Sitting of 8 March 1989

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

    Pol Pot
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts the United Kingdom is making in international fora to prevent the return to power in Kampuchea of Mr. Pol Pot.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The surest way to keep Pol Pot and his cronies out of power lies in a political settlement in which Cambodians elect a government of their choice. That is a principal objective of all our policies.
    Mr. King: In thanking my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, will he accept that most sane-thinking people would not welcome the return of Pol Pot and his murderers to run that tragic country? What action is being taken to follow my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's proposal that the five main members of the United Nations Security Council should work towards a settlement?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend's condemnation of Pol Pot, which is why I expressed our objectives so clearly in my original answer. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's proposal is one of a number of ways in which we are seeking to carry forward the search for a settlement. I discussed the matter a couple of weeks ago with the Chinese Foreign Minister in Tokyo, and it is clear that discussions—for example, between China and the Soviet Union—are helping to advance the process. We have placed the topic on the agenda of the Five at the United Nations and they will carry it forward when they feel that it is appropriate.
    Mr. Mullin: Is it not the truth that, far from attempting to prevent the return of Pol Pot, China, America and Thailand—with the active acquiescence of the Government—have spent the past 10 years supplying food, guns and diplomatic recognition to the Khmer Rouge? In what way is that designed to keep the Khmer Rouge out of power?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Britain was, in fact, one of the first to withdraw recognition from the Pol Pot regime. The policy which we and others share at the United Nations and elsewhere on the seating of the coalition Government of democratic Kampuchea does not in any sense mean recognition as a Government or support for Pol Pot. That
    878
    is not the position, either, after the United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolution after resolution condemning the atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge.

    Warsaw Pact
    Mr. Boswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent political developments in the Warsaw pact countries.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Soviet Union, Poland and Hungary have taken welcome steps to liberalise their political and economic systems. That is in stark contrast to the situation in Czechoslovakia and Romania.
    The openness of all countries in eastern Europe will be tested at the negotiations just opened in Vienna.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Does he agree with me that eastern Europe is far from a monolith and that countries are proceeding towards political pluralism at different rates? Will my right hon. Friend support the advance guard, castigate the laggards to whom he has referred and tailor the Government's policies accordingly?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's approach, which is why I drew that distinction in my original answer. The record of Romania for flagrant disregard of her conference on security and co-operation in Europe obligations is the worst in the Warsaw pact. I made that extremely clear when I saw the Romanian Foreign Minister in Vienna on Monday.
    The performance of Czechoslovakia is also far from good. We have spoken regularly to the Czech authorities—most recently after the imprisonment of the playwright, Mr. Havel.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: I share the Foreign Secretary's welcome for developments, especially in Hungary, but will he ensure that the European Community responds as positively as it can to those developments in encouraging trade between the Community and central European countries?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely right. The establishment of relations between the Community and Hungary has gone further than those with any other eastern European country. Hungary established the first trade and co-operation agreement with the Community and is certainly the most worthwhile interlocutor of the Warsaw pact countries.
    Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there would be faster political progress in eastern Europe if east European countries were allowed to opt-out of the Warsaw pact?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The important feature is that political progress is taking place in those countries notwithstanding their continued membership of the Warsaw pact. Their membership is a matter for determination between the Governments and it is important that continued membership should not inhibit the progress that is taking place in several of those countries.

    Middle East
    Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British-Israeli relations in the light of the recent visit to Israel by the Minister of State the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave).
    Mr. Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) to Israel.
    Mr. Burt: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): My visit to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan included a constructive discussion of the peace process with my various hosts, and underlined the enduring strength of both Anglo-Israeli and Anglo-Jordanian relations.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Did the Minister have time to discuss with the Israeli Foreign Minister, Itzhak Rabin, his plan to hold democratic elections in the West Bank to provide some suitable representatives of the Palestinian people with whom talks can proceed?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I spoke to the Israeli Foreign Minister who is Mr. Arens, not Mr. Rabin. Mr. Rabin's plan was one of the principal topics of the detailed discussions that I had and we talked through the implications of it with the Palestinians and with the Israeli Government. The Palestinians, as is well known, are extremely suspicious of moves that they see as involving them in elections that would not be properly free.
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend's efforts for peace in the middle east will be warmly welcomed by all sides of the House. While true friends of Israel have never been afraid to offer home truths to that country, does my hon. Friend recognise that the same should also be true of those who are counselling the rather recently converted Palestinian Liberation Organisation? Does he agree that it should be urged to use all its influence to prevent further disturbances on the West Bank and in Gaza because true evidence of peaceful intent will be needed to convince understandably cautious Israeli public opinion?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is very important to urge restraint on all sides. I make a distinction between military, armed terrorist activity, which is out of the question and which I urge the PLO leaders to condemn—we all know that there are factions within the Palestinian movement which are trying to undermine the new, more moderate position of Mr. Arafat—and the intifada. I made it clear to all the Palestinian leaders that I met that the intifada should be pursued with the utmost restraint, but I believe that it is an expression of solidarity among Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza, which no single man could, of his own will, call off.
    Mr. Nellist: No doubt the Minister is aware that I was in Israel and the occupied territories in the week preceding his visit—we probably crossed at Ben Gurion airport. Apart from the slightly dubious pleasure of being detained and questioned for an hour by senior intelligence officers
    880
    from Shin Bet at the Ramla maximum security prison I spent much of my time talking to doctors on the West Bank. When the Minister met Defence Minister Rabin did he express to him the outrage felt by working people in this country about the iron-fist policy pursued in the territories? That policy has resulted in seven Israeli soldiers being injured, one being tragically killed, and 11 Israeli citizens killed, compared with more than 400 Palestinians killed and 20,000 injured. That figure includes a six-year-old girl from the Gaza Strip who was shot in the head when I was there. Did the Minister express the outrage felt by working people in this country about that occupation policy?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I congratulate the hon. Member on his escape. In the past we have made protests, and I made further protests, about the handling of the intifada. When I was there I visited Nablus, which was under total curfew. By chance on the same day the Israeli Prime Minister described the West Bank as being "liberated", which seemed a little bizarre to me.
    Sir Dennis Walters: The United States Secretary of State was reported the other day as having said in Vienna that the time was not yet ripe for a middle east peace conference. Will my hon. Friend and the British Government do everything in their power to persuade the United States that after 22 years of illegal Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and increasing repression of great brutality, the time for such a conference is not only ripe but over-ripe?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is the responsibility of all who wish to see a successful outcome that we do not raise impossible expectations of the speed with which events will unfold. We all want to see progress, but it is obvious that the United States will take some time to formulate their position and any moves, towards a conference or anything else, must be carefully prepared. I made that point to Palestinians and they were receptive to them.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister accept that, unlike any other country in the area, the Israeli Government are accountable to the electorate? Even if, as in Britain, the electorate makes a most serious mistake, its views must be taken into account. In those circumstances, will the Minister consider, if and when he again visits the middle east, that it will help a Government to come to the negotiating table if a person who comes as a visitor to that country does not criticise publicly the Government who receive him within that country and in a neighbouring country?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I make the distinction that Her Majesty's Government have made it clear in the past that the intifada is being mishandled, that serious mistakes are being made and unnecessary suffering is being caused. I did not, however, spend my time criticising Israeli policy in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman described. My host, Netanyahu, described our meetings as being a friendly non-meeting of minds. That is more or less the truth.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Did my hon. Friend, on his very impressive visit to the middle east, discover whether the current Israeli Government accept resolution 242? In view of our Government's justified insistence on obtaining from Mr. Arafat a pledge that he accepts resolution 242, will

    881
    they, before or during talks with Mr. Shamir, establish clearly that he pledges himself to the implementation of that United Nations resolution?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend puts his finger on one of the new complexities. Within the broadly based current Israeli Government—a Government of national unity—there is, clearly, a variety of positions on that point. Mr. Shamir is on record as saying that the return of Sinai meets resolution 242. That is not the view of others in the Government and it is not the view of Her Majesty's Government. I am not sure that I am much the wiser on that point.
    Mr. Steel: May I congratulate the Minister on his constructive visit to the middle east? In view of the depressingly negative utterances of Mr. Shamir on peace prospects, do the Government have it in mind to revive the European Community initiative?
    Mr. Waldegrave: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the troika of the European Community has been conducting useful discussions and has met Mr. Shevardnadze, which was a new and welcome development. All our efforts are made within the framework of European Community policy and we are not trying to launch a private initiative of our own. We shall be discussing and mutually sharing the results of a variety of recent visits by Community leaders to the area.
    Mr. Latham: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his helpful, valuable and constructive visit to the middle east? Will he emphasise that perhaps the important visit and meeting recently has been between Mr. Arens and Mr. Shevardnadze? Is it not essential, if the Soviet Union is to continue to take a constructive role in middle eastern matters, that it should re-establish diplomatic relations with Israel as soon as possible?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am especially grateful for the support of my hon. Friend. He is right to say that that was an important meeting. Mr. Arens gave me a full account of it, for which I was grateful. Although there were many positive aspects to the speech that Mr. Shevardnadze made the next day, Her Majesty's Government do not find easy to accept one or two aspects of it, such as the question mark raised by the legitimate existence of Israel being made conditional on the acceptance of the rights of Palestinians. That was not helpful—nor was talk of sanctions against Israel. However, we welcome elements of current Soviet policy, such as the steady move towards multilateral talks, the pragmatic approach and the helpful pressure which, to some extent, Mr. Shevardnadze put on Syria.
    Mr. Kaufman: During his visit to Israel, did the hon. Gentleman learn, as I did two weeks ago when I addressed a conference of 1,000 Israelis in Jerusalem, that a growing body of Israeli Jews favour dialogue with the PLO, as was shown by the 53 per cent. in the latest opinion poll who say that they want that? Does he agree with Mr. Abba Eban, who said at the conference that I addressed, that it is a remarkable innovation for one country—Israel—to seek to nominate not only its own participants in the negotiations but those of the other side also? Does he further agree that Mr. Shamir's truculent attitude in his interview on BBC television is not only damaging to Palestinian interests but to Israeli interests, and that the
    882
    only sure way of ensuring Israel security is not to suppress Palestinians by force but to talk to Palestinians about making peace?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Once again, I associate myself fully with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I met many people in Israel who were open-minded when discussing practical ways forward and who wished for a sense of movement in Israeli policy. I also met many within the Likud who said the same thing. There is a prospect of movement in Israeli policy and the best way for those who are friends of Israel to foster that is not to talk in terms of pressure or sanctions against Israel, but to work with those who are leading the way in that direction in Israel. I took the precaution of having lunch with Mr. Abba Eban before going to Israel, although his name is something of a red rag to the present Israeli Foreign Ministry, and he said many wise things to me that were along the lines quoted by the right hon. Gentleman.

    Vietnamese Refugees
    Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other Governments in order to resolve the problem of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have recently made representations to 21 resettlement countries urging them to increase the number of Vietnamese refugees they are prepared to take from Hong Kong. We have ourselves undertaken to resettle an additional 1,000 Vietnamese refugees in Britain, and have secured significantly increased commitments from other countries at the same time.
    Mr. Grant: Given the Chinese Government's insistence that the problem should be resolved before 1997, when Hong Kong reverts to Chinese sovereignty, what timetable does the Secretary of State have in mind for dealing with the remaining 10,000 refugees in Hong Kong? Will he give the House an assurance today that there will be no compulsory repatriations of any refugees?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Clearly, it must be the intention of us all to ensure that the problem of the Vietnamese boat people has been resolved well before 1997. It is a topic in which the Chinese Government have taken a helpful interest in some respects. They have taken back to China a number of refugees of Vietnamese origin. They are also doing all that they can to encourage boat people en route not to proceed with their journey along the south China coast towards Hong Kong because it is important to check the inflow which has threatened to overwhelm Hong Kong in recent months. It was for that reason that we introduced the screening policy and those who have been identified as non-refugees have no prospect of resettlement elsewhere. Therefore, unless they are to stay indefinitely in detention centres in Hong Kong—they are being improved as much as possible—it must be recognised that their long-term future rests in Vietnam.
    Sir Peter Blaker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend pay tribute to the moderation with which the Government and people of Hong Kong have dealt with this difficult problem? Does he know of many countries that are nowadays prepared to allow unlimited immigration to economic migrants? Will he confirm that the screening of the economic migrants from the genuine refugees and the

    883
    repatriation of the economic migrants will be conducted in consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Hong Kong Government and people for the way in which they have accommodated a massive increase in the number of arrivals. About 18,000 people arrived in 1988. That has put a major strain on their resources and they have responded with voluntary as well as governmental help on a magnificent scale. As I said, they are bringing forward their programme to liberalise conditions for those who have been accorded refugee status and to move residents away from unacceptable buildings which still exist.
    The screening policy has been introduced after consultation with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It is being conducted in accordance with guidelines worked out with that organisation, and it is important for us to continue doing that. The same kind of policy is now being adopted in other parts of the world, not least in the United States in relation to arrivals from central America.
    Mr. Eastham: I note the Foreign Secretary's remarks about the increased numbers whom the United Kingdom is prepared to take. May I, on behalf of the small number of refugees who have been accepted by this country, make a special plea on behalf of families who are divided? Hon. Members will be aware of the representations that we receive from families who have been divided for eight or 10 years and who are still waiting for permission to be reunited. Will special attention be paid, in relation to the additional 1,000 whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned, to the need, where possible, to reunite families, especially those who have been divided for many years?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's humanitarian concern. The commitment of which I reminded the House represents a doubling in the rate of acceptance of Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong into the United Kingdom. Since 1975, we have taken about 20,000 Indo-Chinese refugees of whom 13,000 were Vietnamese from Hong Kong. Only the United States and Canada have taken more, so we have made a substantial contribution.
    As for particular cases of reunification, our proposed new commitment would widen the eligibility criteria for resettlement cases, but specific cases would need to be considered by the Home Secretary.
    Sir Hal Miller: In relation to the Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in Hong Kong have difficulty in understanding how those people are admitted when refugees—if that is the right description; "would-be entrants" might be a more neutral term—from China, including their own kith and kin, are not admitted and, if found, are deported?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That factor is powerfully in the minds of the people of Hong Kong. A substantial number of arrivals from what is called mainland Hong Kong are returned to China each year. That happens, I have no doubt, because of the recognition of the severe overcrowding in Hong Kong. For that reason, such an urgent case was presented by the Government and people
    884
    of Hong Kong for us to do something in the face of the dramatic inflow of Vietnamese boat people. We have done something; we have introduced the new policy for screening out the non-refugees and we have enhanced our willingness to accept them.

    Cocaine
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what co-operation is being achieved through the United Nations to tackle the threats from international trafficking in cocaine.
    Mr. Eggar: A United Nations convention against illicit drug trafficking adopted last December will strengthen international co-operation to combat cocaine trafficking. The United Nations fund for drug abuse control finances major assistance programmes in all the principal cocaine producer countries.
    Mr. Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is important for the Government to seek the consent and agreement of foreign Governments to reach agreement on taking the assets of drug traffickers? What success, if any, have the British Government had in getting bilateral agreement with other Governments to put a stop to this vile trade?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In fact, we have already signed six such agreements, the last one being at 10.30 am today when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary signed an agreement with Switzerland. We are in the process of negotiating with 20 other countries and we are in contact with another 20. During my recent visit to Guatemala and Costa Rica I had discussions with the authorities about the possibility of reaching agreement with them.
    Mr. Rathbone: While I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on the lead they have given internationally in controlling drug trafficking, can my hon. Friend tell us what efforts have been made particularly to encourage other European and Commonwealth countries to sign the United Nations convention?
    Mr. Eggar: We constantly point out the need to sign to the relatively few countries that have not signed. Some 43 countries signed when the convention became available. I also had discussions with central American and Latin American Governments about the need to move towards ratification of the convention as soon as possible. With regard to other co-operation with the United Nations, next week my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I will meet Miss Joan Anstee, who is in charge of United Nations bodies in Vienna connected with the fight against drugs.

    Nicaragua
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that the Nicaraguan Government are committed to introducing democracy.
    Mr. Eggar: The Nicaraguan Government committed themselves in the Esquipulas agreement to introduce democracy. On 14 February President Ortega freely

    885
    entered into further specific undertakings to introduce democracy. It remains to be seen if those commitments will now at last be fulfilled.
    Mr. Martin: In so far as Her Majesty's Government can exert pressure on the Nicaraguan Government, will my hon. Friend continue to impress upon them that we shall take those pretensions to democracy more seriously when the rights of opposition parties are respected in that country?
    Mr. Eggar: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Nicaraguan Government have committed themselves, in the Esquipulas agreement and on many subsequent occasions, to introducing democracy. Their record so far has not been impressive. Indeed, it is significant that they have not succeeded in introducing democracy. That significance is recognised by the fact that President Ortega himself had to enter into specific agreements in the San Salvador agreement.
    Mrs. Mahon: The Minister spoke of the Esquipulas agreement. What pressure did he bring to bear on the Government of Guatemala on his recent visit to central America about their gross violations of human rights and the need for them to keep to that agreement?
    Mr. Eggar: I had extensive talks on human rights with both the Foreign Minister and the Home Minister of Guatemala. I also met the human rights procurator. We were requested by the Guatemalan Government to help them by providing assistance on human rights matters. I discussed with them the conclusion of the United Nations special expert who has recently reported to the human rights commission that in his view there is no intention by the Guatemalan Government to abuse human rights.
    Mr. Foulkes: Since the Nicaraguan Government declared a ceasefire, they have engaged in constructive dialogue with all opposition forces, and they have allowed even the hypercritical La Prensa to publish freely; above all, they have brought forward free elections to February 1990, fulfilling all the requirements of the central American peace plan. Is it not extremely unfortunate that last week in San Pedro Sula, as he has done again today, the Under-Secretary of State repeated parrot fashion an out-of-date Washington line? Will he now at last get up to date, recognise the progress in Nicaragua, support the peace plan and the peace initiative, help to ensure that the Americans stop aid to Contra terrorists and ensure that all the Contras are removed from Honduras as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Eggar: Of course Her Majesty's Government support the peace process. That is why we signed the agreements following the San Pedro Sula conference. Under the Nicaraguan constitution, the army, the police and the judiciary owe allegiance not to the state but to the Sandinista party. It is perfectly reasonable for me to point out that that is not in accord with what I understand by democracy and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not agree.

    France
    Mr. Gow: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current Anglo-French relations.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had useful talks with President Mitterrand at the Anglo-French summit meeting in Paris on 27 February. The two Governments consult closely on a wide range of issues. There are numerous ministerial and other contacts between the two countries.
    Mr. Gow: Was it not General de Gaulle who described the proper structure of the European Community as "Europe des patries"? Would not the general have approved warmly of the Prime Minister's speech at Bruges? Is my right hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the Bruges speech matched by that of the present President of France?
    Mrs. Chalker: I note the comparison that my hon. Friend makes, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it quite clear at Bruges that Britain's destiny is in Europe. I am not quite sure whether General de Gaulle always saw things in quite the same way. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we must concentrate on practical matters, working for greater unity but avoiding restrictive uniformity. Perhaps President. Mitterrand might agree with that rather more than President de Gaulle did.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Did the Minister raise the question of France's soaring rates bill, running into thousands of pounds for property owned in London? Did she mention that debt, bearing in mind that in Scotland individuals who refuse to pay the poll tax receive threats to seize their property and arrest their wages? Does she intend to have a warrant sale at the French embassy?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am quite sure that if the French Government owe the British Government any money it will be paid. We shall ensure that it is.
    Mr. Curry: While I welcome the recent agreement for the exchange of officials between Britain and France, does my right hon. Friend recognise that the degree of co-operation between Britain and France and Britain and Germany is a shadow of the co-operation between France and Germany? Will she take all possible steps to improve the quality and extent of that co-operation?
    Mrs. Chalker: Indeed, Sir. I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that an exchange of diplomats at first secretary level is starting in the autumn. I hope that that will be increased and that we shall have not only diplomatic exchanges between the two countries but business exchanges, scholarly exchanges, which already exist, and exchanges between schoolchildren.
    Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Lady described the Prime Minister's talks with President Mitterrand as useful. Was it not indeed useful that President Mitterrand sent the Prime Minister away with a flea in her ear when she tried to enlist him in her dangerous cause to modernise short-range nuclear weapons to circumvent the INF treaty? Is it not equally satisfactory that Chancellor Kohl has given the Prime Minister the same unceremonious brush-off? Why is Britain's the only Government in NATO or the Warsaw pact who are actively planning to increase the world's stock of nuclear weapons?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has been concentrating so much on the middle

    887
    east recently that he has missed something. France is currently modernising her own short-range nuclear missiles. Like us, she understands that obsolete weapons do not deter, and President Mitterrand said at the summit that NATO should modernise if the Soviets are doing so. The Soviet Union has conducted a massive modernisation of nuclear forces during the past decade and I have absolutely no doubt that France is pursuing her policy of deterrence in a sensible way, just as we are.

    Consular Assistance
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British citizens detained abroad required consular help in 1988; how many of these faced criminal charges; and what was the total cost of providing assistance.
    Mr. Eggar: One thousand, eight hundred and fifty two British citizens were reported to us as having been arrested in 1988 on criminal charges, including 441 in connection with drugs. Those detained briefly for minor offences are often not reported to us. No specific figures are available on the total cost of consular assistance in those cases.
    Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the British people are sick and tired of lager louts, layabouts and hooligans dragging the name of this country through the gutters of the world? Is it not about time that those layabouts who seek consular services paid for those services through direct debits from their wage packets, their social security payments or from their parents and so removed the burden from the taxpayer once and for all?
    Mr. Eggar: I understand my hon. Friend's very strong feelings about this matter. A very small minority of British citizens behave disgracefully abroad and give the country a bad name while making life difficult for other British tourists in the same resorts. I have made it clear on many occasions that with regard to requests for consular services, we will put people who have got into trouble as a result of their own activities at the bottom of the list and we will help those who really need help first.
    Mr. Heffer: When the Minister considers these problems, will he distinguish between the lager louts from Tory areas in this country and genuine people who may get into difficulties and who are in no way connected with the lager louts from the Conservative areas of this country?
    Mr. Eggar: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we help those who need our help.

    Namibia
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implementation of United Nations Security Council resolution 435.
    Mrs. Chalker: We look forward to implementation of the United Nations plan for Namibian independence, which is due to begin on 1 April. We are contributing a signals unit to the United Nations transition assistance group.
    Mr. Colvin: The House will be aware of the importance of so-called linkage in connection with the implementation of resolution 435—namely the withdrawal of Cuban and South African troops from Angola. The South Africans have gone. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that 70 United Nations observers under the leadership of a Brazilian general are sufficient to verify the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola? Does she see any role for the United Kingdom—which is impartial with regard to Angola—as head of the Commonwealth, in the process which will lead to reconciliation in Angola and to free and fair elections in that country, which we all want to see?
    Mrs. Chalker: The United Nation's secretary-general recommended that the United Nation's Angola verification mission—UNAVEM—should consist of 70 monitors. We have full confidence in his judgment that UNAVEM can verify the withdrawal. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of peace in Angola. It is very difficult to see how lasting peace can be achieved without internal reconciliation. We continue to be in touch with all the African leaders who are best placed to mediate in this matter and we hope that there will be reconciliation soon.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Minister assure us that she is maintaining the closest possible contact with the changing leadership in South Africa to ensure that genuine Namibian independence can be secured and that that can be the first positive step towards further genuine moves to ending apartheid in South Africa?
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes indeed. We shall monitor what happens very carefully, because, as the hon. Gentleman has said, we believe that a successful progression to independence in Namibia may give us further clues about the way in which apartheid can be ended all the faster in South Africa.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend assist in the holding of an informal forum or meeting of all the parties that will be contesting elections in Namibia prior to the election process getting under way, particularly if there is considerable support from many countries throughout the world for the holding of such an informal conference as a way of achieving national reconciliation in Namibia before the election campaign gets under way? Will the United Kingdom encourage such a development and perhaps facilitate the holding of such an informal conference?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am not sure whether the United Kingdom has the specific role that my hon. Friend suggested. We understand that there may be as many as 46 parties campaigning in the Namibian elections and I honestly do not know whether, with refugees returning to Namibia all the time, it will be possible even to arrange an informal forum such as he suggested. The important thing is that the observers who will be there—all 800 of them, compared with the 460 originally envisaged—ensure that there are free and fair elections. Another 1,150 civilian monitors will be present during the election campaign. Given those preparations, and because we so much want independent Namibia to be a success, it would not be right to prescribe a special sort of conference, which, as my hon. Friend well knows, was not part of United Nations Security Council resolution 435.
    Miss Lestor: Is the right hon. Lady aware that two of her hon. Friends and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and I have just returned from a conference in Madrid that was held by western European parliamentarians of all parties and members of the front-line states, at which much concern was expressed about South Africa's biased activities against SWAPO in relation to these elections? It is very important to have observers not only at the time of the elections but between now and the elections, and that many people go to observe what is taking place both before and after the elections, up until April when the process is finalised.
    Mrs. Chalker: I am most interested to hear what the hon. Lady says. I hope that she will tell me in detail about the conference that she attended in Spain. I am well aware of the allegations. As she knows, the implementation of the United Nations plan is a matter for the United Nations secretary-general and his staff, in whom we have every confidence. We have seen the SWAPO reports and have also heard a number of other reports about what may be going on. It is important that the negotiations, which have established a joint commission to investigate these allegations, be allowed to continue. The joint commission should look into all allegations in order to ensure free and fair elections, which we all want.

    Israel
    Mr. Norris: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).
    Mr. Norris: I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend on his conduct during his recent visit to Israel. It would be a tragedy if the attitude of the Government were interpreted in Israel as either deliberately combative or unhelpful. The Government's attitude should be—and I understand that it is—based on the profound belief that long-lasting security for Israel will be achieved only through a peaceful solution. In that context, when Mr. Shamir refers to the occupied territories as the liberated territories, he moves back the peace process.
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is absolutely essential that those who wish to help in this area do not contribute to the sense of isolation in Israel, which sometimes causes the problem. Those who wish to take forward the peace process must be able to assure Israel that there is no question about her security. We find it difficult to understand why a peace structure based on treaty with her neighbours, together with her formidable armaments, will not enhance her security, and why it should undermine it.
    Mr. Galloway: Does the Minister accept that, with the possible exception of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), the whole House was greatly impressed by, and admired the skill, clarity and courage of, the statements that the hon. Gentleman made on his trip to the occupied territories? He
    890
    walked there in the distinguished footsteps of his predecessor—the present Minister of State, Department of Health—and more than filled his shoes.
    In spite of what the Minister said about a perceived danger of Israel feeling a sense of isolation, is it not clear that the words that he spoke in Israel and which the Government continually speak about this issue are falling on deaf ears? How many more deaths, how many more broken bones and how many more snubs to British Tory Ministers will it take before the Government decide to get a little tougher with Israel to push it to the negotiating table?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I do not want to misinterpret the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), who does not seem to disagree with the content. of what I am saying but wants to monopolise its expression himself. I repeat what I said earlier: I do not believe that it is a matter of exerting pressure or threats against Israel. The one thing that Israelis do not respond to is threats. On the other hand, those who really want a secure and permanent future for Israel should not be backward about trying to follow through the arguments to explain why we take a different view from that of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
    Mr. Dykes: At the risk of overdoing the praise, which is justified, may I add my words of congratulation on my hon. Friend's outstanding and memorable visit to Israel? He struck a balance between obvious sympathy for the historical and actual position of Israel and the need to persuade the Israeli authorities to take the peace process further.
    Was my hon. Friend able to convey to the Israeli Government the essential truth that if a proper international peace is achieved, Israel will have a 1,000 per cent. guarantee of its total security in the future, as opposed to being at odds with the entire international community?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. All who have the long-term interests of Israel at heart should be saying what he said, which is that she can exist in a fortress of armaments only for a limited time. Doubtless she can exist like that for many years, but permanent peace and the freeing of all the talent that Israel now has to put into armaments for channelling into all the other things that David Ben Gurion and others saw as the real vision for Israel all depend on Israel working with her neighbours.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the Minister aware that some of us who have consistently supported Israel's right to peace and secure borders over the years are sad that the Israelis have not responded to Yasser Arafat's declaration, thereby giving some of the more extremist elements in the PLO the grounds on which to begin activities against Israel, when there could have been serious peace discussions in the middle east?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point. There are extremist factions, some of them backed by Syria, who have an interest in the failure of what Mr. Arafat has done. It seems to the Government—and, I think, the Opposition—that it was right to welcome the steps that the PLO took, because we have both been urging it to take them

    891
    for many years. If we had not responded, that would have been an incentive to the extremists, so I take the hon. Gentleman's point.

    EC Budget
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards implementing the measures agreed at the Brussels summit of February 1988 to control the growth of the European Community's budget.
    Mrs. Chalker: The 1989 Community budget included CAP provision some £1,320 million less than the agricultural guideline. Own resources called up for the budget were substantially below the relevant sub-ceiling in the new own resources decision.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Can my right hon. Friend give some indication of the inquiries being conducted by the Government into allegations of widespread fraud within the common agricultural policy? Will she give some indication also of the pressure that she intends putting on our European partners when that fraud is discovered, to ensure that prosecutions take place?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend will have noticed the comments of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General in the House last Thursday, and my own comments in a debate on 23 February. On both occasions, we sought to give more detail. We are working on further suggestions for seeking out fraud and stopping it. It is important not only to detect but deter. The Court of Auditors' report highlights the problems of fraud, and we shall support all cost-effective measures against fraud in the Community, wherever it may be. That is why we are making concrete suggestions to counsel for combating both fraud and the mismanagement of resources.
    Mr. Robertson: Is the Minister aware that acceptance of the super-generous Brussels budget deal was inextricably tied up with the drive to completing the 1992 internal market? Does the Minister agree with Sir John Hoskyns who, in a speech last week at the Institute of Directors, called a social dimension to 1992
    "a nonsense and Sixties-style social engineering"?
    Or does the right hon. Lady prefer the view of the London ambassador for the most prosperous country in Europe, West Germany, who called for
    "a European charter of fundamental social rights, including collective bargaining autonomy, freedom of association, and sex equality"?
    Is the Minister on the side of the dinosaurs or of the economically powerful?
    Mrs. Chalker: The Government have always been on the side of economic strengths. Many of the comments made in Sir John Hoskyns' speech to the Institute of Directors seemed to discourage business from preparing for the changes of 1992. If they have done that, the speech did no service to Britain. Of course we must right those things that are wrong. However, the most important part of the single market programme is moving ahead to dismantle barriers. There is no sense in imposing regulations on business that will deter the creation of employment and job opportunities. If we are to have a sensible social dimension in Europe, there must be wider access to training and retraining, better standards of training and retraining, implementation of the health and
    892
    safety at work directive agreed last December, equal treatment in social security, and free movement of labour. Having rolled back the frontiers of Socialism in Britain, there is no way that we will see them re-established in Brussels.
    Mr. William Powell: Can my right hon. Friend say how much fraud against the EEC has taken place within the frontiers of the United Kingdom, and how many prosecutions of United Kingdom nationals have occurred for fraud involving EEC budgets?
    Mrs. Chalker: I cannot give my hon. Friend such details without notice. I shall write to him with the details that are known. Figures mentioned in the press have been highly speculative. We do not doubt that very large sums have been involved across the Community as a whole, and that fraud is a serious problem. The nature of the fraud means that it is impossible to give precise figures now, but action must be taken all the way to reduce such frauds to a minimum. Even if I cannot give my hon. Friend the details that he wishes, he should be in no doubt about our recognition of the need for action and our determination to take it.

    Afghanistan
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Afghanistan.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We welcome the withdrawal of Soviet troops. The unrepresentative regime installed and armed by the Russians remains in place. We believe that it should go now, so that bloodshed can end and a representative Government can take office.
    Mr. Cohen: Why are the Government backing a rag-bag group of terrorists who, if they ever achieve power—God forbid—would be a deadly cocktail of the Ayatollah and Pol Pot? Now that the Russians have left, will the Government stop arming that group of fanatics and terrorists and instead get on friendlier terms with the authorities to try to deliver Afghanistan from war and feudalism rather than leaving it to endure incessant hostilities?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's perception of the matter is wholly at fault. The Government who are still clinging to power in Kabul and who were installed and armed by the Russians, against the wishes of the great majority of Afghans, represent virtually nobody but themselves and control virtually nothing outside Kabul. It is only when that Government step down and allow the Afghans to choose a Government representative of the Afghan people that the fighting will come to an end. That is what we all want to see.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Government of Mr. Najibullah have blood on their hands from the hundreds of thousands of people killed in Afghanistan or driven into refugee camps in Pakistan during the Soviet occupation? Will my right hon. and learned Friend work closely with the Government of Pakistan to try to restore order to that region?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree entirely with the hon. Friend. The Najibullah Government have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousand of Afghans and have driven millions of them to refugee status. It is only when
    894
    that Government step down and make way for a Government who represent the Afghan people as a whole that there will be a prospect for the peace that we all want in that tragic country.

Iran (Diplomatic Relations)
3.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the breaking off of diplomatic relations by Iran.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The Iranian Government broke diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom on 7 March. I told the House on 21 February that in face of the incitement to murder proclaimed by the Ayatollah Khomeini, we were closing our embassy in Tehran and had asked the Iranian Government to withdraw their chargé d'affaires and the one other Iranian-based member of his staff from London. They left on 28 February.
We have made clear throughout that, as with any other country, normal relations between Britain and Iran must depend on Iran's fulfilment of her international obligations, in particular by renouncing the use or threat of violence against our citizens. Iran has not withdrawn those threats. We have therefore decided that on security grounds, a number of Iranians must be required to leave this country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will shortly be giving notice to that effect. We are keeping the activities of other Iranians under very close review and further action will be taken as necessary. The Iranian Government have until now maintained a consulate-general in Hong Kong. They have been told to close the consulate-general. Its staff have been given two weeks in which to leave.
Mr. Kaufman: I welcome the response by the Foreign Secretary and the action that he has announced. That has our full support and the Foreign Secretary also has our full support for refusing to make any kind of deal with Iran until that country's regime withdraws its monstrous death threat against Mr. Rushdie. Deplorably, that threat has now been reaffirmed by the President of Iran.
Does the Foreign Secretary share our satisfaction that, apart from Libya, no Government of a Moslem country has endorsed the death threat? Although we do not have to agree with everything that it says, the attitude of the Islamic world is much more accurately reflected in the calm and balanced tone of the statement by the Prime Minister of Pakistan.
Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what arrangements are being made to keep in touch with and protect the interests of Mr. Roger Cooper, whose family must, understandably, be extremely worried about his welfare and safety, especially in the light of the deplorable cancellation by the Iranian authorities of a Swedish consular visit to him that should have taken place yesterday?
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, far from the United Kingdom caving in to any ultimatum from Iran, it is the Government of Iran who must prove themselves fit to resume diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman's last point is at the heart of this matter. That view is widely supported in the world. Not the least important feature is the extent to which it is supported by Governments of Moslem countries as well as by Governments in the rest of the world. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support
896
for that. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Mr. Cooper. We are greatly and continuously concerned about the prospects for his future, as well as about the prospects of freedom for the British hostages who are still detained. We deplore the refusal by the Iranian Government to allow the consular visit to Roger Cooper which was arranged only a short time ago. They have broken the undertaking to allow such a visit. We shall therefore continue to press for consular access through the Teheran embassy of Sweden, our protecting power, whose support in this matter, as in others, we greatly value.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he deserves universal support for the measures that he has had to take in in respect of this regrettable matter? Does he agree that the key, so far as elements within Iran are concerned, is international solidarity? Will he do his utmost to preserve the lead that the European Community has given? Does he accept that, in a very difficult situation, he deserves some congratulation for demonstrating understanding of the insult that this book represents to the Moslem world—going far beyond the Ayatollah Khomeini and what he stands for? Finally, does he accept that, much as we all like to make interventions in this House and elsewhere, a period of calm would perhaps be beneficial to all in efforts to solve this matter?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I accept all the points that have been made by my hon. Friend. The most important feature of the case, perhaps, is the strong, unified signal to the people and Government of Iran that came so promptly from the European Community—a signal that has been so widely supported elsewhere. That has been fortified by the generally calm approach by other Islamic countries and, equally, by the willingness of Islamic communities in Britain to recognise the importance of different communities in a country respecting each other's point of view. Only when general recognition, in a tolerant fashion, of the need for co-existence in a world of different religions is accepted by the Government of Iran will we be able to move towards a return to normal relations.
Mr. David Steel: Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary accept from Members on these Benches support for the actions he has had to take? Will the Government continue to make it clear that, in upholding the absolute freedom to write and to publish, they are not signifying any approval of a book that many of us recognise is deeply offensive to Islam, not least to the Moslem population of this country? We accept that no Government can possibly tolerate a threat to the lives of its individual citizens and that the breach of diplomatic relations was therefore inevitable. However, we hope that normality may be resumed once passions have cooled.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's support. The Government will continue to uphold the freedom of speech within the law, upon a rock-solid basis. That does not mean that either the Government or this House, or any hon. Member, is required to condone or defend any particular book. I fully understand the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has expressed himself on this matter.
Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a particular

897
welcome from the Government side of the House for the support he has received from both right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have intervened? Their comments will help to make it clear to the rulers of Iran that there is agreement in the House and in this country that there can be no question of resuming normal relations with Iran while a British subject is under threat of assassination from that country's Government.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Once again, I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend, as well as to the hon. and right hon. Gentleman whom he has identified. On this matter they all speak for the entire House, and it is important that there should be no room for doubt about that.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that this country has no quarrel at all with the people of Iran—only with its rulers, a regime which has shown total contempt for international law? Is it not the case that, within the last few months alone, thousands, literally thousands, of political prisoners in Iran have been executed, many of them—the large majority, I assume—devout followers of Islam? Would it not be wise for the rulers in Iran to bear in mind the number of dictators and tyrants in this century who have under-estimated the will and resilience of this country?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Once again, I am glad to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Quite aside from the respect that we have for the people of Iran, we join the hon. Member in leaving the Iranian authorities in no doubt whatsoever about our grave concern over the abuses of human rights that are taking place there. I refer in particular to the recent allegations of mass exterminations.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: While strongly supporting the attempts of my right hon. and learned Friend, not only in recent weeks but over the last year, to restore relations between our two countries, may I ask whether he does not agree that, in the long run, it is important to both that we have a civilised means of communicating with each other? Can we not take some comfort from the fact that Iran needs Britain far more than Britain needs Iran?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is clear that, in a civilised and well-ordered world, there should be relations between countries of the importance of Iran and the United Kingdom, not least taking account of the fact that the United Kingdom is one of the permanent members of the Security Council and, in that capacity, played a substantial part in helping to bring to an end the conflict in which the people of Iran were so tragically engaged. It is because we wish to keep open the possibility of restoring representation between our two countries that we refrained from breaking relations in the hope that wiser counsels might prevail. That has not happened. We shall have to wait for a change of heart, as my hon. Friend pointed out.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: In addition to the protection that has quite rightly been offered to Salman Rushdie, will the Foreign Secretary contact his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ensure that similar protection is given to any Iranians living in this country who are likely to be the subject of attacks by agents acting on behalf of the Iranian Government? Is he aware that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) pointed out, over 3,000 people have
898
been executed for political activities in Iran since the ceasefire took place, and many more are on death row at present?
It is essential that everyone stands up against the Iranian Government for what they are doing to the people of Iran and the people of the rest of the world. In that sense, it would be totally wrong for any trade with that country to take place, any credits to be given to it and, above all, any sales of any arms by any other country which could be used as part of the political repression that is the awful lot of so many people in Iran at present.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the whole world is as disturbed as the hon. Gentleman by the continuing record of abuse of human rights in that country and joins us in condemning it, as I have already done. Likewise, the whole House would agree with the hon. Gentleman that anyone living in this country, lawfully here and abiding by our laws and institutions, is entitled to the full protection of the law against threats or the actuality of violence.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a tragedy that the rulers of the people of Iran should behave in such an intolerable way? Is not the solution for us to wait until they can elect some new leaders?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate to have as much confidence as my hon. Friend about the method by which a change of Government will take place there. The Iranian people are entitled to a Government of higher quality than the present deplorable regime.
Mr. Stan Crowther: In view of what he has said about the world being disturbed, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the time has come to break off all relations with Iran—not only diplomatic but commercial relations—as long as that appalling regime is in power? Would it not be helpful at least to give some expression of support to the National Council of Resistance, which is seeking to replace that oppressive regime with a democratic one?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We stand ready to take whatever action may he necessary in the light of events.
Sir Dennis Walters: My right hon. and learned Friend has rightly received the support of the whole House for his statement. Will he accept that the Rushdie book is now the focal point of a power struggle within Iran, the outcome of which will be relevant to the interests of the west as well as peace in the middle east? Therefore, will he assure us that he will continue to handle the situation with the utmost sensitivity?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. It is clearly important to go on making our position clear on the various points raised in the House today, as I think that the whole House has done. We certainly would wish to see the restoration of normal relations with the people, and thus with the Government, of Iran, but we are not prepared to see that done at the price of surrendering our commitment to our own principles. We must hope that events take such a course in Iran that will make that possible.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to remind the House that this is an extension of Question Time. We have a busy day ahead of us.

Points of Order
4.44 pm
Mr. John Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received a request from the Government or the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement, in view of today's announcement by British Rail on the Channel tunnel? It makes it clear that an extra £1 billion will be required to meet problems in Kent. That clearly transfers the matter from a private Bill procedure to a public investment, which means public accountability. It is quite deplorable that we have had no statement from the Government. This matter affects not only the people of Kent but everybody in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request today. I understand that the statement was only made at 3.30.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since you are the final arbiter on questions that are tabled in the Table Office, could you give me some assistance as to why part of a question that I tabled has been refused? I—
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I stop the hon. Lady there? I have not had an opportunity of looking at this question and I am afraid that I know nothing about it. Will she please allow me to do so before she raises a point of order on the matter?
Mrs. Mahon rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It cannot be raised now. Let me look into it, please.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State for Health to introduce regulations into the House to ensure that those people who are seeking to make claims from his Department to enable them to travel to visit sick relatives can have their claims properly dealt with rather than held up in a queue of 10,000 in the offices in Newcastle?
Mr. Speaker: I have not had such a request.

Points of Order

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That the Value Added Tax (Education) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 267) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Homes for the Elderly
3.45 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate quality of service and standard of care of homes for the elderly and for other purposes.
The elderly proportion of our population is increasing quite dramatically as people live longer through better diet, improved living standards and a higher quality of health care. In 1987 there were some 9·3 million people aged 60 and over, of which 3·4 million, or 36 per cent., were 75 or over. By the year 2027 there will be an increase of 33 per cent. in the over-60 group, to 12·4 million and an increase in the over-75 group of 44 per cent., to 4·9 million. This will mean greater pressure than ever before on care and nursing facilities for the elderly.
Parelleling this increase in the elderly population in the past decade has been the massive rise in the cost of caring for elderly people in residential care homes and nursing homes. Estimates for 1988–89 suggest that the cost will break through the £1 billion barrier for the year, representing a fortyfold increase in costs since 1980. In May 1988, the annual figure was £878 million, compared with just £18 million in 1980. The current bill is rising by a staggering £200 million a year. This is probably the fastest growing area of public expenditure within the Department of Social Security.
This upward trend raises the obvious question whether this represents the best value for money for the taxpayer, commensurate with the most appropriate type of care in all circumstances for the elderly. Paradoxically, finance through social security benefits is available for what appears to be the most expensive type of care.
Residential care takes its rightful place as part of the provision of care within the community, a subject which was highlighted in three major reports last year. In March 1988, we had the Griffiths report on community care, followed by Lady Wagner's independent review of residential care, and both these followed on a report by the Committee of Public Accounts, "Community Care Developments", published last April. Before that, we had the report of the social services inspectorate's inspection of the implementation of the Registered Homes Act 1984, entitled "Certain Standards". The subject is, therefore, in the forefront of much research and investigation, a lot of it Government-commissioned.
All these reports highlighted similar problems. There was an enormous variation in the quality of care and standards of service in residential and nursing homes between different local authorities and between local authority provision and that of the voluntary and private sectors in the same statutory area. There was no general agreement on whether these variations should be tolerated or even allowed in the first instance. The social services departments of local authorities, as the registering authorities, were in many cases ill-equipped to fulfil their functions of registration and inspection.
There was little co-operation between public and private sectors, few joint approaches and little coordinated planning. The main deficiency was the absence of rights and privileges for the elderly residents, the
902
customers, who often seemed simply to feature as statistics and rarely as human beings with the right to a dignified retirement.
The Registered Homes Act 1984 was intended to ensure regulation of standards in private and voluntary residential care homes, while allowing for local development, flexibility and co-operation. The Act has brought some much needed discipline and structural form to the operation of residential care homes and nursing homes. However, it has failed to meet some of its objectives, especially in developing a relationship between the social services departments and the private sector. II has also failed to eliminate completely the scandals of disgracefully run homes, of which there are enough examples for us to demand changes to that Act to strengthen its regulatory powers.
The most recent statement on the issue was the report entitled "Residential Care for elderly people: a consumer viewpoint", recently published by the National Consumer Council and submitted to the Department of Health. Building on many of the recommendations of Griffiths and Wagner, it put the case for the consumer right at the heart of the issue. It is that emphasis on consumers' rights that is fundamental to the changes to the law proposed in the Bill.
The Bill proposes that the responsibility for registration is taken away from the social services departments of local authorities, principally because they have been placed in the invidious position of having to monitor registration requirements and standards, which in some cases their own homes fail to reach. Conflicts of interest inherent in service-providers monitoring their own standards is a general problem. Instead, the task of registration will be taken over by a new independent authority, to be called the residential homes inspectorate. That body will also be responsible for conducting regular inspections of all homes—not less than twice a year—in a systematic way, using procedures set by the Secretary of State.
For the first time all homes—the local authority homes included—will need to achieve the registration requirements and be subject to regular inspection. The Bill also widens the scope to embrace nursing homes and mental nursing homes, as well as residential care homes, as defined in the 1984 Act.
In the 1984 Act, homes with fewer than four residents were excluded from the legislation, and that has given rise to real fears and criticism. The Bill proposes to bring all homes into the registration process, including those with four residents or fewer, unless. at that smaller size. the home is not run for reward. That will still allow small units caring for relatives to exist outside the registration process.
It is estimated that in East Sussex alone there are 3,000 unregistered homes of that size. I believe that a time bomb is ticking away and a scandal is waiting to happen.
The Bill brings in a new clause to strengthen the regulatory powers of the Secretary of State, so that he shall make regulations to establish minimum and universally applicable standards of care and service. The Centre for Policy on Aging's code of practice, as set out in its 1984 publication, "Home Life", which has already been endorsed by the Secretary of State, shall provide the basis for detailed regulations and those shall apply equally to nursing as well as residential homes. Those nationally determined standards will form the basis for the residential homes inspectorate's registration and inspection responsibilities.

903
Focusing yet further on the consumer dimension, the Bill's other proposals introduce the requirement for comprehensive information about homes—information concerning their style, the regimes of life and internal rules. That information would be made readily available to customers and potential customers.
That will be achieved, primarily, by the mandatory requirement to publish and distribute a brochure or handbook about the home. Requirements on content and presentation will be established by the Secretary of State and their implementation will be monitored by the inspectorate. Each home will be required to set up a well publicised charter of customer rights and a complaints procedure. The inspectorate will have powers to investigate complaints and adjudicate on them. It will be mandatory for each home to set up self-evaluation procedures with proper training of staff, together with a regular performance review.
The Bill will not answer the vexed question of who makes, and under what procedures or organisation, the decision that care for an elderly person is best delivered in a residential home, as opposed to them receiving community care in their own homes. The Griffiths report made recommendations concerning community care and the Minister's statement in February gave on grounds for optimism that that report will soon be brought before the House for full debate. Care for the elderly in homes is, however, a vital and rapidly increasing ingredient in the provision of community care, and improvements in overall quality of service and standards, universally and independently monitored, are long overdue.
The majority of homes achieve adequate standards, but that is not good enough. The best are excellent, and the best practice should be encouraged to become the norm.
As Sir Roy Griffiths said:
"Community care is a poor relation, everybody's distant relative and nobody's baby."
It is time that that baby was adopted.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Malcolm Moss, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mrs. Gillian Shephard, Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. John Hannam.

Homes for the Elderly
  HOMES FOR THE ELDERLY
  Mr. Malcolm Moss accordingly presented a Bill to regulate quality of service and standard of care of homes for the elderly and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 March and to be printed. [Bill 93.]
Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)
  3.54 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
  We are gathered here for the annual event of the renewal of the emergency powers and provisions in Northern Ireland. As the House knows, the rules have been changed under the 1987 Act so that that Act will lapse in 1992 and it will require totally fresh—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but I should make it clear to the House that we are also debating the second motion:
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
  Mr. King: I think that that will be for the convenience of the House.
  The 1987 Act will lapse in 1992 and it will then be necessary for totally fresh legislation to be brought before the House if the emergency provisions and emergency powers are to continue.
  These provisions require an annual renewal of the legislation, which gives the House an opportunity to review it. The first question before the House today is whether the emergency provisions and emergency powers are necessary. If that question is answered in the affirmative, as it is by Lord Colville in his extremely valuable review, the second question is whether they are all necessary, given that they are necessary in general.
  One of the advantages now enjoyed by our debate is that we are in possession of Lord Colville's report on the operation in 1988 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the House when I express our appreciation for the thorough and constructive way in which Lord Colville has approached that task. His report has undoubtedly improved the quality of our debates. People do not necessarily agree with all the conclusions that Lord Colville may draw, but he has gone into these matters thoroughly and made clear in his report how many people he spoke to and the depth in which he has studied these matters. It is extremely helpful to have his independent assessment of the Acts.
  Lord Colville concluded that the emergency powers are necessary; not least after yesterday's events, and after other recent outrages, I hardly think that anybody would seek to suggest that there was not every need to ensure that the security forces are properly equipped with the necessary powers and resources to give support to the community and to protect it from attacks, from whichever extreme they may come.
  As the House is aware, the IRA is currently seeking to mount a particularly vicious campaign in Northern Ireland, aided and significantly resourced by weapons and explosives from Libya. That campaign poses a major threat at present to the security of the community and it endangers members of that community throughout the

  905
  Province no matter from which side they may come. We have had some particularly awful and nasty IRA attacks, as well as attacks from other extreme republican terrorist groups, and some particularly appalling loyalist extremist attacks. I know that the House will join me in uniformly condemning them, from whichever quarter they come.
  Yesterday evening's atrocity, against the background of the recent instructions for no attacks on civilians which were, apparently, given by supporters of the IRA, strikes the depths of hypocrisy. We have seen a background of attacks on distinguished civil servants, judges, contractors, service families, on the Hanna family, Gillian Johnston, the grandfather and grand-daughter returning from bingo in Benburb and on the good neighbours in Londonderry going to see whether another neighbour was all right. We have seen the bomb attached under the car of somebody who had the misfortune of buying a house previously owned by an RUC member who had moved more than a year before, the attacks on the two civilians passing the Falls road swimming pool and the security guard at Donacloney, the atrocity last night at Coagh and the attack on the former policeman in Donegal. We have seen mistake after mistake, and nastiness after nastiness from both extremes.
  Those outrages bring home to us all too clearly, as those who work or spend time in Northern Ireland know, the vital need to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the security forces and to ensure that whoever is responsible for outrages is brought to justice and that those who can give help or information to the RUC do so to break this appalling cycle of murder, viciousness and bestiality, whose only product is yet more murder, killing and bestiality.
  In bringing these instruments before the House, I have even less need for embarrassment than before in standing for the need for the special powers and the paramount importance of ensuring that the police and security forces have the resources and powers available to them to deal with the nasty and evil people who exist in some of the darker and less attractive corners of the Province.
  Mr. David Alton: The whole House is with the right hon. Gentleman in what he has said. Can he tell us a little more about the incident to which he referred in which more Semtex was discovered yesterday in Scarborough and the possibility that more than one active cell of the IRA may be involved in trying to promote more violence in Great Britain?
  Mr. King: I cannot comment further on that from the information that the police have made available. I referred earlier to a particularly vicious IRA campaign which is amply reinforced by weapons and explosives supplied by Libya. I know that no hon. Member is under any illusions that the campaign is confined to Northern Ireland or to Great Britain. One knows from events, whether in Gibraltar, Germany or Holland, that the IRA's intention is to kill, maim and murder wherever it finds easy targets and wherever it thinks that carnage can be created and attention drawn to its evil purposes.
  I am afraid that we had confirmation yesterday of the IRA's determination to use its resources in whatever ways may cause the maximum stress and suffering. It also reminds us that no society can stand aside from such terrorism and that everyone in the mainland of Great Britain is as one with the people of Northern Ireland. We
  906
  face a common threat, we must face it together with all the resources that our country can bring to bear, and we must face it with the Government of the Republic as well. Anyone who stops for more than a second to study the IRA—or the UVF and others in the short term—knows that, if they were to succeed in their awful campaign in Northern Ireland, it would be a serious threat to the future of democratic government throughout the island of Ireland.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: In view of the catalogue of atrocities to which the right hon. Gentleman has rightly referred, was it not wrong for the Government to cut the amount of money available to the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
  Mr. King: What is quite wrong is to try to score such political points, especially if they are totally incorrect. If the hon. Gentleman wants to say that he wishes that the increased funds to the RUC had been increased by even more than the amount by which we increased them this year, he has a valid point, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House and I assume that his remark was an unfortunate slip of the tongue. Funds for the RUC have in no sense been cut. They have been increased and we shall seek to ensure, at all times, that the RUC has the necessary resources available.
  Anyone who is familiar with, or knows something of, the work of the RUC cannot fail to be impressed by their courage, professionalism, training and equipment. all of which take resources, and do not give the impression, with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that the RUC is starved of funds. It is a police force for which I am proud to have some responsibility. It works bravely in extremely difficult circumstances and is increasingly recognised as a force seeking honestly to deal impartially with both communities and to protect both from the extremes and nastiness that can exist in Northern Ireland. I am anxious to ensure that it has the necessary resources to achieve its objectives. I hope that that point is clear.
  Mr. Tony Favell: In view of the discovery of Semtex in Scarborough yesterday and yet another threat to assassinate our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, will my right hon. Friend say something about the freedom of movement of Irish citizens across the border from Southern Ireland into Ulster and by sea from the Republic to ports in this country? Is he satisfied that there is adequate surveillance? As my right hon. Friend is aware, there is at present a debate about border controls between, for example, France and the United Kingdom and Belgium and United Kingdom. Yet Irish citizens can move here freely without passports. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are proper controls over their movements?
  Mr. King: My hon. Friend is right: there is easy and ready access, and the connections between the two countries are manifest and extensive. On the most recent figures, about 1 million first-generation Irish people are living and working in Great Britain. The contacts and involvements are substantial, and there are various anomalies. It is, for example, no secret that there are citizens of the Irish Republic serving in the British Army.

  907
  They are enlisting in British regiments and serving honourably and bravely in them. There are many connections. The tragedy and awfulness of terrorism is that the genuine and admirable relationships which have existed for so long between our countries are put under strain by evil men and evil pressures. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are trying to ensure free movement backwards and forwards, whether for Irish race horses coming here or for Jack Charlton managing the Irish football team, and the relationships are myriad. We try to ensure that decent, honest people can maintain friendly relations, while also trying to ensure that proper scrutiny and the best intelligence are maintained on those whose intentions may be less satisfactory than we would wish.
  We have a short debate, so I must proceed to say a word about the two Acts. That is necessary, because I doubt that I am the only Member of this House who has difficulty in finding his way through the maze of the two Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 and the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and deciding which powers arise from which Act.
  Although I have enormous sympathy with Lord Colville's suggestion about consolidating all the legislation, I cannot respond to that. However, it would be enormously to the benefit of any hon. Member trying to contribute to these debates, because the legislation has evolved in a complex way. Although I do not see any early prospect of such consolidation, I can well understand why Lord Colville made that suggestion.
  I remind the House that we are proposing to continue the emergency provisions Act 1978, which has three key elements. It gives the security forces in Northern Ireland extra powers to deal with the special problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland, including the powers to stop and question, to arrest, to search and to seize. It also provides powers to proscribe organisations and creates offences relating to training people in the manufacture or use of firearms or explosives and to displays of support for proscribed organisations. That Act also provides the legal authority for the so-called Diplock courts.
  The 1987 Act introduced a statutory right for persons arrested to have someone notified of their arrest and whereabouts and to have access to legal advice. It provides authority for me to impose statutory time limits on pretrial stages of proceedings and it introduced a statutory scheme for regulating the security guard industry in Northern Ireland. That was one of the first steps that we took to try to stop some of the rackets and the gangsterism that disfigures various activities in Northern Ireland. The provision of those two Acts are all temporary and, unless we renew them in this order, they will lapse on 21 March.
  I turn now to the basis on which we are proposing that the two Acts be renewed. As I did last year, I express my appreciation to Lord Colville for his review, which was thorough and penetrating. I refer to his recommendations on certain provisions that could lapse, but as I said at the beginning of my speech, we have two questions to answer: should we renew these emergency provisions, and if we should, do we need to renew them all?
  Lord Colville pointed to certain powers that can now be allowed to lapse. They all relate to the 1978 Act and comprise section 24, which gives the security forces the
  908
  power to call upon assemblies of three or more people to disperse: paragraph 4 of schedule 3, which allows the RUC to impose directions on the conduct of funerals and paragraph 5 of schedule 3, under which I can, by order close licensed premises and clubs for public order purposes. Lord Colville stated that each of those three powers could now be allowed to lapse, apart from one part of paragraph 4 of schedule 3, under which the police can require people taking part in funerals to travel by car.
  The Government welcome those recommendations, and the order and regulations that we are considering today will give effect to them. I hope that the House recognises that that confirms our readiness to consider the provisions, to review them where sensible and to reduce powers that are no longer necessary, but only—I stress the word "only"—when it is safe to do so.
  In that context, I also welcome and accept Lord Colville's recommendation that when the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 becomes law, the RUC's power of arrest under section 13 of the 1978 Act can lapse. That is the police's sole remaining arrest power under the emergency provisions Acts—thereafter, the police will rely on the power in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 or the ordinary criminal law. That further reduction in the emergency law would be another welcome adjustment in the balance of the law.
  Mr. William Ross: Given that we have seen extreme violence at funerals, what powers will the police have over the conduct of such funerals in the future?
  Mr. King: There are powers in the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 in the prevention of terrorism Act and in the ordinary criminal law. Rather than try to give a precise answer to that question off the cuff, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman studies Lord Colville's report because the powers that Lord Colville suggests can lapse will not leave gaps that would leave the RUC without proper powers of control. As Lord Colville identified, there is undoubtedly some duplication. We should like to achieve the least possible difference. The security forces have powers that make the emergency provisions redundant. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will—
  Mr. William Ross rose—
  Mr. King: I shall give way again briefly to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Ross: Can we take it as a general principle that all the provisions that are being allowed to fall are covered elsewhere?
  Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman reads Lord Colville's report, he will find that that is his view—and it is our view also. I am putting forward our proposals only after close consultation with the RUC and the Army.
  I turn now to the main findings of Lord Colville's report. As I have already said, Lord Colville makes it clear that, in general, the powers continue to be needed, but it is important that the powers are seen to be used fairly and impartially. Lord Colville also raised a difficult issue that had been raised previously—that of an alternative charge of manslaughter for members of the security forces who may be charged with the use of undue force or even with

  909
  murder. In the present circumstances, they can be found only guilty or not guilty of that serious charge, and it has been suggested that there should be an alternative charge of manslaughter. At the moment, Lord Windlesham is chairing a committee on murder and manslaughter and their treatment under the law. As that issue is under consideration, I propose to await the outcome of that committee's findings before commenting further. However, I entirely understand why Lord Colville raised that issue.
  Elsewhere in his report, Lord Colville returned to the question of "certifying in". That is the idea that, instead of defendants being tried before a Diplock court, unless the Attorney-General decides otherwise, the presumption should be that they will be sent for a jury trial unless the case is certified in to a Diplock court. Since Lord Colville's report last year, the balance seems to have shifted more in favour of the idea of certifying in. As that might be perceived as a further step towards normality, we are willing to consider it seriously, especially if we find that the proposal is generally welcomed. I hope that those comments will be helpful.
  Likewise, we shall have another close look at Lord Colville's remarks about the video recording of terrorist interviews, although there are substantial arguments against such a course. Such arguments are partly rehearsed in Lord Colville's report, as is the question of the audio recording of terrorist interviews, but that also raises some difficult issues. However, as I have said, we shall reconsider that.
  I have made it clear that the Government are pleased to accept most of Lord Colville's recommendations and that they are contained in the amending regulations. We shall reconsider his two points about certifying in and video recording and. as I have said, the issue of a manslaughter offence will be considered further in the light of the Windlesham findings.
  The debate on these emergency provisions and the focusing on the powers that they contain can be misrepresented by others to suggest that the Government believe that, by these provisions alone, the serious situation and threat of terrorism can be effectively addressed. It is, of course, vital to ensure that in the exceptional difficulties and circumstances that the security forces face in protecting the community from attacks, from whichever quarter they may come, they have the necessary powers to enable them to discharge those responsibilities.
  But as Lord Colville emphasised, it is absolutely vital that the powers about which I have talked—of arrest, of stop and search and of seizure—are used in a responsible and proper manner. I know that the Chief Constable and General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland attach the greatest importance to ensuring that all those concerned—be they constables or private soldiers, and whether they be in the RUC, the Regular Army or the UDR—at all times conduct themselves to the highest standards and in the best traditions of the regiments and organisations to which they belong.
  Anybody who knows anything about Northern Ireland appreciates how easy it is for them to be, and how often they will be, subject to provocation—how people try to embarrass them and how young soldiers often find themselves in difficult circumstances, when a great deal is asked of them. We in this House must recognise, and pay tribute to, the way in which the overwhelming majority of
  910
  those young people, on finding themselves in often dangerous and frightening circumstances, still comply with and honour the codes under which they have been trained and instructed. We owe a great debt to them.
  It is absolutely vital that they act in that way. When those standards are not maintained and when, sometimes under stress or pressure of one sort or another, one constable, young soldier or whoever it may be, slips from those standards, the propaganda machine can easily wind into action, criticism can easily arise and damage can be done to the whole reputation of the security forces, to the cause for which they stand and to the interests of a free society. I appreciate, therefore, why Lord Colville addressed these matters as he did. I appreciate also the enormous importance that those in authority give to ensuring that the people under their command understand the importance of all of this.
  Apart from the exercise of these provisions, it is important, if we are to meet the threat of terrorism and the evil attack on democratic society that it represents, that in every respect we can be seen to be conducting administration—be it the administration of justice or of government in Northern Ireland—thoroughly, fairly and properly.
  I pay tribute to the courage, tremendous service and distinction of the judiciary, to all those involved in the courts service and particularly, in view of recent events, of all those involved in the legal profession, who seek to maintain the standards of justice in Northern Ireland.
  We have had problems, for instance in the administration of justice. There have been problems over delays in cases coming forward, with considerable delays for people on remand. All of those have given rise to genuine feelings of grievance, with people believing that they have not been fairly treated. We owe it to the security forces and to those who stand in the front line to ensure that the other elements in our policy are fair and effective and do not give rise to grievance and disaffection in such a way that their task is made more difficult.
  We must consider the situation in the courts, the proper administration of the courts, and have a fair and positive approach to prison policy. In economic policy, we must ensure that we create the opportunity for more employment, with fairness and equality of opportunity in the achievement of those jobs. We must provide a better environment and seek to ensure a better quality of housing; establish higher standards and better opportunities in education, with more opportunity for education together by way of integrated education, cross-community contacts and schemes between schools and in further education or in other voluntary activities. All those features can contribute to what must be an effective and comprehensive Government policy towards addressing some of the tragedies and challenges that are represented by attitudes and the situation in Northern Ireland today.
  It is the aim of the terrorist to destroy and intimidate, and to kill the hopes of a better life and future for the people in Northern Ireland. It is our ambition—as it is of every Member in this democratic House of Commons—to see that the people of Northern Ireland have a chance of a better future, and better prospects and, through the defeat of the men of violence, to restore hope and opportunity to the Province.
  We seek by many means to achieve that, but one necessary ingredient must be to ensure that the security forces, who stand in the front line against the most evil and

  911
  nasty elements that exist in the Province, have the powers and provisions to do their job. It is in that spirit that I commend the order to the House.
  4.26 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Regrettably, once again we are obliged to discuss Northern Ireland business in the shadow of the gunman. Yesterday's murders demonstrated yet again the depth to which the conflict in Northern Ireland can sink. On behalf of the Opposition, I extend my condolences to the families of the victims.
  I assure the Government that we are committed to the defeat of the so-called freedom fighters, whose vision of freedom is limited to the freedom of the graveyard. Our difference with the Government is how that goal can best be achieved. Whether one rejects or supports the order, no one can be satisfied that we should be obliged to debate yet another renewal order for the emergency provisions Acts.
  No hon. Member in any part of the House can take comfort from the fact that the Government feel it necessary to renew the Acts and thus admit that Northern Ireland continues to be a society in which armed soldiers are required to patrol the streets, in which police officers are obliged to carry arms and in which many of the human rights that we take for granted are suspended.
  The Labour party realises that there is a serious problem which requires the use of the Army and which necessitates an armed police force. But we do not accept that human rights can be suspended indefinitely without defeating the purpose which the security forces are trying to achieve—the protection of those same rights against the would-be dictators of the paramilitary groups. The strategy adopted by the Government places the security forces in an invidious position. My party cannot accept that the policy of containment alone, which appears to be adopted by the Government—despite what the Secretary of State said—is viable, and therefore we shall vote against the order.
  It has long been accepted by the security forces that they are engaged in a holding operation the objective of which is to provide the space for political leaders to devise effective institutions for the Province. Without such political reforms, the role of the security forces becomes a demoralising exercise in futility.
  The longer the politicians hide behind the security forces and rely on them to deal with the problems which emerge from the political morass in Northern Ireland, the more intractable the problems become, the more difficult is the position of the security forces and the more difficult becomes the possibility of a political settlement.
  Ultimately, emergency legislation has a corrupting and counter-productive effect. I say corrupting in the sense that the persistence of the emergency leads Ministers and other political leaders to lose the sense of urgency that the occasion demands. It is counter-productive because the suspension of human rights eventually becomes the abolition of those rights, thus accentuating the political problems which gave rise to the emergency in the first place, and so the vicious spiral continues.
  It is useless to deny that the security forces face a major problem in the Province, but it is equally foolish to deny that they are part of the problem. They are asked to
  912
  operate on behalf of political institutions whose legitimacy is contested by part of the population. As a result, the security forces are not accepted in the same way as they would be in other democratic societies. Continuing to allow them the use of powers which they would not need in other democratic societies is an abdication of political responsibility by the leaders in the Province, for which the security forces pay the price. That again is why we shall vote against the order.
  Having said that, I am pleased that the Secretary of State has decided to act upon some elements of Lord Colville's report on the operation of the legislation. It is a pity that the Government were not more forthcoming on his report on the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984. Although I do not agree with all the conclusions in the report, I believe that it contains a significant number of comments and recommendations which reflect the views of my party.
  I want to single out two issues identified by Lord Colville as being of particular importance. In paragraph 1·5 he stated:
  "The battle for hearts and minds should be the paramount preoccupation of those who exercise emergency powers."
  Although the Labour party believes that the emergency powers themselves are a factor in sustaining grievances which encourage violence, their impact can be significantly attenuated or accentuated by the ways in which the powers are exercised in the homes, on the streets and in the courts.
  Lord Colville gives a striking example. The end of the supergrass trials has removed a particularly damaging threat to public confidence in the Diplock courts. Those courts will still be unlikely to gain the compete legitimacy that the judicial institutions in Britain or even the ordinary criminal courts in Northern Ireland enjoy because of the way in which they were instituted, but at least it is possible now to avoid some of the practices which throw the administration of justice into complete public disrepute.
  Another issue which Lord Colville raised correctly was the standard of behaviour of the security forces. Critics may object that hon. Members demand an excessively high standard of behaviour from the police and the Army, confronted as they are by paramilitaries whose contempt for human rights is only equalled by their hypocrisy on the subject. Faced with sectarian killers, bombers and vigilantes, there is a natural temptation to take off the kid gloves. That is precisely what must not be allowed to happen. I know that the Secretary of State agrees with me on that, as he said earlier.
  We expect high standards from the security forces precisely because they are there to provide security, not insecurity. It is in the best interests of the security forces that they occupy the high moral ground. That increases the chance of defeating the paramilitaries, eventually allowing for the establishment for the first time of recognisably normal forms of policing in Northern Ireland, which is the aim of every party in the House.
  I am, therefore, concerned that even after last year's debate the 1982 shootings in Armagh have not yet been laid to rest. On the one hand, the inquest proceedings have been hindered by the negative attitude of the Government in appealing from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland to the House of Lords, and now, tragically, by the death of Patrick Finucane, the solicitor murdered after the ill-advised comments by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). One of Northern

  913
  Ireland's most experienced legal figures, Sir Oliver Napier, the current chairman of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, has pointed out:
  "I would hope that Ministers of the Crown would learn that in Northern Ireland words can kill and that their words can be used to justify murder. If those two lessons are learned, Pat Finucane will not have died in vain."
  Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State has realised the error of his ways and even wishes to forget the remarks that he made, regrettably, in the Standing Committee. That seems to be his attitude because in letters to people who complained about what he said, he now talks about "remarks attributed to me". I do not know what reflection that is upon the people who write for Hansard, or even on the members of the press who were there and heard what he said, or on members of the Committee. Now that he is referring to "remarks attributed to me", I wonder at what stage he will forget that he ever said them.
  Mr. Ian Gow: The hon. Gentleman has made a serious allegation against my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). He read out part of a letter which I think he said was written by my hon. Friend. Does the hon. Gentleman think that he would be fair if he read out to the House not only that short phrase but the longer passage or the whole paragraph from which he selected those words?
  Mr. McNamara: It is a short letter to a person who wrote to him on a postcard about the murder of Patrick Finucane. The Under-Secretary of State wrote:
  "This is a tragic and wicked killing. I very much hope that those responsible will be brought before the courts as soon as possible. As to the identity of those responsible or the circumstances in which the murder has taken place, that is a matter for the RUC.
  I entirely agree with the views Tom King expressed on this matter on Monday 13 February and reject any connection between Mr. Finucane's murder and remarks attributed to me. To seek to make political points on the back of such a tragedy is unworthy and does nobody any credit".
  It does no one any credit either to deny what he has said or to seek to give an impression by the use of the word "attributed" that that was not the point he made.
  Mr. Gow rose—
  Mr. McNamara: I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman asked me to read out the passage, and I have done so.
  In regard to confidence in police matters, the internal police proceedings should be speedily concluded in the Stalker affair. I hope that they will be completed before the new chief of the RUC takes over. Not only would that improve confidence in the administration of the RUC but it would be fair to the police officers who have been kept in a state of uncertainty for far too long. Public confidence in the RUC has been damaged by the failure to clear up the affair.
  The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) has raised the case of the Armagh four. I have had an opportunity to read the documents which he sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). On the strength of those documents, there are grounds for concern about the case. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider carefully the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
  I agree entirely with Lord Colville's second major point. In paragraph 3 of the report he stated:
  914
  "I have approached the review on a simple basis, that the emergency legislation should not remain in force unless the case for it is clearly established."
  It is clear from the review that that approach extends to the parts as well as the whole. That is an important principle which should not be overlooked. We cannot allow emergency legislation or any emergency powers to remain on the statute book simply through the force of inertia. There is a duty to assess constantly the validity of responses to the paramilitary threat, both in terms of the action on the ground by the security forces, and the policies put into practice by the Secretary of State and by the legislative decisions of the House.
  That cannot be confined to the annual reports by the reviewer appointed by the Secretary of State, estimable though the reviewer is and the reports may be. There is already in existence a statutory watchdog for that purpose—the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights established by Parliament under section 20 of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. I regret that the Secretary of State has not treated the commision with sufficient respect in the past year, as he has ignored its views and in some cases its right to be consulted over several issues. As the commission chairman pointed out in a statement on 19 January:
  "I am fearful that everything the commission is doing to promote human rights in Northern Ireland will be cut from under us if the Government does not make greater use of the consultative process which in a democratic society is absolutely essential. The cumulative impact of what Government is doing is most worrying"
  However, the Secretary of State has decided to accept the advice of Lord Colville concerning those parts of the Act which are no longer necessary. I welcome his decision to allow section 24 to lapse and to amend schedule 3. Those powers are unnecessary as they are now covered by other parts of the law. I hope that the Government will act in a similar way in regard to section 13, in the order which I presume will be laid before the House next year—unfortunately. I say unfortunately in the context that all such legislation is unfortunate. I welcome what the Secretary of State said about section 13.
  The police power of arrest under section 13 is clearly superfluous, having been used only once, in the first six months of 1988. I suspect that it is something of an embarrassment to the police. and was used only by accident when police officers became confused by the plethora of powers at their disposal. I shall return to that point later and refer to the need for clarity in the law, on which I disagree with the Secretary of State's conclusions.
  I am also pleased that Lord Colville recommended that the process of certifying out cases from the Diplock court should be replaced by a system of certifying in. Opposition Members have urged that course for a considerable time. Therefore, we very much welcome the Secretary of State's statement that he is considering that as a sensible option. I believe that that would be one stage closer to restoring the law to normality. If cases are certified in that would be an unusual procedure, and we would improve the position so that there would be more trials by jury.
  Perhaps one of the most contentious aspects of the Acts are the powers of internment contained in section 12 and schedule 1 of the 1978 Act. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has had the good sense to continue to allow those powers to lapse, despite urgings from some parts of the House. No Government, since the end of internment in 1976, have considered internment to be a sensible or

  915
  effective method of dealing with the paramilitaries. However, permitting the power of internment, even if it is dormant, to remain on the statute book presents certain problems. For many in the Province, the distinction is too subtle and demands an awareness of legislative procedure that I doubt exists, and in any case is sometimes misleading.
  In Northern Ireland, it is correctly assumed that the Secretary of State can simply sign detention orders at any time he sees fit and fill the prison ships once again. Although an Order in Council would be necessary, the detainees could be in custody long before Parliament had the opportunity to consider the order. Because of that, the power of internment is not dormant in a political sense. It is a live issue which the paramilitaries are only too willing to exploit in the aftermath of their periodic spectacular atrocities, using the threat, and its emotive connotations, to divert attention from their own commitment to violate human rights.
  A clear political sign that internment is not an option should be given by removing the power from the statute book. Its existence is a constant reminder to the people of Northern Ireland of the fragility and contested legitimacy of political institutions in the Province.
  There are of course aspects of the report with which I disagree, such as the length of periods of remand. The Secretary of State spoke about his new powers in that sphere and we hope to see them in operation fairly soon. Nevertheless, remand periods continue to be excessive. Although efforts have been made to reduce periods spent on remand, the figures remain unacceptably high. According to the statistics published by the Northern Ireland Office, in the first six months of 1988 the average period between first remand and sentencing or discharge was 234 days. Such a state of affairs enables supporters of the paramilitaries to gain credence for claims that internment by remand exists in Northern Ireland. To eliminate that source of controversy, the Secretary of State should make use of his powers under section 3 of the 1987 Act.
  Another issue connected with the emergency which has attracted increasing concern is the problem of prisoners serving indeterminate sentences. The review procedure for setting release dates is attracting increasing concern because of the apparent lack of precision and lack of understanding by the parties involved.
  We hope that the Government will be able to establish clear and objective criteria for the setting of release dates to reduce the degree of uncertainty and insecurity which afflicts prisoners and their families. We recognise that there are difficulties, but they are not insuperable. We believe that it is in the best interests of good order in the prisons, of the families of the prisoners and of the community that there should be no unnecessary sources of grievances in the prison system.
  The Labour party also believes that there is a need to reform the present Diplock court system. I accept that some progress has been made in increasing confidence in the courts, but as long as the sole judge and jury are one and the same, there will be a credibility gap. An effective alternative would be the establishment of three-judge courts. That has also been recommended by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights.
  916
  Another area of concern is the admissibility of evidence. Although section 5 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 rules out confessions obtained by torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, or by violence or threat of violence, it does not require confessions to be voluntary. I do not share the conclusions of the review on that issue. The courts have interpreted that section in a way which has been regarded as strengthening the position of the prosecution. Once again, confidence in the judicial process has been somewhat reduced. The trend towards the acceptance of involuntary confessions is now to be reinforced powerfully by the possibility of drawing inferences from silence under interrogation permitted by the Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1988. Furthermore, there have been some worrying signs from what goes on during interrogations, as was demonstrated in the Gillen and Forbes cases which are recent, not ancient, history that interrogation rules have been violated and excessive force has been used in some cases. For those reasons it is more urgent than ever that the taping of interviews in police stations should be introduced, as should videoing, as Lord Colville has recommended. Unfortunately, Lord Colville's recommendations did not make completely clear whether videoing meant a silent recording of what went on or whether such videos should include a soundtrack. We believe that the videos should include a soundtrack. The power of the police to deny legal advice to detainees should also be removed, rather than regulated as it is at present.
  I was interested to read Lord Colville's comments on the codes of practice for the police and the Army. I hope that those codes will be finalised and published as soon as possible. I feel sure that the Secretary of State and the security forces will wish to avoid the nonsense surrounding the publication of the RUC document "Professional Policing Ethics" at 3.30 on a Friday afternoon. We believe that all codes of practice issued to the RUC and the Army should be published. Given that the whole point of the codes of practice is to convince the public that the security forces behave impartially, there is no reason to keep them under wraps. We are also in favour of giving statutory effect to the codes of practice to ensure that they are not simply instruments for the effective management of the security forces. It is equally important to ensure that members of the public can secure redress and that action is taken publicly to deal with violations of the code. As the aftermath of the Stalker affair revealed, disciplinary hearings in private cannot replace the court room as a forum for winning and maintaining public confidence in the police and the Army.
  Finally, I return to the clarity of the criminal law, a matter to which the Secretary of State referred. Lord Colville has twice suggested that the emergency provisions Acts and certain sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act should be consolidated into separate legislation. That is a welcome suggestion, but I believe that we need to go much further and examine the total picture and the inter-relationship of the various parts of the criminal law with the emergency law and the non-emergency law.
  At the most basic level, there is an urgent need to clarify the law for the security forces as well as for the average citizen. Ministers themselves have been somewhat confused, as has been shown by the remarks on searches made by the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, and the recent controversy which the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office provoked by his views on the

  917
  powers of the security forces to demand dates of birth. Not only does it make Ministers a laughing stock, but, more importantly, it is detrimental to public confidence in the law. Furthermore, it also gives the impression of a piecemeal and haphazard security policy.
  If we are to have an emergency law, it should be clear, coherent and concise. There should be no powers which are not needed and no duplication of powers with other emergency powers or with the ordinary criminal law. We should not fall into the trap of believing that the criminal law alone can solve the problems of Northern Ireland.
  As the Government fail to address those challenges, I call upon the House to reject the order. Until the Government grasp the reality of Northern Ireland politics and make moves to establish fully legitimate political arrangements for the Province and make proper use of the potential contained in the Anglo-lrish Agreement, and until they realise that there are no military solutions in Northern Ireland, the present depressing climate is likely to prevail. As the emergency provisions Act, far from being a determined response to the paramilitary threat, epitomises political lethargy, the Labour party is obliged to vote against the order.
  4.50 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: I rise with a heavy heart having experienced yesterday evening a most despicable and diabolical sectarian attack in my constituency which left three decent civilians dead in the village of Coagh. It is significant that we are debating the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1989 only a few hours after the slaughter of the innocents.
  I want first to express my sincere appreciation to the members of the security forces for their faithful service to the Ulster community in very dangerous and trying circumstances. Words of appreciation are not sufficient to express our debt of gratitude to the thousands of young men and women who wear the uniform in defence of freedom, especially during the past years of continuing murderous attacks by the Provisional IRA.
  The security situation, unfortunately, continues to deteriorate and a very dangerous situation is about to explode. After 20 years, why do we come to the House today to debate the continuance of emergency provisions? After 20 years, why have the terrorist attacks not ceased or the terrorists been defeated?
  I must declare that, unfortunately and sadly, there has been success in the terrorist camp and there are many reasons for that success. One of the reasons why we have to debate these emergency provisions after 20 years is that there is popular support for terrorism within a portion of the republican and nationalist community in Northern Ireland. There is no doubt that the IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein, can boast considerable popular support in the Roman Catholic community. However, it must also he said that many Roman Catholics find the actions of the murder gangs repugnant. Unfortunately, many find themselves in large republican enclaves in the Province and they are held under the heel of terror. The defeat of terrorism would not only release the majority community in Northern Ireland, the Unionist population, from the heel of the terrorists; it would also release many of the decent Roman Catholics as well.
  918
  Unfortunately, over many years there has been a breeding of anti-British hatred and that has been expressed through the use of the gun. I speak with the support of the vast majority of the people in the Province, and, although Ministers may deny this, the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was a signal to the terrorists as is shown in the infamous words of Danny Morrison following its signing, "We have now proved that more violence will gain more concessions." Unfortunately, the violence continues.
  There has been a lack of resolute action against the terrorist gangs. I was interested in the remarks made by the Secretary of State in reaction to my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) about the availability of finances for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Around Castlederg terrorist attacks have been common and members of the security forces are continually under threat. Some 400 serving members and ex-members of the security forces must be protected by the soft target protection unit. Is it right for the Secretary of State to claim that all is well when there are only 11 members of the STPU to care for 400 people over miles of countryside? I have spoken to members and ex-members of the RUC and the Ulster Defence Regiment and I know that in that border area they feel in grave danger. They believe that there is insufficient protection for them in their homes or when they try to defend the freedom in that area.
  It cannot be right for the Secretary of State to claim that all is well. Reserve Constable Monteith was murdered recently in Castlederg at the town's check-point. As the town is so close to the border and because of the evident danger to members of the security forces manning that check-point, a promise was made that three people would man the check-point at all times. Only one person was available to man it on the day that reserve Constable Monteith was murdered. Reserve Constable Monteith was not working that day, but an hour after the check-point was to be opened, he received a telephone call telling him to report for duty because there was no second person to man it. No third person was available; the IRA saw the breach in security and reserve Constable Monteith was murdered and buried as a result.
  I make my appeal with the full knowledge and support of the members of the security forces serving in that area.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman in these debates for several years, but he never refers to killings carried out by the so-called loyalists. Does he, along with the rest of us, condemn killings no matter which side carries them out? Does he not think, therefore, that he should mention the loyalist killings, many of which have happened recently?
  Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. However, it is sad to see that he has not examined the official record and has deliberately misrepresented—
  Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: Answer the question.
  Rev. William McCrea: With the greatest respect, I will answer in my own time and if the hon. Lady wants to intervene, she should have the decency to ask.
  I have made it absolutely clear that Ulster does not need any killings and I want to see the security forces carrying out an effective policy throughout the Province which will remove the men of terror right across the community. That is what I want for Northern Ireland. In the five or six years

