersdale: This amendment makes a pleasant change. It is not about actively seeking work but about the existing provision, availability for work. As I said in one of my missives to noble Lords, replying to various points raised at Second Reading, unemployment benefit legislation currently recognises, in the form of Regulation 12 of the Social Security (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations 1983, that it is in prescribed circumstances reasonable to give unemployed people a period of grace in order to arrange their affairs and still be regarded as available for work. Thus, if someone is claiming unemployment benefit and at the same time providing a service—by which is usually meant undertaking some voluntary work

395
or looking after a child or sick members of the family—he or she can be deemed to be satisfying the availability condition if it would not be reasonable to require him or her to make himself or herself available at less than 24 hours' notice to take up a job or attend an interview, which is another part of the thinking behind the noble Earl's amendment.
This is a common sense easement of the availability for work rule which provides that otherwise people must, quite rightly, be available to take up work or attend an interview at once. This amendment extends that reasonable period of grace to 14 days. It proposes that it would be proper for a person who is claiming benefit on the basis of being unemployed to carry on receiving benefit even though he or she cannot take up an offer of employment for up to 14 days.
I must confess that this puts me in great difficulty. I remind the Committee that unemployment benefit is for people who are out of work and seeking a return to work. To extend the period of grace for this group to such an extent is tantamount to breaking their link with benefit on the basis of unemployment and giving them a different kind of benefit altogether.
I accept the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said she made yesterday in what I believe was a very successful debate. Unfortunately I was in and out of the Chamber like a yo-yo and have not yet had time, because of preparing for today's debate, to read that Hansard. I most assuredly will.
Giving these people a different kind of benefit might well be appropriate and could be investigated. Perhaps at another moment we should investigate exactly that suggestion, but I believe that to extend unemployment benefit in those circumstances would not be appropriate.
Baroness Turner of Camden: The noble Lord was kind enough to send me and a number of other Members of the Committee a whole list of items which he said would be likely to be contained in regulations. Is he saying that among what are the reasonable circumstances of a case having regard to relevant factors and a whole list of other matters is included voluntary work? Does that include looking after people at home, looking after children or whatever? Would voluntary work cover that? I am referring to the list that the noble Lord was kind enough to send.
Lord Skelmersdale: Voluntary work means work outside the home, but this is exactly the kind of question that I welcome because I have made it perfectly clear that the regulations, the barest bones of which I circulated, are matters for discussion. We have not yet written the regulations, let alone reached the point of debating them. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for making that point. I shall have to take this away to think about whether it would be an appropriate method.
Baroness Seear: May I suggest another matter that the noble Lord may be thinking about while he is
396
cogitating on this issue? Let me take an example. It is possible that a person approaches an employer for work. He has been drawing unemployment pay. He has children to find a place for. He says to the employer that he cannot start immediately and he agrees that he will start on Monday fortnight. As he knows that the job is there and that he has been offered and accepted the job but that the employer has agreed, as many employers would (especially if the person has a skill that the employer wanted) that he will not start until Monday week or Monday fortnight, will his unemployment benefit continue for that period?
Lord Skelmersdale: I have to come clean with the Committee and confess to the noble Baroness that I do not know the answer to that question. I shall therefore have to take advantage of referring to this matter, perhaps in a subsequent debate this evening, in order to satisfy her.
Earl Russell: May I thank the noble Lord—
Lord Skelmersdale: I hope that the noble Earl will forgive me. If it was a week's delay, unemployment benefit would continue, I am advised. I take it from that that if it was longer than a week unemployment benefit would not continue.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for the care that he has taken. He has given the Committee a dense reply containing many careful points. I am honestly uncertain about exactly how far I am satisfied with it. It has been a long day and bearing that in mind I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. I shall read the Minister's reply with care.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 10, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In section 32 of the Social Security Act 1986, at end insert—
("(2B) Payments may also be made out of that fund in accordance with this Part of this Act of prescribed amounts to prescribed persons in prescribed circumstances to meet the reasonable expenses incurred in looking for work, starting work and travelling to work.".").
The noble Earl said: The amendment bears on the point that I recently made about the carrot and the stick. It is a poverty trap amendment and is designed to help people to get out of benefit and into work. But it is designed to do so by the carrot rather than by the stick. It deals with work-related expenses such as clothes, tools and so forth. They may be difficult to afford for people who have been unemployed and in receipt of benefit and who are perhaps extremely short of money.
With assistance it may be possible to afford such items in order to begin work and earn money, to pay taxes and benefit the Treasury and ultimately to become fully self-sufficient. It could be regarded as money well invested and a sensible use of money which will produce a decent and proper return to the satisfaction of all parties. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider it. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid that I must tell the noble Earl that I do not believe that work-related expenses are suitable for payment from the social fund.
We make prescribed payments from the social fund only in very well-defined circumstances which are susceptible to definition in regulations. Hence payments are made, in prescribed circumstances, for funeral and maternity payments and payments during very cold weather. They are all health-related and it is possible to isolate them for good reasons. They are single identified items which are suitable for the making of regulations. Otherwise, social fund payments are subject only to the Secretary of State's directions and taking account of guidance made according to the discretion of the social fund officer from an allocated yearly budget.
I do not wish to enter the enormous argument about the allocated yearly budget which occurred in respect of last year's Bill. However, given that there is one, the amendment could give rise to enormous unfairness.
But, leaving aside the point about regulations, the noble Earl may wish to urge that provision should be made for work-related expenses from the social fund, perhaps even by way of a loan. Discussions took place between the two departments concerned. They resulted in confirmation of our previous view. It was that these expenses should be excluded from the social fund for the following reasons.
First, such payments would be inconsistent with the purposes of the social fund. They are neither linked, as I have explained, with definable events like birth, death and cold weather, nor do they flow from the purport of the discretionary elements of the social fund; in other words, to provide money in art emergency so as to avoid serious risk to health or safety (crisis loans), to help people on income support to budget for large items of expense, or to help people remain in, or return to, the community.
Secondly, there are other sources of help. It is reasonable to expect a good employer to help with the cost of tools or protective clothing, or to provide an advance of pay towards travelling expenses. Moreover, the current benefit arrangements by which income support is paid to the unemployed two weeks in arrears will normally provide a person with enough money to tide him over to his first pay day. The Department of Employment itself runs a "travel to interview" scheme.
I could adduce other reasons for resisting the amendment. However, I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble Earl that I believe that it is inappropriate in form and also in its policy intentions.
Earl Russell: Government departments seem to be as addicted to the notion of categories as Aristotle himself. There is nothing that seems to produce a greater resistance than something which asks the Government to think again about the categories under which information is classified. However, occasionally evidence turns up which genuinely demands a reassessment of categories. I believe that this is such a case. I believe that if this amendment
398
were accepted, it would be extremely useful. I wonder whether rigid insistence on what is, in effect, tidiness of the filing system is a good and sufficient reason for rejecting it.
I take the noble Lord's point about good employers; but of course not all employers are good any more than all employees are good. I do not believe that our concern to get people back to work and off benefit should be entirely confined to those who happen to come across particularly good employers. I must confess that I am disappointed by that reply.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Earl withdraws his amendment, I just make this additional point. The Minister said that a good employer may do this, that and the other. He may well do, although a great many would not. However, no good employer will help a man looking for work. That is the point of this amendment.
People who have been out of work for a long time who are in the shabby trousers brigade with their shoes worn out do not turn up at an interview looking their best. Many people who have reached that stage do not find it at all easy to turn themselves out in an even reasonably presentable way in order to go for a job. No employer will help them with that. This is something which really should be looked at again. It may be that it is across the other side of the divide and concerns the Department of Employment, but this question has arisen regarding people on employment training. It is something which is quite important to the long-term unemployed. Many of them have become extremely shabby, and much too shabby to make much of an impression at an interview.
Earl Russell: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Requalification for unemployment benefit]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 10, line 27, after ("weeks") insert ("at least six of which are").
The noble Earl said: I am sorry to be so constantly on my feet, but there is a great deal in this part of the Bill. The amendment arose originally from the anxieties of Equity, whose members of course are employed in a very irregular pattern as is inevitable from the nature of the situation.
What concerns us is that in the Bill as it stands, there may be a disincentive to accept casual work. You take work for a few weeks and the job stops. You then find that your right to unemployment benefit is at risk. Anything which creates a disincentive to work is something which this Committee should view with some concern. The matter has been discussed at considerable length in another place. The Minister has given certain cautious expressions of sympathy. In a few moments

399
I hope that we shall hear whether any result has come of those expressions.
Although this amendment originates from the anxieties of Equity, it raises a question relevant to those concerned in all sorts of casual work, and there are a great many sorts of casual work. I believe that it is not always satisfactory to be in casual work, but it is a great deal more satisfactory than to be in no work at all. I believe that anything which has the general effect of discouraging casual work will not only penalise potential claimants but may also have a quite significant distorting effect on the economy because there are a number of casual trades without which we should be very much poorer. I believe that it would be very unfortunate to discourage people from going into such trades. I hope that we may have a small degree of flexibility in this area. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I move Amendment No. 26 and that the two amendments be taken together.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sure that if the noble Lord speaks to Amendment No. 26 that would be quite in order.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I gather that I should speak to the amendment rather than move it and that it can be moved formally later. I now recall that procedure.