  919
  that I have been a Member of this House I have still to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) state genuinely that he has much pity for the loyalist community, which has suffered so much over the past 20 years from the murderous thugs of the IRA. As usual, the hon. Gentleman wants to draw us away from the attacks. All I am talking about is an innocent RUC man and I suppose that that is not enough for the hon. Member for Hillsborough.
  I am concerned about members of the security forces who are in danger and I have been asked to make representations on their behalf by the people who elected me. It ill becomes any hon. Member to try to play down the serious threat faced by members of the security forces from callous, cowardly bunches of thugs and terrorists who do not care whether they murder Protestants or Roman Catholics.
  Members of the security forces do not believe that there are sufficient personnel to protect Castlederg in my constituency. The other evening I spoke at a meeting there. A call was put out to me as a Member of Parliament that, since we were only half a mile from the border, there should be extra security personnel.
  Castlederg police station is close to the border and the town is more vulnerable to and has faced more bomb attacks than any other. In its graveyard a dozen UDR men and reserve personnel are lying in their coffins, yet whenever a call is made for more personnel, the answer comes back "Sorry, we have only two people to cover the complete area and no one is available to go out in a car because the station will be left without personnel". I should be delighted for the Secretary of State to check that. Personnel from Strabane covered the meeting that evening.
  Unfortunately, my constituency is in the border area and the community faces attacks from terrorists hiding in the safe haven of the Irish Republic.
  In answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for North Down the Secretary of State painted a picture of sufficient manpower and security force members to do the job. I hope, perhaps in a written reply, I shall receive an answer about what happened in the specific cases I have mentioned. I owe it to the gallant members of the security forces to make my voice heard in their support in the House. If members come to me fearing that the lives of people along the border are at risk because there are not enough personnel, it is only right and proper that, as the representative of that area, I should do that.
  I know that in the past certain hon. Members have befriended IRA personnel and brought them into the House. I know that the House does not want to hear this, but we are in an emergency. Unfortunately, 20 years on, it is still an emergency, and I shall explain why. Recent events in the Province show that the vicious nature of the campaign is gaining momentum and crudeness.
  What I have to say may not bother some people but yesterday, in my constituency, a business man and his wife returned from shopping in Cookstown. The man entered his garage while his wife sat in the car waiting for their two children—a boy of 14 and a girl of 16—to return from school. For those who do not know cosy, quiet, Coagh village, the garage was run by 39-year-old stock car ace,
  920
  Lesley Dallas. He was the European hot rod champion in 1986 and lived for his stock car racing and his little business, which he had built up with pride.
  Quite rightly, he was the pride and joy of his wife and two children, who loved him dearly. How proud they were last Saturday when he went to the silver jubilee race at Ballymena hot rod meeting and came second. He felt that he had achieved honour for his family and district.
  I grew up with Lesley Dallas—we played around the same houses and went to the same school. Lesley Dallas was one year younger than me. With Lesley lying in his coffin at home, am I supposed to come to the House and be Mr. Nice Guy for everyone to applaud, and to whom everyone can say how nice everything is? Tomorrow we shall bury Lesley Dallas and not one hon. Member—other than Unionist representatives—will go through the door of his house to say that they are sorry about what happened. They will never take the hand of Mrs. Dallas or her 14-year-old son or 16-year-old daughter, or of his widowed mother, sitting broken-hearted and riddled with arthritis in the corner.
  I can assure the House that the hon. Member for Hillsborough—who was quick to get to his feet a few moments ago—will not pass through the Dallas door to speak to the sorrowing family. I would take more seriously comments from someone who knows what it is to walk into houses where there is death and who has experienced what it is to look into the face of bereaved loved ones. Such a person could not walk away with a pious attitude or a smile on his face after such an occasion. There is nothing glorious about that, or—as I will be doing tomorrow—about attending three funerals and going from one house to the next, to the next, for the burial of three constituents. I am sure that when I offer my sympathy and sorrow to the families I shall not be crowded out by a lot of hon. Members.
  Lesley Dallas, whom I knew very well, stood with his hands in his pockets listening to a joke and was gunned down in cold blood as his wife was forced to crouch in the car seeking to avoid the bullets fired around her. Unfortunately, the race—remember he was a stock car driver—of life finished suddenly for Lesley Dallas yesterday as he leaned against his garage door laughing at a joke with his neighbours.
  Austin Nelson, the father of four children—his daughter is a member of my congregation—appeared on television one night playing the fiddle. His only crime was that he was a fiddle player. He spoke on television about his retirement hobby of violin making and, at the end of the programme, he said that he hoped that he would be long spared, not only to make fiddles and violins for his children and grandchildren but to give people happiness by listening to the music he played. Last year, Austin went on a special course in Cambridge to further his hobby. His gracious nature won him the respect and affection of his neighbours. One evening, he entered a garage to enjoy what in Ulster is called a good bit of "crack" or humour.
  Last night, less than 24 hours later, Austin reappeared on television, this time, not as a man playing a fiddle but as a body being carried off the street of Coagh. This time, the news was the announcement of his murder.
  Ernie Rankin, who was 72, was a very popular Coagh character with a keen interest in football. He had no relatives and the people of the area adopted him as a son of the village. They fed him, looked after him and gathered him in on Sunday afternoons because he was a person who

  921
  liked simply country humour. Ernie enjoyed nothing better than a hearty chat and a laugh to dispel the loneliness of his life. He was nearly blind: if an IRA man had been standing in front of him, he could not have recognised him. He enjoyed company. He was called—we can see why from the photographs—the Coagh Jimmy Savile because of the way he kept his hair.
  Lesley Dallas will not be driving this Saturday; Austin Nelson will not be entertaining with his fiddle on any more stages; and old Ernie Rankin, the simple, retired, loving pensioner, will not be walking Coagh street befriending everyone that passes by, irrespective of who they are.
  How did these men die? At 10 past 4 in the afternoon Coagh main street turned into a scene from a John Wayne western. Outside Coagh the men were seen donning their masks. The hooded gunmen drove in and sprayed the garage corner with indiscriminate fire. Three men were murdered. Mrs. Gibson was in the car as the gunfire surrounded it. Mr. Gibson's brother was in the back of the garage as the gun fire spread through it—thank God they were saved.
  No sooner had the gunmen done their deed than a bus stopped and a 14-year-old boy stepped off it, immediately opposite the place where his dad way lying in a pool of blood. A second bus pulled up behind the first and a 16-year-old girl stepped off it and walked over, not to meet her mother with joy to find out what she had bought in the shops, but to find her mother screeching and her father lying with his two friends with whom he had been sharing a joke, in a pool of blood.
  After completing their task the gunmen drove down the Ballinderry road. Again, it was like a John Wayne film. As they drove away they continued firing indiscriminately into the air and then started cheering. It was another job well done. And some hon. Members, with their friendships, claim that these are the heroes and soldiers of Ireland. They are nothing better than cold-blooded murderers; let no one try to paint them in any other light.
  Some weeks ago, the president of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, and Martin McGuinness talked about refined violence and avoiding civilian casualties. The Unionist population knew that that was eyewash, and so it has proved. It was pathetic to hear the media trotting out IRA excuses for the Coagh carnage. First they said it was retaliation; then they changed their story, claiming that the garage was a UVF hideout. A 72-year-old pensioner, a 61-year-old retired man who took up the hobby of violin-making and a 39-year-old stock car racing driver who was looked upon as a champion in the community—these were the supposed conspirators. This was nothing more than a sectarian killing; none of the people was connected with any political party or paramilitary organisation, as the police have made clear.
  The legislation has not dealt with the emergency. If it had, we would not be here talking about it 20 years on. This same village had a 1,000 lb bomb placed in it last September. The bomb was left at the police station. This was not an attack on the security forces—the IRA knew that only an unlicensed dog was guarding the police station. The IRA thought that the time was right to place a 1,000 lb bomb there, not to kill the dog but to murder people living in an adjacent estate, whose inhabitants were 100 per cent. Protestant. Through the mercy of God, they were not killed.
  Listening to the Secretary of State discussing the changes that he accepts, one would think that affairs were
  922
  improving and that we were leaving the crisis behind. The crisis is deepening, and the daily crimes are growing more violent. It grieves me and the people of Northern Ireland to see the media's lack of interest whenever Protestants and Unionist people are murdered. For months on end we heard stories every day about Gibraltar, but when three Protestants were murdered in Coagh last night, the media gave the event 30 seconds. The headlines in the daily papers do not mention the event—they gave the story five lines. The victims happen to be Unionists. I assure the House that if the attack had been carried out by anyone else, it would have made the headlines. If it had been carried out on anyone else the same would apply, hut for Unionists there are no headlines.
  This is the facing down of Unionists, for which a certain political party called when seeking the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The IRA has faced down three innocent men. Their families asked me to ask the House when this is going to end. I should be glad to receive a promise from the Minister of State about that. What can I promise my constituents who are walking broken-hearted behind coffin after coffin? They are not facing threats: this is the real thing. I can tell them that the Government say that they accept recommendations for improving the emergency powers legislation, because we are moving in the right direction. The Government can bring in whatever emergency legislation they want, but unless they are willing to take the initiative and face the terrorists, they will never defeat them.
  I beg the Secretary of State—he has the power—and the Prime Minister—she has the authority, as she has proved so often—to take resolute action to end the nightmare and the carnage in the Province which I love best and which is a part of this great Kingdom. I am sure that the House understands how I feel. I trust that right hon. and hon. Members will also understand that I must return to my constituency, and to the families of those murdered there. I want to listen to the rest of the debate, but I must leave for the airport. I trust that the next speaker will understand that no disrespect is meant, but will bear in mind that I must return to those families who will be burying their loved ones tomorrow.
  5.20 pm
  Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who is my parliamentary neighbour, drew attention to media coverage of three recent deaths in Northern Ireland. He contrasted that coverage with that of other incidents. I was surprised that he did not draw attention to the endless stream of coverage of an author who has simply been threatened with death. That is another facet of the circumstances with which right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies must live. If a threat is made against an individual or groups of individuals in Britain, it is headline news. But whenever there is death in Ulster it will be lightly passed over as just another killing, unless it is a case of multiple death.
  The victims of IRA terrorism in Northern Ireland are being killed because they want to be members and citizens of the nation. At the end of the day, those killings are not about sectarianism but are an attack on British citizenship and the British presence in the Province. I am part of that British presence. When the IRA talk of driving out the British, they are talking not about the fellow in a uniform

  923
  who comes from Kent or Glasgow, but about me, those who vote for me, and those whom I represent. That fact is one that the House steadfastly ignores.
  When a similar debate took place at about this time last year, the cry that went up was about the bombing at Enniskillen and about the tragedy and horror of the multiple death there. Had the debate occurred a week later, the cry would have gone up instead—as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster—about the deaths of three would-be murderers in Gibraltar. A fortnight or so later, that crazy madman Stone was seen running through a cemetery murdering people. If our debate had occurred three days after that incident, it could have concerned itself with the butchering of Corporal Wood and Corporal Howes by people who are worse than wild animals, as we saw on our television screens.
  The same Ministers are in the House today as one year ago. Five or 10 years ago, their predecessors were wending the same weary path, for the same weary reasons—the lack of proper understanding and of proper measures being taken to resolve the conflict. The incidents of the past year have highlighted the need to control funerals, for example. I interrupted the Secretary of State to ask for an assurance that the power to control funerals is to remain. My belief is that funerals should be very strictly controlled, no matter which murderer is being buried.
  Funerals give the IRA and others an opportunity to display their power to intimidate and to do their own thing in their own areas. Those displays are as much a challenge to the security forces and to the governance of Northern Ireland as any IRA attack, such as that which occurred yesterday. They serve as a proclamation that the area in which the display takes place is one in which the IRA can operate. I draw the attention of the House to the almost casual arrogance now being displayed in IRA killings. The soldier murdered in Londonderry city recently was killed not in the heart of a republican area but right in the heart of the loyalist stronghold there. Ten years ago, the IRA would not have dared to do that. It would not have dared when the present Administration came to office. The fact that it does now illustrates the IRA belief that it is making progress, which further illustrates the Government's failure to deal with the situation.
  I think back to the funeral last year that led to the deaths of two young soldiers who simply took the wrong turning, and I wonder who told the security forces to stay away. I wonder what pressures and subtle nuances were brought to bear to keep the security forces away from that IRA funeral. I wonder who told the security forces not to interfere, even when those two young soldiers were being butchered. A "chopper" fitted with a television camera was hovering overhead, observing it all, yet apparently no effort was made to rescue the two individuals who were being killed. That still angers and niggles Ulster people, who have not yet been given the answers that they want.
  At the beginning of the debate, reference was made to the winning of hearts and minds. In a way, I think that that is the wrong policy. It is said that the security forces representing the Government should try to win hearts and minds by staying away from funerals, for example, because their presence will be resented. The House, the Government, the nation and the security forces should instead set about convincing the IRA and Irish
  924
  republicanism in general that they are not going to win. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to note that I am referring to violent IRA republicanism, because that is the well from which all other terrorist organisations ultimately draw their sustaining strength. The activities of the IRA are given as an excuse for Protestant paramilitary attacks and other endless acts of violence. If the IRA problem is solved, the Protestant paramilitary problem will deteriorate, decay and disappear along with it. The conquest and destruction of the IRA is the key to peace in Northern Ireland. Until that fact is faced, and until measures are taken to bring about that conquest, things will go on in the same old way.
  For the IRA, winning is the achievement of a united Ireland. It is as simple and as straightforward as that. It does not matter to the average IRA man or republican whether it is an all-Ireland republic dominated by Charles Haughey or by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: I would not dominate anyone.
  Mr. Ross: But the hon. Gentleman would no doubt be part of a nationalist party, and it would be a nationalist-dominated Ireland. It would be a nationalist Ireland with a nationalist ethos, which is something that I and the people whom I represent would reject.
  The IRA does not really give two hoots, any more than its supporters, which is the dominant republican nationalist element, provided that there is an all-Ireland republic. They are not even very worried whether it is Labour, Left-wing, centre or Right-wing, provided that it is an all-Ireland republic. They would be happy with that, but I would not. The failure to comprehend the nature of the Northern Ireland situation is the root cause of the Government's failure to devise policies that would be totally effective in bringing peace and stability. I have left out the bit about reconciliation because reconciliation is the result of many years of peace and stability and of people living together. I do not think that we shall fall into each other's arms if the IRA stops murdering people tomorrow.
  Since last year some incidents have broken through the normal crust which leads to people ignoring Northern Ireland. I shall mention a few of them. Last August an Army bus was bombed and a number of young men were butchered on their way back from leave. Then we had the Father Ryan affair, over which there was a great deal of hubbub, froth and hot air. Now there is a sort of embarrassed silence because he has vanished into thin air and the chances of getting him back to stand trial here are a very short way above nil, if they are above it at all.
  Yesterday we had the incident in Coagh. There was also a bomb find, apparently where weaponry was being prepared to attack the Prime Minister when she visits Scarborough. Throughout the year there was continuing public and private evidence of a border that is practically afloat in Semtex and weapons. All the evidence available to anyone who takes an interest in Ulster or to those like me who live in it and represent people there shows that Government policy is not defeating the IRA.
  Now and again the people who live on this side of the Irish sea see the tip of what I can only describe as the moral cowardice of the Government in dealing with this matter. Facing the terrorists is not a matter of physical courage

  925
  because many people are willing to do that. What we see is moral cowardice, an unwillingness to stand up to the propaganda, the lies and the nonsense with which we are taunted throughout the world by the supporters of the IRA murder gangs. That moral cowardice is illustrated by the story of a young paratrooper who was walking around on guard with an empty weapon. Perhaps that is an advance, because I think that at one stage they walked around with pickaxe shafts. That is not much good against a Colt 45.
  When I was in the Ulster Special Constabulary, of which I was glad to be a member and proud to serve for 16 years, I never saw the sort of creatures who are often described by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. We rarely went about with unloaded rifles. We had charged magazines in the rifles. Anyone who knows anything about shooting knows that that means that the bolt has only to be pulled backwards and forwards and the weapon can be fired. That is the way in which every soldier on guard outside any military establishment should be armed and ready.
  We are sending these lads out to wander about with unloaded weapons. They are young men in crack regiments of what we are told is the best army in the world. I believe that. We are sending them out with unloaded weapons, as if their expensive training was so ineffective as to render them incapable of handling loaded weapons. That is nonsense and I hope that the people of Britain have seen the end of that nonsense in this incident. I hope that the next time a paratrooper or some other soldier or naval officer or member of the RAF Regiment walks round the corner of a building and sees a terrorist planting a 60 lb Semtex bomb, he will at least be able to fire at him.
  Regardless of when the next shooting incident takes place I hope that we shall not hear in the House and everywhere else claims that "these people are out shooting to kill". Who the devil ever shot to miss? People are meant to shoot to kill, to stop, and if a modern weapon is fired at a body it will cause severe damage, and the person will be extremely lucky to survive. That is what the weapons and ammunition presently issued to the Army are for and they do their job very effectively. I regret that the job is not done often enough.
  If I went to any pub in London tonight—leaving out those that are peopled by the Irish—or if I went anywhere else in Britain and asked the average Englishman, Scotsman or Welshman what he thinks should be done with the IRA or terrorists, he would give exactly the same answer as I give and would probably do it rather more crudely than I would like to do in your presence, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Mallon: That would be indelicate.
  Mr. Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the first and possibly the last time.
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Has the hon. Member considered what would have happened if the sentry on duty at Shrewsbury, having secured his ammunition, had been able to fire accurately at those who were running away? At that stage they had not blown up the barracks. If he had killed one of them, under our present state of law, he would surely have been charged with murder. Does that not show that our present criminal law simply does not apply to the reality of terrorism in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Ross: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. He will remember the two corporals butchered in Belfast in March last year and that one of them leaned out of the car window with a pistol. If an Ulsterman had been leaning out of the window with that pistol, I wonder whether everyone facing him would have been alive 110 seconds later? That soldier was acting under the rules of engagement about which we heard from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. Members of the security forces are out in places where they are likely to be killed and the law should reflect that reality. The Government should not behave as if they are dealing with a peaceful English village on a summer afternoon. Sometimes we read in the newspapers about little riots in such places, so perhaps they are not so peaceful.
  An IRA man or any terrorist with a gun has one intention. It is to plant a bomb or to kill, and he is already psyched up to do it. He will kill as quickly as a snap of the fingers. A police officer friend of mine stopped a person one day in the street in Dungiven, my own village, to ask a question and it ended in him being buried.
  The House and the country should recognise the reality of the situation in Ulster. This House does not think that we are at war, but the IRA figures that it is at war with us and its attitude is that anything goes. I do not want to enter that sewer where anything goes but the laws of the realm should reflect the reality of the task that we have asked our security forces to carry out. The laws that we are debating are not doing that. We should also understand that when incidents such as the one in Gibraltar happen there will be massive howls of indignation.
  The Secretary of State spoke about the propaganda war. The Government lack the commitment to ensure a better and louder propaganda statement. That propaganda must be founded upon truth to rebut the misrepresentations put out by the terrorist organisations.
  This debate must end at 7 o'clock. It is somewhat better attended than many on this issue—and I have been sitting through such debates for 15 years. However, it should not end with the discussion in this House; it should go on within the parties—and principally within the party of government—to ensure that the changes that are absolutely vital are made. This legislation should be part of the whole policy of convincing the IRA—those who, for many years, have been prepared to risk life, limb anti liberty—that the game is not worth the candle. That is what it is all about—convincing them that they are going to lose.
  But convincing them that they are going to lose is only partly a question of law; it is also very largely a question of the perception of Government intention as to where Ulster will be five, 10 or 20 years hence. Unless the Government's actions are sustained, it will not be possible to convince the supporters of the IRA that the IRA will fail, that the republicans will fail, that the nationalists will fail, that the SDLP will fail, in their objective of bringing, about a united Ireland. So long as that policy continues, the war will continue at the steady drip, drip, drip of murder that we have seen for the last few years. In that respect things have not changed very much.
  A new Chief Constable has just been appointed. The politicisation of the police in Northern Ireland under the Anglo-Irish Agreement is far greater and far more evident than that which was alleged under the Stormont regime. I wonder how much discussion there was, within the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, about the appointment of

  927
  the new Chief Constable. Indeed, the Government are duty bound to listen to what the Irish Government say. Should the British Government not introduce the matter into the discussions, the Irish Republic's Ministers certainly would, as they would be duty bound to do.
  How much discussion took place as to who the new Chief Constable should be? How much discussion was there about what sort of man would be acceptable to the nationalist community? Of course, we shall not get an answer. That information will remain hidden perhaps for ever—or at least for 30 years. The Minister replying to this debate will deny that any such discussions took place, but in Northern Ireland his denials will have about as much effect as would throwing a bucket of water on a duck. People will not readily believe them.
  Under article 7 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which is relevant to this debate, the conference considers security policy. This calls into question whether the Secretary of State and his Ministers could easily act in defiance of Dublin's wishes. Given that they are required to work towards agreement with the Government of the Irish Republic, how on earth could they ever arrive at a new effective policy in the short term? Only after the most protracted discussions in the conference could any new policy appear.
  Appointments to the police authority also have to be discussed. To say that these matters do not strike at the very root of the problem in Northern Ireland is to ignore the factual evidence. I wonder whether the new Chief Constable has been given a timetable for the defeat of the IRA, and what policy restrictions are to be placed upon him and upon the other security forces. Given the circumstances under which the Chief Constable is appointed and the circumstances in which he operates, how could anyone say that he is independent? He has to sit with his political masters and with his opposite number from Dublin and his political masters—and the Republic has a very political police force. Bearing all these things in mind, one can only conclude that the political influence that was complained of in the past has not only returned but been reintroduced in a form a dozen times stronger.
  Unless there is a deep and fundamental change in Government policy, we shall be talking in the same terms next year, and the year after that, and for many years to come. The perspective of the terrorist is what matters. The terrorist believes that he has made progress and is making progress. His whole attitude and all of his actions—no doubt some people in this place do not understand those actions because they do not live with them—indicate that what he perceives is Government retreat and republican advance.
  We shall be back next year, and in five years' time, and in 10 years' time, unless there is a deep, fundamental change in Government policy, and unless the new policy is acted upon. Otherwise, the IRA will go on, quietly, steadily, mercilessly, and with ruthless efficiency, killing in dribs and drabs and sometimes in large numbers, to keep the temperature high and to undermine the will of the people to remain British. But we shall not allow our birthright, our nationhood and the things that we believe in to be taken from us by such people. I can assure this House that we shall be there for a long time—British, and being killed because we want to stay British.
  5.47 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The agony of the bloody conflict in Northern Ireland has been going on for over 20 years, and in its wake the constitutional government of the Province has been set aside. Normal local government has been virtually abolished. Transitional constitutional experiments, designed to give the minority a share of power, even to the extent of allowing a foreign country the right of consultation, have been tried and have failed.
  All those developments were designed to placate the minority in Northern Ireland, who would rather be governed by the Irish Republic than by the United Kingdom. British Governments of all persuasions have thought that, if those people could be placated, they would not support the terrorist campaign, which seeks to achieve republican aims by violence. But that is wrong, and it has always been wrong. The violence has not ceased; indeed, since the conclusion of the last desperate expedient—the Anglo-Irish Agreement—it has escalated.
  I shall not repeat the arguments that I have used over the past 10 years against these foolish efforts to appease our enemies in Ulster. I pay tribute to the courage and integrity of my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, but I have to say that all their efforts have failed and that the British Government are left with a situation which, in some ways, is worse than it has ever been. Far from being abated by the Government's efforts at conciliation, the hostility and resentment of a significant part of the Irish republican minority in Northern Ireland has been aggravated by a situation in which they see themselves as the political masters, whereas they once thought of themselves as the underdogs. The majority of the population—loyal, but often sullen and anxious, and fearful of being abandoned by a Conservative Government they can no longer look on as a trusted friend have—suspended their judgment, and most of their representatives now sit opposite the Government in the House of Commons.
  The scope is small for further political initiatives to end the constitutional impasse and terrorism. The only outstanding initiative, which has not been taken up so far, lies in the Irish Prime Minister summoning Unionist leaders to Dublin as though to hear his terms for a settlement.
  Devolution has failed, as it inevitably must when we try to isolate in one cockpit two warring, incompatible elements divided by race and Church. The continuing habit of British Ministers in such circumstances to repeat the cry of devolution as though it were some possible solution makes one wonder at their common sense. A further long period of stalemate and attrition faces us. The agony, torment and suffering of the good British people of Ulster seems destined to go on, reinforcing misery, deepening divisions, and providing new agents and new recruits of bitterness and hostility to carry on the conflict which many people now believe that neither side can win while Northern Ireland remains in its present form. The IRA has made it quite impossible—it is quite out of the question—for any loyal Ulsterman even to contemplate a united Ireland.
  One honourable option is still open to us. I know that I am presently much in the minority of Unionists who advocate it. It is to provide for an exercise in self-determination in Northern Ireland by way of a

  929
  referendum designed to identify those who wish to remain in the United Kingdom and those who wish to live in the Irish Republic. Where, in border areas, a majority exists for the Irish Republic, let those areas secede from the United Kingdom. For the rest, let a similar logic apply—generous resettlement grants for those who find themselves on what they may consider to be the wrong side of the new border. That would be a drastic and costly remedy to the situation in Northern Ireland, but only a drastic step will detach the republican population from the IRA. That remedy would not he nearly as costly as the continuation of the present situation.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: One of the tragedies of this type of debate is that we never seem to deal with the subject that we are supposed to be discussing. In this instance, we are discussing the emergency provisions legislation as it applies in the North of Ireland and also references to it by Viscount Colville of Culross. During this debate, there has been remarkable insight into some attutudes not just to this subject but to the context in which that legislation is to operate. I can understand the anger and resentment that was expressed by hon. Members who represent the Unionist community in the North of Ireland, but we should never allow that anger, or the sentimentality that it produces, to cloud our judgment of the challenge that faces us.
  The challenge is simple. It is how to get a solution to the awful problem that faces all of us, not just in Northern Ireland but in Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Whatever type of thinking we bring to it, the problem does not stop at the border or the coastline. It transcends them. It is a three-part problem that will require everybody's resources, commitment and resolve.
  Throughout the debate, I have been reminded of the famous words of Wilfred Owen about war situations:
  "The poetry is in the pity."
  I like to think that we can get to a stage in Northern Ireland at which the politics are in the pity and that the pity that was clearly expressed today could translate itself into the type of political attitude in which, rather than getting bogged down in the type of emotional binge that we all indulge in so often, we try to think our way out of the problem. I hope that, somewhere along the line, anger, resentment and pity can be translated into the type of practical politics that alone will solve the problem.
  This has been a political debate. The only time we get a chance to debate the political problem in Northern Ireland is during a debate on a piece of emergency legislation. Unfortunately, the political context is tied to an emotive matter. Since I have been elected to the House, there has not been a time when the purely political element of a debate could be discussed in a more rational manner. That is one of the tragedies.
  I should like to dispel some of the problems enunciated by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). He talked about nationalists' wish to dominate people on the island of Ireland. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the nationalists whom my party represents firmly believe in nationalism and are absolutely opposed to the use of violence to obtain their political objectives. They do not wish to dominate anyone. They have no desire to indulge in domination, not only because of the human elements concerned but because, if history has taught us anything, it has clearly shown that domination will never solve any
  930
  problem. I take this opportunity of informing the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues—I have said it before in such debates, and I shall say it again—that the problem will not be solved on the Floor of the House of Commons.
  It has been interesting to note almost schizophrenia on the part of some hon. Members—their irrational fear of nationalism and disillusionment with membership of the House, while proclaiming their Britishness. Political Unionism is expressing its disillusionment with its British context, its British presence arid membership of the House. That schizophrenia affects all people and not just unionism in the North of Ireland. We must patiently try to work it out. The immediate image that sprang to mind during the debate was of the magnificent play, written not so long ago, called "Observe the sons of Ulster Marching Towards the Somme". It was almost as if we could hear those footsteps again, blaming the British connection for their own failure to work out a means of living peacefully on a small piece of land called Ireland. That is the basis of the political approach that my party would offer those people who live with us.
  I am not one who likes to get up here or anywhere else wearing my heart on my sleeve. I am a villager as well. I live in a small village. I lifted a policeman up one night, shot dead by people who call themselves Irish patriots. I lifted up my own election agent one night from his doorstep, riddled with bullets, dead. I do not want to go into that. It is not the way forward. All we are doing is clouding our own judgment. All we are doing is losing sight of the objective, which is to solve this problem.
  But I understand the emotions that exist about Coagh. It is a small village. Everyone knows it. I could pick out three people in my own village who would be mirror images of those who were killed. We could do it for every village in the North of Ireland. So it is not just an isolated feeling of pity. One of the strengths of our situation is that the pity is there, the abhorrence of that terrible sectarian deed is there, throughout the North of Ireland. Rather than let it become an end in itself, I would ask that it become a springboard for consideration of our problems.
  The problem is nothing new. Nationalism has been used in a very throwaway sense here this evening. People in the North of Ireland, however, were killing each other in the same way long before nationalism became a force. The famous massacre on the river Bann in Portadown took place in the 17th century, long before nationalism became the vogue, as it did as a result of the French revolution, and long before it became a potent force in Irish life before and after partition. We have on record sectarian assassination after sectarian assassination in the county that I live in, long before nationalism became either a political or a physical force. So the problem is more profound.
  Yet it may be much simpler than we often make it. How do we, a small group of people living on a small island, decide together how we will live there for the benefit of-everyone, how we will live in peace, with nobody winning" with no domination, with no surrender on anyone's part? I suggest that we start looking at that question. It struck me tonight, as it has often struck me, that if we spent more time in the House discussing how we might solve the problem, or even the same amount of time as we have spent on this piece of legislation and the prevention of terrorism legislation and the public order legislation, and on and on, perhaps somewhere we would get some light and some insight into the way that we must move.

  931
  I want to reassure those who represent Unionists in the North of Ireland that domination has no part in our political philosophy. Victory has no part in our political philosophy. We believe that, it they look at this problem simply as an extension of the House, it will not be solved, because we are all optional extras in the Palace of Westminster. Nobody from the North of Ireland needs to be told that. One of the roots of Unionism's anger and frustration is that Unionists are only now realising what perhaps others of us have seen from the outside for so long. Nor will it be solved on the floor of Dail Eireann. I have been there and I realised that in many ways I was again an optional extra from a different place. But we will solve this problem, when we solve it, with the help of the House, the active help and involvement of the House and of Dail Eireann in getting to grips with it. Then we shall be in a position to begin to talk rationally about this and other pieces of legislation and see where they fit into the overall jigsaw.
  I do not want to make light of the problem of not talking about the emergency provisions, because they are very serious indeed. There is the problem of policing. Viscount Colville has said that there is a problem, and we all know that there is a problem. If there is a problem, let us, for heaven's sake, face it. Let us start talking about it. I am frustrated when, time and time again, we get platitudes from Ministers. They stand up, pat us on the head and take almost a different position every month to see what the reaction may be.
  We must face the reality that, in almost half the land mass of the North of Ireland, there is not a single policeman. That is a fundamental problem. So we must ask two questions: why is it that way, and how can we deal with it? It is correct to say that one of the reasons is that they would be killed, but the problem is much more fundamental than that as well. So do we ever get an opportunity from the Government to begin to discuss the problems, or do we spend the rest of our political lives feeding on the type of platitude that we often hear?
  We must also look at the very factor that Lord Colville identifies—the relationship between the community, the police and the security forces. He identifies that as one of the problems, and it is a big one. How do we deal with that type of relationship? Bad policing is having a terrible and corrosive effect. It is counter-productive. Viscount Colville clearly identifies that, and I am glad that he does so. He puts it right at the forefront of his report, in the hope that something will be done about it.
  I take this opportunity of asking the Secretary of State and the Minister of State what they will do to ensure that it is driven home to those charged with looking after law and order that policing must be done on a fair and equitable basis and within their own rules. They must tell me. And, no thanks, I want no more platitudes—I have had enough of them. I want to know what steps will be taken. I agree with Viscount Colville when he makes it clear that senior police officers realise that this is a very important issue which must be dealt with.
  What will be done at the political level by the Government to ensure that that realisation filters down from the senior officers to the ranks? If the problem continues, it is due to one of two things: either the senior officers and the Ministers do not make their writ run, or
  932
  the junior officers involved in these incidents are cocking a snook at those who are giving the orders. It is one or the other, and it is so serious that I ask again, as I have asked so often, what steps will be taken to deal with it.
  Viscount Colville focuses on the problems of both the Police Complaints Commission and the complaints procedure for the Army. To date, the new Police Complaints Commission has been a fairly abysmal failure. It has a flaccid, passive approach to dealing with the legislation that it is given. While that legislation is inadequate in many ways, it is at least there to be used, but it has not been used by an inactive commission, with the result that the commission in its own way is counter-productive when it comes to the problems that will be faced by a new Chief Constable.
  I welcome that appointment. I do not know the man from Adam. I do not know his religion. It makes no difference to me where he is from—Dublin or Belfast—or what his religion is. All I want to know is whether he is a good cop. Does he know what he is doing? Has he the strength to go in there and look at the problems and not pretend that they do not exist? Has he the strength to go through with his decisions and to ensure that those decisons will help to bring about a solution to a policing problem which has always been there? Has he the vision to look at policing structures and to see whether there is a way within those structures in which we can get to grips with the problem? We talk about policing as an amorphous thing. There are 48 police services in England and Wales and eight in Scotland. Northern Ireland has a structural problem. Perhaps at some time we will have the vision to consider how we can deal with that element of the problem.
  Reluctantly, I turn to something which affected the debate earlier, which was the reference by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to the position of solicitors in the North of Ireland. My views on that are on record, and I do not want to enter into that controversy again. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that, in a letter, the Under-Secretary talked about "remarks attributed to me". He repeated that allegation 11 times. I am wondering whether he is saying that that was attributed to him 11 times.
  Much more importantly, the Under-Secretary began by saying, "I have been advised". Who advised the Under-Secretary to put those remarks on record? He must have been advised, because he displayed an absymal ignorance about everything else about the North of Ireland. Who told him that that was the position? Only three agencies could have told him—first, his Government colleagues; secondly. the police and Army authorities in the North of Ireland; thirdly, lay people. The Under-Secretary owes it to the House and to the people in the North of Ireland to tell us who advised him to put his foot in it to the extent to which he did.
  I believe that we must draw together all these pieces of legislation. Their re-enactment will again come before the House in 1992. We have the prevention of terrorism Act, the emergency provisions Acts, the public order legislation and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act as it applies to the North of Ireland. When one starts to deal with those, especially in Committee, it is a nightmare, because one is jumping from one piece of legislation to another. It is almost impossible to follow the strands, because there are contradictions, elements which overlap and elements

  933
  which simply do not make any sense. There is an opportunity to discard some of the elements that Lord Colville and others have recommended we should discard.
  I have argued the case for normality so often that I shall not detain the House with it again. If the emergency legislation must be repeated, at least let it be repeated in a way which makes logistical sense, because as it stands there is provision for some elements of the emergency provisions Acts in the public order legislation that is applied under the prevention of terrorism Act. It is a nightmare not just for people in the House who must deal with it, but for police officers, solicitors and, above all, for the person who is arrested under that legislation.
  I have seen at first hand the financial sacrifices, inconvenience and hardship caused to people who come to this country to visit their relatives in prison. It does not make any humanitarian sense to stick strictly by the letter of the law and to say that people from Ireland—especially Northern Ireland—must serve out their sentences here if they were committed here. The hardship caused to relatives is a hidden factor, something that we are ignoring. I ask that the process of transferring prisoners from gaols in Britain to serve out their sentence in Northern Ireland be speeded up. We can then bring a little humanitarianism, consideration and pity into an otherwise harsh landscape of emergency legislation.
  6.15 pm
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope to mention at least one of the points made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
  Recently I saw a poster issued, I believe, by one of the Northern Irish political parties in which superimposed on the word "Terrorism" was the slogan:
  "Defeat it, don't debate it."
  After 20 years of violence and yet one more debate, one might feel that the poster's author had a point. However, with all their imperfections and inadequacies, debates on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts enable us both to debate and to maintain the legal structure within which our security forces must operate at all times.
  On this occasion, there is another dimension to the debate. It is taking place while the review period for the Anglo-Irish Agreement is proceeding. Three years ago when the agreement was announced to the House, we were told that its objectives were to secure peace, stability and reconciliation: that by the agreement security on both sides of the border would be improved with much greater co-operation between the Garda and the RUC and, therefore, peace might become a reality in the Province. We were told that, through the ministerial meetings that were enshrined in the agreement, matters of mutual interest would be discussed and that the concerns of the minority community in the North would have a powerful new advocate in the shape of the Dublin Government. Sadly, what the agreement lacked—and one of the reasons why I voted against it—was any place in its machinery for the voice to be heard of the majority community in the Province. For that reason it was, and remains, seriously flawed. I hope that during the review process that flaw will be put right. Although I may be told that the Unionists will not accept the agreement anyway, nevertheless, if that agreement is ever to obtain acceptability among the majority in the Province, it can do so only if they have a
  934
  voice in its counsels. To this day it has amazed me that we felt that we could sign such a treaty without incorporating that obvious need.
  Of course, in some quarters there is the hope that the continuing hostility to the agreement from the Unionist parties and the events in the South over extradition will, in fact, result in the agreement being shelved altogether—somehow or other it will wither on the branch and will die a natural death. I wonder if that is a realistic scenario. Apart from the fact that, as far as I know, no British Government has ever unilaterally broken a treaty, what would be the effect on Irish politics and international opinion if under pressure from one part of the community the Government gave up the agreement? I believe that it would be catastrophic. Those who want to believe that the Catholic minority is always under threat from the Protestant majority would have their worst fears confirmed.
  Irish America would be incensed and would no doubt multiply many times over its contributions to Noraid. The IRA would have a field day. It would have scored such a major propaganda victory as to give it new hope and zest to continue its fearful and bloody campaign of violence, another terrible example of which were the killings in county Tyrone yesterday.
  Would the Province suddenly become more peaceful? Would the minority community be more willing to co-operate with the Government? Would the security forces or the RUC get co-operation from the minority community if the agreement was torn up? Would we be any nearer to seeing the Acts that we are debating tonight lapse if that happened? I believe that the only answer to all those questions is a resounding no.
  For all practical purposes I consider that the agreement must stand and that the Unionist parties must modify their refusal to co-operate with the Secretary of State and his Ministers as they seek a way in which to implement the words in the Queen's Speech about allowing local politicians greater involvement in the affairs of the Province.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman change his view were it possible to negotiate a better agreement which would command wider support than the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Why would the hon. Gentleman want to hold on to an agreement that has so lamentably failed and that does not have the consent of the community if it were possible to get an agreement which the Unionist leaders would consider as an alternative to and replacement of the Anglo-Irish Agreement or the Social Democratic and Labour party leader would consider as transcending in importance that agreement?
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman as I was just about to say exactly what he said. If the agreement has failed to deliver peace, stability and reconciliation, what useful purpose does it serve? Standing on its own and after three years perhaps not much, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman would agree that cross-border co-operation has greatly improved, even if we cite as evidence only the huge arms finds north and south of the border. Those finds have done much to negative the threat posed by the shipment of explosives and weapons from Libya to the IRA. We all recognise that those arms finds are extremely important to the lives of a great many people, particularly in the North.

  935
  The acceptance in writing of the status of the Province set out in the treaty could be, if we chose it to be, the beginning of a new stability for Northern Ireland. It could be seen as a way to achieving peace and reconciliation. As so many speakers have already said we all know that terrorism thrives on—indeed, seeks to create—instability, the feeling that nothing is permanent and that everything is up for grabs. That is why each failed political initiative in Northern Ireland has ultimately played into the hands of the IRA and those who believe that the instability of the Province serves their political ends.
  While Ulster is without an assembly or a regional administration and the political parties that represent the majority of her people boycott the Secretary of State and his efforts to create a local forum—while there is a political vacuum in the Province—those politicians are working against their own best interests. I also question whether they are completely in step with certain bodies of opinion in the Province if the recent poll in Sunday Life—a local Sunday newspaper in Northern Ireland—of 26 February is anything to go by. That survey showed that of those polled, 78 per cent. of Protestants and 57 per cent. of Catholics preferred power sharing to other options such as integration or a federal Ireland. In fact, more Catholics even preferred that option to a united Ireland. No one suggests that one poll is conclusive evidence, but it is a rough guide to local feeling—nobody can gainsay that.
  If, as the poll suggested, it is also true that a majority of Ulster Unionists, SDLP and Alliance members and a sizeable proportion of the Democratic Unionist party were in favour of the Duisburg inter-party talks, is it not possible that the desire for a new political structure in the Province—one which would give Ulstermen a proper share in the administration of the six counties, their counties—could, if taken up seriously, lead to a political institution from which the entire community could benefit and reconciliation become a reality?
  According to the agreement, the involvement of the southern Government in the affairs of the Province are or would be limited by the extent of the responsibilities given to a devolved administration. Surely that is a prize to make the most anti-agreement politican ask whether non-cooperation with the Northern Ireland Office is now not self-defeating.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: A democracy of devolved institutions is more than just majority rule—majority rule has caused some of the problems in Northern Ireland. Even if the political parties share a desire to come together, how the politics work out might mean that majority rule leads to a situation in which the minority feel oppressed. In those circumstances, would it not be a good idea for a bill of rights to accompany any move towards devolved government? In that way the minority, as well as the majority, would feel that their civil liberties were protected. In that way the conditions in which democracy could work would be improved as democracy is not just about votes, but about the spirit in which it operates.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I do not dissent from that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard me refer to power sharing as the favoured option of the majority in both the Catholic and Protestant communities. The hon.
  936
  Gentleman must be aware that the Duisburg talks involved the SDLP, the Unionists and the DUP. I am not suggesting, nor would anyone else suggest, that we should go back to old style majority rule. I am talking about a local administration and I would like the Government to spell out the framework in which such an administration could be created.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: On the suggestion of a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland with power sharing between those who want a united Ireland and those who are British—in other words, the nationalists and the Unionists—does the hon. Gentleman extend the sample principle to Scotland? Is he in favour of power sharing between the Scottish Nationalists and the Scottish Conservatives in Edinburgh?
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not pursue that particular argument. I believe that he was a member of a Government in Northern Ireland who were certainly prepared to offer some of the chairmanship of their committees to the other political parties that were not in the majority in the old Stormont. I may be wrong, but I believe that that was the case. I do not believe that my suggestions would differ widely from that because the right hon. Gentleman will note that I have stressed the word administration. I believe that there would be committees covering various aspects of that administration and I understand that there is wide agreement that the chairmanship of those committees could be spread among the parties.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: I agree with the sharing of chairmanships among the parties, but with regard to the former Stormont Parliament I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the nationalist Member for Mourne was the Chairman of Ways and Means of the House of Commons.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information and I hope that I have been able to clarify the point he made.
  In a sense my peroration is rather ruined; perhaps that is no bad thing. I believe secure borders and a stable local administration to be the most effective answers to the terrorist who seeks to manipulate the region's politics out of the barrel of his gun. Are they not the way to stability and peace for the future?
  6.28 pm
  Mr. Martin Flannery: My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned a point about which I have felt deeply for rather more years than he has—that we never discuss the politics of Northern Ireland or Ireland without there being some kind of emergency or emergency legislation. In Committee, we have discussed emergency provisions to the point of exhaustion, but one point that has stood out in today's debate has been the avoidance, by almost all hon. Members, of discussing what we came here to discuss—the renewal of the Acts. There is a good political reason for that and it is linked precisely with the fact that politics breaks through, whether we like it or not. All hon. Members have discussed the politics of Northern Ireland today and have only occasionally mentioned the emergency provisions legislation.

  937
  To make matters worse this time, we have just heard of the dreadful and melancholy killings, although all our debates on Northern Ireland are melancholy. It is a sad business, but a harsh reality, that people who have such a sense of humour should never use it in debate. The emergency provisions legislation has hardly been mentioned because it is almost irrelevant to the problems. That is one reason, among others, why I shall be voting against the renewal of the provisions for the umpteenth time tonight.
  The overwhelming majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland—the extremely overwhelming majority, if one can say that—on both sides of the sectarian divide are honest and law-abiding people who want to live in peace and democracy. For as long as I can remember, they have not been given the chance to do that. The problem burst through, for the umpteenth time, about 20 years ago. When I became a Member of Parliament—15 years ago this week—I never dreamed that we would go on discussing the problem, as it had been raised in 1973 and the civil rights march had taken place in 1969. We must, therefore, while struggling against the paramilitaries of both sides, protect all innocent people from arbitrary arrest and harassment. The harassment is often not directly physical, but springs from the terrible situation in Northern Ireland which makes all the population of Northern Ireland—innocent and law-abiding as they are—feel that they are part of the struggle across the sectarian divide and causes them to see no hope of getting anywhere. If we do not realise that when we are discussing the emergency provisions and if we do not realise that people who have never harmed anyone feel that everything is hopeless and that they are getting nowhere, we are not seeing the situation properly. It is wrong that we do not discuss the politics of Northern Ireland in straightforward debate without it always being tied to emergency legislation.
  This morning,the publicity Member of Parliament for the Official Unionist party—the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—was on the radio and, once again, he called for internment. It is extremely sad that, after all we have learned, he should be calling, once again, for internment. I believe that, in fact, internment can still be used, although it is not being used at present. To call for internment once again is to pour petrol on the terrible fire that is once again raging in Northern Ireland. I cannot understand why anybody who has been immersed in the struggle for so many years would call for that, although my heart goes out to the people who live there and I say that in every debate. I do not live there and when I listen to the people, from both sides, who do, I am staggered at their courage.
  For such a person to call for one of the causes of the deepening struggle in Northern Ireland was shocking. The gaoling of people whom we do not know to be guilty is a real crime. It immediately intensifies the problem. It brings the detainees' families into the struggle when the detainees have never even been tried. It is shocking to have an important Member of Parliament calling for internment when he knows that in flinging what he called the godfathers into gaol without trial we would bring a whole new section of people in Northern Ireland into physical action and strengthen the hand of the paramilitaries on both sides. It would strengthen the IRA when, on present showing, it can go on indefinitely killing and maiming and
  938
  surely we want that to stop, not to intensify. There are no signs of the paramilitaries being defeated either by the security forces or by each other.
  We shall go on discussing the problem long after I am gone if something political is not done. To raise the politics of Northern Ireland in the House is to be condemned straight away. Yet we would then be discussing the reality of what is happening and not the superficialities of the terrible deaths, killings and slaughter which continue all the time. We could go on discussing that as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) did. I know that it was hard for him because people had just been killed in his constituency, but we must discuss the causes and not just the symptoms of these terrible problems. There are no signs of either side being defeated. Both have considerable support in their communities and stores of armaments from various sources. They can carry on as they are, almost indefinitely, unless politics intervenes or supervenes.
  The deadly enemy of terrorism is democracy, not defeating the other side or armaments. It is precisely because there was no real democracy in Northern Ireland that we are in this mess today. I must say to all Unionists that they still have the old Stormont mentality. All they want is to go back to the old Stormont, but that is impossible. However, as long as that mentality pervades their ranks, the slaughter will go on. That is the harsh reality which we never discuss here because we never discuss the politics of the situation.
  Mr. Mallon: I do not think that that is the reality. Many Unionists now do not think in those terms and are desperately seeking, as we are, to see how we can get not just an arrangement, but a solution to the problem. If they are not prepared to put that on record, I may be forgiven for helping them out by doing so.
  Mr. Flannery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting me if I was wrong. I do not see the situation with the same clarity, but I do not see it with the optimism that he conveyed in his remarks either. I am surprised that he feels such optimism. I cannot sense it, but I hope that I am wrong and that he is right.
  The House condemns terrorism by both sides. It is time that the Unionists did what I asked of one of them earlier today. They should condemn murders when committed by paramilitary loyalist groups and condemn the IRA when it carries out murders. They should condemn both, but they should not intensify the struggle by condemning only one side. We must condemn terrorism from both sides.
  The present legislation has not done anything to stop the killings. The killings have intensified and there is considerable evidence that the Acts have exacerbated the problem and have not achieved anything held out by Lord Colville, or by Sir George Baker before him. I have attended almost every Northern Ireland debate and Question Time in the past 15 years and, once again, matters are becoming worse. There is no victory on the agenda in Northern Ireland for anyone. There is a problem to be faced, but no victory. The people who believe that they can be victorious are living in a dream world. They might want to smash the enemy and put him down, but if they did, he would rise again, whichever side he was on, Peace will come only when proof is given that equality and democracy will be given to both communities and that

  939
  there will be no return to the flagrant lack of democracy of the old Stormont, which brought about the civil rights march and the attack on it 20 years ago.
  Mr. William rose—
  Mr. Flannery: No, I shall not give way because it is time for me to conclude my speech.
  The only hope for peace is to ensure that the majority community never again enjoys a virtual autocracy over the minority community and that there is a coming together of the communities. There is no future in slaughtering each other. The only hope is for a change of mind on the part of the Unionists and for them to offer the hand of democracy to the minority community. I am sure that if that hand were reached out, the other side would heartily grip it and there would be peace, but that is the only hope that I can see.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: We have had an interesting debate which has been highly charged in part. It is well that we remind ourselves of the people about whom we have been talking and of the reason the security forces claim to need the emergency powers. We are talking about the thousands, if not millions, of ordinary people who live in the Province who wish simply to go about their daily business unhindered and without the threat of violence. They wish to pursue what we consider to be ordinary objectives such as a job, a decent house, a decent school and all the other things that make up normal social and economic life for the rest of the United Kingdom.
  We must always remember that that is the backcloth to our debates. Like the rest of the citizens of the United Kingdom, the people of Northern Ireland wish to live in peace and in a democratic society. That is why the Army went into the Province some years ago and that is why the emergency provisions legislation was introduced. It is as well to remind ourselves also that the Army entered the Province to uphold democratic values and to support, not supplant, the civilian authorities in upholding the rule of law. If that is the backcloth and those are the reasons, despite the cries for greater activity from some hon. Members, it inevitably means the minimum use of force and, where possible, the application of the general criminal law, and every derogation from those values must be justified. Our claim is that there has been a distinct failure to do that, especially in the Secretary of State's speech, and that is one reason why we shall vote against the order.
  I should liketo make it clear that that does not mean any softening towards terrorism or acts or terrorism. Terrorism is inimical to the basic democratic instincts that the vast majority of Members of Parliament in the House share. I regret and reject the charge made by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) that there is a lack of resolve against terrorism. He charged the Government with a lack of resolve and, by implication, his charge was general against all parties in the House. I totally reject that charge if it was levelled at the Labour party. I am sure that when the Minister replies he will reject the charge equally vehemently on behalf of the Government.
  We are not soft on terrorism. Terrorism must be defeated, but it must be defeated in a way that does justice
  940
  to the democratic values of our society and that does not use techniques or methods that would be more appropriate in a more authoritarian if not dictatorial society.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East also gave the impression that the attitude of the IRA and its apparent freedom of movement suggest that the IRA thinks that it has won the battle. That is turning truth on its head. The frustration of the IRA and its inability to make real political progress, either north or south of the border, is shown by its increased use of violence in its attacks in the North of Ireland and in the attacks that it has sought to carry out in Great Britain. There is no way, politically, in which the IRA can win the hearts and minds of the majority of the minority community in the North of Ireland and there is no way in which the IRA can militarily defeat the security forces in the North of Ireland.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: As election results have consistently shown that 30 per cent. of the Roman Catholic community votes for the terrorist party Sinn Fein, why does the hon. Gentleman think it impossible for Sinn Fein to advance from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent?
  Mr. Marshall: If the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks in Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I said that Sinn Fein has failed to win the majority of the minority community in the North of Ireland. That is the position now. My best guess is that it would find it virtually impossible to secure the majority vote of the minority community in the North of Ireland—
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Why?
  Mr. Marshall: Because the majority of people in the minority community—as in the majority community—do not like being pushed around by bully boys. They want to lead normal lives and to live in peace with people across the community. It is for that reason that they share the same aspirations, desires and aims as all other ordinary people in the North of Ireland and why they do not share the aims and objectives of the gunmen and the terrorists.
  As I have only four minutes left, I shall try to make further progress rapidly. I refer now to the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). In his absence I shall say only that I wish that the hon. Gentleman would show as much emotion and feeling when seeking to attain a political solution in Northern Ireland as he shows when bringing to the House one catalogue of death after another. The hon. Gentleman shows a high degree of emotion and feels highly emotional about the position. However, if he could divert his energy and emotion into positive avenues of seeking a political solution in Northern Ireland if only for a few seconds, Northern Ireland would be a far better place.
  I turn finally to the comments of the Secretary of State. He singularly failed to give any justification of the measures that he is bringing forward for renewal today. He made two general assertions with which no one would disagree. I remind the Secretary of State of those two assertions. The first was that, in view of yesterday's and other recent events, the security forces require every assistance and support. I agree with that—everyone would agree with it. The second general assertion was that the perpetrators of such crimes must be brought to justice. Again, we all agree with that general assertion. However, the Secretary of State then sought to imply that, having

  941
  made those two general assertions, there was no need to seek to justify the measures in detail. That was a failure on the part of the Secretary of State this afternoon.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made clear, when we are seeking to justify changes from the normal criminal law and derogations from normal standards, it is vital that justifications are given and that they are convincing. The Secretary of State tried to hide his lack of any real argument in favour of the measure by drawing attention to progress made by the Government in other spheres, and he referred to jobs, equality of opportunity and housing. While the Government have made admirable progress in those areas, the right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that unless there is political progress, with a determination on his part and that of the constitutional parties to get together and form a new political consensus in the North, all that admirable economic and social progress will count for naught.
  I urge the Secretary of State, as I have in previous debates, to continue to seek talks with the constitutional parties, and I appreciate that that is his intention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) pointed out, there is great need for politicians in the North to talk in terms of making political progress and not concentrate always on the evil aspects of the Province.
  We need a body of criminal law in Northern Ireland which is clear, coherent and concise. We should dispense with all powers that are not really needed. There should be no duplication of powers and we should not fall into the trap of believing that the criminal law alone can solve the problems of Northern Ireland.
  Because it fails to answer those challenges, we shall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, oppose the order tonight.
  6.53 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart)This debate is taking place in the shadow of last night's atrocity in Coagh, and hon. Members present this evening appreciate the emotion of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who spoke about those whom he knew personally. But despite that emotion, we must lake decisions using judgment, according to our best advice and experience of the facts.
  I heard with sadness from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that the Opposition would vote against the order tonight, because there is no subject about which one could say more strongly that the Government wished that they had no grounds to criticise the Opposition. If ever there was a subject on which a unity of purpose and approach was desirable in this House, it is this issue of the troubles and terrorism in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, we do not have that tonight. To use an Irish writer's phrase, the Labour party's attitude to terrorism is in a state of "chassis."
  I recall that, when we debated what was then the Prevention of Terrorism Bill on Second Reading, some Opposition Members abstained, some voted for a reasoned amendment and some voted against. Tonight they have decided to vote against. I hope that some of them may be honourable enough to abstain, or even to vote in the Lobby with the Government.
  942
  I draw a contrast between what was said in this debate by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and his noble Friend Lord Mason who, when he had the responsibility for dealing with these problems, introduced and supported measures such as we are discussing tonight and ensured that the security forces had the powers they needed. Speaking in the other place recently in the context of prevention of terrorism legislation, Lord Mason said:
  "we stood together"—
  referring to the 1970s—
  "with the major political parties behind us."—[official Report, House of Lords, 13 February 1989; Vol. 504. c. 34.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. If the Minister is quoting from a speech made by a Member of the other place who is not a Minister, will he please paraphrase?
  Mr. Stewart: Thank you for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Lord Mason said in another place that at that time basic freedoms were under serious threat and that bipartisan support was necessary. I regret that we have not had that in this debate.
  When Labour Members were in office in the 1970s they were responsible for these issues and were determined to deal with the problem. I was sorry to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), because he seemed to be apologising for the position that his Front Bench was advocating. Opposition Members seem to have lost their grip on reality. They say that they are committed to the fight against terrorism, but they will not support any longer the measures that are necessary to conduct that fight. To will the end but not the means is a position of irresponsibility.
  The Government have their responsibilities in this matter. We regret, just as Lord Colville regretted, that he had to conclude that there was reluctant acceptance of the need for emergency provisions of this kind. The powers which we seek to renew are a regrettable necessity. We do not view security policy in isolation. We do not want to leave a vacuum on the political front. We believe that progress towards political development and dialogue would help, but they would not achieve a solution on their own. Without the necessary powers, our security forces cannot pursue the campaign against terrorism which, alas, is essential in Northern Ireland today.
  The Government will continue to deal robustly with terrorism within the law. With emergency legislation, it is always a question of balance and fine judgment. Measures must be powerful enough to be effective, but we must never lose that essential ingredient of fairness and general consideration towards the public, a point to which several hon. Members have referred.
  Lord Colville emphasised, above all in what he said, that the comments made to him were not so much about the powers as about the way in which they were exercised. I wish to endorse again on behalf of the Government our commitment that all these powers should be implemented in a fair and impartial way, with courtesy and consideration, and that lapses—which occasionally, I am afraid, are bound to happen and are deeply to be regretted—must be as few as possible. We appreciate that they have an effect on public confidence and that the support of the community is a vital contributory factor in countering terrorism.

  943
  I hope that the independent commission for police complaints, which was not enthusiastically received by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), will prove to be an important instrument for dealing with complaints. We must bear in mind that the commission has not yet produced a report on its first 10 months of activity. I am sure that its establishment is an important innovation.
  The fact that the Army has taken new measures to speed up the machinery for dealing with complaints demonstrates our belief that this is an important matter, and we support what Lord Colville said about the impact that it can make in the general campaign against terrorism.
  To get the matter into perspective, with 10,000 regular troops and 6,000 members of the UDR in Northern Ireland, in the eight months to the end of January that represented nearly 4 million troop days of activity, and that has resulted in fewer than 200 complaints coming to Army headquarters, Northern Ireland. I wish that the number was smaller, but one must keep the situation in perspective.
  I pay tribute to the members of the RUC, the Regulars and the Reserves, the UDR and the Regular soldiers for the way in which they, on behalf of the whole community—of the Government, the people of Great Britain and the people of Northern Ireland—at great risk to themselves—day after day, month after month and alas year after year—enable the people of Northern Ireland to live as normal a life as possible in difficult circumstances.
  We are anxious to see an improvement in the security situation, and I am not without hope on that front. Significant finds of weaponry have been made in recent months in the North of Ireland, and also by the Gardai in the Republic. I am encouraged by the growing feeling of resentment in Northern Ireland about the futility of terrorism as a means of achieving any of the ends that the terrorists say they espouse.
  There are better prospects now in Northern Ireland; they could be even better if terrorism could be seen to fail. Terrorism itself will never achieve anything but grief and waste. We need to ensure, under those circumstances, that the brave members of the security forces who carry such responsibilities on behalf of us all have the means to counter terrorism. They need the sort of powers that were introduced in the emergency provisions legislation of the 1970s and 1980s. They need the provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill which is going through Parliament—
  It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question on the motion, pursuant to Order [3 March].
  The House divided: Ayes 239, Noes 118.

  Division No. 119]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Batiste, Spencer

  Alton, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Amess, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Amos, Alan

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arbuthnot, James

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Benyon, W.

  Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Baldry, Tony

  Boswell, Tim

  Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

  Bottomley, Peter

  944

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Bowis, John

  Howells, Geraint

  Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hunt, David (Wirral W)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Bright, Graham

  Hunter, Andrew

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

  Irvine, Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Irving, Charles

  Burns, Simon

  Jack, Michael

  Burt, Alistair

  Jackson, Robert

  Butler, Chris

  Janman, Tim

  Butterfill, John

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Kilfedder, James

  Carrington, Matthew

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Carttiss, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Cartwright, John

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Cash, William

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Knapman, Roger

  Chapman, Sydney

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Chope, Christopher

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knowles, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Knox, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Cran, James

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lilley, Peter

  Curry, David

  Livsey, Richard

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

  Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Day, Stephen

  Lord, Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Dorrell, Stephen

  McCrindle, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Dover, Den

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Durant, Tony

  Maclean, David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Maclennan, Robert

  Emery, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Evennett, David

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Madel, David

  Favell, Tony

  Mans, Keith

  Fearn, Ronald

  Maples, John

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Forman, Nigel

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Forth, Eric

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Fox, Sir Marcus

  Mills, Iain

  Franks, Cecil

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Freeman, Roger

  Mitchell, Sir David

  French, Douglas

  Moate, Roger

  Gale, Roger

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Gardiner, George

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gill, Christopher

  Moynihan, Hon Colin

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Mudd, David

  Gow, Ian

  Needham, Richard

  Gregory, Conal

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Neubert, Michael

  Hague, William

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hannam, John

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Harg reaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Page, Richard

  Hayward, Robert

  Patnick, Irvine

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Pawsey, James

  Heddle, John

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hind, Kenneth

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Portillo, Michael

  Howard, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

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

  Price, Sir David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Raffan, Keith

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  945

  Rathbone, Tim

  Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

  Redwood, John

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Riddick, Graham

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

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Thorne, Neil

  Ryder, Richard

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Trippier, David

  Sainsbury, Hon Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waddington, Rt Hon David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walden, George

  Shelton, Sir William

  Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Walters, Sir Dennis

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shersby, Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wood, Timothy

  Squire, Robin

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. David Lightbown and

  Stevens, Lewis

  Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  NOES

  Allen, Graham

  Carl Me, Alex (Mont'g)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Ashton, Joe

  Clay, Bob

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Clelland, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Battle, John

  Coleman, Donald

  Beckett, Margaret

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbett, Robin

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

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cousins, Jim

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crowther, Stan

  Blunkett, David

  Cryer, Bob

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Boyes, Roland

  Darling, Alistair

  Bradley, Keith

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

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

  Buckley, George J.

  Dixon, Don

  Callaghan, Jim

  Dobson, Frank

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Dunnachie, Jimmy

  946

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

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Fisher, Mark

  Mallon, Seamus

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Foster, Derek

  Martlew, Eric

  Fyfe, Maria

  Meale, Alan

  Galloway, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Garrett, John (Norwich South)

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Godman, Dr Norman A.

  Morley, Elliott

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Gordon, Mildred

  Mullin, Chris

  Gould, Bryan

  Murphy, Paul

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  O'Brien, William

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Pendry, Tom

  Haynes, Frank

  Pike, Peter L.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Prescott, John

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoyle, Doug

  Richardson, Jo

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Robertson, George

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Illsley, Eric

  Rowlands, Ted

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Lamond, James

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Leadbitter, Ted

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

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Snape, Peter

  Lewis, Terry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Litherland, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Stott, Roger

  Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Vaz, Keith

  Loyden, Eddie

  Wall, Pat

  McCartney, Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Macdonald, Calum A.

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  McFall, John

  Winnick, David

  McGrady, Eddie

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  McNamara, Kevin

  McTaggart, Bob

  Tellers for the Noes:

  McWilliam, John

  Mr. Allen McKay and

  Madden, Max

  Mr. Ken Eastham.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
  It being after Seven o'clock MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [3 March], put the Question forthwith,
  That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 1st March, be approved.
  Question agreed to.

  Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
  7.14 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Ian Stewart): I beg to move
  That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): It might be helpful if I make it clear that debate on the 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.
  Mr. Stewart: The order is made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
  The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise the expenditure of some £473 million included in the 1988–89 spring supplementary estimates. That amount, when added to the £3,618 million previously approved by the House, brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to some £4,091 million for this financial year. The second purpose of the draft order is to authorise the vote on account of some £1,669 million for 1989–90. That amount is necessary to enable services to continue until the 1989–90 main estimates are approved later this year. Full details of all the provisions sought in the draft order can be found in the spring supplementary estimates volume and the "Statement of Sums Required on Account" leaflet, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office.
  As the draft order covers the entire range of services provided by Northern Ireland departments, I shall say a few words about certain key features of the Northern Ireland economy which inevitably influence the pattern of public expenditure provision. I am glad to say that the Province's economy continues to show clear signs of improvement and revival accompanied by a welcome reduction in numbers out of work. By January of this year, total unemployment on a seasonally adjusted basis had fallen by nearly 16,000 since the peak in October 1986, and by nearly 7,000 on the numbers a year ago. Our public expenditure plans for the coming year, with extra resources for training and investment, should contribute to a continuation of that trend.
  Meanwhile, the numbers in employment are increasing. The number of employees in the manufacturing sector has risen by 2,000 in the year to last September. In the same period, the number of jobs in the service sector has increased by 3,000. Recent successes by the Industrial Development Board, which is due to receive additional funding in 1989–90, show that Northern Ireland is a highly attractive location for new investment. In the service sector, the commercial revival of Belfast and other centres continues.
  As the estimates show, the Government will continue to pursue economic and public expenditure policies in Northern Ireland to strengthen the Province's economy. I want to ensure that the economic recovery is as broadly based as possible for the benefit of all areas and sections of the community.
  I now turn to the specific estimates before the House. The Department of Agriculture's vote 1 provides for the Northern Ireland expenditure on United Kingdomwide
  948
  support schemes. Provision of £600,000 is sought to meet the costs in Northern Ireland of the measures introduced to assist the egg industry, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the House on 19 December. These short-term measures were introduced to restore stability to the industry following the sharp fall in demand for eggs as a result of the problems in Great Britain associated with salmonella enteritidis in eggs and egg products. Although no such infection was detected in any eggs produced in Northern Ireland, the industry is co-operating with the Department of Agriculture on further measures and final decisions in relation to Northern Ireland will be taken in the light of developments in Great Britain.
  Following the reopening in Northern Ireland of the national element of the agriculture improvement scheme, the order provides for additional expenditure of £4 million, mainly on grants for effluent storage and disposal facilities. An extra £1·3 million is also provided this year for payments of compensatory allowances to farmers in less favoured areas.
  The Department of Agriculture's vote 2 requires £0·5 million extra in the drainage programme to meet additional expenditure on the restoration of flood defences at Strabane following the severe flooding in October 1987.
  The Department of Economic Development has supplementary estimates for all of its five votes. The most significant item in vote 1 is an extra £15·8 million to meet the current level of expenditure on industrial development grants and loans under selective financial assistance agreements. This reflects the continuing success of the Industrial Development Board in promoting employment in manufacturing industry and tradeable services. The major investments by Daewoo and Montupet will in themselves provide 1,600 new jobs. I should add that this increased expenditure is largely financed by an extra £14·6 million of receipts mainly from the sale of factories and land in line with the IDB's policy of privatisation.
  The increasessought on the DED's votes 4 and 5 are all less than £3 million, but vote 2 contains by far and away the biggest single increase in these supplementary estimates. This is the provision of £390 million for the recapitalisation of Short Brothers plc, which the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), announced on 27 February.
  The House will recall my hon. Friend's previous statement on 21 July 1988, that the Government were ready to consider suitable proposals that might lead to the acquisition of Short Brothers by private sector interests. Subsequently, Kleinwort Benson were appointed as merchant banking advisers, and we have been moving towards our objective of privatisation.
  The interest shown in Shorts by potential purchasers confirms our view that Shorts is a company with many fine products and is held in high regard by other companies in the aerospace industry. We remain convinced that Shorts' best interests will be served by an early return to the private sector with the disciplines and opportunities which are available there.
  The House will be aware that an information memorandum was issued to companies interested in acquiring Shorts. Detailed discussions are taking place with prospective buyers. The House would not expect me to speculate on a date for disposal, but our intention is to achieve sale as early as possible.
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Has the European Commission approved the loan?
  Mr. Stewart: I will have a word to say about that in a moment.
  Since the early 1980s, Shorts has been funded largely by commercial borrowings, and, because of the high development costs related to new products together with trading losses, a high level of borrowings has been built up. This in turn has placed a considerable interest burden on the company. The Government have always recognised the need to restructure Shorts' balance sheet before the company can be returned to the private sector and has been considering how and when this should best be done. We have reached the view that there would be merit in taking steps now to enable the company to extinguish the bulk of its loan indebtedness to commercial banks.
  Clearly, the simplest way of achieving this would be to inject grant into the company now to enable it to repay its bank borrowings, but we have decided not to follow this course. The European Commission would not wish to sanction a definitive capital reconstruction until final details of the disposal are known. We therefore propose to replace the company's commercial debt by a convertible loan from the Government. This would be at national loans fund rates, and our intention is that it would replace all the company's commercial debt save for loans from the European investment bank which carry an interest rate well below that charged by the NLF. Our loan would be convertible, and our expectation is that it would not in fact be repaid, but be converted, either in whole or for the most part, into equity at the point of disposal of the company. This proposal would of course be subject to the agreement of the European Commission, and formal notification of our plan has already been made to it. We are hopeful that it can reach a positive decision before the end of the financial year.
  The aim of replacing commercial debt with Government debt is, first, to reassure the market about our intentions on capital reconstruction; secondly, to simplify the company's portfolio of borrowings so that final recapitalisation can be effected at the appropriate point with minimum delay; and, thirdly, to secure a reduction in the interest burden currently borne by the company and consequently a corresponding reduction in the Government's liabilities. There may of course be other payments to conclude the sale, but such matters will arise from detailed discussion with prospective buyers.
  I therefore seek the approval of the House at this stage to a payment of up to £390 million. The public expenditure consequences of this payment cannot be accommodated within the existing Northern Ireland public expenditure block and the necessary resources will be available from the reserve.
  I am sure that the House will support the substantial provision proposed to replace existing commercial borrowing by Shorts. It is a positive indication of the Government's determination to give the company the best prospects for an early and successful return to the private sector.
  In the Department of Economic Development's vote 3, when balancing items are taken into account, the net additional provision sought is £2·9 million. Within the overall amount, £4·1 million is provided for the expansion of the action for community employment programme, giving an average of 8,800 jobs for the long-term
  950
  unemployed during 1988–89. This figure includes the 500 additional jobs announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as part of the making Belfast work initiative.
  The Department of the Environment's vote 1 covers roads, transport and ports, where a net additional provision of £10·9 million is being sought. This includes £5·9 million towards an extended programme of structural maintenance works on carriageways and footways, plus £3·1 million for new construction and improvement schemes.
  In a recent statement, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport informed the House that the Government had made a. contribution of £250,000 to the East Midlands air crash disaster fund and that £100,000 of this donation would be met from the Northern Ireland block. Appropriate provision has therefore been made in this vote. I hope that hon. Members will welcorne this contribution to relieving the suffering caused by this tragic accident.
  I now turn to the Department of Education, where net provision of £9.3 million is sought in vote 1. The main increase in this vote is an extra £5·2 million grant to education and library boards, of which £3·4 million is for recurrent expenditure on mandatory student awards, schools for mentally handicapped children and library book stocks. The boards will also receive a further £1·8 million for maintenance of school buildings. An extra £5 million will be provided for capital expenditure. Hon. Members will note that provision is made within this vote for curriculum working groups being established under the Government's education reform proposals.
  An additional £4·3 million is sought for the Department of Education's vote 2. The increases are mainly for capital expenditure and will provide. for example, furniture and equipment for Magee campus in Londonderry, as the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), announced yesterday, and additional resources for physics at Queen's university. Belfast's grand opera house and the Downpatrick arts centre will also benefit. Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also announced that there will be increased finances for the arts, museums and sport in the coming year.
  For health and personal social services, a net additional provision of £46 million is being sought in vote 1. Of this total, some £29·5 million will be allocated to health and social services boards, mainly to meet the cost of the nurses' regrading and pay settlement and other review body pay settlements. The extra cash will help to maintain the high standard of health and personal social services in Northern Ireland. It will also enable further progress to be made in the transition from institutional to community care for those in long-stay accommodation.
  The increase of over £10 million in the capital programme will ensure that building projects are carried forward as planned, that essential medical equipment is replaced, and that some of the most pressing maintenance jobs can be tackled. A further £10·7 million is also required for family practitioner services to meet higher estimates of demand and increased costs, particularly in pharmaceutical services.
  In the social security programme, a total additional provision of £7·6 million is sought and £0·6 million of this is required in vote 3 in connection with the social security reforms. An additional £7 million is required in vote 4 to

  951
  meet increased demand on the social security budget for income support, supplementary benefits, attendance allowance and transitional payments.
  In my opening remarks I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the main provisions of the order. The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), hopes to reply to the debate and we will be most interested to hear the contributions from right hon. and hon. Members.
  7.29 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I thank the Minister for taking us so carefully and definitely through the order and I am sure that most of us are now far wiser about its detail and consequences. I certainly found his explanation enlightening. It makes a pleasant change to be able to start these proceedings with agreement.
  On a more personal level, it is good to see the Minister restored to full health and I hope that, within the next few weeks or months, he will be able to run around Westminster as he used to.
  This evening we have the opportunity for a general debate on the social and economic state of the Province, and I suspect that this debate will be less emotionally charged than the previous one. I shall repeat the point that I made when winding up the previous debate—the economic and social aspects of life in the North of Ireland are of great importance to ordinary people. To the many people who do come into contact with violence, they are of paramount importance. Matters such as whether one has a job, or a reasonable prospect of getting one, whether one has a house and whether it is in decent repair, mean a great deal to ordinary people. We must bear in mind that we are talking about policy issues that have an impact on the vast majority of decent men, women and children in the north of Ireland.
  I think that there is complete agreement in the House that Northern Ireland is perhaps the most deprived region in the United Kingdom. It is also one of the most deprived countries in the European Economic Community—as shown by its objective one regional status under EC regulations. I think that there will be further agreement that the security problem diverts resources away from social and economic development, and handicaps the generation of new internal and external investment.
  However, within these parameters and constraints, the Government have enjoyed some success in attracting inward investment. The Minister mentioned Montupet, which is to be welcomed and on which I have already congratulated him. The Government have also been successful in encouraging economic activity through local enterprise initiatives, which are also to be welcomed.
  Having given credit where credit is due, it remains the Opposition's view, and one that I have previously expressed, that the Thatcherite approach to the economic and social life of this kingdom is totally inappropriate in Northern Ireland. It is based on the concept that the size of the public sector in Northern Ireland creates a dependency culture and stifles enterprise, initiative and risk-taking. The Government believe that the Province must adjust and that the public sector should take a lower
  952
  percentage of Northern Ireland's GDP. That policy is shortsighted and offers limited scope for the successful development of the Province's economy.
  The narrow emphasis on law and order—important though that is—must be broadened and the Government must recognise that, when dealing with community conflict, they should also tackle other issues to promote a fair and equitable society for all citizens. The ban on public cash for Conway mill in the Lower Falls area of Belfast is to continue, despite the pressure—including that from local clergy and other community leaders—which has been applied. I have visited the mill and am aware of the sort of danger to which the Secretary of State alluded when he said that public funding would not be given to the mill, either directly through the Vote or through international funding. However, a great deal of useful work takes place at that mill and many local people gain experience and useful information. It is a crying shame that it is continually denied public funding of any kind.
  This example highlights the problem that the Government face with their blanket refusal to give their reasons for denying funds to specific organisations. The project is a place to which people can go to receive education, training and experience. When the Government continually fail to provide funding for such projects, that reflects badly on them and creates the impression that they do not care for the section of the community which use such places. Will the Government look again at that institution?
  I have an 18-inch pile of press releases from the Northern Ireland Office in which Ministers gleefully announce that they have received additional resources for their Departments from the Treasury. However, both the Ministers and the press releases fail to point out that those resources—although I agree that they are additional—are totally inadequate to redress the increased poverty in the North of Ireland.
  During the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 debate last year, the Opposition argued that the Government's social security changes constituted a cruel, cost-cutting exercise which failed to recognise the enormous problems of poverty and deprivation in Northern Ireland. We received some vague assurances and heard some glib political comments during that debate, but, unfortunately, our fears have proved to be well founded. The Government will know that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in Northern Ireland recently carried out a survey among 30,000 of its clients. It found that eight out of 10 people on income support will be worse off when additional liabilities, such as the payment of rates, are taken into account.
  More than half the families on family credit are now worse off, if changes in housing benefit and the loss of free school meals are taken into account. That is an illustration of a case in which the Government claim they have provided additional funds, but instead of the lot of people living in poverty being alleviated, large numbers of people have been left in worse poverty than before. It ill behoves the Government to claim that they are doing a great deal to remove poverty in the North of Ireland.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would answer the following questions about the social fund. A few months ago my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) asked the Government some questions about the amount of underspend from the fund and the number of applications to it which have been refused. After six

  953
  months, only 12 per cent. of the grants budget had been spent and only 33·5 per cent. of the loans budget had been spent. What are the recent percentages of expenditure from the grants and loans budgets? If we can be given those figures, and if, as we suspect, they still show a large degree of underspend, may we be told why?
  Why are so many people who seek assistance refused it? Thirty-four per cent. of applicants for grants are refused, and 37 per cent. of applicants for loans are refused. One in three applicants for grants and loans are refused. How do those rates of refusal compare with rates in the rest of the United Kingdom? If, as we suspect, they are higher in the Province, why is that so? We fear that if people are refused grants or loans they will inevitably be thrown into the eager arms of the loan sharks and money lenders. As the Minister knows, per capita debt in Northern Ireland is already frighteningly high, and we should hate to feel that these measures made it worse. There is already a debt time bomb ticking away in Northern Ireland, and Government measures should not make the problem worse.
  Ministers continually claim that Northern Ireland receives a higher allocation per head for health than equivalent regions in the United Kingdom, and I do not doubt their claim. But they fail to take into account the health of the citizens of Northern Ireland. The Eastern health board recently published a report on Belfast showing that the general standard of health there is worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom, and among the worst in western Europe. The profiles on immunisation targets, congenital handicaps, coronary heart disease and chronic arthritis are the worst in the United Kingdom. So it is not enough to claim that the allocation per head is higher in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the country, true though that may be. Far higher levels of expenditure are required to deal with the problems there.
  One of the results of this comparative underfunding has been deteriorating services and growing waiting lists for in and out-patient care, particularly in the acute sector. The Minister knows that waiting lists for community care are growing, and that people receiving it have had their provision cut back throughout the Province, not just in any particular health board area. That augurs ill for the future, especially in the light of the Government's determination to press ahead willy-nilly with increased emphasis on community care.
  The Government must treat the problem of health seriously and go back to the Treasury before Tuesday of next week to try to obtain even greater sums from the billions of pounds floating around there to deal with the problems as they exist, not as Ministers would like to think they exist.
  We welcome the Government's encouragement of integrated education and applaud the decision recently announced by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), to give £3·3 million to Lagan college. However, Ministers will know that that decision has not been unanimously applauded in Northern Ireland. Every press comment that I have read so far has more than paid lip service to the principle of integrated education, but has then gone on to say that capital expenditure spent on it should not be made at the expense of capital expenditure programmes for other schools. The Government must take heed of that problem and convince people that the
  954
  £3·3 million is additional expenditure, not made at the expense of capital expenditure on other sectors of secondary education.
  The Government must also accept that there is a backlog of capital expenditure requirements in Northern Ireland. I urge the Minister to go to the Secretary of State in the first instance, and then to the Chancellor before Tuesday, to seek additional funds with which to make a more determined effort to remove the outstanding capital expenditure needs of other schools in the North of Ireland. In general, Government plans for integrated education have our full support.
  The Government must be a little concerned about the low morale that is apparent, especially among secondary school teachers. It is clearly related to inadequate funding, particularly of the new GCSE exam. Recently, the Irish National Teachers Organisation revealed that funding for the GCSE was clearly inadequate and sporadic, leading to problems with course planning and shortages of textbooks and equipment, all of which has put excessive pressure on teachers.
  This pressure has contributed to the accelerated retirement rate due to ill health during the past year. I understand that it accelerated by 42 per cent. in the Province last year. In the light of that increase, will the Minister confirm the latest pupil-teacher ratio in the Province? He will recall that when a question on that subject was put to him last year, the figure was given at 18·5:1 compared with the United Kingdom figure of 17·4:1. It is common ground between us that any substantial increase above 18·5:1 would have adverse consequences for the Province's education system. M y own view—which I hope is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar—is that in view of the Province's particular requirement for imparting expertise, so that people may obtain jobs created from the investment that the Government seek to attract in Northern Ireland, a teacher-pupil ratio not equal to but better than that of the United Kingdom should be achieved.
  On housing, the Government are proud of their success, and rightly so. I have previously paid tribute to the Government on that aspect. Nevertheless, they should not allow their success to breed complacency. Much remains to be done, and that will require additional resources. A recent report from Shelter Northern Ireland indicates the extent of the housing problem there. Forty-two thousand homes are unfit for occupation, 115,000 homes are in need of major repairs, and 28,000 homes lack at least one basiic amenity. The report also indicates that more than 22,000 applicants are on housing waiting lists, of whom more than 13,000 urgently need accommodation. Those problems will not be overcome unless expenditure is increased. There is currently doubt as to whether the Housing Executive's budget will increase or decrease in real terms. I hope that it will not decrease, given that 42,000 homes are unfit for habitation, 115,000 need major repairs, and 28,000 lack basic amenities. This is not the time to cut the housing budget but to increase it. Will the Minister confirm or deny that next year's Housing Executive allocations will be less in real terms than this year? If they are to be greater, will he give that figure instead?
  Also of great concern, not only to people living in Belfast but throughout Northern Ireland, are the two companies currently facing the threat or prospect—whichever verb one likes to use—of privatisation.