I am sorry that it is necessary for me to speak at all at the tail end of what has been a long, tiring but not entirely unentertaining session in the course of which the Minister was neatly shot in the back of the neck by his own department. I hope that no such Chinese customs will be practised here in future. It certainly was not the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who committed the crime and she had no need to apologise to the Minister.
This is, to me, an important amendment and that is why I am sorry that it is being taken so late. It is important not only to me but to a large number of people. It has been the subject of an inverview with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who courteously received a delegation from Equity and expressed his sympathy. Unhappily, that sympathy has not been translated into legislative effect, and everyone knows that sympathy from a Minister, unless it is written into a Bill, is not of much value. Therefore, one brings forward an amendment to see whether one can translate sympathy into practical effect; and that is why I regard this amendment as important.
Having read the debate in another place, tonight I must seek to establish two propositions. The first is to establish the uniqueness of the group for which I speak, which is in a separate special condition. Secondly, I have to establish that in order to meet that special condition, this amendment is necessary and I shall endeavour to do that as quickly as I can. As to the special nature of the group that I represent, I should say now that not all are members of Equity, with which I have a long-standing connection as some Members of the Committee will know. It
400
also affects members of the Association of Cinematographic, Television and Allied Technicians.
The special characteristic of this group is that it comprises the last remaining pool of casual labour. At one time not too long ago there were three such pools: dock workers, domestic workers and workers in entertainment. Labour was drawn from these pools and the essential characteristic of such pools was enunciated a century or so ago by Sir George Alexander, the celebrated actor-manager of the time. He said that the economics of the theatre are founded on the proposition that the actor is normally unemployed. That is profoundly true. It is even more true today, 100 years later, than when Sir George Alexander first said it. When one refers to the casting directory to cast an actor, the assumption made is that the actor is available. That is true in eight cases out of every 10. Therefore, eight out of 10 Equity members are normally unemployed, available for work and are seeking work. It is a phenomenal figure which is not replicated anywhere else. It is a normal figure which has existed for years and will continue to do so while casual labour remains in this unique category and area.
The Government are perhaps attempting to reintroduce casual labour into the docks; but they have not done so yet so the uniqueness of the group which I represent continues. Domestic employment of the upstairs-downstairs type has virtually disappeared in the usual sense so that we have this unique group in entertainment, and that is why the amendment is necessary. The Minister seemed to take the point and to understand it. But, as I said, it has not been translated into legislation and hence this amendment.
The problem is that the group concerned—not only actors but singers, dancers, stage managers, walk-ons, theatre designers, choreographers, continuity announcers, professional broadcasters, stuntmen and ice skaters—is in the wrong category of casual labour. The vast majority of those members pay class one national insurance and they claim unemployment benefit when they are out of work.
If the Bill is left unamended this group will suffer much greater hardship over any other group as regards requalification for unemployment benefit. It is not because of the artistic nature of the employment but because of its economic nature. That is the point that I am seeking to make. The majority of Equity members' contracts are of much shorter duration than they were 100 years ago. The touring theatre has disappeared. The duration of stage employment has shortened. Now it is of one or two days' duration and there is fill-in work such as making videos, training films and producing voice-overs. Actors rely on such bread and butter work between more substantial employment.
But this work does not qualify and it is not regarded as requalification work. It is not long enough because it is not 16 hours. It may take one day for a commercial but it is short of the 16 hours needed for a week to count towards requalification. The problem cannot be got over that way by a series of short engagements. It is very rare to have a long contract and there are now only two areas where

401
that can be found. One relates to the National Theatre and the other to the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. There you can get a year's work at a time but nowhere else. In other situations the actor is working for the run of the play, which may be long or short.
I believe it is fair to say that most of the short-term employment today is found in television, films, radio, video work and commercials. These contracts are all of extremely short duration. Even the majority working on a BBC drama production will be employed on a one-week contract so that does not help a great deal in terms of requalification. That is precisely why it is necessary to have a year in order to requalify rather than the six months that is at present provided. Without that period there will be a position in which either people will suffer very considerable hardship or they will be driven out of acting altogether. You might say that perhaps there are too many actors already and that this would be no great disaster.
I venture to suggest that that is not true because the quality of our acting is extremely high. It is possibly one of the few areas in which we enjoy a uniquely high reputation in the world. The quality of our performance and acting would be severely damaged if more and more people found themselves unable to remain in this pool of unemployment because they can no longer draw unemployment benefit. That has been the custom in the past during the period in which they were, by the very nature of their employment, out of work. People have never liked to talk about it as being out of work, but as "resting" and so forth. It is not resting, but very hard work.
It is generally agreed that Equity members work very hard trying to get employment while they are out of work. They go for auditions and engagements, spending a great deal of time doing this kind of activity. Therefore, they have not got time to do anything else. If they are forced to accept other employment they cannot remain in the business; they are driven out of it. It is important that this amendment should be taken seriously.
I have made the first point and I can be fairly brief about the second. If this amendment is not carried, the national insurance contributions have to be satisfied as well as satisfying the 13-week rule, before requalification for benefit takes place. Equity members often pay high national insurance contributions on very short contracts. For example, a one-day commercial will attract a substantial class one deduction without helping at all towards satisfying the 13-week rule.
There is the very high national insurance contribution without any benefit arising in regard to the 13-week rule. Members may receive a repeat fee payment. That will not qualify in regard to the 13-week rule. It would be extremely difficult for the majority of actors and other performers to obtain a string of contracts adding up to 13 weeks, 16 hours a week, within a 26-week period. Amending this period to 52 weeks would allow for much greater flexibility, would relieve hardship and would do no
402
damage anywhere else. I hope that the Committee will agree to carry the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: I rise not to speak to the amendment but to comment on something said by the noble Lord. His reference to shooting in the back of the neck as being a Chinese custom was flippant and in thoroughly bad taste. To use it in relation to this debate was absurd and wholly inappropriate. I should like to think that the noble Lord would see fit to withdraw his comments.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: As the noble Baroness evidently cannot take a joke, I am happy to withdraw it.
Baroness Blatch: The joke was a very sick one.
Lord Skelmersdale: Unemployment benefit is intended to provide a measure of compensation to people who experience short, intermittent periods of unemployment between jobs. Those unemployed for longer periods are eligible to claim income support. This is a more flexible benefit which has no duration limit.
Anyone who qualifies for unemployment benefit can draw it for 312 individual days before his title runs out. To come back into title he has to show that he has taken up work again and done at least 13 weeks' work of 16 hours or more since title to benefit ran out. We see the purpose of this requalification test as being to show that a claimant is clearly back in the field for employment. The present test is too loose to do this realistically. Consequently Clause 11 proposes that, other than in certain special circumstances, the 13 weeks of work should fall in the 26 weeks immediately preceding a new claim.
The first amendment and to an extent the second one would undermine the purpose of the changes in this clause and would in almost all cases leave the position of individuals virtually the same as at present. We have already heard the argument that the clause is therefore unnecessary. Perhaps I can turn it back on noble Lords opposite. They should bear in mind that we are dealing here with someone who has already received 312 days of unemployment benefit. The Government consider that a recent clear return to employment is appropriate if such a person is to receive benefit for a further 312 days. We intend that regulations will enable the 26-week period to be extended by up to 52 weeks to take account of weeks where the claimant was unable to work because of sickness or maternity or where he was undertaking employment training or caring for an invalid.
I recognise that there are groups—the noble Lord spoke at length about members of the acting profession—for whom it has been argued that special treatment is necessary. I do not share that view. Although some of the work such people can obtain in their own line is characterisitically short-period contracts of no more than one day at a time—the point made by the noble Lord—I am not convinced that this should enable them to requalify for benefit on more favourable terms than other people. The basic principle, demonstrating a clear and recent return to employment, would be much diluted if

403
special arrangements were made which enabled them to achieve the necessary 13 weeks' work over a longer period. I appreciate that I could say a good deal more. However, at this late hour I do not think that it would be appropriate.
Lord Carter: Although I had not intended to speak in connection with this amendment, perhaps I may put one question to the Minister before he sits down. It occurs to me that the problem could also apply to gang workers in agriculture. They often have to take casual work for short periods of time. Have the Government given any thought to that problem?
Lord Skelmersdale: My attitude would be the same as it was in regard to the amendment tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. I should perhaps repeat what I said only a few minutes ago. We are dealing here with someone who has already received 312 days of unemployment benefit. Therefore it is a rather different situation to that which both noble Lords envisaged when they asked their respective questions.
Earl Russell: I must apologise to the Minister for having been absent from the Chamber during part of his reply. That was due to circumstances beyond my control. I was, however, a little disappointed by what I heard of his speech. It seems again to be a matter of categories and also of principle.