  955
  Decisions that the Government will take in the next few days, weeks or months will impinge directly on the lives of 10,000 people and their families living in Belfast, and indirectly on the lives of thousands of others.
  The two companies concerned are familiar names in this House. They are Harland and Wolff and Shorts. There is no need for me to rehearse the arguments about the importance of those two companies to the economies of Belfast and Northern Ireland. The decisions that are to be made about those companies—especially about Harland and Wolff—must be made quickly. In my more cynical moments—fortunately, cynicism is not one of my natural bents—I begin to believe that the Government want to see the closure of Harland and Wolff, which, over the past few years, seems to have suffered death by a thousand cuts. That shipyard, led by John Parker, with the support of the trade unions and work force, has made valiant efforts to compete internationally. I pay personal tribute to John Parker who, in the few months that I have known him, has striven with every ounce and fibre of his body to protect the shipyard and ensure its survival. I am convinced that he has full support for all his efforts.
  It would be a tragedy—not just a personal tragedy for John Parker—if the time and effort of all those people who have striven so hard over the past few years to make the company more internationally competitive came to naught. The Government can help by making a quick decision. They have only two bids to choose between. One is the management-employee buy-out, and the other is Bulk Transport. The Government should quickly decide which is to be the successful new owner of Harland and Wolff. My view is that the Government should prefer the management-employee buy-out, but whichever decision they make, it should be made quickly. The Government must also give sufficient capital guarantees and restore the possibility of intervention funding without further delays.
  Turning to Shorts, in a previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made it clear that we wish to see the company sold as a whole. He also suggested in a private notice question last week that that could best be achieved by the Government retaining a golden share in the newly privatised company. I again urge that course of action upon the Government.
  The two bids for Shorts that are before the Government, from GEC-Fokker and from Bombardier, both present problems, particularly in respect of the JFX project. Before the Government choose between GEC-Fokker and Bombardier, they must seek cast-iron assurances about the future of the JFX project. My own view is that if the GEC-Fokker bid succeeds, the likelihood of the JFX project getting any further will be slim. I would be happier if the Bombardier bid succeeded, because even if the decision was made not to develop further JFX, Bombardier's own keen involvement in the development of new regional jets, and the success that the company has had with Canadair, should ensure that such aircraft will continue to be built in Belfast.
  Shorts is a centre of technical and engineering excellence that must continue, particularly if Northern Ireland is to retain a place in the aerospace industry. The Government must ensure the provision of capital restructuring and other assistance to give Shorts a fair
  956
  chance of succeeding in the private sector. If the Government do anything less than that, they will betray not only the workers at Shorts but all the people of Northern Ireland.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I join the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) in congratulating the Minister on the presentation of the appropriation order. I sympathise with the Minister on his physical problems. I am glad to see him back in the House.
  As usual, I object to the way in which these iniquitous draft orders are imposed upon the Province. Many people say that the method is corrupt. Many hon. Members have exposed this unacceptable system of undemocratic government, and to govern in this way at this time is completely wrong. Northern Ireland Members want to be treated in the same way as other hon. Members.
  There is a sincerely held belief in Northern Ireland that our Ministers can exercise supreme powers without being answerable to us in any way. People believe that we have no means of redress or of pointing Ministers in the right direction. That may be so, but as responsible elected representatives who have to answer to our constituents, we must at all times endeavour to represent them to the best of our ability. Where necessary we must be ready to take issue with the Government on matters that concern our people. The order gives us some opportunity to do that. We know that we cannot change it, but at least we can put to Government our suggestions for improvements that would be to the benefit of the Province and its citizens. With that in mind, I should like to draw attention to vote 3 on page 4 for expenditure on housing services by the Department of the Environment. I am dissatisfied at the reduction in funding to the Housing Executive and the way in which the funds are distributed to the various sectors under the Housing Executive umbrella.
  I am worried about the reduction in grant provision for repairs and renovations. The Minister must know that the poor condition of housing stock which is more than 25 years old has reached disastrous proportions. Consequently, grant applications are at an exceptionally high level. It is unacceptable for the Housing Executive to announce a £6·5 million cut in this year's budget and that repair grants are now considered cut in this year's budget and that repair grants are now considered only for declared housing action areas, for houses affected by statutory notices, or for applicants who are suffering financial hardship.
  It is worrying that renovation grants are available only for housing action areas or for those who are disabled or suffering from financial hardship. The Minister knows that I have often spoken in the House about the criteria for grant aid. I am most concerned about people who purchased their houses in the 1950s when demand was high and standards were lamentably low. It is unfair that the owners of those houses are now denied the means to repair and renovate them. There are some Orlit type houses in private ownership and they did not qualify under the housing defects orders. The Minister should take a special interest in the grant side of the Housing Executive budget with a view to more realistic funding and to obtain better value for money. That is important when it is

  957
  remembered that in 1986 the allocation was £56·8 million. This year that has fallen to £30 million which is less than half the 1986 amount when one allows for inflation.
  I draw the Minister's attention to correspondence that I have had with his office about the concept of defensible space and its importance to many tenants living in houses built by the Housing Executive in areas where crime and vandalism are rampant. The people in such houses, many of whom are elderly, are tortured by hooligans. Those elderly people require the privacy that is given by walls and fences.
  In my constituency the Housing Executive has recognised that need and has provided small walls with railings and gates in such areas as New Lodge and Ardoyne. It has done that with great success, but there are areas in Shankill, Crumlin and Oldpark that have suffered as much from criminal vandalism and have not yet been provided with this necessary buffer zone in spite of promises made to me by the Housing Executive as far back as 1984. The executive said that the work would be undertaken as a matter of urgency. If the Housing Executive will not fund that work perhaps Belfast action teams could do it, possibly by way of community action. I hope that the Government will facilitate such an initiative because it would restore confidence to the people in these vulnerable areas.
  I should like to deal with the new tenants agreement that has been proposed by the Housing Executive. My party is worried about some of its proposals because it feels that they are dictatorial and repressive. In part II, paragraph 1, the Housing Executive promises:
  "To keep in repair the structure and exterior of the building."
  In practice that is far from the case. Promises are one thing but practical application is another. The delays in carrying out repairs and the quality of such repairs are often pathetic. The fact that the inspection rate is so low in relation to the number of repairs must be a factor in the encouragement of shoddy and dishonest practices. Part II, paragraph 2(c), says:
  "The Executive is not under any duty to rebuild or reinstate the dwelling in the case of destruction or damage".
  There is a certain amount of ambiguity there and it deserves an explanation. Does the tenant have to live in a tent or in a damaged house until the Housing Executive decides what it will do? Is there an obligation to rehouse or is compensation available to tenants who find themselves in such circumstances? Tenants deserve to know. Paragraph 2 goes on
  "(c) The Executive is not under any duty to rebuild or reinstate the dwelling in the case of destruction or damage by fire tempest flood or other inevitable damage.
  (d) In determining the standard of repair or maintenance necessary for compliance with the Executive's obligations in that connection, regard is to be had to the age, character and prospective life of the dwelling at the time of the need for the relevant repair or maintenance.
  (e) The Executive is not under any duty to carry out any work by virtue of its obligations to repair or maintain until a reasonable period has elapsed after the District Manager has been given written and specific notice (by or on behalf of the Tenant) of the need for such work.
  (f) The Executive's duties to repair, maintain and decorate are subject to any additional limitations provided for in Schedule 4."
  958
  What happens in an emergency, or does the Housing Executive not allow for such things? What about electrical breakdowns or water problems that are not caused by any action by the tenant? The agreement needs to be more specific and the meaning should be clear so that people can understand the paragraphs.
  The other part of the document that is causing great concern is part III, under the heading of "Improvements". It says
  "4. The Executive has the right to carry out any works in or in respect of or in connection with the dwelling (whether works of repair alteration improvement internal or external decoration, or otherwise) and the Executive shall not be responsible for the cost of any redecoration work necessitated by such works of repair, alteration, improvement or otherwise and further shall not be responsible for any claim by the Tenant for any inconvenience or disruption or for any physical damage to the dwelling or items therein arising from or consequential upon the carrying out of such works other than any such claim arising out of the negligence of the Executive or its employees."
  That scandalous abrogation of responsibility must rate as the most diabolical and repressive example of dictatorship ever to be penned by the minions in the Housing Executive, obscured by this autocratic, secretive, monolithic structure. Such a statement must infringe civil and human rights, and, so far as responsibility is concerned, a body that could expect to impose such conditions would have no compunction about denying any claim arising out of its negligence or that of its employees.I shall not say any more about this subject, except that, no doubt, the Minister will wish to look very carefully at such repressive and, in my opinion, unlawful conditions.
  Turning now to the Department of Health and Social Services—vote 1—I strongly oppose any proposal to diminish the night casualty facilities at the Mater hospital. The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance has presented to the Government an excellent case setting out in detail why this great hospital, which, since its inception, has endeared itself to the whole community of north Belfast, should not be interfered with at this time. The Minister will appreciate that the hospital is in a very deprived area. The Government have recognised that the special circumstances in such areas justify allowing for local conditions. I cite, as examples, Notting Hill, Bristol and Liverpool 8.
  The Mater hospital has a catchment area encompassing the whole of north Belfast and parts of Newtownabbey.The rate of work done and the number of patients seen, in relation to the number of staff employed, must be among the highest in the United Kingdom. In times of emergency—and in north Belfast those are frequent—it is totally impractical to send seriously injured people to the City hospital or the Royal Victoria hospital. If there were delays arising from disruption, such people could die in transit. Furthermore, the night casualty departments in the City and Royal hospitals, particularly at weekends, are often fully occupied, necessitating unacceptable delays in treatment.
  I ask the Minister to consider very carefully any proposal by the Eastern health and social services board to interfere with the exceptionally well run casualty department at the Mater. In future there will be discussions as to how the various hospitals should operate within the proposed new structure. That will be time enough to have an in-depth look at how the Mater hospital should be affected by these proposals.

  959
  Finally, I want to refer to the Department of the Environment—vote 4. As environment spokesman for the Ulster Unionist party, I want to draw the Minister's attention to the seemingly insurmountable problem of the litter that is being dumped all over the Province. I am sure that Ministers, as they go about their business, are as concerned as anyone else about the unsightly and unhealthy deposits alongside the roads. Irresponsible litter louts tip rubbish on almost every plot of vacant ground in the city. The existing legislation does not appear to be sufficient to deal with the problem, and local government byelaws are obviously ineffective. I should like to see the Minister using whatever authority is required to give councils the power to take the necessary action to stop these irresponsible practices, which are destroying our environment and contributing so much to deterioration and deprivation in the whole community.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. James Kilfedder: This debate cannot do justice to the myriad problems that affect the Province of Northern Ireland, nor can it do justice to the large amount of money that this appropriation represents. The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) has given some of the reasons for the people of Northern Ireland feeling that they are discriminated against in the manner of the presentation of this appropriation order. The time allowed for debate is limited, and it would be impossible to cover all the subjects if all Members wishing to take part were to speak. I intend, therefore, to be brief.
  I endorse what was said by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) in his thoughtful speech, particularly about the Belfast shipyard, which is so important to our economy. I join the hon. Member in urging the Government to come to a quick decision. I, too, believe that if the shipyard is to be privatised, the best course would be to sell it to the management and the employees. That would be the best way forward for Harland and Wolff.
  As the hon. Member for Leicester, South said, this debate is taking place only a few days before the Chancellor unveils his Budget. I hope that some of the money provided will be made available to meet the problems that we in Northern Ireland have to face. The hon. Member pointed out that we have many problems. Indeed, Northern Ireland is rightly described as a deprived area.
  In opening the debate, the Minister mentioned the fact that more money has been made available for the arts, museums and sport. This I welcome. Despite the campaign of terrorism, which has lasted for 20 years, despite the dark and difficult days that campaign has brought for the people of Northern Ireland, there is a need to foster the arts. Of course, that is additional to the need for jobs, adequate housing, modern hospitals and good schools.
  As time is limited, I propose to deal with just four points, the first of which concerns schools. There is a desperate need in my constituency—in Bangor—for more schools, particularly for girls, who, at present, are discriminated against. I urge the Department of Education to ensure that a decision is made, without further delay, on the provision of a new school on the site of the former Forsythe nursery. That site would be ideal for the
  960
  provision of larger premises for Glenlola collegiate school and Bangor girls' high school. Those schools could then expand, incorporating the existing Glenlola buildings, which are right beside those of Bangor girls' high. It is intolerable that pupils in Bangor have to receive their education in temporary classrooms. I understand that those two schools have about 50 temporary classrooms. That is acceptable only on a short-term basis, and it is high time that prefabs throughout Bangor were replaced.
  I am all for integrated education. Over the years I have fought for it, and I am glad that the Minister who is now responsible for education is pushing it ahead. Again I join the hon. Member for Leicester, South in urging the Government to make sure that the amount of money made available to Lagan college is additional to the amount provided for the Department of Education. We must have good schools. The children of Northern Ireland deserve the best possible education because they are the wealth of the Province.
  Much attention has recently been given to the environment by the British media and the Government. That attention has been concentrated on beaches along the coastline of Great Britain. Many people in Northern Ireland have been protesting about pollution in Belfast lough. That pollution defiles the beaches of my constituency of North Down and makes some of them a health hazard to bathers and other users of the beach, particularly young children.
  Millions of tonnes of untreated sewage go into the Irish sea every year, and that is quite apart from industrial waste and the plutonium that is discharged from Sellafield. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) joins me in protesting about emissions from Sellafield. As the Conservative party has now become the green party—if we are to believe it—the people of Northern Ireland have a right to expect an end to the dumping of sewage and industrial waste into the Irish sea.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, in the EEC survey of beaches in Northern Ireland, Belfast lough came out all right? A beach in Newcastle and one in North Antrim had problems.
  Mr. Kilfedder: That may be all right for the people of Belfast and Belfast lough, but I am talking about what happens when sewage sludge is dumped in Belfast lough. It creeps around, and waves bring it back on to beaches at Orlock and Ballyholme. All sorts of things are thrown up on beaches. I have seen the results. It may be all right for the hon. Member for Belfast, South, but if he made use of beaches in North Down he certainly would not wish Belfast sludge to be dumped on them.
  Each year, approximately 326,000 tonnes of sewage sludge is dumped in Belfast lough. That is no small quantity. It is not like somebody removing it from his backyard. It is nearly twice the amount that is dumped in Dublin bay. Many of my colleagues have criticised Dublin. Even though Dubliners may protest about sewage being dumped in their backyard, twice as much is dumped in Belfast lough. Together with the 1,700,000 tonnes of sewage sludge that is dumped in Liverpool bay and Bristol channel, the Irish sea has been polluted to an unacceptable degree. The Irish sea is virtually an inland sea as, I am told, there are insufficiently strong tidal currents rapidly to dilute and disperse sludge.

  961
  I commend members of the Orlock residents' association for their vigorous lobbying over the past few years in their campaign to clean up beaches in their area. They wish to see a sewage treatment plant installed for the district, instead of an extension to the sewage outfall at Briggs Rock. They fear that, as before, sewage will be swept back on to the beaches.
  I commend also an organisation called Help The Aged. It has as its organiser a Mr. Will Glendenning, formerly a conscientious Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps he may not have been favoured by some of my colleagues, but he was a hard-working Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Help The Aged has collated statistics which prove that pensioners in Northern Ireland have suffered severely as a result of the Government's public expenditure cuts. The old-age pension should be substantially increased to meet the needs of the elderly and to keep pensions in line with inflation. Because of the shortage of time, I will not refer to the statistics in detail, but I ask the Minister to look at them. I believe that that organisation has submitted them to the Department. Perhaps the Minister will think with compassion about the elderly in our midst.
  I single out one item affecting the elderly. One way in which Ulster pensioners could be helped is to provide them with free public transport. Is it not obnoxious that pensioners who have given so much to the community should have to plead for a little comfort and dignity in the fullness of their years? My maiden speech in the House, which was in October 1964, was on behalf of pensioners. More should be done for pensioners. I hope that the last speech that I make in this House will be on that subject, whenever that occasion may occur. [Interruption.] I do not like hon. Members welcoming that day.
  The need for more jobs is paramount in Northern Ireland. A job provides not only money but dignity for the wage earner and his family. There can be nothing more soul-destroying than being in a dole queue month after month, year after year. I feel for all people who are unemployed.
  I repeat the suggestion which I made in this Chamber on two occasions in the past two years. With representatives of the SDLP and any other constitutional party, I am prepared to go to the United States or anywhere else if the Government would organise such a delegation to get jobs for employment black spots in Northern Ireland. I have mentioned Strabane. I should like more jobs in my own constituency. I am prepared to work with my colleagues, regardless of their political party, to make sure that the people in Northern Ireland who want work get it.
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: As I listened to the presentation of the estimates, one matter that struck me was the depletion in real terms of the Housing Executive budget. The Housing Executive is one of the success stories in Northern Ireland in its design and redevelopment of housing and the clearance of slums. It is a pity that the Government have not continued to update and promote housing in Northern Ireland to the extent that they did in the past. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive's present budget is not even capable of meeting the rather mean target that it was forced to set for itself in previous budget allocations. That is notwithstanding the fact that
  962
  compulsory rent increases of 10·25 per cent. have been imposed on the public housing population who are suffering from the multiple deprivation articulated by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) regarding social security and the lack of take-up. I always assumed that rent increases would go hand in hand with, and not be greater than, inflation. Are we to understand that the Government's target for inflation next year is 10·25 per cent.? That is the rate of imposition in the public sector, and, as announced yesterday, it is 10·5 per cent. in the private sector.
  The fact that the Housing Executive has not received an adequate budget gives rise to a considerable clawback of its proposed, and already reduced, building programme. The Housing Executive will receive £40·2 million less in 1989–90, compared with 1988–89. In real terms, over the three-year strategy period, the Governments net contribution to the executive is £110 million less than the modest strategy period bid.
  What does this mean in terms of bricks and mortar? It means that only 1,400 houses can be expected over the next three years; that is the equivalent of saying that 780 dwellings which might have been improved under the previous standard of financing cannot now be improved and that 2,250 improvement grants, or 7,750 repair grants, cannot now be given. That is for a housing stock acknowledged to be among the poorest in western Europe and certainly in the United Kingdom. It comes on top of the fact that two new pieces of legislation have imposed severe additional burdens on the Housing Executive. One is the welcome legislation on homelessness and the other is the order on multiple occupancy which, it is expected, will affect between 2,500 and 3,000 dwellings in Northern Ireland.
  When we hear the horror statistics of those multiple occupancies we realise just how bad the problem is: 40 per cent. of them are below the minimum required standard; 55 per cent. are in the category of inadequate; 80 per cent. have no alternative escape routes. That is another massive problem that the Housing Executive must face on a reduced budget.
  Some time ago I urged the responsible Minister—who is not on the Front Bench at the moment—to stabilise and assist the Housing Executive in a planned and progressive way to achieve reasonable targets and to give it a five-year programme, not the stop-start, start-stop programme that we have had in the past two years but a confirmed five-year programme which would enable it to put contracts out in a proper way and establish a reasonable housebuilding programme.
  My constituency of South Down is primarily an agricultural one. It is for the most part a less advantaged area in almost its entirety. We hear much talk about the need for farm diversification but the purse does not appear to be following the words and there is little that I can see by way of a comprehensive and adequate programme for farm diversification, something that is badly needed in view of the restricted income of the Northern Ireland farmer in general and the South Down farmer in particular, faced as he is with the withdrawal of the beef subsidy, the poor pig market and the problem of the milk levies.
  It is a great pity that farm diversification schemes were not properly taken into account when the farm conservation grant scheme was introduced, particularly

  963
  with regard to mushrooms which have provided a useful, and could provide a much more useful, diversified source of income for the small hill farmer in South Down.
  A problem which is becoming rather alarming but is at this stage still in its infancy is the increased incidence of bovine tuberculosis. When the Minister is distributing his wealth, will he consider providing 100 per cent. compensation for cattle found to be so infected? It would encourage an immediate eradication of the beast or beasts in question; and perhaps the farm conservation grant scheme could be extended to buildings, crushes, pens, and so on, thus providing for proper isolation and treatment.
  I am also concerned at the possible closure of the veterinary college in Glasgow, which has always served Northern Ireland. Our veterinary students nearly all go to Glasgow and it would be a tragedy if those interested in following such a career were prevented from doing so at that particular institution.
  Another agricultural matter which is often not mentioned is the increasing amount of their reduced income which farmers, particularly in the south of South Down, for some historical reason, have to spend on keeping up farm roads which should have been taken into the public domain many years ago. I ask the Minister responsible to take account of the fact that so many roads which lead to farms and to clusters of farms and which would appear to be public roads are, in fact, private roads. Keeping them up to standard drains much needed resources from the small farmer.
  On health matters, has the Minister noticed the increased incidence of Crohn's disease, particularly in a village near my own town, Drumaness, where there have been 12 cases in the recent past? This intestinal disease is very often related to water supply. Will the Minister take a serious look at this in the immediate future?
  Perhaps the Minister has read the Belfast Telegraph of yesterday evening and found that Ulster has its own ozone hole and that the incidence of skin cancers, according to Professor Lowry, who was the Minister's own appointee into a previous cancer-related investigation, is 10 times higher than the United Kingdom average? Would he do some further research into that particular project? I do not know whether we have our own special ozone hole or not, but, if there is one and this is the result of it, let us do something about it.
  On the general question of hospitals and hospital provision, two factors have worked together to provide a situation which will reduce the quality of the services to which patients are entitled. One is the ongoing struggle of nurses to receive a proper award under the new scheme. Whatever has happened in the past is water under the bridge, but there is great dissatisfaction among the nursing fraternity as to the way the awards have been allocated. If that requires additional money for the health and welfare of the service which also means the health and welfare of the patient, it must be attended to in such a way that there is job satisfaction and tranquility within the wards so as to produce a high standard of service.
  Perhaps I may make a parochial plea for the hospital at Downpatrick, which has awaited the outcome of a promise made by a certain Mr. Morgan, the then Minister of
  964
  Health in the old Stormont regime, over a quarter of a century ago. Will the Minister consider that as a new venture?
  The environment causes problems that affect us all, and I have often spoken about pollution, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) earlier. Tonight I want to comment on the absence of an adequate environmental infrastructure in South Down. We have always been outside the new pale that has been created around Belfast lough and in that sense we are still a deprived area. We had the Matthew report in the early 1960s with its key town concept. Downpatrick was one of the key towns, and it is the only key town centre which has never been developed. All the rest were substantially developed by way of infrastructure, for example, good roads and other environmental provision, which in turn enabled and encouraged industrial development to take place.
  This is significant when one considers the new harbour, which is capable of much greater use, at Warrenpoint. The reason why it is insufficiently used is the totally inadequate road network which prevents it being readily accessible to its hinterland for export purposes.
  Reference to that lack of infrastructure leads me on to say that two things which concern most people are a good house and the prospect of a job. It is that inadequate infrastructure which has been the greatest drawback to industrial development in South Down. It is a situation which can be remedied only by the immediate application of some of our present-day resources, such as were not applied in times of plenty, to that particular area. I cannot accept the argument that only a limited amount of money is available and so other areas must have priority. In the times of plenty the other areas received priority, but we did not. I ask for that situation to be reconsidered.
  Please assist in bringing jobs to the people and not people to the jobs. Bringing people to the jobs is the most unsociable activity in which a Government can be engaged. It leads to massive urban conurbations with social, environmental parking, and transport problems. Why not bring jobs to the people and let people stay in the environments to which they are accustomed and in which they are happy?
  I hope that the Minister is conscious of the plea I am making to him about the Star Plan development. The new fibre-optic miracle will bring us into the 20th century. Unless Northern Ireland has an adequate fibre-optic link to Europe, the entire north—not just my part of it—will be completely marginalised. Talking in the context of countries, industry will be drawn to the core. We shall be completely marginalised in the north Atlantic unless we have the infrastructure and, especially, the fibre-optic linkage communications. Without that we will be left behind when it comes to the new technology. Even today, industry can be transported on block from as far away as north America into little villages if they have the fibre-optic link. A prime example is the New York Life Assurance company which has transmitted its entire operation to the little village of Castle Island in county Kerry. It was able to create employment in an area which had nothing before, because of the fibre-optic link. I make that plea for my constituency and the whole of Northern Ireland in this respect.
  Tourism is the other great job creator in Northern Ireland and of which my constituency should be a prime example. As the Minister will probably agree, Newcastle

  965
  has proven statistically to be the biggest tourist centre in Northern Ireland, yet it is only by local effort that that has happened. Where are the packages prepared for marketing by central Government? I envy the packages of Fermanagh and North Antrim. Can we not, for instance, have a package that would sell tourism in South Down, both in Europe and North America? After all, we are St. Patrick's country. His whole heritage is there in brick and mortar and that can be packaged, as well as our natural resources.
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: St. Patrick died in Downpatrick. He lived and worked in Armagh.
  Mr. McGrady: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman is trying to claim some credit for St. Patrick. Those were pseudo St. Patricks. The only genuine one was the one who lived in the Hill of Down, the Dun Phadriig—that is the Gaelic for Downpatrick.
  As the hon. Member for North Down said, it is startling that Newcastle—the biggest tourist attraction in the north—is one area criticised in the EEC report for not having adequate sewerage. Could that scheme be speeded up as much as possible?
  Education is an area that will be one of the most difficult to deal with financially in the coming year. I shall say one thing to the Minister to hand on to his right hon. Friend responsible for that Department. There is great unease about the inequality of the distribution of finances between the voluntary and the state sectors. There is, too, some unease about the inequality, or the prioritisation, of funds towards integrated schools, while established schools have been waiting many years for capital funds to erect new buildings. The Minister mentioned the art centre in Downpatrick for which I thank him.
  Museums and arts are receiving £1·5 million but, if I remember rightly, the Department of Education in Northern Ireland still has no museums policy. It has a policy only for national museums. I ask the Minister to open the purse strings a wee bit wider and to give some—if only token—assistance and encouragement to the many local museums that are doing such a great job.
  The primary thrust of my argument is to ask the Minister responsible to ensure an allocation of resources that will increase the environmental infrastructure of those deprived areas, of which South Down is one, and positively to encourage new industries to settle. The Minister boasted of the new inward investment into Northern Ireland. I was glad to hear of that, but that does not make any difference to my constituents, because they have not seen it. It appears that an area which has had high unemployment for decades is left with that high unemployment, whereas other areas which have had virtually full employment, but where there are now fewer jobs, receive special treatment. Why is a package not available for South Down as it is for Carrickfergus and Derry? I ask the Minister to consider the fair distribution of effort and resources in Northern Ireland.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Because of the great importance of the security situation in Northern Ireland and because of the vital nature of our constitutional position, occasions when we can deal with the bread and butter issues are all too few in the parliamentary process. However, I share the misgivings of my hon. Friend the
  966
  Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) about the manner in which the proceedings go forward. I would have had a great preference for having these matters dealt with in Northern Ireland in a local assembly, where local people could be taking local decisions, where they could use their own ingenuity and decide their own priorities for expenditure. Nonetheless, at least we have the opportunity to speak. It is the last trust reposed in us and, although we cannot affect the ultimate decision, at least we can give our minds to the Government so that they can, if they should grace us with the privilege, take on board what we have to say.
  I shall deal with the funds in the Irish fashion, by starting at the back and moving towards the front. First, I shall deal in a more Irish fashion with a matter under the education budget but deal with it in respect of the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. I am referring to the Lagan college, which has been mentioned by several hon. Gentlemen. I believe that the Government should encourage integrated education. They should not be doing it by the back door, as is the present Government policy. I do not believe that they should be doing it at the expense of other schools. Therefore, I refrain from making too much comment about the £3·3 million being offered to Lagan college. I raise the issue of Lagan college not in relation to the Government's expenditure, but in relation to the behaviour of Lagan college's board of governors towards planning matters.
  Lagan college is in the borough of Castlereagh. It is currently situated on two sites—one on Church road and the other at Lisnabreeny. Lagan college has had a deplorable record for erecting buildings without planning permission and without even applying for building control approval. One should have thought that people who have responsibility for young children, that an organisation that is headed by a resident magistrate and a body that should, above all, be showing responsibility would have behaved in a proper manner in relation to planning law.
  Even when the problem has been drawn to the college's attention by the planning authorities and by the local council, it has refused to bring its buildings into line, to make the necessary applications for planning and to obey the planning departments directives in that respect. The college should not behave in such a way and I had hoped that the Department of the Environment would have exerted itself more to ensure proper enforcement action was taken so that Lagan college toed the line. I had hoped that the governors who, in another capacity, would be quick to draw to the attention of others their responsibilities in the community would have shown the same responsibility themselves rather than flout the law and trample it underfoot.
  It is important to consider the general question of ex-post facto planning applications. In Northern Ireland it seems to be prevalent for the planning authority to be pushed to give permission for dwellings or other structures if the person has successfully had them built before the planning department finds out. It is felt that possession is nine tenths of the law and that, if a person can get his building up, permission will follow.
  During the lifetime of the Northern Ireland Assembly—the 1982 to 1986 variety—the environment committee, of which I was chairman, put three planning proposals to the Department of the Environment. It happily accepted

  967
  two, regarding neighbour notification and objector appeals, on a test basis. During the past few weeks, I was glad to note that those proposals have been renewed.
  The committee also put forward a proposal about ex-post facto applications. If the DOE is made aware of buildings that have been erected before an application has been submitted, it is essential that there should be a significant cost for subsequently submitting an application for such buildings. At the time of the Assembly, we suggested that the application should be ten times the normal application fee, which would discourage those who embarked upon such building.
  Such proposals should not, however, remove from the DOE the responsibility to treat any application as if the building was not there in the first place and to adjudge the application in that light. I believe, however, that the Department gets bullied into giving permission for buildings that it would not otherwise give permission for simply because someone has had the audacity and the cheek to proceed with the building before submitting an application.
  It is also important to consider the long-awaited Belfast urban area plan. I fear that serious problems will arise regarding building in the city of Belfast because the planning department has been forced to kick for touch because many of the major developments in and around the city are waiting for the report from the planning commissioners as a result of the hearings that they held about that plan. The delay is not the responsibility nor the fault of the commissioners. Most of us who have some involvement with planning matters in Belfast know that, in some instances, those self-same commissioners have been unable to hand over their other duties to other commissioners, because, I suspect, of the failure to appoint sufficient commissioners to assist with the volume of work.
  We recognise that the commissioners have a heavy schedule, but I had thought that they would be willing to provide the Department with the various categories covered by the Belfast urban area plan. For instance, they could have informed the Department at different times about commercial use, recreational and housing use and transportation plans. Such information could have been passed to the Department piecemeal but that would not have required the Department to make its overall statement on a piecemeal basis.
  If such information had been available to the Department, it would have been possible for it to digest the various aspects of the Belfast urban area plan report as presented by the commissioners. The Department would therefore need to take much less time when considering its final statement on the report. As it is, a two-month delay is contemplated before the Department can prepare its statement.
  I am concerned about the Belfast urban area plan for several reasons. First, I must confess my vested interest as a Castlereagh councillor. We have plans for major recreational provision, but they require comment in the Belfast urban area plan report before we can successfully proceed. Some of my constituents are eager to establish whether certain road proposals, which will bring blight upon certain parts of my constituency, have been turned down by the planning commissioners—even now I hope that that is the case.
  968
  My constituents are concerned at the flyover at the Castlereagh roundabout and about much of the road widening scheme on the Albertbridge road and the further provisions in the Sydenham area. Decisions on those proposals are eagerly awaited as they are affecting house prices in the Belfast area. People are unable to get the proper price for their houses because of the blight that is hanging over them.
  On top of that, many of my constituents are concerned about various housing proposals, and they want to know how the Department will finally decide on them. Other constituents are eager for such proposals to proceed, so that the houses they need can be built to allow them to live in the Belfast urban area rather than having to move outside that area.
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give some idea of the present timetable and when we can expect the Department's decision. Is there any possibility of an internal arrangement between the Department and the commissioners that could speed up the process?
  It is perhaps unexpected for a Member representing a Belfast constituency to consider agricultural matters, but if those Members representing rural constituencies will forgive me, I am more concerned about the consumers of agricultural produce. I am anxious about the effects of the salmonella egg scare. I welcome what the Minister said about the Northern Ireland egg being given a clean bill of health. That is not exactly news to many of us, as we were aware of its healthy condition.
  Unfortunately, the poultry sellers in my constituency and people whose shops rely entirely on the sale of chickens, eggs and poultry products have found that at least 70 per cent. of their business has gone as a result of the egg scare, in spite of the fact that it does not affect eggs in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister please encourage his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to spend some considerable time, effort and, if necessary, finance on advertising to the Northern Ireland consumer the fact that there is not the danger that there is on this side of the water in purchasing poultry products in Northern Ireland? That would come as a considerable relief to my constituents who rely for their employment on the poultry industry. No doubt it would do no small good to those involved in agriculture as well.
  As expected, I now come to the issue of the Department of Economic Development, and I could not have avoided it. As the Minister gallops around my constituency putting "for sale" signs on the main employers, he will recognise that I and my constituents are, to put it colloquially, on tenterhooks about what will happen over the next few weeks. The outcome of the present negotiations with the bidders for Harland and Wolff and Shorts is of no small moment to the people of east Belfast and the city in general. Like the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), I shall not rehearse the importance of those two industries to the Northern Ireland economy. That has been done by all the political parties in Northern Ireland, with perhaps one exception. It has been done by Church groups in Northern Ireland, by many of the community organisations in the Province and by hon. Members of all parties in the House. The Select Committee on Trade and Industry produced a report that stressed the importance of those industries to the Province.
  I know that the Minister will be aware of the significance of those two firms to Northern Ireland as a

  969
  whole. There are features in common between Harland and Wolff and Shorts, but there are many differences between the two privatisation issues. I do not intend to argue the ideological issues. Unfortunately, it is not a question of privatisation or public ownership. The question that the Government have placed before us is of privatisation or closure—or at least bringing in people to sell off many of the assets. Such a choice would convert one fairly quickly to the cause of privatisation, even if one was not an ardent fan beforehand. Although I am not convinced that privatisation is in the best interests of either of those companies, and certainly not in the best interests of both at this time, we must do our best, even with the doubts we may have, to ensure that the Government's plans succeed.
  There are two bidders for Harland and Wolff and I have come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and the hon. Member for Leicester, South. I have studied the two propositions, as far as they are known publicly, and as far as I can understand them, having spoken to the participants in both. Although the Government will undoubtedly be careful about the financial package that they finally agree, that is not my prime concern. Just as it was for the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, my prime concern is to ensure that the priority is towards achieving a viable and lasting solution to the sale of those industries, rather than achieving the best financial deal. If that meant an extra couple of million pounds or even an extra £10 million or £20 million, it would be money well spent.
  I have learnt recently from the Northern Ireland Office that it is nearing the final stages of the negotiations on Harland and Wolff. I was somewhat perplexed to learn that there is some haggling over finance, which is not helpful to the smooth and orderly handover of the company to private ownership. If the Minister goes for the lowest cost, he could put the new owners in a position where they will not have sufficient strength and capital reserves to allow customer confidence and companies from whom they purchase will be dilatory in giving the credit that is needed during the first few years.
  It is important that the yard is transferred on a firm and viable financial basis. I urge the Minister to consider as a priority the Secretary of State's terminology to the Select Committee when he said that he was looking for a safe and secure future for Harland and Wolff. Although I recognise that it would be irresponsible of him not to consider such matters, finance should not be his overriding consideration.
  I concur with the comments that have been made about the management at Harland and Wolff, and especially about John Parker. In view of the interest that has been expressed by Fred Olsen and his group, one could ask why they were not prepared to go directly to the Government to express an interest in purchasing the company. Anybody who knows the nuances of the situation would know that the Olsen group is putting in significantly more capital than it is getting in shares. Therefore, it could have come to terms with the Government easily if it had gone to them directly. The answer to that question shows neither respect nor distrust of the Government; it is rather a sign of confidence in the chairman, the management and the men of Harland and Wolff.
  When Fred Olsen learned that the management and men had sufficient confidence in the future of Harland and Wolff that they were prepared to put their own money into
  970
  the company, that gave him the enthusiasm to back those people in that task. The confidence that has been expressed by someone of the standing of Fred Olsen in the shipbuilding and ship-owning world shows the high level of expertise at Harland and Wolff at present. That is just one of the reasons why I favour the management-employee buy-out.
  Although this is not often mentioned—perhaps it should be mentioned much more frequently in Government circles and even by the Minister himself—Harland and Wolff has a responsible trade union group, which has acted with the utmost responsibility throughout the discussions on privatisation. It would have been easy for those who have great ideological problems with the issue of privatisation to be unto-operative throughout that period. However, as pragmatic trade unionists, those people have recognised the essentials for a viable future for shipbuilding in Belfast and have made them their priorities as they sought that future.
  At the recent meeting between the Northern Ireland party leaders and the Prime Minister, those present were encouraged by the Prime Minister's grasp of the position at Harland and Wolff, by her enthusiasm for transferring Harland and Wolff to the private sector and by her belief that it would work in the private sector. The Prime Minister suggested that an essential ingredient would be a good working relationship between men and management and between men, management and the new owner, whoever that may be.
  In the last few days, I have been encouraged to receive a copy of a communication from the Harland and Wolff trade unions to the Prime Minister, stating not only that they had reached agreements in the past with the management that were far in advance of anything agreed in the United Kingdom on flexibility or working practices, but that they were still flexible and co-operative in that respect and that they would be willing and delighted to work in co-operation with any new owner.
  The trade unions should be encouraged—rather than, as is often the case with Tory Ministers, discouraged—because they have acted in a responsible way over the privatisation issue at Harland and Wolff.
  The unions at Shorts have been much criticised publicly in recent days because of their concern over a pay issue and because they have said publicly that there could be industrial action over it. Industrial relations is not a matter simply of unions having disagreements; they have disagreements with managements. Just as the problem affects unions and managements, its resolution is a matter for both. A responsible attitude on the part of both at Shorts can and must avert industrial action at this time. Such action would be an act of folly. Unions and management must reach agreement in the coming few weeks, when the industry will be the showcase to those with an interest in purchasing.
  In this case we have bids from Bombardier and from GEC-Fokker. Like the hon. Member for Leicester, South, I fear that the JFX project may become the victim of the privatisation issue. Not only does Bombardier have a rival project, but I understand that Fokker also has a similar development in progress. I was encouraged when speaking recently to an industrial editor from Amsterdam to learn that the local talk in his country is that, if Fokker is successful, it will not continue with the JFX project, but will bring its alternative project to Belfast and pursue it there.

  971
  Will the Minister say whether the JFX project will be killed off by privatisation? If so, does he expect that an alternative project will be available for the aircraft building side of Shorts? Is he aware that it is essential that all three divisions of Shorts should remain intact in Belfast?
  Mr. McNamara: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we want more than the building of the aircraft to take place? The question of design is vital to this issue. Unless we have a secure design base, the future will look grim.
  Mr. Robinson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If the design capability was lost—if it was supplied from elsewhere in Europe—the research and development side would be in jeopardy and ultimately the manufacture and production side would be in danger.
  In the documentation on Shorts provided by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the Minister responded to a number of questions put by the trade unions and said that 27 firms had expressed an interest in Shorts. It has been announced that two firms have been asked to submit a final bid. How were the numbers whittled down? Is there any prospect of other firms expressing an interest and, if they do, is there still sufficient time for them to act in the matter?
  The Minister will appreciate that my constituents are greatly concerned about the two industries of which I have spoken, remembering that about 10,000 people in east Belfast and the surrounding areas are affected. While I recognise that the sensitive nature of the negotiations limits the amount of information that the Minister can give, it would be helpful to my constituents if he would say what progress has been made.
  9.14 pm
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I support the plea of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) about Harland and Wolff and Shorts. The Minister referred to the buoyancy of the economy. If those firms went down, not only people in Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland, but people in many areas in Scotland, England and Wales would suffer because of the knock-on effect. Both firms play an important part in the economy of Great Britian as well as of Northern Ireland. When the Minister referred to the buoyancy of the economy, was he contradicting the views of PA Management Consultants which has pointed out that, while there has been an improvement, the prospect of loss of jobs in manufacturing and even service industries is a threat to the future?
  Under vote 2 for the Department of Education I welcome the expenditure on arts and museums but I regret that there is no mention of anything for the Ulster orchestra; is that to come out of the funds for the arts? We recognise the important part which the orchestra has played in Northern Ireland affairs over the years, but now it is in financial difficulties.
  I question the provision for pensions under vote 3 of the Department of Education. No doubt the point affects not just Northern Ireland, but I raise it because women teachers in Northern Ireland have been in touch with me. Apparently widowers' pensions have been introduced with effect from 6 April 1988. Married women will have the opportunity of purchasing service prior to April 1988. I
  972
  understand from the information I have that the Government insist that women buy back the years in question—1972 to 1988—if they are to be counted towards widowers' pensions. Male teachers can already count those years for widows' pensions. I am told that since 1972 women have paid the same contribution as men. Why, therefore, should those years not be credited to women, free of further charge?
  On health, matters affecting Belfast also affect the Province as a whole because the services are regional. I regret that under vote 1 of the Department of Health and Social Services there is nothing for the capital development required at the Royal Belfast hospital for sick children. The Minister responsible will know that I have been pressing the Department on the matter. Discussion has been going on since 1964—for 25 years. In 1983 the then Minister announced a capital project of £4·4 million, about half of which has been spent. I understand from my contacts with the Department and with the Eastern health and social services board that discussions are still going on about what might be done, yet the announcement in 1983 involved an immediate injection of capital to deal with pressing requirements, pending the development of a new hospital. When will the current discussions end and the capital injection be made? In addition to the fears of the past, there are now fears for the future with the possibility that the Royal Victoria hospital, perhaps in conjunction with the City hospital, may become a hospital voluntary trust and may have difficulty in acquiring the capital required for work in the children's sector which supplies regional cardiac and paediatric services for Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said that far more money per capita is spent on health provision in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. That is because the population is smaller and scattered over the Province and that automatically adds to capital cost. I suggest that the injection of capital from public sources to different parts of the country does not go to deprived areas, but far more is being spent per capita in the south-east. We would love that capital injection for job promotion, research and defence contracts. It would be a tremendous help in lifting the Province out of poverty.
  The Royal Victoria hospital has been trying to develop capital for its ophthalmic services, which are a basic regional speciality. Those who work in the ophthalmic unit at the Royal Victoria hospital have saved large sums of money over the years and have provided an excellent service to the region. But that service is now being impeded and the damage to the standard of training in that specialty may be irreparable if the hospital does not have the theatre service and other provisions it requires. I understand that although there has been a clear indictment of the cardiac surgery provisions, which is also a regional specialty, the hospital is hoping for some provision in August this year. Will the Minister give us an assurance or guarantee that that will happen?
  I appreciate that we are dealing with the departmental budget and not the Northern Ireland Office budget which covers security, but I must raise the problem of security at the Royal Victoria hospital. The Minister may say that there is no security problem at the hospital and that that is ill-founded rumour. I understand that more than a year ago equipment was provided to assist in the security at the hospital, but there has been some dispute with the unions about the deployment of manpower and the equipment is

  973
  not in use. Since it is not a normal security problem that affects any large institution in Northern Ireland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, should it be funded from the hospital budget—the DHSS vote 1—or should specific security problems at the Royal Victoria hospital be dealt with by the security budget? The board considers that it would he far too much for the hospital to provide, given the finance required to care for patients.
  Only a week ago a person visiting the hospital discovered that his car was missing from the car park. Eventually, he received a telephone call to an ex-directory number from someone claiming to represent an insurance company. saying that the car was in Andersontown. The police do not know who telephoned. They do not know anything about it, but that is where the car was found. However, there are supposed to be security officials there and it is important that we examine whether they have the authority to stop and search vehicles entering and leaving the hospital.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) dealt with the problems for hospitals and the matter of accident and emergency provision which will affect the whole city. Is it not the case that there is no emergency disaster plan in the Northern board area? Is the board relying ultimately on the Eastern board to provide that plan?
  The Western board deals with the provision of mental health services in County Fermanagh. There must be provision for patients in the community before they are decanted from the hospitals. The present procedure for obtaining approval and funding for housing association schemes is extremely time consuming and that makes it difficult to plan the services in a concerted way. Would it be possible for the entire mechanism for approval of proposals to be speeded up?
  I understand that the problem with regard to the provision of bridging funds in Fermanagh relates to the very low level of existing provision in terms of mental health services. The county is virtually destitute in terms of that provision and that is the result of the previous board's low-funded base line. Those of us who understood what was happening under the resource allocation working party will recall that the Western board carried through a strict budgetary requirement and every year it lost more money from the budget. As a result, the board is in difficulties. I plead that the board should receive an adequate share of the bridging funds being made available by the Department of Health and Social Services to enable it to provide the appropriate infrastructure in the community before transferring people from the hospitals.
  People leaving hospital also face financial problems. It would appear that the main problem is that, because the majority of ex-patients are receiving invalidity benefit of a certain level, they are not eligible for income support and are not therefore eligible for a community care grant. In those circumstances, the board has to consider providing the funds for the initial essential furnishing and bedding requirements of those clients.
  It is understood that there may be a resettlement allowance which will be payable weekly to long-term patients returning to the community. The object of that, however, may be to help patients pay off loans for furnishing. It is the considered opinion of the professional social workers dealing with those clients that that is wrong. They are totally opposed to the idea of their clients being put out of mental hospitals into the community and
  974
  starting their lives in debt. They do not believe that that is the answer to the problem of funding their clients' initial requirements. It might be better if the resettlement allowances could be paid as a lump sum to the clients. Another alternative might be for the resettlement allowance to be paid to the board on behalf of the client to offset payments which the board has to make for furnishing.
  Is the Minister aware of the pressures now developing with the Government's move to the provision of private nursing and residential accommodation? The costs are rising, ceilings are being set and as a result residents in those homes are being pressed to obtain extra provision. They depend on charities to provide extra funding. Is the Minister also aware that, much more deplorably, patients' private pocket money, the £8 allowance which they should use for their own purposes, is being taken by the owners of those nursing homes to top up the residential costs? It is deplorable that the Government should have a policy of putting people into private and residential homes and then cut the money to support them.
  9.29 pm
  Mr. Michael Colvin: I hope that I shall be forgiven for intruding in a debate that seems to be exclusively for hon. Members from Northern Ireland, but that is an important part of the United Kingdom. I represent an English constituency and, as chairman of the Conservative parliamentary aviation committee, having recently visited Short Brothers plc, I feel that I can make some contribution to this important debate.
  I was most interested to hear what was said by a number of hon. Members today about the future of this very important company, Short Brothers plc, which is the largest manufacturing employer in Northern Ireland and one of the most important aerospace companies in the world. I was pleased that hon. Members gave credit to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and to the report that it produced following the Government's statement that the company was to be privatised.
  The report highlighted the problem of the company's size. Following the mergers, aerospace companies today are of an enormous size and capability. Two examples in Europe are Aerospatiale and British Aerospace, both of which have turnovers in excess of £3,000 million per annum. Short Brothers plc is at the bottom of the European league table with Casa of Spain, both having turnovers which hardly reach £200 million a year.
  That is not to say that, within its three divisions, Short Brothers does not produce work of extremely high quality. In fact, the essence of Short Brothers is the quality of its products. In particular, the SD3 series is a winning one with types flown all over the world. Short Brothers also hope to launch the FJX, which is another aircraft of great potential. It faces competition but British Airways is already committed to buying 20, which is a good sign and gives the aircraft the stamp of approval which it needs,. Hon. Members raised the matter of launch aid for the FJX. project. Although the project will cost £500 million, Short Brothers' share of that is only £120 million. Therefore, since launch aid amounts to only 50 per cent. of that figure, only £50 million to £60 million of taxpayers' money will be used. That puts the amount into perspective.

  975
  Shorts Brothers plc faces not only a debt problem but a productivity problem. When the Select Committee visited Queens Island, Short Brothers' management went out of its way to stress the importance of additional capital investment and quoted as examples figures of companies such as Northrop, which has a fixed asset to employee ratio of almost £19,000, and of Boeing, which has a ratio of fixed assets to employees of £11,000. Short Brothers comes at the bottom of the scale, with a fixed asset to employee ratio of £3,300. That could be for one of two reasons—either because the company has not put the money which it has received from the Government into capital investment but has been using it to pay off its revenue debts or because the company's productivity is not high due to overmanning and restrictive practices within the work force.
  It is significant that, although the company's turnover has not increased much over the years, during the past 14 years, the work force has risen from 5,800 to 7,600. Other aerospace companies have reduced the size of their work force as their productivity has risen with the introduction of much more modern methods of production. When we toured the plant we were struck by the fact that some of the machine tools and equipment being used by highly skilled engineering employees should have been in a museum.
  The company must tackle productivity. When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave evidence to the Select Committee he stressed that he was going to seek three assurances from companies that might bid to take over Shorts. One was that the company's manufacturing base should stay in Northern Ireland; another was that the company's headquarters and research and development facilities, which must be retained, ought to stay in Northern Ireland. The third was that there should be some assurances about the level of future employment—there is the rub. No Government can guarantee to go on employing people in the quantities that Shorts does. I hope that its order book will expand; it stands at £1,000 million now, which is good, and I should like it to be bigger.
  If the order book expands, the labour force may be able to stay the same size. However, if the company is to have the capital injection that it needs to improve productivity, there must be some rationalisation of the work force, which must be told honestly that that will happen.
  Rationalisation has already occurred in other acts of privatisation, of which British Airways was a good example. The Government restructured the balance sheet and the work force eventually shrank by a third. The company was then successfully privatised, and Shorts must learn that lesson. The company has already proved that it can do this, because the Shorlac company, which is building the highly successful Tucano, has already increased productivity by working a cell system, cutting out demarcation and reducing sectarianism in the work force. In Shorlac, not only is the work force much younger—about 30 on average—but there is a higher percentage of Roman Catholics in that part of the work force than in any other.
  This is my message to the company management and workers. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say something about manning levels and capital investment in Short Brothers.
  976
  I now want to mention a wholly different industry—the licensed trade—for which I know the Minister is responsible, and about which I have an interest to declare. The pubs of Northern Ireland are a great asset to good community relations. They are non-sectarian. Hon. Members have already referred to the importance of tourism. Grants from my hon. Friend's Department are available to build hotel rooms there, but not to enable publicans to add rooms to their pubs, which are far nicer places to stay in. I know that my hon. Friend is reviewing that problem as part of his general review of tourism. Has he come to a decision on giving such grant aid to assist public houses to provide accommodation?
  9.38 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I often seem to be called near the end in Northern Ireland debates. I once had to make a three-minute speech on the subject, and this time will be much the same.
  I want to mention one specific point and then provide a trailer of what I might be able to discuss some other time. The Minister mentioned expenditure on flood damage in Strabane. On 5 November 1987 I raised on the Adjournment the subject of an underground fire in my constituency. The Bellwin scheme came into that. Money had been spent on gale damage in the south of England, so I mentioned the flood damage in Strabane and asked whether the Bellwin scheme would apply, which allows, after a penny rate has been spent in the counties, or a 0·15p rate spent in the districts, 75 per cent. grant aid for the rest of the expenditure involved.
  Has such an arrangement been allowed for the flood damage in Strabane, or has some other provision been made? That affects not only my constituents but the parts of Scotland in which there has been gale damage and which have not yet received the provision that the south of England did.
  I turn to the trailer for my remarks on a future occasion. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) commented that there are few opportunities to discuss the politics of Northern Ireland—the kind of matters that are covered by the appropriation, concerning the conditions of ordinary working-class people. This debate has allowed the House to do so, and that is why I have been pleased to participate in it. Had I the time available, I would have developed some of the themes that have been introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who often comments on matters relating to police involvement, might instead be able to provide some democratic answers to the problems of Northern Ireland.
  I would have addressed myself also to some of the democratic and social aspects. I would have spoken of democracy in the sense of making a claim for devolved Government, but having a bill of rights, and of Socialism in terms of collectivist expenditure, public investment and public ownership as a means of meeting the problems of the Province. Where the greatest areas of deprivation and the greatest problems are to be found, Socialist solutions begin to be appropriate.
  It would be useful if the Government began experimenting in Northern Ireland, applying not the policies used for the rest of the United Kingdom but others. Startling solutions might come from that. Northern Ireland could take the lead, because it has a

  977
  Protestant and Catholic working class that suffers from high levels of unemployment, low pay, National Health Service problems, housing problems, and other exacerbated difficulties of the kind found in the rest of the United Kingdom—and to which Socialist answers of the kind I wanted to talk about might be entirely appropriate.
  As one enters the Chamber, one sees the statues of two Prime Ministers—Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. They were the leaders of what A.J.P. Taylor described as war Socialism. During the war, Socialism was used to build military defence, to handle social problems, and to unite the nation. When a statue of the present Prime Minister is erected, it will be interesting if she adopted a new policy for Northern Ireland. She may then be remembered for her Socialist achievements in Northern Ireland while helping to destroy the rest of the United Kingdom.
  9.42 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: It will be difficult to say in four minutes all that I intended to say. It is difficult for an hon. Member such as myself from the North of Ireland, who has been in the Chamber since 3 o'clock, to make the points that he wants to make. Like the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), I shall simply put down a marker and a trailer.
  One thought that struck me forcibly during the debate was that, rightly, considerable time has been spent on the problems of Shorts. However, approximately five times the number of people employed by that company are employed in the agriculture industry in the North of Ireland. Since entering the House, I have never had an opportunity of addressing the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food across the Floor of the House. I address my first request to the Prime Minister and to the Whips Office—that our biggest single industry be recognised by the appointment of a Minister to deal with the North of Ireland's agriculture as the important industry that it is. To me, there seems to be a cheapening and devaluing of our most important single industry. The North of Ireland has two natural resources. One is grass and the other is people, yet agriculture seems to be excluded from the body politic and from the thoughts of the House.
  My second request is for a look at the development of bovine tuberculosis in the North of Ireland, especially in the border regions. I make no political point whatever about this because the matter is purely agricultural. The problem is developing because, in border areas, there are many movements of security personnel, fences are cut and, for various obvious safety reasons, gates are not used. I should like to make three suggestions and I must do it in shorthand. I suggest the setting up in the border regions of a full-time veterinary centre that will be able to act immediately. When there are fatalities, damage to stock as a result of low-flying helicopters or abortions in cattle or sheep, inspections can be carried out immediately so that claims can be processed.
  Two months ago I had an interesting meeting to which the Secretary of State for Defence saw fit to send representatives to discuss these problems. Believe it or not, the Department of Agriculture in the North of Ireland din not see fit to send a representative to see me and the farmers and to hear about the problems.
  978
  In addition to the veterinary inspection centre, I should like to see set up a veterinary inspection team which would be available to make an assessment immediately and not 24 hours or a week after something happens. That would enable a report to be made and people would not be at a financial loss.
  In relation to bovine TB, I should like to see the setting up of a Government agriculture insurance scheme that will give 100 per cent. compensation for TB reactors. At present, if a farmer declares a reactor, he is offered 75 per cent. compensation. That is very damaging to the industry and will cause long-term damage. If farmers were offered 100 per cent. compensation, it might enable us to get rid of the disease as well as the beast that is infected. At present it is being recycled.
  The whole herd of 43 cattle belonging to one of my constituents was shut down because of bovine tuberculosis. He gets 75 per cent. of the market price of the cattle and that invariably involves a loss because his profit would have come long after the period when he held the cattle. He also loses the headage payments. He potentially loses his milk quota and must then rebuild his herd on 75 per cent. compensation. He cannot get income support and inevitably he will go out of business. That problem is occurring time and again throughout the North of Ireland. Agriculture is our main industry and employs four to five times as many people as the other industries that we have rightly been debating. The problems of agriculture are going by the board.
  The Minister who is responsible for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland might well take the view that I sit up at night thinking up unique and quaint circumstances and instances for him to deal with. However, there is one problem that can be dealt with only at ministerial level. In the area of South Armagh surrounded by the Camlough mountains all primary legislation about drainage was handed over to the mill owners in the village of Bessbrook. Departments were absolved from any responsibility. Those mill owners have gone out of business, and the anomaly as we approach 1992 is that no Government Department is responsible for arterial drainage in that area. The result is that the Department of the Environment is spending about £12,000 per year on remedial road works deriving from the fact that the Department of Agriculture is not responsible for drainage in that area. It is unique; it is quaint; it could happen only to the present Minister—and he will appreciate the import of that remark, as I have referred certain other types of problems to him. To his credit, he has dealt with them, but this is one that must be grappled with quickly.
  I am very concerned about my final point, although do not have time to expand on my concern. I am delighted that I was present for the presentation of the ten-minute Bill dealing with problems in relation to residential and nursing homes. There is increasing reason for concern about the way in which the entrepreneurial bent is being used in the care of old people in residential homes. I do not have time to take the matter any further, but it is one of immediate concern to all of us. The people that we must treasure most are those who cannot help themselves. We owe it to those who, like all of us, are getting older to make sure that any homes that are set up are run in such a way as to ensure the maximum protection for their residents.
  9.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): I have sat through many debates without getting an opportunity to speak, so I am sure we all feel a great sense of satisfaction that everyone who sat through this one had that opportunity—albeit, at the end, briefly. My only regret—and it is a very serious and sincere one—is that I will not be able to reply to all the points that were made, some of them very serious and very important. I counted more than 30 points that require some response from the Dispatch Box, but I simply will not be able to reply to all of them, and for that I apologise to the House.
  In 1988–89 the public expenditure total for Northern Ireland is £5·2 billion, excluding the special addition of £390 million for Shorts. This very substantial allocation enables us to mount spending programmes which reflect Northern Ireland's higher needs, in terms of unemployment, health, housing and other issues. In response to those needs, spending per capita in Northern Ireland is substantially higher—about 40 per cent.—than the United Kingdom average. This is, of course, the considered result of Government policy, which, rightly, provides more resources to Northern Ireland and to other relatively disadvantaged areas than to the more prosperous regions of the United Kingdom. This clearly gives the lie to those in Northern Ireland who misguidedly talk about economic withdrawal. The facts speak for themselves the opposite is the case, and the Government are providing, and will continue to provide, the resources necessary to assist the Province to strengthen its economy through self-sustaining growth.
  The House will forgive me if I pick up one point of substance for which I have special responsibility—the job-promotion duties of the Industrial Development Board. In 1987–88 the IDB achieved its highest-ever level of promotions, with 5,300 new jobs. The board set itself an even more challenging target of 5,500 job promotions for 1988–89, and I am hopeful, indeed confident, that this target will be achieved, or even exceeded. The IDB has had a high level of success recently, particularly in winning prestigious international projects—Daewoo from South Korea, Montupet from France, Science Typographers from the United States, and Huco from Germany. These successes underline the IDB's ability and determination to pursue and win major new investment.
  I should add that the IDB is tasked to promote industrial development throughout Northern Ireland, and I can assure the House that the board goes to great lengths to ensure that prospective investors are made aware of what all parts of the Province have to offer. The IDB is currently assisting companies across the whole of Northern Ireland. These include: in Magherafelt, County Londonderry, Peter England—100 jobs; in Dungannon, County Tyrone, Powerscreen Manufacturing—45 jobs; in Craigavon, County Armagh, Interfacing Flow Systems—87 jobs; in Lisnaskea, County Fermanagh, Adria—142 jobs; and in County Down, at Killyleagh, Atlantic Tanners Ltd.—121 new jobs.
  The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is prominent in putting forward the case that the Industrial Development Board is not fair in promoting jobs throughout Northern Ireland. In all sincerity, I say to him that, to my certain knowledge, he is wrong. I have written to the hon. Gentleman on this matter.
  Mr. McGrady rose—
  Mr. Viggers: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way. I have a total of nine minutes to deal with 30 points.
  Montupet—the French company—gave most careful thought to the possibility of establishing its tool room in Downpatrick. I have discussed that issue with the chairman of the company. The IDB has been successful in winning jobs for the whole of Northern Ireland.
  I give one figure, which has not been published recently. In 1987–88 the Industrial Development Board was successful in winning about 5 per cent. of all jobs won into the United Kingdom by way of inward investment, bearing in mind that the population of Northern Ireland represents about 2·5 per cent. of that of the United Kingdom. In the current year, we have achieved a remarkable 11·6 per cent. of inward investment jobs into the United Kingdom. That is a proud record.
  I will seek to deal with some of the large number of points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) raised several important points concerning social security benefits. Last year's reforms were aimed at better targeting expenditure towards areas of greatest need, and benefit levels are on a parity basis with the rest of the United Kingdom. On family credit, the hon. Gentleman should know that the rates of benefit are more generous than under previous arrangements, but the Department of Health and Social Services is concerned about the level of take-up and is taking steps to improve it.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that expenditure on community care was being cut across the Province. There has certainly been an attempt to target expenditure where it is most needed so that people can remain in the community, preferably in their own homes, with the necessary support, rather than prematurely going into long-stay accommodation or blocking beds in acute hospitals. The policy of improving throughput in acute hospitals is intended also to release resources which can be redeployed to community services. I am sure that hon. Members would support such efforts.
  The hon. Gentleman specifically asked about the latest pupil-teacher ratio. The most up-to-date overall pupil-teacher ratio for Northern Ireland is 18 : 3·1, which is marginally below the figure that was quoted by the hon. Gentleman, although very near to it.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) asked about the evening closure of the Mater hospital accident and emergency department. A recent complementary study of the Royal group of hospitals, the Belfast City hospital and the Mater hospital resulted in several recommendations, one of which was that the Mater accident and emergency department should close in the evenings, the time of closure to be decided locally.
  So many hon. Members raised questions concerning Shorts and Harland and Wolff that it would be appropriate for me to devote the 180 remaining seconds of my speech to that subject.
  Mr. Mallon: Why is the Minister making no reference to the largest industry in Northern Ireland—agriculture?
  Mr. Viggers: As the hon. Gentleman took nine minutes to speak, having undertaken to take five, I might have had

  981
  more time to reply to his questions. [Interruption.] I would not have raised that ungracious point with the hon. Gentleman if he had not chosen to criticise me.
  In the case of Harland and Wolff, the House will be aware that the Government are anxious to achieve an early and successful privatisation of the company. That approach has been endorsed by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. We have been working to find a privatisation structure which is right for the company and which will obtain the approval of the European Commission. We continue to study in detail the proposals put to us. Although there is no certain outcome to the discussions, there are encouraging signs of positive progress. The attitude of the management and the work force will he critical in that process. I welcome the approach and the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) in this matter. He quoted the words and the attitude of the Prime Minister when she made that. point. It is in everyone's interest that the company attains the higher levels of performance required in today's extremely competitive shipbuilding market. This is vital if we are to achieve a successful privatisation and a more secure future for the company in the longer term.
  Turning to Shorts, as has already been indicated, our intention is to restructure Shorts' balance sheet. I announced 10 days ago the initial restructuring, involving £390 million of convertible stock. I can tell the hon. Member for Belfast, East that the list of approximately 30 companies which had expressed an interest in Shorts was reduced to a dozen to whom we sent the information memorandum and, based on the responses to the memorandum, we have now, with the advice of Kleinwort Benson, our professional advisers, identified two company interests, which may be joined by a third, with whom we are holding detailed discussions.
  We believe that to be the best basis and way ahead for the company, and we are moving anxiously to seek privatisation on that basis.
  It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER put the Question on the motion, pursuant to Order [3 March].
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 28th February, be approved.

  Commercial Vehicles
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out to the House that in respect of this document, 4311/89, on the derogation of weights of heavy commercial vehicles, the Select Committee on European Legislation received from the Minister a memorandum. Having considered it at a meeting some weeks ago, the Committee requested further information from the Minister which he sent to us in a memorandum dated 6 March. This the Committee received today at its meeting and it made a further report to the House, dated today, our 14th report, which is now available in the Vote Office.
  I regret, Mr. Speaker, that no earlier notice was given of this, but because of the timescale, it was not possible to do so. Hon. Members, therefore, who took their papers from the Vote Office prior to 6 pm today may not have the full set of documents.
  I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of saying this to the House.
  Mr. Speaker: The whole House is obliged to the hon. Member for what he has said.
  10.2 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Paul Channon): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4311/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 6th March 1989 on the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles; notes the development of the circumstances which justified the derogations accorded to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland from certain provisions of Directive 85/3; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that a premature end date to the derogations is not imposed on the United Kingdom.
  I turn at once to what the hon. Member has just said in his point of order in which he rightly drew the attention of the House to the report of his Committee, which I have had an opportunity to read and which the whole House should read. I hope that it will become clear in the course of my remarks that all the points that he makes and all these matters the House will, I am sure, wish to reconsider on a future occasion as the situation unfolds.
  Perhaps I ought to apologise to the House for the fact that this debate has been arranged at short notice, but I think that most of the House, including hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, will wish to have had this debate before the Transport Council meets next week. I wish to be in the position when I go to it of being able to give the views of the House of Commons.
  Mr. John Prescott: We are right behind the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Channon: That rather worries me. I only hope that there is not a knife in the hon. Gentleman's hand if he is standing right behind me. But that is a most unworthy suspicion.
  The point that I want to make seriously to the House is that this matter is urgent at the moment and will continue to be an important subject to which the House will want to turn its attention. Tonight we shall examine the proposals in document No. 4311 before they are discussed in Brussels. The document is a report on the suitability of the bridge infrastructure in the United Kingdom for use by

  983
  five and six-axled lorries weighing 40 tonnes with a drive axle loading of 11·5 tonnes, as is general throughout the European Community except in Ireland.
  The House will be aware that in 1984 we obtained derogations from those limits for five and six-axled vehicles because certain parts of the road network in both the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland were not strong enough, and it was recognised in a Council directive that the requirement for substantial improvements of the relevant portions of our road network, especially bridges, would take some time to complete.
  The next meeting of the Transport Council in Brussels takes place on Budget day—Champion Hurdle day, perhaps I should call it—and the draft directive which accompanies the report in document No. 4311/89 is not formally on the agenda of that meeting. But it is relevant for there is a proposal on that agenda which concerns two, three and four-axled vehicles. That proposal was the subject of debate in the House on 16 June 1988, when the Government sought the House's endorsement for the objective of keeping to current axle spacings and limiting the axle weight to 10·5 tonnes to safeguard our bridges. Retaining the limit on axle loading, as distinct from the proposed small increases in gross vehicle weight below the 40 tonne level—which is also part of the proposal—has remained the Government's main objective in what have been difficult and lengthly negotiations. I must warn the House that that directive is subject to majority voting since the Single European Act has come into effect.
  I shall argue strongly in Brussels that the derogation on axle loading throughout the range of two, three and four-axled vehicles should be the same derogation as that of five and six-axled vehicles. It may be that other member states, which already have the heavier weights, will argue that any new derogation should be time limited—perhaps at 1996 as, indeed, the Commission's report suggests for the five and six-axled vehicles. However, it would be wrong for the new derogation on the smaller vehicles to be prematurely time-limited.
  On our existing derogation that applies to five and six-axled vehicles, the directive in 1985 provided that it would be the subject of a Commission report on Britain's infrastructure, which is what is relevant tonight.
  The Commission's report and the accompanying draft directive say that our derogation should end at the end of 1996. At one stage it had the ridiculous idea of ending our derogation in 1992. Therefore, even 1996 is an improvement. I do not agree, however, that that is good enough. For the sake of completeness, I should make clear that the draft directive with the report would also allow in one special circumstance for vehicles carrying the 40 ft., International Standardisation Organisation containers to be loaded at 44 tonnes, where that is part of a combined transport operation involving rail carriage and only end distribution by road. That is an exception and one that is not an issue in the normal limit of 40 tonnes and our derogations to 38 tonnes.
  In February 1987, the Commission drew three conclusions. First, it said that design standards for bridges in the United Kingdom were similar to those in other member states; secondly, that older United Kingdom bridges were equivalent to bridges in other EC member states which did carry 40-tonne vehicles; and, thirdly, as
  984
  only a small proportion of older United Kingdom bridges had been assessed, a strategic plan of assessment and possible strengthening should be drawn up to enable the Commission to make a proposal.
  In November of that year my Department published the bridge census and sample survey report that looked at bridges on local roads. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic announced on 24 November 1987 a 15-year programme for the rehabilitation of bridges on trunk roads. That programme includes general bridge maintenance as well as strengthening for the requirements of modern heavy lorries. The first 10 years or so of that programme will include the assessment and strengthening of the older bridges—notably the pre-1922 bridges—to make them capable of carrying up to 38 tonnes gross laden weight, and, incidentally, 40 tonnes should that prove necessary.
  The important point that the House and the Commission should understand—because I do not believe the latter does—is that 15 per cent. of bridges in the United Kingdom are pre-1922, compared with, perhaps, only some 3 per cent. in Germany.
  Mr. Prescott: Why is that?
  Mr. Channon: Because the bridges are older, it means that they need more work done on them. They were not built to the standards that we require today.
  Mr. Prescott: It was really the RAF.
  Mr. Channon: I thought that the hon. Gentleman might say that. I nearly said it myself, but I shall need the support of the German delegation next week. I hope, therefore, that Hansard will attribute the remark to the hon. Gentleman rather than to me.
  Mr. Peter Snape: It will be reported as an interruption.
  Mr. Channon: Yes, an interruption.
  The latter part of our bridge programme will concentrate on the more modern bridges, which are already designed to carry the heavier weights, but which will still need major capital maintenance. Later this month I am expecting a further report from bridge consultants on the state of the concrete bridges in the country. I have no reason to assume that that report will be optimistic.
  What the various sample surveys show is that, in Great Britain, there are some 11,400 bridges on trunk roads and of those 2,600 need detailed technical assessment to see whether they can cope with heavier vehicle weights. On a sampling technique we estimate that about 1,200 will need to be strengthened. The Commission says that 230 will need strengthening, so there is a considerable difference of opinion. On the basis of the figures—they are only estimates—our trunk road bridge strengthening programme is planned for completion by 1998.
  The sample survey of local bridges, including those owned by statutory undertakers and other bodies, produced the estimate that of some 50,000 local bridges, about 11,250 are expected to be below standard. Local authorities have been making their own plans for tackling those, and a few may have already embarked on work programmes. But it is not likely that the necessary strengthening work will be more than partially completed by the end of 1996.

  985
  The costs are considerable. For trunk roads they will amount to about £70 million, including about £9 million in the current year. We shall have to make a final estimate when the assessment is completed. For local roads the figure is enormous—some £600 million. An extra £27 million has been included in the public expenditure provision for 1989–90 to take account of the known position. I should make it clear to the House that these are not extra costs for the 40 tonnes-11·5 tonne-axled lorries. The vast bulk of the expenditure is required in any event to make our bridges suitable for the modern heavier weights that they already carry.
  The Commission report notes that the higher weights proposed may lead to faster deterioration of our roads and bridges. It cites data from earlier reports on the effects of increasing the maximum permitted weight from 32·5 tonnes to 38 tonnes. It notes that the Armitage report concluded that 38tonne vehicles with five axles were less damaging than 32·5 tonne-four-axled vehicles. At the time of the Armitage report in 1980 it was generally accepted that heavier vehicles with more axles were generally less damaging to the road infrastructure. The Armitage recommendations were, of course, based on the premise that the drive axle weight of vehicles should be a maximum of 10·5 tonnes.
  I agree with the Commission that the United Kingdom's bridges will not be suitable to carry the heavier-weight vehicles with the heavier drive-axle weights until there has been a major programme of bridge assessment and strengthening. Where I disagree—I believe that the House will share my disagreement—is about the scale of the problem. There are some 1,200 bridges on the non-motorway trunk roads that need strengthening, but the Commission says that there are 230 such bridges. On local roads, we estimate that there are about 11,250 bridges below standard, but the Commission estimates that there are about 4,000. The reason why there is such a difference of opinion between us is that the Commission has excluded bridges that have a capacity of 7·5 tonnes as it does not believe that those bridges will carry heavy loads. That is not true. Under the code the category includes all bridges that fall short of the next highest category of 16·5 tonnes. It is unrealistic, therefore, to imagine that the smaller bridges in this country will not be required to carry heavier loads if that was the requirement throughout the country.
  Mr. William Cash: My right hon. Friend will notice that in paragraph 2(1) of the Commission's report the comparison that is made between the United Kingdom and other member states is confined to four other member states only. Seven member states are missing from its calculations. I have the greatest sympathy with the views that have been expressed by my right hon. Friend and I have grave reservations about the views of the Commission. Why is it that it has chosen only four other member states with which to make a comparison when there are seven others with which comparison could be made?
  Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend raises an extremely valid point. I shall seek to convince the Commission that the report that I am sure it prepared in good faith is, nevertheless, misleading about the problem that the United Kingdom faces. I shall be careful in choosing my words, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the
  986
  fact that the report is inadequate in that respect as indeed, for the reasons that I have given, it is inadequate in a number of other respects.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: I support the view of the Secretary of State that the Commission's view seems to be wholly inadequate. However, will he confirm that the views of the interfering busybodies from the Commission could be endorsed following the passage of the Single European Act if a majority of states take the view that the Commission's report is right rather than the view of the Government of this member state?
  Mr. Channon: The situation varies depending on whether one is considering two, three and four-axle vehicles or five and six-axle vehicles. On two, three and four-axle vehicles, we have no derogation and any directive put forward on them will be subject to majority voting under the Single European Act. For five and six-axle vehicles, we do not accept that derogation should end in 1996, as is proposed, because we do not think that our bridge infrastructure will be suitable and it would be unduly burdensome to meet that date. We would never have been willing to agree the derogation in the first place without the Council's commitment on seeking agreement to end it unanimously in relation to five and six-axle vehicles. I wanted to try to explain to the House that the two issues are linked and that, therefore, it is very important that hon. Members and people outside the House should understand the difficulty that we face and that we may have to face as early as next week.
  The Commission has also made the suggestion of a partial network of major routes for heavier lorries. With a significant proportion of bridges weight-limited, it would be difficult to suggest a comprehensive network. As we all know, there are many journeys that begin and end off major roads and enforcement would be a difficult problem We have begun a major programme of strengthening work so that the older bridges in the trunk road network will be able to carry a full range of modern-day goods vehicles. Local authorities will have to press ahead with similar plans for their roads.
  It can be argued—and is argued—that there are substantial potential economic benefits from using heavier vehicles, as the explanatory memorandum describes. Those benefits have been estimated at about £76 million a year. The House will be interested to note that a more recent survey of business intentions carried out by the Freight Transport Association estimates that the potential savings to industry could be as high as £200 million a year. If that is so, benefits could be passed on to consumers in lower product costs and there would be other less quantifiable benefits to the public. Vehicles able to carry their full design weight need to make fewer journeys.
  As the House realises, although I am not sure that everyone outside does, I must stress that the new heavier lorries are no bigger than the existing lorries. You, Mr. Speaker, or any member of the public would not be able to distinguish a 40-tonne lorry from an existing 38-tonne lorry. The only difference is the greater payload. That means that fewer of them would be needed on the roads, so it is argued that there would be an environmental benefit too. That argument would carry more force if those lorries were fitted with air suspension, which can not only reduce wear and tear on roads, but reduce noise and increase safety.

  987
  This is not simply a question of economics. The United Kingdom road infrastructure simply will not be able to carry the heavier vehicles by the date that the Commission proposes. I hope, therefore, that when I go to the Council next week, I shall have the support of the whole House of Commons. I draw the House's attention to the motion. It asks the House to take note of the various documents and then says:
  "and supports the Government's intention to ensure that a premature end date to the derogations is not imposed on the United Kingdom."
  That is what I am asking the House to agree tonight. I hope that it will be possible to agree that without a Division. I would like to be able to tell the Council that this was the unanimous view of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Snape: If it becomes necessary, will the right hon. Gentleman use his powers to veto the proposals at the Council of Ministers?
  Mr. Channon: I do not have the power to veto the proposals on the two, three and four-axle vehicles. [Interruption.] Well, I shall go through it again. The two, three and four-axle vehicles will be discussed next week. I do not have the power to veto those provisions but I hope that I have the power of persuasion and, fortified by the support of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I should imagine that I shall be irresistible. Failing that, we shall see.
  On the question of the five and six-axle vehicles, in answer to the hon. Member for Keighley—
  Mr. Cryer: For Bradford, South.
  Mr. Channon: Yes, I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—I meant the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). Times have changed and things were better in those days. The hon. Gentleman was less heavy in those days.
  I have already explained to the House that the unanimity rule applies in relation to the five and six-axle vehicles, so that will not be an issue at the Council meeting next week. As I have already said, we expect that the Council will treat that as a matter in which unanimity is provided and I have also said that the House of Commons will be consulted, so there is no question of us giving way on that point at present—unless we can have a date that is acceptable bearing in mind that our bridges will have to be strengthened for the lorries to use them. That is not an issue between us at the moment and it is not something that the Commission has suggested. The proposed ending of the derogation is most unsatisfactory and I am asking the House to agree on that point—
  Mr. Prescott rose—
  Mr. Channon: Yes, I shall give way, yet again.
  Mr. Prescott: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. This is an important point and we appreciate that he is in the process of negotiation on two matters. However, is he prepared to say at the Council meeting that he is to attend shortly that he will be prepared to use his veto if the Council attempts to impose the 1996 date on him? I should like to hear him say that, yes, he will use the veto.
  Mr. Channon: I am choosing my words with some care to try to maximise my chances of getting my own way. In his usual helpful way, I know that the hon. Gentleman will want me to get the result that is most satisfactory for the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Snape: What is the Secretary of State's record on that?
  Mr. Channon: As it happens, so far I have rather a good track record in the Council meetings, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's perpetual calls for my resignation, which we shall no doubt hear again next week—[Interruption.] Well, I shall try not to resign before Budget day.
  As I have said, I have chosen my words with some care and hope to get a satisfactory result next week or, if not, to be in a position to report further to the House of Commons—
  Mr. Roger Gale: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Channon: Yes. I have almost finished.
  Mr. Gale: My right hon. Friend has mentioned several times—I understand that it is the basis of the directive—that the derogation is based on bridges. As he is taking a message from this House to Europe, will he take a clear message from the people of Kent who are worried not only about bridges but because we do not want heavier lorries until the entire road infrastructure is suitable for carrying them, which may be a long time ahead?
  Mr. Channon: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his characteristic robust support. I think that the whole House will support me—I hope that it will—because that would very much strengthen my hand in the difficult negotiations next week. For tonight, I ask the House to support the Government's motion.
  10.22 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: The House will be grateful at least for the way in which the Secretary of State presented his case. We have seen a new and revitalised Secretary of State. In deputising for his hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic, I can tell him that he is almost as good as the original when it comes to wit and humour. The Secretary of State will do very well.
  In general, we welcome what the Secretary of State said, although I noticed that he was careful not to give a direct answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). There has been a surprising turnabout in the Secretary of State's attitude over the past few weeks—
  Mr. Cash: Get on with it.
  Mr. Snape: I shall explain in a minute. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) should curb his natural impatience and I shall tell him how the turnabout arose. The Select Committee on European Legislation recently considered these matters. On 21 February 1989 it issued an advisory brief stating:
  "Although the conclusion of the Commission is unambiguous, and it has submitted a draft Directive which it suggests hopefully should be agreed by 1 July this year, the Department's EM is ambiguous, giving no firm indication of the Government's line".

  989
  The same Committee looked again at what was emerging from the Department on these matters on 6 March and said:
  "The supplementary … now submitted is explicitly opposed to the Commission's proposal but complicates the issue by pointing out that the Government will be seeking at the next Transport Council to defend the United Kingdom's maximum 10·5 tonne drive axle weight in relation to two, three and four axled vehicles without the protection of unanimity "
  While we welcome this dramatic conversion, I hope I will be forgiven for asking how it came about. Did it have anything to do with the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East sent the right hon. Gentleman a letter, a copy of which I have with me, urging him to veto the regulations?
  That letter was dated 1 March. By 3 March the new Channon had emerged, and the man who will be heading for the EEC on Wednesday has been strengthened by the support he has received from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. I know that he welcomes that support—he told us earlier that he did—and I hope that he will defend British interests as robustly as he implied he would and will tell his fellow Ministers that this House agrees with him—or perhaps I should say that he agrees with this House—that the regulations should be opposed.
  Mr. Cash: As a member of the Select Committee, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that he is being less than disingenuous in criticising the Government for their ambiguity because the Select Committee said in its most recent report:
  "The Committee notes that the Government disagrees with the Commission's proposal."
  In that context, I cannot see how he can claim that the Government are being ambiguous.
  Mr. Snape: I do not want to get bogged down in a discussion about who said what. I was quoting from an advisory brief from the Committee dated 21 February, so I cannot be accused of being ingenuous—
  Mr. Cash: I said "disingenuous."
  Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for correcting Inc. One gets free instructions from a solicitor when taking part in these debates late at night. It is rare for them to give anything away for nothing, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stafford for his efforts.
  The fact that the Secretary of State has changed his mind is to be welcomed, although he could not resist going in for the usual propaganda by claiming that the introduction of heavier goods vehicles into this country will mean, first, that they will carry more and, secondly, that there will be fewer of them. We have heard that story frequently over the years and we may be forgiven our wry smiles on hearing it yet again.
  Looking back at the history of legislation on heavy vehicles, it is interesting to note how often it has been stated that the latest demand for heavier vehicles would, if approved, result in fewer such vehicles being on our roads. The first time I heard that argued was in 1943 when, making a plea to remove the then 20 mph speed restriction on heavy goods vehicles, the organisation which is now known as the Freight Transport Association claimed:
  "Enabling heavy goods vehicles to go faster will mean that there will be less of them on our roads."
  990
  That song has been sung for nearly 50 years. It was not true in the 1940s and it is not true now. Conservative Members know it is not true because they have heard it being sung for as long as I have, and my recollection in the House goes back 15 years.
  Mr. Tim Smith: It is a fact.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman who represented Ashfield until they rumbled him—now the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith)—says it is true. If and when he is released from the confines of the House, which we hope will be sooner rather than later, and he takes a look outside, he will find that even in the short time that he has been back here as a Member the number of heavy goods vehicles on our roads has increased dramatically. I hope that I do not have to spend the few minutes available to me explaining those realities to Conservative Members.
  As for the argument that speeding up the vehicles will help—again an argument that has been around for 50 years—if hon. Members look at the congestion on the M25 I hope they will recognise that it is immaterial from the point of view of reducing numbers how much the vehicles carry. If they are not going anywhere in any case, we can easily see that there might be more of them rather than fewer.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: We are waiting for the hon. Gentleman to say something pertinent to the: documents we are considering. Having attacked the interesting contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), the hon. Gentleman went on to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), without saying anything of substance. Does he not agree that the trend should be to encourage the gradual development of heavier lorries, coupled with the logical and rational zonal and local restrictions which are needed? If we compare what happens here with what happens in France, in Paris juggernauts are prohibited and there is trans-shipment into smaller vehicles, which seems to work well. Why does not the hon. Gentleman support with more enthusiasm the excellent provisions of the Dykes Act—the Heavy Commercial Vehicles (Control and Regulations) Act 1973—drafted by me, aided by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford? It has contributed to some 675 schemes up and down the country for restrictions on the access, parking and movement of heavy lorries.
  Mr. Snape: I am a great advocate and proponent of the Dykes Act. It is sad that more local authorities did not adopt it as enthusiastically as a handful have. On the first part of his intervention, I will tell the hon. Gentleman why things do not work as well here as they do, for example, in Paris or in other parts of the EEC. It can be summed up in one simple word—enforcement. The enforcement of the law on heavy goods vehicles is scandalously low. I will give some statistics to illustrate that in a moment.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is somewhat wearily shaking his head. I think it is a bit late for him to be out. Of course, he is a great man for talking about a crackdown on cowboys in relation to heavy goods vehicles. When it comes to cracking down on cowboys, he is about as successful as the Indians in the films that I used to watch when I was a boy. On enforcement, it is the hon. Gentleman's bow and arrow against the repeating rifles of the cavalry, I am afraid [Interruption.] The officers had swords; I am talking about the Under-Secretary.

  991
  Enforcement is the great problem. The hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who is such a great European enthusiast, ought to recognise that one reason why my hon. Friends and I are sceptical of these and other proposals about heavy goods vehicles is that the level of enforcement in this country is as low as it has ever been.
  Mr. Conal Gregory: In view of the comments the hon. Gentleman has just made about enforcement, will he deplore the attitude of the Transport and General Workers Union in not acting more strenuously in regard to its members, exposed in "Transport Week" last week, who indicated that they will continue to flout the law? Is he relying upon the state rather than his powers in that trade union?
  Mr. Snape: We all know well that if individual drivers in the heavy goods vehicles and road haulage business were to tell their employers that they intended to abide by the law, it would be an open invitiation for them to be shown the door. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Gregory), whose anti-union credentials are well known in the House, is a most enthusiastic supporter of legislation undermining the rights of individuals, including lorry drivers, at their place of work. I would be grateful for a period of silence on the hon. Gentleman's part with regard to enforcement.
  In these matters I rely on articles in a recent publication, "Transport Week", which set out starkly and categorically the Department of Transport's failings in connection with heavy goods vehicles. I have met Karen Miles only once, when she came to a press conference at the House. I have no reason to suppose that she is a member of the National Union of Railwaymen, so I would not have thought that we could automatically mistrust what she has to say about the Department and enforcement. We are concerned by the fact that enforcement is so appallingly weak.
  Although I hope that I do not have to quote from Karen Miles, article too extensively, her article states:
  "Research by Transport Week among the 219 traffic examiners"—
  and that is all there are throughout the country—
  "responsible for ensuring HGV and PSV operators comply with operators' licence regulations, including drivers' hours limits, has revealed a growing feeling of powerlessness to control the rising tide of law breaking."
  The article went on to state that
  "Detailed discussions with traffic examiners and senior traffic examiners in 6 of the 9 traffic areas have uncovered some startling failings in the enforcement system."
  The article explains that in the north-east, in Leeds, there is no money to bring prosecutions of HGV offences until April. The Conservative party may be proud of that level of enforcement, but I must stress that Labour Members are extremely unhappy with that deplorable level of enforcement and we shall demonstrate that unhappiness through our determination to ensure that there is no easing in terms of axle and all-up weights of heavy goods vehicles until we get some assurances about these problems.
  I hope that I have at least partially answered some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Harrow, East and that I can take him some way towards believing that enforcement is vital, but is not receiving the important consideration that it deserves from the Government at the moment.
  992
  The Government's whole attitude to intermodal traffic and traffic that could be partially carried by rail is called into question by the regulations and derogations. The Department of Transport's inactivity over the past few years has led directly to a transfer of freight from the railways to the roads. That is directly contrary to the general principle running throughout the Community and is directly contrary to regulations that the Community introduced as long ago as 1975.
  I urge the Secretary of State and his colleagues to consider the way in which other EEC countries have, in various ways, subsidised their road haulage industries. The normal reason given by those countries for having such subsidies is that they want to encourage the transfer of traffic from road to rail. However, I hope that the Secretary of State will agree that the British road haulage system's dependence on market forces has not been particularly successful, especially with regard to United Kingdom-continental traffic.
  Three years ago British-based hauliers carried over 60 per cent. of United Kingdom-continental traffic. They now carry 42 per cent. according to the Freight Transport Association. There are signs that the decline in Britain's share of that traffic is accelerating rather than being reversed. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the examples set by some of his ministerial counterparts and will do what he can to reverse that trend. For example, he could encourage his opposite numbers in various parts of the EC to look at some of the developments taking place for road and rail vehicles in this country.
  Developments are being undertaken in the private sector by companies such as Tiphook, whose piggy-back wagon, it believes, is capable of revolutionising the United Kingdom's continental road haulage network. It wants, not financial encouragement—it is not coming cap in hand for a subsidy from the Department—but, as I understand it, some degree of publicly expressed support. It also wants support within the EC for these newer methods of haulage, and for the Government to follow the example of other EC countries and reverse this country's apparently unique trend of transferring freight from the railways to the roads.
  We are grateful for the Secretary of State's earlier comments, but we would still like to hear from him, or any other members of the entourage that he will no doubt take with him on Wednesday, of his determination to use, if necessary, his veto on some of these proposals. If the Secretary of State does that, he can be assured that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East and I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him, which should please him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] The Secretary of State will be relieved to know that my hon. Friend will shortly be returning to stand shoulder to shoulder with him—probably when I have finished the speech that I am making on his behalf. I hope that the Secretary of State will not weaken. We welcome his transformation into the tough and witty man he has become over the past few days. Long may that transformation continue, because it has our support.
  10.42 pm
  Mr. Robert Boscawen: Enforcement or no enforcement, we have wanted derogation from this order for a long time. Not for the first

  993
  time, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have the fullest support of everyone who lives in the part of the world which I represent.
  We are debating a very important issue, at the centre of which is the quality of life. The order refers mainly to bridges but it will also affect small roads, villages, houses and the general quality of life in the rural areas of this country. The euphemism "local roads" is used, but they are really country lanes. If anyone thinks that they are suitable for 40-tonne vehicles carrying 40-tonne loads, he is wrong. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I know that he is capable of it—will make sure that his partners in the EC are put right on that issue.
  I represent an area which is the principal source of the stone required for roads and buildings in the south—certainly the south-east—and know that heavy-vehicle traffic on country roads is essential and cannot be avoided. It has to travel on country roads before it can get near the major trunk routes. The numbers of movements past some of the small farms, villages and towns in my area are inevitable. One particular lorry route from the quarries in my constituency handles 600 movements a day, which cause an immense amount of damage, not only to bridges but to everything.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has my fullest support to ensure that the limitations on these heavy vehicles remains in place for as long as possible.
  10.44 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I, too, welcome the Secretary of State's clear statement that he will resist these European measures. A major factor in the demand for road upgrading is the perennial problem of heavy lorries. Although road haulage is often sold as cheap and efficient, the hidden expenses for taxpayers involved in supporting the moving of freight on the roads are considerable.
  The Audit Commission report on road maintenance stated that 50 per cent. of damage was caused by heavy goods vehicles with more than four axles. In Somerset, the cost of road maintenance has trebled in less than a decade. The Audit Commission also said that damage caused by lorries to roads costs £600 million a year. That does not take into account the grave damage that the Secretary of State described to bridges, buildings and under-road services.
  Inquiries such as those conducted by Foster, Armitage and Wood examined the problems of heavy lorries, but most of their recommendations have not yet been implemented. I regret that the tendency has been to implement them half-heartedly, if at all.
  Document 4311/89 from the Commission claims that by 1996 a substantial part of the United Kingdom's road network will be ready to take heavier 40-tonne, 11·5 axle vehicles. In its explanation, the Commission largely concentrates on the conflict between keeping down road transport costs and the damage to roads. The more heavily a lorry operator loads his axles, the more goods he can transport at least expense—but the greater the expense to the public because of the increased costs of the maintenance and provision of roads adequate for these weights.
  The Commission states:
  "Recent studies in the USA and elsewhere have shown that increases in gross vehicle weight and axle weight can be justified in terms of overall benefit to the economy, in spite of the additional infrastructure costs."
  994
  The Commission sees these costs as moderate, but the increased costs of road building and maintenance have yet to be evaluated and it is clear that roads and motorways will have to be built and rebuilt to more expensive specifications to take account of the punishment they are likely to receive. I suspect that that is at the root of the Secretary of State's and the Government's unwillingness to accept what the EEC is saying.
  I should like to take this further, and it is a shame that the Secretary of State did not It is questionable whether the extra weights that the United Kingdom is being urged to comply with are necessary in the vast majority of cases. The road haulage industry has proliferated over the past few years to such an extent that many other aspects of the infrastructure of this country have been ignored. Railways come high on the list of such aspects. At the same time, the road system is crumbling under the pressure put on it by heavy lorries. I deplore this as an unnecessary use of resources and despoliation of the environment.
  Since the Armitage report, some additional expenditure has been permitted in the form of constructing bypasses to alleviate the worst effects of the decision to allow an increase in the permitted weight to 38 tonnes on five axles, but I consider even the present situation—let alone that to which Europe wants us to move—deeply unsatisfactory. Design standards have proved inadequate to cope, and the. damage attributed to these vehicles may be underestimated by as much as a factor of three. On motorways and heavily used roads the damage factor, as road designers call it, has more than doubled since 1970, and forecasts have suggested that that damage factor will treble and rise by as much as 340 per cent. by the year 2005.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons for the problems to which he has pointed is that Department of Transport forecasts for road usage are usually painfully wrong, and that we need to move to a different system of forecasting? Furthermore, talking of motorways for the next century, does he agree that a motorway to the north-east of England is an urgent priority?
  Mr. Taylor: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he agrees with me that underestimates certainly occur in respect of road links to the south-west. One reason for that is the Department of the Environment's failure to consider the effect of the traffic that is brought on to new roads. An obvious example of that is the A30, and the efforts of myself and other hon. Members to introduce a dual-carriage standard.
  There may be certain operations where the Commission's "larger means fewer" rule applies. That said, it is important to acknowledge that new roads, as well as large vehicles, have made lorry-kilometres and tonne-kilometres by road much cheaper than they would be otherwise. In a sense, a few major road schemes have reinforced the problems and inconvenience caused to those living off those schemes, along routes to which lorries are directed after they have covered the longest part of their journey, if not the longest in terms of time.
  The dominance of road transport over other forms of transport has been reinforced by the Government's policy of calculating the economic values of different schemes. It is clear that the public is dissatisfied with certain road

  995
  developments and Government priorities. National surveys on road traffic and the environment undertaken in the late 1970s showed that millions of people were disturbed by lorries in a variety of different ways. National studies have been carried out since then, and perhaps it is just as well for the road transport lobby that the Secretary of State's arguments cannot be reinforced by the findings of those studies when he goes to Europe. I do not doubt that lorries still account for a major part of the environmental problems that people experience, and that they are disliked as widely as ever.
  If I drive from Truro to St. Austell in my own constituency, I find myself following heavy lorries through a series of tiny villages—Tresillian, with its hairpin, and another at Probus, and then down the hill to Grampound, where there are both speeding lorries descending, and others struggling to climb the hill, before reaching Sticker, and so on. That route almost defines the kind of problems that heavy lorries can cause.
  Mr. Cash: Is not the hon. Gentleman attacking one of the mainsprings of his own constituency's economic activities—the china clay industry, and all the heavy lorries that carry that product?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Clearly, he is not familiar with my constituency, because the route that I described runs from the west of Cornwall towards the direction of the china clay industry. No lorries transporting china clay would be found on the route that I described. The hon. Gentleman displays an ignorance of my part of the world that is not altogether surprising, but he would do better to resist the temptation to intervene.
  I refer also to the problems of villages such as Treviscoe, at the heart of china clay country. That village recently experienced problems as a result of lorries transporting quarry materials for the new runway at RAF St. Mawgan in Newquay—not only all week but on Sundays, from as early as 6 o'clock in the morning. There may be some economic benefits for the area's industry, but I believe that the economic disbenefits to the village—90 per cent. of whose population probably work in that industry—probably outweigh them. It was certainly the villagers' unanimous opinion that a brake should be placed on that transport.
  Last summer,visited properties in the road that runs through the village of Mevagissey, in which floors are coming away from walls, and furniture moves across the floor because there is no banning of the kind for which the Act of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) allows, and which has my support. In villages such as Mevagissey, the proper facilities for the transportation of heavy goods just do not exist. Underinvestment in the infrastructure allows such problems to continue.
  The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) raised a question about the transport infrastructure for St. Austell and for the china clay district. The problem is that St. Austell, which is not only the largest town in the county but at the heart of its economy, is entirely cut off from the major road system. No road investment has been made in that area. That is partly because the grants system for that area has been removed. I was in St. Austell at the launch last week of a report by the Action 2000 Committee which pressed for the major road links that are needed. That
  996
  report gave an illustration of how lorries have to negotiate tiny country lanes and small towns. Without the infrastructure that I have mentioned, the Secretary of State is right to resist what Europe proposes and should go further and try to take heavier lorries out of many areas.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that problems are caused in his constituency and in most areas of the south-west by the continual closure and rundown of the railways and the loss of the possibility of rail freight taking heavy loads over long distances? Road haulage causes serious environmental damage and there is great pressure by the road haulage industry to have bigger and bigger lorries which will cause greater and greater damage to the environment.
  Mr. Taylor: I accept that. I said that earlier in my speech but perhaps I should mention it again. The problem must be considered in a far more fundamental and broader way than Europe or, I regret to say, the Minister has looked at it. We must examine the entire infrastructure and look at how we can best meet the need of people for goods to get from one place to another. That is more important than the need of the road transport lobby to get goods moved cheaply.
  If we looked properly at the overall environmental and economic costs of transport, we would see the need for far more emphasis being placed on railways and on building main trunk routes and facilities for offloading to smaller vehicles. Neither the European Commission nor the Minister place enough emphasis on those matters. We have much under-utilised transport infrastructure, particularly on the railways. That is a disgrace and is leading to many of the problems that I highlighted in my constituency.
  The Democrats are well known to be committed to the maintenance and improvement of the transport infrastructure. I have no doubt that the ending of the United Kingdom derogation on lorry weights would benefit British business, but I am convinced that it would be of no benefit to the British people. No one could accuse me of being anti European and I am quite prepared, if I must, to accept petrol in litres, butter in kilogrammes or, indeed, kilometres—although I should prefer not to. The derogations are about more fundamental issues. They are about people's properties, the environment and the standard of life of people in many villages that still have to put up with heavy traffic. In many cases people have to put up with danger as well.
  I regret that the Secretary of State did not go further in recognising that, in supporting greater investment in the railways and in evening up his attitude to investment in roads, as it is called, and what is called subsidy to the railways. Nevertheless, I support him in resisting what the European Commissioners are trying to do and hope that he is successful.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. Gary Waller: It is already apparent that there is opposition to the Commission's proposal on the ground that at the Commission's behest we are asked to implement a significant change in our practice. I often have a great deal of sympathy for that attitude, but one needs to draw a distinction between cases in which there is a genuine Community interest and those in which there is

  997
  not. In the latter category, I place many road safety measures. It is quite unacceptable, for example, to propose directives to bring our provisions designed to deter drink-driving into line with those of our Community partners. In the case of lorry weights and dimensions, there is a genuine Community interest which cannot be denied. On this occasion, therefore, I would not side with the case which, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) would have put if he had been here.
  If we accept that point, we have to consider whether there is any overwhelming reason why we need a very great deal of time to fall into line with other European countries which have already accepted lorries of 40 tonnes and, indeed, more. It is worth going back to the decision that this House made in November 1982 to permit on our roads lorries of 38 tonnes, with their weight distributed over five axles, compared with lorries of up to 32·5 tonnes, which was the maximum until then.
  Hon. Members will remember that the change that was made at that time incorporated one of the recommendations of the Armitage report on lorries, people and the environment. That report included many recommendations which have been implemented—in particular, new controls on height and length, a requirement for side guards and rear under-guards to bring about greater safety. New mud-spray protection has also been introduced.
  Having studied carefully all the evidence at that time about the load on road surfaces and bridges, Professor Armitage and his colleagues recommended a maximum 40-tonne vehicle on five axles. I think it was well known at that time—the press recorded the fact—that the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), was undecided between 38 and 40 tonnes. The decision to opt for 38 tonnes was ultimately made, not because it was thought that Professor Armitages's technical conclusions were wrong, but because it was felt that, in political terms, and in the context of public opinion, there was a cliff to be scaled. It was felt that the rise of 5·5 tonnes was acceptable, whereas one of 7·5 tonnes was not—and at that time it may well have been right. Hon. Members will recall that at that time the Government had a majority in this House of just over 40, and, despite the gravest forebodings of the Patronage Secretary, there was a majority of 63 in favour of 38 tonnes, on a vote which took place at 10 o'clock, in circumstances designed to ensure that the views of the House as a whole were fully expressed. Many subsequently asked why such caution had been demonstrated at that time.
  Since 1982 we have had a chance to test some of the hypotheses that were set out in that debate, during which many were sceptical about the claim that heavier lorries, even though they were only marginally longer to accommodate a bigger cab, would mean fewer lorries on our roads. Hon. Members were not then assuaged by the argument put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford that, for each tonne of freight carried, the new five or six-axle requirement must mean much less damage, because 38 tonnes could be carried with the same average axle weight as the 32·5-tonne vehicle, involving the need for fewer vehicles. However, in fact, there are now very many fewer lorries on the roads than would have been the case if we had stayed at 32·5 tonnes.
  Mr. Roger Moate: How does my hon. Friend know?
  Mr. Waller: I am asked how I know. I refer hon. Members to the Department of Transport statistical bulletin 88/44, which reveals that in 1987 the total was 7,800 fewer than would have been the case if we had had the lower limit.
  Since 1987 there has been an unprecedented increase in the amount of goods carried by heavy lorries, and it would probably be no exaggeration to say that the saving in the number of lorries of essentially the same size as before is, by now, 10,000. That is why I claim, with some confidence, that the increase in lorry weights has been extremely friendly to the environment. Where we should be now if we had to accommodate all those extra lorries on our roads I shudder to think.
  The environmental and economic factors that applied in 1982 are just as valid today, although we are talking about a much smaller weight difference. Freight movements continue to increase in number and scale. However much we would like to move traffic off the roads and on to the trains, there can be no doubt that something like 90 per cent. of all our inland freight will continue to move on the roads. Even if we were to increase the volume of goods carried by train by 50 per cent.—which I should like—there would still be a reduction of only 4 per cent. in the volume carried on the roads.
  Mr. David Nicholson: I hope that my hon. Friend will start to take into account the effects that the Channel tunnel will have on the movement of freight off the roads and on to the railways, as those of us who support the tunnel hope, so that we may exploit the major intercontinental railway system.
  Mr. Waller: I agree entirely. Indeed, I have just made that very point. But I go further: if we were to double the volume of goods carried on our trains—and I do not think that anyone believes that that would be possible—we would still have only an 8 per cent. decrease.
  Mr. Moate: Four per cent.
  Mr. Waller: It would be 4 per cent. if it went up by 50 per cent. There would be an 8 per cent. decrease in the amount carried on the roads. We know that in one recent year there was more than an 8 per cent. increase in the amount of goods on the roads.
  On this occasion we can categorically state that there will be no increase in vehicle size when the derogation ends. In effect, existing lorries will be able to carry a payload which is 2 tonnes greater. That will enable our operators to compete more effectively, and it will guarantee that fewer lorries will travel on our roads than would be the case if we had stuck with the 38-tonne limit. Therefore, environmental factors clearly point to an early uprating.
  In economic terms also, the case is strong. The increase in vehicle weights which took place on 1 May 1983 saved our industry and consumers about £250 million by 1986, and produced a saving of £60 million in road wear, to the benefit of the taxpayer. Taking a further step of two more tonnes would provide an additional saving of at least £76 million.
  Mr. Cryer: Where did the hon. Gentleman get the statistics, on what are they based, and what calculations are involved?
  Mr. Waller: The figures are well known, and they are certainly obtainable from numerous sources.
  Mr. Snape: The Road Haulage Association.
  Mr. Waller: They certainly were not produced to me by the Road Haulage Association. They have been produced by the Road Transport Association: The Transport and General Workers Union has also been in favour of higher weight lorries on our roads. The arguments are put by many organisations.
  Freight is a significant contributor to company costs. It has been pointed out that a 10 per cent. rise in freight costs leads to a 1 per cent. increase in average prices. When margins are tight and international competitiveness is vital, that could be the crucial factor.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that, in any event, the bridge improvement programme on which the Government have embarked will be necessary to cope with existing 38-tonne lorries, regardless of whether we decided to move up at an early date.
  As the Commission said, it makes nonsense to take into account bridges with a capacity of 7½tonnes. One county surveyor mentioned to me that he knew of a 38-tonne lorry which had gone over a bridge with a maximum limit of 7½ tonnes without causing any apparent damage. We can assume that, to all intents and purposes, whether lorries of 38 or 40 tonnes use such bridges, it will not make a crucial difference. Therefore, the number of bridges that we need to consider is not so great. Bearing in mind the substantial benefit to industry and the environment, we could surely, if necessary, speed up the bridge programme. The return on investment could hardly be bettered. In my book, a one-off payment of £70 million to produce a clear return, which has been estimated at between £76 million and £200 million per annum, seems a pretty good deal.
  Other considerations have to be taken into account. If we are seen to be dragged kicking and screaming into line with the rest of Europe the sovereignty issue will unnecessarily be brought into the argument, when, as I have already said, it need not properly apply in a case in which there is a genuine Community interest from which we and our partners can benefit.
  Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman gave the House figures about the cost of the bridge-strengthening programme. The estimated cost of that programme is £600 million, is it not? The estimated benefit of the heavy lorries, which the hon. Gentleman is passionately advocating in the brief which he is reading so well from the Road Transport Association, means that we are paying all that for the benefit of £70 million. That is a ratio of almost 10:1. Is that decent economics?
  Mr. Waller: First, I am not reading out any brief. I am referring to my own notes and making my own speech. Let that be absolutely clear.
  Secondly, the figures relating to the cost of improving bridges depend on the number of bridges that one believes need to be improved, and that is one of the main arguments.
  We should remember that arguments in the Council of Ministers involve trade-offs. If we hold out on this matter, we may have to be more malleable on something else. It is
  1000
  surely better that we should put our foot down somewhere where it really matters and demonstrate our Community commitment here, where our industry and environment can benefit from a relatively small concession of two tonnes.
  Yes, there is a public relations argument to be won, but this time the case is a strong one because we can point to experience related to the environment and to the economic situation. We should accept a derogation to 1995–96, certainly no later, or, better still, move more quickly towards change, thus demonstrating that it is not the wicked European Commission which has driven us but our recognition that logic is on the side of economic and environmental benefit.
  Mr. Corbyn rose—
  Mr. Waller: This is a case where the pound signs all have green edges. This, I believe, must be a time for boldness.
  11.10 pm
  Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I was not sure whether to make a short speech or a long intervention, but I decided in the end in favour of a short speech about just one bridge. The sad and salutary tale of the Severn bridge may be very instructive and supportive for the Secretary of State when he makes his case in Europe.
  What we have seen with the Severn bridge is an example of a variant of the problem that Governments in the 1970s had with their incomes policies, that of wage drift. Bridges in this country tend to suffer from weight drift—that is, the constant upward movement of the demands of the designers and users of lorries, coupled with those who operate the weighbridges not always doing so precisely. The maximum weight tends to go above the design weight of the bridge. There is also the overload factor of a fair proportion of the large lorries that we have on our road system: to use a rough figure, probably 10 per cent. of our lorries are running at more than their design weight.
  What has happened with the Severn bridge? It was opened in 1966, and 16 years later it was starting to be shaken to its very foundations. It was unable to take the kind of vehicles that were then passing along it, because lorries were running in far greater numbers than had been anticipated and they were tending to run in convoy: they were also far heavier than had been anticipated. The bridge was then unable to cope with that amount of weight.
  Lorries in convoy do far more damage than lorries on their own. Lorries which have to stop on a bridge for any reason do far more damage than lorries that are moving. So we can picture a bridge that was designed to carry a certain amount of moving traffic. Suddenly the number of lorries, as a proportion of the total traffic, is doubled. Then we picture the traffic jams on that bridge, which leads to dead load around the main pillars of the bridge. Then suddenly the bridge has to be rebuilt.
  The Severn bridge cost £8 million to build in the mid-1960s: it is now being strengthened at a cost of £33 million. Allowing for inflation, it is probably costing roughly the same today to rebuild and strengthen, to cope with exactly the kind of problem that the Secretary of State will be talking about for the generality of Great Britain next week.

  1001
  Bridge designers design bridges to carry a specific load. If the bridge has to be completely redesigned, it costs as much as it would to build the bridge all over again. This is the problem created by this constant upward drift on the part of the lorry manufacturers and designers and of the people who load and look after the lorries, particularly in the fairly "easy come, easy go" enforcement atmosphere that we have in this country compared with Germany.
  The plea that I make to the Secretary of State, for him to carry to Europe, is that everyone should learn from the example of the Severn bridge. That bridge, not long after it was opened and fully running, is almost falling down, and has to be rebuilt.
  The only other solution for this country is to have bridgemasters. There are some countries where lorries are not allowed free access to bridges: they are hauled off the bridge and spaced out between 30 and 40 cars to make sure that they are never in convoy. They are never allowed on to the bridge in a traffic jam or in slow-moving traffic, because of this exponential wear and tear on the bridge and its foundations when three or four lorries are caught in a convoy near its main pillars.
  What is the alternative? Will the Secretary of State have bridgemasters in this country as the only way of controlling the wear and tear? Would the road haulage industry like to see bridgemasters brought in to prevent the free access of lorries to bridges? That is probably totally unacceptable in Britain, but bridgemasters are found in exceptional circumstances here and there.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is advancing an excellent argument on lorry weights. I ask him to reflect that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and others contend that 44-tonne lorries could have lower axle ratio weights. Surely that is irrelevant when we are dealing with the problems of the Severn bridge, for example, where the total weight of a vehicle, and often its dead weight, damages the construction.
  Mr. Morgan: That is correct. In such circumstances the axle weight becomes far less significant than the dead load, especially around the main pillars of the bridge. My hon. Friend has raised an issue on which I have not placed sufficient emphasis. I ask the Minister to take the message to Europe that it is unacceptable that there should be a continuous upward poaching of limits by the road haulage industry, which imposes colossal problems on some of our major estuarial crossings. Let him consider the disappointment that it causes to all those who have been involved in trying to create new jobs in Wales since the great closures in the steel industry in the early 1980s.
  The great selling point for Wales was its connection to the motorway system. When an industrialist comes to consider whether he would wish to accept the Government grants that are available to occupy an empty Welsh Development Agency factory, he stops at the Severn bridge, where he sees the traffic jams and the cones. He sees the massive scaffolding around the bridge as it is being reconstructed and he thinks, "This is not the region that I was told about; it is only half connected to the national motorway system." This has proved one of the major disincentives for industry to move into south Wales. It is the result of the continuous poaching by the designers of lorries, which militates against the design of the Severn bridge and other estuarial crossings.
  1002
  When the Minister goes to Europe he must emphasise that a bridge must by its very nature adhere to its design, whereas the weight of lorries increases by a couple of per cent. a year. The increase in lorry weights must stop at some stage.
  11.17 pm
  Mr. Roger Moate: Only a few months ago I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he was under any pressure to increase lorry weights because of the movement towards harmonisation within the Community, or whether there was any desire on his part to do so. In both respects his answer was effectively no, and I am sure that that was a genuine response.
  That makes me feel even more aggrieved, because somehow we have been effectively hijacked into an urgent, not a long-term, decision. Suddenly it has become a matter of urgency, before a Council meeting next week, that the House should come to a decision. That is grossly unfair, especially when we consider that many of us have been involved in an intensive debate for the past decade over whether we should agree to an increase in lorry weights.
  Four years ago we arrived at a serious compromise. The result was the United Kingdom securing a derogation. That meant, in effect, a maximum lorry weight of 38 tonnes as opposed to the Community's 40 tonnes. No date was attached to the derogation, which was achieved after a long debate on what we thought was in the best interests of the country. It was settled that we should have a 38-tonne limit and 10·5 tonnes axle weight limit.
  What has happened within a short period to persuade the Community to introduce a proposal that we should conform with the limits that apply in the rest of the Community? What sort of Community is it that tries to enforce upon a member state by diktat something that the United Kingdom deems to be against its interests? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in October 1988 that he was not in favour of an increase in limits. Similarly, the House is not in favour of an increase. I should like the robust message to go forth from both sides of the House that it does not want a change in limits to be forced upon it. I hope that there will not be a Division. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be able to say next week to the Community that Britain believes that to be in the national interest, although there are arguments for and against the proposition that is now before us, until such time as we deem it right to accept a change in our national interest.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) has spoken in favour of a change in limits. There is a sense of déjà vu about that as no one changes his view. My hon. Friend was urging strongly for an increase in lorry weight some years ago, but we settled on a limit of 38 tonnes.
  I accept, of course, that there is an argument in favour of a 40 tonnes, 44 tonnes, or 50 tonnes limit. There is an economic argument for carrying heavier and heavier weights. If we settle on the 40 tonne limit for which the Community is asking it will not stop there. Other Community members have internal weights of 44 tonnes or 50 tonnes.
  I accept that the Freight Transport Association may argue that its members will benefit from an increase in lorry weights, but the House must judge the balance of argument. Many years ago the House considered the

  1003
  environmental effects and the road costs and decided that the balance of advantage lay with the 38 tonne limit. It was agreed that our roads and especially our bridges, of which there are 85,000, were not capable of taking heavy lorry weights. Who will tell the people that our roads and our country lanes are ready to carry heavier lorries? One could tell the county councils that they could impose lorry weights and width restrictions, but let them try to get those restrictions secured. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), who introduced the worthy Dykes Bill, knows all about this. It is wonderful to have lorry routes, but how many have we got?
  It will be many years before we can decide whether we are ready to accept much heavier lorries. We have been through all this before. Why has the matter suddenly arisen again? What good does it do the Community to force upon us something that we have decided, collectively, is not in our interests?
  Currently I believe that we have veto rights on whether to increase the 38 tonne and 10·5 axle weight limits. My right hon. Friend should go to the Community and emphasise that that right should be open-ended and that until we choose, as and when, to try to change that limit to secure a commercial benefit which we might then deem right, it should remain a permanent or rather open-ended derogation. We have done it with the pint of milk, the pint of beer and the mile measurement.
  I am told that at the Council meeting next week the Community might well say that on 2, 3 and 4 tonne axle weights, which are not subject to derogation, it can impose higher limits on us. We are entitled to further explanation about that. My right hon. Friend should not sacrifice our veto over the heaviest lorries and the heaviest axle weights for some short-term benefit which we might secure on the smaller vehicles. All we will gain on the deal will be one to three years. My right hon. Friend should keep the veto power because the one thing that matters to us is our right to ensure that the heaviest vehicles do not inflict the damage that we know they will inflict on our unsuitable roads.
  Ultimately I am sure that in our lifetime—it may vary from Member to Member—we will have harmonisation. Whether that is achieved in this century or the next, which is not far away, should be a matter for our judgment. By doing so we are not doing down our competitors; if anything we may be doing down ourselves. We are not putting impediments in the way of free trade as the same rules apply to European vehicles coming into this country as apply to British vehicles. By urging the retention of the 38-tonne limit as opposed to the 40-tonne limit we are not imposing a great burden on industry. My right hon. Friend has already explained to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry that any subsequent extra road costs could be offset by higher vehicle excise duties. It does not follow that there would be any net benefit to members of the FTA from increasing the limit.
  I am not suggesting that we should hold on to our right to derogate for ever, but it should be in our power to decide if and when it would be in our interests to harmonise with other Community members.
  11.24 pm
  Mr. Jeff Rooker: I want to add to the bipartisanship tonight and send our wishes to the Secretary of State when he goes to speak for Britain in Brussels. He is right. It has nothing to do with the fact that this year is European election year and that sometimes, in some quarters, it looks good to take on Brussels. The Secretary of State is doing this because it is right. It is right to let the Council know that we shall decide when and if British roads and bridges are ready to take the heavier loads.
  I want to make two small constituency points because many heavy lorries run through my constituency. The M6 motorway, which has miles of viaducts which are nothing more than a continuous bridge in a technical sense, runs through the heart of Birmingham. The viaducts have been badly damaged over the years and a fortune has had to be spent in continually keeping them in good repair. That is a small part of the cost involved and there would be an extra cost if the lorries became even heavier.
  My second point concerns the time when the bridge strengthening programme is under way. The Birmingham container port is in my constituency. When hon. Members drive up the M6 through Birmingham, they may see containers stacked high on both sides of the road. It is the vast car park area of the container port. The heavy lorries carrying the containers cannot get from the motorway to the container port. There is a private tunnel under the M6 motorway which is technically a bridge. Heaven knows that what is needed is a direct access from the motorway to the container port. All the heavy lorries have to come off the motorway at Gravelly Hill, Spaghetti junction, or the Great Barr interchange and then travel on ordinary suburban roads, some of which have bridges which will need strengthening. When the planning is done for such container ports alongside motorways, we could spend some money in the next few years on the bridge strengthening programme to save much more money in the years to come. If we could get the lorries immediately off the motorway into the container port areas, there would be less damage to road surfaces, less danger and less damage to buildings in ordinary suburban roads.
  I make no apology for making essentially constituency points and they add weight to the arguments of the Secretary of State. I hope that when the planning is done for the expenditure on bridge strengthening, such practical points for saving money in the future can be taken into account.
  11.27 pm
  Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) made a—
  Mr. Cryer: By leave of the House.
  Mr. Channon: I ask the leave of the House, but I think that I am entitled to speak now as it is my motion anyway. If I need the leave of the House, I shall ask for it. I do ask for it, but if the House says no, I shall not mind very much.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley in his powerful speech made the economic case for the 40-tonne lorry and the change that he thinks would be right. However, I am sure that he would agree that the majority of hon. Members do not take that view at this stage. There has been near unanimity that I should, next week, try to stand firm at the Council meeting and deal—
  Mr. Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Channon: In a second. There has been near unanimity that I should try to stand firm and oppose the Commission's proposal on the two, three and four-axle limits.
  Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House is very full and that the Commission should note that the House of Commons is taking an extremely active interest in all this?
  Mr. Channon: It will become perfectly clear that the House of Commons takes an extremely active interest in this question and is anxious that we should not give way on the question of 40-tonne lorries on our roads. The Commission is saying that we should not be compelled to do so until our bridges are in a fit state. The point of serious disagreement is about when that point will be. For the reasons that I have already given, I do not believe that what the Commission says about our bridges is in any way accurate when compared with what we say.
  I have only two minutes and should like to make several brief points. In his excellent two-minute speech my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) referred to trying to get as long a derogation as possible. I take that to heart. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) took us on a charming tour of Cornwall and referred to the cost of road maintenance. I take his point but should point out that we are the only country in Europe that covers its track costs in relation to lorries. However, if the damage that lorries cause to roads were to increase, we should have to increase vehicle excise duty accordingly to ensure that we cover our track costs. We are trying to get the rest of the Community to cover its track costs but so far we are making slow progress.
  It being one and half hours after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14(1)(b).
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4311/89 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Transport on 6th March 1989 on the weights and dimensions of commercial vehicles; notes the development of the circumstances which justified the derogations accorded to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland from certain provisions of Directive 85/3; and supports the Government's intention to ensure that a premature end date to the derogations is not imposed on the United Kingdom.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 26th October 1988, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (England) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

  CRIMINAL LAW
  Resolved,
  That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (United States of America) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Resolved,
  That the draft Local Elections (Variation of Limits of Candidates' Election Expenses) (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  Resolved,
  That the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 16th February, be approved.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That—
  (1) this House do meet on Thursday 23rd March at half-past Nine o'clock;
  (2) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 17 (Questions to Members), no Questions shall be taken, provided that at Eleven o'clock Mr. Speaker may interrupt the proceedings in order to permit Questions to be asked which are in his opinion of an urgent character and relate either to matters of public importance or to the arrangement of business, statements to be made by Ministers, or personal explanations to be made by Members; and
  (3)at half-past Three o'clock Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without putting any Question, provided that this House shall not adjourn until Mr. Speaker shall have reported the Royal Assent to any Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

  Northern Ballet Theatre
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]
  11.31 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme: This debate is about the threatened closure of the Northern Ballet Theatre—a ballet company that is based in Manchester, with a national and international reputation. The debate is timely, and, although the company is threatened with closure following a report commissioned by the Arts Council, I hope to prove that the responsibility for its survival rests firmly with the present Government.
  What are the facts? The Arts Council commissioned a report, which has now been produced, called "Stepping Forward"—I have a copy with me—which was compiled by Graham Devlin. It states bluntly that the subsidy of £661,500 granted to the Northern Ballet Theatre should end. Graham Devlin is honest enough to admit that, as a drama specialist, he is not qualified to make detailed artistic judgments about dance.
  What is the case for the Northern Ballet? I have already mentioned its high standing and only recently it won national and international acclaim for its most celebrated production, a dance drama based on the life of L.S. Lowry and called "A Simple Man".
  Not only is it a provincial company, but it resides within an inner-city area of Manchester. In fact, this organisation creates employment for upwards of 100 people which, in an area of high unemployment, is not to be lightly discarded. It is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland), and close to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). I am pleased to see so many of my hon. Friends in their places, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), and many other hon. Members of all parties.
  The Northern Ballet Theatre itself admits that the artistic standards of the company were variable prior to Christopher Gable's arrival. However, his skill in training has transformed the company. It is important to give Christopher Gable three to five years to develop the company. The well-known dancer and choreographer, Dame Ninette de Valois, always said that it took up to five years to get anything accomplished in the world of ballet.
  The artistic director of the Bolshoi, Andre Petrov, recently visited the United Kingdom to evaluate the Northern Ballet, as he was considering mounting a work on the company and taking some of its young dancers, average age 21, to Moscow to work with the Bolshoi in a filmed version of the work. He liked what he saw and was highly enthusiastic about the project. It is now being seriously planned with BBC North-West. His is surely a judgment not to be ignored. That is one example of the exciting plans that Christopher has for the company, which may never reach fruition.
  Let us consider the hard financial facts. The Northern Ballet Theatre's box office income for 1987–88 was £556,862. The company is beginning to raise significant amounts by way of sponsorship and private funding. From a low base of £14,000 in 1987–88, it hopes to raise £70,000 this year, although that target may not be met, as potential sponsors are, understandably, nervous about the company, and businesses are delaying committing
  1008
  themselves because of the threatened closure. The Minister revealed recently that the Northern Ballet Theatre continued to receive less than half the seat subsidy given to any other major dance company.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: Give the figures.
  Mr. Orme: I will do that. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford in his place, because the company is close to his constituency.
  The figures are revealing. The Festival Ballet receives subsidy of £11 per seat; the Royal Ballet, £20·25; Sadler's Wells, £16·55; London Contemporary Dance, £9·50; Ballet Rambert, £12·25; and the Northern Ballet Theatre, £4·60. That last figure speaks volumes, especially considering the work of this company.
  In 1987–88, the Northern Ballet Theatre gave 196 regional performances and had a total audience of 157,780. It received an Arts Council subsidy of £661,500. The Royal Ballet, Sadler's Wells and the Festival Ballet combined gave 186, not 196, regional performances. They had a total audience of 248,258—only slightly higher than the Northern Ballet's total audience—and the Arts Council subsidy for those three companies was £7,256,500. That shows the strength of the Northern Ballet Theatre's case.
  Graham Devlin makes the point in his report that dance is under-funded in Britain. His suggestion to cut Northern Ballet is made on the premise that the Arts Council—and, implicitly, the Government—will not be able to increase the dance budget. The targeting avoids the need to fund Northern Ballet properly. Mr. Devlin admitted in his report that the company is under-funded to the tune of £100,000 to £150,000. Those are the financial facts.
  On the Government's role, it is not a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul. I welcome support for London-based companies, just as I support regional development in dance, theatre or music. There are outstanding examples in the arts in Manchester; apart from dance, we have the Hallé orchestra and the Royal Exchange theatre. In Leeds there is Opera North. Then there are the Welsh and Scottish opera companies, among others. They cover the whole spectrum of the arts, which are crucial to our cultural life.
  The report paints a devastating picture of what is happening to the live arts in Britain. The central issue is that the Arts Council is starved of the necessary money to fund the live arts, whether in London or the provinces. If the report is adopted when the Arts Council considers it in detail in April, it will be the provinces that will suffer major cuts. It is another example of the north-south divide in society and we cannot stand for that.
  I understand that the Arts Council's main problem arises from the fact that it can give an increase for the next two years of only 2 per cent. to all organisations, although inflation is running at 7 per cent. Something has to give. What will give initially is the Northern Ballet Theatre, because, against many other artistic developments, it is seen as expendable. It is a northern company; it is out of sight and does not matter. That view will be taken by some people.
  The Government should increase the grant to the Arts Council to cover the rise in inflation. Compared with what is contributed by the Governments in West Germany and France, our contribution is minimal and it should be

  1009
  increased. I understand that the Arts Council has applied for an increased grant. I ask the Minister to give the House tonight the Government's reply to that application. That will help resolve the problem. I urge the Minister to accept the arguments that I have put forward and to save an outstanding artistic company.
  10.43 pm
  Mr. Robert Litherland: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) on his initiative in bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I am grateful to him for allowing me a few minutes of the precious time allocated to him.
  Millions more will congratulate my right hon. Friend if he is successful in achieving his aim—the continuation of funding for the Northern Ballet Theatre. I, like other hon. Members from the north-west, have received numerous expressions of concern about the proposal by the Arts Council to cease funding. Without financial support, the Northern Ballet Theatre will not survive. What a tragedy. That ballet company comprises young enthusiastic dancers, musicians and stage staff who have all worked extremely hard and are dedicated. However, they all face redundancy. The pleasure that they give to so many people will be tragically lost.
  Although the Northern Ballet Theatre is situated in my constituency, it reaches a much wider audience. It often appears in medium-sized theatres and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said, it has won national and international acclaim with its ballet "A Simple Man" based on the artist Lowry, who hailed from Salford.
  I doubt whether people in the south would understand what Low ry's paintings were about. People in the south do not understand what the Northern Ballet Theatre is about. It is England's only regional ballet company and something about which the north-west is proud. In comparison with other regions, the north-west has been deprived in many ways. We talk incessantly about the north-south divide. The disparity between the seat subsidy for London-based dance companies and the Northern Ballet Theatre is a glaring example of that bias, because the Northern Ballet Theatre receives less than half the subsidy given to any other major dance company.
  To deprive us further by killing off this young company would be a further erosion of our standard of living and a diminution of our culture. As north-west Members, we strongly protest about this threat to the Northern Ballet Theatre and we urge the Government not to act like Pontius Pilate, but to ensure that the company is not starved out of existence. As the Manchester Evening News reminded its readers, the Minister needs to be told in no uncertain terms that culture does not end north of Covent Garden. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East said, we would like a positive answer tonight.
  11.46 pm
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Richard Luce): I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) on raising the very important topic of the Northern Ballet Theatre and its future and the much wider question of the funding of the Arts Council. The presence of nearly 18 hon. Members in the Chamber tonight is
  1010
  impressive for any Adjournment debate and I acknowledge the importance that hon. Members are paying to this issue. I am also very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) is present tonight, because he has already made representations to me on this issue.
  I understand the concern expressed by the right hon. Member for Salford, East about the future of the Northern Ballet Theatre and I will return to that specific issue in a moment. First, I want to put the issue into its proper context in terms of the future of dance in this country and more generally against the whole question of arts funding.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, East implied that the threat to the future of the Northern Ballet Theatre is a direct result of the Government's failure to fund the arts adequately. I cannot accept that because that view simply does not square with the facts.
  Since taking office we have increased spending on the arts by one third in real terms after allowing for general inflation. Within that figure, our grant to the Arts Council has increased by 13 per cent. over the same period. An November 1987 I announced a new departure in arts funding. The figures for the arts budget were set for three years, providing cash increases of 10 per cent. for 1988–89 and 17 per cent. for the period to 1991.
  Mr. Orme: Has the Minister taken into account the £25 million with regard to the abolition of the metropolitan counties?
  Mr. Luce: When I quote figures, I will explain their context. The increase of 10 per cent. for the Arts Council this year over last year's figure and of 17 per cent. to 1991 is considerable.
  On 3 November 1988 I announced the rolling forward of the three-year programme to 1991–92 with an expenditure increase of 6 per cent. over the period 1990–91. By any yardstick, those are substantial improvements. This is particularly important in the context of taxpayers' support. I entirely accept that the taxpayer has an important role to play in supporting the highest standards of excellence in the arts. However, this must also be seen against the background of the need for the private sector to play an increasingly important role.
  I was glad that the right hon. Member for Salford, East mentioned the important part that sponsorship can play, but I hope that he will agree that, for the private sector, the size of the box office is even more important than sponsorship in generating extra revenue for the arts organisations—that is, in addition to taxpayers' support.
  I should place on record that many of the most exciting developments that I have seen have taken place outside London. The right hon. Gentleman reinforced the point that many of the exciting developments are taking place in the north of the country and Scotland, in great cities such as Glasgow. We have been experiencing a renaissance in the arts in the great regional centres, with the emergence of Glasgow, Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester, as well as many other towns and cities, as the focus for renewed interest in every kind of artistic activity. That has been helped by a shift of resources to the regions.
  In 1984, the Arts Council adopted its "Glory of the Garden" strategy to devolve more of its money and responsibilities to the 12 English regional arts associations The council's grant to the regional arts associations—excluding abolition money—has doubled in real terms since 1979–80, and today—including abolition—amounts

  1011
  to £30 million. Within that context, the regional arts association now spends more than £3 million annually on dance and mime, in addition to the £11·5 million that is given by the Arts Council to dance in one form or another in this country.
  Mr. Tony Lloyd: If the Minister's contention is that there is better national funding and the Arts Council has been more sensitive to regional needs, why is Northern Ballet under threat?
  Mr. Luce: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point, but if he will allow me to develop my arguments he will find that I seek to answer it.
  In 1987, I asked the Arts Council to earmark a certain proportion of its grant to increase touring in the regions. It set aside £1·5 million and, in the current financial year, its new Great Britain touring fund has financed, among other things, 12 weeks of dance—both classical and contemporary—in the regions. One hundred and twenty thousand pounds of this money has been made available to dance companies, and £30,000 of that to Northern Ballet. Dance has been able to play a significant part in this expansion. Audiences for classical ballet have increased and tent seasons have afforded reasonably priced seats and newer, younger audiences.
  However, the picture is not entirely rosy. Audiences for modern dance have declined in recent years and there has been criticism of the classical touring circuit for lacking imagination and direction. This is part of the background to the independent report entitled "Stepping Forward", which was commissioned by the Arts Council, and which has brought about tonight's debate.
  The main point that I would like to emphasise is that the report is not just about the Northern Ballet Theatre. It is an analysis of the whole range of dance in England and sets out a strategy for its future. In particular, it recognises that the Arts Council needs to resolve clients' uncertainties about what is expected of them, and to take on a strategic role in long-term planning. It recommends that the overall objective must be to create a healthy climate in which major touring companies—not all of them necessarily based in London—play in large theatres and are complemented by a range of smaller companies based in smaller-scale venues.
  Within this overall context, the report examines the current activities of all the leading companies and makes a number of recommendations about their role. This includes an examination of Northern Ballet Theatre and its future.
  I know that the Arts Council is conscious of the valuable work done by the Northern Ballet at theatres throughout England. Before April, there will have been time to examine all the options to ensure the future development of dance. The council also wishes to make it clear that at no time would it consider withdrawing funding from a regional client and directing it to London. Its priority is to increase support for regional work.
  It is not my job to make artistic judgments. I would be subjected to much criticism if I sought to do that. It is a job for the Arts Council and its advisers. I do not fund arts organisations directly, either. I fund the arts on the arm's length principle adopted by successive Governments. I
  1012
  allocate a sum of money to the Arts Council and it is for it to decide, after making its expert assessments, which groups to fund and what funding strategy to adopt.
  I can say, however, that the Arts Council has not yet reached a decision on the recommendations in the report. That is the important point. Neither has it reached a decision on the Northern Ballet Theatre. The report was issued for consultation last month and the council will want to consider carefully all the representations that it has received before coming to a conclusion. I understand that so far a number of respondents have commented positively on the imaginative and comprehensive nature of the proposals.
  Of course, concern has been expressed about the future of the Northern Ballet Theatre, and I am quite sure that the Arts Council will carefully note the views expressed in the House this evening. I shall go beyond that and ensure that the chairman and secretary general are made aware tomorrow of the views expressed here tonight.
  Mr. Orme: Can the Minister confirm that the Arts Council has applied for an increased grant this year?
  Mr. Luce: At this time of year, the Arts Council tends to come forward with proposals for funding for future years. I have not yet received its proposals, but I look forward to doing so.
  The independent report is a welcome review of the provision of dance throughout England. This is not a matter of the north against the south, or London against the provinces. The Northern Ballet Theatre performs across the country. The right hon. Member for Salford, East and the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) made that point forcefully. Other major companies perform regularly in the north-west. Sadler's Wells royal ballet and the London festival ballet hold regular seasons in Manchester, for example, and I and the Arts Council want that to continue and expand.
  What must matter most to us is that excellence in all art forms should be available to a growing number of people throughout the country. That is why I have substantially increased the Arts Council's budget for supporting touring, and, in the context of dance, I have supported the move of the Sadler's Wells royal ballet to Birmingham, with a taxpayers' award of £500,000 to help the process. I want everyone to be able to share in the country's artistic heritage and strength. That is my major objective.
  The policies of the Government are doing much to ensure that this is fulfilled, and I know that the Arts Council is determined to support us in this. Against that background, I will ensure that the House's views about the funding of the arts in all parts of England, and the tributes paid to the Northern Ballet, are well and clearly understood by the Arts Council.
  11.57 pm
  Mr. James Lamond: The Minister mentioned that 18 Back Benchers were present to hear the debate. That is important. I want to explain why I have come, as my constituency is a little removed from the site of the Northern Ballet Theatre. I came to emphasise the spread of population surrounding this centre of culture in Manchester.
  It is necessary to realise that this affair has implications far beyond the bounds of culture of the north-west. Oldham council puts out a brochure to attract

  1013
  industrialists to the north-west and mentions the cultural activities there. We believe that if we are to attract major companies, their executives will be more willing to come to the area if we can provide the cultural activities to which they have been accustomed in the larger cities. Support for the arts is important for that reason, as well as being very important for culture itself.
  1014
  I welcome the remarks made by the Minister, who has revealed a chink of hope. If he receives an application for an increase from the Arts Council, I sincerely hope that he will bear in mind the strength of feeling that exists among right hon. and hon. Members representing the north-west.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT

  PSA Office, Newmarket
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what study he has made of the feasibility of replacing the present accommodation at the Property Services Agency office at Falmouth avenue, Newmarket, with a two-storey extension; how many civil servants could be accommodated in such an extension; how many cars could be parked in the remaining space; and how much more or less this option is estimated to cost than the cost of moving the Property Services Agency staff now working in Newmarket to Cambridge.

  Mr. Chope
  The possibility of redeveloping the site at Falmouth avenue in Newmarket to accommodate PSA's eastern region headquarters was considered at an early stage in reorganisation planning in 1986. A detailed study was not carried out because the site was too small.

  Relocation
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will meet executives of Nottingham development enterprise to discuss the relocation of parts of his Department to Nottingham as part of the policy on relocation of such posts away from the south-east.

  Mr. Ridley
  My Department already has nearly 200 staff in Nottingham. Under the policy which my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General announced on 31 March 1988, my Department is now reviewing the location of parts of its work with a view to finding sites offering easier labour markets, value for money and increased operational efficiency. Where appropriate, areas which are the focus of the Government's regional and urban policies, such as Nottingham, will be considered.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many miles of hedgerow have been destroyed in the last 20 years; how surveys of landscape change are carried out; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) on 24 January at column 500.

  Drinking Water (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number and location of breaches in the precautionary standard for pesticides in drinking water in 1988, in supplies provided by Yorkshire water authority; and if he will also list by location how much these breaches exceeded the standard laid down.

  Mr. Moynihan
  During the period December 1987 to November 1988 there were breaches of the standard of 0·1522
  microgramme per litre for pesticides, specified in the European Community drinking water directive, in water supplies leaving the following four treatment works of the Yorkshire water authority:

  Ripon Camp

  Blackhouse Spring

  Boltby

  Tophill Low

  Breaches of the standard at Blackhouse Spring, Boltby and Tophill Low were transient, and I am informed that recent samples from these works complied with the directive. The levels at which the standard was exceeded were below those which would be considered a risk to health.

  Sewage Works (Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how long he intends to let Yorkshire water authority relax legal controls under the criteria spelled out by his Department in a letter to water authority chief executives last November at(a) the sewage works at Hickleton in Don Valley constituency, and (b) the other sewage works in Yorkshire under the control of Yorkshire water authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has not received any applications for temporary variations in consent conditions from the authority. Each application is considered on its merits. The duration of any temporary variation granted in individual cases will, within the constraints set out in the Minister for Water and Planning's announcement on 7 December 1988, reflect the expected time scale of the capital improvements to be carried out.

  It is understood that the works at Hickleton will not be the subject of an application for a temporary variation as it is the authority's intention to close the works and pump all sewage to their works at Bolton on Dearne for treatment.

  London Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedure there is to monitor the achievement of the objective of 25 per cent. of new jobs created in the royal docks going to Newham residents as set out in the memorandum of agreement between the London borough of Newham and the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  The London Docklands development corporation and the London borough of Newham plan an employment monitoring unit, staffed by the borough, in an LDDC building in the royal docks. This building, which will also accommodate employment and training counselling, is to be refurbished by LDDC, and should be completed by the end of the year.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the 1989–90 London Docklands development corporation corporate plan will be published.

  Mr. Trippier
  The LDDC aims to publish the 1989 corporate plan in September.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has taken any action with regard to the
  523
  London Docklands development corporation following the National Audit Office report on urban development corporations; whether he will be taking any action in the future; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The effectiveness of the LDDC, and of the Department's controls, are kept under continuous review. The NAO's findings are influencing that process. The report of the Public Accounts Committee is awaited, and the Government will respond to that at the appropriate time.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of London Docklands development corporation spending on support of provision of education, training, community health care, and community and recreation facilities noted in the National Audit Office report on urban development corporations, paragraph 2.27; if he will give a breakdown by type of the proposed expenditure over the period 1988 to 1993; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The corporation is currently preparing this information for its next corporate plan, which will then be submitted to the Department for consideration. Expenditure from 1 April 1987 to 31 January 1989 on these items was as follows:

  £ million

  Voluntary sector

  1·375

  Health

  0·092

  Education and training

  2·840

  Other social

  6·421

  TOTAL

  10·728

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what funding allocation for the construction of the Docklands light railway eastern extension to Beckton has been made to the London Docklands development corporation.

  Mr. Trippier
  No public expenditure has been allocated. The Beckton extension of the docklands light railway will be funded from land sales.

  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to approve a deferred purchase or payment scheme to fund the construction of the Docklands light railway eastern extension to Beckton; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The DLR Beckton extension will be financed from land sales. No decision has been reached on the precise funding mechanism.

  Common Land
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement of his policy in relation to common land following the report of the Common Land Forum.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We intend to introduce legislation based broadly on the report of the Common Land Forum at a suitable opportunity when parliamentary time permits. We are having discussions with various bodies and will make a further statement as soon as possible.

  London Green Belt
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tenanted properties there were in the London green belt estate of the former Greater London Council at the time of its dissolution; if he will publish a list of such properties in the Official Report; and what is his policy towards the future ownership of these properties.

  Mr. Chope
  The Department does not keep records relating to these properties, title to which passed to successors to the GLC. The future ownership of the properties is a matter for those who hold title.

  Retail Developments
  Mr. Heddle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, following his decisions on Cripps Causeway, Bristol, and Bricket Wood, St. Albans, he will make a statement about his policy on retail development in(a) out-of-town locations and (b) the green belt.

  Mr. Howard
  The Government's policy on major retail development remains as set out in "Planning Policy Guidance Note 6", a copy of which is in the Library. Ministers have repeatedly warned, and have demonstrated in the Bricket Wood case, that those who pursue to appeal proposals in flagrant breach of established green belt policy risk having costs awarded against them.

  Park Side House, Enfield
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the public inquiry into an application to purchase under the Housing Act 1985 the tenancy of Park Side house, Hadley road, Enfield, Middlesex, being part of an estate acquired under the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938.

  Mr. Trippier
  The inspector's report of the inquiry into an application by the London borough of Enfield under section 5 of the Green Belt (London and Home Counties) Act 1938 for consent to dispose of the property known as Park Side house, Hadley road, Enfield is being considered. The decision will be issued as quickly as possible.

  Barium Sulphate Waste
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conway,Official Report, February, column 600, what is the weight and volume of residual radioactive barium sulphate waste at Amersham.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The weight of residual radioactive barium sulphate waste safely stored in the site effluent treatment plant at Amersham is estimated at about 400 kg, associated with about one cubic metre of slurry. These figures are approximate. More precise figures will not be available until the site effluent plant is decommissioned.

  Dioxins
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he intends to publish his report on the investigations that he has carried out within his areas of responsibility into chlorine-bleached packaging, dioxins and food.
  525
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  As announced on 14 February at columns 189–90, the Department of the Environment in conjunction with the Department of Health and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, is preparing a statement on dioxins in the environment. Publication is intended within two months.

  Chimneys
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what current estimate he has of the approximate percentage of the housing stock which has chimneys.

  Mr. Trippier
  The 1986 English house condition survey showed that approximately 75 per cent. of the housing stock in England had chimneys.

  Grant-related Expenditure
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes were made to the method of calculating grant-related expenditure in each rate support grant settlement from 1981–82 to 1989–90.

  Mr. Ridley
  The changes are set out in the rate support grant report (England) for each year. Further information is contained in the "Blue Book", "Grant Related Expenditure: How the expenditure needs of local authorities are assessed for block grant", and the "Green Book", "The technical handbook of grant related expenditure", published each year. Copies of these publications for years up to 1988–89 are in the Library. Blue and Green Books for 1989–90 will be published shortly.

  Farms (Rate Rebates)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many farms in England and Wales which border Ministry of Defence or visiting forces' airports receive rate rebates.

  Mr. Gummer
  Agricultural land and buildings are not rateable, though farmhouses are. Information on the number of occupants of farmhouses receiving rate rebates is not available. In any event the location of a hereditament has no effect on the ratepayer's eligibility for rate rebate.

  Planning Control
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to planning authorities in London on planning control of residential densities.

  Mr. Chope
  "Planning Policy Guidance Note 12" gives advice on the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to include policies on residential densities in development plans. As the PPG makes clear, that advice applies generally. More specific advice on densities in London is proposed in the draft strategic planning guidance for London which my right hon. Friend published for consultation on Monday. This indicates that each borough is responsible for setting its own general guidelines on densities and dwelling mix for their area as appropriate in the light of local circumstances, bearing in mind the requirement for additional housing in the 526
  borough. Provision for new housing should respect established conservation policies and the interests of existing communities; but this has to be balanced by recognition of the important contribution that can be made to overall housing supply in London by conversion of existing houses into smaller units and redevelopment at higher densities.

  Tenants Choice (Leaflet)
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if pursuant to his statement of 2 March,Official Report, column 418, he has any further information on the originator of the leaflet referred to: and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The leaflet was sent to me on 18 October by a correspondent who drew my attention to its availability in libraries under the control of Nottinghamshire county council. I apologise for having mistakenly told the House on 2 March at column 418 that the county council had itself produced this inaccurate and misleading document: I should have said only that I understood that the county council had made it publicly available through its libraries.

  Compulsory Purchase (Compensation)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to introduce legislation to provide for reductions in the level of compensation payable on a claim relating to the compulsory acquisition of land in respect of the increase in the value of other land owned by a claimant, in line with the provisions applying in Northern Ireland by virtue of section 9 of the Land Acquisition and Compensation (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 1896); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Section 7 of the Land Compensation Act 1961 has, in England and Wales, the same effect as the provision referred to by the hon. Member.

  Havant Town Centre
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy to announce his decision on the planning inquiry into the future of Havant town centre development without further delay.

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 March 1989]: My right hon. Friend is considering the Havant Town Centre (Shopping Development) Compulsory Purchase Order, submitted for confirmation by Havant borough council, and the report of the inspector who held a public inquiry into objections. He will issue his decision as soon as possible.

  Sewage Disposal
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish details of the number of sewage works which breached their discharge consents in 1988.

  Mr. Ridley
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: The latest year for which detailed figures on non-compliance of sewage treatment works are available is 1987, in which 887

  527
  works out of 4,238 tested (21 per cent.) were in breach of their consents. This compares with 23 per cent. failing their consent conditions in 1986.

  The figures for 1988 are not yet available, but indications are that they will show a further improvement.

  Water authorities have drawn up capital programmes, at a total cost of between £900 million and £1 billion, with the aim of bringing sub-standard works into full compliance with discharge consents in 1992.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the measures adopted by Her Majesty's Government or by European Community countries for the protection of rain forests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Details of Her Majesty's Government's activities to protect rain forests are given in a supplement to the December 1988 issue of "British Overseas Development", a copy of which I have placed in the Library. We have no record of the action taken by other countries to protect the rain forests. We and other members of the European Community support the tropical forestry action plan, which promotes action to conserve the tropical forests. As signatories to the international tropical timber agreement the United Kingdom and 10 other Community countries are pledged to encourage the development of international policies aimed at the sustainable use and conservation of tropical forests. The European Community's aid programme finances several rain-forest-related projects.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Student Loans
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in the Official Report his response to the submission made by the National Union of Students on top-up loans for students.

  Mr. Jackson
  The submission from the NUS has been acknowledged, and my right hon. Friend will consider it with the other responses to the White Paper (Cm. 520). The Government will comment on these responses in due course when they make a further statement on the implementation of their plans.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since June 1987.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In the one departmental Select Committee report completed since June 1987, to which the Government have responded, 21 recommendations were made, of which 17 have been accepted in whole or in part by the Government, or noted, where no further action by Government was sought.

  Education Reorganisation, Trafford
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on secondary schools and the opting-out provisions as they affect the reorganisation of education in the borough of Trafford.

  Mr. Butcher
  The consideration by my right hon. Friend of proposals by Trafford LEA to reorganise secondary schools in its area was suspended whilst the parents of pupils at Sale boys' grammar school voted on whether the school should apply for grant-maintained status. The parents voted against such an application in January 1989, and my right hon. Friend has, therefore, resumed his consideration of the LEA's reorganisation proposals, and will announce his decision in due course.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the implications of the recent judgment on sex discrimination in Birmingham selective schools as it affects the reorganisation of education in Trafford.

  Mr. Butcher
  The judgment by the House of Lords that the Birminghan LEA was in contravention of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 by providing fewer grammar school places for boys than for girls has no implications for the proposed reorganisation of county schools in Trafford as the current proposals in Trafford LEA will provide equal opportunities for selective places for boys and girls.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the reorganisation of Roman Catholic secondary education in the borough of Trafford.

  Mr. Butcher
  In March 1988 the Salford Roman Catholic Diocesan Schools Commission published statutory reorganisation proposals for three Roman Catholic secondary schools in Trafford. My right hon. Friend was not satisfied that the proposed arrangements offered improved educational prospects for pupils of all abilities, nor that the high capital cost was justified. He accordingly rejected the proposals on 16 February 1989.

  Institute of Food Research
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the membership of the advisory board to the Institute of Food Research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Members of the advisory board are:Mr. S. G. Metcalfe (Chairman), Deputy Chairman and Managing Director, Rank Hovis McDougall plc.
  Professor D. C. Burke, Vice Chancellor, University of East Anglia and Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes.
  Dr. J. Edelman, CBE, Chairman of Council, British Nutrition Foundation.
  Mr. J. A. Lusher, Director, Food Division, Marks and Spencer plc.
  Professor J. R. Norris, Director of Group Research, Cadbury Schweppes plc.
  Dr. E. S. Page, Vice Chancellor, University of Reading and Chairman of the Food Advisory Committee.
  Mr. G. T. Pryce, Chief Executive, Dalgety plc.
  Mr. A. Sheppard, Chairman, Grand Metropolitan plc.
  Mr. W. G. Walker, Chairman, Van den Berghs & Jurgens Ltd.
  Mrs. R. E. Waterhouse CBE, Chairman, Consumers' Association.

  The advisory board comprises a unique mix of senior

  529
  executives reflecting the interests of industry, academia and consumers. It advises the director and management of the Institute of Food Research on strategic issues concerning the food industry nationally and internationally, on trends and developments on food supply and consumption patterns, marketing, manufacturing, and other aspects influencing the choice of the Institute's Research and Development programmes.

  Replan
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the future of the replan programme for the adult unemployed.

  Mr. Jackson
  Replan has been successful in focusing the attention of the education service on the needs of the adult unemployed, and is having wider benefits in encouraging new approaches by providers. The programme will continue in its present form until October 1991. The Government will conduct a policy review of the programme and its objectives later this year, drawing on the available evaluations of replan initiatives and taking into account changes in the context of employment and training. Decisions about the future of the programme after 1991 will be announced in the autumn.

PRIVY COUNCIL

  Consumers (Consultation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what arrangements there are for consulting consumers in the work and decisions of his Department.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Privy Council Office neither provides nor regulates services to the general public and consultation with consumer organisations would not be appropriate to its work or decisions.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Court of Protection
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total number of patients whose affairs were administered by the Court of Protection in each of the last five years.

  The Attorney-General
  The total number of patients whose affairs were administered by the Court of Protection for the last five financial years are as follows:

  Number

  1983–84

  18,848

  1984–85

  22,030

  1985–86

  22,134

  1986–87

  23,080

  1987–88

  25,778

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total income received by the protection division in respect of(a) commencement fees and (b) annual administration fees for the Court of Protection in each of the last five years.

  The Attorney-General
  The total income received by the protection division for the last five calendar years was as follows:
  530

  £

  (a) Commencement Fees

  1984

  48,0482·00

  1985

  337,465·67

  1986

  316,304·53

  1987

  285,449·40

  1988

  307,256·10

  (b) Annual Administration Fees

  1986

  2,992,743·20

  1987

  3,148,927·00

  1988

  3,858,094·60

  The figures for 1984 and 1985 calendar years are not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Patients (Receiver)
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total number of patients for whom a receiver was appointed where the annual income of the patient was insufficient for any fee to be payable in each of the last five years.

  The Attorney-General
  Historical data on the total number of patients whose annual income are insufficient for any fee to be payable is not collected. The current figure is 1,410.

PRIME MINISTER

  Environmental Research
  Mr. Gordon Brown
  To ask the Prime Minister what information she has on Government spending on environmental research in (i) Britain, (ii) West Germany and (iii) the EEC countries as a whole.

  The Prime Minister
  The Government of the United Kingdom will spend £161·2 million in 1988–89 on environmental research. Comparable figures are not available for West Germany and other EC countries.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. David Blunkett
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list the Civil Service salary scales on which special advisers attached to Government Ministries are paid, giving by Department employing the special advisers the scale upon which they are placed.

  The Prime Minister
  Special advisers are not paid on Civil Service salary scales but, with some exceptions, on a special advisers spine comprising 28 points, as follows:

  Scale point

  Salary (inclusive)

  £

  28

  40,520

  27

  39,570

  26

  38,625

  25

  37,420

  24

  36,210

  23

  34,560

  22

  33,280

  21

  32,000

  20

  30,660

  19

  29,310

  18

  27,960

  531

  Scale point

  Salary (inclusive)

  £

  17

  26,620

  16

  25,015

  15

  23,995

  14

  23,185

  13

  22,375

  12

  21,530

  11

  20,755

  10

  20,120

  9

  19,225

  8

  18,545

  7

  17,945

  6

  17,350

  5

  16,740

  4

  15,850

  3

  15,305

  2

  14,845

  1

  13,975

  The two most senior special advisers are paid personal salaries above the spine limit of £40,250; two other special

  Expenditure on research and development in England and Wales by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  £ million

  Financial Year

  Agriculture

  Horticulture

  Top Fruit1

  Soft Fruit

  1978–792 4

  41·8

  9·5

  2·3

  0·7

  1979–802 3

  46·8

  10·5

  2·3

  0·7

  1980–812

  59·6

  13·4

  2·6

  1·0

  1981–822

  71·8

  13·7

  2·9

  1·0

  1982–83

  83·7

  17·3

  3·0

  1·5

  1983–84

  85·5

  17·1

  3·2

  1·5

  1984–85

  88·4

  18·6

  3·3

  1·6

  1985–86

  84·3

  18·2

  3·3

  1·5

  1986–87

  84·7

  19·1

  3·3

  1·2

  1987–88

  75·3

  18·1

  3·5

  1·3

  1Top fruit is primarily apples and pears but includes other fruits such as plums and cherries.

  2For these years certain expenditure now classified as research and development was excluded.

  3These figures include payments which should have been made in 1978–79.

  4These figures exclude payments which were delayed until 1979–80 as a result of industrial action.

  Agricultural research and development is also funded through the votes of the Department of Education and Science, Department of Agriculture for Scotland and the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

  My Department does not hold information on the expenditure on research undertaken privately other than research funded by industry since 1986 through levies. This expenditure is shown in the following table:

  Levy-funded Expenditure on Research and Development by Industry

  Financial Year

  1986–87

  1987–88

  £ million

  £ million

  Agriculture

  45·0

  9·4

  Horticulture

  0·2

  1·0

  Top Fruit1 2

  0·1

  0·1

  Soft Fruit3

  0·1

  0·1

  1Top Fruit is primarily applies and pears but includes other fruits such as plums and cherries.

  2Funding by the Apple and Pear Development Council.

  3Funding by the Horticultural Development Council.

  4Approximate figure.

  Potatoes
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of permitted treatments of potatoes in store or pre-storage and their purposes, including any intended to prevent or discourage spoilage by rats.
  532
  advisers are unpaid; four are on secondment terms from the private sector and their previous employers are reimbursed for their services. The same salary spine is used by all Departments. It is not our practice to reveal the spine position of any adviser as it is negotiated individually in relation to previous earnings and is therefore confidential.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Research
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in each of the last 10 years, what was spent on research by(a) the Government and (b) the private sector on (a) agriculture as a whole, (b) horticulture, (c) the apple and pear industry and (d) the soft fruit industry.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information requested in respect of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's expenditure in the last 10 financial years is shown in the table.

  Mr. Ryder
  Post-harvest treatments of potatoes are controlled as pesticides under the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

  The following active ingredients are the most commonly used in storage on ware potatoes, and are listed with their purpose. There are no specific products approved to discourage spoilage of potatoes by rats, but rodenticides are available for use in stores, subject to label restrictions.

  Active Ingredient and Purpose

  1. Thiabendazole—Systemic fungicide used to reduce gangrene, dry rot, skin spot, silver scurf.

  2-Aminobutane—Fumigant for control of skin spot and gangrene.

  3. Tecnazene—Fungicide for control of dry rot and Sprout suppressant.

  4. Chlopropham—Sprout suppressant.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted, by his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  In the two Agriculture Select Committee reports published since June 1987, to which the Government have responded, 49 recommendations or observations were made. Of these 33 have been accepted, in whole or in part, by the Government or have been noted where no further action by Government was sought.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been paid out by his Ministry in compensation for bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected cattle.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Up to the end of February 1989, £862,177 has been paid in compensation.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department has about the incidence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in cattle by age, sex and breed.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 24 February 1989]: About 80 per cent. of cases of BSE have been confirmed in animals between three and five years of age; all but five, confirmed in bulls, have been female. There is no evidence of any particular breed pre-disposition to the development of BSE.

  Scrapie
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he intends to introduce controls on the export of meat and bone meal which may have originated from scrapie-infected sheep.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Exports of meat and bone meal are subject to and must meet the health conditions laid down by the importing country.

  Growers

  Area

  Number

  Per cent.

  Hectares

  Per cent.

  In favour

  312

  30·9

  8,867·4

  44·7

  Against

  547

  54·2

  9,107·5

  45·9

  Spoiled forms

  9

  0·9

  130,5

  0·7

  Forms not returned

  141

  14·0

  1,737·8

  8·8

  Total registered at 9 February 1989

  1,009

  —

  19,843·2

  —

  Percentage of those voting who were in favour

  —

  35·9

  —

  49

  In reaching a decision on the future of the Apple and Pear Development Council, I shall take these results into account, along with the views of the bodies I am required to consult under the terms of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947.

  Woodlands
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further representations he has received about the farm woodlands and woodland grant schemes.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 7 March 1989]: I have received no recent representations about the woodland grant scheme as such and very few about the farm woodland scheme. Those that I have received concerned technical points on the rules of the scheme.

  Fresh Meat (Inspections)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) on how many occasions for each year since 1980 establishments have provided meat for United Kingdom consumption whilst export licences had been suspended under the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations;

  (2) how many times he has used his powers under the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations
  534
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that meat and other animal products from scrapie-infected sheep do not go for human consumption.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Scrapie has been present in this country for at least two centuries without any evidence to suggest that it has been, or can be, a risk to humans Neither has research identified any such risk. Such measures are not, therefore, appropriate.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make scrapie a notifiable disease;

  (2) what steps he is taking to eradicate scrapie in sheep.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  I have no plans to make scrapie a notifiable disease nor to introduce a slaughter policy.

  Fruit Growers
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has received the results of the poll of growers conducted as part of the quinquennial review of the Apple and Pear Development Council.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  Yes. The results of the poll are as follows:

  to suspend the export licence of any establishment approved under those regulations; and on how many occasions he has issued a warning of his intention to suspend such an export licence for each year since 1980.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]:My Department suspends the export approval of establishments which fail to comply with the export regulations. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing the legislation on the supply of meat for consumption within the United Kingdom. Records of enforcement actions by local authorities are not maintained centrally.

  The Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations apply in England and Wales and first came into force on 2 November 1981. The figures of suspension warnings, and suspensions since then are as follows:

  Suspension Warnings

  Suspensions

  1982

  6

  2

  1983

  12

  6

  1984

  2

  1

  1985

  11

  7

  1986

  14

  8

  1987

  22

  11

  1988

  6

  4

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects a European
  535
  Community inspector to visit the United Kingdom establishments under the Fresh Meat Export (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations; and whether he will publish the results of the inspection.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: A visit by European Commission inspectors is taking place from 6 to 16 March. Reports made by inspectors following a visit refer to individual plants and must remain confidential. They are discussed with the inspectors, with the local authority concerned and with the plant management and any corrective action which is necessary is put in hand.

  Abattoirs
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total number of abattoirs in the United Kingdom; what proportion have been and will be visited by European Community inspectors; and if. he will make a statement.

  Mr. Donald Thompson
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: At the end of 1988 there were 937 abattoirs in the United Kingdom, of which 99 were export-approved. European Commission inspectors aim to visit 10 per cent. of export-approved premises each year. The remainder is under the control of local authorities, which appoint environmental health officers for supervision.

  Listeria
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the evidence for non-pasteurised milk becoming prone to infection with listeria bacteria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 21 February 1989]: The results of a number of overseas surveys published in the scientific literature indicate that about 10 per cent. of raw milk may be infected with listeria species. It is possible that similar rates of infection exist in the United Kingdom milk supplies. Pasteurisation has however been shown to be an effective treatment for eliminating listeria and other more prevalent pathogens, such as salmonella and campylobacter.

  Information from the communicable disease surveillance centre on the 1,600 cases of food poisoning associated with untreated milk in the five-year period 1983–87 indicates that the main health hazard associated with untreated milk is not listeria but salmonella (which accounted for just over half the cases) and campylobacter (which accounted for most of the remainder).

TRANSPORT

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many letters he has received (a) in support of and (b) in opposition to the proposed high-speed Channel tunnel rail link.

  Mr. Portillo
  We have received a large number of letters, mainly from people who were opposed to British Rail's original proposals. BR is today announcing a revised route proposal which takes account of the comments received.

  Roads (Private Finance)
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the amount of private finances to be invested in Britain's road network during 1988–89.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We anticipate that about 30 agreements between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and private sector developers will be completed in 1988–89. Through these arrangements and the construction of the Dartford-Thurrock crossing the private sector will contribute an estimated £30 million in 1988–89 towards the funding of trunk road improvements in England.

  Local highway authorities also enter into agreements with the private sector to fund road schemes. Information on these is not held centrally, but the indications are that the private sector makes a major contribution to local schemes.

  Responsibility for roads in Scotland and Wales rests with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, respectively.

  Infrastructure (North-West)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on plans by British Rail and other undertakings to improve transport infrastructure in the North West region in the period before the opening of the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  A partnership of public and private sector interests in the North-West, led by chambers of commerce there, is already carrying out a study into the region's requirements arising from the single European market and the Channel tunnel. Government Departments will assist with information and advice as necessary.

  The plan that British Rail is required to prepare under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 on international passenger and freight services will cover all regions.

  The impact of the Channel tunnel is one of the many factors taken into account in planning the national trunk road programme. There is already a number of schemes in the programme that will improve North/South links. A review of the trunk road programme is in progress, and we expect to make an announcement in the spring.

  Swansea Coastguard
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any proposals to correct the problem of breakthroughs on channel O which can affect radio communications for the Swansea coastguard station.

  Mr. Channon
  This problem has been traced to a change of frequency used by the police, and the Home Office are dealing with it by modifying the coastguard radio sites affected.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to ensure that the Swansea coastguard watch is always at full strength.

  Mr. Channon
  The watch is kept at full strength as far as possible, though unforseen absences for sickness, accidents or other problems are from time to time
  537
  inevitable. The posting of additional staff to Swansea following the recent merger has ensured that the full watch of four regular officers has been maintained on all but a very few occasions, and at no time has the combined strength of regular officers and auxiliary support fallen below four.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the number of coastguard visits to the Hartland area from the Swansea station.

  Mr. Channon
  All watchkeeping staff from Swansea have spent a four-day period visiting the Hartland area. Each watch has an ex member of the Hartland staff within the watch, who accompanied them on the visit.

  Further visits are planned during the summer, using a helicopter from RAF Chivenor, to gain maximum benefits from such a visit.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take measures to ensure the adequate working of the Hartland 641 telephone line to the Swansea coastguard station.

  Mr. Channon
  The Hartland 641 telephone number was installed when the station was closed so that local people could contact Swansea MRCC if they had general queries. British Telecom assures me that the problems with the line are being dealt with, and that the service will improve when new optical fibre cables are laid later this year.

  The public have of course been advised that anyone wishing to make an emergency call to a coastguard station should always dial 999.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the movement of the Hartland tape unit to Swansea.

  Mr. Channon
  The unit was installed at Swansea on 6 December last to deal with additional radio and telephone lines following the closure of the Hartland station. After defects were discovered, the equipment was comprehensively overhauled on 21 February. Two further, minor faults were rectified within 24 hours, and the equipment is now fully serviceable.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the agreed local expertise required to maintain safety levels in local coastguard areas; and if he will ensure that the numbers of coastguard with Hartland coast experience in the Swansea station will meet this requirement.

  Mr. Channon
  All coastguards take the necessary steps to equip themselves with adequate local knowledge, wherever they work and whatever responsibilities they hold. At Swansea, one member of each watch is an ex-Hartland watchkeeper, so maintaining continuity while Swansea staff become fully acquainted with their increased area.

  Channel Tunnel
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a further statement on the high-speed railway line to the Channel tunnel.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail is today announcing its revised route proposal which takes account of the comments received on their original proposals.

  Severn Crossing
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce further details of the second Severn crossing.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  We announced on 28 February the shortlist of tenderers for the second Severn crossing. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) at column 116.

  We hope to be in a position to announce the successful tenderer by the end of the year.

  Thermal Neutron Activation
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the source of funding for development work on using the thermal neutron activation analysis technique for detecting explosives at Harwell; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: Research and development work at Harwell on using the thermal neutron activation analysis technique for detecting explosives is being funded by a commercial organisation in the private sector under a contract with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's Harwell laboratory.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Rape
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will elucidate the advice given in his Department's document on rape that women adopt secure common sense routines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  This advice is given in full in our crime prevention handbook "Practical Ways to Crack Crime".

  Police (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the village and main police stations in the A (Doncaster) division of the South Yorkshire police area and which have(a) opened and (b) closed since 1979.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The police stations currently in use in the Doncaster division of the South Yorkshire police are:

  Main police stations

  Adwick-le-Street

  Armthorpe

  Askern

  Bentley

  Conisborough

  Doncaster divisional and sub-divisional head-quarters Edlington

  Police posts

  Balby

  Belle Vue

  Cantley

  Doncaster market place

  Royal Infirmary Tickhill

  Mexborough

  Rossington

  Stainforth

  Thorne

  539
  The following police stations have opened or closed since 1979:

  (i) In 1981, five police houses and offices were closed at Branton, Campsall, Clayton, Marr and Toll Bar and were not replaced;

  (ii) In 1984, Doncaster market place police post was opened;

  (iii) In 1985, Cusworth section station was closed and not replaced.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of South Yorkshire as to the number of police employed to cover the A division (Doncaster) of the South Yorkshire police area annually from 1979 to the latest date.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information requested is as follows:

  Police strengths

  South Yorkshire police—Doncaster division

  Year (as at 31 December)

  Number of officers

  1979

  471

  1980

  479

  1981

  493

  1982

  479

  1983

  452

  1984

  488

  1985

  490

  1986

  509

  1987

  497

  1988

  504

  Juries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any plans to review the method of random selection of juries or to introduce legislation thereon.

  Mr. John Patten
  Provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which came into effect on 5 January this year have abolished the right to challenge jurors without cause, and ensure that a person summoned for jury service may not have it deferred indefinitely. We expect to bring into effect in July provisions enabling people up to the age of 70 to serve as jurors, if they are willing to do so. We will keep the working of the jury system under review but we have no present plans for further changes in the law.

  Cleveland Constabulary
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of Cleveland as to what improvements have been made in the last five years to the effectiveness of the Cleveland constabulary.

  Mr. Douglas Hurd
  I understand that among the improvements made in the last five years by the chief constable and his police authority are the release of over 100 police officers for operational duty through the civilianisation of police posts; the implementation of a comprehensive information technology strategy; the amalgamation of two divisions; and the enhancement of the police estate. The chief constable would be pleased to discuss with my hon. Friend these and other examples of the effectiveness of the Cleveland constabulary.

  Armley Prison
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the Howard League concerning conditions at Armley prison; and what reply he has sent.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The director of the Howard League wrote to my right hon. Friend on 25 January to express concern about conditions at Leeds prison. I replied on 21 February acknowledging her concern and informing her that the deputy director-general of the prison service has been asked to report to the Home Secretary on the young offender wing at Leeds. My right hon. Friend announced the main recommendations of the report and our response in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) on 7 March at columns 455–56.