I am reminded of a Cornish village carpenter who, having examined the roof of a building, shook his head and said very sadly, "Oom! One of the principals is rotten 'm." I think that a principle which has the effect of discouraging people from actively seeking work is one which sits a little uneasily with the basic thrust of the part of the Bill which we have just been discussing.
Nevertheless, this is not the time, and nor are the circumstances right, for me to press the matter to a Division. I also think that it would be highly improper for me to do so when I missed a significant part of the Minister's reply. Having missed it, the very least I can do is to afford him the courtesy of reading what he said. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("26") and insert ("52").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move. As I have already spoken to this amendment—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe): As the noble Lord has already spoken to this amendment, it is quite sufficient for him to move it formally.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: That is true, but, unfortunately, I have some further remarks to make in this connection. I think it most important that such remarks should be made, as I wish to elicit from the Minister what is his attitude to the present situation. However, before I begin, perhaps I should
404
say that I should be most content if the Committee were to rise after this amendment has been dealt with and before we consider Clause 12. If that process were to be agreed, I should be most happy with the solution. I see that the channels of communication are in agreement on the matter. Therefore we know that this is likely to be one of the last speeches made in regard to this section of the Bill.
I shall endeavour not to make my speech too long, but there is an important point that I wish to raise with the Minister. Therefore, if Members of the Committee will bear with me for a few minutes, I should like to establish that point. I refer to Clause 11 (2B), which states:
"Subsection (2) above shall have effect in prescribed cases with the substitution for the reference to 26 weeks of a reference to such longer period as may be prescribed".
What is the meaning of this provision?
We are seeking, by way of this amendment, to establish a period longer than 26 weeks. Does the provision mean anything at all? Is it the intention of the department that there shall be, under certain circumstances, a period of 52 weeks; a period shorter than that; or, perhaps, a longer period?
What is the purpose of the clause? If it means nothing at all, why has it been included? On the other hand, if it does mean that under certain circumstances 26 weeks can in fact mean more than that peiod, or even up to 52 weeks, then perhaps we really have something here. If the Minister will only say what it is, or if he can at least undertake to say to me, or to Members of the Committee generally, what it is, then it may be that we can put off the final decision tonight and return to the matter, if necessary, on another occasion. Perhaps he will be good enough to clarify the situation, in which case it may be possible for me to withdraw the amendment. Without such clarification, I do not believe that I can.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I gather that the amendment has been moved, and it has been called that it has been moved. The Committee is clearly becoming tired at this late hour.
Noble Lords: No.
Lord Skelmersdale: Some Members of the Committee are, because I thought that I had already dealt with that point in my previous reply. All I can usefully do to help the Committee is to repeat what I have already said. The 26-week period can be extended in certain special circumstances. We shall specify only those circumstances in the regulations for which Clause 11 provides power. It will be helpful if I again explain that we intend that the regulations will enable the 26-week period to be extended by up to 52 weeks to take account of weeks when the claimant was unable to work because of sickness or maternity or when he was undertaking employment training or caring for an invalid. The 26-week or six-month period could thus, in the individual case, become 18 months in circumstances where the claimant was for certain periods prevented from

405
working. I hope that that explanation helps the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I am afraid that that does not meet my requirements. Late though it is, I am afraid that I have no alternative but to press the amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Lord Henley: Perhaps this would be a convenient moment at which to adjourn discussion in Committee. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
International Westminster Bank Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

United Medical and Dental Schools Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.

  IRAQ: ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF KURDISH HUMAN RIGHTS
  IRAQ: ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF KURDISH HUMAN RIGHTS
  HONG KONG: DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOCRACY
  HONG KONG: DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOCRACY
  NATO: US COMMITMENT
  NATO: US COMMITMENT
  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL: ADMINISTRATION COST
  SOCIAL SECURITY BILL: ADMINISTRATION COST
  MR. L.E. OSMAN
  MR. L.E. OSMAN
  MENTAL HOSPITAL BEDS
  MENTAL HOSPITAL BEDS
  DISPENSING DOCTORS: PATIENT TRANSFERS
  DISPENSING DOCTORS: PATIENT TRANSFERS
  RADIOGRAPHERS: TRAINING AND SUPERVISION
  RADIOGRAPHERS: TRAINING AND SUPERVISION
  MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS: PCN SCHEME
  MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS: PCN SCHEME
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
  RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL
  DIOXINS: DoE REPORT
  DIOXINS: DoE REPORT