  Suicides in Custody
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the ages of all those who have committed suicide in custody since 1979, together with the prisons and units in which they were held at the time of their deaths.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information that follows relates to those inmates of prison department establishments found by coroners' inquests to have committed suicide, and gives the establishments at which they were held and their ages; information as to the units within establishments where these inmates were held is not readily available. Information on those inmates who committed suicide after 1 January 1987 is contained in the reply given on 24 February to a question from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) at columns 834–39.

  1979
  Gartree, 36; Wormwood Scrubs, 33; Dartmoor, 39; Wandsworth, 37; Brixton, 32; Wandsworth, 25; Lincoln, 43; Wormwood Scrubs, 22; Brixton, 33; Lincoln, 43; Liverpool, 36; Shrewsbury, 62; Winchester, 22; Liverpool, 18; Leeds, 47; Pentonville, Brixton, 26; Lewes, 20; Brixton, 52; Stafford, 24; Brixton, 32.

  1980
  Risley, 46; Wandsworth, 25; Brixton, 19; Liverpool, Brixton, 33; Pentonville, 29; Risley,24; Wakefield, Shrewsbury, 23; Brixton, 33; Brixton, 28; Leeds, Leeds, 22; Canterbury, 28; Maidstone, 41; Featherstone, 23; Brixton, 39; Oxford, 46; Wormwood Scrubs, 25; Bristol, 38; Swinfen Hall, 19.

  1981
  Brixton, 42; Manchester, 37; Long Lartin, 22; Wakefield, 56; Winchester, 32; Wakefield, 58; Cardiff, Birmingham, 53; Brixton, 39; Lincoln, 32; Long Lartin, 24; Winchester, 33; Dartmoor, 34; Exeter, 24; Brixton, 57; Rochester, 16.

  1982
  Canterbury, 18; Brixton, 29; Lancaster, 76; Wakefield, 34; Bristol, 56; Canterbury, 28; Durham, 46; Lewes, 22; Leeds, 28; Parkhurst, 47; Stoke Heath, 19; Parkhurst, 34; Nottingham, 24; Lewes, 18; Long Lartin, 42; Cardiff, 23; Cardiff, 35.

  1983
  Stafford, 45; Dartmoor, 52; Winchester, 36; Channings Wood, 28; Manchester, 16; Norwich, 58; Dartmoor, 40; Liverpool, 43; Maidstone, 46; Camp Hill, 26; Leeds, 20; Pentonville, 28; Liverpool, 25; Brixton, 42; Brixton, 33; Stafford, 43; Brixton, 25; Highpoint, 41; Winchester, 25; Brixton, 28; Gloucester, 45.
  541
  1984
  Brixton, 44; Brixton, 31; Parkhurst, 33; Parkhurst, 37; Norwich, 27; Wormwood Scrubs, 53; Swansea, 17; Pentonville, 19; Brixton, 23; Durham, 47; Norwich, 26; Exeter, 22; Leeds, 37; Preston, 24; Kingston, 44; Exeter, 43; Leicester, 66; Brixton, 27; Shrewsbury, 37; Lewes, 26; Wakefield, 34; Wandsworth, 24; Brixton, 37.

  1985
  Pentonville, 31; Wormwood Scrubs, 40; Birmingham, 48; Leicester, 39; Pentonville, 24; Exeter, 33; Durham, 32; Manchester, 31; Wandsworth, 26; Preston, 79; Leeds, 35; Brixton, 46; Birmingham, 24; Leeds, 27; Lincoln, 31; Maidstone, 31; Brixton, 21; Durham, 21; Leicester, 29; Risley, 18; Wormwood Scrubs, 26; Gloucester, 48; Wandsworth, 34.

  1986
  Exeter, 19; Ashford, 19; Norwich, 32; Manchester, 71; Bedford, 37; Wymott, 24; Lincoln, 28; Cardiff, 23; Preston, 33; Preston, 25; Risley, 20; Brixton, 24; Wormwood Scrubs, 40; Brixton, 24; Wakefield, 28; Canterbury, 26; Manchester, 26.

  Broadcasting Sales (South Africa)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on the sales by(a) the British Broadcasting Corporation and (b) Independent Television companies to South Africa.

  Mr. Renton
  None.

  Prisoners' Pay
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now announce the form and scope of the review of prisoners' pay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  In response to recommendations contained in reports last year by the then deputy director general of the prison service and by Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons, I have decided to put in hand a review of the arrangements for paying earnings to inmates of prison service establishments in England and Wales.

  Inmates are paid at pocket money levels for work done, from which they may purchase items such as tobacco, sweets, stamps, soft drinks and additional toiletries from the canteen. Within approved limits, prison income may be supplemented by private cash. The present arrangements have been subjected to two main criticisms: first, that rates of pay are inadequate, particularly where inmates have access to pay-telephones; secondly, that the system of pay differentials, for different types of work and as between different establishments, does not provide the right incentives. The review will examine these points and a number of detailed aspects of the inmate pay system about which representations have been made from time to time.

  The vast majority of inmates employed at establishments are engaged in tasks for the prison service (including the manufacture of items for internal use, food production, cleaning, catering, building and grounds maintenance) and productivity is limited by the constraints of the prison routine, turnover of inmates and other factors. In the circumstances, I have decided that this review should not extend to the possibility of paying inmates full market rates of pay.
  542
  The review, which is to be conducted by the prison service's management services unit, is scheduled to start in April and I would expect to be in a position to reach conclusions by early next year.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inner City Regeneration
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what recent contacts he has had with private sector organisations involved in inner city regeneration.

  Mr. Newton
  I frequently see representatives of private sector organisations involved in inner city regeneration. Since the beginning of 1989 I have seen the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, Business in the Community, British Urban Development, the Leeds chamber of commerce, the Wearside Opportunity, the Teesside Tomorrow Team, the Building Employers. Confederation and the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors. I have also visited inner city areas of Leeds. Doncaster, Sheffield, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Preston, Rochdale and Hackney, where I have met many local people and private sector organisations active in the regeneration of their cities.

  Business in the Community
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met representatives of Business in the Community; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Newton
  I last met representatives of Business in the Community at their president's committee meeting on 7 March 1989. The committee discussed how companies can contribute to community regeneration through their mainstream business activities, and what action companies can take to improve opportunities on housing estates.

  Estate Agents
  Mr. Ron Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress is being made in the regulation of estate agents.

  Mr. Forth
  I am currently considering the views of estate agency bodies and other interested parties as to whether it might be appropriate to supplement the existing consumer protection provisions of the Estate Agents Act 1979, perhaps with an effective self-regulatory system incorporating a code of practice. I hope to be in a position to announce the conclusion of my review soon.

  Teaching Company Scheme
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many programmes are financed under his Department's teaching company scheme; and what plans there are to increase the number of programmes.

  Mr. Forth
  The teaching company scheme is not a DTI scheme but is jointly funded by the DTI, the Science and Engineering Research Council, other public bodies and industry. Currently there are 350 programmes. The White Paper, "DTI—the department for Enterprise", (Cmd 278), states the Government's intention of substantially increasing the scheme's size by 1922 and of basing an increasing proportion of programmes in smaller and medium sized firms.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the medium-term prospects for manufacturing industry.

  Mr. Forth
  Manufacturing industry is performing well. Output was at a record level in 1988, over 7 per cent. higher than in 1987. And with productivity growing at 7·5 per cent. a year and investment at near record levels, there is every prospect of continued strong performance from manufacturing industry.

  Tradeable Information.
  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what guidelines are followed within the companies registration office with regard to tradeable information and collaboration with companies in the information services industry.

  Mr. Maude
  The guidelines within which the Companies House executive agency operates are set out in its policy and resources framework document, a copy of which is in the Library. The agency's chief executive tells me that there is close collaboration with his principal customers in the information services industry, both through the Companies House users' groups and discussions with individual companies. He would welcome an approach from my hon. Friend if he has any particular point in mind.

  Mr. Michael Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) if there have been any changes since 1986 in the description and guidelines concerning Government-held tradeable information, published by his Department in 1986;

  (2) whether a review of policy on Government-held tradeable information has been completed since 1986;

  (3) which Departments in accordance with the statement of policy contained in section 5 of "Government-held Tradeable Information—An Introduction," published by the Department of Trade and Industry in 1986, created a comprehensive list and description of departmental data and information holdings with a view to investigating the scope for commercial utilisation.

  Mr. Forth
  A review of the execution of the policy on Government-held tradeable information, whose description and guidelines are currently unchanged, is due to be completed by the summer. Departmental information surveys are a matter for individual Departments. Such a survey has been undertaken in my Department.

  Consumers (Consultations)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what arrangements there are for consulting consumers on the work and decisions of his Department.

  Mr. Forth
  The Office of Fair Trading, National Consumer Council, the nationalised industry consumer councils and consumer organisations such as the National Federation of Consumer Groups give advice to the Department on consumer matters. It is the Department's practice to consult bodies and organisations representing the consumer interest on any proposals for legislation or other action directly or indirectly affecting consumers.

  Tobacco Companies
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the financial assistance which has been given to tobacco companies under the various industry Acts in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales since 1979; if he will list other financial assistance that has been made to tobacco companies by the Government in the same period; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Total payments to tobacco companies under the Industrial Development Act 1982 both on regional selective assistance and the revised regional development grant schemes are £6·5 million. These are the only schemes under parts II and III of the Act under which payments have been made to tobacco companies. It is not possible to provide a territorial breakdown for England, Scotland and Wales on the grouds of commercial confidentiality as such information would go beyond that which is published in British Business. It is also not possible to provide details of any payments under the original RDG scheme except at disproportionate cost.

  So far as I am aware, no other Government financial assistance has been given to tobacco companies since 1979.

  Cinema Film Distributors
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to receive the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on cinema film distributors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The last report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on the supply of cinema films was published on 11 May 1983. An order based on that report was laid before the House on 7 March.

  Awareness Programme
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will set out in the Official Report the approximate expenditure planned in respect of his 1992 awareness programme, together with the sums spent on each component of the programme; and what steps he has taken to acquaint each section of domectic industry or overseas visible or invisible trade interests with the final form of legislation of the European Economic Community relating to their activities.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: Expenditure to date on DTI's campaign to encourage firms to plan for the single European market has been over £12·5 million. Of this, some £8·75 million is represented by national advertising. The other £3·75 million has provided a detailed and comprehensive range of literature; a major series of business conferences; a national telephone inquiry service and mailing operation; the Spearhead computer database; video materials; and research into business preparations. The campaign represents a major and sustained effort to help Britain's firms prepare for the single market. Resources will continue to be allocated accordingly.

  Government Deprtments seek to keep all sections of business fully up-to-date on the progress of relevant EC legislation. In addition, the DTI's Spearhead database provides details of all single market measures and other measures (such as environment proposals) of interest to business, including access to the full texts of the relevant

  545
  EC legislation. Where appropriate, spearhead gives details of how measures have been implemented in the United Kingdom. The DTI has also prepared a checklist showing in tabular form progress on the proposals in the Commission's 1985 White Paper on the single market.

  Elanco
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what discussions he or his officials have had with Elanco on the subject of a grant for a possible factory on Merseyside.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 7 March 1989]: Neither I nor my officials have had any discussions with Elanco on the subject of a grant for a possible factory on Merseyside.

  Rattan
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will institute discussions with the Secretary for Commerce of the United States of America to bring about joint action under the general agreement on tariffs and trade to remove the ban by Indonesia on the export of rattan; and if he will make a statement

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: It is for the Community to pursue this issue with Indonesia and if appropriate in the GATT in the light of the impact of the Indonesian action on Community interests. I would hope to have the support of other GATT members, including the United States, for any action initiated in GATT.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what action has been taken since 19 December 1988 by his Department to bring about the removal of the ban by Indonesia on the export of rattan; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: The European Commission, which has competence in external trade matters, discussed this issue with a delegation led by the Indonesian Vice-Minister for Agriculture in Brussels recently. I regret that no progress was made.

  Further high-level consultations between the Commission and the Government of Indonesia are expected shortly, and my officials will be monitoring developments closely. The Community has also requested consultations with Indonesia under GATT dispute settlement procedures. The Indonesians have yet to agree a date for the consultations.

ENERGY

  Fast Reactors
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the recent agreement on fast reactors between the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and their counterparts in France and the Federal Republic of Germany; for what time period the agreement will last; and if he has made any financial commitment to the agreement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) on 27 February at column 85. The United Kingdom organisations concerned signed these agreements on the basis of the Secretary of State for Energy's statement of 21 July 1988.

  Sellafield
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy,Official Report, 9 February, columns 756–57, on safeguards application at Sellafield, what period elapsed between 15 December 1986 and the resumption of reprocessing in separate campaigns.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The next reprocessing campaign after 15 December 1986 was for unsafeguarded fuel from Calderhall and Chapel Cross reactors. It is not in the national interest to reveal the precise timing and operational details of such campaigns.

  Domestic Energy Resources
  Sir Dudley Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what current estimate he has of the number of households in England and Wales which are unable to obtain an electricity supply.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  This is a matter for the industry and I have asked the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to my hon. Friend.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chile
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America about encouraging the transition to democracy in Chile.

  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America about encouraging the transition to democracy in Chile.

  Mr. Harry Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America about encouraging the transition to democracy in Chile.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of the United States of America about encouraging the transition to democracy in Chile.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have regular discussions on developments in Chile with the United States Administration, as we do with our European partners. All of us continue to encourage an orderly and peaceful transition to democracy in that country.

  Middle East
  Sir Dennis Walters
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards peace in the middle east.

  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), to Israel.
  547
  Mr. Bowls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), to Israel.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My visit to Israel, the occupied territories and Jordan included a constructive discussion of the peace process with my various hosts, and underlined the enduring strength of both Anglo-Israeli and Anglo-Jordanian relations.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations.

  Mr. Charles Wardle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Israeli relations.

  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), to Israel.
  548
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the middle east peace process.

  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on any recent progress towards a middle east peace settlement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody).

  EC (Foreign Policies)
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to have discussions with his European Community partners concerning the development of common European foreign policies.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met EC colleagues in the framework of European political co-operation in Madrid on 14 February. He will do so next at an informal weekend meeting in Granada on 15 and 16 April.

  Political co-operation matters were also discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 and 21 February, which I attended with my right hon. and learned Friend.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  International Terrorism
  Mr. Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in achieving international co-operation to combat hijacking and other forms of international terrorism.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In the last year major international agreements against terrorism have been adopted by the International Maritime Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The United Kingdom has been instrumental in initiating work in ICAO on new international measures to combat hijacking and aircraft sabotage.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the supply of arms to the anti-Government forces in Afghanistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  It has been the practice of successive Administrations not to comment on matters of this kind.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects British diplomats to return to Afghanistan.

  Mr. Eggar
  British diplomats will return to Kabul as soon as circumstances permit them to do a useful job.

  Drug Trafficking
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been taken by Her Majesty's Government following the Vienna conference on a convention against illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

  Mr. Eggar
  The United Kingdom signed the new convention on 20 December, subject to ratification. We are actively developing closer international co-operation in areas covered by the convention particularly over the tracing, freezing and confiscation of traffickers' assets.

  United States Secretary of State
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his meeting with the United States Secretary of State on 12 February.

  Mr. Eggar
  Secretary Baker and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State had most useful and wide-ranging talks on 12 February.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the American Secretary of State and what was discussed.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met Mr. Baker in London on 12 February. They exchanged views on a wide range of subjects.

  Romania
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make further representations to the Romanian Government about human rights.
  550
  Mr. Waldegrave
  Certainly. We frequently raise human rights violations with the Romanians, both bilaterally arid together with our EC partners. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State raised our concerns about Mrs. Doina Cornea and the 22 co-signatories to her open letter to President Ceausescu with the Romanian Foreign Minister in Vienna on 6 March. Regrettably, the Romanian authorities have rejected all our representations. We shall continue to raise such cases as appropriate with the Romanian authorities.

  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received from Her Majesty's ambassador to Romania about human rights abuses in that country.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We receive all-too-frequent reports of human rights violations in Romania, both from Her Majesty's embassy in Bucharest and from nongovernmental organisations. Romania's human rights performance is unsatisfactory in many areas, and its observance of CSCE commitments, freely entered into at the Helsinki, Madrid and Vienna meetings, inadequate. We raise these matters with the Romanian authorities on all appropriate occasions.

  Soviet Union
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his Soviet counterpart; and what matters he will discuss.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr. Edward Shevardnadze; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met Mr. Shevardnadze in Vienna on 6 March. He will meet him again during Mr. Gorbachev's visit to the United Kingdom on 5 to 7 April. He expects to discuss with him a wide range of bilateral and East-West issues, including human rights.

  Isle of Man
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met with representatives of the Manx Government; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has had no meetings with representatives of the Manx Government. As my hon. Friend has been told, matters relating to the Isle of Man are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  France
  Mr. Carttiss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed at the Anglo-French summit of 27 February.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Discussion covered a wide range of bilateral and international issues. These included East-West relations, defence and arms control matters, and regional issues such as the middle east. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed gratitude for French support over Iranian threats to Mr. Rushdie.

  NATO (Burden Sharing)
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been taking place with the United States of America on burden sharing within the Atlantic Alliance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The United States is fully involved in discussion of burden sharing within the Alliance, including for instance in the work which led to the report on enhancing collective security agreed by NATO Defence Ministers last December, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Jacques Delors
  Sir Russell Johnston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met Mr. Jacques Delors; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State last met Mr. Delors at the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 February. The matters discussed were covered in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on 22 February.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in regard to the second draft of the Basic Law for Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in regard to the second draft of the Basic Law for Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in regard to the second draft of the Basic Law for Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The second draft of the Basic Law was published in Peking on 24 February. It will be the subject of further public consultation in Hong Kong. We have received no representations on this draft.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Governor of Hong Kong; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend's last meeting with the Governor of Hong Kong was on 22 February 1989 during one of his regular visits to the United Kingdom for routine consultations. The discussions covered the full range of Hong Kong issues.

  Botswana
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last held discussions with representatives of the Botswana Government; and what matters were discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend last met President Masire and the Botswana Foreign Minister 552
  in London in July 1986. Discussions covered a wide range of bilateral and regional issues. I have regular contacts with Botswana leaders, and met both the President and Foreign Minister most recently during my visit to Botswana in November 1988.

  EC Foreign Ministers
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend a meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers; and what he expects will be discussed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The next meeting of the EC Foreign Ministers will be at the Foreign Affairs Council on 20 and 21 March. The matters expected for discussion were outlined in the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on 1 March.

  Angola
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government have taken any steps to bring about reconciliation between the Marxist MPLA Government and UNITA in Angola.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We continue to be in touch with African leaders in the region who are best placed to mediate.

  Mr. Knowles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the offer of a ceasefire and direct talks made by UNITA; what he is doing to promote a ceasefire or direct talks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We would welcome any move to establish internal peace in Angola which had the support of both sides. We continue to be in touch with African leaders in the region who are best placed to mediate.

  EC (Fraud)
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific steps Her Majesty's Government are urging within the Council of Ministers to enable it to act effectively against financial fraud in the European Parliament.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have presented a number of suggestions on combating fraud and mismanagement to the Council. These include proposals that the Commission:revise its 1987 proposal on the control and monitoring of export refunds in the light of the recommendations in paragraph 4.56 of the Court of Auditors report, 1987; bring forward proposals for improving the regulations governing intervention storage.

  In making these and other suggestions, we shall be looking to the Commission to detail the necessary proposals and carry out the essential monitoring to ensure an effective fight against fraud. But we shall emphasise, too, that all member states must demonstrate their determination to act by supporting practical proposals of a similar kind.

  President Gorbachev
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he intends to discuss with President Gorbachev during his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom.
  553
  Mr. Waldegrave
  During Mr. Gorbachev's visit to the United Kingdom, my right hon. and learned Friend expects to discuss a very wide range of bilateral and East-West issues, including human rights.

  Iran
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is making for visa applications for Iranian nationals wishing to come to the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Visa applications may be made at any of our visa issuing posts overseas.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations have taken place with the United Nations Security Council on relations with Iran.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  This issue has not been raised within the Security Council. However, we have raised it separately with individual members.

  Eastern Europe (Human Rights)
  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on the abuse of human rights in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Human rights abuses regrettably occur in many parts of eastern Europe. Romania is the worst offender, but the situation in Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and the GDR also gives cause for serious concern.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the abuse of human rights in eastern Europe.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We receive frequent letters from hon. Members and from members of the public about human rights abuses in eastern Europe. We regularly take up such cases with the Governments concerned, both bilaterally and together with our partners.

  Central America
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the San Jose V conference.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the last european Community—central American meeting which he attended in Honduras; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what was the outcome of the last european Community-central American meeting which he attended in Honduras; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The EC reaffirmed its support for the peace process in central America. In particular, the EC welcomed the latest proposals of President Duarte aimed at bringing peace to El Salvador. The texts of the political and economic communiqués issued by the conference will he placed in the House.
  554
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he discussed during his recent visit to central America.

  Mr. Eggar
  During my visit to central America from 23 February to 5 March I discussed prospects for peace in the region following the El Tesoro summit with several central American Ministers, and other politicians, as well as with President Arias. Where appropriate in these and other meetings I also discussed bilateral political, economic and commercial relations, our human rights concerns in the region, our technical co-operation programmes and how to combat the threat posed by drugs, among other subjects.

  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospect for peace in central America in the light of the San Jose V conference.

  Mr. Eggar
  At the San Jose V Conference the EC reaffirmed its support for the Esquipulas peace process and welcomed the 14 February agreement reached by the central American Presidents. The conference also expressed support for President Duarte's latest peace efforts for El Salvador. The prospects for peace will greatly improve if commitments to democracy are carried out in spirit as well as in letter.

  West Germany
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed at the Anglo-German summit of 20–21 February in Frankfurt.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Chancellor Kohl discussed East/West relations, arms control, the middle east, South Africa and the environment. My right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries arid Food, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State discussed with their German opposite numbers a range of issues which fall within their departmental responsibilities.

  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Anglo-German relations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The Federal Republic of Germany is one of our most important allies and partners. We have the closest relations, as is demonstrated by the recent summit meeting in Frankfurt, and by the wide range and frequency of ministerial and official contacts. A further summit is planned to be held in this country in March 1990.

  I shall be attending the annual Koenigswinter conference in Germany next week, to which members of the Bundestag and the Federal Government are also invited in their personal capacities.

  Conventional Forces
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with his NATO counterparts on the commencement of conventional forces in Europe talks in Vienna.
  555
  Mr. Waldegrave
  These talks, together with the negotiations on confidence and security-building measures, were among the subjects my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State discussed with his NATO ministerial colleagues at the North Atlantic Council in Brussels on 8 and 9 December last year. We outlined our objectives in the statement on conventional arms control, of 8 December, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Fighting continues in northern Ethiopia. We remain concerned about the human rights situation. Fortunately there has been no recurrence of serious famine. We have urged the need for negotiation, the release of political prisoners, and the adoption of sensible economic policies.

  El Salvador
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will be sending representatives to monitor the conditions under which the next presidential elections will be held in El Salvador.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have not been asked to do so.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will be sending representatives to monitor the conditions under which the next presidential elections will be held in El Salvador.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have not been asked to do so.

  Drugs (Central America)
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to co-operate with central American countries in the fight against drugs.

  Mr. Eggar
  I have just returned from a visit to the area. I had discussions with the Governments of Costa Rica, Guatemala and Honduras about strengthening anti-drugs co-operation, and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government handed over equipment worth a total of £30,000. We shall now explore ways to build further on these contacts.

  Turkey
  Mr. Jessel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with Turkey.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Turkey is a close NATO ally, with whom we enjoy good relations. In 1988, the Prime Minister paid a successful visit to Turkey and President Evren an equally successful state visit to Britain. British companies are involved in Turkey's economic development and we co-operate closely with Turkey on many issues. We welcome the progress made to improve human rights since the return to civilian rule in 1983.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Wood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with Nigeria.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We enjoy close and cordial relations with Nigeria.

  Kenya
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom-Kenya relations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We enjoy excellent relations with Kenya. President Moi has just completed a successful visit to London, during which he delivered the opening address at the international conference on saving the ozone layer, and had a working lunch with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Vietnamese Refugees
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other Governments in order to resolve the problem of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other Governments in order to resolve the problem of Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong.

  Mr. Eggar
  We are in regular contact with other resettlement countries, countries of first asylum, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and Vietnam on all aspects of this problem. We have recently undertaken to resettle an additional 1,000 Vietnamese refugees in Britain, and have secured increased commitments from other countries at the same time.

  Mr. Charles Rester
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make representations to the South African authorities concerning the case of Mr. Charles Bester.

  Mrs. Chalker
  No. Mr. Bester has appealed against his sentence.

  Syria
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are considering restoring diplomatic relations with Syria.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  No. We could not consider restoring diplomatic relations without firm evidence that Syria had given up support for international terrorism.

  Cocaine
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on international co-operation in the fight against cocaine.

  Mr. Eggar
  Co-operation is close both bilaterally and in multilateral fora. The new United Nations convention,
  557
  adopted in December last year, will strengthen international efforts to combat trafficking in cocaine and other illicit drugs.

  Lebanon
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the Lebanon.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Our relations with Lebanon are complicated by the existence there of two rival administrations. We fully support the current efforts of the Arab League to help the Lebanese people resolve their differences.

  BBC Russian Service
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current weekly listening figure for the BBC's Russian service.

  Mr. Eggar
  The BBC Russian service has an estimated average weekly audience of about 18 million listeners in the Soviet Union aged 16 and over.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what issues were discussed during the recent visit of the President of Cyprus in London.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I discussed progress in the intercommunal talks with President Vassiliou during his working visit to Britain from 28 February to 5 March. All the main issues of the Cyprus problem were covered. We encouraged Mr. Vassiliou to continue to negotiate constructively towards a comprehensive settlement, building on the positive elements in the proposals tabled by Mr. Denktash and himself.

  Foreign Affairs Council
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council on 20–21 February.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) on 22 February.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. McTaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be meeting Chancellor Kohl; and if he will raise with him the issue of short-range nuclear weapons.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to meet Chancellor Kohl.

  Paraguay
  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to encourage a return to democracy in Paraguay.
  558
  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) on 24 February.

  Chancellor Kohl
  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet Chancellor Kohl; and what subjects he expects to discuss.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to meet Chancellor Kohl.

  Zambia
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and Zambia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The United Kingdom enjoys friendlly relations with Zambia.

  Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is planning to seek to improve the present state of diplomatic relations between Britain and Czechoslovakia; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We should like to work for improved relations with Czechoslovakia, but this is impossible at present because of that country's persistent disregard of its CSCE commitments in the field of human rights.

  Namibia
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the Administrator General of Namibia; and what matters he will discuss.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to do so.

  Immigration
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how long a person applying for entry clearance on 31 March or the latest convenient date at each post in the middle-east, including Israel and Turkey, could expect to wait in each queue, for(a) first interview, (b) referral of the case to the Home Office and the requested information being received by the post, (c) decision after first interview and (d) the explanatory statement prepared by the post in the case of appeal against refusal to be despatched to the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom;

  (2) what are the present waiting times to first interview for entry clearance for all categories of applicant in each country in the middle-east, including Israel and Turkey.

  Mr. Eggar
  The majority of visa applications received are straightforward and require no interview. In such cases visas are normally issued within 48 hours.
  559
  The information sought at (b) and (c) is not available. Processing times vary from case to case.

  As to (a) and (d) the position for all categories of applicant as at 28 February is set out in the table. Column (d) represents the time lapse from the date of receiving notice of appeal from the applicant. The distinction between residents and non-residents at Dubai, Istanbul and Nicosia reflects a high volume of applications from non-resident foreign nationals.

  (a)

  (d)

  Abu Dhabi

  7 days

  1 month

  Aden

  2 weeks

  2 weeks

  Amman

  3 days

  within 3 months

  Baghdad

  2 days

  1 week

  Bahrain

  3 days

  4–6 weeks

  Beirut

  2same day

  1—

  Cairo

  same day

  3 weeks

  Damascus

  3 same day

  1—

  Doha

  5 days

  2 weeks

  Dubai

  Residents

  4 weeks

  1 month

  Non-residents

  5 months

  1 month

  Istanbul

  Residents

  same day

  3 months

  Non-residents

  3½ months

  3 months

  Jedda

  2 weeks

  within 1 month

  Jerusalem

  4 days

  2 weeks

  Kuwait

  1 day

  1 week

  Muscat

  same day

  1 month

  Nicosia

  Residents

  same day

  1 week

  Non-residents

  1 week

  1 week

  Riyadh

  4 weeks

  8 weeks

  Sana'a

  1 week

  1 week

  Tel Aviv

  same day

  1 week

  1A limited visa service is in operation; cases involving lengthy interview and/or possible refusal are directed to nearby posts.

  2Straightforward cases only.

  3Urgent medical and compassionate cases only.

  Select Committee Recommendations
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Select Committee recommendations have been made about, and how many accepted by, his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has completed four inquiries since June 1987. Copies of the Committee's reports and our subsequent observations, made by means of Command Paper, are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Hong Kong Police (Pensioners)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the Royal Hong Kong Police Association on behalf of its members now retired in the United Kingdom on the effect of the devaluation of the Hong Kong $ on the £ sterling value of their pensions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have received no such representations from the Royal Hong Kong Police Association. We understand that the association has, however, made representations to the Hong Kong Government about this matter.

  Peru
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Peruvian Government concerning the disappearance of Hugo Blanco and Luis Tresta de la Torre.

  Mr. Eggar
  We have on several occasions conveyed to the Peruvian authorities our concern about reported abuses of human rights. Her Majesty's embassy in Lima have informed us that Mr. Blanco awaits trial on charges under Peru's terrorism laws. We await information on Mr. Tresta de la Torre.

  Diplomatic Wing Budgets
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish what information he has regarding the total diplomatic wing budgets of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member states expressed as(a) a percentage of gross domestic product, (b) a percentage of total Government expenditure and (c) pounds sterling.

  Mr. Eggar
  Information on the total diplomatic wing budgets of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member states is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  In the financial year 1987–88 expenditure on the diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (£660 million) amounted to 0·16 per cent. of United Kingdom GDP and 0·38 per cent. of general Government expenditure.

SCOTLAND

  Scottish Marriage Guidance Council
  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funding was given for the Scottish Marriage Guidance Council in each of the last five years; what funding is set for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Funding under section 9 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (for training purposes) and under section 10(1) (for headquarters expenses) was offered to the Scottish Marriage Guidance Council as follows:

  Section 9

  Section 10(1)

  Current

  Capital

  Total

  1984–85

  10,327

  34,360

  2,524

  47,211

  1985–86

  11,700

  38,890

  2,361

  52,951

  1986–87

  12,200

  44,112

  1,986

  58,298

  1987–88

  14,600

  45,437

  2,000

  62,037

  1988–89

  13,600

  49,408

  2,810

  65,818

  1989–90

  14,200

  —

  —

  —

  Funding for the council under section 10(1) for next year has not yet been offered but will be in the region of £75,000.

  Storm Damage
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what penalties will be imposed on each local authority for expenditure to repair recent storm damage above the set guideline expenditure level.
  561
  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend has already made it clear that he would consider sympathetically the position of authorities that incur additional expenditure on repairs following recent storm damage.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what requests he has received from each local authority for special financial assistance to repair recent storm damage.

  Mr. Lang
  The Scottish Development Department is still receiving responses from housing authorities to the circular issued to them on 21 February following the recent storms. No requests for special financial assistance have been received from other local authorities.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what expenditure levels were set for each relevant local authority in Scotland to repair recent storm damage.

  Mr. Lang
  Levels were not set by the Government for expenditure by local authorities to repair recent storm damage. The provision for such expenditure is a matter for each local authority to determine.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of personal community charge for 1989–90, in respect of each local authority in Scotland, would have been levied by the authority had the comparable expenditure of the authority been equivalent to that assumed by the Government in determining the authority's revenue support grant.

  Mr. Lang
  Spending at client group assessment—the basis on which grant was initially apportioned—would have implied personal community charges of £154 for each regional council and £42 for each district council. However, those figures take no account of other factors such as the use of balances, which affect the actual community charges set.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of personal community charge for 1989–90, in respect of each local authority in Scotland, would have been levied by the local authority in the absence of safety netting arrangements.

  Mr. Lang
  Local authorities took their budget and community charge decisions in full knowledge of the grant allocated to them. It is not for me to speculate on what decisions they might have taken in the light of different information.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what, in respect of each local authority in Scotland, is the level of personal community charge for 1989–90.

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

  £

  Borders

  174·00

  Central

  198·00

  Dumfries and Galloway

  178·50

  Fife

  220·00

  Grampian

  189·00

  Highland

  180·00

  Lothian

  287·00

  562

  £

  Strathclyde

  200·00

  Tayside

  220·00

  Orkney

  122·00

  Shetland

  107·38

  Western Isles

  137·00

  Berwickshire

  31·00

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  42·00

  Roxburgh

  42·00

  Tweeddale

  43·00

  Clackmannan

  87·00

  Falkirk

  46·00

  Stirling

  97·00

  Annandale and Eskdale

  47·00

  Nithsdale

  39·00

  Stewartry

  37·00

  Wigtown

  40·00

  Dunfermline

  55·00

  Kirkcaldy

  60·00

  North East Fife

  82·00

  Aberdeen City

  85·00

  Banff and Buchan

  56·70

  Gordon

  44·00

  Kincardine and Deeside

  32·00

  Moray

  42·00

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  35·00

  Caithness

  25·00

  Inverness

  26·00

  Lochaber

  37·00

  Nairn

  28·00

  Ross and Cromarty

  39·00

  Skye and Lochalsh

  25·00

  Sutherland

  6·00

  East Lothian

  69·00

  Edinburgh City

  87·00

  Midlothian

  59·00

  West Lothian

  54·00

  Argyll and Bute

  58·00

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  79·00

  Clydebank

  78·00

  Clydesdale

  82·00

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  56·00

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  57·00

  Cunninghame

  59·00

  Dumbarton

  79·00

  East Kilbride

  99·00

  Eastwood

  63·00

  Glasgow City

  87·00

  Hamilton

  72·00

  Inverclyde

  72·00

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  50·00

  Kyle and Carrick

  89·00

  Monklands

  74·00

  Motherwell

  86·00

  Renfrew

  76·00

  Strathkelvin

  80·00

  Angus

  52·00

  Dundee City

  83·00

  Perth and Kinross

  58·00

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what level of personal community charge for 1989–90, in respect of each local authority in Scotland, he announced, prior to the determination of the authority's budget, that it would be reasonable for them to levy.

  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. and learned Friend issued figures for the combined region, district and water community charges that were attainable if local authorities did not increase their expenditure by more than the rate of inflation plus allowances for community charge and school board administration. The figures are set out in the table.
  563

  £

  Orkney

  84

  Shetland

  202

  Western Isles

  126

  Berwickshire

  177

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  180

  Roxburgh

  190

  Tweeddale

  174

  Clackmannan

  225

  Falkirk

  211

  Stirling

  249

  Annandale and Eskdale

  197

  Nithsdale

  192

  Stewartry

  196

  Wigtown

  178

  Dunfermline

  249

  Kirkcaldy

  256

  North East Fife

  251

  Aberdeen City

  201

  Banff and Buchan

  185

  Gordon

  183

  Kincardine and Deeside

  168

  Moray

  176

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  186

  Caithness

  196

  Inverness

  189

  Lochaber

  202

  Nairn

  181

  Ross and Cromarty

  190

  Skye and Lochalsh

  187

  Sutherland

  168

  East Lothian

  307

  Edinburgh City

  313

  Midlothian

  306

  West Lothian

  296

  Argyll and Bute

  293

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  280

  Clydebank

  293

  Clydesdale

  293

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  293

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  293

  Cunninghame

  293

  Dumbarton

  293

  East Kilbride

  293

  Eastwood

  264

  Glasgow City

  293

  Hamilton

  293

  Inverclyde

  283

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  293

  Kyle and Carrick

  290

  Monklands

  293

  Motherwell

  288

  Renfrew

  293

  Strathkelvin

  293

  Angus

  238

  Dundee City

  274

  Perth and Kinross

  237

  Damage to Animals
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current regulations about compensation for damage to animals on farms in Scotland from the effects of heavy traffic and noise pollution; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Compensation may be available in some circumstances under the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1973 for the effect of noise from new roads where the value of land is depreciated. There are no specific provisions for compensation for damage to animals from noise.

  Farms (Rate Rebates)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by district the number of farms in Scotland, which border Ministry of Defence or visiting forces' airports, in receipt of rate rebates.

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is not held centrally.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Hon. Members (Courses)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make places available on Civil Service college courses to hon. Members.

  Mr. Luce
  Applications from hon. Members to attend college courses suitable for them will be welcome. I shall arrange for copies of the 1989–90 prospectus to be placed in the Library.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what proportion of total tax, direct and indirect, where figures are available(a) was paid in 1986–87 and (b) would be paid in 1989–90 assuming tax allowances are increased by (i) the increase in earnings, (ii) twice the increase needed for indexation and treating child benefit as negative income tax for the following groups (A) a single person on (i) 50 per cent., (ii) 75 per cent., (iii) 100 per cent., (iv) 200 per cent., (v) 300 per cent., (vi) 400 per cent. and (vii) 500 per cent. of average earnings, (B) a one-earner couple with no children, (C) a one-earner couple with two children and (D) a two-earner couple with two children for the same multiples of average earnings;

  (2) if he will publish in the Official Report a table along the same lines as in the answer provided to the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) in the Official Report, 10 January, columns 633–56, with figures for 1989–90, given the changes to national insurance contributions and benefits already announced and assuming that all the basic allowances are increased (a) the increase in earnings and (b) twice the amount needed for indexation.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 28 February 1989]: The table gives payments of income tax and national insurance contributions as a proportion of earnings for the income levels and tax allowances specified. They assume no change in tax rates in 1989–90. Payments of indirect taxation would depend on the expenditure patterns of the taxpayer and on indirect tax rates for 1989–90. As the latter have not been specified, no estimates for indirect tax payments are provided. No estimates are given for tax paid by a two-earner couple with two children as this would depend on the distribution of income between the couple.
  565

  per cent.

  Multiple of average male earnings

  50

  75

  100

  200

  300

  400

  500

  1986–87

  Single person

  Income Tax

  16·8

  20·9

  22·9

  27·3

  34·0

  39·1

  43·3

  NIC

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  6·0

  4·0

  3·0

  2·4

  Total Tax

  25·8

  29·9

  31·9

  33·3

  38·0

  42·1

  45·7

  One-earner couple with no children

  Income Tax

  9·9

  16·3

  19·5

  24·9

  32·0

  37·4

  41·8

  NIC

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  6·0

  4·0

  3·0

  2·4

  Total Tax

  18·9

  25·3

  28·5

  30·9

  36·0

  40·4

  44·2

  One-earner couple with two children

  Income Tax

  -3·3

  7·5

  12·9

  21·6

  29·8

  35·7

  40·5

  NIC

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  6·0

  4·0

  3·0

  2·4

  Total Tax

  5·7

  16·5

  21·9

  27·6

  33·8

  38·7

  42·9

  (i) 1989–90 if tax allowances increased by the rise in average earnings

  Single person

  Income Tax

  15·1

  18·4

  20·1

  25·1

  30·0

  32·5

  34·0

  NIC

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  Total Tax

  24·1

  27·4

  29·1

  30·4

  33·6

  35·2

  36·2

  One-earner couple with no children

  Income Tax

  9·5

  14·7

  17·2

  22·8

  28·5

  31·4

  33·1

  NIC

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  Total Tax

  18·5

  23·7

  26·2

  28·2

  32·1

  34·1

  35·3

  One-earner couple with two children

  Income Tax

  -1·1

  7·6

  11·9

  20·1

  26·7

  30·1

  32·0

  NIC

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  Total Tax

  7·9

  16·6

  20·9

  25·5

  30·3

  32·8

  34·2

  (ii) 1989–90 if tax allowances increased by twice the increase required for statutory indexation

  Single person

  Income Tax

  14·6

  18·0

  19·8

  24·2

  29·5

  32·1

  33·7

  NIC

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  Total Tax

  23·6

  27·0

  28·8

  29·6

  33·0

  34·8

  35·8

  One-earner couple with no children

  Income Tax

  8·6

  14·1

  16·8

  21·8

  27·9

  30·9

  32·7

  NIC

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  Total Tax

  17·6

  23·1

  25·8

  27·2

  31·5

  33·6

  34·9

  One-earner couple with two children

  Income Tax

  -2·0

  7·0

  11·5

  19·1

  26·1

  29·6

  31·6

  NIC

  9·0

  9·0

  9·0

  5·4

  3·6

  2·7

  2·1

  Total Tax

  7·0

  16·0

  20·5

  24·5

  29·7

  32·3

  33·8

  Notes:

  1. The figures assume average earnings in 1989–90 are 7·5 per cent. higher than in 1988–89 (in line with the GAD assumption given in the Autumn Statement).

  2. Figures for a married couple with two children deduct child benefit from income tax.

  3. Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the tax payers have no other tax reliefs apart from the standard allowances. Earners are assumed to pay class 1 national insurance contributions at the contracted-in rate.

  British Industry (Unit Costs)
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how unit costs in British industry altered in 1988; what were the comparable changes in Japan, Canada, the United States of America and other EEC countries; and how have exchange rate movements affected the comparative unit costs of British industry relative to those countries.

  Mr. Major
  Indices calculated by the International Monetary Fund showing unit labour costs in manufacturing in 1987 and in the first three quarters of 1988 are given in the Department of Trade and Industry publication, "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", for all the countries in question except Portugal, Greece and Ireland. This publication gives unit labour cost indices in terms of 566
  country's own currencies and also in terms of common currency showing coos relative to those in other countries, allowing for the effects of exchange rate movements.

  VAT
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the last 10 years within the Doncaster district(a) the number of new businesses who have registered for value added tax and (b) the number of businesses that have ceased registering for value added tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  I regret that records are not maintained on a town or district basis. The local VAT office at 'Doncaster covers not only Doncaster but also the area which includes Selby, Barnsley, Scunthorpe and Wakefield. The numbers of VAT registrations and de-registrations processed by that office for each of the calendar years 1979–88 was:
  567

  Year

  New registrations

  De-registrations

  1979

  1,863

  1,515

  1980

  1,576

  1,396

  1981

  1,789

  1,245

  1982

  1,367

  1,162

  1983

  1,969

  1,497

  1984

  1,955

  1,722

  1985

  1,816

  1,936

  1986

  2,231

  2,308

  1987

  2,239

  1,972

  1988

  2,819

  2,089

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each of the past 10 years(a) the number of new businesses which have registered for value added tax and (b) the number of businesses that have ceased to register for value added tax in Greenock and Port Glasgow.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 7 March 1989]: I regret that statistics are not maintained on a town or district basis. The local VAT office at Greenock covers not only Greenock and Port Glasgow but a large geographical area including Oban, Paisley, Ayr, Kilmarnock, and Newton Stewart. The number of VAT registrations and de-registrations processed by that office for each of the calendar years 1979 to 1988 was:

  Year

  New registrations

  De-registrations

  1979

  2,711

  2,151

  1980

  2,172

  1,857

  1981

  2,345

  1,742

  1982

  1,803

  1,712

  1983

  1,933

  1,745

  1984

  1,640

  1,472

  1985

  1,929

  1,792

  1986

  1,913

  1,788

  1987

  1,840

  1,669

  1988

  2,466

  2,059

  Vehicle Taxation
  Mr. Bright
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received since his last Budget seeking the removal of discriminatory taxation on motor vehicles in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of written representations seeking the abolition of car tax.

  Coal
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated increase in cost per 50 kg. bag of domestic coal to consumers when coal delivery merchants are charged value added tax at the importer's storage depot.

  Mr. Lilley
  Under the proposals for implementing the European Court of Justice judgment on VAT zero rates which were published on 6 February, the supply of coal to domestic consumers will remain zero-rated, but supplies at earlier stages in the distribution chain will be liable to the standard rate of VAT from 1 July 1990. Coal delivery merchants who are registered for VAT will be able to deduct any VAT charged to them by their suppliers under the normal input tax credit mechanism. The effect on the price to the domestic consumer should be negligible.

  Cigarettes
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would arise in a full financial year from raising the tax on a packet of 20 cigarettes by(a) 5p, (b) 10p, (c) 15p, (d) 20p and (e) 30p; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Estimates are as follows:

  Additional Tax

  Additional Revenue

  £ million

  5p

  170

  10p

  330

  15p

  495

  20p

  655

  30p

  965

  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much revenue would have arisen in the period 1988–89 from a tax on cigarettes 10p higher than was necessary to adjust for the effects of inflation over the preceding year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  It is estimated that the additional revenue would have been £310 million.

  Consumers (Consultation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements there are for consulting consumers on the work and decisions of his Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  The public is kept in touch with policy developments in the Chancellor's departments in the usual way through command papers, consultative documents, parliamentary announcements, press notices and informal discussion with representative bodies.

  Newspaper Advertising
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will indicate the change in the ratio of Government expenditure between local and national newspaper advertising during the last 12 months for which figures are available.

  Mr. Lilley
  The ratio of expenditure between local and national newspaper advertising placed through the COI on behalf of other Government Departments is as follows:

  National expenditure

  Local expenditure

  £

  Per cent.

  £

  Per cent.

  1986–87

  25,633,000

  80

  6,236,000

  20

  1987–88

  25,483,000

  83

  5,346,000

  17

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbon from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend

  569
  the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas), on Monday 6 March at column 387.

EMPLOYMENT

  Wages Inspectorate
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be illegally underpaying and how many of them were prosecuted in the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the precise form requested because wages inspectorate statistics about compliance with wages orders are compiled on the basis of establishments rather than employers. With that proviso, the figures in respect of the wages inspectorate divisions covering Great Britain are given in the following table.

  Northern Ireland has a separate wages council system which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, but I understand that in 1988 112 establishments were found to be underpaying. There were no prosecutions.

  Division

  Establishments found to be underpaying in 1988

  Prosecutions for underpayment in 1988

  London

  317

  —

  South East

  537

  1

  Eastern

  462

  2

  South West

  1,156

  2

  Midlands

  747

  1

  North West

  869

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  631

  2

  Northern

  369

  —

  Scotland

  509

  —

  Totals

  5,597

  10

  Decency Threshold
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage, of full-time male workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage, of the full-time workforce earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no such thing as a Council of Europe decency threshold for a minimum acceptable level of earnings.

  Women Workers (Earnings)
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many, and what percentage, of full-time female workers earned less than the Council of Europe's decency threshold in the latest available year in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Nicholls
  There is no such thing as a Council of Europe decency threshold for a minimum acceptable level of earnings.

  Earnings (East Midlands)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplaces were visited and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the east midlands.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Wages inspectorate statistics are not compiled for areas smaller than the inspectorate's nine divisions. In the midlands division in 1988, 103 workplaces were visited for advisory purposes and 2,609 were visited for the purpose of checking pay. A total of 747 were found to have underpaid one or more worker. However, this cannot be taken as representing the general level of non-compliance with wages council orders because the wages inspectorate target checks by visit on those workplaces thought more likely to underpay workers.

  Earnings (North-West)
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be illegally underpaying, and how many of them were prosecuted, in the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering the north-west.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the precise form requested because wages inspectorate statistics about compliance with wages orders are compiled on the basis of establishments rather than employers. In 1988, 869 establishments in the north-west were found to be underpaying. There were two prosecutions for underpaying.

  Earnings (Scotland)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employers were found to be illegally underpaying, and how many of them were prosecuted, in the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering Scotland.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available in the precise form requested because wages inspectorate statistics about compliance with wages orders are compiled on the basis of establishments rather than employers. In 1988, 509 establishments in Scotland were found to be underpaying. There were no prosecutions.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. John L. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has fallen in the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lee
  In January 1989 the level of unemployment, seasonally adjusted, in the United Kingdom was 1,988,100 compared with 3,051,300 in January 1987, a fall of 1,063,200 on a consistent basis. Unemployment is now at its lowest level for eight years.

  Earnings (Wales)
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many workplaces were visited, and how many of them were found to be illegally underpaying, for the latest available year by the wages inspectorate divisions covering Wales.
  571
  Mr. Nicholls
  In 1988, 15 workplaces were visited for advisory purposes and 1,014 were visited for the purposes of checking pay. A total of 446 were found to have underpaid one or more workers. However, this cannot be taken as representing the general level of non-compliance with wages council orders because the wages inspectorate target checks by visit on those workplaces thought more likely to underpay workers.

  Training Places (Cost)
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average cost to the Exchequer of an employment training place.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The average cost to the Exchequer per trainee on employment training is expected to be approximately £2,300.

  Mr. Derek Cain
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has now received the written judgment of the High Court concerning the death of Derek Cain in 1982; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  Yes. The judgment related specifically to that case and no wide-ranging legal principles can be drawn from it. We are nevertheless studying the case closely to see what further practical improvements might be made in YTS health and safety arrangements.

  Chlorofluorocarbons
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what is his best estimate of the amount of chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants under the control of his Department;

  (2) what plans there are to minimise the risk of leaks of chlorofluorocarbons from refrigeration and air conditioning systems under his Department's control.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on Monday 6 March at column 387.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Community Care Grants
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what has been the take-up of community care grants since their inception;

  (2) what has been the cost to public funds of community care grants over the period for which figures are available.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to the national summary information placed monthly in the Library.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the annual allocation by his Department for community care grants since their inception.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The annual allocation in respect of community care grants for both 1988–89 and 1989–90 is £60 million.
  572
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what further steps he has taken to publicise the existence and availability of community care grants; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 17 January at columns 118–19.

  Bed-and-Breakfast Accommodation
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families in Lambeth are receiving payments from his Department to meet the cost of living in bed-and-breakfast type accommodation.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Transitional Protection
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the Northern region, by area, are in receipt of transitional protection as a result of the April 1988 changes in housing benefit regulations.

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

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the effect of transitional payments on the living standards of people who were in receipt of housing benefit prior to changes in the regulations in April 1988.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The transitional payments scheme represents a fast and effective response to the problems caused for those in vulnerable groups who would otherwise have suffered too sharp a drop in their housing benefit following the changes last April.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will estimate(a) the total number of people and (b) the number of people in each local authority area who are entitled to claim for housing benefit transitional protection;

  (2) how many claims for housing benefit transitional protection had been made by 28 February (a) in total and (b) in each local authority area; and in each case how many were (i) successful and (ii) unsuccessful;

  (3) how many claims for housing benefit transitional protection are currently being considered (a) in total and (b) in each local authority area.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have claimed transitional protection payments; what proportion of those have had their applications approved; and by how much the number receiving these allowances differs from the estimated take-up.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 2 March 1989]: Up to 300,000 people were originally estimated to be eligible for housing benefit transitional payments. Of the 439,129 applications for Housing Benefit transitional payments received at 3 March, a total of 183,783 have been successful. Of the 39,418 applications outstanding 30,487 are awaiting return of inquiry forms from local authorities.

  573
  Applications will continue to be accepted until 30 June 1989. Information requested is currently available only on a national basis.

  Social Security Spending
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing(a) the figures in table 15.8 of Cm. 615 in constant 1988–89 prices, (b) the numbers receiving the benefits in each category and (c) an index showing the level of real expenditure per recipient in each category.

  Total benefit expenditure by broad groups of beneficiaries in real terms (1988–89 prices)

  1983–84 outturn

  1984–85 outturn

  1985–86 outturn

  1986–87 outturn

  1987–88 outturn

  1988–892 outturn

  1989–90 plans

  1990–91 plans

  1991–92 plans

  Elderly people

  21,760

  22,000

  22,710

  23,530

  23,580

  22,960

  123,580

  124,600

  125,100

  Sick and disabled people

  5,530

  5,990

  6,350

  6,960

  7,250

  7,600

  8,260

  9,000

  9,600

  Family

  7,440

  7,710

  7,910

  8,040

  8,110

  7,990

  8,130

  8,600

  9,000

  Unemployed people

  6,960

  7,320

  7,640

  7,730

  6,640

  5,430

  4,990

  5,100

  5,300

  Widows and orphans

  1,340

  1,320

  1,280

  1,250

  1,200

  1,190

  1,160

  1,200

  1,100

  Total benefit expenditure

  43,020

  44,340

  45,890

  47,520

  46,770

  45,170

  146,120

  148,400

  150,100

  1 Includes extra help for poorer pensioners on income support from October 1989, announced on 24 November 1988 at column 249, of about £100 million in 1989–90 and £200 million in both 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  2 Estimated.

  Disabled People (Helios Programme)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he is able to announce the names of the local projects in the United Kingdom assisting disabled people which have been selected to participate in the European Community Helios programme.

  Mr. Scott
  I am pleased to announce that 15 United Kingdom projects have been selected, covering a wide range of types of disability and geographical location. Both the statutory and voluntary sectors are represented, and I am confident that all the projects will make an excellent contribution to the exchanges of experience and learning across Europe made possible by the EC Helios programme. The projects selected for each of the Commissions four networks are as follows:

  Social Integration and Independent Living
  East Sussex Pilot Project, Brighton.
  Coleshill Social Centre, Llanelli, Dyfed.
  Waltham Forest Disability Resource Centre, Walthamstow, London.
  Grampian Health Board independent living project for mentally handicapped clients.

  Vocational Rehabilitation Centres
  Billingham Employment Rehabilitation Centre, Cleveland.
  Enham Industries, Andover, Hampshire.
  Pengwern Hall (MENCAP), Rhuddlan, Clwyd.
  Queen Alexandra College, Birmingham Royal Institute for the Blind.
  Court Grange, Royal National Institute for the Deaf, Abbotskerswell, near Newton Abbot, Devon.
  Atlantic House, Scottish Association for Mental Health (day services), Edinburgh.

  Vocational Rehabilitation and Economic Integration
  Mobile Assessment Project, Department of Economic Development, Employment Rehabilitation Unit, Newtown Abbey, County Antrim.
  Disabled Access to Technology Association (DATA), Bradford.
  Outset, Wandsworth, London.

  School Integration
  574
  Mr. Moore
  The figures in table 15.8 of Cm. 615 in constant 1988–89 prices are shown in the table. Many people receive more than one benefit at the same time and detailed records of the numbers of all multiple beneficiaries and the combinations of benefits held within each client group are not kept. Therefore information on the numbers receiving benefits in each category and on the level of real expenditure per recipient in each category is not available. However table 15.6 of Cm. 615 provides details of the estimated numbers receiving each benefit at any one time.

  River Bank School Project, Ashington, Morpeth, Northumberland.

  Swansea College Project, Swansea, West Glamorgan.

  Rating Reform
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he has any plans to make financial provision for people under 25 years receiving income support for payment of the community charge.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  People receiving income support will be entitled to a rebate of 80 per cent. of their community charge liability. And, as my right hon. Friend announced in his statement to the House on 27 October 1988 at column 455, there will be a once-and-for-all adjustment to income support levels from this April to help meet the minimum 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge which recipients will have to make. The amounts to be included in income support levels are £1·15 a week for single people aged 18 to 24 and £2·30 a week for couples.

  Leaflets
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the reasons for the delays in processing applications for leaflets from the leaflets unit at Stanmore; and if any measures are being taken to improve the service.

  Mr. Graham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he intends to take to reduce the six months' waiting time for his Department to supply information leaflets which have been requested by voluntary organisations in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answers 22 and 23 February 1989]: The principal factors causing delay in the distribution of some orders from Canons Park leaflet unit are the considerably increased demand for bulk orders, and the physical constraints of the unit which preclude an immediate expansion of capacity or the recruitment of any more staff to cope with this demand. Nevertheless a special

  575
  priority 24-hour turn round dispatch has been agreed for all requests from citizens advice bureaux which are the major distributors of bulk quantities of leaflets outside the Department itself.

  Individual copies of leaflets can be obtained from local offices of the Department or by ordering from the free telephone inquiry service, 0800 666 555.

  The Department is urgently considering how best to restore the supply of leaflets to an acceptable level.

  "Reform of Social Security"
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a revised version of tables P1 to P6 of the technical annex to the White Paper "Reform of Social Security" taking into account changes in prices, earnings and other relevant factors since 1985.

  P1 Pension projections for men retiring in 2013 onwards

  Examples with more years of earnings

  Weekly pension basic pension plus additional pension plus personal pension or COMP pension

  Age in 1988 and earnings level

  Personal pensions

  Money purchase schemes

  Amount invested

  Amount invested

  SERPS—people without a contracted-out pension

  Rebate only

  Rebate + 2 per cent.

  Rebate+2 per cent.

  Rebate+4 per cent.

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  3 per cent.

  3½per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½per cent.

  4 per cent.

  16 Low earner

  81

  87

  93

  101

  112

  122

  133

  118

  129

  141

  144

  159

  175

  Middle earner

  105

  114

  123

  135

  155

  171

  188

  165

  182

  202

  208

  231

  257

  High earner

  113

  127

  139

  154

  175

  194

  217

  186

  208

  233

  236

  265

  299

  20 Low earner

  79

  84

  89

  94

  105

  113

  122

  110

  119

  129

  133

  144

  157

  Middle earner

  104

  116

  125

  137

  155

  170

  187

  165

  181

  200

  205

  227

  252

  High earner

  112

  130

  142

  157

  175

  194

  216

  187

  208

  232

  234

  261

  293

  30 Low earner

  74

  77

  80

  84

  91

  96

  101

  95

  100

  106

  110

  116

  124

  Middle earner

  106

  109

  114

  120

  136

  144

  153

  143

  152

  162

  171

  183

  196

  High earner

  115

  120

  126

  132

  149

  158

  168

  157

  167

  178

  187

  200

  215

  40 Low earner

  71

  69

  70

  72

  77

  78

  80

  79

  81

  83

  87

  88

  92

  Middle earner

  101

  95

  97

  100

  111

  115

  119

  116

  120

  124

  132

  138

  143

  High earner

  108

  101

  104

  106

  119

  123

  127

  124

  128

  133

  143

  148

  154

  P2 Pension projections for men retiring in 2013 onwards

  Examples with fewer years of earnings

  Weekly pension basic pension plus additional pension plus personal pension or COMP pension

  Age in 1988 and earnings level

  Personal pensions

  Money purchase schemes

  Amount invested

  Amount invested

  Rebate only

  Rebate+ 2 per cent.

  Rebate+ 2 per cent.

  Rebate + 4 per cent.

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  SERPS—people without a contracted-out pension

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  16 Low earner

  76

  81

  86

  92

  103

  111

  120

  108

  117

  127

  130

  142

  157

  Middle earner

  104

  112

  121

  132

  152

  167

  184

  161

  178

  197

  203

  226

  251

  High earner

  111

  122

  133

  146

  168

  186

  207

  179

  199

  222

  227

  254

  285

  20 Low earner

  74

  79

  84

  89

  98

  106

  114

  103

  111

  120

  123

  134

  146

  Middle earner

  103

  114

  123

  134

  152

  166

  183

  161

  177

  196

  201

  222

  247

  High earner

  110

  128

  140

  155

  173

  192

  214

  184

  205

  230

  231

  259

  291

  30 Low earner

  71

  74

  77

  80

  87

  91

  95

  90

  95

  100

  103

  109

  116

  Middle earner

  104

  107

  112

  118

  134

  142

  151

  141

  150

  160

  170

  181

  195

  High earner

  115

  120

  127

  132

  140

  158

  168

  157

  167

  178

  187

  200

  215

  40 Low earner

  68

  66

  67

  68

  72

  73

  75

  74

  75

  77

  80

  82

  84

  Middle earner

  101

  95

  97

  100

  111

  115

  119

  116

  120

  124

  132

  138

  143

  High earner

  108

  101

  104

  100

  119

  123

  127

  124

  128

  133

  143

  148

  154

  576
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [holding answer 13 December 1988]: The information requested is in the tables.

  It should be noted that the contracted-out rebate assumed is 5·8 per cent. of earnings between the lower and upper limits for national insurance contributions, declining to 3·75 per cent. by 2018. The future figures are purely illustrative and should not be taken as precise predictions of what the contracted-out rebate will be. The lower and upper earnings limits are assumed to increase in future in line with prices. In all cases the contracted-out rebate is boosted by the 2 per cent. incentive addition which is to be given to personal pensions and newly contracted-out occupational schemes up to 1992–93.

  Men are assumed to take their pension at 65, women at 60. The projections for widows assume that their husband dies after reaching 65.
  577

  P3 Pension projections for women retiring in 2013 onwards

  Examples with more years of earnings

  Weekly pension basic pension plus additional pension plus personal pension or COMP pension

  Age in 1988 and earnings level

  Personal pensions

  Money purchase schemes

  Amount invested

  Amount invested

  SERPS—people without a contracted-out pension

  Rebate only

  Rebate + 2 per cent.

  Rebate+ 2 per cent.

  Rebate+ 4 per cent.

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  16 Low earner

  62

  60

  62

  64

  69

  71

  74

  71

  74

  77

  79

  83

  88

  Middle earner

  77

  74

  78

  82

  91

  96

  103

  95

  101

  108

  112

  120

  129

  High earner

  93

  91

  97

  104

  116

  125

  135

  122

  132

  144

  148

  161

  177

  20 Low earner

  60

  58

  60

  61

  65

  67

  69

  67

  69

  71

  74

  76

  79

  Middle earner

  75

  72

  74

  77

  85

  89

  93

  89

  93

  98

  103

  108

  115

  High earner

  92

  89

  93

  98

  110

  116

  124

  115

  122

  131

  137

  146

  157

  30 Low earner

  64

  57

  57

  58

  64

  65

  66

  66

  67

  68

  74

  76

  77

  Middle earner

  73

  65

  66

  67

  75

  77

  79

  78

  80

  82

  89

  92

  94

  High earner

  84

  76

  78

  80

  90

  93

  96

  94

  97

  100

  109

  113

  117

  40 Low earner

  52

  47

  48

  48

  50

  51

  51

  51

  52

  52

  54

  55

  56

  Middle earner

  59

  54

  55

  55

  59

  60

  61

  60

  61

  62

  65

  66

  67

  High earner

  69

  63

  64

  65

  69

  71

  72

  71

  73

  75

  78

  80

  82

  P4 Pension projections for men retiring in 2013 onwards

  Examples with fewer years of earnings

  Weekly pension basic pension plus additional pension plus personal pension or COMP pension

  Age in 1988 and earnings level

  Personal pensions

  Money purchase schemes

  Amount invested

  Amount invested

  SERPS—people without a contracted-out pension

  Rebate only

  Rebate+ 2 per cent.

  Rebate + 2 per cent.

  Rebate+ 4 per cent.

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  16 Low earner

  61

  60

  62

  63

  67

  69

  72

  69

  71

  75

  76

  80

  84

  Middle earner

  76

  74

  77

  81

  87

  91

  96

  90

  95

  101

  103

  110

  117

  High earner

  90

  90

  95

  101

  109

  116

  125

  114

  122

  131

  133

  144

  156

  20 Low earner

  60

  58

  59

  61

  64

  65

  67

  65

  67

  69

  71

  73

  75

  Middle earner

  74

  72

  74

  76

  82

  85

  88

  84

  87

  91

  94

  98

  103

  High earner

  90

  88

  91

  95

  103

  108

  113

  107

  112

  118

  122

  129

  136

  30 Low earner

  53

  50

  50

  51

  54

  54

  54

  54

  55

  55

  58

  58

  59

  Middle earner

  64

  58

  59

  59

  64

  65

  66

  66

  67

  68

  72

  73

  75

  High earner

  78

  70

  71

  71

  80

  81

  82

  82

  83

  85

  92

  94

  96

  40 Low earner

  49

  45

  45

  45

  47

  48

  48

  48

  48

  49

  51

  51

  51

  Middle earner

  57

  50

  51

  51

  55

  55

  56

  56

  57

  57

  61

  61

  62

  High earner

  69

  58

  59

  60

  66

  67

  68

  68

  69

  70

  76

  77

  79

  P5 Pension projections for men retiring in 2008 onwards

  Examples with more years of earnings

  Weekly pension basic pension plus additional pension plus personal pension or COMP pension

  Age in 1988 and earnings level

  Personal pensions

  Money purchase schemes

  Amount invested

  Amount invested

  SERPS—people without a contracted-out pension

  Rebate only

  Rebate+ 2 per cent.

  Rebate + 2 per cent.

  Rebate+ 4 per cent.

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  16 Low earner

  81

  81

  85

  90

  100

  106

  113

  104

  111

  119

  124

  133

  144

  Middle earner

  108

  111

  119

  129

  147

  159

  173

  155

  169

  185

  194

  211

  232

  High earner

  124

  131

  143

  157

  178

  196

  216

  190

  209

  233

  238

  264

  294

  20 Low earner

  78

  79

  82

  86

  94

  99

  105

  98

  104

  110

  115

  122

  130

  Middle earner

  106

  107

  113

  120

  137

  147

  157

  145

  155

  167

  176

  189

  205

  High earner

  125

  128

  137

  147

  168

  181

  196

  178

  192

  209

  218

  237

  259

  30 Low earner

  80

  72

  74

  75

  85

  88

  90

  89

  91

  94

  102

  105

  109

  Middle earner

  103

  95

  98

  101

  117

  121

  126

  122

  127

  133

  145

  152

  159

  High earner

  119

  110

  114

  118

  136

  141

  148

  142

  149

  156

  169

  177

  187

  40 Low earner

  65

  59

  60

  61

  65

  66

  66

  67

  67

  68

  72

  73

  75

  Middle earner

  88

  79

  81

  82

  89

  91

  93

  92

  94

  97

  103

  105

  108

  High earner

  102

  91

  93

  95

  104

  107

  110

  108

  111

  114

  122

  126

  130

  578 579

  P6 Pension projections for widows retiring in 2008 onwards

  Examples with less years of earnings

  Weekly pension basic pension plus additional pension plus personal pension or COMP pension

  Age in 1988 and earnings level

  Personal pensions

  Money purchase schemes

  Amount invested

  Amount invested

  SERPS—people without a contracted-out pension

  Rebate only

  Rebate+ 2 per cent.

  Rebate+2 per cent.

  Rebate+ 4 per cent.

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  Rate of return over prices

  3 per cent.

  3½percent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  3 per cent.

  3½ per cent.

  4 per cent.

  16 Low earner

  72

  78

  82

  87

  95

  101

  107

  99

  105

  113

  116

  124

  134

  Middle earner

  107

  110

  118

  126

  141

  153

  165

  149

  161

  176

  181

  198

  216

  High earner

  124

  133

  143

  156

  173

  189

  208

  183

  201

  222

  225

  249

  276

  20 Low earner

  75

  76

  79

  83

  90

  94

  99

  93

  98

  104

  107

  114

  121

  Middle earner

  105

  106

  111

  117

  132

  140

  149

  138

  147

  157

  165

  177

  190

  High earner

  124

  129

  136

  145

  162

  173

  186

  171

  183

  197

  205

  221

  240

  30 Low earner

  68

  65

  66

  68

  72

  74

  75

  74

  76

  78

  82

  84

  87

  Middle earner

  94

  88

  90

  93

  105

  109

  113

  109

  114

  118

  127

  133

  139

  High earner

  113

  104

  107

  110

  125

  130

  134

  131

  135

  141

  153

  159

  166

  40 Low earner

  60

  55

  56

  56

  60

  60

  61

  61

  61

  62

  65

  66

  67

  Middle earner

  86

  75

  76

  77

  85

  87

  89

  88

  90

  92

  99

  101

  103

  High earner

  103

  86

  88

  89

  101

  103

  105

  105

  107

  110

  120

  123

  127

DEFENCE

  Relocation
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet executives of Nottingham development enterprise to discuss the relocation of parts of his Department to Nottingham as part of the policy on the relocation of such posts away from the south-east.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Under the policy that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, announced on 31 March 1988, my Department is now reviewing the location of its work with a view to finding sites offering easier labour markets, value for money and increased operational efficiency. Where appropriate, areas that are the focus of the Government's regional and urban policies, such as Nottingham, will be considered. My officials will be consulting local representatives in relevant sites as appropriate.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of progress on the introduction of information technologies to facilitate internal communications in his Department and the provision of information to the public concerning those areas for which he is responsible; and if he has any further plans to apply the newest technologies in these fields.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Within the departmental planning processes we are continually reviewing how information technology can assist in improving efficiency and effectiveness, including in the field of communications.580
  We have an extensive modernisation programme for voice and data communications. Videotext, CCTV, facsimile transmission and electronic mail are all being exploited, with a substantial increase foreseen for the latter if trials presently under way prove successful. Growing use is being made of technology-based training; and computer-based publishing systems play a significant part in text production of all kinds. For the future we will continue to take up relevant available technology as it matures and offers economical and effective ways of meeting our needs.

  YTS (Germany)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors he took into account in deciding not to establish a YTS centre in Germany; if he is intending to open YTS centres in any other country where British forces and their families are stationed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The wide geographical spread of British forces and their dependants in Germany meant that it was inappropriate to establish one YTS training centre. Eleven YTS areas have been established to coincide with major garrison areas and "on" and "off' job YTS training is carried out within existing service establishments, service education centres and in one Service Children's Education Authority school. It is not intended to establish dedicated YTS centres in any other country.

  Defence Budgets
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish what information he has regarding the defence budgets of all Organisation for Economic
  581
  Co-operation and Development member states; and if he will show for each their defence budgets (a) as a percentage of gross domestic product, (b) as a percentage of total Government expenditure and (c) in pound sterling.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Department does not hold information on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development member states which are not members of NATO. For NATO nations, the information requested at(a) and (c) is given in the following table. The information requested at (b) is not reported by member nations to NATO and is therefore not readily available.

  Country

  Defence expenditure as percentage of gross domestic product

  Defence expenditure in £ million sterling

  United States of America

  6·1

  162,381

  France

  3·8

  20,181

  Federal Republic of Germany

  3·0

  19,877

  United Kingdom

  4·3

  19,621

  Italy

  2·4

  10,761

  Canada

  2·1

  5,567

  Netherlands

  3·0

  3,790

  Spain

  2·2

  4,113

  Belgium

  2·9

  2,369

  Greece

  6·6

  1,947

  Turkey

  4·2

  1,426

  Norway

  3·3

  1,640

  Denmark

  2·2

  1,313

  Portugal

  3·1

  709

  Luxembourg

  1·3

  46

  Note: These figures, which are provisional, have been compiled for the calendar year 1988 from NATO sources except those for the United Kingdom, which have been compiled from national sources. Defence expenditure is given in £ million sterling at 1988 average market exchange rates, which do not necessarily reflect the relative purchasing power of individual currencies and so are not a complete guide to comparative resource allocation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  IRA (Funding)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on international co-operation on reducing overseas funding of the IRA.

  Mr. Ian Stewart
  The Government are well aware of the need for close international co-operation against all forms of terrorism and are consistently active in promoting such co-operation. In particular, there are provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill currently before Parliament for bilateral agreements with other countries to make reciprocal arrangements which

  Claims made

  Claims outstanding

  Total

  Personal injury

  Total compensation paid in each year

  Total

  Personal injury

  £000' S

  1983–84

  2,674

  1,399

  704

  260

  147

  1984–85

  3,052

  1,806

  961

  382

  252

  582
  would allow for the enforcement of orders made abroad to restrain or forfeit terrorist funds. We will be encouraging countries with similar legislation to enter into such agreements.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already outlined the Government's proposals to EC colleagues in the Trevi forum and has agreed that these should form the basis of a study into ways of dealing with terrorist finances. The possibility of having reciprocal enforcement arrangements will be pursued actively once Parliament has agreed to the new provisions.

  Lead-free Petrol
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many outlets for the sale of lead-free petrol there are in Northern Ireland at present; and what steps he is taking to increase the rates at which petrol retail outlets are providing motorists with the opportunity to purchase lead-free petrol in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  At present there are 91 filling stations throughout Northern Ireland selling lead-free petrol. As part of the Government's initiative to encourage the use of unleaded fuel, I shall be sponsoring a Northern Ireland lead-free petrol week during 20 to 25 March. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland will be promoting a range of events during the week involving the oil companies, car manufacturers, the motoring public and the media. Information packs including maps showing the location of lead-free petrol outlets will be distributed free to motorists.

  Compensation
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish by district council or housing area in Northern Ireland information on(a) the number of claims made for compensation for alleged personal injury in each of the last five years against the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and Department of Environment (Northern Ireland) Roads Service, (b) the amount of compensation paid by the Housing Executive and Roads Service Northern Ireland in each of the last five years and (c) the number of claims lodged for compensation against the Housing Executive and Road Service which have still to be settled.

  Mr. Needham
  The chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has advised me that the information sought about the number of claims made against the Housing Executive for compensation for alleged personal injury and the number outstanding, is not available in the form requested for the last five years. For 1983–84 and 1984–85 the information available is:
  583
  For 1985–86 to 1987–88 the information available in respect of the total numbers of claims and compensation is:

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Claims made

  Claims made

  Claims made

  Claims outstanding at 31 December 1988

  Region/district

  Total

  Personal injury

  Total

  Personal injury

  Total

  Personal injury

  Total

  Personal injury

  Headquarters

  —

  —

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Belfast 1

  176

  127

  165

  148

  141

  114

  250

  207

  2

  81

  49

  121

  82

  102

  66

  178

  126

  3

  397

  308

  436

  363

  383

  267

  734

  560

  4

  212

  170

  233

  191

  232

  165

  456

  351

  5

  175

  109

  197

  152

  195

  143

  346

  270

  6

  172

  114

  180

  133

  185

  139

  341

  260

  7

  139

  87

  120

  85

  113

  71

  225

  163

  South East

  Bangor

  23

  15

  22

  15

  26

  18

  37

  29

  Newtownards I

  23

  15

  27

  14

  26

  18

  45

  27

  Newtownards II

  10

  9

  15

  6

  21

  10

  28

  14

  Castlereagh I

  47

  23

  51

  27

  97

  31

  126

  52

  Castlereagh II

  14

  10

  17

  9

  20

  13

  31

  21

  Lisburn I

  59

  29

  83

  47

  73

  37

  89

  44

  Lisburn II

  19

  16

  25

  12

  31

  16

  43

  25

  Lisburn III

  144

  111

  128

  110

  125

  93

  219

  174

  Downpatrick

  80

  27

  90

  30

  68

  34

  130

  59

  South

  Banbridge

  33

  23

  34

  21

  35

  15

  53

  29

  Newry I

  90

  36

  109

  52

  104

  60

  150

  64

  Newry II

  26

  12

  34

  23

  22

  8

  44

  26

  Kilkeel

  7

  2

  8

  1

  9

  2

  9

  2

  Armagh

  26

  16

  34

  15

  41

  23

  63

  40

  Craigavon

  89

  65

  128

  89

  72

  53

  132

  85

  Lurgan

  66

  46

  65

  41

  57

  38

  90

  59

  Portadown

  35

  13

  36

  18

  34

  19

  63

  34

  North East

  Ballymena

  56

  12

  51

  19

  54

  20

  90

  38

  Antrim

  52

  24

  44

  24

  66

  31

  84

  39

  Newtownabbey I

  79

  57

  153

  115

  127

  111

  213

  166

  Newtownabbey II

  59

  19

  70

  34

  55

  24

  99

  52

  Carrickfergus

  22

  10

  24

  12

  27

  13

  40

  21

  Larne

  24

  6

  30

  18

  20

  6

  38

  18

  Ballycastle

  8

  1

  7

  1

  8

  4

  12

  5

  Ballymoney

  19

  3

  9

  3

  7

  —

  13

  4

  North West

  Londonderry I

  340

  267

  344

  275

  242

  187

  533

  424

  Londonderry II

  123

  71

  119

  68

  81

  39

  220

  119

  Londonderry III

  122

  101

  174

  132

  163

  131

  315

  238

  Limavady

  23

  9

  24

  14

  28

  8

  53

  19

  Coleraine

  51

  14

  43

  20

  69

  22

  111

  41

  Magherafelt

  22

  11

  19

  8

  34

  8

  55

  17

  Strabane

  36

  23

  23

  15

  33

  18

  62

  39

  West

  Omagh

  47

  18

  39

  17

  47

  19

  90

  32

  Cookstown

  48

  12

  32

  19

  45

  16

  75

  31

  Dungannon

  65

  41

  82

  50

  70

  37

  137

  72

  Enniskillen

  26

  11

  29

  9

  29

  9

  54

  16

  TOTALS

  3,365

  2,142

  3,675

  2,537

  3,420

  2,156

  6,186

  4,136

  Total compensation paid in each year

  £1,335,822

  £1,485,496

  £1,403,,904

  Note: The claims figures relate to the year in which the incident took place and are the numbers received by 31 December 1988.
  584 585

  Compensation claims made against the roads service of the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland are handled on a roads division basis. The information in respect of the total number of claims and compensation is:

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Claims

  Compensation paid

  Claims

  Compensation paid

  Claims

  Compensation paid

  Claims

  Compensation paid

  Claims

  Compensation paid

  Claims still to be settled at 31 March 1989

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  £'000s

  Ballymena

  240

  71

  266

  135

  316

  127

  339

  180

  348

  155

  235

  Belfast

  1,890

  1,199

  1979

  2,004

  2,594

  2,231

  2,920

  2,847

  2,855

  2,806

  4,616

  Coleraine

  458

  198

  509

  245

  780

  397

  969

  534

  824

  734

  450

  Craigavon

  418

  397

  492

  387

  599

  657

  651

  506

  695

  694

  523

  Downpatrick

  518

  324

  570

  465

  667

  440

  726

  533

  831

  655

  547

  Omagh

  327

  123

  409

  301

  433

  279

  488

  421

  1,500

  373

  490

  Whiteabbey Girls Training School
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the former Whiteabbey girls training school property at Old Manse road, Newtownabbey, which is now the subject of a planning application No. 0175 by the Northern Ireland fire authority, was transferred or sold to the authority by the Department of Environment (NI); whether the legal matters involved in the transaction have been completed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 6 March 1989]: This property is owned by the Secretary of State for the Environment. It has not yet been sold to the Fire authority for Northern Ireland. Final completion of the sale awaits the outcome of the authority's planning application for a fire brigade training school. The Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland will shortly re-consult the Newtownabbey borough council as to its opinion on the planning application, following which the Department will then issue its planning decision.

HEALTH

  AIDS
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has on accuracy on the assay system currently most commonly used to identify people as HIV antibody positive; and what steps he has taken to ensure that there are no more prospects of people being identified as HIV antibody positive who were subsequently found not to be so;

  Number of newly diagnosed cases of malignant neoplasm of stomach and intestine, usual residents of Mersey regional health authority, England and Wales 1974–84.

  ICD 151

  ICD 152

  ICD 153

  ICD 154

  M

  E and W

  M

  E and W

  M

  E and W

  M

  E and W

  1984

  575

  11,253

  17

  327

  732

  14,840

  489

  9,577

  1983

  615

  11,553

  20

  316

  642

  14,612

  417

  9,500

  1982

  617

  11,537

  13

  282

  629

  14,608

  482

  9,353

  1981

  1 537

  11,687

  20

  323

  601

  14,671

  414

  9,419

  1980

  621

  11,731

  12

  285

  709

  13,843

  435

  9,280

  1979

  620

  11,904

  11

  340

  671

  13,891

  457

  9,249

  1978

  657

  12,242

  15

  329

  698

  14,144

  483

  9,104

  1977

  729

  12,430

  12

  341

  703

  14,115

  478

  9,056

  1976

  688

  12,235

  14

  345

  662

  13,997

  474

  8,870

  1975

  725

  12,610

  17

  339

  689

  13,759

  505

  8,932

  1974

  702

  12,417

  9

  304

  747

  13,580

  459

  8,711

  M=Mersey Regional Health Authority.

  E and W=England and Wales.

  International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes:—

  ICD 151 Maligant Neoplasm (MN) of Stomach.

  ICD 152 MN of Small intestine including Duodenum.

  586
  (2) what checks exist to determine whether people who test first positive and subsequently negative for the presence of HIV antibodies have been subject to inaccurate test procedures or have been able to disable and eliminate the HIV from their systems.

  Mr. Freeman
  The test system most commonly used at present for the detection of HIV antibody has an estimated specificity well in excess of 99 per cent. However, any specimen reacting positively in initial testing should always be retested and referred for further testing with an alternative test system, before any result is issued. With these procedures, true false positives should not occur.

  There have been a few recorded instances of people with confimed positive HIV antibody tests who later became seronegative. However, these people may be positive by more direct tests of viral infection suggesting that the explanation is not elimination of HIV, merely failure to produce antibodies.

  Cancers (Liverpool)
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have contracted(a) stomach cancer and (b) intestinal cancer in the Liverpool area for each of the last 15 years; what are the national figures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  ;The information is shown in the table. The latest available data year for cancer registration is 1984.
  587
  ICD 153 (8th Revision) 1974–78 MN of Large intestine except rectum. (9th Revision) 1979–84 MN of Colon.

  ICD 154 MN of rectum rectosigmiod junction and anus.

  1Approx 1,400 registrations for all forms of cancer were not available at the time of publication. Of these 1,000 were for Mersey RHA.

  Cervical Cancer Screening
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recommendations he makes to district health authorities about the interval between call-ups for cervical smears.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) on 21 February at column 608.

  Cook-Chill Catering
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if, in view of concern about the suitability of cook-chill catering for hospital patients, he will require Wakefield health authority to ensure that patients are offered the choice of a conventional food alternative when cook-chill meals are introduced.

  Mr. Freeman
  No. I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend's reply to him on 27 February at column 68–9.

  Prescription Certificates
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of(a) prescription certificates issued by general practitioners and (b) prescription certificates prescribed to pharmacists, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  Information about the number of prescriptions written by general practitioners is not available. The number of prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors in England in each of the last 10 years was as follows:

  Millions

  1978

  307·1

  1979

  304·6

  1980

  303·3

  1981

  300·0

  588

  Millions

  1982

  311·3

  1983

  315·3

  1984

  320·5

  1985

  318·7

  1986

  322·5

  1987

  335·3

  Ambulance Service (London)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of each of the annual management reviews of the London ambulance service conducted by his Department since he assumed direct responsibility for determining its annual expenditure.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 1 March 1989]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health does not determine the budget of the London ambulance service, which is a matter that he has delegated to the South West Thames regional health authority. A copy of the ministerial review of the South West Thames RHA is placed in the Library. It is not, however, appropriate to place in the Library the annual management review of the LAS which is conducted by officials.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many kidney transplants were carried out in the four Thames health regions in the last year for which figures are available; and what was the corresponding figure in 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 21 February 1989]: The figures for cadaveric transplants are as follows:

  Numbers

  1980

  236

  1988

  437

  They include transplants carried out by the London postgraduate special health authorities.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
Lord Stafford Lord Stafford—Took the Oath.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, before the commencement of business, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I have been invited to attend the Memorial Service for the late Lord Fraser of Tullybelton in Edinburgh on Wednesday, 15th March. Accordingly, I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for Wednesday, 15th March.

Schools: Moral and Ethical Balance
2.37 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: What action they propose to ensure that a proper balance is maintained in the discussion of moral and ethical issues in schools.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government look to schools and teachers to adopt a balanced and sensitive approach in dealing with moral and ethical issues, taking account of the views of parents.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and LIFE have been distributing written material and videos of a quite unsuitable kind for adolescents? Is he aware that this material is emotionally disturbing, technically inaccurate and politically motivated, and that it is causing parents a great deal of concern? Can he say what action the DES is taking to deal with the problem?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has received a complaint about the use in schools of a video concerning abortion which has been produced by LIFE. The complaint is currently being considered and a full reply will be sent in due course.
Lord Peston: My Lords, can the noble Viscount extend his answer a little further? He will be aware that the 1986 Education Act makes political activity in school illegal. These bodies seem to be political pressure groups. They themselves are connected with charities and seem to be endangering the charitable status of the organisations with which they are connected. Is it not the responsibility of the Secretary of State under the Act to take the lead in the matter?
1474
Is it not also the case that this has been going on for some time? It is very difficult to comprehend why the 1986 Act introduced the ban on political activity if it takes so long to do anything about that activity.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, it is for the schools themselves to decide whether and how to deal with the issue of abortion. It may be covered within different subjects, including science, personal and social education or in religious education. The Government look to the schools to show sensitivity in dealing with issues such as abortion, taking into account the views and concerns of the parents.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hate to press the noble Viscount, but perhaps I may ask this question. While he is right that the schools can consider the issue of abortion, it is not the case that the schools are free to engage in political activity. Two years ago the Government went to a great deal of trouble to stop precisely that. The Question is not about a balanced approach to abortion (which we would all favour); it is about political activity. One requires an answer on that.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper is about moral and ethical issues. That is essentially a matter for each school to determine. Most typically moral and ethical issues will fall to be discussed either within religious education or personal and social education.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is not the key word in this Question “balance”? Will the Government accept that if the organisations named are allowed to put their point of view, then those with a different point of view should also be allowed to have their say? Will the noble Viscount accept that these subjects may only be suitable for education, discussion and examination by certain more mature age groups of pupils?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, abortion is covered as an option in some GCSE religious studies syllabuses. However, there is no obligation on any school to teach pupils about it.
Baroness Young: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the particular case which has been cited this afternoon is one that will cause everyone some concern? As he said, the matter is now before the Secretary of State. Does he not also take into account whether or not this is a political matter? Is that not one of his considerations?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my right honourable friend will take into account everything that has been said here today.
Baroness David: My Lords, may I ask whether HMI are going to produce any information on moral education in the curriculum matters series?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is a different question, to which I do not have the answer.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be kind enough to tell me the difference between a moral and an ethical issue?
A noble Lord: Answer!
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I think that that is an extremely difficult question to answer. I apologise to the House for some duplication in my Question; but 1 think it is important for us to take into account that there is a great deal of blurring between "moral", "ethical" and "political". I wish to ask the Minister whether he is aware of the blurring that takes place on the subject. Also, is he aware that the Health Education Authority has not been consulted about these extremely unfortunate and emotionally disturbing videos? Will the DES be consulting the Health Education Authority as to their suitability?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, although personal and social education is not a foundation subject within the national curriculum, the subject will figure throughout the national curriculum on a cross-curricular basis. The Secretary of State has asked the National Curriculum Council as one of its first tasks to advise him on the place of personal and social education in the curriculum as a whole.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when we were debating the 1982 education legislation and looking at the powers of governors and the moral and ethical teaching in schools, that was one of the things that we tried to emphasise should be at the discretion of local governors and not that of the Department of Education and Science? Surely it is for local governors at each individual school to decide that school's own policy as to what should be taught in that particular school in this area.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, that is exactly what I have been trying to say.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister realise that in some cases I have read about neither the head teacher nor the governors knew what had been going on in the schools? Apparently one teacher had been showng the video for three years.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I did not know that.

Henry VII Chapel: Westminster Abbey
2.43 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn Lord Gladwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will consider making a grant towards the cleaning and restoration of the exterior of the Henry VII Chapel of Westminster Abbey.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, we have considered this and the answer is, no.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, which was not unexpected. However,
1476
surely the Government are aware that the funds available to the Westminster Abbey Restoration Fund must now all be devoted to the reconditioning of the towers and the east side of the Abbey, and that no money will be available for the cleaning of the Henry VII Chapel until 1993, if then? As the apparent maintenance of the chapel in its present filthy state is something in the nature of a national disgrace, could not the Government, exceptionally, co-operate with the Abbey on ways and means of remedying this situation? Perhaps something in the nature of a loan might be considered. This would not necessarily involve any serious strain on our national resources.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's concern, but government funding for the maintenance of historic buildings is channelled through English Heritage whose policy is to exclude cathedrals and equivalent churches from its general programme of church repair grants. That is in line with the Church of England's own view that parish churches should get priority over cathedrals, which are better placed to raise substantial sums from the public and other private sources.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in view of the fact that Henry VII was really an Anglesey Welshman, will the Minister make inquiries to see whether Welsh Heritage can help?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall certainly take up the noble Lord's point, but of course it was a Labour government which in 1977 came to this agreement with the Church of England.

Air Traffic Control Systems
2.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Whether they are encouraging the installation of an advanced system of special computers to help solve the problems of air traffic control in the United Kingdom and Western Europe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government fully support the work of the Civil Aviation Authority on advanced air traffic control systems. The UK is playing a leading role within ICAO and Eurocontrol in carrying forward developments in this field internationally.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does he agree that the present system cannot be regarded as satisfactory when breakdowns still occur at West Drayton causing chaos and long delays at Heathrow for the rest of the day? That happened again only last month—on 17th February.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. My Answer looks rather further forward than next year. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the new computer to be installed has

1477
been brought forward and should be in operation by next summer. That should alleviate the situation.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, will the noble Lord chance his arm and tell us what kind of air traffic problems we will have this summer? Will they be as bad as last summer, or will the position be somewhat better?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not wish to make too firm a prediction at this stage, but I very much hope that there will be some improvement. The CAA and National Air Traffic Services have made proposals for small improvements this summer and a number of European initiatives should also come to fruition.

ConsGold Share Dealings: Report
2.48 p.m.
Lord Morris Lord Morris asked Her Majesty's Government: Whether they will publish the 1986 Department of Trade and Industry report relating to share dealing in Consolidated Gold Fields plc.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, as I said in your Lordships' House on 24th January of this year, it is my intention to publish this report as soon as possible, but it would not be appropriate to do so until the issues raised by it have been fully considered.
Lord Morris: My Lords, has the Secretary of State yet exercised his power by virtue of Section 180 of the Financial Services Act 1986 to bring these matters to the attention of the appropriate regulatory authorities in order to assist the discharge of their functions?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, these are matters being considered by my department. There are matters which might possibly affect prosecution; they are being investigated at the present time.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, was this report released to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission when that body studied the Minorco-ConsGold merger?
Lord Young of Graffham: Yes, my Lords. A copy was sent to that body during the consideration of the bid, as was a copy of an interim report which I asked the current inspectors to produce for the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's consideration. I should confirm to your Lordships' House that the 1986 report does not criticise Minorco in any way.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if that is the case, why did the Monopolies and Mergers Commission state in its report, in a footnote referring to the 1986 report, that the latter report
"has only recently been completed, and has not been published. We understand that it does not contain any information or conclusions directly relevant to our inquiry".
1478
Those are not the words of a commission which has received a copy of the report.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will readily concede that the wording is that of the MMC; it is not mine. I understand that the 1986 report was seen by Monopolies and Mergers Commission officials who concluded that it had no relevance to their current enquiries. They reported that fact orally to members of the commission. That was a decision for them. That is what happened.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend give any indication as to the likely timescale for publication?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords. That is a matter for those who consider whether prosecution would be appropriate in this case.

Business
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I should like to say a word about the arrangements for this afternoon's two Short Debates standing in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. As is customary in Short Debates, the mover is allowed approximately 15 minutes, and the Minister should rise to reply not less than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. In the case of the Short Debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulharn, speeches should be limited to a maximum of eight minutes. In the case of the Short Debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the number of speakers is such that it is not necessary to propose any formal time limit, but I am confident that noble Lords will keep the length of their speeches within limits that are compatible with the spirit of these Short Debates.

Teacher Shortages
2.51 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I come to be moving the Motion because my name has come out of a hat. About 30 years ago, in somewhat similar circumstances, my name came out of a hat in another place. Being in a position to choose a subject for debate, I chose the shortage of teachers. The problem has persisted ever since. That is not altogether surprising because experience has shown that whatever plans one makes for education those plans will not come to very much unless one has enough qualified teachers. That is as true now as it was 30 years ago.
One of the chief advantages enjoyed by the most favoured section of the private sector of education is that it can make a more generous allowance of teachers in relation to the number of pupils.

1479
The point is emphasised at the end of the recent report of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, where it is pointed out that whatever is projected under the recent Education Reform Act will come to nothing unless there are enough qualified teachers. Therefore, I make no apology for bringing this subject again before Parliament, albeit in a somewhat different context.
We are by no means short of advice and information on the subject. There is the report I have just referred to from the inspectors, there is the activity of the Select Committee of another place and evidence submitted to that committee from many quarters. There is the report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions and a survey by the Institute of Manpower Studies. All those provide information from which one endeavours to draw, first, a picture of the general position, and then of the position as it affects different subjects to be taught. However, that is not easy because there does not appear to be any sure source from which one can make precise calculations as to what is likely to happen to teacher supply in future.
One thing at least appears to be clear: in the years between now and 1995 the number of pupils will first go down and then rise again, but not to its present level. During that time there will be a persistent decline in the number of people likely to come forward for teacher training. That is partly because of the demographic position—the number of people in the relevant age group—and partly because of growing competition for graduates from business, finance and industry which makes it increasingly difficult for teaching to attract a sufficient proportion of graduates. There is, therefore, that underlying difficulty.
In their evidence to the Select Committee the Government make the assumption that the number of people coming forward to be trained as teachers will increase perceptibly in the next few years, to such effect that by 1995 the number of teachers trained and the number of teachers wanted will be equal. It is not quite clear why the Government have made that assumption. One gains the impression that they did so because it would give the answer that they wanted. That is rather like the position of the pupil who has stolen the teacher's mathematics book containing the answers at the back of the book as well as the problems at the beginning: having decided how many teachers we shall need by 1995, the Government assume that the intake will be such as to make that possible.
Even if the Government are right and the overall totals of supply and demand are equal, it is alarming that there will be large gaps in particular subjects, some of them subjects to which the Government attach particular importance. According to the Government's calculations the supply of mathematics teachers will be 5 per cent. below what it ought to be. Nearly everyone else makes assumptions of a good deal more pessimistic nature about the supply of mathematics teachers. The Government take the view that the supply of physics teachers will be 12 per cent. below what it ought to be: chemistry, 20 per cent.; modern languages, 14 per
1480
cent.; technology, 27 per cent., and music, 28 per cent.
According to the Government there will be surpluses in some departments. They have suggested that there will be a surplus of teachers in religious education. I find that that view is not shared by other authorities who have studied the problem. Indeed, several warn of a shortage of teachers in that subject. I stress that point because we have spent a great deal of time in this House debating religious education. It would be a pity if all that thought came to nothing through a lack of teachers.
Among all the various commentators on the matter I found only one who took an optimistic view of the situation. That was to be found in the Daily Telegraph. It encouraged us with the thought that when the Education Reform Act was running at full blast the head teachers would have control of the school funds, they would be able to dismiss a large number of the teachers as being incompetent and replace them with people gathered from business and industry who would teach the children what education was really about. I heard a good deal of the debates on the Education Reform Act, but I did not think that that was what the Secretary of State had in mind. Perhaps the Government will enlighten us before this debate is over.
The Education Reform Act is certainly an impressive piece of work. One newspaper commentator likened it to the invention of the wheel. However, I could not be sure whether he was speaking in sycophancy or in satire.
The Act will place increasing demands on teachers. I notice in The Times today that yet another demand is to be made on teachers' time. We are told that every school has to nominate a teacher who will be responsible for dealing with theft, arson, vandalism and graffiti. That decision has been reached by what is called a "Special Action Squad" chaired by a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and composed of inspectors of schools, officials of the Department of Education and Science and education officers. As I am afraid one would expect from the present Government, there was not even one teacher among them. No employer would get anywhere if he went to a group of industrial employees and said, "We are going to require you to carry out a new and arduous duty; we have not consulted you about it, but have consulted several other people: this is what you have to do". No employer would get anywhere if he did that. He would have more sense than to attempt it. However, I am afraid that that is the sort of action we are used to at the present time.
I mentioned shortages in regard to various subjects. We must also notice that there will be regional shortages. Even if the total number of teachers was brought up to requirements, we could not be certain that they would be where they were wanted. It is notoriously difficult to move to certain parts of the kingdom at the present time because the cost of accommodation is rising to such fearsome heights. Broadly speaking, the more prosperous a region of the country, the more difficult it will be to obtain the necessary number of teachers in the coming years. Some local authorities endeavour to

1481
deal with that problem by, for example, providing hostel accommodation for teachers. If it is a question of re-employing women teachers who have been away from the profession while their children were very young and now want to return, some local authorities make provision for child care. Others give help with mortgages. It is worthwhile noticing that those steps can be taken by a local education authority which deals with a good many teachers. I cannot see a grant-maintained school which wants to employ one or two teachers setting up a mortgage system or a hostel for them. I shall be interested to know what the Government think about the application of those remedies to grant-maintained schools as distinct from those in the local authority network.
A great many other particular remedies have been offered to the Government, all of which are worthy of study, although none looks like producing a substantial increase. I hope that the Government will give those remedies attention. I shall mention the schemes put forward by two of the principal unions. The National Union of Teachers proposes to attract teachers from overseas into teaching in this country and the Assistant Masters and Mistresses' Association offers a premium or bounty for a school that manages to encourage another teacher into its employ.
All those measures are worthy of study, but there is one remedy that I must invite the Government to approach with great caution; namely, any kind of dilution of the teaching profession. I do not rule that out in all circumstances. There was a considerable measure after the war that one could have called dilution, but one must remember that that was done when it was apparent that the Government were taking education extremely seriously. They intended to spend more money on it and to raise the school-leaving age. If one wants goodwill for a scheme of dilution, one must convince the employers that it is not a way of obtaining a certain number of teachers on the cheap, but of obtaining substantially more teachers to overcome a national problem. In general, one must obtain the goodwill of the lobby of people with whom one deals. That is what is so sadly lacking as a result of the way in which the Secretary of State has handled his approaches to the teaching profession.
It is no good talking about goodwill unless there is a realistic approach to the question of teachers' pay. At the moment there is talk of an increase of 6 per cent. With inflation running at 7.5 per cent. and most industrial settlements at 9 per cent., that is not an extremely encouraging recipe for encouraging more people to come into teaching. If it is doubted whether monetary incentives matter, one must ask the Government why they propose to pay the staff of CTCs—the technical colleges—about 5 per cent. more than any local authority could provide. Evidently, they take the view that it is desirable to have a monetary incentive, but I am afraid that that is an example of a general error of government policy towards education. Instead of trying to make all schools as good as possible, they seem to regard it as chiefly important to produce some schools that will
1482
be better than others. I believe that to be a disastrous approach.
I mentioned the proposal for teachers to deal with vandalism, arson and so on. I do not entirely make fun of that proposal; it is surprising what teachers will accomplish if they are approached with a certain amount of patience. They will make some sense of that proposal. I do not deny the seriousness of the problem. However, it is not consistent to make exceptional new demands on teachers and at the same time ignore the nature of their pay claim and deny them the negotiating machinery that every other group of worker enjoys. I believe that that is fundamentally inconsistent and illustrates what I regard as the Government's ill will towards the profession. They must get rid of that ill will. To show that this is not merely a party point of view, I shall end my remarks with a quotation from the Independent newspaper which states:
"In so far as the Government is unwilling or unable dramatically to improve teachers' pay, this suggests not merely that it is not really serious about tackling the growing crisis of teacher recruitment but also that it is deeply contemptuous of teachers and their calling".
The words "deeply contemptuous" are not too strong to describe the Secretary of State's attitude towards the teaching profession. A profound change of attitude is required. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.5 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we should all like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for introducing this important debate this afternoon. Teachers are central to the whole education system, implementing the Education Reform Act, raising standards, developing the potential of individual pupils and preparing young people for the 21st century. The supply of teachers is crucial, especially in the core and foundation subjects, and the supply must be spread throughout the country so that all pupils may benefit. It is important that teachers should know that they have our support. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, only in so far as I am aware from talking to a number of teachers, that morale is low at the present time.
I should like to begin by saying that I recognise very well—as I believe will my noble friend who will reply to the debate and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—that many new tasks are now being demanded of teachers. There are the new GCSE examinations with an immense amount of internally assessed work. There is TVEI which will be part of every school by 1990. Teachers must learn how to use all the new high-tech equipment which, although splendid, I am told is a new skill to learn and manage in quite different circumstances.
It is perfectly possible to argue at length whether or not pupils are more difficult today than they were 20 years ago, but it is certainly a view consistently expressed to me by teachers to whom I have spoken that discipline is more difficult, and that there are certainly a great many more outside temptations so that children find it more difficult to concentrate. It is also unquestionably true that there are many more broken homes. Then there is the time taken up by

1483
those new areas and the new requirement of records of achievement. I have supported such records, but I am now told that they can take up one teacher's time for two or three full lessons as each child's record of achievement is individually discussed. We need to consider whether that is the most valuable use of the time of teachers of crucial subjects, especially when it occurs so frequently, although it may be right once a term. I also understand that the whole area of social and personal development can take up a lesson a week of the time of a crucially important teacher.
Despite all that, I am one who believes that there are thousands of teachers today who do a very good job. I have read with great interest, as I am sure have all noble Lords who will take part in the debate, the HMI report that came out last week. Clearly, although there are areas of concern, a great deal of good work is going on at the present time which we should support and on which we should build.
At the centre of this debate today is the supply of teachers. We need to keep this subject in proportion. I was most interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said in his opening remarks: that he had raised this subject some 30 years ago. Certainly in my entire time of taking a real interest in education I never recall a time when there has not been a shortage of maths teachers, to which of course other shortages have subsequently been added. Perhaps I may say that that should not in any way make us complacent, but it is a fact of life.
However, I suspect that with the core curriculum and the foundation subjects, every school is being forced to look closely at what is being taught and how the school day is planned, with the financial delegation to schools, and with governors looking very closely at what is happening. The gaps are showing up in a very clear way. Indeed, one needs again to look no further than HMI's report. It states that,
"in primary schools there are acute shortages in many of the inner and outer London boroughs".
There is a rapid turnover of teaching staff.
"Primary education is critically short of teachers with expertise in science technology and mathematics".
In secondary schools there are shortages in teachers of maths, science—in particular chemistry and physics—and craft design and technology. This is an issue that we must take very seriously indeed. We shall all listen with great interest to what my noble friend has to say in response to what I think he would acknowledge is a very real problem.
I therefore very much welcome what the Government have done in looking at the requirement of the core curriculum and foundation subjects, and the recognition that there is likely to be a very considerable shortfall in teachers in some important subjects at least until 1995. I am not absolutely certain that the figure is quite sacred, in the sense that everyone expects us to have reached as many teachers as we would have liked at that date. I hope that that is the case; we shall see.
I welcome the proposals on the recruitment and training of teachers. The Teaching as a Career Unit has been set up in conjunction with local authorities.
1484
This is especially important at the present time with the fall in numbers of school leavers, the numbers of employers who will all be fishing in the same pool, and the importance of attracting new teachers. I believe that the Government are quite right—perhaps I may put it in terms of thinking the unthinkable—to consider ways of attracting in people whom I think a few years ago no one would have considered. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, did not dismiss out of hand the prospect of bringing in people who may have had experience of industry, who are scientists, or physicists, or mathematicians, who bring expertise not because they may turn out to be perfect teachers but because they will certainly bring practical experience and knowledge of the world. Consideration of these men and women—who could become, as I understand it, licensed teachers—is valuable not because it will solve all problems but because it would be a positive step in the right direction.
I agree with what the trade unions have said on attracting teachers from overseas. I see this in particular in the European Community in shortages of modern language teachers. This would be very valuable.
We therefore need to look at a great many other issues. I think in particular of bringing back some of the 400,000 teachers who have left the profession. Many married women might well be interested in a part-time or a split job share. Teaching is, above all, a job that fits in well with the family. We need to provide refresher courses to encourage those married women to return.
I see that my time is up. I shall simply conclude by saying that I accept that we must always look at pay and conditions. These must not fall behind those of others. However, if one reads the evidence given in another place, pay and conditions are not the only, or even the primary, reason for the shortfall of teachers which has been with us for a very long time. We need to look at other matters. We need to recognise that this is one of the most important issues facing the education service. I very much welcome the steps that the Government have taken. I ask them to keep this matter ever before them for the good of the education system and the pupils.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, I too should like to add my words of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for introducing this very important subject and for giving us a typically wise and witty speech.
In considering an enormous and complex subject, I should like to confine my remarks in particular to London. It is an area that I know a little more about than others. It is an area where the shortage of teachers is particularly acute. The unfilled teacher vacancies at secondary level throughout London are 2·7 per cent. as against a national level of 1 per cent. At primary level it is 4·2 per cent. against a nationwide level of 1·5 per cent. I shall not quote a lot of statistics because they become meaningless. I should like to focus my attention on certain problems which bring to light the gravity of the situation.

1485
As an example, in the borough of Waltham Forest, there are two primary schools which are offering only four days' schooling a week. For this they are being sued by parents for failing to comply with the requirements of the Education Act 1944 of five days' schooling a week. In the borough of Redbridge, a secondary school is not offering maths or English teaching to its fifth year pupils. They are having to teach themselves for the GCSEs. There is a school in the borough of Newham that I happened to visit last week. In this borough in the autumn of 1986 240 Bangladeshi pupils were introduced. They were non-English speakers. The number of pupils in special need of English teaching in this school now is 163. They have been identified as being in particular need by the education authority. Only 100 of them are receiving very scant special help. Children cannot progress in the national curriculum and in the requirements or the hopes of the Government generally if they cannot speak English.
The borough of Tower Hamlets is a particularly difficult case. Five hundred Bangladeshi children there are receiving no schooling. In Tower Hamlets in January 1989 there were 118 primary school vacancies. The same number of secondary school vacancies exist. There are 17 nursery school vacancies and 12 special school vacancies. I understand that the recruitment level for new teachers in the autumn is to be about 25 per cent. down. This is at a time when pupil numbers are beginning to climb since the rise in the birth rate in the mid 1980s. The numbers of children coming into school will become greater.
These are desperate cases, but I should like to say a few words about less desperate, but more widespread, cases. As noble Lords know, the education service has a system of supply teachers. There is a pool of teachers who are in reserve, ready to fill gaps that may suddenly appear through illness, through the need for a teacher or teachers to do in-service training, or for classes to be taken on school outings. These supply teachers are now filling permanent posts in schools so that supply teachers are becoming unavailable if the teacher is ill or in dire need of in-service training. The new national curriculum will require much in-service training. I know that a number of primary school teachers are extremely worried about inadequate training in science. They have to fulfil the requirements of the curriculum in basic science. They are not able to do so without special training.
If there is a school outing—a class is taken to a museum or, shall we say, to a farm—two teachers are required to go with that class. That means there is one class left in the school without a teacher unless a supply teacher is employed. If no supply teacher is available, there is no outing. That, too, will cause a narrowing of the curriculum.
Head teachers are being drawn into this. They are doing full-time teaching. I know of several in the borough of Lewisham who have been teaching full time for the whole of this term. Head teachers should not be doing that. There must be time for administration and in particular for the coming requirements of local financial management. Head
1486
teachers are even finding difficulties in going on management courses for the same reasons.
The HMI report already referred to recommends that all teachers should have 10 per cent. non-contact time for assessments, discussing the prospects of pupils and generally thinking about them. The planned average in most authorities is 4 per cent. The actual non-contact time in primary schools is zero per cent. Teachers are teaching the whole time.
The Government seem to have been caught by surprise over the teaching situation in London. Those problems have been touched upon already: they include the costs of accommodation. It may be all right for a young teacher to share a flat. But if, after a few years, he or she wants to get married, take out a mortgage and get on to the home ownership ladder, that cannot be done in London. At the moment teachers are most wanted—when their experience is beginning to show, together with their knowledge of the job—they have to leave London and go somewhere else. Another problem is the cost of transport. There is also the deterrent of the stress of teaching in London and the insecurity and worry, following abolition of the ILEA, arising from new education authorities which are inexperienced and likely to be underfunded.
The remedy for London is the same as the remedy for the profession as a whole. It is, as we on these Benches have been saying for a long time, investment in education. In other words, teachers must be paid sums which are consonant with the importance of the work they are doing. Those sums should demonstrate a general recognition of the importance of their status as public servants.
I should like to conclude by reading the final paragraph of the HMI report. It puts better than I could the means of implementing the improvements that the Government wish to see. The report states:
"In seeking to ensure that is what happens, teachers' pay, conditions of service and the nature of the changes intended will all have a part to play. But of great importance to most teachers is that the work they do is seen to be valued and rated highly by society; that its difficulties are understood; and that teachers and education are not used as convenient scapegoats for all society's problems. Currently, too many teachers feel that their profession and its work are misjudged and seriously undervalued. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that view, it is as unsteady a basis on which to build change and improvement as was a situation in which teachers were the first and final arbiters of all matters educational".
3.24 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford: My Lords, I, like others, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, for raising this timely debate on the shortage of teachers. In 1066 And All That it is remarked that for every person wishing to teach there are 30 not wanting to learn. We are now in danger of reversing the wisecrack and saying that for every 30 wanting to learn at least one will not be able to find a teacher. The shortage of teachers is now well documented; the seriousness of it cannot be underestimated.
Like many others, I believe that the Education Reform Act has given us a charter for a fresh approach to education. But if we do not have enough teachers, the Act will look no more than political theatre. Surely one significant factor in the shortage of teachers is that nowadays it is in large measure a

1487
gloomy and anxious profession. The quotation just made from the senior chief inspector's report indicates a widespread feeling among teachers that they are misjudged and seriously undervalued. It will not be easy to recruit the teachers we need unless they have confidence in their future.
I must refer particularly to the position of religious education teachers. The Education Reform Act has raised the expectations of religious education and worship in schools. The Churches are party to that new hope and arrangement. We, for our part, will do all that we can to encourage people of high quality and integrity to accept the responsible role of religious education teachers. That will be much easier if we can establish at least four facts.
The first fact to establish is that there is a shortage of religious education teachers. Some people seem to think that there are plenty. The basis for that belief seems to be that there are over 16,000 RE teachers in existence. However, only some 9,000 actually teach. The figures obscure the fact that much religious education is being taught by non-specialists. Some 57 per cent. of those teaching religious education in the secondary schools have no qualifications or training in the subject, even at a subsidiary level. Nor is it just a matter of more strategic deployment, because the number of full-time teachers with religious education as the subject of their highest qualification is lower than for nearly any other subject. It will help if the Government publicly recognise that there is a shortage of available religious education teachers.
Secondly, there is some frustration among religious education teachers that they may have to relate to as many as 500 pupils in any one week. That does not make for good education, nor for job satisfaction. Furthermore, the pressures of the curriculum are such that a secondary religious education teacher may have no GCSE or A-level pupils. That is where the principal interest of many religious education teachers will be. Therefore, in the present circumstances, there are some inbuilt frustrations.
Thirdly, the new requirements for worship in the Education Reform Act will make heavy demands on a school. Where there are separate acts of worship in age groups or school groups, there can be several acts of worship in a school each day. The head will properly turn to the RE teacher for help. If such teachers are to devise and prepare not routine rituals but appropriate acts of worship for reluctant participants, they will need skill, vision and time. The Churches will give every encouragement in the implementation of this requirement of the Act, but it will help if the Government recognise the increased responsibility likely to be given to religious education teachers in connection with collective worship.
Fourthly, the senior chief inspector's report says that,
"in many (primary) schools, history, geography and sometimes religious education are incorporated into topic work. Although sometimes of high quality, it more often than not lacks continuity and progression, or any serious attempt to ensure that adequate time and attention are given to the elements said to comprise the topic".
Not all primary school teachers are trained in religious education. Indeed, their initial training may
1488
have contained little guidance in the teaching of RE and worship. In recognising those difficulties, are the Government willing to increase the £1.1 million available for in-service training in religious education so that the expectations of the Act can be realised?
If the Government can acknowledge the shortage of teachers in religious education, as in some other subjects, accept that heavier responsibilities are now falling on teachers of RE, and provide more money for in-service training and shortage-subject status where initial training provision is concerned, then we may be able to move forward in confidence.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for introducing this important debate. It takes me back, like a familiar tune, to the debates which took place in your Lordships' House during the passage of what is now the Education Reform Act. Noble Lords may remember that we on these Benches did not agree with the other opposition parties on every amendment. Once or twice we voted with the Government when we thought that they were right, producing shock-horror reactions on this side of the House.
However, we concurred absolutely with the many warnings issued from neighbouring Benches, no less than from our own, that the whole reform package was seriously under-resourced. The National Association of Head Teachers said so; other unions said so; we all said so. It was a refrain which ran through our debates. But, apart from some minor educational support grants, the Government have paid little or no attention; and now we are seeing the results.
Other noble Lords have given facts, figures and instances, and have made projections. I should like to add a few of my own. In doing so I shall try to avoid quoting statistics which have already been given. There are the eye-catching instances, one of which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee. It was the fifth formers in Redbridge who wrote to the TES complaining that they were having to teach themselves because they had no maths or English teachers. There is also the notorious case of the 500 children in Tower Hamlets who are being kept away from school because there is no one to teach them. But the underlying and cumulative trends are the greatest threat and give the greatest cause for concern.
In his opening speech, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, mentioned that applications for mathematics and physics teaching are falling alarmingly; so I shall not speak about that matter in detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that in her experience a shortage of maths teachers is a fact of life. However, it is not desirable—particularly in the light of the current emphasis which the Government are laying on maths. The situation should not be allowed to persist.
According to DES figures there will be a shortage of 2,000 chemistry teachers by 1995. That estimate is based on the Government's targets. Professor Smithers, the professor of Education at Manchester

1489
University, has projected that the shortfall will be nearer 3,400. Shortages may be hidden where subjects are being taught by teachers with inadequate qualifications. Suppressed shortages result from under-representation in the timetable owing to lack of suitable teachers. According to a DES memorandum, hidden shortages suggest that in 1984 13 per cent. of timetabled tuition in maths and 18 per cent. in physics were provided by teachers with no higher qualification in those subjects.
A survey of 36 schools, carried out by Professor Smithers and Dr. Pamela Robinson of Manchester University, discovered that there were no physics graduates in any of the schools for 11 to 16-year olds. According to their projections, if wastage rates are kept to 5 per cent. and recruitment increases by 30 per cent. schools will be short of 4,000 maths teachers in 1995. In 1988 the number of students on postgraduate training courses in physics at Leeds University fell from 25 to 14. Of those 14, only five took physics as part of their degree and only three graduated in that year.
All such figures are alarming. Of course, statistics can be misleading and the results may not turn out to be quite so dire. However, on any view, the figures must give cause for considerable alarm.
The Institute of Man power Studies estimates that the number of graduates entering teaching fell by 40 per cent. between 1980 and 1986. Since 1984 the secondary school teaching force has been reduced by more than 17,000. The worst years for graduates applying for PGCE courses were 1985-86. Even in 1987 when recruitment for maths and physics courses increased by 33 per cent. and 49 per cent., the DES targets were not met.
There is also the PIT (Pool of Inactive Teachers). The department estimates that 395,000 qualified staff are not teaching. That is almost equal to the number who are teaching. An even higher estimate was given to the House of Commons Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts on 17th January this year. It was then said that there is a pool of 404,000 out-of-service teachers.
That pool of experience and talent becomes all the more important when one surveys the demographic scene. According to evidence also given to the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee the number of 18 and 19-year olds peaked at 1.7 million in 1984. From then until 1997 the number will decline by 33 per cent. Therefore, competition for the shrinking share of qualified manpower will be ruthless and insatiable, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said. Under present pay, conditions and esteem teaching as a profession is unlikely to win out. There will be a dwindling pool of applicants for entry into initial teacher training. From the autumn of 1989 the shortage will be exacerbated by the national core curriculum.
I have mentioned the debates that took place during the passage of the Education Reform Bill. I recall in particular the warnings issued by the National Association of Head Teachers. Looking at the shortages projected from a number of sources—and without going into them in detail—they add up to a potentially whopping 15,000
1490
teachers across the range. These shortages bear heavily on the core and foundation subjects.
All this brings us up squarely against the desperate need to attract teachers from non-conventional sources. On 27th January Mr. Kenneth Baker announced a scheme for licensed teachers with at least two years in higher education. It means that untrained teachers will be released immediately into classrooms without relevant teaching qualifications, although they must pursue a part-time course.
Naturally, that is controversial. It is to the credit of the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the ILEA that they have reacted favourably to it. I understand also that the NUT is not opposed provided that the scheme is restricted to mature entrants and that there is a proper training component. Perhaps in reply the Minister will say more on that aspect of the Secretary of State's scheme.
At the end of the day the unavoidable need will remain to provide more resources to attract high-flyers into teaching, particularly in the core and foundation subjects. The Government are wedded to market economics, and I have no particular quarrel with that. However, it means they must pay the rate for the job.
The Secretary of State's great opportunity will arise when on 1st April, 1990, he brings to an end, as he is obliged to do, the Interim Pay and Conditions Act. That will give him a great chance to get together with the profession and work out a proper set of arrangements. As has already been said in the debate, he must have the profession with him. He must not fumble the issue. If he does, there will be no way of increasing recruitment to the profession and his exit from the "political theatre"—to use the right reverend Prelate's happy phrase—will be less than glorious.
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, this debate is very timely from many points of view as my noble friend Lord Stewart indicated in his opening remarks. The difficulties already encountered in the supply of teachers are due to many factors. Demographic trends not only affect the number of children in schools but also the source of supply for recruiting new teachers into the profession. A further difficulty is the introduction of the national curriculum and that, along with the new General Certificate of Secondary Education, places greater demands not only on the number of teachers but also on the in-service training which those teachers require.
In his report the chief inspector draws attention to some of the problems which are encountered in providing in-service training or in enabling teachers to take advantage of the provisions. For example, he says that it is difficult for teachers to take up the opportunity of in-service training when they are spending as much as 100 per cent. of their time in the classroom. The Chilver Report on teachers' pay and conditions also makes that point at paragraph 3.18, which states:

1491
"Classroom teachers were often working well in excess of the minimum prescribed working year in order to achieve the standards they have set themselves".
Those are some of the problems, additional to pay and general conditions, which cause the low morale to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred. These are some of the matters which must be addressed if we are successfully to retain people in the teaching profession and also if some of the initiatives which the Government have sought to introduce in order to attract people into the profession arc to be successful.
It is the latter aspect—attracting people into the profession from non-traditional sources—on which I should like to concentrate. In that respect I welcome the comments made by the Secretary of State to the annual conference of the Society of Education Officers. He underlined the importance of conversion courses if we are to attract people into the shortage subjects. Many women in their earlier period of education were not attracted into science and technical subjects because they were not regarded as particularly good for women at that time, but now many such women may be attracted to that sphere of work.
The Secretary of State also referred to the importance of local education authorities providing adequate schemes to encourage women returners back into teaching. Returners to teaching—and they are mainly married women who have taken a period off for family formation—constituted 55 per cent. of the entrants to the profession in 1986. That proportion has risen from 32 per cent. in 1980.
I do not believe that there is any certainty that that trend will continue because as shortages of young people become more and more apparent, the demand for women returners will increase and education will find itself in a more competitive situation for both young entrants to the profession and mature returners.
Secondly, although from the point of view of school holidays and school hours teaching has been a convenient form of work for women with children, it does not have a particularly good record in providing a career structure for women teachers. While the majority in teaching at school level are women, women do not hold the same proportionate number of senior positions. Indeed, they are largely clustered at the bottom end of the scale. That has been a subject of concern and report from the Equal Opportunities Commission on many occasions.
Thirdly, women returners have been regarded as peripheral to the real teaching force—a source to he encouraged at times of shortage but the first to be dispensed with when the crisis is over. Again that has been a cause for comment by the Equal Opportunities Commission. In that respect a number of cases have been brought by women who have successfully taken their claim to court and have proved that they have been discriminated against.
There is a point about that in the Chilver Report which highlights some of the difficulties which women returners, part-time and supply teachers may have. Very often women who are returning to the
1492
profession do so first on the basis of supply teaching. They go in on short-term contracts for a short period or on a part-time basis. The Chilver Report pointed out that there are some rather niggardly differences of pay between teachers on short-term contracts and teachers in other forms of employment. They are not receiving the same basic pay, nor are they enjoying the same opportunities for in-service training. Both the Chilver Report and the Chief Inspector are concerned about in-service training being available for part-time and supply teachers if they are to make a full contribution to the teaching service.
A number of local authorities are tackling that problem. For example, Kent County Council has a policy for the development of careers for women teachers. That involves counselling and also a period of up to seven years when women can take leave to bring up their families on condition that they give a number of days in the course of the year as supply teachers. That enables them to keep in touch with developments in the profession and also with their colleagues. Programmes of that kind will be essential in the future if the educational world and the teaching profession is successfully to compete for that very important source of manpower—women returners.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in expressing my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for introducing this subject, I have the additional pleasure in an education debate of being able to agree with much of his argument. It seems to me that we have probably neglected the importance of the supply of teachers, particularly in crucial subjects, in looking at general reforms with which many of us are in sympathy. There is clearly a serious situation to which it is desirable that we should return from time to time with various suggestions put forward as to how to remedy it—for example, those which have just been put to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood.
However, the difficulty is clearly one which does not stem only from immediate circumstances, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said. It is a problem which goes back a long way. It is related to—I appreciate being saved the trouble of reading out the extract from the chief inspector's report—and aggravated by the decline in the appeal of the teaching profession to the able young.
That is not a recent development and I doubt whether it is confined to this country. It seems to me that teachers as such, certainly all over the western industrialised world, do not hold the prestige they once did. That is perhaps understandable because when that prestige was built up teaching was one of the few ways of social promotion available to large sections of the community. If you became a teacher you somehow or other ascended a step in the social ladder. Appeal to social promotion is, I believe, as important as monetary rewards in determining the direction of people's aspirations for themselves and, perhaps even more, for their children.
Now there are other avenues; indeed, avenues so attractive in some cases, as has been pointed out, that we have the very special problem relating to teachers in mathematics, physics and those subjects which

1493
have a considerable marketable value in industry. There is no escape from the fact that special measures will need to be taken for those subjects, whatever we may think can he done about the more general supply.
There may be elements in the situation which relate particularly to educational experience in this country. Teachers are always in a somewhat peculiar situation because they have two objects of concern. They are concerned with the children whom they teach, but they are also concerned with the subjects which they promote in the school, in which they give instruction and in which they are thought to be, at different levels, expert. It would seem to me that as a result of perhaps educational theory over recent decades, perhaps because of demands made by society and perhaps (more likely) a mixture of all those factors, the former role has been to some extent extended at the expense of the latter.
More and more, as parents shed their responsibilities and as television acts as a disincentive to home reading, teachers are asked to take up more and more of the slack. At some point they must ask themselves: are we part of a teaching profession? The word "profession" has been used by many speakers in this debate, though, formally speaking, teaching does not have the structure of a profession. It ought to have, and there ought to be, a General Teaching Council. However, people may well ask themselves whether they are part of a profession or whether they are child minders on society's behalf. The skills that are needed are different.
The point made about today's report on teachers coping with vandalism, for example, is an illustration of that. The manager of a company whose installations arc threatened by vandalism and so on would not consider detaching one of his specialised engineers to that responsibility. He would say that the company needed a security man, someone whose prime concern is that sort of thing. That is an illustration of what I believe has happened in all aspects of modern school life.
The position is perhaps being accentuated by some denigration of the original basic teaching subjects. As I fear I have said in this House on previous occasions, it is important to keep the traditional subjects clear, and "topics" are not good enough, as was said earlier. We need the systematic study by children, at whatever level they can reach, of the traditional subjects—history, English, languages, mathematics, physics and chemistry. Those are disciplines which we know that generations of teachers have managed to introduce to children. I believe that in many cases they would be more impelled to join the profession if they thought they could continue the subjects and were not expected to be mere minders.
We need to look carefully at that aspect if we are to rebuild the attraction which the profession must have if it is to encourage able young people. Here I come to the economic or monetary arguments which have been adduced by several noble Lords. If teachers are to receive higher remuneration they will not do so because of the good will of a particular administration but because there is a ground-swell of
1494
public opinion which favours it. Until the public are convinced that they need a teaching profession of higher calibre, with greater training, greater selectivity—indeed, some pointers as to who enters the profession—we will not get the pressure which will lead to the fulfilment of at least the minimum requirements suggested in the Chilver Report and which will enable us to look back on this recent period as a very bad patch.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I trust that we are not going to hear too much repetition in this debate, and indeed outside Parliament, of the statement already made on more than one occasion that there has always been a shortage of teachers. The implication is that it is a shortage that has always been with us and that it is perhaps an insoluble problem. It is simply not true that there has always been a shortage of teachers. Furthermore, I suggest that the present shortage of teachers and the nature of the shortage is more criticial and more serious than it has ever been.
The blame for the general shortage of teachers and the critical shortage of teachers in some subjects lies fairly and squarely at the door of the Government. I make that unequivocal statement for two main reasons, but other reasons can be adduced and I shall refer to them later. First, the Government have now been in power for 10 years, and a decade is long enough to have dealt with this problem. Secondly, and very much related to that point, numerous people, organisations and reports have drawn attention to the matter for the whole of that period. There is an abundance of documentation and evidence to that effect. In other words, the Government cannot say that the problem has arisen in only the past two or three years.
A crisis usually arises unexpectedly, but in this case the information has been available to the Government for a long time. For example, the present primary school population has been known since 1983. The number of statutory school pupils for 1991 has been known since 1986 and the current population of 18 year-olds has been known since 1970. On the other side of the coin, in the middle and late 1970s literally thousands of qualified teachers came out of the colleges and university departments to find school doors closed in their faces. The Government and the LEAs refused to employ them, when to do so would have ensured an adequate supply of teachers for later years. The reason for that, of course, is well known to some of us. It was simply that government money was not made available; and that, as we now see, was a serious misjudgment.
The Minister should also comment on what is surely one of the strangest happenings ever in dealing with teacher supply. Why is it that in present circumstances, for three years at least, local education authorities have been allowing, indeed encouraging, teachers to take early retirement? By that I mean really early retirement, at 50 years of age and in their early 50s. That requires justification. The Secretary of State has known for a long time that three in 10 newly qualified teachers fall to go into

1495
teaching the next year. Four in 10 new teachers leave the profession within five years. Yet it was only last Sunday that we read that Kenneth Baker has warned the Treasury that the country faces a critical shortage of teachers unless their pay is substantially improved in the next five years. The only matter wrong with that is that it was a long time in coming from the Secretary of State. The Observer newspaper called it:
"a startling admission of the crisis in teacher supply."
Applications for places on teacher-training courses for the current academic year were 4 per cent. down on last year, with a 14 per cent. drop in applications for posts in secondary schools. So the miserable story goes on. In my long association with education I have never known the morale of teachers to be so low. Many teachers—dozens of them known to me personally and I am sure to other Members of your Lordships' House—cannot wait to get out. There is no doubt that the main cause is pay. It has been at the centre of all the disputes that we have had for some years now. But the Government are learning nothing. The recent increase of 6 per cent. imposed by the Government is well below the rate of inflation. As my noble friend Lord Stewart said, it is well below the 9 per cent. settlements now being made in industry. This is a Government with a market-place philosophy. Do they really believe that most good honours graduates will be satisfied with £8,900 rising to £13,800 after seven years? They have had the answer for a long time in the figures that I gave earlier, and there is other evidence to support that.
It is inevitable that a large number will go elsewhere where the money is so much better and our young people are the sufferers. It would be possible to make the whole of one's speech on the subject of the pay problem, but as I said earlier—a number of other noble Lords also referred to it—there are other factors in dealing with the shortage of teachers. First, there is the question of status. Status is closely linked to training and standards. I find it utterly deplorable that this or any other government should be thinking of anything but full-time training for the honourable and difficult profession of teaching.
Would anyone dream of not having fully trained doctors, dentists, vets, lawyers, solicitors and so on, or are the Government thinking "Well, teaching is not quite so important as the other professions"? If that is what they think they should be honest and straightforward and say so. I find myself, quite surprisingly, agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and it is perhaps the only matter on which we will agree. There should be a general teaching council—I use the same words that were used by the noble Lord—parallel to the governing bodies of other professions. The initiative for the establishment should come from the Government themselves. The teaching profession itself would have an important role to play in making it successful, and I am sure that is what they would do.
Instead of that reasonable expectation, what have the Government done? On salaries that are so important to any profession, the Government have taken away the unions' negotiating rights and have imposed settlements. So much for the dignity and status of the profession. Now there is talk of licensed
1496
teachers. The name itself carries a stigma. There are people who will have to stand in front of a class and accept two years of on-the-job training. Such so-called "training" is completely inadequate and should come after the normal course of training. I am certainly not against an increase in the amount of time spent in schools during training, but it should always be done in the context of the college or university course.
I have no doubt, too, that, despite whatever safeguards there are, many unsatisfactory trainees will find their way into permanent posts. That would be disastrous not only for the teacher but for the pupils. Those of us who had responsibility for the appointment of untrained and inadequately trained teachers in the 1960s have bitter memories of what happened as a result of that policy. Many of us thought that the struggles for a fully-trained profession had been won in 1973 when professional training and qualification was made compulsory. The clock is now being turned back.
The Government are attempting to draw some comfort from the recently-issued HMI report on Standards in Education 1987–1988 that has been referred to by most speakers so far. We have already heard quoted several times, and not least by the Secretary of State, the phrase,
"the education service is well placed to face the future with some confidence.".
Anyone relying on that sentence should go on to read the next one, which says,
"But some old, familiar problems persist.".
The report makes crystal clear that the biggest of those problems concerns teachers. It says that without a sufficient supply of trained, qualified and competent teachers all else fails. Then a specific warning is directed to what is undoubtedly the Government's policy:
"It will be vital to maintain the quality of entrance to teaching even though circumstances may well pull towards a 'never mind the quality, feel the width' attitude.".
I assume that the Government take heed of what HMIs say. The Secretary of State has shown himself to be completely out of touch with what goes on in schools, but it is reasonable to assume that HMIs, with their regular visits and professional knowledge, do know what is going on and what is needed. The word "crisis" is overworked, but I believe that its use is justified in the context of this debate. The future of our young children and young people, and therefore the nation, is at stake.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, why is there a problem in recruiting teachers? To find the answer we must surely look at the job itself and the rewards that are offered for it. We all know from personal experience, some of us rather more recently than others, how children behave or misbehave in the classroom. There is an obvious correlation between the behaviour of a class and the effectiveness of a teacher in doing his job. That is teaching in order to impart knowledge.
However, there are groups of children who are badly behaved no matter how diligent their teacher is. There are groups who will behave perfectly well for

1497
one teacher but who are abominable for another. There are also individual children who, for whatever reason, find nothing more enjoyable than to make classes completely unmanageable. In other words, teaching is a job that involves possible if not actual conflict at a constant level.
It would seem obvious that in recruiting to a profession where there is such a high degree of stress there should he an adequate degree of compensation through salary. It would seem essential that if we are to ensure an adequate supply of teachers in a free labour market where teaching is competing with other professions, the rewards should at least compensate for the stress factor. In an ideal situation teachers are supposed to teach to individual needs. That means, for instance, that where a teacher is confronted with 30 pupils he can be dealing with any number of behavioural and education problems. While trying to teach the day's prescribed part of the core curriculum, at present there is also the distinct possibility that because of particular subject shortages the teacher may not be an expert in the subject that he or she is trying to teach.
He may well be trying to deal with all the aforementioned problems while having to make furtive references to carefully concealed textbooks and at the same time possibly trying to prevent little Darren from incinerating little Fred with a Bunsen burner. He may also have to deal with the insistent demands of various members of his class—usually two girls sitting at the front, if I remember correctly—who want a constant supply of spellings and who are always ready to help the teacher out with comments as regards what the miscreants in the class are doing. We can then further add to his problems by having a few children with special educational needs in his class. For instance, there may be a couple of children with dyslexia or someone with bad eyesight or bad hearing.
Discipline can be a problem in any school. Of late there has been much publicity about violence from pupils and parents towards teachers and the general harassment of staff, with a lowering of respect for authority in any form that appears to be apparent in our society. Parents should be made to take more responsibility for the behaviour of their children while they are in school. A disruptive or violent child will not only fail to learn but he will also prevent his fellows from learning. For too long teachers have had to tolerate such children and perforce to give a very high percentage of their time to them. This is to the loss and detriment of the well-behaved majority in the class. One cannot expel a child from the state system. If the disruptive child is not sent to a special unit he can be dealt with only by sending him to another school through a reciprocal arrangement. A problem child from one school is swapped for a problem child from another; that is, if another headmaster can be persuaded through the kindness of his or her heart to take the child.
Those considering teaching as a career would find the prospect for more attractive if they knew that children who were consistently disruptive would be returned to their parents, who should have the ultimate responsibility for their children. It is difficult to punish children in schools. Strict adherence to the
1498
new contracts has not only put paid to many extracurricular activities but has made it hard to put into practice punitive exercises and detention systems. This again is due to pressure on time. All too often parents seem to back up their children against teachers who have legitimate complaints about their behaviour.
This leads to a feeling of helplessness among staff; a feeling that teachers are being asked to teach manners to the unmannerly, to instil discipline in the undisciplined, and at the same time teach their individual subjects. They are criticised for not being willing to give up their free time to do voluntary work with their pupils. They are criticised on all sides for asking for higher salaries. This is hardly a public image likely to encourage quality graduates into the profession. Long holidays would seem to be a real bonus offered by the job, but teaching comes high on the list of stressful occupations. Holidays may rightly be seen as a form of safety valve.
There have been great changes in education recently and people are uncertain about the future of the whole system. There is a new examination system and implementation of the Education Reform Act. These changes entail the introduction of the national curriculum, new pay and staffing structures and the possibility of schools opting out and being made responsible for their own budgets. Teachers have a heavier burden of marking through the new GCSE examination, no matter how educationally beneficial the examination may be. They have to profile the pupils and face appraisal themselves while teaching. A difference is appearing in both salary and authority between those in administrative and management posts in teaching and those mainscale teachers who do the bulk of teaching. All things considered, in an era when jobs at higher salaries are readily available in industry and commerce, a graduate would have to feel a great sense of dedication to choose teaching.
If our workforce in the future is to be capable of competing in an ever more difficult and competitive world, we must look as a first step to the quality of the instruction given in school. At present we are unable to fill the posts currently available in teaching, especially in subjects such as modern languages, mathematics and physical science. This is hardly the best footing for 1992 and the single European market.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I want to talk about two subjects, the PIT and licensed teachers, both of which present similar problems. The PIT, unattractively named, stands for the pool of inactive teachers. There are, as has been said, about 400,000 qualified teachers who are not currently employed as teachers, roughly the same number as those employed. More than half of them are women aged between 30 and 49, so it is reasonable to assume that a large number are involved in child bearing and child rearing. Half of the entrants to teaching jobs are re-entrants, so they are of prime importance in helping to alleviate the problem of teacher shortage. It is generally agreed that there is a problem and that it is likely to get bigger rather than smaller with the

1499
demographic trend and the demands of the national curriculum. We want to know how the DES plans to attract this large pool back to the profession and what retraining will be provided. They will certainly need retraining, with the rapidly changing demands of the education service.
My question about training—how it is to be done—and who is to pay for it—applies equally to the licensed teacher. The original proposition for routes to qualified teacher status different from the normal B. Ed. and PGCE came in a Green Paper last summer. It suggested that the proposal was a tidying up and a simplification of the present variety of routes. It did not appear that the Secretary of State expected a large number of new entrants to the profession by this new route. He may do so now.
The Green Paper had a mixed response. It is fair to say that most of us did not welcome the idea of the licensed teacher. However, there was not general hostility to the idea of encouraging people who had started their careers in, for instance, business or industry to come into teaching, but there was hostility to the idea that the profession might be diluted from the aim of a fully trained graduate body, which had at last been achieved.
Standards had to be preserved and the licensed teacher was not to be used as a short-term expedient to deal with the teacher shortages. There was anxiety on the part of LEAs that with the greater powers of governors and the changed LFM—laissez-faire management, as I have heard it called—after the passing of the Education Reform Act, control over the standard and expertise of those being appointed as teachers would not be with the authority, which would nevertheless still have the overall responsibility for the education service in its area.
In his speech in January to senior education officers the Secretary of State said that he would be issuing by Easter draft regulations and a circular on how the scheme will operate. He said that he intended all licensees to have the equivalent of two year's higher education in the United Kingdom and grades C in GCSE maths and English. There would be a minimum entry age of 26 except for those who had received training overseas. For LEA maintained schools, there would be full involvement for the LEA, which would decide whether to agree to the appointment of a licensed teacher and would settle on a suitable programme of training. At the end of the period of training it would decide whether to recommend the award of QTS. That has allayed some of the earlier fears.
I should like to know what is intended for grant maintained schools and CTCs. Will they decide for themselves what the training is to be and whether or not a licensed teacher will achieve QTS and permanent employment? It is the kind of training these licensees will receive about which we are curious and concerned. We want to know what the department has in mind. We have had the HMI report on the visit to New Jersey where a provisional teacher programme is in operation. However, it is important to remember that in New Jersey the circumstances are different as there is no PGCE route to QTS.
1500
Teachers there are recruited on a salaried basis and follow a phased programme of induction and training during the first year of teaching. HMI concluded that on-the-job training schemes could provide an alternative to traditional training if, first, the training is comparable with the best available by more traditional routes; secondly, if all concerned have a clear idea of the framework of the training; thirdly, if care is taken to ensure that training is undertaken in schools which can provide a supportive and relevant environment; and fourthly, if the schools involved have a cadre of good teachers experienced in the trainee teacher's subjects who can undertake the supervisory role.
There have been other suggestions for school-based training, possibly in connection with a nearby polytechnic or university institute of education and the LEA advisory service. The Department of Education Studies in Oxford has pioneered some experiments. In his January speech the Secretary of State said that he wanted to invite LEAs and teacher training institutions jointly to devise experimental schemes that would involve the students being given progressively more responsibility during their training and being paid by the school or the LEA for their contribution to the work of the school instead of receiving a grant.
Two things must be remembered if certain schools are to be picked out as teacher training schools, as happens with teaching hospitals in the medical sphere. First, they will need extra teachers as the job, if it is to be done properly, is bound to take time from the teacher's normal programme of work. Secondly, if the trainee is to be paid a salary instead of having a grant, that salary should not have to come out of LEA funds unless the Government arrange in the RSG for extra money to be put into local authority budgets to take care of this. What must be avoided is any attempt to get people into the profession by any method encouraged by the Government because it is cheap and will effect a reduction in public expenditure. There is no cheap way to get a quality service and the recent HMI report confirms that fact. I shall also quote one sentence therefrom:
"Standards of learning are never improved by poor teachers and there are no cheap, high quality routes into teaching".
The Open University is running, with a specific grant from the DES, a number of courses including a PGCE one which enables students to study two years part time. However, the total number per institution is restricted by quota. Relaxation of that arrangement, or a separate quota for part-time students, would increase the uptake. Moreover, if the grant provision was raised to half that for a full-time PGCE student that would help, because the present grant is derisory.
If the Government are serious about wanting to lift standards in schools, more resources are essential. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that the public now realise and believe that fact. To achieve a satisfactory and adequate number of teachers of quality needs a far greater input of resources than the Government now seem prepared to consider. We want to encourage teachers to come back to teaching; and if they are teaching, we want to encourage them to stay in teaching. Above all, we want no dilution of

1501
the quality of the profession by makeshift measures to meet accumulating but differing crises in different parts of the country.
4.21 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I think that most noble Lords speaking in this debate agree that the many highly desirable changes on which schools in England and Wales are now embarked all depend for their success on there being a sufficient number of committed, enthusiastic, suitably qualified and skilled teachers to put the plans into effect. We all agree on that aspect.
Central government and local government have a big responsibility to calculate the number of teachers who will he required to make known to potential teachers, to the 400,000 to whom the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred, who have been in teaching and have left, and to existing teachers, just what the possibilities are. They also have a responsibility to ensure that adequate and suitable training and retraining opportunities are available for those who seek them. A large number of imaginative initiatives are under way. I shall not reiterate what they are, although a lot of them have not been mentioned, because I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will tell us something about them. As many noble Lords have said, salary levels also count and the Government have a part to play in that respect.
However, what has not been emphasised so far in the debate is the fact that the group of people who can do most of all to enhance the attractiveness of teaching as a profession, to raise the profession in public esteem and enable more money to become available where it is most needed is not to be found in central government or in local authorities; it is the teachers themselves.
There is no questioning the fact that the way the public see the teaching profession has changed considerably over the past 20 years. There have been many reasons for that, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said. But surely one root cause has been the changing role adopted by the teachers' organisations as they have gradually allowed themselves to change from what were mainly professional organisations and professional spokesmen into industry-type trade unions and industry-type trade union spokesmen. That change has had all sorts of effects on the way teachers themselves have seen their job; how they have managed their work; and how they have related to parents, to pupils, to governors and to their own head. Most of those effects have not been liked by the parents and the public and of course the prolonged so-called industrial action a year or two ago compounded the problem.
That change in public perception has undoubtedly affected the recruitment of teachers; the encouragement parents give to their offspring to enter teaching; the encouragement of more mature people to enter or to return to teaching and the public's willingness to see big increases in teachers' salaries. It seems to me that this is the time for the profession to put that era behind it and to embark with enthusiasm, and in partnership with parents and
1502
local communities, in grasping the opportunities opened up by the new arrangements and making their enthusiasm and their aims plain to the public at large.
Financial delegation will undoubtedly help. When the spending of the school budget becomes a matter for the school itself to determine, the teachers and the head of a particular school will be able to concentrate alongside parents and the local community on the needs and possibilities of their school and how they as professionals can provide the best possible education for local children within the budget allocated to them. There, within the school and its community, they will be able to demonstrate and prove to all concerned the quality of their professionalism and in turn make the profession more attractive to others. That is for teachers to do—not teachers' spokesmen, not central government, but teachers themselves. I believe that such financial delegation will help.
It will be for teachers themselves to take advantage of retraining opportunities in order to upgrade their existing skill and perhaps to enhance knowledge of a shortage subject. There are many ways to do this, and no doubt my noble friend will tell us about some of those when he replies. I know that in addition to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to, the Open University has been given a 1·5 million specific grant by the Government over two years to produce distance learning packs and courses to help secondary teachers to upgrade knowledge of maths and physics, and to help primary teachers with maths. Eleven hundred teachers are involved in such courses at present. The scheme is working well, and if continued funding is available those opportunities can and will be further developed.
Likewise it is for teachers themselves to influence their profession's approach to salaries. For reasons which other noble Lords have outlined, teacher shortages are mainly confined to certain subjects in certain areas of the country. But I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie, that I do not believe it is realistic to expect public backing at this time for an increase for all teachers everywhere in all subjects of a dimension that will solve some problems which exist in only limited areas and subjects.
With the community charge impending, the public is increasingly sensitive to the fact that teachers' salaries make up something like one-fifth of all local government spending and will make up one-fifth of the community charge. Surely teachers themselves must insist that some of their colleagues are allowed some specific incentive payments in areas of acute shortage in the short term, while they seek to build up public confidence and understanding that will lead to better salary levels for everyone in the longer term.
It is for teachers themselves to encourage new entrants into their profession and to point out the opportunities, the importance and the satisfaction of the job. All those things are for teachers to do. The Government have a big responsibility in taking a lead regarding teacher shortages. Noble Lords are right to point that out. We shall all listen to what my noble friend has to say about that when he replies. I hope that an important part of the message which will emerge from the debate is that most of what can be

1503
done about shortages in the teaching profession can be done by teachers themselves.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, there can be few more serious failures of planning, policy-making and administration in the public sector than the discovery that there are too few teachers to achieve our educational goals. Our future depends more than ever on our population being well educated. To achieve this we must value our teachers. We must give them the status they deserve, for we entrust them with the enormously important task of influencing how the next generation thinks, what knowledge it has and what skills it can muster. I was rather sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, should suggest that teachers have been responsible for a change in public perceptions of them. I simply do not believe that that is the case. Teaching our children, and doing it well, is the most important investment any society makes.
This debate, as many of your Lordships have already said, is extremely timely because of the growing public concern about teacher shortages. The publication last week of the senior chief inspector's report, to which many speakers have already referred, has been extensively covered in the press, partly because of his concerns about the grave and growing shortage of teachers. It is also timely because if the Government act quickly to put their house in order, disaster can be averted. If they do not, the position in the mid to late 1990s will have deteriorated greatly. It will not be possible to implement many of the provisions of the Education Act and we shall enter the 21st century with an educational system of which we are ashamed because teaching in some crucial areas will be very near to collapse.
Returning to the present, there are already serious shortages in some sectors and some subjects, as has already been said. Attention has focused on what has become known in the jargon as shortage subjects in secondary schools. Before coming on to them, I want to examine the equally important problem of shortages of teachers of younger children. When Mrs. Thatcher was Secretary of State for Education she introduced a White Paper proposing the expansion of nursery education for all three year-old and four year-old children whose parents wanted it. Since becoming Prime Minister in 1979 she has presided over a government who have done little to support local education authorities in expanding nursery education. I am not sure how to explain her inconsistency, since the circumstances of the 1980s seem to make the expansion of nursery education just as desirable as those of the 1970s.
However, we are now in a situation where even if finance were available in local authorities LEAs would find it very difficult because of the shortage of trained teachers for this age group. We must expand the places to train those teachers in colleges of education. We must recruit more nursery assistants. We must develop schemes to help more women not just to return, as my noble friend Lady Lockwood has already said, but also to stay in the profession by
1504
including more part-time opportunities and more part-time posts when the children of those women are very young. What plans have the Government to deal with this problem?
Turning to primary schools, there are now acute shortages, as has already been said, in many inner city areas, especially in London, where the cost of living is now so high that teachers cannot afford to stay in the capital. Recruiting heads and deputy heads of good quality is particularly difficult. This means that standards of leadership are threatened, as well as stable, high quality classroom teaching. It also means that some children are attending school for only four days a week. In Tower Hamlets and some other parts of London some children are out of school altogether. I should like to know what the Government intend to do about this problem since the legislation requires that all children over the age of five should be in full-time schooling.
We are talking about the pupils who most need good teachers in adequate supply because their parents would find it particularly difficult to make up at home any deficiencies at school. I should be grateful if in his reply the noble Viscount who is to speak for the Government would give some indication of how they intend to deal with the special problem of shortages of primary teachers in the inner city.
As the senior chief inspector has said, we must dispose of the myth that all primary teachers are the same. A balanced curriculum requires some differentiation and the national curriculum will make it all the more necessary. As has been said already by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, primary education is desperately short of teachers with expertise in science, technology and mathematics. What are the Government going to do about this? If they do nothing the necessary foundation for effective learning in science and mathematics in secondary schools simply will not have been provided and more, rather than fewer, young people will choose to discontinue these subjects as soon as they possibly can. It is simply no good saying that the existing primary scientists and mathematicians can be used as subject consultants supporting other teachers. Most of them are already teaching for 100 per cent. of the time, and planned non-contact hours in primary schools are as low as 4 per cent.
In these circumstances it is also extremely difficult to provide adequately for in-service training, and the lack of supply teachers further exacerbates the problem. Would the Minister agree that without the opportunity for in-service training the scope for improving the quality of the existing stock of teachers will be negligible? The Government's claims that their legislation will improve standards will then come to nothing.
Turning now to the shortage subjects in secondary schools, we have known for some time about the difficulties of recruiting and retaining physics and maths teachers. This is not a new problem. Other countries have also had a problem in this respect but they have dealt with it much more effectively than we have in the United Kingdom. Here the Government have done too little and too late. I hope that when the

1505
Minister responds he will not simply refer to vacancies as an indication of shortages. There are vacancies, but they grossly underestimate the problem. The ingenuity of head teachers is such that they will do everything they possibly can to find a way round the problem, mainly by employing people who are not qualified in maths and physics to teach those subjects.
The Manchester University Survey by Alan Smithers and Pamela Robinson which has already been referred to found that only 45 per cent. of maths teachers and 38 per cent. of physics teachers were well qualified to teach these subjects. This is a disgrace. Poor teaching produces dissatisfied pupils. It is now increasingly difficult to fill physics places at universities and polytechnics. This means that in turn there will be even fewer graduates to go into the teaching of these subjects. In fact we are in a vicious downward spiral, and drastic action is now needed to get out of it.
However, to focus all our attention on physics and maths would be extremely complacent. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford has already referred to religious education; but the proportion of school periods taught by non-specialists in chemistry is 16 per cent; in craft design and technology it is 35 per cent; and in computer studies it is an amazing 82 per cent. There are now serious shortages in modern language teachers. Even English teachers are in short supply. The simple facts are that young people do not want to train to become teachers; that those who do the PGCE to go into secondary teaching end up in other jobs; and that those who start teaching leave in droves to go into other jobs.
Of course demography is not now on the side of the Government as it has been until recently. The number of pupils in primary schools is rising. The number 0121 year-olds is set to fall steeply from now on and the education system will therefore be competing, as has already been said, with many other employers from a much smaller pool of young adults. Unless the Government can rapidly turn round the perception of teaching from very demanding yet low status and low paid work for graduates to highly valued and highly paid work, they do not have a hope.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young—I must say that I agreed with almost everything she said—rightly referred to the extra demands being made on our teachers. We cannot ask teachers to take on a whole lot of new tasks associated with local financial management, testing, the national curriculum, TVEI and changes in the GCSE at the same time as reducing their salaries in real terms and expect them to stay in their jobs. Nor can we expect large numbers of new recruits to come forward. It is sheer lunacy. Teaching in the modern world is already made more difficult as a result of changing values about authority.
Few of us in this Chamber would be able to contain a class of 14 year-olds in the inner city. It requires energy, patience, ingenuity and intellect as well as a touch of charisma. The pay of teachers compares badly with most other graduate employment at all
1506
stages and levels. Starting salaries are worse. Elsewhere in the public sector, for example, similar qualified entrants to the police, the Civil Service, the Army and local government all get more. After several years of service the disparities increase. After five years good honours graduates will have increased their salaries in teaching by 45 per cent. and after 10 years by 56 per cent. This compares with figures of 70 per cent. and 110 per cent., on average, for graduates in other professions. Is it then surprising that the teachers' organisations have had to focus a lot of their attention on traditional trade union activity?
Against this background teachers were given an overall increase of only 4·75 per cent. in 1988 as well as a paltry offer so far this year. As we all know, the level of inflation turned out to be considerably higher last year. Teachers must now be paid more not just to maintain their standard of living but to improve it and to attract more people into the profession. All teachers should be paid more, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, said. I see no reason why a generous offer should not be accompanied by a package that requires in return certain concessions from the teachers which help to improve quality. They might include in-service training requirements and some commitment to both extra-curricular activities and school planning outside normal school hours. The Government are very well placed to respond, given the huge Budget surplus. I hope that they will take their responsibilities to our children and their parents seriously enough to do so.
Finally, members of the Government must stop implying that it is teachers who are to blame for all the problems of our society. Doing so will only rebound on them. Understanding their problems, showing sympathy for their predicaments and congratulating them on their successes would go a long way towards improving morale. I end where I started. We shall continue to be short of teachers as long as we undermine their confidence, disregard their difficulties and pay them too little.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, introduced by my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham. We have covered a great deal of material on teacher supply. I confess that I have nothing original to add to what has been said on the facts. I must however add my voice to those who say that new initiatives are urgently required. Many of us on this side were critical of it as a Bill, but now that we have the Education Reform Act 1988 it is our duty to make it work. We pointed out last year how dependent it was for its success on teacher supply. And how right we were. It may well be that the Secretary of State exhausted himself getting the Act on to the statute book. Perhaps he is looking for new fields to plough. Until that happens he, and no one else, is the responsible person. He must accept full responsibility for the teacher shortage and the solution to it. We hear that he is pressing the Treasury for new money. We can only hope that he is successful. We must also hope that he does not fall for typical Treasury arguments based on naive views of productivity.

1507
The teacher shortage, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington is particularly critical. If allowed to persist, it is a recipe for economic disaster in the next century. This is especially true in regard to the shortage of maths teachers, science teachers and technology teachers. I cannot help but reflect that when the Chancellor introduces his Budget next week he and all the economic pundits will relate the economic success of the nation to interest rates, exchange rates, one penny off income tax or similar things. The Chancellor will probably say nothing about education and teachers except to utter some bromide on pay restraint. However, it is probably that our future standard of living depends more on our teachers than on the conventional economic variables or on anything the Chancellor will do.
It is worth bearing in mind that the teacher today has to cope with violence and truancy. I wonder whether the noble Viscount, in replying to the debate, can tell us anything about the report of the committee headed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. When will that report be published? The noble Lord, Lord Beloff referred to parents shedding their responsibilities. How right he is. Too many parents are non-supportive. Some are actively antagonistic to the efforts of teachers.
I cannot forbear from adding—other noble Lords have made this point—that we must recognise that there is also an apparent antagonism of the Government towards teachers—even towards the profession, as has been said. Perhaps that is a misunderstanding. I hope it is. It is certainly not too late for the Secretary of State to make clear his total commitment to the teaching profession rather than blaming it. If I dare say this—I do not refer to the noble Viscount here—the Secretary of State would do well to bring one or two of his junior colleagues into line on this matter.
I wish to pursue the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, and by my noble friend Lady Blackstone. I must stress the problem of young people who are not able to go to school because there is no one to teach them. What a reflection that is on Great Britain in 1989. What is the scale of the problem? Does the Department of Education and Science know? More to the point—I shall be interested to hear the noble Viscount's reply now or later—I am intrigued to know who is to enforce the law when it seems perfectly clear that children must be in school. I have referred to the urgency for action. I can think of no area of education more in need of immediate action than making places available for children who ought to be in school.
Perhaps I may raise a minor technical point. Accounting for its share of the public expenditure White Paper the DES says that it has a great interest in manpower planning. I should like to know whether the DES has a manpower model for teacher supply and what its statistical basis is. More generally, I wish to raise the question of DES statistical work. In my day it was first class. How seriously now does the DES take statistical work? What detailed studies is it undertaking or supporting on teacher supply? In particular, to pursue a point raised by my noble friend Lady Blackstone and by the noble Lord, Lord
1508
Addington, do we know how many teachers are teaching subjects for which they are unqualified and in which they are not specialised? Do we know the rate of change of the problem? Is it a growing problem, or has it stabilised? Again, I should be interested to know what the DES has discovered about these matters.
What is to be done? Many noble Lords have made valuable suggestions for training and re-training. They would encourage returners. There is enormous scope for action in that area, as my noble friends Lord Dormand and Lady David have pointed out. The existence of the PIT—I hesitate to use the word again—tells us that there are large numbers of people who are trained to be teachers. They may need some retraining. Nevertheless there is a pool of people available and we must do something about bringing them back. We must also do something—I shall return to this in a moment—about tapping new sources of supply.
Many noble Lords have suggested that we have to look beyond pay. Status, for example, is important. I have spent my working life as a university teacher: I have always been told that I had status. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me repeating an old cliche but I have not noticed that status leads to bills ceasing to fall on my doormat. I have not discovered that I can pay many of those bills with status. Of course, status is important; but it is not a substitute for decent pay. It is important to bring teachers' pay up to a proper level and it is of overwhelming importance to restore teachers' negotiating rights.
In this connection the Treasury must face up to its financial responsibilities. It is curious, to say the least, that a government who make strong, or, as some of us would say, exaggerated, claims of economic success, are unable, or claim not to be able, to afford to pay their teachers properly. Noble Lords have mentioned the market mechanism. Surely we must accept that the market mechanism in this area works. If we want to retain teachers, especially teachers of quality and if we wish to attract first class people away from industry, we must pay them a competitive salary.
Perhaps I may make one or two other points on attracting people from other walks of life into teaching. I do not like to have a closed mind on such matters. I am certainly willing to consider various schemes sympathetically. What is fundamental is that there must be appropriate safeguards. As my noble friends Lord Dormand and Lady David have emphasised, those safeguards are to do with the maintenance of standards. We must have a teaching profession with high standards. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, about other professions was quite fundamental. What is there about teaching that makes everybody say, "Well, I can do it. It requires no special skill". These people have no intention of doing any teaching, I might add. They seem to think that it is the easiest job in the world. Why does that not apply to all the other professions? The answer is, of course, that it is arrant nonsense.
It seems to me that the recruiting standards of independent schools should be no higher than those

1509
for which we aim in our maintained schools. If, for example, licensed teaching schemes were particularly good, I should very much like to see them introduced in the independent schools to start with. However, I do not believe that for one moment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? When the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and I were pupils at an independent school, our teachers came direct with first-class degrees. They never underwent any training at all. I owe everything I have done in life to those teachers.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I cannot possibly comment on the connection between the teachers of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and, for that matter, those of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and the enormous achievements of those noble Lords. However, I remind those who are devotees of the writing of Evelyn Waugh that those were the bad old days of the independent schools. Exactly the same kinds of people—not the excellent teachers whom the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, had—went into teaching. The independent schools made it their business to try to bring that to a stop. I am not saying that there have not been inspired people of all sorts, but I do not believe for one moment that that should be used as an argument to detract from professionalism. Since we are on the subject, although it has nothing to do with the main theme, I take the same view about university teachers who could also do with some professional training.
Perhaps noble Lords will forgive me but I must add a word of warning to people entering teaching. They must want to teach. Not wanted are people who have failed elsewhere or who are disaffected and who come into teaching as a way of solving their personal problems. Let me add immediately that that is not true of women returners. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, has reminded us of the discrimination against women in teaching, especially when it comes to obtaining positions of responsibility. That is deplorable. It is also inefficient. I re-emphasise the theme that the more we can do to encourage women into teaching the better.
We have talked of the increased burdens on teachers. I do not need to reiterate all of them. However, one is worthy of special mention. The Government pride themselves on deregulation in many fields. One of the more curious consequences of their approach has been to increase bureaucracy and place a greater burden of administration on many people. This is apparent in the Government's approach to the National Health Service where it appears that from now on doctors will have to become accountants. The ludicrous football identity card scheme is another example of the bureaucratic nightmare.
Teachers and researchers in universities are now obliged to become form-fillers, and that is also true of their colleagues in the schools. It seems to me that the Government have failed to create a working environment in which professional people of all kinds can get on with their jobs. In other words, in the
1510
context of the present debate, let us give our teachers a chance to teach. They will not let us down.
4.57 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, for initiating the debate on what is a vitally important issue, and for the very fair way in which he introduced the subject. It was in July 1986 that the Secretary of State for Education and Science issued his consultative document called Action on Teacher Shortages, and introduced an action programme to boost teacher numbers in maths, physics and technology. I therefore welcome this opportunity to remind your Lordships of the robust action taken by the Government, and to assure the House that we have no intention of seeing our education reforms put at risk for lack of teachers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, reminded us, teacher shortages are not a new phenomenon. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, that the position we now face is that we have enough teachers overall but there is a lack of specialist teachers of some secondary subjects, particularly in London and the South-East. I remind noble Lords that the pupil to teacher ratio at 17 to 1 is now the lowest that it has ever been. We have more teachers relative to pupils than ever before.
Unlike the opinion expressed by some of your Lordships, I have to tell the House that the Government have faced up squarely to the problem of a lack of specialist teachers. We now have an energetic teacher recruitment publicity campaign which, by advertising, special publications and careers fairs, aims to interest more people in teaching. That campaign is led by the Teaching as a Career Unit which is able to offer individual counselling and advice to those wishing to come into teaching. We have encouraged local education authorities to focus their recruitment efforts on qualified but out-of-service teachers who might wish to return to teaching, some on a part-time basis. We have encouraged mature entrants seeking to enter teaching—particularly those changing from other careers—and have supported them by the establishment of new courses of initial training geared to their needs. We have made available special bursaries for trainee teachers in the shortage subjects. As a special measure we have extended the bursary to chemistry this year. There are many other measures which the Government have initiated or supported. We consulted on our action programme over two years ago and have followed up all the useful ideas which were put to us.
Our action programme has not neglected the problem of shortages on the primary side. The position here is complex. There is no overall national shortage. Indeed, recruitment to courses of primary initial teacher training is buoyant—teacher training institutions recruited 9 per cent. above the targets set for 1988 and 12·5 per cent more trainees on the primary side in that year than were recruited in 1987. Again this year recruitment on the primary side is very healthy with applications to courses of teacher training up 10 per cent. over the same time last year,

1511
and with many courses, at this early stage, already being full. The problem of the supply of primary teachers is a regional one: difficulties in recruiting sufficient teachers are mainly to be found in London and the South-East, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said. The same problem occurs in other professions and industry as a whole.
Clearly, the high cost of housing is a factor. There is no easy answer to this. But much can be done by good recruitment measures such as seeking to attract former teachers who already live locally and by offering part-time employment. Other incentives, such as help with housing costs, are already being adopted by local education authorities who have discussed these matters with the department and the Teaching as a Career Unit.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, referred to the position in some parts of London. With regard to Tower Hamlets, I can tell him that of course the Government are concerned if children are not receiving the education to which they are entitled. We welcome the initiatives to recruit teachers which Tower Hamlets Council, soon to take over as the education authority, has announced in its development plan. The Inner London Education Authority, which is currently responsible for provision in Tower Hamlets, has 1,000 unattached teachers. They could be deployed in schools in Tower Hamlets.
As regards Waltham Forest, the Government are aware that the local education authority is trying very hard to recruit teachers. We welcome its endeavours. We hope it will receive all the encouragement locally it needs in its efforts to do better. Recruitment of a teacher is not the end of the matter. Schools and the local authority must make more effort to retain staff by providing continuing support for the classroom teacher and enhancing the attractions of teaching in Waltham Forest.
The Government are not complacent about the problem of teacher shortages. But neither are they defeatist. We know there is a real job to do and we are determined to do it. The action which we have taken so far represents a coherent strategy to tackle teacher shortages. But we have to look not only to remedying present shortages, but also to the anticipation of future shortfalls which might arise unless remedial measures are taken.
Turning now to the future, the prospect of the 1990s is one of increasing primary numbers, up by some 640,000 by the year 2000. Secondary numbers will also be rising from 1991 onwards, although by the year 2000 they will only just have reached the level of secondary pupil numbers in 1988.
The memorandum which the department recently produced for the Education, Science and Arts Select Committee in the other place, spells out the relevant demand and supply factors. I suggest the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has a look at that. The introduction progressively of the national curriculum will alter the balance in the required subject expertise in secondary schools. Demand in individual subjects will depend upon the timing and phasing of the implementation of the national curriculum, particularly in respect of extension to years four and five in secondary schools.
1512
But it is already clear that we will need to plan for more provision for modern languages and music and that there will be continued pressure for teachers with subject expertise in technology, maths, physics and chemistry. On the other hand, there will be less demand for teachers in some other subjects such as home economics and physical education.
For the primary sector, most teaching is provided by the general class teachers. To provide primary teachers with the extra subject expertise and support in foundation subjects the Government are supporting in-service training through the LEA Training Grants Scheme and the provision of advisory staff through education support grants.
On the supply side, we shall need to recruit more intensively from other sources of potential teachers in addition to new, young graduates. There is likely to be intense competition for highly qualified manpower as the relevant population of young people falls by about a third over the 1990s.
Perhaps I may now attempt to answer some of the questions which have been raised in this useful and wide-ranging debate. There may be some which can be better answered in a letter, and if that is the case I shall of course undertake to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, referred to the supply and demand projections for teachers in the department's memorandum to the Select Committee in another place, which I have also just referred to. Let me say first of all that those projections are illustrations only and must be seen as highly uncertain at the moment. The department needs to do much more work on those projections, as further data become available. We have tentatively identified subjects in surplus and deficit. All of these will be subject to reconsideration, including our projected surplus for RE teachers. But the projections have allowed us to identify the subjects likely to be in shortage, and this allows us to plan now to overcome these problems.
The noble Lord also referred to the recruitment incentive in grant-maintained schools. Grant-maintained schools will have an element in their budgets for recruitment. The entrepreneurial drive that has led schools to seek grant-maintained status will help. It will be up to them to make themselves attractive to potential teachers.
On the question of teachers' pay, which I know many of your Lordships have raised, I have to say that the interim advisory committee reported in February. The Government have accepted its recommendations in full. Those recommendations will mean a 6·3 per cent. increase to the teachers' pay bill. This comes on top of an extra £100 million in 1989–1990 due to changes introduced in 1987 and 1988. The pay bill will therefore be 7·5 per cent. higher overall in 1989–1990. The report's recommendations will mean an increase of over 40 per cent. in teachers' pay since March 1986.
The IAC has again endorsed the Government's view that the right criteria for determining pay are recruitment, retention and motivation. The committee found that overall retention of teachers was adequate and that the rate of departure from education was generally low. There is certainly no

1513
evidence that teachers are leaving in droves. The new pay structure is now widely accepted. It provides an increasingly flexible base on which to build future pay arrangements. This means for individual teachers that all teachers will get at least 6 per cent. extra in 1989–1990. Heads and deputies will get an extra 7·5 per cent. Most secondary heads will get nearly £2,000 extra, some even more.
Incentive allowance will rise in value by 7 per cent; 27,500 additional incentive allowances will be introduced in September 1989. That is 9,500 above existing plans. Over 20,000 extra teachers can look forward to receiving A allowances this September, giving them increases of at least 12 per cent. Teachers on the top of the main scale who are promoted from a B to a C allowance in September will see their salaries rise this year by nearly 15 per cent.
My noble friend Lady Young was correct to point to the time which, with the introduction of the national curriculum, teachers will need to devote to assessing their pupils. We are conscious of that, but the fact is that teachers assess their pupils now. Much of the new forms of testing will therefore be replacement activity and not an additional burden on teachers.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford asked about the supply of RE teachers. There are sufficient teachers of RE, but not all of them are so deployed to teach the subject. It is a matter for schools to deploy RE teachers sensibly across the school. The existence of qualified teachers of RE in a school represents a resource for the teaching of the subject. Primary school teachers are generalists. It is up to local education authorities to concentrate more resources on in-service training in RE. The Government are supporting expenditure of over £1 million this year on in-service training for RE. Local authorities are adding further expenditure. The plain fact is that they can provide substantial in-service training and they are doing so.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, spoke about the problems of women teachers. The noble Baroness was absolutely right to remind us that women teachers, including those seeking to return to teaching, are a most valuable resource. I agree entirely with her that they should be seen and treated as such. Perhaps I could just mention that out of the speakers in this debate, five have been noble Baronesses.
My noble friend Lord Beloff, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, called for the establishment of a general teaching council. The Government are aware of activity which seeks to establish a general teaching council for England and Wales. The Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues have consistently made it clear that they will consider a specific proposal from others for a GTC that commanded widespread support from, and was likely to serve the interests of, all relevant parties, including parents and employers as well as teachers. I have to tell the House that no such proposal has yet been submitted.
The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, spoke about quality in the proposals for new routes to qualified
1514
teacher status. The Government are not in the business of lowering teacher quality. Indeed, under our proposals teacher training will be compulsory according to individual needs. The routes available now, which our proposals will replace, have no such training requirement.
The noble Lord also referred to teacher unemployment 10 years ago and teachers taking early retirement now. He is right. However, secondary pupil numbers fell, and are still falling, and primary pupil numbers fell until 1985. There were too many teachers for the pupils in the schools, and I repeat that the pupil to teacher ratio of 17:1 is now better than ever before.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked about the retraining of teachers returning to teaching after being away from the profession for a time. The retraining of returning teachers is the responsibility of local education authorities as employers. The Government support such training through the LEA training grant schemes. So far as concerns licensed teachers, we shall have to await details of training requirements in the draft regulations for licensed teachers. We shall be advising on the content of training for licensed teachers. I expect that grant-maintained schools and CTCs will wish to follow that advice. I cannot say more on that point at the moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke about the provision being made for nursery education. I remind the House that the proportion of under-fives receiving education rose by some 25 per cent. between 1979 and 1988.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked about my noble friend Lord Elton's report on truancy. I can tell him that that report is due to be published soon. I do not wish to comment in advance of publication. However, I shall send the noble Lord a copy of the report as soon as it is published.
I have already mentioned the question of department statistics and I refer the noble Lord to the DES memorandum to the Select Committee.
What then will the Government do? The Government intend to consolidate, strengthen and develop our present measures to combat teacher shortages. In particular the Government aim to concentrate on four sources of supply other than new, young graduates. First, we shall be encouraging local education authorities to use the training grants scheme to re-train teachers of subjects which are in surplus to become teachers of shortage subjects. That will allow schools and local authorities to employ the existing teacher force to best effect.
Secondly, it has already been demonstrated that teaching is a very attractive career option for mature people either re-entering the labour market or contemplating a career change. For example, the department's campaign in March last year, specifically targeted at potential mature entrants, attracted some 15,000 responses and mature entrants make up some 30 per cent. of all those starting courses of initial teacher training. We aim to build on that undoubted success in attracting mature people.
Thirdly, former serving teachers returning to the profession already make up some 50 per cent. of new

1515
teaching appointments each year. That level has been achieved without any specific measures designed to attract back out-of-service teachers. With proper publicity for employment opportunities, good employment practices—such as offering part-time teaching—and support and training measures, we should certainly be able to attract back many more re-entrants to the profession.
Fourthly, the directive adopted by the EC Commission on the mutual recognition of higher education diplomas will allow for a greater mobility of the trained teacher force across the European Community. That will allow employers greater scope to recruit teachers from other countries in the Community. Most obviously teachers from those countries could make a contribution to our need for additional modern language provision, as my noble friend Lady Young said.
Our proposals for the new licensed teacher route to qualified teacher status will help in attracting mature entrants as it clarifies the routes into teaching and helps to ease the path of those seeking to enter the profession. Draft regulations on how the scheme will operate will be issued soon with a view to a start of the scheme in September this year. One other proposal, which the department will be discussing with the interests concerned, may also help in providing more flexible ways of entry into teaching—experimental schemes of school-based training. The idea here is that local education authorities and training institutions would jointly devise schemes which lead after two years to a postgraduate certificate of education but with as much of the training as possible conducted in schools themselves. Trainees would be paid a salary for their contribution to the work of the school rather than a grant. It is hoped that pilot schemes could be started in September 1990.
In sum, the Government are now acting determinedly and positively to tackle present teacher shortages. We also aim to develop our present measures further to ensure that schools have the teachers they need to deliver the national curriculum to their pupils as it is introduced over the 1990s.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to those noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and to those who have attended it. I hope that the debate has been useful to the Government and that we shall see results—I believe the term is "in due course". I believe that a table ought to be published indicating what is the precise degree of urgency of the phrases "in due course", "shortly", "at the next opportunity" and "not this Session".
The noble Viscount was kind enough to say that I had made a fair approach to the problem. Since I charged the Government with fudging the figures about the possible intake of teachers and described the Secretary of State's attitude to the teaching profession as contemptuous, I am quite prepared to accept the noble Viscount's assessment of the nature of my approach.
1516
I am particularly indebted to those noble Lords who dealt with the problems of primary school teachers, to which I am afraid I did not pay sufficient attention in my original contribution. I am glad to have that omission remedied.
The noble Viscount set out a great many of the schemes, large and small, that have been devised for dealing with teacher shortage. I accept that the Government are now applying their minds to the various problems such as drawing former teachers back into the profession and attracting young people. However, I am afraid that they are still playing Hamlet without the prince.
The noble Viscount depicted the pay settlement in the most glowing terms that the figures allowed. It still remains true that the profession will be competing at great disadvantage with the other occupations trying to get hold of those young people. The Government have not solved that problem.
I also noted that there was no mention—unless my hearing misled me—of restoring the negotiating machinery for teachers. I believe that that is a serious omission and one that the Government must redress.
I thought that the Government's attitude towards the suggested general teaching council was rather poor spirited. The Minister said that so far no-one had produced a scheme which had the degree of agreement that the Government want. There was no suggestion that the Government themselves might try to remedy the deficiency. They do not appear to be taking the initiative in setting up such a council; they seem to be waiting for somebody to put forward a scheme and then pointing out that that scheme is insufficient. I think that the Government ought to do rather better than that. Both the negotiating machinery and the teaching council are essential to the proper development of the professionalism of the teaching profession.
I noted what the Minister said about grant-maintained schools. I must still press my view that whereas I could envisage a local education authority setting up hostels for teachers to meet accommodation difficulties, I do not see how a grant-maintained school, which may be concerned with only one or two teachers, would be able to do that. I do not believe that the Government have considered how far having grant-maintained schools is weakening the opportunities to apply some of the various remedies that have been put forward for alleviating teacher shortage.
My Lords, I must not attempt to recapitulate the whole debate. I see that we are approaching the proper time for it to end and I hope that we have used our time well. I repeat my thanks to those noble Lords who have helped in the debate and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Toxic Wastes Disposal
5.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy rose to call attention to the international traffic in toxic wastes and to the case for

1517
safe and thorough disposal arrangements to be made before the transport of such wastes is undertaken; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion in my name on the Order Paper calls attention to the need for international arrangements concerning toxic wastes. I thank the noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have put down their names to speak and I look forward to hearing their contributions and listening to their views. I intend to raise one particular subject affecting the environment in different parts of the world because that subject requires urgent decisions, as I hope to explain.
First, I must make it clear that the toxic wastes referred to in the Motion are by-products of industries. The industries may manufacture goods required for ordinary life. However, some of the residues are dangerous to human or animal life and health and lethal to plant life and vegetation. They may give off dangerous gases or contaminate water, including both drinking supplies and rivers and lakes where aquatic life will be killed.
They are wastes to be discarded. They are not newly manufactured chemicals or substances to be used in further industrial processes. For that reason, the manufacturer usually wishes only to be rid of those wastes and is prepared to pay someone else to assume the responsibility for disposing of them. My Motion does not include radioactive waste—products of the nuclear industry and, in this country, of radiographic departments of hospitals and universities. That is a separate subject for debate on another occasion. Nor do I intend to refer to the offences of fly-tipping and illegal dumping by lorries which have become a menace in some parts of the country. In those cases, the waste is mostly local rubble and rubbish. I hope that that practice will soon be stamped out, but that is not part of today's debate.
The kinds of hazards to which I call attention were well illustrated by the erratic voyaging of the ship "Karin B" some months ago. A cargo of toxic waste had already been transported to Nigeria from Italy. No safe disposal had been arranged and the waste was in leaking drums and in an unstable condition. The Nigerian authorities apparently ordered it to be removed. The "Karin B", believed to be German-owned, was loaded with that dangerous consignment and then had great difficulty in finding a port that would admit her and in making a disposal arrangement for her cargo. The world press had put a spotlight on that vessel's situation. The master of the "Karin B" tried United Kingdom and Continental European ports and was understandably refused. Eventually, he succeeded in returning the waste to Italy.
Fortunately, that incident was in the news. Other such incidents have also come to light. There was an earlier attempt to dump toxic waste in Venezuela. That was discovered after it had been unloaded and it was removed by order of the Venezuelan authorities. How many more of those transactions have been carried out without public knowledge? I do not know. Where they have taken place, we can be
1518
certain that safe and thorough disposal has not been carried out and that rough burial in Africa or South America has seriously contaminated the areas where the waste had been dumped.
In addition, there must be a temptation to irresponsible operators to dump such cargoes at sea, especially if the operation is discovered, receives hostile publicity and is opposed by the intended country of destination. The results in terms of pollution of marine life, fisheries and coastlines could be as bad as on land.
It may be asked how that traffic arises. Because proper disposal arrangements can be difficult or expensive at the industrial site where the waste has been created, a great deal of money can be earned by entrepreneurs who will take it off the manufacturer's hands. In turn, there is a great deal of money for anyone who is prepared to accept the waste and provide a supposed final destination for it.
There is a wide range of current practice. No fault can be found—I emphasise that point; indeed, this is to be encouraged—where toxic waste is transported safely, under appropriate conditions, to the technology and plant available to treat and dispose of it. In many cases that is expensive, but the costs must be accepted. At the other extreme, there are opportunists with no scruples who are interested only in dumping the waste in a remote area of the third world without treatment or any thought of safety.
The incidents that have come to light show that that has been happening and that personal fortunes can be made by those in that disreputable business. I regard the activities of such people as diabolical and almost as evil as those of drug traffickers; indeed, the effects could be considered in some cases to be worse than in the peddling of drugs. Whether or not hazardous waste has been deliberately misdescribed as some harmless substance, the communities living near the dumping site are unlikely to be aware of the dangers to life and health until months or even years later. At least drug addicts know what is happening and what they are doing.
Noble Lords will understand why traffic in those wastes should urgently come under effective supervision and why I strongly urge the British Government to continue to play a leading part in attaining that objective. It may be suggested or argued that all toxic wastes should be treated and disposed of at or near the place of origin, or not produced at all. For reasons that I believe noble Lords will have gathered from what I have said already, that is not a practical solution, certainly for the foreseeable future. Essential industries would be severely reduced or hampered, for example, metal and chemical industries in Western industrialised countries which produce components and goods regarded as necessities for modern life.
Where treatment and disposal can safely be carried out near the place of origin, that will usually be the best course. Different processes are needed for different wastes. For example, incineration at very high temperatures is required for some, but the particular incinerators may not be available locally all year round in the numbers required in a particular area. For reasons of geography, geology and density

1519
of population, treatment and disposal at the place of origin may be environmentally unsound. The latest and best technology may be available in another area or another country. So we must accept that some of those wastes may have to cross frontiers for the right reasons. However, unless there is international cooperation, the way will still be open for deception and irresponsible carriage and dumping of highly dangerous substances. That is especially so when sea transport is used.
As for safe and thorough disposal at the destination, that should be definitely and satisfactorily arranged together with suitable transport and containers, before the toxic waste is moved. In most cases it will not be enough to ship the waste to some remote part of Africa and there tip it into a hole in the ground, euphemistically naming that as landfill. That is clearly what has recently been attempted.
The House will know that progress is being made by governments. The British Government have put into effect the directive on transfrontier shipment of hazardous waste which the EC has agreed and issued. Wider international agreement is necessary because the interests of the developing countries are so clearly involved, although those interests may not always be the same.
A series of meetings and conferences has been taking place under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP. The next one is to be held in Basle later this month. It seems that a number of African countries are at present opposed to any toxic waste leaving Europe or North America. In the light of what I have been describing, that attitude is understandable. Any country can of course refuse to receive the waste but that country may be worried about contamination from waste disposed of in a neighbouring country. However, there have been other attitudes in the recent past.
Noble Lords may have seen the television programme two weeks ago on 22nd February on a scheme for waste to be shipped and buried in Benin—the African country formerly known as Dahomey. A change of mind seems to have taken place and that plan will not now go ahead. There have been two or three similar schemes, apparently at first acceptable to the African governments concerned. They have been reported, but now also seem to be suspended or dropped. It is not difficult to see why they have been considered. The amount to be earned in foreign exchange would immensely assist the economies of those countries and help to reduce their international debts.
This is the background to the negotiations now proceeding. I wish the Government well in trying to reach an early convention. Whatever may be agreed now with developing countries alerted to the present dangers, once a demonstrably safe and reliable system is working some of these countries may be prepared to provide a final resting place for some of these wastes with complete confidence. At the same time they would then be earning much-needed income from that service. When their own industrialisation proceeds, as most of them hope,
1520
they will also themselves meet problems of waste and will no doubt wish to have the means of dealing with it.
I recognise that much needs to be done in reaching an international agreement. Some of the matters to be settled are, for example, the rights of countries whose land or territorial sea is to be entered in transit only, powers in territorial seas and on the high seas, rights of inspection, where, and by whom, and the whole system of monitoring, enforcement and penalties for false descriptions in manifests. Those are just a few of the matters that have to be part of an agreed scheme.
Non-governmental organisations too have been helping to identify requirements for an international convention. One of them—the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea, ACOPS—has been drawing attention to the abuses being uncovered and suspected. I have been involved, as some of your Lordships know, having been in the chair of ACOPS for two periods in the last 10 years. A conference arranged by ACOPS is to be held in London in October with the object of promoting understanding on the subject and giving support to the efforts of the governments who are striving to reach agreement on an effective international system. I suggest that the British Government should be given encouragement and support in pursuing this policy. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, this has been a week which has been conspicuously dedicated to the environment, both at a Royal and, one can only call it, a quasi-Royal level.
A noble Lord: My Lords, pseudo-Royal.
Baroness White: My Lords, I prefer the term "quasi" to "pseudo", but one can take one's choice. The Prince of Wales, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prime Minister, very much in person, have all participated. It is therefore fitting that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, should draw our attention to one of the many baffling global environmental problems that confront us: the international trade in toxic waste.
We are fortunate to have available as from midday today the report on toxic waste presented by the Environment Committee of another place, chaired by that most experienced parliamentarian, Sir Hugh Rossi. It is perhaps less fortunate that this debate should come in the middle of the review by our own Select Committee on Science and Technology of its various recommendations for handling toxic waste, made initially by that committee under the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, in 1981, and considered subsequently in several successive reports.
Under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, we heard our first review witness yesterday and expect to interrogate the Secretary of State for the Environment in person next week. The noble Lord, Lord Gregson, has asked me to present his personal apologies to the House and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his

1521
inability to be here this afternoon. He is much concerned about the international problems as well as the conditions for handling imported waste in the United Kingdom. We are, however, one of the member states of the European Community which act in compliance with the directive on transfrontier shipments which should have been implemented by all the member states as from 1st January 1987.
As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned, we have had direct experience of some of the problems. Everyone has heard of the rogue ship, the "Karin B", which was driven from our shores. However, that is not the only uninvited guest which has tried to visit us. Furthermore, it can be argued that if such cargoes are quite legitimately driven away, will they not then possibly be landed elsewhere in countries that do not have the technology or the facilities to handle them; or, alternatively, will they not be dumped at sea or on other people's beaches? Examples have occurred quite recently of dumping a toxic cargo in the sea area between Madagascar and Mozambique. We have also learnt of the washing up on the shore of the Black Sea of barrels of other very dangerous material suspected to he of Italian origin.
As the Minister knows, and as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has mentioned, an international conference under the auspices of UNEP is to be held in Basle in the next few weeks to try to sort out the conditions of trade appropriate to the handling of special or hazardous waste. The OECD is also concerned. In other words, this is not just a European or a transatlantic matter but, like other global issues, it is world-wide. It closely affects the relationships between the industrialised and less developed countries in ways that have also arisen at the ozone layer conference and other gatherings recently held.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness on this matter. She referred to the question of dumping at sea. I ought to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that I missed the first two minutes of his presentation. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, in view of her great experience on these matters: what is the difficulty in dumping some toxic waste at sea, say, at a distance of at least 500 miles to 1,000 miles from any land territory?
Baroness White: My Lords, I was not referring to dumping of that kind, which might have been done with the open knowledge of everyone concerned and deliberately in an appropriate, chosen spot. I was referring to toxic material which was quite clearly being dumped without any such considerations, but in a situation where no such proper consideration or planning had taken place. It was dumped in that spot simply to get rid of it as inconspicuously as possible, regardless of its effects on any neighbouring fishery, other marine activity or possible landing places on shore. That is quite a different matter. On dumping at sea, there are arguments one way or another just as there are about incineration at sea, but it was not that kind of activity that was in my mind. It is this covert,
1522
fly-by-night dumping which concerns us most particularly.
It is partly for these reasons that we must have not merely agreement in principle but practical arrangements for handling this type of waste. It is for such reasons, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that some countries wish to forbid all exports of hazardous waste, which, as he has described, is not really a practical suggestion. Nevertheless, one can sympathise with them. I believe that the United Kingdom is perfectly entitled to claim credit for the way in which we have tried to handle these issues. I believe we are also properly in favour of a regulated system.
The European Commission has been preaching the gospel, perhaps beyond the reach of certain countries, that we should pursue what it calls clean technologies. That, like most gospels, is difficult to attain and is sometimes preached to rather inattentive ears. I hope that the Minister, who may be able to go to Basle in person, will give us some indication of what he thinks may be achieved there. Meanwhile, we need to clarify our own attitude towards taking in waste from other countries. I cannot believe that we want to become the dustbin or the garbage dump of Europe.
This is the first opportunity I have had of reading the evidence given by the noble Earl, Lord. Caithness, to the Environment Committee in another place. I was heartened to see that in his view there should be no transboundary transfer of non-special waste for direct landfill. It should go only for treatment or incineration. In other words, we should not be taking in ordinary domestic waste for which other countries ought surely to be able to make their own arrangements. I hope that we are all agreed upon that. We must have some method of identifying and tracking any such waste if people attempt to bring it to our shores. I find it hard to believe that we should accept waste from the United States or Canada, other than in the most exceptional circumstances. Such countries have high technology facilities of their own and they have wide open spaces which we do not possess. Furthermore, although I fully recognise that it is a counsel of perfection, possibly dangerous material should be treated as close to base as possible. I am puzzled by the attitude of some countries nearer home, particularly West Germany, which is not lacking in scientific expertise but which seems bent on exporting as much of its own toxic waste as it can.
There are arguments for some such transfrontier traffic, but it is disquieting, as the House of Commons report indicates in paragraph 250, that,
"Imports of waste into the United Kingdom have increased considerably; imports of special waste were in 1987/88 15 times the level in 1984/85. This increase has caused considerable public concern".
That is hardly surprising. I hope the Minister will be able to give us a clear analysis of the situation which accounts for such a startling increase.
Nevertheless, there are situations in which it is perfectly proper for establishments in the United Kingdom or anywhere else to make use of particular scientific or technological expertise for handling wastes with especially difficult characteristics. I have today received some information from one of the best

1523
known handlers of high level waste, Rechem of Pontypool in South Wales. It operates one of only three incinerators in the United Kingdom capable of accepting certain substances and of using the most sophisticated electronic analytical equipment to deal with them. I confess that Rechem is not popular in its own locality, but I have always been of the opinion that on balance its activities are justified and that it performs a necessary service.
As recently as last September, however, Rechem was importing cargoes by plane and by ship from Canada of steel drums containing PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, for treatment. I cannot help thinking that this hazardous oceanic journey is surely unnecessary and, to my mind, is undesirable. I believe the trade started when the United States indicated that it did not want to import these substances, but I cannot believe that the Canadians could not cope or that alternatively Rechem could not establish an appropriate plant in Canada, thus avoiding this hazardous handling.
Whatever the merits or demerits may be of such trade, the European Commission has recently proposed a new directive on PCBs on which the Minister may perhaps wish to comment. This is a very wide subject and I am sure we all wish to hear the Minister, who has been very active on these issues. I encourage him particularly to attend the appropriate conferences at Basle and elsewhere, not least because of certain other comments which are made in the House of Commons report, in which the Government are chided for being aloof from some of our European partners. The House of Commons Environment Committee comments that it has received a list of influential conferences which lacked or had insufficient United Kingdom representation. The need to restore the United Kingdom's reputation in order to forestall inappropriate legislation, particularly from Brussels. is well understood by the industry.
I am sure that in the circumstances we all hope that the Minister will make it part of his onerous duties to attend even more of these conferences. We should all be grateful if he would enlighten us as to where he thinks we now stand in this difficult but interesting situation.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I should like to ask a question. She referred to the possibility of there being no objection to waste being imported into this country for treatment. Is there not a danger of the waste being imported allegedly for that purpose but really in order to get round any regulations prohibiting imported waste, thereby adding to the waste already in this country? That issue was referred to at the meeting of the Science and Technology Committee to which the noble Baroness referred.
Baroness White: My Lords, undoubtedly that is a hazard and I hope that the Minister will describe the mechanisms or provisions that he believes we must make in order to avoid such a difficulty.
If one is dealing with people who are criminal—because they are criminal if they try to
1524
conceal their purpose—one must take robust measures. I hope that we may be in a position to do so.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He has shown a superb sense of timing in arranging the debate on the day of publication of a thunderous report from a Select Committee of another place.
My sympathy goes out to the Minister for having to defend the Government's position in the light of such a thunderous report. I can remember no other report which has voiced such forthright condemnation. Never in any of our inquiries into environmental problems have we experienced such consistent and universal criticism of existing legislation, and of central and local government, than during the course of that inquiry. However, the Minister is well able to take care of himself and no doubt he will satisfy the House.
We cannot ignore the rising tide of sincere concern as regards the swamping of our countryside with toxic wastes. I do not take an entirely apocalyptic view. We have the technology for dealing with such ghastly wastes but we need to provide the framework, show the resolution and spend the money necessary to ensure that they are properly dealt with.
The situation changes year by year. Each new pharmaceutical product—and dozens emerge every year—produces a new series of wastes, too many of which are toxic. New methods are required to deal with them. As our standard of living rises so do the demands. Therefore, the volume and toxicity of waste products rise each year. The problem will not disappear, but will grow year by year and require our increasing attention.
The problem of dealing with wastes throws a searchlight on the conflict between the immediate profit for the individual and the long-term cost to the public. Nowhere do we see that more clearly demonstrated than when looking at an individual company, where the cheapest way of dealing with waste is to throw it away where no one will notice it. The cost to crops. our children's health and the environment is incalculable. Her Majesty's Government must face up squarely to their responsibility for setting a firm framework of controls under which legitimate enterprises may operate alongside the legitimate public interest.
The EC directive has recently been published and I have no doubt that the Minister will refer to it in his reply. It can and should be a milestone in the tackling of toxic wastes. It will be so if it is properly implemented. The flood of imports into the UK, referred to by the noble Baroness, is particularly worrying. We cannot help asking why that has happened. It is clear that it is not entirely a case of the Germans wanting to get rid of it, but if prices are cheaper in this country firms will send their wastes to the UK. If it is all too easy for dumpers to get round controls in the UK but more difficult to do so in Germany, we shall collect more than our share. The rapid increase in the tonnages imported makes one

1525
suspect that that is the situation. Every country should deal with its own wastes but that is a policy of perfection.
The new EC directive is promising but it means nothing without enforcement. Noble Lords will remember a famous speech made a few years ago in this House when the Government were accused of selling the family silver. In dealing with the problem of wastes they are also selling the family dustbin, or are in danger of doing so. While the EC directive is promising, the Minister will appreciate that if it is not properly enforced it will become another useless piece of paper, as was the Chamberlain document.
I should like to raise five points for clarification as regards the EC directive. First, the document appears to provide adequate controls over toxic wastes. Why only toxic wastes? Can the Minister say why the directive does not deal with all wastes? I can see no reason why it should not have done so, especially because in dealing with toxicity one man's meat is another man's toxin. It is not easy to decide what is a toxic waste because there are borderlines. It is strange that the document does not cover international trade in all waste products.
Secondly, I should like to hear the Minister's comments about the variation in standards which appears to operate not only between one country and another but between one authority and another within the UK. I understand that approximately 150 authorities within the UK are responsible for wastes. Their standards vary widely, as do the standards with which they enforce their requirements. The areas which have the slackest standards and the lowest enforcements attract the greatest volume of dumping.
Thirdly, co-disposal is a topic which exercises the experts at length. Some have told me that there is nothing wrong with it; but others have told me that that is rubbish and there should be no co-disposal. I do not know the truth but I believe that in Germany the dumping of co-disposal is banned. That may be another reason why so much waste comes to this country from Germany. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten the House about the Government's view of co-disposal. Do they believe in it?
My fourth point relates to high technology. It has already been said that the treatment of highly toxic waste is a skilled business, but it is a legitimate business which we can welcome if it is properly operated. Firms in this country are skilled in the ultra high-temperature oxidation of toxins and can legitimately make money. However, representatives of those firms tell me that they have great difficulty in obtaining planning permission. It is the "not in my back yard" syndrome.
To treat toxins efficiently is a totally different matter from dumping them. I believe that it is far less objectionable to dispose of a small percentage of toxins than to have a chemical factory alongside making thousands of tonnes of those same toxins. However, the high-tech companies which we welcome and need for the best disposal of the worst toxins are having great difficulty in obtaining planning permission, and they constantly complain
1526
that they are almost always turned down by the local authority and have to go to the Minister for permission. Is it not possible to facilitate planning permission in appropriate cases? I should be grateful for the noble Earl's thoughts on that matter.
Above all, there is the question of enforcement. It is one matter to have a piece of paper issued by the EC, but that means absolutely nothing unless it is enforced. Is the noble Earl willing to assure us that Her Majesty's Government will face up to the sheer cost of beefing up the numbers and quality of the inspectorate? Without that, all our debates are utterly useless.
I remember 30 years ago listening to debates in Parliament on the problem of clean air. The Clean Air Act was a triumph and was one of the greatest blessings that legislation has granted to our present generation. It has made a dramatic difference to the health and welfare of our people. That is a wonderful example for us. In our turn we have to face the problem of this rising tide of pollution, and particularly of toxic waste. If we do our duty and face up to the necessary expenditure—because there is no cheap way, and the cheapest way is usually the dearest way in the long run—and our responsibility, then we pass on to our children a cleaner Britain and a higher quality of life.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to pay my tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, both for introducing this Motion and for his consistent work concerning the environment. I shall confine myself to speaking from the third world point of view already mentioned by the noble Lord and by other speakers. The text of what I have to say is aptly contained in a statement made last July by the Government of the Ivory Coast which reads:
"We cannot accept that the industrialised countries sell us death while at the same time they refuse to pay reasonable prices for our agricultural products".
This debate gives an opportunity to the Government to tell the House what they are doing and will do on environmental issues set against all the rhetoric we have heard in the past six months. That rhetoric rings hollow in the light of action, or lack of action, in the past 10 years.
I take up an incident raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, regarding the "Karin B" and give that as a specific incident of what is happening in third world countries, particularly in West Africa, although it is by no means confined to the African continent or to the western coast of that continent. Between August 1987 and May 1988, almost 4,000 tonnes of toxic waste from Italy were dumped in Nigeria in an illegal arrangement between Italian businessmen and certain officials in Nigeria—not the Nigerian Government. I believe that that is an important distinction to make. The government were unaware of what was happening. There is a tiny delta port in Nigeria called Koko. It was there that a Nigerian businessman agreed to rent his back yard to an Italian businessman for approximately 100 dollars a month. The property was used for the storage of 8,000 drums of hazardous waste including a substance mentioned by my noble

1527
friend Lady White; namely, PCBs. Those were stored in barrels. Later the barrels were found to be leaking. They were randomly stacked and were discovered to have the labels of a variety of international firms.
In early June, after the dumping had been discovered, the Nigerian Government recalled their ambassador from Italy and seized an Italian freighter. Whether that action is approved of or not, it showed the attitude of the Nigerian Government as soon as they discovered that the waste was being dumped in their country.
As the scandal broke, the Italian businessman concerned fled from Nigeria but another Italian businessman and 54 others involved in the scandal were gaoled by the Nigerian Government. On 17th July the Italian Government agreed to direct the removal of the waste from Nigeria and to return it to Italy. The "Karin B" then came on to the scene and another freighter—a deep sea carrier.
Let us look at that matter from the point of view of the Nigerian people. Over 150 Nigerian workers, mostly from the Nigerian port authority, were employed in removal of the waste. The Nigerian Government tried to provide them with protective clothing, mechanical equipment and even gas masks. However, they had insufficient supplies. As a result a number of workers were sent to hospital with ailments that included severe chemical burns, nausea, blood vomiting and partial paralysis. At least one worker went into a coma. Over 2,000 tonnes of the waste were removed from Nigeria on the Italian chartered ship the "Karin B" and the remainder on the second ship, the deep sea carrier.
Although the wastes were removed, contaminated soils remained on the site to be cleared. I do not know whether that has been done. However, soil removal was necessary as well as the removal of waste. It is estimated that that operation will cost the Nigerian Government at least £1 million. Of course, businessmen from the developed, industrialised world are involved in that, but so also are businessmen and people who wish to make a fast buck within the developing countries—yes, on both sides.
However, many developing countries, particularly in Africa, have shown, and shown quite clearly, where they stand on this issue. I should like to cite one example of what they are prepared to sacrifice as regards their economic situation in order to avoid a repetition of what happened in Nigeria. In May last year the Government of Guinea-Bissau, also in West Africa, postponed a deal with United States and European waste brokers that would have brought to that country 15 million tonnes of foreign industrial waste. The proposed payment to the Government of Guinea-Bissau was 40 dollars per tonne of waste. Therefore, the total potential payment was 600 million dollars. That may not seem a very large sum to those of us who live in the developed world; in fact it represents four times the gross national product of Guinea-Bissau and twice its entire foreign debt. That is an earnest of the determination of developing countries' governments, whatever sacrifice it may mean in monetary terms, to prevent their countries being contaminated and their people being poisoned.
1528
I want to draw to the attention of the House and of the noble Earl who is to reply the fact that I have a list of the waste disposal companies based in this country which are exporting, or trying to export, to the developing world—mostly, but not entirely, to West Africa. There is also one company trying to export to the Netherlands Antilles. I propose to read out the names of those companies. They are: BIS Import-Export Ltd; Dumba International; Emvratex; Hamilton Resources; Hobday Ltd; and Power, Water and Waste. Those companies are based in this country. Finally, there is Varn Products.
Several organisations within the developing world have spoken out clearly and specifically on this issue. The summit conference of the Economic Community of West African States, meeting in Lomé, Togo, last June, had this to say:
"Our efforts for the economic development of our states and for the progress of our people will be in vain if we do not … preserve the lives of our people and the environment".
The members of that conference agreed to enact national legislation against the dumping of foreign waste. They stated in their communique:
"We cannot accept that at a time when industrialised nations refuse to buy our commodities at reasonable prices, these same countries are selling us death for ourselves and our children".
In May last year the organisation of African Unity, the supreme body of co-operation within Africa, meeting in Addis Ababa, adopted a resolution,
"to refrain from entering into agreements or arrangements with any industrialised countries on the dumping of nuclear and hazardous industrial waste on African territories".
The leaders and the governments of those countries are doing their best to make it clear to their own people and to the outside world that they will not allow the African continent to become the dustbin for the developed world's waste.
I pay tribute to the work done by organisations in this country such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth which are exposing these scandals and are listing the companies and the incidents that occur all over the world. These organisations are nongovernmental. They are supplying the public of this country and, indeed, other countries, with the facts. However, they cannot pass legislation. They are not responsible for government policy. That is where our Government have to take their responsibility.
Everything that has been said this afternoon points to the fact that so long as market forces and private enterprise are regarded as paramount influences in this country, then so long will such scandals, and similar scandals in other fields, be inevitable. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said in his opening speech, there is money to be made. If there is money to be made, then the market forces, private enterprise, will try to find a way to make that money. The real debate is between those who consider that market forces should be paramount, that private enterprise and the making of profits should take priority over morals and ethics, and those who believe that in our dangerous world today regulation is essential to preserve the health and needs of the people.
I ask the noble Earl who is to speak for the Government these questions. What are the Government doing about this scandal? What actions

1529
are the Government taking and proposing to take? Have they any legislation in mind? Are the Government considering that the export of goods from this country, the freight that goes in ships from this country, should be examined before leaving British ports?
Finally, are the present British Government prepared, on the top of all their rhetoric about the environment (of which we have heard so much during the past six months) to take a lead in international regulation, which alone can prevent the exploitation for profit of the people of the third world and the making of profits out of the deaths, injuries and diseases of the citizens of the developing world?
6.19 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am pleased to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, both on his good furtune and on his characteristic skill. His good fortune, of course, is in winning a place in the ballot. His skill lies both in the precision of the wording of his Motion and particularly in the timing of it.
Reference has already been made by my noble friend Lady White to the good fortune that the debate is taking place so few hours after the report of the Select Committee on the Environment in another place which, although it makes only passing reference to international issues. puts forward some valauble points which have been confirmed in the debate by a number of noble Lords.
The second reason why he has exercised skill in his timing is that this appears to be a week or month in which the Government are capable of being bounced. The Government were bounced last week when the Secretary of State for the Environment stood up at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and solemnly said that a 100 per cent. reduction in the use of CFCs was impossible. Within 24 hours the Minister who is replying to this debate said something very much better. He agreed with the European environmental Ministers that 100 per cent. was possible. We made very substantial progress because the Government were open to persuasion for once on that issue.
Let us consider the Dutch auction that took place at the weekend as regards the Government grant to the United Nations' Environment Programme. The Secretary of State knew perfectly well that the Government grant to UNEP was £1·25 million. But somehow the briefing that reached the Prime Minster was that the figure was £1·5 million. Then, completely off the cuff it seems, the Prime Minister was able to increase that figure to £3 million. When she was told that that was not a doubling, she said: "Bring it up to £1·5 million so that we can double it".
That was a welcome change, but not exactly an example of coherent or cohesive policy-making on the part of the Government. I suppose that as long as it is on the right side we are not going to object too strongly. Finally, in terms of timing, it is very important that this debate should occur as the opening legal discussions take place in preparation for the Basle conference, to which reference has
1530
already been made. I repeat the hope of my noble friend Lady White that the Minister himself will be able to attend that conference.
We must remember that at an earlier conference in Dakar, at which a number of participating countries were represented by their Ministers or at least by very senior civil servants, this country was represented by the Second Secretary at the embassy in Dakar. That is no discredit to the gentleman himself and I have nothing against him. It is certainly not an adequate reflection of the importance that this country should be giving to environmental matters. The presence in person of the noble Earl, despite his onerous duties of which I am very well aware, will be a welcome move in the direction of serious consideration of these problems.
I have already congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on the precision of his Motion. He has been talking only about the international traffic in toxic wastes. As he recognized, the regulation of international traffic also brings into play the issue of dumping at sea. If the regulations for the transport of toxic wastes are unenforceable or intolerable, then dumping at sea will take place whatever happens. Clearly, that is going to be a major issue at the Basle conference.
As I understand it, the conflict that arose at the previous conference and which led to its failure to adopt a convention—it could only produce a communique—was because of a disagreement between the mainly African countries, supported by the Netherlands and Italy, who wanted a complete ban on the international transport of toxic wastes, and the other Members of the Community, the Commission itself and the British Government, which wanted control of the international traffic of toxic wastes by the doctrine of prior informed consent.
I wish to look at those two proposals in a little detail because it seems that the position that we take on them at Basle and subsequently will be of very great importance. I have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that there should be a total ban on the international transport of toxic wastes, particularly by sea. My principal reason is that which was advanced by my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby; namely, that the international traffic in toxic wastes is virtually entirely an exploitation of the poorer nations of the South by the richer nations of the North. It is some elements in Europe and the United States that are seeking to dispose of toxic wastes that they are not prepared to deal with themselves, by dumping them either completely illegally or in clandestine ways in poorer nations. My noble friend's description of the situation in Koko (referred to in the House of Commons' Environment Committee report) was very vivid and a very strong warning to us all.
Almost before we get to the scientific issues may I say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the position that has been put forward by a number of African countries, and also by two European countries. It is also true that the doctrine of prior informed consent that has been supported by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, and by my noble friend Lady White, depends for its efficacy on really

1531
effective control at all stages of the process. Once you say that it is legal for toxic wastes to be found on the high seas, it is very difficult to conceive of a system of enforcement that would actually control the dumping at sea or the illegal disposal of those wastes at the end of the voyage. On the other hand, if there was a total ban, then the enforcement could take place at the port of embarkation or at the place where the toxic waste is created. That seems a very strong reason for a total ban.
The arguments for some trans-frontier traffic in toxic wastes also have a considerable degree of force. The United Nations' Environment Programme itself proposes the principle that international traffic should be allowed where it is,
"equally or more environmentally sound to dispose of waste far rather than close to where it is generated".
When you consider the irrationality of national frontiers in relation to sites where toxic wastes can be disposed of, that makes a good deal of sense. If you think also about the very high degree of unenforceability of total bans, wherever they may be—my noble friend Lord Hatch has made reference to them—then there seem to be strong arguments on the other side as well.
I suggest to the House and to the Government that there is somewhere in between a policy that would give adequate evidence of our real concern in these matters, be enforceable and would move things forward in a way that the present conflict between two groups of people appears unlikely to achieve. Let me make it clear that the worst possible result of the Basle conference would be if no convention resulted or one emerged that was simply a mouthing of words and avoiding all the real issues.
I propose that the Government should adopt the prior informed consent principle, but that they should also make specific provision for both exporting and importing countries to impose a complete ban or stronger controls if they believe that is appropriate. That would certainly apply to many of the African and developing countries that have very good cause to mistrust the developed countries and the way in which they approach the issue of toxic wastes.
In addition, the convention should adopt the UNEP principle that I have already quoted; namely, that it should not be allowed, unless it is more environmentally sound, to dispose of the waste far from rather than close to where it is generated. Also, we should pay more than lip service to the principle that the polluter pays. In other words, the only real solution to the problem of toxic wastes is going to be prevention and not cure.
It is true that in principle the producer of the toxic waste has to take responsibility for disposing of it. However, in practice, unless we can ensure that we adopt the principle of the best available technology rather than the minimal acceptable technology, those producing toxic waste will have many financial and economic incentives to continue doing so without let or hindrance, because disposal, and even imperfect disposal with its environmental consequences which may be long lasting although not immediately felt, is cheaper than adapting the manufacturing process to
1532
contain and reduce the production of toxic wastes. If we really mean what we say by "the polluter pays", we must impose severe penalties on polluters in our own country—and if it is an international convention, in all the countries signatory to the convention—to enforce the principle and to discourage the unnecessary production of toxic waste.
These are minimum requirements for the agreement that ought to come out of the Basle convention. I hope that the Minister, who I know is personally concerned, however great may be the turmoil in his department about the environment, will be there and will feel able to take a strong stand on behalf of the British Government. I hope that we shall see a convention which will do this country credit.
6.32 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for raising this important subject. As so many noble Lords have already pointed out, it is extremely timely that my noble friend should raise it, particularly at the end of a very environmental week, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said.
The Government recognise the considerable concern which exists about the international traffic in toxic waste. This issue was raised on 1st February during the important debate in the Chamber on pollution. The Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships' House is looking at the subject and I can tell noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has today received a copy of the report of the Select Committee on the Environment of another place on toxic waste. We shall of course send the committee a full and authoritative response to the report as soon as possible but we have noted that the report has joined the department in criticism of the way in which waste disposal authorities were carrying out their duties.
I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, that many of the report's recommendations for improved control are in line with the Government's total review of waste legislation and policy which has taken place over the past three years and which is now completing its process of consultation. Legislation to implement the new policies will be introduced at the earliest opportunity in the life of this Parliament. The committee has proposed the setting up of an independent environmental protection commission. This is a far-reaching proposal. It is similar to one suggested by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook on 1st February and it is one which we shall examine carefully, in detail.
Toxic waste is moved across frontiers for a variety of reasons. It may be moved because there are no suitable disposal facilities in the country of production but there are in the country of destination, or, on the other hand, because disposal facilities in the country of destination are closer to hand than those in the county of production. More worryingly, however, is that in some cases toxic waste has been moved across frontiers to evade more

1533
stringent national controls and requirements and to exploit another country's more rudimentary controls. We believe that the country of production of toxic waste should not cease to have responsibility for it when the truck carrying it passes through the Customs post or the ship with it in its hold leaves port. It is not acceptable either for a country of destination to know nothing about the toxic waste consignment or for the place of disposal not to be identified and vetted for its suitability.
We believe that there is a need for a strict system of international control and we support the three main instruments of international action: the European Community directives; an agreement which is currently being prepared by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; and perhaps most importantly, and a matter to which some noble Lords including my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy have referred, the global convention which is being promoted by the United Nations Environment Programme. The Government attach great importance to the emerging UNEP convention because the international trade in toxic waste is a world-wide phenomenon. Work on the convention is well advanced and I hope to be able to sign on behalf of the United Kingdom in Basle later this month. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, that an agreement is necessary, and we are all working to that end.
The international community has established four broad principles to govern the international trade in toxic waste. First, the parties to the movement must enter into a binding contract. Secondly, movements have to be pre-notified to the competent authorities of the countries involved. Thirdly, the movement of the toxic waste cannot begin until the competent authority of the country of destination has given its consent. Fourthly, the actual movement is to be accompanied by appropriate documentation. The European Community's directives embody these principles. They have been implemented in this country by the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, all countries should have implemented them, but my understanding is that Portugal, Spain and France have not. I hope that they will soon.
The directives lay down what waste the regulations apply to. They are, with some exceptions, those wastes which we designate in this country as special wastes. Noble Lords will know that this country imports some toxic wastes for disposal. The quantities involved are small by comparison with the levels produced here and by comparison with the amounts that cross European frontiers.
Under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations the producer or holder of the waste in the exporting country has to prenotify his intention to ship toxic waste to the disposal authority for the area in this country where the disposer operates his facility. The producer or holder has to provide details of the source and composition of the toxic waste that he intends to dispatch. He should also give details in the contract he has entered into
1534
with the disposer of the route he is proposing to take and of the arrangements he is making for insurance. The disposal authority may ban the shipment if it considers that its transport or disposal would breach EC and international laws on health and environmental protection. The disposer would commit an offence if he accepted a shipment which the disposal authority had not approved. Documents accompany the consignment to provide a record of its movements and are sent to the disposal authority after the consignment has been accepted by the disposer.
A very small amount of toxic waste is exported from this country. This goes to EC countries and to other countries which have specialist facilities for disposal or recycling. As far as the Government are aware, no exports of toxic waste have been sent to developing countries. The Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations provide special safeguards in respect of exports to countries not members of the European Community. The general rules on contracts and pre-notification apply and in addition the country of destination must give its consent, and the Secretary of State has the power to prohibit the export if he considers that the disposal operation in question in the importing country poses a risk to health or the environment. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said, I hope that he will send me details of the information he has and that he will be prepared outside the House to make the same remarks with full details as to which wastes he is referring to and from which countries these wastes might be exported.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister may not be aware that the Select Committee on the Environment of another place says that some cases have involved exports from the United Kingdom. Therefore it is not only my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby who has to give information but the Select Committee on the Environment of another place.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord's afternoon has been more free than mine. I have not quite reached that stage of the report. However, as I said earlier, I shall read it in detail and we shall be responding.
The Government believe that the international trade in toxic waste, indeed all waste, should be under strict controls. It is for that very reason that I have already proposed to the European Commission and other EC member states that the policy of the European Community should be that international trade is restricted to waste which goes to specialist treatment plants or incinerators, that shipments of waste to go for direct landfill should be generally ruled out and that all movements of waste, not just toxic waste, should be subject to pre-notification procedures. That would help stop the unacceptable practice of dumping wastes on developing countries and at the same time leave open the opportunity for responsible, well-equipped firms to deal with foreign wastes which might otherwise be disposed of with harm to human health and the environment.

1535
I am pleased to tell the House that the Commissioner and some member states have welcomed the proposals and that they are to be discussed in detail in a working party. It would of course be disappointing if they were not viewed constructively, and it is for that reason that I am grateful for the support which the noble Baroness, Lady White, has expressed for the proposals.
Perhaps I may now take up in a little more detail the point which the noble Baroness raised about imports of specialist waste into this country. It is true that over the years there has been an increase in the waste coming to this country, but, in comparison to Europe it is very small. The latest figure which I have for 1987–88 is that about 80,000 tonnes was imported into the United Kingdom. I am afraid that I do not have comparable figures for that year in respect of Europe. However, in 1983 the OECD estimated that some 2·2 million tonnes of hazardous waste crossed Western European frontiers each year and there is no reason to believe that the figure has not increased since then. Further, I understand that in recent years France has imported as much as 700,000 tonnes of hazardous waste per annum and that Germany has exported as much as 1·5 million tonnes per annum. Therefore, compared to our 80,000 tonnes that shows what a very small percentage the United Kingdom is taking.
The noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, asked some particular questions. I think that the important one was about co-disposal. Since 1974 the department has conducted research into the co-disposal of difficult waste with domestic refuse. It is not a technique which should be conducted at small or poorly resourced sites, but properly managed at a suitable site it can be a very effective disposal route for some industrial wastes. The results of our research have informed the department's advice and guidance on this matter and a review of that research will be published in May of this year. Aspects which will be covered in that review include the rates at which landfill material can be successfully degraded and immobilised as well as information on the mechanisms of degradation and questions of leachate monitoring.
The noble Lord also questioned the delay which some firms were experiencing in getting their planning applications through when they wanted new sites for disposal. He asked me to intervene. I am sorry but I shall not intervene in the local planning process; it is up to the local authorities. However, what he did say encouraged me and led me to believe that he was in support of the consultation paper that we have issued on the future of waste disposal authorities. That matter is still subject to consultation and if the noble Lord has any views in this respect we look forward to receiving them. But the consultation paper supports, basically outside the metropolitan areas, the shire county councils as the waste disposal authority. We believe that it should be done at local level.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, said that the real debate was between market forces, profit and regulation. I think that he is entirely mistaken and misunderstands the situation. The two aspects are
1536
totally complementary. Full state control in some of the countries which he idolises has not meant better regulation; indeed, it has led to much worse regulation. We all want strict regulation with the market being allowed to operate under that basis.
I am glad to note that the sentiment of the House is not that the entire international trade in toxic waste is wrong but only aspects of it. Major industrial countries should aim to dispose of all the toxic waste they produce. The smallest countries cannnot be expected to be self-sufficient, or nearly self-sufficient, in the necessary disposal facilities. There are therefore genuine reasons for making some transfrontier shipments. A policy of no imports and no exports of toxic waste would be environmentally regressive because it would lead to waste being disposed of unsatisfactorily. It would not happen here, but it would happen somewhere else. A polluted environment in any part of the world diminishes all of us.
The other feeling of the House is that when transfrontier shipments of toxic waste take place the disposal facilities to which they are directed must have the capacity to deal with the waste in a sound environmental manner. Therefore, the dispatch of toxic waste across frontiers must be subject to the consent of the relevant authorities before it takes place. I believe that that is self-evident. The European Community has a strong control system set up and running and the prospect is that through the forthcoming UNEP convention controls it can be adopted world wide. The Government believe that those are important steps which will do much to provide the necessary controls on international traffic in toxic waste. As I said earlier, we have made proposals to extend the controls to the international traffic in other wastes. We are all grateful to my noble friend for raising this most important matter.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and as we have plenty of time, perhaps I may ask him a question which will expand and, I hope, make more firm what I understand to be a firm commitment on behalf of the Government which will be most valuable. However, first may I assure him that all the facts which I have used in my speech have been published. Moreover, as the Official Secrets Bill has not yet been enacted, I am not liable for prosecution for repeating matters which have already been published.
The question is this. I pointed out that when African governments discover what their businessmen and corrupt officials have been doing they intervene. Do I understand the Minister to say that the present Government will intervene in the export of any toxic waste from this country and any toxic waste passing through the ports of this country unless they are satisfied that the country to which it is being sent approves its receipt? If he can confirm that, it will be of immense importance and will give a great lead to the international community.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, if the noble Lord carefully reads the debate in tomorrow's Official Report I think he will see that I have said that the Secretary of State has powers. We do not necessarily

1537
think that he has quite enough powers because that is the lacuna in the existing legislation upon which we are acting. It is for that reason that we want to strengthen those powers. But certainly within the European framework we can intervene and will not hesitate to do so if there is to be a disposal of waste from this country to another which does not have the necessary facilities and which has not gone through the correct procedure.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, in that case, are the Government preparing legislation now?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord should know the answer to that question. Indeed. I said that we are doing so. Moreover, I have told him that before in this House during the pollution debate, if he cares to remember.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords, and especially the noble Baroness, for their speeches in this debate. They have contributed to what I think is an informative debate on a subject which has clearly been of concern to them.
On the question of the timing of the debate which was raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, it was purely by chance and not within my control, because my Motion has been down since the beginning of this Session. However, I hope that the discussion which we have had today has been helpful to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which is at present in the course of its inquiry into this subject. I certainly would not wish to pe-empt in any way its findings or recommendations.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord. Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, were discussing the question of disposal at sea. I must clarify what I meant. I referred to the temptation to dump cargoes when a vessel carrying toxic wastes was running into trouble; that is to say, when publicity was focusing on it in the country where it was intended to dispose of the waste and where that country was opposing it. I should perhaps have used the word "jettison" because I was indicating that there was a tendency to do that.
Of course besides that there could be attempts at deliberate and surreptitious dumping at sea as an alternative to deliberate dumping on land. I understand the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, because of his expertise on technological subjects. I must also confirm what the noble Baroness said, that authorised dumping and incineration at sea are normal and there are international agreements covering them.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, for having narrated in some detail the saga of the Karin B" and one or two other episodes affecting Africa. However, like my noble friend Lord Caithness, I think that he oversimplified the situation by presenting a stark choice of either no free market or of dangerous practices. The convention that we are seeking would be able to make sure that there was still a free market but also that the dangerous practices could be wiped out.
1538
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, after having discussed it, did not, I am glad to say, come out in favour of a total ban on any international trade in toxic wastes. I am glad that he referred to the principle which has been proposed by the United Nations Environment Programme, UNEP. The Basle Conference in a few days' time will represent the next stage on the way to reach a convention and I hope, like others who have spoken, that an agreed draft will be concluded at that conference.
I am especially grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for a very comprehensive reply to the debate after what must have been for him a busy and tiring seven days recently at conferences both in London and in Brussels. He gave us an up-to-date account of the latest developments in this field. I wish him well in all the coming discussions and negotiations on this subject. In this I am sure I speak for others who have been following this subject and who are here this evening. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Unborn Children (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
6.53 p.m
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Government plan to introduce a comprehensive Bill to deal with the issues raised by the Warnock report, published in July 1984. The Government also published a White Paper in November 1987; but still there are no signs of an actual Bill and many of us feel that unethical deeds are taking hold in parts of the medical profession.
I should like to inform the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that after two Queen's Speeches have gone by with no mention of a Bill on this subject, I can hardly think it is premature to put my Bill forward now. At this very moment there are no statute laws governing the origin of the human species that are fertilised in vitro. Paragraph 20 of the White Paper proposes alternative clauses. One of them prohibits research procedures on human embryos and the second permits research as part of a project sanctioned by the statutory licensing authority, on which both Houses will have a free vote.
This Bill anticipates and supports the first proposal: that experiments should be prohibited. Research in this context must not include therapeutic procedures aimed at preparing the embryo for safe transfer to the uterus of a woman. The all-party pro-life group proposes with this Bill (which I might point out is similar to that which the right honourable Enoch Powell introduced in another place in February 1985) that it would be unlawful for a human embryo to be used for experiments. That is the whole burden of this Bill. The embryo created in vitro must be to enable a specified women to have a child. Spare embryos may be frozen for future use by that woman but not for any other purpose. And of course if that women does not require them for a second attempt they must ultimately be allowed to die.

1539
The Bill is not concerned with surrogacy. It is not concerned with abortion or with forbidding in vitro fertilisation and it is not concerned with the source of the gametes of the IVF embryo. Some doctors and medical research scientists advocate research and experiments on embryos, often to destruction, holding that genetic diseases can be cured or eliminated by these experiments; but world-famous paediatricians, among whom are Professor Peter Koop (Surgeon General of the USA) and Professor Peter Gray of Cardiff, uphold the view that the outlook for those with inherited diseases has steadily improved as a result of conventional research carried out within the traditional ethic of respect for the individual patient, and sometimes using animal models. These advances do not require non-therapeutic experiments on human embryos.
As recently reported in The Times on 15th December 1988, a team studying thalassaemia and sickle cell anaemia has achieved a major breakthrough and also hopes to find a cure for haemophilia through the insertion of the appropriate purified artificial gene or genes into the bone marrow cells where blood is made. Others have had success with bone marrow grafts, and new drugs are being tested to improve the well-being of those who require regular blood transfusions. Biosynthetic blood clotting factors hold out new hope for haemophiliacs. These remarkable advances have been made without the use of human embryos.
Professor Jerome Lejeune originally won world acclaim when he became the first scientist to identify a chromosomal disorder, when he discovered the cause of Down's sydrome. Through his work great improvements have been made in helping Down's children to develop physically and intellectually. An understanding of the way in which chromosomes function could lead to new therapeutic approaches. None of the work done in this way requires human embryos at all, and the predictions of Professor Lejeune made at a meeting in the Grand Committee Room in the Houses of Parliament in January 1985 regarding various genetic chromosomal diseases have all proved to be correct. That can be seen from a number of medical papers, including the document Upholding Human Dignity, which was published in 1958 by the scientific and medical advisory committee to the all-party parliamentary pro-life group.
I believe that human life starts when the woman's ovum is fertilised by the sperm of a male, thus conceiving and creating an embryo. This of course includes a pre-embryo, which is a false division of the early embryonic life. Not even the Warnock Committee at its meetings or in its subsequent report ever referered to the term "pre-embryo". It is a word invented since that time in order to make the unethical uses and exploitation of the human embryo appear to be respectable because public reaction to the procedures going on is one of utter repugnance.
The Geneva decaration of the World Medical Association states:
"I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception; even under threat I will not use my medical knowledge contary to the laws of humanity".
1540
The Helsinki declaration of the World Medical Association declares:
"In research on man, the interests of science and society should never take precedence over considerations relating to the well-being of the subject".
I maintain, first, that destructive experiments on human embryos created in vitro must be ethically flawed since they do not respect human dignity. Secondly, inter-species fertilisation producing a hybrid human must be prohibited because sooner or later curiosity could tempt medical scientists to try this. Thirdly, I believe that implanting human embryos in the uterus of an animal, which certain scientists admit to having attempted, should be outlawed.
We are now having a debate late in the evening, and I have spoken for 10 minutes. Perhaps I may counsel some noble Lords to speak for a lesser time than I have; shall we say for five or six minutes, but not for too long. I know that the House is apt to wither away towards the approach of midnight, and I want to have the votes of noble Lords on my side.
The Judaeo-Christian view of man is that he is made in the image of God. We must respect this prime place of homo sapiens in the reality of the universe and not allow scientists to play games with experimenting on human embryos, whom we consider to be our unborn brothers and sisters. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Duke of Norfolk.)
7.4 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, the noble Duke has criticised the reference in the amendment to my opinion that the Bill is premature. But he adduced no evidence or arguments to support his view that tonight's proceedings are urgent. I shall not follow him in all the medical and scientific detail of this dispute. He is obviously much better equipped in that than I am.
I want to deal with what the noble Duke is asking us to do tonight and why he is asking us to do it. In my submission he is asking us to do the wrong thing and he is asking us to do it at the wrong time, on the wrong occasion and at the wrong hour of night. I respectfully suggest that he is not the appropriate Member of your Lordships' House to do it.
What is the purpose behind the Bill? Why are we asked to choose tonight between Enoch and Warnock? What is happening to require the noble Duke to try to force the pace? I submit that he has not been as candid in the explanation of the Bill tonight as he was when he sent out his circular to his friends on 12th December. He referred then—I quote from

1541
the letter that he sent to a number of his friends—as he has done tonight, to the promise of the Government to introduce their own legislation. He referred then, as he has done tonight, to the absence of clear evidence of the expected date or time at which the Government might fulfil that intention. In the circular he said of this delay:
"However, a number of us arc becoming seriously concerned that for the second year the Queen's Speech has included no reference to any such Bill and the Government has given no indication of when it might be introduced".
That he has repeated virtually tonight. He then continued:
"It has been suggested that the cause of the delay is that some officials hope that, given time, human embryo research will become more acceptable, and the pro-life lobby will lose its majority, which at this point in time is enormous in the House of Commons".
For this reason, he goes on to say, the pro-life group proposes to introduce the Powell Bill into your Lordships' House,
"so that we can demonstrate the strength of feeling in the Upper House".
That is a clearer example of what the noble Duke is doing tonight than he gave in his speech. I do not think that he has fully explained to the House why he is showing so little consideration to all of us in order to pursue what he feels in his conscience no doubt is a requirement on the House to give him a verdict on this issue. One ought to have some explanation of why he is putting us through the mill like this. What is the occasion, what is the urgency, what is the pressure behind this?
This is a whipped up occasion. The noble Duke is staging a mock session of the House because as we all know, the Bill is not a business matter at all. It is merely the means by which the noble Duke seeks to get the demonstration of his constituents that he hopes for at the end of the debate. What, then, does this mean? The noble Duke is completely ignoring the last debate that took place in your Lordships' House on 15th January last year. He was present and spoke in the debate. When the Minister came to reply, he said at col. 1504 of Hansard:
"It is interesting to note that your Lordships have pretty well decided the issue today. The tally is that four out of the 21 speakers have come down firmly against research in any form of the word, whereas the rest are prepared to accept it".
That was his summary in the debate. The noble Duke was one of the four out of the 21 who registered the extreme position. He is obviously seeking tonight to remove the impression left by the debate in January 1988. Why is he wanting to do that tonight? What has happened between then and now that requires him post-haste to register a fresh demonstration of the feeling of the House which he hopes will go his way? Is he afraid of losing his constituency? Is he afraid that the Government will not honour their promise? Or is he hoping that in this way, after whipping up his friends, he will get a vote of the House which may replace and change the verdict which was given by the debate on the White Paper?
The White Paper was the basic document upon which the House debated the matter just over 12 months ago. We have no replacement for that White Paper. We have no legislation before us. We have no
1542
government statement of policy in order to judge what we think of the future of this highly sensitive and complicated matter.
Without further evidence, the noble Duke has not made his case. Perhaps I may respectfully, and with great affection, submit to him that on such a flimsy basis for troubling the House at this hour of the night, he has placed at the disposal of the presumptuous all-party pro-life group—as if all the rest of us were anti-life—his weight as Earl Marshal, Premier Duke and Earl of England, Chief Butler of England, Knight of the Garter, and head of the Catholic laity in Britain. All that weight and influence has been placed by him at the disposal of the self-appointed group of parliamentarians who are trying to push your Lordships around. That is the truth of the matter. We may as well be blunt about it.
I am not concerned with the technical side of the controversy at all. I am concerned with the tactics and the parliamentary propriety of what the noble Duke is doing. One of the drawbacks of many influential Members of your Lordships' House is their complete lack of experience in political and parliamentary affairs. We have examples of that, if I may say so with great respect. They do not understand what he is asking us to do. It is a futile exercise because he knows as well as I do, or he should know, what fate awaits the Private Member's Bill that has no claim on parliamentary time and for which the Government arc probably not disposed to give any time. Nevertheless, I shall concede that we all want the Government to say when they will bring some proposals forward.
Before I finish, perhaps I may say how wrong in my opinion, the timing of this Bill is. The newspaper the Financial Times this morning suggested that the Cabinet tomorrow will decide on the legislation that the Government propose to introduce in the next Session of Parliament. Gossip is going around that a Bill to implement the Government's proposals on the Warnock Report will be among the measures. Clearly in moving dangerously near to the end of this Parliament, there will be reason to become a little more anxious in case the next Queen's Speech contains no reference to it.
However, we are merely in the middle of the Parliament and an event next week fully justifies the Government taking a little more time to consider their position. I refer to publication of a report entitled Fertility and the Family by Jonathan Glover. Jonathan Glover is a British academic nominated by the European Commission to preside over a working party of Europeans seeking a European perspective on the problem of research on human embryos. The report is a most important document. It is an attempt by a working party of Europeans to find the highest common denominator on the issue among EC countries.
We cannot live in a cocoon of our own making any longer. We are in the European dimension. If we seek to go our own way nationally we may find the European Community at loggerheads with us, having different policies which will seriously complicate the pattern of medical research and social policy in the Community.

1543
The Glover Report is an attempt, which we in this country and certainly the noble Duke have not made, to find whether there is a level, a common denominator, which might form the basic elements of national legislation. It is not an attempt to get a European directive over its members; it is an attempt to avoid disparities and conflicts which might otherwise arise. The report is only becoming available now and the Government will have to take it into account. It describes its approach to the medical, ethical, family and social aspects of the problem. It makes certain recommendations which it hopes that the governments of the Community will consider. At the moment it is a document requisitioned by the European Commission, not the Council of Ministers nor the European Parliament. The Commission is seeking a solution to a problem which will otherwise no doubt trouble the deliberations of the Common Market a very short time hence.
I plead with your Lordships, first, to have regard to the Government's problems, and, secondly, to the repute of the House. This debate is misleading people into thinking that we are doing business when we are not. We are debating. And the matter ought to be left as a debate, as it was in January 1988. But the noble Duke, under the pressures behind him, feels that he must press on and obtain some verdict from the House which will be no more reliable than any other verdict of the House and probably much less reliable than the last one. No verdict of this House in the circumstances tonight will be worth the paper it is written on for the simple reason that this is not an occasion when all Members of your Lordships' House have been properly briefed and warned of the importance and significance of what they are asked to do.
It is a Catch 22 occasion. The noble Duke asked that we should cut our speeches short, adding naively that this was in order that his constituency should not disappear were the House to sit too late. That is a problem we all have. What does the noble Duke expect to be the value of what we are being asked to do? I deal with this matter solely on the parliamentary occasion which the noble Duke has staged. I say in conclusion that I hope we have an interesting debate with a large number of noble Lords taking part. I hope that we shall discuss anything your Lordships wish. But, in the end, I hope we shall try and avert needless acrimony and suspicion that there are religious sectarian elements in what is being done tonight. If we look at the list of speakers, we can see who is represented.
The noble Duke is doing a disservice to all of us. He is damaging the repute of the House. He is stirring up controversy and difficulty when that is unnecessary. He will not further his cause and he will not improve our tempers. I appeal to the noble Duke. I should like to withdraw my amendment, if he will withdraw his Bill. Let us finish the evening in an atmosphere of harmony and amity, having at least gone over the ground a second time and got it ready for the final stage of decision in this House when a Government Bill comes before us. That will come soon.
1544
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion, That this Bill be now read a second time; to leave out all the words after "That" and insert "This House declines to give a Second Reading to a Private Member's Bill on the use of in vitro fertilisation in view of the fact that Her Majesty's Government have made clear their intention as recently as 2th July 1988, of introducing legislation on this subject during this Parliament; and that this Bill is, therefore, premature.".—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
7.22 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, assuming that the noble Duke is not going to take up the invitation just offered to him, I must start the first of what is a long list of speeches. I shall endeavour to be brief. I oppose the Bill and I support the reasoned amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. But in doing so in such a sensitive area I do not presume to speak for any of my noble friends.
I suggest that the Bill has an emotive and misleading title. It is a Bill with a highly restrictive purpose and it does not pretend to be anything else. It is a Bill which would deny us the benefit of valuable research that has been done in the past and which would deny us the benefit of responsible research yet to come. It would criminalise those responsible scientists now working on licensed research for the benefit of mankind. Under this Bill such a scientist could be sent to prison for two years.
It is a Bill which would allow in vitro fertilisation but would allow no research to improve its techniques. It is a Bill which tells the public that they can have test tube babies but they cannot have any research to advance the techniques involved. There is of course no definition of research in the Bill, or I think in the report of the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. Research can simply be observation of an early embryo through a microscope. But that would be an offence under the Bill.
To discard rather than implant an embryo which was seen by a scientist to be defective would be an offence under the Bill. As Professor Winston has, I believe, pointed out, nature discards early embryos. This Bill and its predecessors give greater protection to embryos than nature itself. I am sure that we would all respect the sincerity of the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk. But I hope he respects the views of those who do not enjoy the doctrinal certainty which makes his position so easy and so unshakeable. I hope he will understand that we all care about the quality of individual life.
Reference has already been made to the timetable of what has happened so far. I suggest that the Government have been right to avoid rushed and piecemeal legislation. We have the blueprint of the report in 1984 of the Warnock Committee. That report balanced the status of the collection of cells that is or can be an early embryo against the benefits of research. It came down in favour of licensed research on embryos in the 14 days after fertilisation.
We had a debate on the report in this House on 31st October 1984. For those whose Christianity brings them to this House this evening and makes

1545
them feel that they must support the Bill, I simply refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Soper. He stated:
"I am not particularly impressed by the argument that one must not indulge in any research on one of the spare embryos which necessarily will he produced in this way. It is clear to me that there is no greater moral value in saying that we must just allow the spare embryos to die, or to say that we can indeed make use of them for future culture or for future ways of delivering them ourselves from these particularly difficult and complex problems".—[Official Report; 31/10/84: col. 548.]
Indeed the illogicality in this Bill is perhaps underlined by those remarks.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, would the noble Lord make it a criminal offence to conduct research on embryos after 14 days?
Lord Meston: My Lords, as I understand it, there is some significance in the 14-day period. I understand that some scientists may speak in terms of a longer period. I do not know what is right. I support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that we need to be informed. If the noble Earl waits, he will hear the suggestion I have to make as regards how we should proceed with this Bill.
I was going to say there is an illogicality in the Bill which would prevent the destruction or damage of an embryo in research but which allows the destruction or damage of an embryo if there is an imperfect, unsuccessful IVF implantation. In 1985 the voluntary licensing authority was set up. This has proved a success. It has allowed responsible, licensed research; that is research with defined objectives, limited timescales, and research in respect of which it is demonstrated that it cannot be carried out other than by using an early embryo. As I have said, such people would now be criminals under the Bill. The licensing authority has succeeded. It has not been sidestepped. Indeed, as I understand it, there has been no incentive for scientists to sidestep the licensing authority. My understanding is that the researchers in this field very much want the safeguards which the Warnock Committee recommended.
In 1986 the Government produced their consultation paper and in 1987 they produced their White Paper. As the noble Duke said, that was quite remarkable for proposing in paragraph 30 alternative choices in the Bill which it hoped in due course would be put before Parliament. There was an alternative between a clause which prohibited research, as this Bill does, and a clause which permitted licensed research. If that is still the intention of the Government—I hope we shall hear their intention this evening—I suggest that the provisions of this Bill can wait.
In 1988 we had our debate on the White Paper itself. Again those whose Christianity brings them to the Chamber this evening may wish to read the speech of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. That speech was in favour of research and accepted the validity of the 14-day limit. Frankly, the noble Duke wants to stop the clock and then put it back. He dealt with, but did not deny, the benefits of controlled research. He dealt with the benefits by saying that conventional research works as well. It
1546
does not follow that conventional research is sufficient to achieve what can be achieved.
We must face the fact this evening that we shall never reconcile or resolve the different views about the status of the embryo. That being so, I suggest that the best that Parliament can do is to undertake a serious evaluation of the present and potential benefits of research, and also the possible detriments, in order to allow informed debate in this developing field.
I hope that consideration will be given in due course to setting up a Select Committee on this Bill, assuming that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. is unable to persuade the House that the Bill is premature. The report of such a Select Committee may assist the Government to decide whether there is a need for this novel alternative choice of legislation. I hope that this evening the Government will indicate what legislation we can expect and when.
The supporters of the Bill are entitled to their strong views. They are entitled to have nothing to do with the research which I suggest should be allowed to continue and to have nothing to do with the benefits of that research. However, those in Parliament and outside who do not share their views are entitled to an informed debate free from prejudice.
It is my view that responsible research should be allowed to continue. I may be wrong. I understand there to be considerable benefits from the controlled research which is being undertaken and which is proposed in the alleviation of infertility, the improvement of contraception, the detection of genetic defects and research into miscarriage and other problems of pregnancy and possibly into the use of tissue for transplants. I suggest that if we really care about the future of unborn generations we should oppose this Bill.
3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I welcome the introduction of this Bill into your Lordships' House by the noble Duke and I hope that your Lordships will resist the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
This particular matter of research upon embryos is the most contentious of the recommendations of the Warnock Report. For that reason I believe that the issue deserves debate on its own. It has been contentious since the time of the Warnock Committee, and no doubt since long before that time. Three members of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, signed a minority report expressing dissent from the report and recommending that experimentation on the human embryo should not be permitted. Four further members dissented from the view that embryos should be brought into existence for research purposes. Of a committee of 16, nine signed the full recommendation on this issue.
That division has been reflected in subsequent debate both inside and outside the Churches. The Board of Social Responsibility of the General Synod of the Church of England was, by a majority, in favour of research on human embryos up to 14 days. A minority opposed that view. However, the board

1547
was opposed to the direct production of embryos for the sole purpose of research. The General Synod of the Church of England has voted twice on the matter. Both votes indicated a fairly even division of opinion within the Synod. It is therefore clear that the Church of England does not speak with one voice on this matter.
As I see it, the point at issue is at what moment in its life an embryo becomes entitled to the protection to which a human person is entitled. At what point do we say that here is a human, perhaps in the very earliest stages of development but a human nevertheless, and we must accord to him or her the protection to which humans are entitled, arising from our conviction and belief that all humans are entitled to certain protections under the law?
The theological arguments on the matter have already been rehearsed in your Lordships' House, notably by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York in the debate on 15th January 1988, to which some noble Lords have already referred. Broadly, the theological arguments fall into two groups, both of which have been part of our Christian tradition.
The first group of arguments revolves around the notion of a person being one who possesses certain attributes. Sometimes the word "soul" is used to sum up those attributes. The most important of those attributes is consciousness. On the basis of that set of arguments an organism which does not possess such attributes—one might say, which does not possess a soul—should not be treated as a person.
The second group of arguments centres upon the notion of life as a continuum, a development, a history with a beginning. In my view—and I shall try to justify it later—the obvious point marking that beginning is the moment of fertilisation. According to that set of arguments, from the moment it begins its existence as a potential human person an embryo is entitled to treatment as a potential human person, an organism with the possibilities of human creativity, relationship and consciousness ahead of it.
I place myself firmly among those who hold the second set of views. I find the notion of soul, whether interpreted as consciousness or in some other way, infused at a certain moment into an organism, without meaning. I find it a non-sensible concept—a concept which cannot be recognised by the senses—imposed upon the history of the organism. I think of life as a continuum.
However, I discover that there are others who think of life in that way who place some other beginning on it than the moment of fertilisation. Their argument, and this was the argument of the most reverend Primate, runs that the embryo in its very earliest form is too unstable, cells have not yet begun to split and differentiate. They say that we must speak of the history of the person beginning at some stage after fertilisation and in any case beyond the 14 days of life within which the Warnock Committee recommended that research could take place.
It is tempting to follow that line. It would allow research. It would balance the need to protect the
1548
embryo on the one hand against the needs on the other of those whom research would benefit. A powerful Christian voice, enunciated by Professor Gordon Dunstan, formerly Professor of Moral and Social Theology at the University of London, urges us to follow that way. I cannot feel it to be so.
Many of your Lordships will have received a briefing paper from the Genetic Interest Group. I read it with great interest. It includes a good deal of moral and theological argument. The briefing frequently uses the phrase "absolute protection" which is to be afforded to the embryo and argues that an embryo has no right to such absolute protection. I would not argue for absolute protection but for protection from destruction. I am not opposed in principle to research on embryos. I am not opposed to observation and testing, which indeed takes place on many of us. I am opposed to testing to destruction.
I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, the Chief Rabbi. He expressed the Jewish position and said:
"What is crucial in allowing the use of embryos for experiments is that they must have been brought into being not for research purposes but solely for the possible prospect of ensuring a successful pregnancy. The moment they are no longer potentially required, or in a fit condition. for possible reimplantation, no further experiments should be done; until then such observation or tests as do not irreversibly lead to their destruction … may be carried out".
That is a view to which I hold. Testing to destruction may be right for materials but not for embryos. I recognise that there is wastage in nature, but it seems to me that allowing natural wastage is not the same moral act as testing an embryo to destruction.
If the notion of a beginning to our personal history is to make sense—and I would argue that it does—I believe that it does so only by accepting fertilisation as that beginning. The papers from the Genetic Interest Group point out that the notion of life is a difficult one. They suggest that it is not possible to say when life begins. It is possible to argue that both sperm and ovum separately possess life and that we cannot speak of life as beginning at the moment of fertilisation. I accept that claim. I want to speak not of the moment at which life begins, but of the moment at which an individual's history begins. I believe that there is a good argument for maintaining that it is at the moment of fertilisation. That is the moment at which the genetic composition of the organism, which is a potential person, is determined. It is those genes that will be carried by a person throughout his or her personal history and the history will he determined to a considerable extent by the genes. The moment of fertilisation is the moment at which the history of that unique combination of genes begins and is therefore the moment from which we can say that a person exists in embryo.
In another place, presenting a similar Bill, the right honourable Mr. Enoch Powell based his argument on an instinct of revulsion and repugnance. Those who contend against him say that such an instinct must be based on a knowledge of the medical facts, and I agree with that. I have attempted to argue that his instinct is soundly based on a recognition of the fertilised ovum as the carrier of a unique set of genes and the moment of fertilisation as the starting point of a unique personal history.

1549
I therefore cannot accept that, up to 14 days, an embryo is not a potential person. I have heard it argued that, as it is not implanted in the womb, it has no future and therefore cannot be regarded as a person in potential; but on that argument, we could not accept that a born child facing certain death had an entitlement to treatment as a person and protection under the law.
I am not one of those to whom the answer to the question seems obvious. I listened to the clarion calls of those who are clear in their minds and am not immediately persuaded by either of their claims. In reading the briefing papers, I have continually asked myself: what is the gain that we are asked to recognise which will be achieved by research, and which those who oppose the testing of embryos to destruction are said to be blocking? As I read the current literature on this matter, it seems to me that two groups of people will he helped: those who are apparently infertile and those couples whose possible offspring are, for genetic reasons, at risk of handicap. In both cases, the right of the couple to have a child is asserted: in the one case at the moment, they cannot, and, in the other case at the moment, they could choose not to. It is that right to have a child of one's own genes that is placed against the right of the embryo to protection. I do not believe that that is sufficient gain to offset against the cost.
My reaching this point of personal conviction has come slowly and with some inner wrestling. By training, I am a mathematician, not a theologian. By nature, I am one who looks forwards not backwards; who is excited by modern technology; who believes in the future and welcomes the work of scientists as revealing to us the mysteries and opportunities of God's creation. I long for misery and suffering to be overcome, not least by developments in the medical field. However, if research on embryos is permitted, I ask: what is the cost? I believe that, in the end, the cost is an erosion of that sense of reverence for life which is at the heart of our relationships and our moral endeavours. I therefore welcome this Bill.
7.43p.m
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, as chairman of the Medical Research Council I must express a deep interest in this debate. I shall divide my remarks into two parts: first, substance, and, secondly, procedure. As regards substance, as a purely amateur Anglican, I am not qualified to delve into deep theological waters and shall not therefore do so. However, as a purely amateur Anglican I confess that I go along more willingly with the views expressed by the most reverend Primate 14 months ago in our debate in January than with the views that we have just heard so beautifully expressed by the right reverend Prelate.
As regards research, I strongly believe that my noble friend's Bill—I use the word "friend" both in the political and personal sense—will effectively kill or at least cripple research which carries with it great promise for the future and for the alleviation of the suffering of millions of people around the world. I believe that the possibilities of that research go wider than the right reverend Prelate mentioned.
1550
For example, research is being undertaken into fertility. I believe that only couples who are childless and desperately want children can fully appreciate what the inability to have children can mean in terms of deprivation. As I reminded noble Lords when we discussed this matter some 14 months ago, it is worth remembering that it is estimated that over a quarter of a million couples in this country aged between 24 and 35 are infertile.
Much research has been done since the birth of Louise Brown 11 years ago, but much remains to be done. At present, the success rate of in vitro fertilisation is about 10 per cent.—one in 10. A great deal of research is still required in order to increase that success rate and thus to avoid the disappointments—indeed, the considerable hardships—from which many couples hoping tohave children through in vitro fertilisation still suffer. Much work still needs to be done to avoid what sometimes happens at the present imperfect stage of our techniques; namely, accidental multiple birth. At the same time, useful work, which my noble friend's Bill would effectively terminate, is at present being undertaken into the reasons for and causes of miscarriage. That is frequently due to embryo abnormalities and continuing research into the human pre-embryo is needed to elucidate what is a very mysterious area. Then, again, the research that is at present being undertaken can also help to throw light upon and possibly alleviate the reasons for male infertility, which is much more prevalent than is sometimes supposed.
That is one side of the research coin. The other side is research into new methods of contraception. I hazard a personal view that the dynamic growth of the population worldwide is one of the most serious challenges facing man on earth today. It is worth remembering that the population of our globe increases by approximately a quarter of a million people every 24 hours. Very important research, which my noble friend's Bill would terminate, is at present being undertaken into the possible development of a contraceptive vaccine. That would carry with it dramatic and beneficial possibilities, especially for the developing world.
Above all, my noble friend's Bill would effectively hamstring the research that is being clone in this country at present into the possibility of eliminating at the pre-embryo stage a number of highly unpleasant genetic diseases. My noble friend referred to haemophilia. I shall not bandy words with him, praying in aid one scientist against another. However, I agree with the noble Lord and am convinced that conventional research in that genetic area will not be sufficient.
Apart from anything else, there are some 2,000 genetic diseases some of which are susceptible to the type of research to which I have referred. I have in mind, for example, Tay Sachs syndrome, Huntingdon's disease, muscular dystrophy and, not least, that particularly horrible Lesch Nyhan syndrome. As many noble Lords know, some of those diseases can be diagnosed only at a comparatively late stage of pregnancy, probably not earlier than 10 or 11 weeks and probably as late as 18 or 19 weeks into pregnancy. That can present a

1551
couple with what can be a really agonising dilemma. Is the mother to go through the appalling trauma of one of those late, distressing abortions or is the couple to decide— and some bravely do so— to go ahead with the birth of a child that they know will be abnormal, which at the best will live a crippled life both mentally and physically, and at the worst may be destined for an inevitably early death?
I was deeply moved by the words of the late Lady LaneߝFox, herself a cripple from an early age from polio, when, speaking in our debate in January a year ago, she focused attention on the
"compelling and urgent need for everything possible to be done to advance research aimed at preventing congenital handicap".
I can only say that I take the same view as my late friend
I should also add that research on preߝembryos may not only be of great value in the case of congenital disorders. In the report to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred, entitled Fertility and the Family, it is rightly stated:
"We may come to understand the origins of cancer by looking at genetic mechanisms in embryonic cells, and seeing how the genes that control an abnormal cycleߝtime express themselves".
Indeed, a project in this area has just been authorised by the voluntary licensing authority.
I fear that most of what I have said is very much repetition of what I tried to say in our last debate on this vastly complex and deeply emotional topic, and one which of course has deep underlying moral elements. I should like to add only two comments on the substance of the matter. First, there has been a great deal of useful research done in the past 14 months within my personal knowledge. For example, there was an article in the Lancet some three weeks ago which described the truly remarkable research being done at the postߝgraduate medical school at Hammersmith. This has demonstrated that we are getting significantly closer to making feasible the diagnosis at the preߝembryonic stage of some of the major genetic diseases.
Secondly, I have had the chance during these past 14 months to see on the ground some of the work that is being done by British medical scientists up and down this country in this field. I have been struck above all by the dedication of these research teams, their professional ability, and, above all, the responsible manner in which they are carrying out that research. I for one am proud—and I am glad to state it—that in this field of scientific inquiry, carefully regulated, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, by the voluntary licensing authority, Britain at present leads the world. I must make it crystal clear that the research being undertaken by these dedicated professional and responsible teams is a far cry from the monstrous genetic manipulation to which my noble friend referred and which all of us would find repugnant, and which in any event would be ruled out if effect were given to the Government's proposals.
So much for substance. On procedure, I say only this. So far as I can judge, no one is more anxious than the members of the medical scientific community, and those who are active in research in this area, to see that these complex issues are resolved, in so far as they can be resolved, by the
1552
earliest possible government legislation. That is certainly the impression that I have derived from all the visits that I have paid to the rather numerous places where this research is being carried out
My own strong preference—and I do not wish to disguise this—is that when the Government lay their Bill before Parliament, Parliament will in its wisdom choose to endorse the second option in paragraph 30 of the 1987 White Paper: that of permitting research in this area but permitting it only within a strict regulatory regime subject to a strict timeߝlimit of 14 days after fertilisation and with a strict, strong and effective statutory licensing authority
I was very much encouraged by what my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale had to say in our debate in January. He affirmed the Government's intention to introduce a Bill during this present Parliament. Indeed, he went further in his winding up speech when he expressed the hope that a Bill would be laid before Parliament very shortly—to quote his words "I hope within the next year or 18 months". Those words were spoken 13 or 14 months ago. I am convinced that this is the way to proceed. If at the end of the day Parliament were to decide, for whatever reason, right or wrong, that the preߝembryo research to which I have referred is to be ruled out, then, very sadly, I would say so be it.
I am equally convinced that in these circumstances, with a Government Bill in the offing, the way not to proceed is by a Private Member's Bill. That is why I find myself in considerable sympathy with the sentiments expressed in the noble nonagenarian's (if I may so term him) reasoned amendment. I of course respect, as we all do, the strength and sincerity of my noble friend's views. I know that they are founded on a deep religious belief. But I should like to join other noble Lords in expressing to him as strongly as I can the hope that, having once again given us an opportunity to discuss these complex issues, and given the stated intention of the Government to introduce this muchߝneeded legislation—in my view it is overdue—in the present Parliament, he will rest content and not proceed with the futher stages of this Bill.
7.57 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I have been asked by everybody, including the noble Duke, to speak briefly—even more briefly than previous speakers. I intend to comply. That will make it impossible to reply to the very sincere speeches that have been made in criticism of his Bill.
I was saddened by one part of the speech of my old and deeply respected noble friend Lord Houghton. He described the noble Duke as an inappropriate person. I have been here a lot longer than my noble friend, if I may say so. I was given a lecture on procedure of the House at one point. It would be a sad day if people were picked out and described as appropriate or inappropriate according to their credentials, real or imagined. I imagine that he was referring not to the fact that he was the senior Duke but that he was a Roman Catholic. My noble friend cast his eye down the list and stated that he could see the kind of views that were held by many people. I cannot tell a Roman Catholic when I see one.

1553
However, so far as I can make out there are four or possibly five Roman Catholics out of a possible 26. He is therefore misinformed if he thinks that this debate has been engineered from Rome.
The truth is that a very high proportion of speakers, including the last speaker, who is extremely appropriate in this context, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, are active Christians. But surely that cannot be counted as a disqualification. It is not only the atheists who are allowed freedom of speech in this House or anywhere else. However, I am not in the mood to indulge in personalities in particular about my noble friend, as I have enormous regard for him.
It may be thought that I am a stooge of the noble Duke. Noble Lords who listened to the debate last summer may remember that, like St. Paul challenging St. Peter, I confronted him face to face here and we had some quite hot exchanges across the Chamber. I do not automatically jump to his whip. On the other hand, on this occasion I support him. I do not always do exactly what the Roman Catholic Church thinks appropriate, even though I have been a member of that Church for 48 or 49 years now. It seems a long time. I hope that in the lifetime of many younger peers we may have women priests. That is not a very popular view in my Church. I do not want your Lordships to think that to everything the Catholic Church says I say "ditto".
It counts a lot to me, which I shall explain in a moment, that in the Roman Catholic Church—the position of the Anglican Church has been well explained by the right reverend Prelate—enormous work has been done on this by theologians, scientists and doctors of a Catholic persuasion for many years. Therefore when they come forward with a considered view, articulated here by the noble Duke, I am inclined to favour it.
Speakers on the last occasion said that the contest was between reason, which they saw themselves representing, and faith —presumably it was some muddled, irrational form of faith which they attributed to the Christian lobby. I am afraid I do not accept that way of looking at the issue. All this work has been done by these theologians, doctors and scientists and they have reached certain conclusions which put them at least equal with any scientist that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has been able to mobilise. Incidentally, I am glad to see that she has descended from that Back Bench. I think she means business tonight.
I would find it easy, perhaps one might say too easy, to agree with what was said by the minority of members of her commission when they made it plain that they thought the embryo had a potential for development and they concluded that research should not be undertaken on embryos. That was the conclusion of a group less numerous but as well qualified as the majority. I do not think we can say that on the one side there is reason and scientific research and on the other a lot of hot gospellers or Roman acolytes. We have to look at this issue fairly and squarely as Members of the House. I agree that Christians have a rather difficult time because it is no good looking in the New Testament—I speak subject
1554
to the guidance of two Bishops—because we shall not find in it what our Lord said about embryos. It is a question of the development of Christian doctrine, and undoubtedly there is more than one view taken in the Church as a whole.
I wish that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was speaking. Perhaps he will speak before night falls, because I know he holds strong and acceptable views. However the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon has supported the Bill.
I find it easy to accept the views of the minority, knowing that they are favoured by the Church to which I belong. I would never stand up and support them if I had not reached that conclusion and if I did not in conscience consider that these were reasonable views. There are other views held with deep sincerity. I appreciate that but let us not talk as though reason was on one side and faith on the other, even, as it is often implied, a rather idiotic faith. There is reason on both sides. When all is said and done some of us consider research on embryos as an evil operation, carried out rather high mindedly perhaps, but it is an evil operation that would do untold damage to humanity.
8.4 p.m
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I begin by expressing my appreciation to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk for introducing this Bill, which concerns matters of such ultimate significance and which I believe is very timely.
I preface my contribution by declaring my position which is based on two sets of values. I speak as a Christian and as a nurse. As a Christian, I am committed to respect the sanctity of individual human life, however embryonic. As a nurse, I have been profoundly influenced by the medical ethics of Western culture, so timelessly articulated in the Hippocratic oath. Both sets of values combine to reinforce my wholehearted support for the Bill. The fundamental purpose of the Bill is to outlaw the utilitarian use of human life—albeit in embryonic form. In other words, the Bill is designed to prevent the sacrifice of human life for ulterior ends, in ways which are antithetical to the life of the embryo and/or to the creation of a new human life.
In the Warnock Report, the foreword refers to
"barriers that are not to be crossed,"
and asks
"What kind of society can we praise and admire? In what sort of society can we live with our conscience clear?"
It is my belief, shared by many others, that some barriers have already been crossed which should not have been, and that many people feel that some recent developments are such that they cannot live in the same society with them with clear consciences. The crossing of barriers refers both to the level of principle, with the use of human embryos for nonߝtherapeutic research—that is research aimed at ends unrelated to the wellbeing of the embryo and/or the initiation of a new life through pregnancy—and at the level of practice, for example with the long term storage of very large numbers of frozen embryos.
Before going into a little detail on the thorny question of what is a truly human embryo, I wish to

1555
refer briefly to the question of human rights and duties. Of course one must respect the duty to provide appropriate and available medical treatment. It can also be claimed that there is a right to have a child. It is therefore important to stress that the present Bill does not prevent various measures which have been developed, using human embryos, to enable many people to have children who would otherwise have been unable to do so.
However, present policy has been shaped by a utilitarian calculus which justifies the sacrifice of human embryos for some ostensible greater good, unconnected with the development of new life through a successful pregnancy. Jane Mellor argues in her excellent booklet published by CARE called"What is an Embryo?",
"Many of the statements by scientists involved in the Warnock debate are based on the utilitarian reasoning that sacrifices one life for another. Yet the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, revised in 1983, states 'The interests of the subject must always prevail over the interests of science and society'
"Professionals, MPs and the rest of us must work together to safeguard innocent human life from being sacrificed either on the altar of scientific research, or even for the future wellbeing of other human beings. Such protection must be enshrined in our law. If we do not reject the utilitarianism which underlies the case for research on human embryos, then we have abandoned one of the cardinal principles upon which our society has stood—and for which it has been respected—for hundreds of years: the protection in law of the life of innocent human beings".
That leads into the question of the definition of human life and the stage at which it is ethical and reasonable to define a collection of cells as a human being. The position which has so far informed policy is the 14ߝday rule, suggested by the Warnock Report, to which reference has already been made. That allows for the storage of younger embryos, their use for nonߝtherapeutic purposes and for their destruction. One justification is that in some senses the embryo at this stage is not fully human; for example, it has been argued that cells in the very early days after conception, when they are characterised by to tipotency, make it impossible to distinguish a distinctive embryo. Hence the use of the phrase "preߝembryo" which conveniently allows a distinction to be made between this bundle of cells and their successors a few days later.
The argument can then justify the use of research on a preߝembryo which is not yet human, while claiming to protect the rights of the embryo proper. But as Jane Mellor argues, if I may briefly quote again:
"From the moment of fertilisation, the embryo is obviously a human embryo since it is derived from human parents, with DNA of a specifically human type. It is also a living being, growing and changing with incredible speed and beauty … The early embryo is not simply a loose aggregation of cells. It is genetically unique, of the human species, with molecular differentiating activity in the cells from the outset. From the earliest moment the embryo … if allowed to develop in a normal environment will become a human baby".
Of course, not all practices involve the deliberate destruction of the human embryo without the associated intention of the creation of a new human life. The happy conclusion of some pregnancies achieved by methods using embryos in different ways has been felt by society to be quite justifiable. But not all research is directed to the wellbeing of the embryo and the mother in this way. For example, there are
1556
four research units in the United Kingdom listed in the 1988 Voluntary Licensing Authority Report, where experimentation is being undertaken with no direct clinical intention of implanting the embryo into a uterus.
Such developments raise other questions on which there is time to touch only briefly in the debate. The questions have been asked by many people, including the Women and Children's Welfare Fund. They raise profoundly complex ethical problems yet to be resolved. For example, who owns the manufactured human embryo? Who is the parent or guardian of the embryo? Is it the responsibility of one or both of the people who provided the components of conception to authorise or refuse experiments on "their" embryo? Who is the guardian of the interests of the welfare of the embryo? If parents do not consent to research, individually or jointly, can scientists define themselves as the owners and decide on research? There is widespread confusion, ignorance, anxiety and concern over these ethical issues; hence the urgent need for clarification and for protection of the embryos by law.
Finally, I return to where I began: my commitments as a nurse and as a Christian. As a nurse, I have been deeply influenced by the famous and wise words often used to try to provide some ground rules for making agonising decisions concerning the care of people who are terminally ill, or who are so ill that they seem to have lost all quality of life and to be merely enduring an apparently intolerable existence. These words, which are widely accepted as wise guidelines, can be seen to apply to the issues before the House tonight. They are:
"Thou must not kill but shoulds't not strive officiously to keep alive".
The phrase "thou must not kill" is preߝeminent. Beyond that there is the warning against officious intervention which maintains human life artificially and transcends nature's normal processes. I believe that in some of the areas we are considering, policies have been developed which interfere officiously to keep alive, and also to kill innocent human beings. That is one reason why I so wholeheartedly support the Bill.
And as a Christian, I must support the Bill because I believe that man is made in the image of God. Therefore, I must also believe that any undue interference in the natural, Godߝgiven processes of procreation, is running a profoundly serious risk of hubris in which man is taking upon himself fearful and godߝlike responsibilities, with excessive interference in making, shaping and destroying human life. I believe that that is creating a situation and a society in which many people cannot live with clear consciences. Therefore, I believe that the Bill is not only timely but also urgent. I passionately hope that the House will give it a Second Reading tonight.
8.14 p.m
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, your Lordships' House has already heard many arguments that have been propounded with great passion, feeling and enormous sincerity and doubtless will hear many more before the issue is concluded. I hope that noble Lords will not be so carried away as to forget to make

1557
important distinctions among the kinds of arguments that are being put forward.
Briefly, the issue is whether research may be carried out using human embryos that have been fertilised in vitro. I need hardly remind your Lordships that there are those who believe that from the moment of fertilisation—if that is a moment"—all human life is of equal value and must be given protection from destruction by the law. Thus for those holding that belief it is irrelevant to raise the question, for how many days from fertilisation in the laboratory research using human embryos should be permitted—that is research which involves the destruction of those embryos. Their answer is that it should never be permitted.
Moreover, the absolute equality of value assigned by those people to all human life at whatever stage of development entails that it is also irrelevant to argue that much human suffering among people who have been born or who will be born in the future can be avoided as a result of the research. That is because no consideration of consequences can have the faintest relevance in the eyes of those who believe that to destroy a preߝl4ߝday gamete is a mortal sin; indeed, the same mortal sin as murder.
However, there are others who, if they are opposed to research using human embryos, are opposed on different grounds. They do not believe that there is anything intrinsically wrong in using an early postߝfertilisation embryo for the purposes of research, provided that the research is beneficial. They recognise that at that stage of development many embyos are lost spontaneously, often without knowledge that they exist, let alone the mourning of them. They are prepared in principle to justify research on the grounds of the enormous benefits which will flow from it and about which your Lordships have been told and doubtless will be told again. They are benefits to other humans who have been born or who will be born.
Yet they are afraid that if this research were permitted anything would be permitted. That is to say, they rely on what is popularly known as the slippery slope argument. It is that if once we embark on the course of using human embryos in research there will be no stopping it. If today we use preߝ14day embryos, tomorrow we shall be using preߝ14ߝday babies, preߝ14ߝweek infants or preߝ14ߝyear children and so on to the bottom of the slope. There perhaps people we do not like can be used for research for the benefit of the rest of us.
Despite the words of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I believe that it is no good offering arguments against the position of the first group of people I have described. That is because most moral arguments in favour of research using human embryos rely on the specification of the good and beneficial consequences of such research.
To those arguments members of the first group are quite properly deaf because they are defending an absolute principle to which they are committed though the heavens fall. Citing good consequences of abandoning the principle or bad consequences of adhering to it are alike matters of no importance to
1558
those who believe in the principle absolutely. The whole nature of such absolutism, whatever its source, is to be indifferent to the consequences that flow from adherence to the principle.
To the second group of people—those who rely on the slippery slope argument—to the people who are afraid of research using the preߝ14ߝday embryo, I hope that it may be possible to suggest that what we do not need is a total ban on all research but we need strict and wellߝmonitored regulation; and in order for the regulation to be fair and to create a genuine harrier beyond which we shall not be able to slide down the slippery slope, the force of law is required.
Therefore, in speaking against the Bill I should like to urge the Government as soon as is practicable, reasonable and possible to come forward with legislation which will seek to regulate and monitor research using human embryos. I am convinced that we have good reason to put our trust in such regulatory law and that we have before us an issue, perhaps more than any other, where regulation is appropriate and would be widely welcomed by scientists, the medical profession and the public at large.
8.20 p.m
Baroness LlewelynߝDavies of Hastoe: My Lords; I shall be as brief as possible but, because this whole question of in vitro fertilisation is so important, I should like to stress some of what I believe to be the most important points at issue. For a couple who want children, childlessness is a real tragedy. In vitro fertilisation has seemed almost like a miracle for those for whom it has ended that tragedy. However, it is not always realised that there is a 90 per cent. failure rate for those undergoing the process—sometimes undergoing it for many years. It is essential that there should be ongoing research in order to improve the rate of success.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to genetic diseases. It is ofcrucial importance that there should be more research, as it has become increasingly possible for parents who are carriers of genetic diseases to have a healthy child. Seven thousand children are born with genetic diseases every year. We know from our debates in your Lordships' House of the terrible distress women suffer having abortions when grossly handicapped babies can be detected only at a very late stage in pregnancy. If research continues, there is a real possibility for such parents of fertilising and diagnosing a perfect preߝembryo and placing it in the mother's uterus for implantation and healthy growth. How much desperate unhappiness, indecision and moral and physical agony could be avoided.
I have thought a great deal about the ethical aspects of this kind of research. I accept that my noble friend Lord Longford, who has been my noble friend for a very long time, should feel and speak as he has. The right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl both referred to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York. In our last debate I thought his the most profound and moving approach. About the

1559
difficult question of the 14 day preߝimplantation embryo, he said:
"I believe that in the very early stage when personal attributes are nonߝexistent and when identity is yet to be established there is room to allow experiment" [Official Report, 15/1/88; col. 1463].
Those words are closest to my own view and, I believe, to the views of many of your Lordships.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Earl mentioned that further preߝembryo research would study other serious conditions of pregnancy, such as the cause of premature labour, stillbirth and frequent miscarriages. That would be of the utmost value to the human race.
I should like to make one more reference to the noble lord, Lord Skelmersdale. In winding up our last debate, he said that,
"we intend to legislate in this Parliament. I cannot promise when that will be, although … it will be sooner rather than later". [Official Report, 15/1/88; col. 1503].
I submit that it is difficult under these circumstances to understand why the noble Duke wishes to bring in his Bill in the middle of the most crowded legislative programme that the House can remember. I very much hope that if he succeeds in obtaining a Second Reading this evening, he will not proceed further with the Bill. It would be much better for such a complex matter to be referred to a Select Committee.
I add, with great trepidation, that I am not wholly sure about the views of my noble friend Lord Houghton on the EC. I believe that we should have our own position quite clear before entering into negotiations with other EC countries. However, I put that view forward and await the consequences. In any case, I urge the Government to do what they have said they will do; namely, to bring in their proposed legislation as soon as they can, and I very much hope that the noble Duke will not press his own Bill too far.
8.25 p.m
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk for introducing the debate on this Bill. It is a Bill to confer legal status upon embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation, a status which prohibits their creation, keeping or use, other than for enabling a child to be born to a specified woman. Therefore, it specifically prohibits two thingsthe depersonalised traffic in human embryos for commercial gain and the abuse or misuse of human embryos for experimental purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that he was not concerned with the merits but with the tactics. I am in no sense concerned in a debate about tactics. I am only concerned about the merits. Who knows whether life begins at the moment of conception? Medical opinion is clearly divided. Until it is established whether it does or does not for a certain
period of time—and 14 days seems to have been chosen—the misuse of what may well be a life in being should under no circumstances be countenanced, unless there is just cause.
That has not been established. My noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon, and I, believe that life begins at the moment of conception, as does my noble friend Lady
1560
Cox. I know—and I see them in the Chamber—that other noble Lords who have been friends of mine for years also believe what I believe. However, let us put aside the question of belief. Medical opinion is divided. Until it is affirmatively established, quite apart from the question of belief but as a matter of reason, why should a life in being or what could be a life in being be exposed to destruction?
The term "preߝembryo" is a term to justify research. I know not really what it means. It is an invented term and a device designed to beg the question, which it does. I am no expert in these matters. I have read and listened to what I can on the matter. One can only make a personal judgment which is not necessarily correct. However, to my mind, in the light of what I have heard and read, the speech of my noble friend Lady Cox really answered the speech of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe who was advancing a case of just cause. That case, it appeared to me, was answered by my noble friend Lady Cox. Surely there is common ground between the tenets of all religious faiths, even if the respective approach to IVF differs and has not crystallised, and even if the Church of England does not speak with one voice, as the right reverend Prelate said. It seldom does, and I can say that as a member of the Church. On that basis I made some inquiries and discovered this afternoon that it is common to the tenets of the Moslem faith, certainly the Shia Moslems. How does one justify the destruction of what would be or could be a life in being without just cause?
Those who use what is or what may be at that time a human life, contending that experimental research affords just cause—the noble Lord, Lord Meston, took the point—must discharge, with my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, the onus of justification. Have they done so to your Lordships' satisfaction? It is said that the purpose of research is concerned with congenital and genetic disease, infertility and new means of contraception where the embryo (I think this was the means referred to by my noble friend) is killed before the mother is aware of conception, and so forth. However, medical opinion is still divided, from what I have read and heard. Alternative methods are available, I have again heard from my sources of information, in particular on infertility, referred to by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe.
The nature of the proposed experiment is uncertain and was not expounded on nor explained by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe and has not been propounded or explained in anything that I have yet seen. The results so far achieved have shown no viable success rate. Ten per cent. means 90 per cent. failure and that surely is not a justification to warrant continued experimentation.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, may I intervene?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, of course. I am always glad to give way.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, I am most grateful. In the noble Lord's search for knowledge about research has he taken the opportunity of visiting any of the research centres? A number are based in London and are supported by the Medical Research Council. The

1561
noble Lord might have found some answers to some of his questions had he sought information from those actively involved in the research.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am in the hands of the House. We are under strict constraints of time. lithe House wishes me to answer I will do so, but it will take more time. Perhaps I will be able to reply if there is time at the end of my speech.
I was dealing with the justification that had been put forward for carrying on experiments which led to what could be—I put it no higher on reasoning but it is what I believe it to be—a life in being. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe referred to the value of preߝembryonic research. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred to benefits. As I have sought to explain (and times moves on) there is not sufficient evidence which is clear enough to serve as justification. The onus on just cause, the only justification, has not been discharged. If that has not been discharged, use becomes misuse or abuse.
Is it not idle to talk in terms of cocoons of our own making, as did the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and putting the clock back, as did the noble Lord, Lord Meston? Already we have tampered with the mechanism of the clock so that it gives a false reading on the dial. Whose clock is it, anyway? What time can it tell in the timelessness of infinite ethical values?.
8.36 p.m
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for moving the Second Reading of this important Bill and I welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, because it gives us an opportunity to stand up and be counted and have a straight vote rather than letting the Bill go through on the nod, thereby sending a message to the Government and to the other place as to how the feeling of this House is shown by a Division.
By implication in the Bill—and this is my only reservation—I VF is an acceptable practice. On that I have my doubts. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whether he had visited research centres. I have not, but I have spoken to their directors and engaged a research assistant who has given me an abstract of the world's literature on the subject. I had intended to recite some figures, but in view of the plea from the noble Duke to curtail our remarks I have placed the abstract in the Library and it is available for all to see.
This is a perplexing subject. I feel that I am wearing three hats—a Christian hat in which I have nothing to add to the admirable remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox; a scientific hat in which I have to confess that I regard knowledge in itself as a good thing, but when it comes to the application of that knowledge we are in a contextߝsensitive domain and I am not sure that the uncritical domain and knowledge is necessarily compatible with Christian values. Finally, I am wearing a legislative hat in which I have to impose on my fellow countryman, along with my noble colleagues in this House, laws which they all have to obey, albeit their opinions on
1562
many subjects may be widely different from my own and from one another's.
For the purpose of this debate I define an experiment as simply a procedure the outcome of which cannot be predicted with sufficient certainty to make the experiment unnecessary. That goes along with testing a fertilised embryo for normality prior to implantation. It would be irresponsible to implant in utero an embryo the normality of which had not been tested by observation. I do not think that the Bill in any way inhibits that. The Bill does not prohibit experiments as such. In fact, so far as I can see the word "experiment" does not appear anywhere on the face of the Bill. Therefore, any test prior to implantation with the purpose of implantation is enfranchised by the Bill, though other types of experiment may not be.
Let it not be supposed that I have no sympathies with infertile couples, but there are research opportunities in other directions which are never mentioned. There are anecdotal facts, if facts they be; but they have occurred among my own relatives and I know some persons affected by them. A childless couple adopts a child or children. The foster mother immediately becomes pregnant. Something maternal, whatever it may be, is mobilised by the mere fact of motherhood. I even know of a most extraordinary case of a woman who was infertile for six years and who was asked by chance to care for a baby owl that had broken its leg after falling out of the nest. She fostered that owl; fed it once an hour and she looked after it for some months. At the end of that time she found herself spontaneously pregnant. I am told that relief of a longߝendured stress can have the same result; relieve the stress and pregnancy may be the result. Why?
Somewhere between the pituitary, the hypothalamus, the adrenals, the gonads or possibly elsewhere, some neuroߝhumeral transmitter, lies what? That is where research should go. I have always been inspired in the direction of research by Kipling's "Explorer's Song" which says:
"Something hidden, go and find it.
Go and look behind the ranges.
Something lost behind the ranges,
Lost and waiting for you. Go!"
A word of warning. Of course, I favour the establishment of knowledge which is good in itself by observation and experiment as recommended by Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon in the reign of King James I. But not all applications are wise. From Mother Eve onwards the human race, unable to swim, has been jumping in at the deep end without measuring the temperature of the water or its depth. It finds itself out of its depth, unable to swim and landed in trouble. It is enmeshed in vested interests which it has allowed to build up carelessly.
Going into reverse is not all that easy. In so far as this Bill will damp down irresponsible efforts, I welcome it and it will have my support. If the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, cares to divide the House, I shall follow the noble Duke into the Lobby.
8.42 p.m
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has referred to the two

1563
alternative clauses that the Government propose to draft into any Bill that they bring forward for our consideration. They express the wish or the hope that the House and Parliament will choose the second. The second says:
"Except as part of a project specifically licensed by the SLA, it will be a criminal offence to carry out any procedures on a human embryo other than those aimed at preparing the embryo for transfer to the uterus of a woman",
and so on.
There is an alternative and we shall be given a choice between the two. The other is the totally negative one:
"It will be a criminal offence to carry out any procedures on a human embryo other than those aimed at preparing the embryo",
and so on. That is the one that is envisaged by the Bill that we are debating now. I wish to know what will happen if the first is carried; namely, the one that absolutely forbids all experimentation. What will the Government do when faced with that situation? I do not believe that it is likely that they will be faced with it, but it is perfectly possible.
The reason I ask that question is because the White Paper we have been discussing and the Bill, and also the Warnock Report, do not refer to in vitro fertilisation in any connection other than for the relief of infertility with the possible exception of various medical researches designed to improve the condition of the child that is born by these means.
It may surprise some noble Lords to know that the relief of infertility is by no means the chief use of IVF. The chief use is utterly different and exactly the opposite. That has not been mentioned at all. I wish to quote from a letter addessed to me from the Medical Education Trust. It has not been mentioned that IVF has,
"been on the agenda of population control organisations since the 1960s and that the World Health Organisation has funded worldߝwide research into it since 1972. The object of this research is to discover a reliable 'antiߝbirth' vaccine which will cause the death of the embryo before the mother is aware of conception".
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe referred to that. In other words, a postߝcoital superpill is to be handed out, presumably by governments, under the auspices of the World Health Organisation, to women in overpopulated countries with the idea of preventing what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, described some years ago in the telling phrase as "human infestation by too many babies".
I quote again from the same letter:
"There are grounds for hoping that the use of IVF embryos for research will lead to the discovery of efficient new methods of population control. This is the real justification for the promotion and funding of IVF by Governments and organisations involved in population planning."
Are Her Majesty's Government numbered among these governments? I read on:
"The International Population Union Conference on the Scientific Study of Population, held in London in 1969, was funded by the governments of the UK, Denmark, Finland, West Germany, Norway, Sweden and the US",
and some others. The projects proposed at this conference, held in London and funded in part by the United Kingdom, included a search for an oral preparation that would destroy the corpus luteum whether or not fertilisation had taken place. Such a procedure means killing the embryo which cannot
1564
live without the corpus luteum. For that purpose what has been described as a constant supply of human embryos is required.
I ask noble Lords to remember that this is a World Health Organisation programme. The director of the programme made a point in a speech that the WHO's perceived neutrality made it,
"a most appropriate instrument to deal with an area as sensitive as that of family planning research".
That is killing hosts of human embryos in the hope of finding a reliable abortifacient. Some neutrality!
I hope my noble friend the Minister will answer this question at the end of the debate. Are the Government still involved in this? If they are, we believe that they are giving large sums of money to provide great numbers of embryos purely for the purposes of destruction in research. If we find ourselves faced with an alternative forbidding such things, they will be in a very difficult situation. Can my noble friend tell me what the position is now?
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will feel better in the morning. He has moved an amendment, and that is what we are now debating. It is to the effect that this Bill is premature. I do not know exactly what is the objection to prematurity, but we are asked to play it out on that ground. So far as I know, this Bill is the first legislation that has come before Parliament in the history of the world on this subject. It is only in the past 30 years that modern technology has made it possible to investigate and interfere in the actual structure of the ovum and the sperm and consequently of the embryo.
This is something utterly new. It is taking place in an area about which nothing is known; that area being the nature of life itself. For the first time in the history of the world we have an enormously important milestone in the evolution of mankind. That is the point in evolution at which we stand, and no one has yet made any laws about it; there are no regulations and no legislation. There is nothing. That has been going on for 20 years. Louise Brown is now 10 years old. She was the first test tube baby and 10 years of research has gone on. Is it not time that something was done, and done in a hurry? We are asked not to bother, and we are told that it is quite unnecessary, that it is a matter of procedure.
The lecture of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, had nothing to do with the merits of the Bill. He said so himself. It is a matter of procedure, when possibly the whole future of the world is at stake. We do not know what the future will hold, any more than man knew when electricity was first discovered what would flow from that. I suggest that we should proceed with the utmost despatch, not with haste or undue speed but with resolution, to some kind of conclusion before it is too late, as it may well be. Therefore I strongly hope that we shall reject the amendment moved by the noble Lord and proceed to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, can my noble friend clarify one point? He referred to a contraceptive vaccination. The purpose of any such vaccination would be to prevent fertilisation.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, that is my point.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Duke for bringing forward this Bill, which I entirely support. At present there is no statute law to protect the in vitro fertilised embryo before it is implanted in its mother's womb. Legislation is therefore needed, and needed urgently.
Naturally medical researchers want to extend the frontiers of research. However, as Cardinal Hume pointed out in a notable article in The Times on 6th June 1985, there needs to be a framework of absolute moral principles within which and only within which research is permissible. To be uniformly recognised, these principles must be put on a statutory basis. In the frame of legislation, the overriding consideration is what one means by the term "embryo". In both the Warnock Report and the Government's White Paper the term "embryo" referred to the human being in its earliest period of growth—from fertilisation to the first appearance on ultrasound at six weeks. I would emphasise "from fertilisation". Most noble Lords would go along with this definition. However, subsequently, the term "pre-embryo" has been invented to describe the embryo prior to implantation. This phrase is a contradiction in terms and I fear that its only effect is to throw dust in our eyes.
In using the term, scientists may wish to refer to a particular stage in the life of the embryo, but it is still an embryo, which given favourable conditions can develop into a fully grown man or woman. Although still on the threshold of life, the embryo is a member of the human family and is entitled to be treated as such. In this connection I have always understood that it is a basic principle of medical ethics that no one is given treatment that is not to his benefit and that is not overridden even in the case of research towards some allegedly greater good.
Accordingly, to create and use embryos for general experimentation, after which they may be thrown away, would be to breach a basic medical ethic that has served well both patients and doctors down the ages. The Bill before the House seeks to prevent a human embryo being created, kept or used for any purpose other than that of enabling a child to be born to a specific woman. On that ground, I support it.
8.56 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, in supporting the Bill promoted by my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk, it is appropriate to draw to the attention of the House the fact that there is considerable pressure for such a measure not only in this Parliament but in parliaments on the continent of Europe and also in the two institutions with which I have had some connection. I refer to the Council of Europe and specifically to the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament in which we have only recently adopted resolutions on this matter. I wish to address my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I should like to call him my noble friend but that would not be proper. He has been courteous enough to listen to all the speeches made so far. I say
1566
to him that this debate is not premature. He may not like the Bill but there is tremendous pressure from scientists in Europe and in this country for some kind of legal framework in which they can operate. That is outside the question of the human embryo.
This point was made in the report by Mr. Rothley, who is a member of the legal affairs committee. I do not know whether he is a Christian. I know that he is a German and a Socialist, neither of which I happen to be. He said:
"In principle a ban should be placed on experiments on human embryos as they cannot be justified in ethical terms".
That view was broadly accepted by the committee.
I do not want to go into the substance of the matter but one real concern is that the priority of scientific freedom over legal and ethical standpoints is being seriously questioned in all the reports before those two bodies. Secondly, there is a genuine fear, which is shared by many people on all sides of all the fences that seem to be surrounding the argument, of the scientists' power of selectivity and destruction of the embryo. The report therefore states that the human embryo must be granted comprehensive and unlimited protection, that the legal status of the embryo should be defined and that it is the criterion of human dignity which should apply.
Thirdly, I should like to quote very briefly from the report. Mr. Rothley, supported by the Legal Affairs Committee, says:
"Laws are intended to establish and implement the principles of law within a society. One of the principles embodied in our laws is that one human being cannot be the property of another and can therefore not he bought and sold. An associated legal principle is that of the inviolability of life and physical integrity which is the right of every human being".
My fourth point concerns infertility, to which I know the Bill addresses itself. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to those thousands of couples who adopt children and get tremendous pleasure, satisfaction and happiness from doing so. They give happiness to a child who would not have the benefit of a home life. That is often left out of the argument. This is an occasion on which that statement should be made. I hope it will be supported by all noble Lords.
Fifthly, the many reports and the proposals in the Bill lead to the conclusion that there is need for the early establishment of a legal framework which can take account of the rapid developments in this field. There have been tremendous advances in genetic engineering and genetic manipulation. Scientists are genuinely worried about their position in this area. I am not saying that it is right or wrong. I do not care whether someone is a Christian. I resent the implication that because a person is a Christian he has not the right to support a certain Bill. It is not a question of Christianity but of seeing what scientists are doing within an established legal framework. They themselves are asking for it.
That is why I did not quite understand the argument of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. Perhaps he did not like the Bill. He said that he would go along with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, because he agrees that the Bill is premature. Those are the words used in the amendment. I understood from him that scientists want a legal framework. Whatever the result may be,

1567
I hope that the Bill will put pressure on the Government to get on with the job they undertook to do early last year and to provide a framework which we would all welcome, from whatever side of the House we come.
9 p.m.
Lord Brightman: My Lords, I shall be brief in what I have to say. I do not intend to speak on the merits of the Bill, because other speakers are far better equipped than I to do so. However, I am greatly influenced by the fact that the Government have promised to offer to Parliament alternative sets of draft clauses fully compatible with a government Bill to deal with the issue of research on human embryos.
In those circumstances, I feel that it really would be more appropriate to await the Government's Bill rather than to seek to pre-empt the issue by a Private Member's Bill which will be constrained by severe time factors and hampered by daunting procedural obstacles. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships that the promised government Bill would be a better course to take than a private Member's Bill.
Two of your Lordships have suggested the setting up of a Select Committee to consider the matter. I do not see the purpose of that, having regard to the publication of the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and the fact that notice has been taken of that report in this House as a result of a debate which took place on 15th January last year.
9.2 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I shall intervene but briefly in the debate, for two reasons. First, I am not in favour of the purpose behind the Bill; and, secondly, I do not think that it is the right vehicle for a decision of this magnitude to be made. On the substance of the Bill, I shall not say very much. The principles and the philosophy, as well as the medical aspects of in vitro fertilisation and the ethics of research on the human embryo, were gone into in great detail in the Warnock Report. They were also discussed in your Lordships' House by means of the debate on the report of the Select Committee.
Further, I do not wish to go into the theological arguments as to when life really begins. The contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon illustrated how difficult that is. It is not just a question of differences between the Christian Churches, because in the whole field of Christian religion there are very real differences of opinion. I think that each of us must be guided by our own conscience.
However, I believe that research in this area should continue. I believe that because of the suffering that occurs in many areas. The problems of infertility, the continual miscarriages and the problems of congenital handicap bring very real suffering to couples in our country. There is also need to prevent as many late abortions as we possibly can by further research. Therefore I believe that this Bill would impede the progress being made in those directions.
I understand and value the research referred to by the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, in more traditional spheres. But, like the noble Earl, Lord
1568
Jellicoe, I do not think that that is sufficient; I believe that research in all spheres should continue. Those of your Lordships who have had the privilege of visiting the M RC research units on in vitro fertilisation will know of the dedication that the medical scientists bring to the subject. They are not so much concerned for research for its own sake but they are concerned to relieve human suffering. Moreover, their work is continued in the interests of humanity. In carrying out their work they are conscious of the sensitivity and the ethics of this whole area. They would like legislation to provide regulation and a framework in which their work could continue. I believe that they should be allowed to continue that work on the basis of the Warnock Report, and also on the basis of the Government's White Paper.
That brings me to my second point. We now have the White Paper and the Government have promised legislation by means of a Bill that would give Parliament a choice of two options. We need to have such a Bill with those two options. Further we need to have it fully debated in prime time and not squeezed in on the basis of a Private Member's Bill late on a Wednesday evening.
I think the public have a right to expect that this issue will be fully debated in that way and in a manner which will enable them to make their views known to their elected Members of Parliament, as well as to this non-elected Chamber. A decision tonight should not be allowed to pre-empt that debate. I believe that such a decision ought not to be taken tonight.
9.6 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, I find myself in both categories of supporters of the Bill, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. Moral philosophers—she is a most distinguished one—seem always to be reluctant to concede that some things are good, or bad, within themselves, because they cannot accept what Kant called "the categorical imperative". However, those of us who believe in God find that a decisive way in which to resolve that problem.
It seems to me that by taking only human considerations into account values become relative and arguments tend to be at the emotional or utilitarian level. They also often cancel each other out. For example, opponents of this Bill make much of the emotional joy of couples who have been enabled to have children through IVF, and think that there should be more of them. Against that, utilitarian argument would have it that the world is suffering from overpopulation and nothing should be done to increase that.
Sometimes these arguments get to a trivial level. When the Government's White Paper was debated in January 1988 a noble Lord dismissed the two week-old embryo on the grounds of its size. Would those who hold such views dismiss virologists because the subject of their study needs microscopes which can magnify 1 million times? Would they take that Nobel Prize from Crick and Wilkins because the DNA double helix is insignificant in size? Punch long ago ridiculed this argument when it showed a maid being dismissed for having an illegitimate baby and saying, "But it's only a very small one, ma'am".

1569
I believe there is indeed a slippery slope for research on embryos. Those who oppose this Bill aver, rather sotto voce in my view, that there would be no question of research into cloning or of introducing new or foreign genetic material into the embryo, which they declare would be wrong in principle. However, judging by the speed with which principles have melted away with the mere whisper of the magic words "pre-embryo", I believe that some further weasel word might well be found to do the same for these more drastic fields of research. The word may perhaps be "therapeutic", although we have heard evidence that material taken from embryos is not essential for research into the causes and nature of various malign syndromes which affect children from birth.
As a layman, I ask myself for what experiments material taken from embryos might be suitable, and it seems to me it might be very suitable for tissue culture, which is at the heart of cloning. It would also lend itself very well to experiments involving genetic engineering. That these things are not yet possible is exactly the kind of challenge which attracts research scientists. It is already being done with plants and bacteria.
In saying this, I add as a one-time member of a research council that I accept without question what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, about the personal integrity of the scientists who work both in-house for the council and those engaged on work commissioned by them in universities; but that is only part of the potential research capability involved.
To conclude, there was a notice in a laboratory concerned with nuclear fission which read:
"Anything that is not specifically allowed is forbidden".
I believe that that also applies to work on embryos and unless we legislate without further delay it may well be too late.
9.11 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I think we all ought to be extremely grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk for having initiated this debate through his introduction of the Bill. I wholly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and I was sorry that he made criticisms of my noble friend and questioned his motives in introducing the Bill. One of the great advantages of this debate is that it has shown almost total unanimity in the views of your Lordships that early legislation is very important.
As a Christian I find this issue one of the most difficult I have ever had to wrestle with. Initially I felt inclined to agree with the minority view of the Warnock Report—that we should not have any research—because I believe that research could very easily get out of control and lead to real damage, and in itself it is repugnant to do research on anything approaching a human being, even a potential human being.
So my first point is the least difficult one to make: there is great urgency for legislation, which the Government promised in this Parliament. That might mean a delay of several years before it is effective, which is far too long. I hope that my noble friend on
1570
the Front Bench will be able to give us an assurance that legislation will be promised in the next Queen's Speech.
The much more difficult problem is to determine, as we have seen tonight, what the legislation should be. There are big religious and ethical issues involved. I am no expert but I have visited one of the medical research units doing this work and I confirm what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said: how responsible and dedicated are the people who do this work. I have talked to several friends and experts in the field and have tried to inform myself as best I can. They are people of the highest integrity and ethical standards.
As briefly as I can, I should like to make one or two relevant points which I believe to be factual so far as I understand them. Up to 12 or perhaps 14 days after fertilisation the embryo is a minute cell with the potential to become a human being, or perhaps two human beings or even three. As I understand it and as experts have told me—several have confirmed it—there is an element of instability in the embryo up to about that time. I therefore agree with the right reverend Prelate in expressing the opinion that it is impossible to put forward the view that an embryo, which might become one individual or two individuals in the future can in religious terms have a soul.
Nevertheless, experiments and research even on a potential human being are repugnant. There are two sorts of research. The first is observation research, in which changes are observed and knowledge created. Much can be learnt from that. The second is active research, in which modifications are made to the composition of an embryo with the objective either to observe further results and learn more or to improve or change the properties of the embryo and perhaps remove a defect that in due course will result in the creation of a grossly deformed baby; or, as my noble friend has suggested, there is the ghastly possibility of this leading to experiments with unspeakably dreadful results.
I have checked with experts and, as far as I am able to understand, it seems clear that research work on embryos up to 14 days can provide knowledge that is not obtainable in any other way which can and increasingly will contribute, if pursued, to reducing the number of babies born grossly deformed through genetic diseases, of which we have heard examples from noble Lords more expert in this matter than I am. Such deformities when detected at a much later stage of pregnancy very often result in abortion, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe made clear. Abortion involves the killing of a human being in the most repugnant circumstances, a human being with a nervous system and a personality—a soul, in religious terms. It is an evil in itself that Parliament has decided to legalise as the lesser of the other evils that flow from making abortion illegal.
I understand that research on embryos up to 14 days can, and increasingly will, contribute to preventing the creation of deformed babies, which often results in abortion. I believe that research, repugnant though it may be to some of us in different degrees, on embryos up to 14 days, is the lesser evil than more abortions at a much later stage in the development of the baby.

1571
Many of your Lordships of my generation took part in a war in which we killed or attempted to kill other human beings. That was a great evil, but we thought—I believe rightly—that it was a lesser evil than the victory of Nazism with all its ghastly consequences. I think that the analogy is not too far off the point, although analogies are always dangerous.
I believe deeply that research should not be banned, as suggested in the Bill, for the reasons that I have given, though I greatly respect the strong feelings of my noble friend and of the noble Lords who support him. I believe that research should be formally legalised under strictly controlled conditions.
I wish to make one point to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe. I would not be happy about legalising research on the basis that it was a rather doubtful, possibly evil, means justified by good ends; that is, more knowledge about contraception and other useful matters. I believe that it is justified because it is a lesser of two evils, as I have explained. I hope that we shall move quickly towards legislation so that research work can be done on a strictly licensed, carefully controlled basis in premises controlled and inspected by people who are authorised and monitored.
I oppose the Bill for the reasons that I have given. I implore the Government to give high priority to legislation in the next Session, not at a time towards the end of this Parliament. This concern is for people and for future generations. To say that it cannot be fitted in to the legislative programme is rubbish. It is far more important than the privatisation of water and other such proposals which are concerned mainly with money. This is not a political point. It is about people and future generations, not about money, which is much less important. I implore the Government to grasp the nettle quickly. It is in their interests to do so because the longer it grows the stronger the sting will be when it is eventually grasped and the greater the damage that will be done. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a firm assurance on this point.
9.20 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, there are, as always, complex problems about all Bills. As a Catholic sharing my concern with many other religions, I find certain aspects of the Bill quite abhorrent. We have heard from our noble friend Lord Jellicoe of childless couples, yet we forget the 5 million aborted infants. Surely some of the murdered children might have been adopted.
Let me state at the outset that I favour research which is likely to result in genuine benefit to the human race, particularly in preserving life. But in everything we do in this field we must ensure that we uphold the dignity of the human being and the sanctity of human life. I stand here in the name of internationally famous doctors, scientists and pathologists who themselves were prisoners of the Nazis. I shall later refer to their courage.
1572
In paragraph 12.2 of the Warnock Report we are told that trans-species fertilisation between human sperm and hamster eggs is already used in the investigation of male subfertility. The report says:
"Men whose sperm will fertilise a specially treated hamster egg may eventually father a child, whereas those whose sperm will not, are probably infertile".
The report goes on to tell us that although any resulting embryo does not develop beyond the two-cell stage, it is possible that other similar forms of trans-species fertilisation tests could be developed which,
"might develop for a considerable period of time".
The committee concluded that,
"where trans-species fertilisation is used as part of a recognised programme for alleviating infertility … it should be subject to licence and that a condition of granting such a licence should be that the development of any resultant hybrid should be terminated at the two cell stage. Any unlicensed use of trans-species fertilisation involving human [sperm or ovum] should be a criminal offence".
This almost makes experiments into the possibility of trans-species fertilisation sound respectable, and very plausible too. But I suggest that we have real grounds for fears, and I am afraid also that the Voluntary Licensing Authority which was set up by the Medical Research Council gives me scant comfort.
For one thing, the gentleman who in this country displayed the most interest in trans-species fertilisation at the time of the publication of the Warnock Report, was Professor Roger Short, then head of the Medical Research Council's team on in vitro fertilisation. In evidence to the US Congress Ethics Advisory Board in Washington in 1978, he stated that the possibility of developing animals with human attributes could soon be within the grasp of scientists using human eggs, with sperm from gorillas and chimpanzees. In his evidence he stated that while,
"it would be abhorrent to many … only fear of public reaction"
had so far restrained scientists from attempting such experiments. Neither am I comforted by the Warnock recommendation that any human-animal hybrid should be terminated at the two-cell stage. I tremble to think what would happen if that was ever done.
Indeed, this brings me to a point which was apparently never considered by the Warnock Committee, but I wish to put it to the House. First, it has to be recognised that inter-species fertilisation, as described in the Warnock Report, does not involve simply placing the human sperm and a hamster ovum in a dish. It involves special treatment of the hamster egg at the very least. One question which no scientist has yet answered to my satisfaction is, what were they seeking to do when they discovered that they could fertilise hamster ova with human sperm? From Professor Short's statement—let us remember he was at that time head of the MRC IVF Research Centre—we know that some people were very anxious about the possibilities before them.
I now wish to turn my attention to the voluntary licensing authority which was set up by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. All members of the VLA, both scientific and lay, support the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig. Indeed, one of their most eminent members is Professor Sir Malcolm Macnaughton, a former president of the

1573
RCOG. As long ago as 1967, this gentleman published two papers on experiments he had carried out injecting steroids into live aborted babies of between 14 and 22 weeks. That hardly encourages us to believe that the VLA would take any form of brave stand in defence of the human embryo.
In any case, the idea being propagated by the VLA, that we only need a team of officers to inspect research centres to ensure that they are behaving well, is just too naive, to say the least. The late Professor Ian Donald, who was a very eminent researcher, told MPs and Peers when he visited the Houses of Parliament during early debates on the Warnock Report:
"To catch me out, any inspector would need to know as much about my work as I did".
In any case, if work is ethically wrong or evil, having a team of inspectors will not make it right.
May I remind noble Lords—I now refer to all generations in this House—of the absolutely unspeakable medical experiments which were performed on literally thousands upon thousands of helpless men, women and children; on Poles, Slays, Jews, gypsies, and indeed on victims from over 40 different countries. Each died a martyr's death in the Nazi extermination and concentration camps, following the Germans' total obsession with the Aryan race. The Nazis justified, together with their medical colleagues from all over Germany and Austria, those most terrible and excruciating experiments. This subject is too involved, and indeed sadly almost totally unknown by the majority of people, but I had the privilege of working with many of the victims whose suffering and deaths were agonising.
Time, alas, does not allow me to mention by name the specific SS doctors and scientists I met. There were many hundreds of them. This may seem a digression from the Bill, but in fact it is not, for we are dangerously near to going down the same road the Nazis followed. As one of the few witnesses to those victims, I plead with your Lordships that what we assume is secure and safeguarded by legislation today or tomorrow still gives opportunities and thus leads to further terrible acts and their similar consequences. Mere promises and platitudes will not convince me, or indeed millions of others.
Perhaps I am privileged, but perhaps I am not, because of the continuing nightmares which I share with survivors, to have actually seen and nursed the victims of those experiments of genetic engineering. I would never have believed, working as I did in the ruins of Europe in 1944 to 1945, that the horrendous and horrific scenes which I witnessed among the victims of the Nazis could possibly be the subject of debate in this House, or indeed this country, on the night of 8th March 1989. I beg your Lordships tonight to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
9.30 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I shall be brief. First I should say that I intend to support the Bill of my noble friend. I have very little knowledge on this subject. It is not really my ground.
1574
However, I have a certain knowledge of genetics from breeding animals. I have no such knowledge of breeding human beings, although I have children. That is not very difficult to achieve.
I was appalled to hear what the noble Baroness opposite has just told us. If such a Bill becomes law, scientists will be allowed to take embryos out of cold storage and experiment on them. The results could be horrifying. If the scientists are good people they might produce useful research, but I cannot speak on that issue because I do not know much about the subject. However, if the scientist was not a good man, and there are plenty of those about, I am afraid that he might implant an embryo into a gorrilla or some other animal. That would be appalling.
I support the Bill because so many doctors and specialists regard it as acceptable for an embryo to be fertilised to enable a particular woman to have a child. That would be allowed under the Bill, and safeguards are provided requiring the authority of the Secretary of State. Otherwise I am opposed to embryo research, which I believe would destroy what dignity there is left to the human race.
I have already spoken for three minutes—no, two minutes. I think that that is probably long enough. It is not my subject and I shall now sit down and allow others who know more about the subject to speak.
9.32 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I think that I was the first person to raise this subject in the House several years ago. It is one of the most difficult subjects on which we have had to try to make decisions in my time in the House. I cannot say that I find it any easier with the passage of time.
When I first learnt of the research being carried out on embryos I was appalled that what I believe to be potentially an individual human being—even though it might be only the size of a pinhead—should be used in such a way.
Earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, asked the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, whether he had seen any of the research that is being carried out. I have visited the Medical Research Council at Carshalton and Edinburgh and the Cromwell Hospital. I have seen embryo research and the various processes involved in in vitro fertilisation taking place.
I was fascinated and deeply impressed by the scientists I met and by the sincerity of their belief that the research that they were engaged in was in the best interests of mankind. They explained to me how, until the age of approximately 14 days, the embryo could not possibly be regarded as an individual with a personality. It had not until that stage even the beginnings of a nervous system and could not, in all reason, be regarded as anything but a conglomeration of cells. I found the arguments enormously persuasive and I was sufficiently persuaded in the debate on the Government White Paper early last year to support the continuance of such research, but I was never entirely happy. A little niggle of doubt always remained and, with reflection, that doubt has grown. I can no longer disregard it so I am turning my coat and eating my words.

1575
There is apparently no earthly reason why, up to the age of 14 days, the embryo should not be used for research. We have no scientific proof that it is at that stage an individual human creature possessing that spark of divinity that many of us believe distinguishes mankind from all other creatures. There is no physical evidence to show that it is, but on the other hand there is no evidence to show that it is not, bearing in mind that there may be dimensions other than the purely physical one which are as yet not recognised by science. It may not be possible to prove that the embryo is a human individual, but is it possible to prove beyond all doubt that it is not? Surely in a matter of such crucial importance—this is a matter literally of life or death—the burden of proof that the embryo is not an individual must be on those who wish to undertake research. I do not think that they have yet proved their case beyond doubt and for that reason I shall vote against the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and support the Bill.
9.36 p.m.
The Marquess of Reading: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Duke for bringing forward this Bill. I made my maiden speech in this House in the Warnock Report debate and, in a way, I regret having to speak again on the same subject. The repetition only serves to demonstrate the Government's delay in bringing forward legislation on the matter. We have been promised legislation since 1986 and three years later we are no further forward. I ask the House to resist the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It is no good relying, as the noble Lord suggests, on the speculation that legislation on this subject will definitely be included in the next Queen's Speech.
On the other hand, I suggest that there is considerable urgency for the following reasons. I believe that the validity of the Bill depends upon the understanding of what the human embryo is. If the embryo is a human person, it is Parliament's duty to recognise the right to life of the human embryo and to accord proper legal protection. Parliament does not confer the right to life on citizens of this country. If it could confer that fundamental right on citizens, it would follow that it could take away such a right. The right to life is inherent in the human condition, so Parliament recognises that and makes laws necessary to protect human life. Human life which begins in a laboratory, begins through the natural process of fertilisation, notwithstanding the laboratory procedures which enable that process to begin. Parliament's responsibility in that matter is particularly necessary to protect those individuals least able to protect themselves and special legal protection is enacted for the young, the elderly, the disabled and others who are poor or disadvantaged.
The questions before us are, first: do human embryos fall into the category of vulnerable human beings who have a special claim on Parliament? Secondly, is Parliament morally obliged to accord human embryos their right to live and protection from procedures that are against their best interests? Thirdly, should Parliament prevent destructive non-therapeutic experimentation on human embryos? I would answer yes to all three questions.
1576
There are those who say that the human embryo is human and alive but is not a person. They say that an embryo becomes a person later in the human life cycle when it can perform certain functions. However, there is disagreement among those who propose such a view as to which function defines personhood. They draw the line at different times. This definition of the values of the human individual according to functional usefulness has certain fatal flaws. First, the choice as to which functions will determine the status of the embryo depends on subjective opinion. Since the choice is subjective, the line drawn might change to suit particular scientific or society interests. Whose opinion do we adopt? Secondly, if functions determine human worth, what happens to the elderly or infirm who lose the functions necessary to meet the criteria? Thirdly, if functions do not define my human nature, my human nature surely must define my functions. The absence of certain functions does not show that I am not a human person.
The last point is critical. The word "person" comes from the Latin persona which means mask. The body is the mask, the persona, that expresses the reality of human nature. It is sometimes called the anima or the soul. The human being is therefore more than just a body. It is the radical union of soul and body. It is this something special about human nature which requires us to treat human beings differently from rabbits. This "something" is the essence of our humanity. It is there in the human embryo since the human body is itself evidence of our human nature. It expresses itself more and more as the human body grows and develops from its early embryonic form to full maturity as an adult. I therefore hold that the embryo is special and is fairly human although not yet developed. I reject the philosophies that attempt to reduce the value of the human person to human functions. The human embryo is a human person. It is the mask, the persona, which expresses its real nature.
Time is running out and I shall not today develop this more fully except to refer to my maiden speech in which I spoke of the understanding of the embryo in theological terms —terms that I believe are compatible and consistent with the more philosophical approach that I have attempted today. It is dangerous to recognise the right to life in individuals simply for those who meet certain criteria. The sick, the young or the disabled have much to fear if Parliament adopts such a method in defining human personhood with a right to life. Any doubt in this matter should be resolved in favour of life. The onus of proof must be on those who favour destructive non-therapeutic experiments on human embryos to show that they are not killing human persons.
Finally, I believe that Parliament should pass this Bill and say no to the delay amendment in order to prevent the destructive non-therapeutic experimentation on human embryos. if Parliament does so, it will be acting consistently with the laws of humanity and the natural law. It will also be acting consistently with the Judaeo-Christian tradition which has helped shape the laws of this land, in particular those laws which recognise and enhance the rights and dignity of the human person.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, this has rightly been a serious and solemn debate. I hope I might be forgiven for striking a slightly frivolous note at the outset of my speech. Hearing the noble Earl, Lord Longford, say that he could not recognise a Roman Catholic when he saw one, it seemed to me rather a good idea that when the noble Duke summons, cajoles or marshals (which might be the right word) his troops they should all be distinctively dressed in the Papal uniform of the Guard of the Vatican. That would add to the gaiety of life in this House and match this Chamber. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, would then be able to recognise his co-religionists.
I should like to say what so many others have said. Her Majesty's Government should redeem their pledge to introduce the legislation. They have promised it more thanlonce, most recently in July last year. If only that had been done this Session, it would have made our discussion unnecessary. To give the pledge would make any further discussion on the Bill unnecessary. It is both immediate and urgent that the Government should renew their pledge.
Secondly, I join those who have urged the noble Duke not to press his Motion for Second Reading to a Division, partly for the reasons I have stated and partly for the reasons set forth in the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Following the Warnock Report and after very full discussion, the Government's promise to introduce legislation in this Parliament must make any attempt to legislate by Private Member's Bill otiose. The essential authority of Her Majesty's Government is lacking in a Private Member's Bill. The noble Duke's Bill does not meet, quoting from the White Paper,
"the concerns about developing reproductive technologies while recognising the benefits that they can bring".
The Bill produces only half that package. And it does not offer the alternative draft clauses to Parliament that the Government promised. For all these reasons the noble Duke's Bill is not only otiose (as I have described it) but premature (as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has described it). Furthermore it is pre-emptive, and I hope that it will go no further.
I renew the plea made to the noble Duke not to press his Motion for Second Reading to a Division. I believe he will agree that it would be most disagreeable to Members on all sides of the House if he pursued the Bill beyond Second Reading into Committee and possibly to Report and Third Reading, just as we are entering the busiest period of this very busy Session of Parliament. That consideration, I hope, will weigh heavily with the noble Lord the Leader of the House when he studies the implications of timetabling for the remainder of this Session.
In my opinion the noble Duke's Bill is defective in what it proposes to do, not merely in detail—which would be cured in the subsequent proceedings, if there were to be any—but fundamentally in that it does not permit research.
1578
The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York has been quoted more than once. However, I do not believe that these words that he spoke last year have yet been quoted. He said:
"Research must continue if in vitro fertilisation is to continue. I regard as totally unrealistic and indeed immoral any proposal to continue in vitro fertilisation without a proper backing in research".
This evening we have heard too much from those who support the Bill about how immoral are those who conduct research under the authority of a voluntary licensing authority with the approval of the Medical Research Council. I find it hard to take the suggestion that those upright, dedicated people should be subject to the opprobrium of noble Lords who have spoken. On behalf of the dedicated doctors who carry out the work perhaps I may repeat a word used by Mr. Enoch Powell and say that I find that to be "repugnant".
Not only did the most reverend Primate say that it was essential to have research buttressing in vitro fertilisation but Professor Winston has written that,
"research and clinical treatment are inseparable."
I believe that most scientists, especially medical scientists, will agree with that position.
We have heard that the present success rate for in vitro fertilisation is less than 10 per cent. per treatment cycle. None of us can be satisfied with that. I do not believe that the noble Duke and his supporters, who are providing for in vitro fertilisation with safeguards, will wish that low rate of 10 per cent. to continue when research will bring a great improvement in the success rate to the benefit of parents who wish to have a child by that means.
Mr. Powell, speaking in the House of Commons about his Bill, which was much the same as this Bill, said that in no way did the Bill inhibit the future improvement of in vitro fertilisation processes by those carrying them out. I am afraid that it does just that and that he was mistaken in what he said, as attested by the opinion of the most reverend Primate. I regard that to be a fundamental flaw which alone makes the Bill unacceptable.
I should like to comment on the drafting of the Bill, as did the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I do so especially because the Government gave Mr. Powell drafting assistance and access to medical opinion inside the department. That was announced by Mr. Kenneth Clarke on 15th February 1985, on the Second Reading of Mr. Powell's Bill. Despite that, the Bill has many drafting defects and is open to serious medical questions, even within its narrow scope.
In particular, I must object to the question-begging Short Title referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Meston: Unborn Children (Protection) Bill. That is a plain misdescription of the Bill and bears no relationship to the Long Title. It is a misdescription of such enormity that the explanatory memorandum must resort to a device which has never before been used to the best of my knowledge. Since explanatory memoranda came into being nothing like this has been recorded.
Explanatory memoranda should explain without argument the purposes of the Bill. However, so misleading is the Short Title that this explanatory

1579
memorandum has to declare what the Bill does not do. The explanatory memorandum states:
"The provisions of the Bill do not involve any issue concerning abortion, surrogacy or legitimacy".
As so often, one misdescription—and I use my words with care—leads to another. The Bill seriously and deleteriously involves issues concerning abortion.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, said, the brightest hopes for diminishing the number of abortions, especially late abortions of either a nonviable foetus or one which is genetically abnormal, would be extinguished by this Bill. Only by means of legitimate research on the pre-embryo licensed by a statutory authority, which I hope will take the place of the current voluntary authority, can there be any hope of preventing unwanted pregnancies by safer contraceptive means and also the elimination of genetically defective embryos.
Therefore, in my view the Bill of the noble Duke is deeply flawed and gravely damaging to the life and happiness of parents and children and, I should add, to public health. It effectively puts a stop to the improvements in vitro fertilisation success rates. It puts an end to research into genetic disease. It stops all hope of better contraception, possibly by vaccine, which would be of great benefit in the underdeveloped countries. It would give no hope for those males who suffer from infertility. It would continue indefinitely the grief and emotional distress of those mothers who have a miscarriage which research in future could make a rare event.
1580
Like the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I put at the very top of my list the same category as the late Lady Lane-Fox. I feel compelled to quote her again because her words are so important. She said that there is a compelling and urgent need for everything possible to be done,
"to advance research aimed at preventing medical handicap".
I do not see how anyone could fail to be moved by that urgent plea by Lady Lane-Fox, so cruelly handicapped when quite young by polio, which, as she said, had been virtually extinguished. She said that that was an infinite blessing conferred on mankind by medical science in her generation. Polio has virtually ceased to be a scourge of this country together with TB, smallpox and diphtheria. I ask the House: how can anyone who knew the noble Baroness fail to respond to that poignant statement made so shortly before her death?
If this Bill is passed, it will end one of the most promising fields of medical research and take us back three or four centuries to when the experimental method started. One of the founders of the experimental method was Galileo who was in conflict with the Church for supporting the Copernican theory. Galileo was under house arrest for the last eight years of his life. We must not allow that again.
I conclude with the words of the late and most eminent benefactor of mankind, Sir Peter Medawar, who after saying that we already had a moral commitment to biomedical research, continued:
"I see no reason to think that the highway of medical melioration that has brought us so far already will now lead us into evil".
I commend those words to the House and to all those who have hope of progress.
10 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, despite my own personal premonitions, I believe that this has been an extremely interesting debate. Despite disagreements across the Floor of the House—certainly not on party lines—there has been a call for legislation. Everyone feels that the present situation of a voluntary licensing system is not enough. I believe that it is true that the scientists who are working in this field are as strongly in favour of legislation to govern, control and manage the work that is being done as has been expressed by noble Lords on both sides of the House.
In commenting on some of the points that have been made—your Lordships will be glad to know that I do not intend to go over the whole field covered by the debate—I am speaking only for myself and not attempting to do so for my noble friends. The present situation is not satisfactory, though I must from my own knowledge and information provided by the Medical Research Council pay my tribute to the way in which the voluntary research system has operated. A remarkably good job has been done and the researchers have met the challenge with which they have been presented.
I have often said in your Lordships' House how impressed I have been by the quality and knowledge of the contributions made in these debates, but I do not feel that that standard was at its highest in this evening's debate—I say no more than that. If we are to discuss these matters and speak on what is going on in research laboratories we have an obligation to find out something about the subject. Some of the statements made this evening have been inclined to make the blood boil and have created some bloodcurdling effects, but they cannot refer to research that has been licensed by the voluntary system. It is of some unfairness to those who are working within the system that such allegations should be made against them.
What has been so valuable about this debate, in my view, is that it has clearly established the need for early legislation. The Government could have avoided this debate and the Bill if they had been clearer about their intentions. In winding up the debate on 15th January 1988—and I have read it again and I do not want to change the words I used in that debate, which will be of some relief to noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, put forward a very good and firm position. He made clear that the Government would legislate sooner rather than later. He said:
"The way to tackle these problems is not to try to block or ignore medical advance, but to accommodate it within proper safeguards which ensure that due respect is given to the presence of human life".—[Official Report, 15/1/88; col. 1450.]
I believe that is the proper approach. I cannot believe that those who support this Bill think that it would be better for these matters of such high import to be' introduced and presented to Parliament in a Private Member's Bill of this simplicity, if I may put it that way. The Bill says so little. It is necessary to have government legislation.
I repeat the view expressed by others in his debate. When the Minister replies I hope he will make clear what are the Government's intentions. I hope that
1582
they have not changed from the position stated on 15th January. I hope that we will have the two alternatives presented to us. I hope that no words will be changed from those enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, in winding up that debate. The House will expect a clear indication that we are not going to be kept waiting for legislation. If that clear indication is not given, then of course there will be people who will seek to step into the Government's shoes and do the job better than the Government are doing it themselves.
I have read through the debates, not only the debate on 15th January 1988, but also the one that took place on 31st October 1984 which was the original debate on the Warnock Report. I found the arguments put forward then and now by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, persuasive, and her conclusions sound. I believe that what I myself said in those two debates was very sound and I do not wish to change it. Therefore I will not go over it again.
The matter that concerns me most, and also many of your Lordships, is what will be lost if this Bill is carried through. It is the research work. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, stated the case very clearly when setting out the five tasks which are the important ones. They are the low rate of successful pregnancy following IVF. The second task is especially important; it is the need for an effective diagnosis of genetic defects to prevent at least some of those 7,000 children born each year with such defects to mothers in this country.
How can we find help for sufferers from a wide range of disorders; namely, sickle cell anaemia, cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and Huntingdon's Chorea. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, wrote to me three days ago asking whether I can do something to help the Huntingdon's Chorea Society. I shall reply and she will receive my letter saying that I will do anything I can. One matter I wish to achieve is to see that we do not have legislation that stops being done research that can alleviate the plight of many of these unfortunate and sad parents.
The third task is to develop new contraceptives. I was grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for setting out the situation. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said that we must pay tribute to those who have undertaken adoption. I shall always do so. However, if you wish to adopt a child today you will have very great difficulty in finding children available for adoption unless they are several years old., black, and already suffering from some mental or physical defect. The situation is not easy.
The fourth task is to discover more about male infertility and to seek to reduce the number of miscarriages which can produce so much unhappiness. Having said that, I pause for a moment to see whether I knew what I was talking about. In the past two months, in the very small circle of my own family, there have been two miscarriages. They occurred to two girls whom I deeply love and with whom I have a blood connection. It was a very sad event for them, and for their families and the husbands.

1583 s
I know of another case within my close circle where the problem of infertility is a desperately frustrating one for two people whom I know would make very good parents. Last Saturday I was dining with old friends who had three children. Two of them died in their teens of cystic fibrosis. In no way was it the fault of the parents because they were loving parents. I believe that so much of this work that is now going on at those hospitals and research centres that have been licensed by the voluntary licensing authority, with the assistance of the Medical Research Council, will cease. I do not understand how those who say they support this Bill can justify for themselves cutting back on that research that can help to alleviate so much real and genuine human distress. I wonder whether some of them are out of touch with what is going on in the research field. That is why I asked at one stage the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, if he had visited any of the centres. He was showing how much research he had done into what was going on. One can go to several of the medical schools in London. For example, one can take an afternoon and go to Hammersmith and observe the work that is being done, the people and the quality of the work. One can also see the dedication of those people.
I am against the Bill. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, it would be a retrograde step. I hope that we shall hear from the Government a clear statement of their intention. If the Government give a clear indication that they will bring forward legislation which will enable both options to be voted on in the House, surely the noble Duke will feel that that is the proper way forward. These matters should not be dealt with by Private Member's Bills. I say in congratulation to the noble Duke that if governments do not do their job other people will edge themselves forward and do it. The Government have a responsibility to do the job, and to relieve those who support the Bill of the burden of having to carry it through all its stages. It lies with the Government to find a solution to the problem.
10.10 p.m.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I hope that I shall be able to answer many of the questions that have been raised. In particular, I hope that I shall be able to answer the question asked by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. I apologise in advance if I fail to answer some questions but I can write to noble Lords.
I am grateful to my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk for introducing the Bill and for giving the House the opportunity to debate these highly complex and controversial issues. I appreciate the factors which have led the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to move his reasoned amendment. It will be for the House shortly to reach its decision on both the Bill and the amendment. These are matters of great concern to Members of both Houses. Their concern reflects the concern of society generally about an issue which raises important moral,
1584
religious and ethical questions, as we have seen in this evening's speeches.
Questions of legislation on these matters, about research involving human embryos, about infertility treatments which involve the creation of human embryos by fertilisation outside the human body and about research involving human embryos for purposes other than achieving a pregnancy, should be addressed with the greatest care and seriousness. That was why the Government set up the inquiry on human fertilisation and embryology in the first place in 1982. The inquiry's report, the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, published in 1984, recognised that there were no easy answers to these questions. I pay tribute to the important contribution which the noble Baroness has made to the debate on these issues. The House debated her report shortly after its publication and in January last year we debated the Government's White Paper which responded to it.
The Bill before the House today concentrates on possibly the most contentious of all these contentious issues: whether or not research on human embryos should be permitted. Before turning to that issue in detail it may be helpful if I set it in the broader context of the Government's response to the Warnock Report. As I stated earlier, the Warnock Report was published in 1984. The consultation exercise following its publication generated a great deal of debate and produced many highly detailed and diverse comments from a variety of individuals and organisations, especially on the subject of embryo research. It was obvious that these were not easy issues and that much debate would be needed to enable them to make up their minds about such ethically sensitive and emotive issues.
In 1986 a consultation document was published by the Government inviting views about legislation by mid–1987. Again there was a good response with about 200 representations being received from a wide range of organisations and individuals. In November 1987 the Government published their White Paper Human Fertilisation and Embryology: A Framework for Legislation, setting out their proposals for legislation.
The White Paper proposed that a statutory licensing authority should be set up to oversee and control not only embryo research, if Parliament agreed such research should be permitted, but also infertility services involving techniques such as artificial insemination by donor and in vitro fertilisation. Storage of eggs, sperm and embryo would be permitted only under strict controls which would be specified in detail by statute. Legislation would also cover the legal status of children born as a result of these techniques and, for example, make surrogacy contracts unenforceable in the courts. The White Paper also proposed that counselling should 'be made available for couples considering IVF treatment. I hope that I have said enough to indicate the complexity and that the question of embryo research needs to be considered in the broader context of wider legislative control.
My noble friend Lord Jellicoe and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, both mentioned the comments my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale made at the end of

1585
the debate last year. He said then, if I remember correctly, that he hoped there would be legislation within 12 to 18 months. I must, however, stress that he only said he hoped that would be so. Many other noble Lords have stressed the question of timing and I think it would rather waste time if I were to read out all the names of those who stressed the need for legislation as soon as possible.
I am sure that many noble Lords were disappointed that there was no reference to legislation about the issues dealt with in the Warnock Report in the Address from the Throne last year. The Government have, however, made clear their intention to legislate during this Parliament. That commitment has been given in various ways, not least in the White Paper itself. The commitment has subsequently been reiterated many times in another place. I am happy to make clear the Government's intentions once more, although obviously I cannot be drawn further on the precise timing.
I turn now to research on human embryos. I need not remind the House that this is a subject upon which there are deeply-felt emotions and sincerely-held opposing views, as we have heard this evening. The Warnock Committee, after carefully considering all the evidence presented to it, concluded that research should be permitted, under strict controls, on embryos of up to 14 days. The committee's argument was that, in its very early stages, it is not possible to establish whether the genetic material produced by the fusion of egg and sperm will develop into a human person; and that, though it should certainly be offered some protection in law, this should not be such as to prevent the benefits which study of the early embryo can bring in terms of improving the prospects for allowing infertile people to bear children and reducing the risk of congenital disease.
It is understandable that this passage in the report has been one of the most controversial of all and that a minority of members were unable to support it and advocated a ban on all embryo research. The argument of those who support this view is that genetically unique human life is a process which begins with the fusion of egg and sperm and that it deserves from the beginning the full protection of the law. These differing points of view highlight the need for calm and thorough debate, such as we have been given the opportunity to have today.
I was impressed by the clear analysis given by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, of the arguments of those who are opposed to embryo research through conviction or because they are concerned that allowing such research would be the beginning of the slippery slope. It is precisely to those concerns that the proposals in paragraph 30 of the Government's White Paper are addressed. The alternative clauses which will be made available will either prohibit research or permit it under strict controls.
Both clauses would permit procedures aimed at preparing the embryo for transfer to the uterus of a woman, or procedures carried out to assess the suitability of the embryo for that transfer. However, one clause would make it a criminal offence to carry
1586
out any other procedures on a human embryo; and the other clause would permit research procedures as part of a project specially licensed by a statutory licensing authority. The Government will take a neutral position on the alternative clauses because they do not take a collective view about ethical matters of this kind on which members have strong personal religious and moral convictions.
Even if Parliament decides to permit research under strict controls, some procedures would be banned completely. Certain forms of human embryo research such as cloning and the creation of hybrid species understandably arouse deep public disquiet. Although there are no known examples of projects of this nature occurring and it seems unlikely that anyone would undertake such work, the Government propose to prohibit those activities even if Parliament accepts embryo research in general. No one favours the unnecessary use of embryos for research for benefits which could be obtained in other ways. The White Paper proposes that, if research is permitted, the Statutory Licensing Authority should satisfy itself in granting a licence that adequate consideration has been given to the possibility of achieving the aim of the project by other means.
In the light of what I have said it will come as no surprise that the Government are neutral on the embryo research issue which is dealt with in this Bill. The issues it deals with will form an important part of the legislation which, as I stressed earlier. is expected later during this Parliament.
The purpose of the Bill before the House today is to prevent human embryos being created, kept or used for any purpose other than enabling a child to be borne by a specified woman, and then only with the authority of the Secretary of State. Private Members' Bills on almost exactly similar lines have previously been introduced each Session until this one in another place. That introduced by the right honourable former Member for Down, South was debated in 1985 and a ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the honourable Member for Hyndburn was also debated in 1986. These Bills have served to add to the very necessary public debate on these issues and illustrate the strong views that the subject of embryo research arouses. The baton this Session has passed to your Lordships' House.
The effects of this Bill would be to prevent virtually all research using human embryos. It leaves a number of issues unclear and raises some immediate questions such as whether embryo biopsy should be permitted and what should be done with embryos not reimplanted. The need for authorisation in each and every case has to he seen against the background, given that in 1986 (the latest year for which figures are available) almost 5,000 patients underwent over 7,000 in vitro fertilisation treatment cycles. These are matters which the House would want to examine in detail if the Bill makes progress.
It may assist the House if I refer in an entirely factual way to the arguments advanced by those who say that the research which it seeks to prohibit should be allowed. These are set out in Annex B to the White Paper. They fall into four main categories: first, improving the treatment of infertility; secondly,

1587
gaining further knowledge about factors leading to congenital disease; thirdly, developing more effective forms of contraception; and, finally, detecting gene or chromosomal abnormalities before implantation.
For many infertible couples in vitro fertilisation is the only means by which they can have their own children. But at present only about one in 10 attempts result in successful pregnancies and the technique can only be improved by further research, including research using embryos. Such research could also help couples at risk of passing on serious genetic disease to have normal children. It might also help in understanding and preventing the one in five miscarriages that affect the population at large. It may also lead to the development of new and safer methods of contraception. The Medical Research Council supports such research as being consistent with its function to carry out research which will improve people's lives, including the medical care available to them. The House will want to weigh the arguments carefully, balancing the advantages of embryo research which I have just outlined with the repugnance which some people feel about such research. It is argued from this premise that the ends cannot justify the means.
I know many noble Lords have been concerned that the Government have not before now brought forward their own measure to follow up the Warnock Report, but there has not been a vacuum in this field. There has been an effective system of voluntary regulation of embryo research and IVF by the voluntary licensing authority. This was set up in 1985 by the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists as an interim measure. The authority has invited applications from centres wishing to carry out research involving human embryos and certain infertility treatments. The Government are grateful for the work the VLA has done in this difficult area. However, it has clearly functioned for a longer period than originally expected and, to help it continue its work during the period until a statutory licensing body is established, it is to receive direct government financial help of £43,000 for the next financial year. The work of the VLA does not of course in any way pre-judge the decisions that Parliament itself will need to take on the statutory licensing authority and the extent of its remit, if any, in in vitro fertilisation and embryo research.
I suggest to the House that we can make good use of the time before government legislation is introduced in studying and discussing in detail the issues raised in the Warnock Report and in subsequent debates. Few other countries have attempted legislation about these sensitive and difficult issues and there will be clear advantages, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has indicated on several occasions, in ensuring their widest possible consideration before legislation is introduced.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for drawing to the attention of the House the report Fertility in the Family by Dr. Jonathan Glover. I understand that it was commissioned by the European Community and is to
1588
be published next week. Dr. Glover was assisted by a team from a number of member states, among them lawyers and doctors as well as those with interests in ethical matters. I understand that the report recommends that embryo research should be permitted in certain circumstances and that each member state should devise its own regulatory system. The Government will study Dr. Glover's report and take its findings into consideration when they prepare legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, mentioned the possibility of sending the Bill to a Select Committee. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, also mentioned this, although I think that he felt that it was not a sensible idea. I note the suggestion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. It is for the House to decide whether this would he an appropriate action after consultations through the usual channels. However, I remind the House that the substance of the Bill has been extensively debated here and in another place and there will be a further opportunity for debate when the Government bring forward their legislation on the matters dealt with in the Warnock Report.
My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery referred to the fact that research using human embryos for the development of new forms of contraception, possibly for use in third world countries, is in breach of the Government's claim of neutrality. The Government support and assist the work of population control in developing countries in view of the major social and economic problems that increasing populations present. Such research as is going on in this country is endorsed at present by the voluntary licensing authority. It would be for the statutory licensing authority to satisfy itself, if Parliament decided to permit such reform, that it was appropriate to carry out such research.
As I said earlier, this is not a question with an easy answer. It is one on which people sincerely hold differing views. It is an issue on which many people have yet to make up their minds. A reasoned debate of the case for and the case against is therefore helpful and necessary.
I emphasise once more that the Government are neutral over the Bill and over the reasoned amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, as they are on the issue as to whether research involving human embryos should be permitted. I reiterate the Government's commitment to legislation on these matters as laid out in the White Paper during this Parliament, although, as noble Lords will understand, I cannot make any firm statement about when it will be introduced.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I was invited by the noble Duke to wind up this debate. That was not for any sectarian reasons, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, seems to imagine. It was because if Enoch Powell's Bill had finally gone through all the stages in the House of Commons, I had been invited by him to take the Bill through this House. That is why I am winding up the debate. There is therefore no papist plot to worry the noble Lords, Lord

1589
Houghton and Lord Henderson. It is purely a matter of winding up for my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk. That seems to be rather a stupid thing to have to do because the Leaders of both parties have spoken, so I shall speak briefly.
Two years ago another place was ringing with the sound of these matters. That Bill, which has been regarded so contemptuously by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, went through the whole of its Second Reading and Committee stages in another place. What defeated it? It was a procedural wrangle, procedural finangling, in which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is a great expert. It was defeated then, so that this House never had the opportunity of debating it. That is why the present Bill is being promoted—to allow the House the opportunity to debate it.
As was rightly said by my noble friend Lord Caldecote, we talk in this House about many things but we can rarely speak about a more important matter than the one before us today. It is sad that people should denigrate a real subject for debate, a real issue affecting the world, let alone ourselves. It rather than some other subject deserves debate.
I recollect 10 years ago on a summer morning in Sussex a Canadian scientist talking to me about the future. He said, "Once we are able to replace one defective gene there is an irreversible progress towards the ability to change others. We shall have the ability to fashion, to create the quality of human specimens". I can never forget that. I do not think any of us should ever forget that we are reaching that stage.
Dr. Simone Novaes was a member of the commission of which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, spoke which produced Fertility and the Family. The note to the report said that the medical profession is now making available a medical alternative to sexual relations; that reproduction is now outside the family and into the laboratory. That is something of such gravity that we must all feel a sense of awe.
The question is surely whether society accepts that result. Is the result of what a man and a woman contribute to create life an acceptable subject for experimentation? That question must be answered. Is it acceptable that many thousands of embryos should be frozen, labelled and stored in racks in refrigerators, not for the purpose of being able to supply them to a woman in order to have a child but for research? They are embryos, potential human beings.
A question arises which I ask my noble friend Lord Jellicoe: who owns these embryos? Who has the legal ownership of them? If they are stolen from those refrigerators, who has lost them? Whose property has been taken? Who is entitled to exercise power over them? Who allows them to be used for experiments? All these are matters which must be decided. The law must be introduced, society must make up its mind. This is at last something to which society must apply the law. If we have no control under the law, then we have no control over the experiments.
I accept there may be very good and worthy humanitarian reasons for the experiments. But there
1590
must be control, and a limit, especially when there is an alternative. Professor Lejeune came to Parliament in 1985. He was in Rome quite recently. He warned that the Warnock 14–day limit would not satisfy scientists. He said embryo research was the wrong road. He was the man who identified the cause of Down's syndrome. No advances have been made in research—or at least we have not heard of any—into the cures for genetic diseases in which human embryos have been used.
However, we have been told of molecular biology applied to cells taken from patients with cystic fibrositis, muscular dystrophy, Huntingdon's disease and Retinablastome which has generated greater understanding of genetic factors and location in the human genome without embryo research and without embryo experimentation. Is not that the responsible road, and the road of Professor Lejeune, Professor Marshall, Professor Kool, Professor Short, Professor Maclean and Professor Gray?
This Bill seeks to bring under law the possession of that which a man and a woman have contributed to create life by making the possession and fertilisation of a human ovum in vitro lawful only for the purpose of enabling a specific woman to bear a normal child. Is not that the decent, acceptable, reasonable and rational attitude which a civilised nation should adopt to this extraordinary new power which is coming the reproduction of life in the Laboratory? The opportunity has been given in this Bill presented by the noble Duke for this House to think about these matters and debate them and to make the Minister, with respect, repeat that he will bring forward a Bill on this matter. Even if a Bill is brought forward in the next Session of Parliament, when will it become law?
All the time the problems exist as regards who owns embryos and who has rights and control over them. I consider that the noble Duke has done right to bring this Bill before this House. I hope that the Government see, by the majority which is given to this Bill and the defeat of the amendment, the seriousness with which this House views these vital issues.
10.38 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think the most dignified thing the House could do would be to end this debate without dividing. At any rate, I must resign myself to the appointed role of being the only defender of the Government's position in the debate today. I was trying to save them from the humiliation which might otherwise befall them. I was trying to bring the House to a dignified conclusion to a most interesting and, I think, valuable debate. However, I must hand the Government over to the tender mercies of their so-called supporters. I cannot help them any more.
I accuse the Government of ill-treatment of an embryo Minister. Look what they have inflicted upon him just now. The noble Lord the Leader of the House sits there as if he had nothing whatever to do with what was going on. As for the noble Lord the Chief Whip, he looks as if he has broken off having dinner and has come back to see how we are all getting on.

1591
As for the noble Duke, I must leave him to make up his own mind how he wishes this debate to end. I think he must realise that the message from the House tonight is for the Government to produce this legislation. They have not responded to that, except in the terms of what we heard 14 months ago. This is the third dress rehearsal on the subject. We have discussed it in 1984, 1988 and now again in 1989. We are still waiting for something more conclusive from the Government.
I shall not add to the present confusion or to the indignities of the House. I shall withdraw my amendment and leave the mover of the Bill to decide for himself whether, for a change, he will co-operate with me and leave the House with a message to the Government, having contributed what I think is of the greatest value—opinions rather than a straw poll at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
A noble Lord: I object!
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, I have moved that the Bill be now read a second time. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  EXOATMOSPHERIC REENTRY-VEHICLE INTERCEPTOR SUBSYSTEM
  EXOATMOSPHERIC REENTRY-VEHICLE INTERCEPTOR SUBSYSTEM
  PLUTONIUM EXPORTS
  PLUTONIUM EXPORTS
  FLUIDISED BED COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY: GRIMETHORPE
  FLUIDISED BED COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY: GRIMETHORPE
  HELIOS PROGRAMME: PROJECTS
  HELIOS PROGRAMME: PROJECTS
  POLICE RENT ALLOWANCE
  POLICE RENT ALLOWANCE
  NATIONALITY FEES INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT
  NATIONALITY FEES INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT
  REMAND PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS
  REMAND PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS