Sitting of 5 April 1990

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

  Human Embryos
  9.34 am
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I have the honour to present three petitions containing many signatures—up to 2,000—from my constituents. They come from Our Lady of the Visitation church, Greenford, in the name of Mrs. J. Balaam of 358 Greenford road, Greenford; Father Phil Barry and his clergy at St. Bernard's church, Northolt; Father Antony Brunning of 17 Mandeville road, Northolt, his clergy, supporters and many others; and the Abbey church of St. Benedict, Ealing in the name of Isabelle Glover of 70 Claremont road, W13, supported by Dom Francis Rossiter, Abbot of Ealing and Benedictine Abbot of All England, Father Michael Hopley and the communities of St. Benedict, Ealing.
  The petitioners call for the protection of the human embryo, which they believe to be seriously threatened by the proposals shortly to be placed before the House. They believe, and I share their belief, that there is human life from the moment of conception, that that life is made in the image of God and that it should not be violated under any circumstances by experimentation. I strongly support that view and hope that the House will reject any move to allow experimentation on the human embryo in the Bill shortly to be discussed in the House.
  The humble petition of the parishioners of our Lady of the Visitation church, St. Bernards church, Northolt and the Abbey Church of St. Benedict, Ealing showeth that we affirm that the newly-fertilised embryo is a real, living human being:
  Therefore, we welcome the statement in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (the Warnock Report) That "the status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation", and its recommendation that the embryo of the human species should be afforded protection in law; and therefore we oppose all such practices as are recommended in the Report which discriminate against the embryo or violate his/her human dignity and right to life.
  Wherefore, your petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which (a) forbids any procedure that involves purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment (unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned); and (b) forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation.
  And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc. I beg to present the petition.
  To lie upon the Table.

Irish Republic (Extradition)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad]
9.38 am
Mr. William Ross: Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ross: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. We usually debate Northern Ireland business so late that you are not present. However, I am sure that you, as the chief commoner of England, are so interested in this matter that you will stay. I would like to extend that to the whole United Kingdom. The matter that I wish to discuss is of great importance to the common people of this Kingdom, and their rights and privileges under the Crown, especially with regard to their desire to remain under the rule of the Crown.
I should be far happier if I were speaking to a crowded House, but a debate such as this gives one a chance to place on record the views of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland.
I have no doubt that the few hon. Members present, and the many more people outside, will remember the euphoria when the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. In our debates, arguments and questions, time and time again the Government Front Bench gave two reasons why the United Kingdom had entered into that agreement. Briefly, they were that for the first time the position of Northern Ireland was recognised by the Irish Republic and that extradition of members of terrorist organisations—to be more specific, of the IRA—from the Irish Republic was assured.
At the time, the ordinary folk of the Unionist community said, through their representatives, that the Government's view on the first reason was incorrect. I am amazed that, even after the Dublin Supreme Court judgment in the case of McGimpsey, the Government will still not admit that the Unionist population was correct in believing that the words in the constitution of the Republic have their normal, everyday meaning. That matter will be covered in the next debate. I do not want to pre-empt what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) will say on that matter, but I should put it on record that the Unionist population got it right and the Government got it wrong.
I last spoke on this subject in an Adjournment debate at Christmas in 1987 when I drew attention to the requirements of the Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987 in the Irish Republic. Those requirements were important then and they are even more important today, as the judgments in the cases of Finucane and Clarke relate to offences before that Act came into force.
In that debate I pointed out that, under Irish law, a full book of evidence must be available to the Republic and that some of the evidence that might be needed would be available only after the RUC had questioned the people concerned. In Irish law that requirement applies only to United Kingdom requests for extradition.
In the same debate I also said that the treaty made extradition impossible unless we paid a constitutional price and the price of interference with the judiciary in Britain. We have not paid that price and we may now be seeing the outcome of the blackmail inherent in what was being said in the Irish Republic at the time.

1321
The plain truth is that, in the Irish Republic, judges take an oath to uphold the constitution and the institutions of the state. They have now clearly spelt out what they are meant to uphold. I do not take issue with them on that, but I do take issue with my Government for being so foolish as to believe that they could weave their way round the straightforward language of the Irish constitution.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that many right hon. and hon. Members would like to know whether Her Majesty's Government have yet considered the full implications of recent decisions in the Irish Supreme Court, and whether a policy has been decided with regard to future requests from the Government of the Irish Republic for the return of Irish citizens who, according to Irish law, are now deemed to have been unconstitutionally extradited to the United Kingdom?
Mr. Ross: Many of those people are serving or have served prison sentences in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point and I hope that the Minister will provide him with an answer, as I hope that he will provide me.
The debate to which I referred in December 1987 followed two questions to the Prime Minister on 1 December. In reply to one of them the right hon. Lady said that she regretted that,
"notwithstanding our representations, the Irish Government are taking additional measures that could make extradition more difficult … It is essential that we maintain effective extradition arrangements so that there is no hiding place for terrorists. I agree with my hon. Friend that what the Republic is doing by taking this step is making us the least favoured nation in this matter."
Therefore, the Government cannot now say that they were unaware of the implications of the 1987 Act. Perhaps they hoped that those who committed offences before that legislation came into operation might still be extradited. However, that hope has been holed and fairly thoroughly sunk.
On the same day, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker), the Prime Minister said:
"There is a risk that extradition could become more difficult because of the new measures taken by the Irish Republic and that they would be a step backwards from the existing arrangements".—[Official Report, 1 December 1987; Vol. 123, c. 762.]
Twice on the same day, the Prime Minister said with great clarity that the Government were fully aware of the Irish bog of deception and mistrust into which they were wandering and in which they now find themselves up to the neck. Surely we shall not be told today that this has all come as a great surprise. They knew in 1987 that that would happen.
In answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor), on 14 December 1988 the Attorney-General clarified the position of the 1987 legislation. He said:
"In cases unaffected by the Irish Extradition (Amendment) Act 1987, the only documents required of United Kingdom police forces by Irish law are warrants of arrest and affidavits and certificates supporting them. No further explanation of such cases ordinarily is required."
That was pre-1987. He went on:
"In cases to which the 1987 Act does apply, sufficient information has to be given to the Irish Attorney-General to
1322
satisfy him that the relevant United Kingdom prosecuting authority has a clear intention to prosecute and that this intention is founded upon the existence of sufficient evidence."—[Official Report, 14 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 569.]
That brings me back to my earlier point that the Irish authorities need the full book of evidence. That, as I pointed out in the previous Adjournment debate, is probably impossible to provide unless the RUC has an opportunity to question in depth the individual concerned.
All that shows clearly the increased difficulties that would arise. But just how great they are is perhaps only now becoming clear to the ordinary citizen in this land as the current reasons for not sending back criminals from the Irish Republic to face justice in the United Kingdom become apparent. Finucane and Clarke are the most recent cases, but they are not, by a long chalk, the first, and they will not be the last. The Father Ryan and the Glenholmes cases stand out in people's memory in Britain, but there are many others of lesser note and we shall see many more in the future.
The reasons for such cases not being sent back differ in detail. Sometimes for the tiniest of technical reasons, extradition requests were refused. As a result, known members of the IRA are still walking round as free men in the Republic. Because of the words used in the judgment to which I referred, they will never be returned to justice in the United Kingdom.
Two reasons were given in the Finucane and Clarke cases. First, it was said that there would be ill treatment by prison officers if they were returned. In that case, the evidence that was used of ill-treatment was the Pettigrew case. But is there any evidence of ill-treatment of persons who have been extradited to Northern Ireland from the Republic? If there is, I am not aware of it. No doubt the Minister will tell us.
I am also curious to know whether the Government would like to contemplate the probable attitude of the Irish courts if they were faced with a request to extradite the persons popularly known as the Birmingham Six, had they ever made it to the Irish Republic. One might also consider what would happen if the British authorities were now to apply for the exrtradition of those who have recently been named as the real Birmingham bombers. Can one imagine any Irish court extraditing such people to the United Kingdom? Twenty-one people were killed in Birmingham and 160 suffered injuries. No doubt many of those injuries were horrific and their effects remain with the people who are still alive. I do not believe that there is any chance of getting any of the people responsible back to the United Kingdom for questioning or trial under any circumstances.
The events of last weekend provide the Irish Republic with another excuse for not returning suspects into the hands of British justice. Given the attitude of the Irish courts, how likely are they to extradite to this country a terrorist who has created murder or mayhem of any kind, when they can point to the events at Strangeways and say that there is no way in which an Irish suspect would be safe? I refer to ill-treatment not by prison officials but by other prisoners. That is a second course that the Irish courts will undoubtedly pick up and use very soon.
One is also seeing the revival of the political offence as a let-off for terrorists of every description. In the Shannon case, one justice held that an offence—which is shorthand for murder or brutal maiming at the hands of the IRA

1323
—could be political even if it went beyond reasonable political activity. At the same hearing, another justice held that political immunity depended on the motivation of the individual to be extradited, his intent, and the true nature of the offence—and that all were to be assessed by their closeness to the alleged political objective. That was the reason used in the most recent case to let a suspect off the hook.
My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) recently drew the attention of the House to the Irish Supreme Court judgment that political exemption from extradition should apply to persons accused of politically motivated offences when the object of such offences was to secure the ultimate unity of the country. That confirms what has long been the practical outcome of the decisions of the Irish courts.
If the Minister will refer to questions on extradition that I have asked down the years, and to the answers given by his right hon. and hon. Friends and by himself, he will see that between 1971 and 1987, the Irish Republic made 159 requests to Northern Ireland for extraditions. Only two were refused. One hundred and seventeen were granted, and 49—just under three per year—were not granted for various reasons. Over the same period, extradition requests made by Northern Ireland numbered 411. Fifty-seven of those were refused, 118 were granted, and 237 were not granted—presumably because the suspects were either in prison or could not be found. Another parliamentary answer confirmed that between 1971 and 1989, 110 people were extradited for non-terrorist offences from the Republic to Northern Ireland, and only seven for terrorist offences. Those figures tell it all.
Where does that leave the people who formulated, signed, welcomed and defended—and still defend—the agreement of 15 November 1985? The hope of extraditions has been exposed for the shabby, bloody deception that it was. The figures reveal the spider's web into which this nation's leaders wandered, against every word of advice offered by the Members of Parliament who sit on this Bench. Those figures are proof of the fruits of the 1987 Act and of previous legislation. The evil consequences of the Anglo-Irish Agreement are only now beginning to blossom, and will continue to do so in a dreadful fashion over the next few years.
The two Irish Supreme Court decisions—the second growing out of the McGimpsey case—mean that those who have murdered, bombed, maimed and destroyed will never be extradited. An excuse will always be found by the Republic for not doing so, not least because its constitution does not recognise the validity of the extradition provisions. There is no way that the Irish courts can ever permit extraditions, because they do not acknowledge the existence in law of Northern Ireland. It is not going too far to say that extradition to Ulster from the Irish Republic could be deemed by the Republic as unconstitutional. I have listened carefully to the Government over the past few weeks, and their words show that they are still fogbound or lost in a time warp some time before the McGimpsey, Finucane and Clarke cases. But Ministers are far too clever and well advised by the Law Officers of the Crown and by their own officials to really be so lost. My belief is that the Government realise how much things have gone wrong.
What will the Government do about that? Will they allow murder to continue in Ulster? Will they go on
1324
shutting their eyes to the real world of terrorism that contaminates our land and blights our lives? Will they for ever close their ears to the counselling they receive from these Benches and from others, when ignoring it has led them into the bog in which they now find themselves? The Government know what must be done, and they know how to do it. Will they make a start? The Irish Republic, because of its written constitution, is frozen in its attitude and will never or can never deliver on the recognition of Ulster or the extradition of those who pursue the concept of a united Ireland through violence.
9.56 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I congratulate the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) on obtaining this Adjournment debate on a subject that is both complex and important. Extradition is a vital weapon in the fight against crime of any sort, be it of terrorist or non-terrorist.
I do not question that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are united in the desire to see terrorist offenders in particular brought to justice. That having been said, extradition is a matter fraught both with practical and political difficulties, and any failure of the system is given a far higher profile than are the successes that are achieved.
The hon. Gentleman's first concern, rightly, is with the recent cases of Finucane and Clarke, in which the Irish Supreme Court refused extradition to Northern Ireland.. I will return to those cases shortly. Before I do so, the House may find it helpful if I say a few words about the mechanics of the system.
Extradition is an arrangement designed to prevent criminals escaping justice by crossing national frontiers, and it therefore plays an integral part in the criminal justice process of modern states. Extradition between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom is operated under a system known as the backing of warrants. This arrangement does not for the most part involve the two Governments but is operated on a police-to-police basis. The original and underlying premise of the system is that the two jurisdictions are sufficiently close, in terms of the workings of their criminal justice systems, for a warrant issued in one country to be acceptable in the other, without the full extradition proceedings that either would require of a third country.
The procedure is, at least in principle, relatively simple. Despite the apparent simplicity, however, almost all cases now involve lengthy appeals, the outcome of which has been, and remains, unpredictable. Any individual case can throw up difficulties on a number of levels, but, broadly speaking, there are three categories of difficulty—administrative, legal, and political.
On the administrative side, the mechanics of processing a request involve a number of different agencies in both the requesting and requested states and co-ordination is thus complex. In past cases, problems have arisen over the immensely detailed scrutiny which the Irish courts have applied in the United Kingdom warrants. A good deal of work by lawyers skilled in this specialist field is often required. We believe that the resulting problems have now largely been solved as a result of a considerable investment of effort by the authorities on both sides, and the production of a detailed checklist.

1325
So far as extradition between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is concerned, there are two particular problems which have figured largely in recent cases. One is the provision of the Irish constitution which requires the Irish courts to protect Irish citizens from the threat of attack to their life, liberty, or property. That provision is the key on which fugitives have hung defences against extradition based on the argument that their life, person or property will be liable to attack if they are returned.
The second problem which commonly arises is where the defence case rests on the claim that the offence in question was political. That is a particularly sensitive issue in requests for fugitives to be returned to Northern Ireland. Close examination is made by defence lawyers of political issues in Northern Ireland which can be used to seek to justify fugitives' assertions that their offences were legitimately politically motivated. Extradition hearings have often, in the past, turned into debates on Irish history and political conditions in the Province, and the fairness of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland is often put unfairly under the microscope.
The backing of warrants system is a most important means of bringing to justice terrorist offenders who have escaped to the Republic, not least because it is right in principle that, whenever possible, fugitive offenders should be brought to justice in the jurisdiction where their crimes are committed. However, we do have provisions in our law, and in Irish law, whereby persons charged with the commission of certain serious crimes in Northern Ireland can be tried in the Republic, and vice versa. To date, 12 persons have been convicted in the Republic for crimes committed in Northern Ireland, and three acquitted. Four persons have been convicted in Northern Ireland for crimes committed in the Republic.
Let me turn to specifics. Our utter dismay, bordering on disbelief, at the widely reported decisions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland not to return to Northern Ireland two convicted terrorists is a matter of public record. I shall return to them shortly. First, however, I should like to set them against the background of the generally improved working of extradition arrangements in recent times.
Since January 1988, 14 persons have been returned to the United Kingdom. A further seven persons are currently before the Irish courts. Of those 14 returned, three were returned to Northern Ireland in connection with terrorist-related offences, two of whom were Maze escapers. One further person was returned to Northern Ireland for a non-terrorist offence.
As far as Dermot Finucane and James Clarke are concerned, both men were convicted in Northern Ireland of serious terrorist offences: Finucane was serving 18 years for possession of firearms and ammunition and Clarke 18 years for the attempted murder of a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. The lengths of those sentences speak for themselves; people are not sentenced to 18 years for trivial misdemeanours. Both were involved in the mass break-out from the Maze prison in 1983. They were subsequently arrested in the Republic where the district court made orders for their extradition.
Appeals on behalf of both men were quashed by the High Court in the Republic. They were, however, upheld
1326
on 13 March in the Supreme Court, their last court of appeal. As a result, these two convicted terrorists are now at large in the Republic. That was a judicial decision, but I, like many members of this House, and many people throughout the country, find it baffling and deplorable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, among others, has made those feelings very clear. That dismay was also expressed by some in the Republic of Ireland.
The judgments were lengthy and complex and are still being studied closely. Their full implications for future cases may become clear only in the light of experience. In both the Finucane and Clarke cases, the Supreme Court found that extradition should be refused on the ground that the men's constitutional rights might be breached if returned because of what the court called a "probable risk" that they would be assaulted on return to the Maze. In addition, it was found that Finucane, but not Clarke, was entitled to take advantage of the political offence exception.
The slur cast on the professionalism of the Northern Ireland prison service by the first of those findings is deeply offensive and wholly unjustifiable. I believe firmly that the prison regime offered in Northern Ireland is both innovative and constructive, administered by dedicated, trained, and professional staff providing a service of which we can all be proud.
No one who has been returned to Northern Ireland, whether from the Republic or elsewhere, has subsequently taken any sort of action alleging physical ill-treatment in prison. I do not for a moment believe that had Finucane and Clarke been returned they would have suffered such ill-treatment; nor, I believe, does anyone else who knows anything of the present Northern Ireland prison system. It is the Government's view that the Supreme Court's opinion in this part of its judgment is completely unjustified on the known facts about today's prison regime.
What is even more disturbing, however, is the Supreme Court's acceptance in Finucane's case that he was entitled to lay claim to the political offence exception. The implications of that finding are extremely serious and could, potentially, affect future cases.
I shall not rehearse the history of the political offence exception in extradition from the Republic of Ireland to the United Kingdom. It is in some respects a sorry story, but I believe that, before those judgments, we had reached a position where those sought for terrorist crimes in Northern Ireland could lay claim to the political offence exception only with difficulty. The judgments have now rolled back from that position. They are a step in a very unhelpful and regrettable direction, following on from some previous very positive moves in the Republic.
The hon. Gentleman referred several times to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and he rightly pointed out that following this debate there will be a debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). Like him, I do not wish to trespass into the territory of that debate, but I must make one or two comments because the hon. Member for Londonderry, East, raised the issue and because they are relevant to the question of extradition. Since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we have made progress on extradition. We are pleased with that, but we cannot be satisfied with things as they are.
Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman has made a statement that I do not understand.

1327
He has said that, since the signing of the Anglo-Eire agreement, the Government have made progress with Dublin on extradition. Surely, however, the rules were changed by the Dublin Government after the signing of the Anglo-Eire agreement, to the detriment of ease of extradition.
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East made a similar point and quoted my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but things have improved. Arrangements have been brought up to date in a way that has made it easier to pursue the extradition process, not least in terms of what I said earlier about the detailed arrangements that now exist. However, my hon. Friend will have heard me say just before he rose to his feet that I am not satisfied with things as they are—nor are the Government.
We shall be pursuing urgently with the Government of the Republic of Ireland our concern that the system as a whole should work effectively. I do not underrate the difficulties caused by these recent cases, but by close co-operation with the Irish Government we must find ways to overcome them.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was never an agreement to agree about everything, but it does offer a framework for discussion of such matters. The agreement provided a firm framework for our discussions with the Irish Government about ratification of the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, without which we would now be in a much worse position than we are today. It will also provide a framework for our future exchanges with the Irish Government about the implications of the Finucane and Clarke judgments and the urgent action which needs to be taken in consequence of those judgments. These functions are vital.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: During the discussions with the Irish Government under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, will the
1328
Government also be pursuing the need to extend the role played by the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act? According to the figures that the Minister has given, in so far as it has operated it has been reasonably successful.
Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows that that Act is one of a number of ways in which we can consider these various matters and seek to make progress. It is a consideration in each of the cases. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's comments during the conference meetings. I shall specifically draw them to his attention.
Let me finish by reiterating how important extradition is. Both the British and the Irish Governments have pledged themselves to ensure that effective arrangements are in place for dealing with fugitive offenders. Extradition is a vital factor in this. The importance attached to it by the Irish authorities is easily demonstrated. It was they who originally sought the extraditions of Finucane and Clarke on our behalf and who continued to make strenuous efforts, throughout their judicial system, to bring the cases to a successful conclusion.
Convicted terrorists and those facing charges for terrorist offences must not be allowed to take refuge from justice in any civilised country. I believe it to be self-evident that people of good will throughout the world should regard terrorists as their common enemy, as we do, and should be committed to take whatever steps may be necessary to bring them to justice. That truism alone must give all right-thinking British and Irish people cause for concern at the present position on extradition in the Irish Republic. But, further to that, the Irish Government are committed in the context of the agreement, and particularly in the context of the recent review, to ensuring, with us, fair and effective extradition arrangements between our two countries. We will strive, with them, to ensure that such arrangements are brought about in future.

Anglo-Irish Agreement
10.14 am
Mr. Ian Gow: Apart from the Republic of Argentina, which lays claim to part of Her Majesty's dominions—what it describes as the Malvinas—the only other country which lays claim to any part of Her Majesty's dominions is the Republic of Ireland. That was highlighted in the debate to which he have just listened.
I want to remind the House of the terms of articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution. Article 2 says:
"The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas."
Article 3 says:
"Pending the re-integration of the national territory, and without prejudice to the right of the Parliament and Government established by this Constitution … the laws enacted by that Parliament shall have the like area and extent of application".
In the McGimpsey judgment, given in the Irish Supreme Court last month, these words appeared:
"The reintegration of the national territory is a constitutional imperative."
The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Dublin to refuse the request for extradition followed after the judgment in the McGimpsey case. Many who are expert in the law of the Republic of Ireland believe that the decision to refuse to grant extradition—not in the case of two suspected terrorists but in the case of two convicted terrorists—depended to a substantial degree on the earlier judgment in the McGimpsey case.
It was possible because my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had in mind the profoundly objectionable terms of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution that she said in this place:
"no commitment exists for Her Majesty's Government to consult the Irish Government on matters affecting Northern Ireland. That has always been our position. We reiterate and emphasise it, so that everyone is clear about it."—[Official Report, 29 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 1226.]
On 17 May 1984, again speaking in this place, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
"The constitutional future of Northern Ireland is a matter for Northern Ireland and this Parliament, and for no one else."—[Official Report, 17 May 1984; Vol. 60, c. 503.]
However, the year after that last quotation appeared in the Official Report on 17 May 1984, the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. That agreement gave to the Government of the Irish Republic—to the Government of the only country whose constitution laid claim to Northern Ireland—the right to put forward views and proposals about how Northern Ireland was to be governed and laid upon Her Majesty's Government an obligation, if they disagreed with those views and proposals, to make determined efforts to resolve differences.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement specifically said that the Government of the Irish Republic were there to represent nationalists. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that four nationalists have been elected to this Parliament. Three of them have taken their seats. The proper people to represent nationalists in dealings with Her Majesty's Ministers are those who have been elected to this place, and not the Government of a foreign power. To confer upon the Irish Republic responsibility for the representation of some of Her Majesty's subjects when those subjects have at least in this respect an equal right with all other of Her Majesty's subjects to elect their own representatives, was intensely divisive.
1330
If right hon. and hon. Members think that I am going too far when I say that Her Majesty's Government accepted that the Government of the Irish Republic were to represent nationalists, article 4 of the agreement, states:
"The Conference shall be a framework within which the Irish Government may put forward views and proposals on the modalities of bringing about devolution in Northern Ireland in so far as they relate to the interests of the minority community."
I shall return to article 4 later in my speech.
Mr. William Ross: Surely what the hon. Gentleman said about the Irish Government representing only nationalists is the only position that that Government could take, as their Supreme Court has clarified the matter. We can all see the reasoning behind it, which was that they have a legal claim to Northern Ireland and a constitutional imperative to pursue the objective of a united Ireland. As Unionists object to that, there is no way in which the Irish Government could legally, within their own constitution, represent a Unionist viewpoint.
Mr. Gow: I agree entirely.
There are some Members of Parliament, among whom I am not to be included, who believe that Her Majesty's Government entered into the Anglo-Irish Agreement in something other than good faith. I have never doubted the good faith of Her Majesty's Government or of the Government of the Irish Republic in entering into the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Despite the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister which I read to the House, I believe that she, above all people, was appalled, as we all were, by the continuing violence in Northern Ireland and that she, above all, was mindful of the misery caused to wives who were turned into widows and children who were turned into orphans. She was as appalled as any Member of Parliament by the misery caused by the terror, by the continuing division between the communities in the Province, and by the fact that at that time unemployment in Northern Ireland was worse than in any other part of the United Kingdom. She and Her Majesty's Ministers wished genuinely, sincerely and honourably to redress those evils in Northern Ireland. They really believed that the agreement would bring the Province peace, stability and reconciliation. To my deep regret, I was not able to share that belief, but of course the Government believed that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would be acceptable to nationalists.
The Foreign Office, which was the principal Department involved in the protracted negotiations, advised the Government that the agreement would be welcomed in Dublin, in the Vatican, in Roman Catholic Europe, and, above all, in Washington, where it was believed that the signing of the agreement would lead to a diminution of financial and material support for terrorist organisations in the Province. Of course, when they heard that that agreement, if signed along the lines of the final draft, would be widely welcomed and would restore the confidence of the nationalists, Her Majesty's Ministers asked one other question. They said, "You have told us how pleased all these other people will be and how the capitals of Europe and even the most important capital of all, Washington, would be pleased, but what will be the reaction of Unionists?"
That is where the Government were so badly advised. They were given the answer, "Paisley will huff and puff, but on the whole Unionists will be well satisfied with the

1331
agreement." The argument ran that the Unionists would be well satisfied because, it was claimed, quite wrongly, that the Irish Government had acknowledged for the first time in article 1 of the agreement that there could be a change in the status of Northern Ireland only if a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wanted it.
However, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will recall the opening words of the Sunningdale communiqué in 1974. For the sake of accuracy, I have a copy of the text of the declaration made at Sunningdale in 1974, 11 years before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was
signed. It stated:
"The Irish Government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status."
The British Cabinet genuinely believed when it sanctioned the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement that the Republic had taken a great new step forward in acknowledging that for the first time. But it was not so.
The second reason why it was claimed that the Unionists ought to be well satisfied with the agreement was that it would lead to a new era of co-operation in the defeat of terrorism between the Government of the Irish Republic and Her Majesty's Government and between the Garda and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. But the Anglo-Irish Agreement was not necessary to secure co-operation in the defeat of terrorism.
There is no such agreement between France and Spain whereby France is allowed to put forward views and proposals on how the Basque country should be governed. That is not necessary to secure co-operation between Spain and France in the defeat of terrorism. Relations between France and the United Kingdom, in regard to anti-terrorist measures, could not possibly be better, happier, or more effective, and we are able to achieve that without giving France the right to propose how Alderney, Sark or Jersey should be governed.
It is a myth to say that a precondition of co-operation was the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. If that were the reality, and if the Republic had told Her Majesty's Government that they would co-operate only if they were given the right to put forward views and proposals about how part of the United Kingdom should be governed, that would be the most massive indictment of the honour, integrity and commitment of the Government of the Irish Republic to ending violence.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State looks puzzled at my assertion that that was the advice given to the Cabinet. He has no need to take my word for it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave an interview to the Belfast Telegraph just five weeks after the agreement was signed. For the sake of accuracy, I have a copy of the interview which she gave to Mr. Desmond McCartan. She was asked about the reaction of the Unionists to the
agreement, and she replied:
"the reaction has been much worse than I expected. One is trying to find out why."
She did not say that the reaction has been "worse than I expected", but "much worse".
The Prime Minister said that she was trying to find out why. What does that mean? It means that the Prime Minister was told that the reaction of Unionists would be one of support, whereas it turned out to be one of hostility. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet had been misled and had not been properly advised. We can readily understand why that was. The Government of the Irish Republic had
1332
taken the SDLP into their confidence, but Her Majesty's Government had had no discussions with Unionists beforehand, although anyone with the slightest knowledge of Northern Ireland would not have had to have discussions with Unionist Members to know the views of the people of Northern Ireland.
The way in which the Anglo-Irish Agreement is viewed by the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland in April 1990 is no more favourable than it was on 15 November 1985. There is a sense of disbelief that we could confer that place of special privilege on the Government of the Irish Republic, whose constitution still lays claim to Northern Ireland; a sense of disbelief that we should ask another Government to represent some of Her Majesty's subjects when those subjects have the right to elect their own Members.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Irish Government are enabled to represent the nationalist community in the north implies that Her Majesty's Government do not seem to feel able sufficiently to represent the interests of those citizens of the United Kingdom in a way that is fair and even-handed in relation to other United Kingdom citizens?
Mr. Gow: When dealing with any of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom, Her Majesty's Government have a duty to take account of the interests of all of the people in each of those four countries. For example, the Secretary of State for Scotland must ensure that, in the administration of Scotland, nationalists, socialists, liberals and those who, like myself, believe in the Union are all governed under a fair and just law. He must ensure that each citizen, whatever his or her political or religious beliefs, shall be treated in the same way under a just law.
It is the duty of Her Majesty's Ministers to safeguard and protect nationalists—and republicans—in Northern Ireland. I am wholly opposed at all times, and in all circumstances, to any discrimination in Northern Ireland on the ground that a citizen is a Roman Catholic, a nationalist or a republican. I shall make only one caveat: that nationalists in Northern Ireland, whom I acknowledge, honour and respect, must accept their responsibility to behave as responsible citizens, obeying the law at all times. That means doing their utmost to defeat terrorism. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) that the Government in every part of the kingdom must protect all their citizens, whatever their views, under a just law.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement did not get off to a happy start, because it was in two versions—the Irish text and the United Kingdom text. The Irish text did not refer to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is not very surprising, in view of recent judgments from the Supreme Court, and in view of articles 2 and 3. It was not a happy start to a solemn treaty and agreement when the texts did not coincide.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on the robust reply that he gave to the previous debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). The words that fell from his lips were carefully fashioned—and were approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. His description of the judgments of the Supreme Court was "baffling and deplorable", and I agree entirely with that choice of words.

1333
However, my hon. Friend's efforts, and those of the Government, to secure much better—indeed, proper—extradition arrangements will be wished godspeed by every hon. Member. It is a terrible commentary on the evils of terrorism that on a supposedly friendly country, with whose Government we have entered into a treaty, should be conferred a special provision which means that that country above all others—a country that has suffered from terrorism—is now perceived, with justification, to be a safe haven for terrorists.
In the cases of Finucane and Clarke, we are referring not to suspected terrorists but to people who were convicted of grave terrorist crimes. During their escape from the Maze prison, further grave crimes were committed. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept that it is not impossible that those two, whose extradition was refused, will now engage in further terrorist activity, and that is greatly to be deplored.
No one who believes that the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement will fail to bring to the Province that peace, stability and reconciliation that we all want to see, and no one who is critical of the agreement, should criticise it without offering an alternative. Clearly the agreement can be changed or amended at any time with the consent of both parties. If my right hon. Friend the Minister of State makes an agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, however solemn its terms—whether it is registered with the Comptroller of the Household, the United Nations, Mr. Delors or anyone who is now in fashion—it can be altered at the request of the two parties who made it.
I have submitted to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to the then Foreign Secretary—now Lord President of the Council—the text of a revised Anglo-Irish Agreement. When my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland arrived at Stormont or Hillsborough, he also was a beneficiary—I am not sure whether he regarded it in those terms—as I sent him the text of my alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That alternative could have been fashioned with the consent of the two contracting Governments. The revised agreement did not give the Republic the right to advance views and proposals about how one part of the kingdom was governed—or, as article 4 says, the right to put forward proposals on behalf of nationalists as to what form of devolution there should be. It envisaged something that had been fashioned earlier by the Conservative and Unionist party.
Shortly after my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was elected leader of the Conservative party on 11 February 1975, she appointed as shadow Secretary of State her friend and mine Airey Neave, who held the post from February 1975 until he was assassinated in the precincts of this House on 30 March 1979. Just before he was assassinated, the shadow Cabinet had agreed—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will not be surprised to learn that it had done so without much discussion—the Conservative party's policies for Northern Ireland. The manifesto stated:
"In the absence of devolved Government, we shall seek to set up a regional council or councils with widely devolved powers over local matters."
I am still waiting for Ministers to implement the policy that had been fashioned by Airey Neave with the consent
1334
and concurrence of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party and, if I am allowed to say this without any presumption, with the concurrence of the hon. Member for Eastbourne.
We are still awaiting the implementation of that policy. The conclusion that Airey Neave had reached in his four years of stewardship as shadow Secretary of State was that the least dangerous and most hopeful way forward was to treat Northern Ireland as closely as possible to the way that we treat the rest of the United Kingdom. That did not mean identical treatment, because England, Wales and Scotland are governed differently, but it recognised the most important truth that the House can learn—that the most important factor in prolonging terrorism in Northern Ireland is uncertainty about the constitutional future of the Province. Ministers have not yet understood that truth.
The uncertainty about Ulster's constitutional future was not diminished but increased by the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The certainty about Ulster's constitutional future has not been increased by the two judgments in the Supreme Court in Dublin last month; it is the uncertainty that has been increased by those judgments.
It is perfectly possible, despite the commitment in article 4, for Ministers to confer modest additional powers on the 26 district councils in Northern Ireland. Dublin would not like us doing so, but we do not need its consent. Nothing prevents my right hon. Friend the Minister of State from trying to set up a regional council in Northern Ireland with some of the powers enjoyed by regional councils in Scotland and county councils in England and Wales. Nothing stops him bringing to an end the absurdity that we legislate for 1·5 million of the Queen's subjects in Northern Ireland by unamendable Order in Council, which we would not accept for our constituents.
Sometimes, the policy that I am advocating is described as integration. It could perfectly properly be described as administrative devolution. The time will come when Ministers realise that the surest protection for the minority and the greatest guarantee of stability in Northern Ireland is to adopt that policy, of which the late Airey Neave was the principal architect. The sooner we do so, the greater will be the prospect of peace, stability and reconciliation which all decent men want to see.
10.43 am
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on securing this debate and on the manner in which he has pursued and promoted his views on the subject since his resignation, which I much respected, from the Government. In diverging from my hon. Friend, as I will, he knows that I have every respect for his parliamentary and political manners. Once again, he clearly set out his views. I observed that he dwelt a little more on the past of the agreement. The debate was advertised as being about the future of the agreement, but I read from one to the other.
Mr. William Ross: Has it a future?
Mr. Cope: Perhaps that was the point that my hon. Friend was making.
It is my task to make it clear that the Government remain committed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to the principles that underline it and are embodied in it. The

1335
agreement was intended to address how the legitimate interests of the Irish Government in matters within Northern Ireland, particularly regarding the minority community, could be acknowledged without diluting United Kingdom sovereignty or the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. In his closing remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne demonstrated the sovereignty of Parliament and the Government's advice to it on various matters.
More important, article 1 of the agreement provides a formal acknowledgement by both Governments of the factual status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom; that that status would be changed only if and when a majority of the people of Northern Ireland wished it; and that if that should occur, both Governments would facilitate it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) said in the House on 14 March in replying to an Adjournment debate, that firm bedrock has not been shaken by the McGimpsey judgment.
The agreement provides a structure in which views and proposals can be put forward by the Irish Government, in particular in the absence of a devolved Government, and a framework in which the differences that inevitably arise between us from time to time can be resolved in a constructive and co-operative fashion, with the minimum, although not always with the absence, of acrimony. Such differences are inevitable and it is better to try to resolve them through such a framework.
I hope that all hon. Members will agree that a close relationship with the Irish Republic, as provided by the agreement, is an essential component of our efforts to ensure that terrorism does not succeed in Northern Ireland. This morning's earlier discussion on extradition emphasised that point.
The conference, supported by the secretariat, has provided the forum in which Ministers and senior officials on both sides can maintain close and frequent contact. That has inevitably given each side a greater awareness of the political and other realities against which the other side has to operate and has helped to reduce the risk of misunderstandings arising over particular incidents and has increased the possibility that problems will be resolved in a constructive and co-operative spirit. It has enabled each side to take decisions within its jurisdiction with greater knowledge and awareness of the likely impact on and reactions of the other side. That does not mean that we do not disagree with out Irish colleagues on some issues, but it does mean that we have a way of trying to resolve them.
The agreement has been, and continues to be, widely welcomed internationally, where it has been recognised as making a very positive contribution to addressing the fundamental problems of Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend has criticised the agreement again today, because it treats Northern Ireland differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. However, we must recognise that, in Northern Ireland there are two distinct communities and that in that sense, it is not like any other part of the United Kingdom. The two communities have different aspirations, traditions and allegiances. There is, regrettably, as the House knows all too well, a history of animosity and conflict between them. The agreement provides a means of giving recognition to the identities of the two communities in a framework that ensures that the
1336
wishes of a majority shall prevail. Their wishes are, of course, that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. William Ross: The Minister is now talking about the interests of the majority. Does he remember that, a moment ago, he was talking about the input of the Government of the Irish Republic? Will he, on behalf of the Government, now give the House an assurance that, on all future occasions when Ministers happen to be speaking to the Government of the Irish Republic, they will keep firmly in the forefront of their mind the fact that the Government of the Irish Republic have been instructed by their own Supreme Court that at every opportunity they must pursue the objective of a united Ireland and use whatever constitutional or other means are available at the time?
Mr. Cope: In seeking to balance the interests of the majority and those of the minority on different occasions, which it is our responsibility to do, we try to keep in mind all relevant considerations, including the views of the Irish Government and the factors that may have led them to present those views to us.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should just add that it is my wish also that Northern Ireland should remain a part of the United Kingdom. I hope that it does, but it is the wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland rather than my own wish which matters and should be paramount, as the agreement recognises.
In addition to enshrining the principle of consent as the basis for determining the future of Northern Ireland, the agreement has provided a valuable forum in which cross-border co-operation in security and other matters can be pursued. There is absolutely no doubt that close co-operation in security is essential to our efforts to defeat terrorism. Nor is there any doubt that there have been improvements since the signing of the agreement, and there is now a much more effective level of co-operation between the two police forces. However, there is no room for complacency and I do not say that all is perfect. There remains much work to be done at the political level to ensure that security co-operation is as effective as it can be. The advantage of the agreement is that it provides us with the mechanism through which the two Governments' shared interest in bringing terrorism to an end can be advanced.
The British Government have always made it clear, of course, that they do not regard the agreement as a panacea which provides the solution to all Northern Ireland's problems. Although, as I have said, it provides a valuable framework in which relations between the two Governments on Northern Ireland matters can be conducted, we do not regard it as immutable or as incapable of improvement.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Minister agree that, apart from the co-operation between Ministers in the Irish Republic and in the United Kingdom, which I fully endorse, there is a strong case for continuing co-operation, now that it has started, between Members of Paliament in the Republic and those in this country? Like the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), I participated in the first session of the new British parliamentary body. I look on that as a welcome initiative. Does the Minister agree?
Mr. Cope: It is a helpful development. A review of the working of the Anglo-Irish Conference—
Mr. James Kilfedder: I appreciate that the Minister has a full speech there in justification of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He has stated that the agreement has provided great benefits to the people of the United Kingdom—forgetting the Irish Republic at present. We had good relations with Dublin over security and there was a degree of co-operation. If anything, it has worsened since the signing of the agreement. Will the Minister now list the benefits that have accrued to the United Kingdom as a result of signing the agreement?
Mr. Cope: I have already given my opinion, which is that benefits have accrued in security co-operation, and I shall talk about some of the other ways in which I believe benefits have accrued and in which co-operation has improved.
A review of the working of the intergovernmental conference, as prescribed under article 11 of the agreement, was completed in May last year. The communiqué recording the outcome of that review and a document setting out developments that have taken place since the signing of the agreement are available in the Library of the House. The two Governments reaffirmed, in paragraph 27 of the review communiqué, the fundamental objectives of the agreement in promoting peace and stability in Northern Ireland, diminishing the divisions between the two traditions, creating a new climate of friendship and co-operation between them and improving co-operation in combating terrorism.
Mr. Barry Porter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cope: No, as I have given way several times.
The two Governments concluded at that stage that the conference had proved its value and that no fundamental change was necessary in its role. They also agreed that if in future it were to appear that the objectives of the agreement could be more effectively served by changes in the scope and nature of the working of the conference, they would be ready in principle to consider such changes. That is relevant to one of the fundamental provisions of the agreement, article 4, to which hon. Members have already referred, which refers to the British Government's policy—which has the support of the Irish Government, too—that responsibility in respect of certain matters within the powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be devolved within Northern Ireland on a basis that would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community.
It remains the Government's view that it is desirable for locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland to have a greater say in the decisions that affect the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Barry Porter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Cope: No, as I have given way several times.
In order for this to happen, it is essential for dialogue to take place between the Northern Ireland political parties and with the British Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has, as the House knows, been having a series of meetings with Northern Ireland political leaders to explore what scope there is for making progress.
The judgment of the Irish Supreme Court in the McGimpsey case should not be allowed to block the path to political progress in Northern Ireland. We are offering talks on political progress without preconditions. Unionists may, therefore, legitimately seek change in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution as part of their list of objectives to be achieved from any talks. I draw their attention to a speech made by an Irish Minister in the debate in the Irish Senate on the McGimpsey judgment, in which he did not say that the Irish would never change their constitution, but said that they did not want to change it in a vacuum and that they would be prepared to examine and review the articles in the context of new political arrangements that might emerge in these islands. Few would doubt that the amendment of articles 2 and 3 of that constitution would have a most important and positive effect on the atmosphere within Northern Ireland and on relations between the Republic and the United Kingdom.
There can be differing views about the form and extent of any devolution of powers, but there appears to be common recognition that devolution is the basis on which widespread acceptance is most likely to be achieved and that both sides of the community must play a proper role in any future institutions of government in Northern Ireland. The achievement of devolution on a basis that will secure widespread acceptance is a central part of the agenda set by the agreement. That does not mean devolution within the agreement, but it does mean that we look to the Irish Government to support our efforts to facilitate the process. As any political progress within Northern Ireland will have implications for relations with the Republic of Ireland, we have kept in close touch with the Irish Government about ways in which progress might be achieved. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to meet his Irish co-chairman of the conference again in the near future to continue that discussion.
The British Government hold fast to the view that a close and co-operative relationship with the Republic of Ireland is essential. For our part, we shall seek to sustain and develop the relationship. Equally, we shall seek to heal any damage to the relationship caused by external factors and to resolve disagreements between the two Governments in an amicable, if sometimes forthright, manner.
It being Eleven o'clock MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Resolution [16 March].

Strangeways Prison
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I think that I ought to make a further statement to the House about the serious events at Manchester prison over the past few days before we rise for the Easter recess.
Since I reported to the House last Monday, prison staff have continued progressively to regain control of the buildings. During the same period, a large number of prisoners have surrendered. But 12 prisoners can be seen inside the prison, who have been identified by name. Pending a final check of our records, I cannot say whether there might not be more.
Negotiations are continuing in order to bring this appalling incident to a close, and I know that the governor and his staff, who throughout have conducted themselves with great courage and professionalism, will continue to do so. I should also like to thank the police and the fire and ambulance services for the work that they have done.
I am very sorry to have to inform the House that a Manchester prison officer died in hospital this morning. He had been on duty on Sunday 1 April, and, although he suffered no injuries during the disturbance, he was admitted to hospital later that day. I wish to express my deep sympathy to his family in their loss. The House will already be aware that a remand prisoner, Mr. Derek White, who suffered serious injuries in the course of the events of last Sunday and who was admitted to hospital on that day, died as a result of those injuries on 3 April. Again, I offer my sympathy to his relatives.
During the past few days a number of prison officers have also been injured, but all but one have now been discharged from hospital.
The Greater Manchester police have opened a murder inquiry, following the death of Mr. White, and other criminal investigations into the incident.
A special telephone number for the use of relatives concerned as to the whereabouts of individual prisoners in Manchester prison at the start of the incident has been available since Sunday. It is 061-817 8178. All governors receiving prisoners from Manchester have also been asked to enable them to make a telephone call to a relative or friend without charge.
Urgent consideration is also being given to the new arrangements which will need to be made to accommodate people committed from the courts in the Manchester area.
I have already expressed my intention to set up an inquiry into this incident as soon as it has been resolved. It will be conducted by Lord Justice Woolf. The terms of reference will be to inquire into the events leading up to the serious disturbance in Her Majesty's prison, Manchester and the action taken to bring it to a conclusion. I intend that the report, which will be separate from, and will not conflict with, the criminal investigation, should be published.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: I express my thanks to the Home Secretary for making his statement. I know that he had rightly hoped to make it after the riot had ended, but it is absolutely correct that he should come and tell the House how things stand on this, our last sitting day before Easter.
Once more, I expressed our gratitude to, and admiration for, the police, fire officers, ambulance staff and prison officers who have risked their lives and safety
1340
in Strangeways this week. I offer our condolences to the family of the prison officer whose tragic death the Home Secretary has just reported and to the family of the inmate who died. The fact that the dead prisoner was on remand awaiting trial, and therefore innocent before the law, adds to the tragedy of his death.
The Home Secretary has told us nothing about the reported disturbances in other prisons. Has he anything that he feels he should tell the House on that subject?
I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement that an inquiry is to be set up. Today, I want to do no more than to ask the Home Secretary for assurances about the issues that the inquiry will consider. The Home Secretary will know that both the Prison Officers Association and the Prison Governors Association attribute the extent of the riot to under-staffing. The prison governors have been explicit in relating the riot to what they call
"taut staffing levels … since the introduction of Fresh Start".
May we be assured that the inquiry will be empowered to make a wide-ranging examination of staffing levels?
The Home Secretary will recall that last Monday I asked him about the warnings of riots in Strangeways and he told the House that no significant warnings had been received. Reports continue of warnings which, at least to the layman, appear to have been significant, and recklessly ignored. May we again be assured that the inquiry will examine the significance of the alleged warnings and the appropriateness of the authorities' reaction to them?
I make no comment and ask no question about operational matters as the siege continues and none of us wishes to do anything that might prevent its speedy resolution, but will the inquiry examine the general principle of containment, rather than forcible entry, on occasions such as this, especially given that it is reported that inside the prison a number of prisoners are being assaulted and other criminal acts are therefore taking place? Perhaps the Home Secretary does not want to comment even in the most oblique way on the subject this morning, in which case I shall understand the absence of an answer, but I hope that the inquiry will examine the principle, because there is great concern throughout the country that bestial and appalling acts are going on inside the prison and the thought of stopping them immediately ought to be in the public mind and under public examination.
Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the thanks that he expressed to all those who have had to carry a heavy burden in the past few days and who have performed magnificently. I am grateful also for the condolences that he expressed to the families of the prison officer who died and the prisoner who died.
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the disturbances that broke out at other prisons are not continuing.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the terms of reference of the inquiry. Of course, it will be up to Lord Justice Woolf to interpret the terms of reference, but he will be concerned to deal with the events leading up to the disturbances and also with the way in which the problem was tackled once those disturbances broke out.
On the question of the reports of warnings, I advise the House and those listening outside to leave these matters now to Lord Justice Woolf. I hope that hon. Members and others will put any evidence in their possession before

1341
Lord Justice Woolf. It is far better that it should be done in that way rather than that reports of one sort or another should be leaked to the press.
Mr. Robert Litherland: May I, in turn, offer my sincere condolences to the bereaved families in this awful affair? It is estimated that prison officers have recaptured more than 50 per cent. of the prisoners. If that is so, surely they must have witnessed signs of the barbaric scenes that have been described, especially in the tabloid press. Will the Home Secretary comment on that?
Mr. Waddington: The prison officers at Strangeways have not seen the result of any barbaric acts. What we do know is that violence must have occurred on the very first day because violence was done to one prisoner, who, unhappily, has since died. I cannot invite anyone in the House to accept a picture of violence occurring since then. Certainly there have been no macabre discoveries by prison officers during the past few days.
Sir John Wheeler: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is great respect for the police, prison officers and others who have been concerned with this disastrous emergency in Manchester? Does he also agree that there is admiration for the tactful way in which the authorities have sought to bring the matter to a peaceful conclusion with the minimum of violence? Does he accept that it is welcome news that there is to be a thorough inquiry by a respected judge into the circumstances and that it is important to await the conclusion of that inquiry before determining the cause of this terrible tragedy? Will he separately bring forward his review of the management structure of the prison service in England and Wales and give further consideration to the plight of overcrowding in the old, inner-city Victorian prisons?
Mr. Waddington: As my hon. Friend knows, we have made considerable inroads into the overcrowding problem, but that problem is undoubtedly concentrated on the old local prisons. That is the trouble. However, one of the tragedies with Manchester is that it is a setback to all the plans that have been put in train and the progress that has already been made to get rid of overcrowding in our prisons.
I heard what my hon. Friend said about the efforts that have been made to bring this terrible event to a peaceful conclusion. Again, all those matters are for Lord Justice Woolf, but many might take the view that, in this kind of incident, one should bend one's efforts towards bringing the matter to an end peacefully, because any other course, when other lives are not imminently in danger, could result in more injuries, if not deaths.
Mr. Alex Carlile: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I would like to join in with the sympathy that has been expressed for the families of the prison officer and the prisoner who have died.
Can the Home Secretary tell us how many prisoners from Strangeways are unaccounted for following the dispersal to other prisons?
I welcome very much the appointment of a very distinguished lord justice of appeal to undertake the inquiry, but will the Home Secretary confirm that Lord Justice Woolf will, as part of his terms of reference, be able
1342
to review how rule 43 is operated, because it appears that one of the problems that has arisen is the juxtaposition of rule 43 restricted prisoners—protected prisoners—with other prisoners who have sought to commit violence against them?
Mr. Waddington: Of course we do not know at this juncture whether we have seen all those inside the prison. The figure that I gave earlier relates to the 12 people who have been identified and seen by prison staff. My latest information is that all the rule 43 prisoners have been accounted for.
Lord Justice Woolf will interpret the terms of reference as he thinks right. Obviously, he is likely to consider where the rule 43 prisoners were. The difficulty in a local prison such as Strangeways is that the young offenders must be separated from the old offenders and those on remand have to be separated from those who have been sentenced. Carrying out that exercise is quite a problem while at the same time separating all rule 43 prisoners not only from their colleagues, but from everyone else.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask the inquiry to consider whether it was more than just coincidence that this ghastly riot broke out on the same weekend as the serious riots in London? May we use this incident as a turning point to consider a new gaol with a new name, thus putting ghastly Victorian conditions behind us?
Mr. Waddington: It is too early to decide what we should do now after the terrible damage to Strangeways. Clearly I cannot say whether there was any element of copying what might have been seen on the television screens. I do not think that it is helpful to speculate about that.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South): Does the Home Secretary agree that if Lord Justice Woolf is to carry out a full and detailed inquiry, it might be wise, bearing in mind the fact that evidence already exists of criminality within the prison, that the inquiry should stretch beyond any prosecutions in respect of the criminality, because those who were there at the time could be granted immunity from subsequent prosecution and perhaps their evidence to the inquiry might be more detailed and valuable?
Mr. Waddington: Any question of immunity is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, there is no reason why the inquiry should touch on the criminal investigation.
Mr. Tony Favell: I want to express my admiration for those involved in dealing with the riot including the police, the fire brigade, the ambulance men and the prison officers, many of whom are my constituents.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend say how wide the inquiry is likely to be? My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) referred to overcrowding in prisons. Many practising lawyers and I are concerned that so many prisoners are inactive in prison. I believe in the old saying, "The devil finds work for idle hands to do." Many prisoners enter gaol without ever having done an honest day's work, and they come out in the same state.
Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend may recall that I quoted some figures the other day. One of the sadnesses of this affair is that great improvements had taken place in the regimes at Manchester during the year or so before the disturbance. The House will forgive me if I repeat the figures that I gave the other day. The hours of activity for convicted adults were 12·79 hours a week last year, but 22·73 hours this year.
There is no doubt that the governor deserves our congratulations on the progress that has been made in Manchester. The other day I referred to the report of the chief inspector of prisons, who had a great deal to say about the progress that has been made in Manchester. He said:
"'life at Manchester is a great deal nearer what it should be, both for staff and inmates, than it was some two years ago … There was much more to praise than to decry in an establishment clearly going in the right direction and with an optimistic momentum.'"—[Official Report, 2 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 904.]
Mr. John Battle: How many prisoners have been transferred to Armley prison, in my constituency, which is already recognised as the most overcrowded prison in Britain? Problems of understaffing have been rumbling on in that prison for some months now. Can the Home Secretary give us positive assurance that additional overcrowding pressure will not simply be transferred from Strangeways to Armley prison in Leeds?
Mr. Waddington: Obviously prisoners had to be transferred, because it was an emergency. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman realises that that had to happen and that there are unfortunate consequences as a result. However, we will do our best to keep the hon. Gentleman informed. If he will get in touch with my office, I will give him what information I can about the transfer of prisoners to Armley.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend has said that there have been no fatalities beyond the two that he mentioned. Will he comment on an extremely disturbing report on the "Today" programme this morning, in which a solicitor acting for one of the prisoners reported that the prisoner had said that he had seen two men who had been hanged and men who had been thrown over balconies? I understand that some of those issues are matters for the inquiry, but it is important to establish the extent of the brutality because the public should be aware of it. Will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on that?
Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend will recall that a very short time ago I said that all the rule 43 prisoners had been accounted for. So far, no bodies have been found. Obviously one does not want to say categorically that we will not come across a tragedy, but that is the position at present.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does the Home Secretary accept that prison officers in various prisons that have accepted people from Strangeways should also be praised because of the difficulties that they face? In Liverpool, they accepted the situation with proper discussion and so on.
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that people are getting information as quickly as they should when they find that relatives in prison are perhaps missing and they do not know what has happened to them? They
1344
are anxious, particularly when they read in the gutter press horrific stories of 20 bodies being seen and so on. Such reports may or may not be right, but they worry people.
The telephone number that the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave is all right, but the authorities cannot always give the answers. When prisoners are identified and their whereabouts and what has happened to them are known, I should have thought that it was the responsibility of the Home Office to let their relatives know as soon as possible so that worry is lifted from the people concerned.
Mr. Waddington: I appreciate the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I certainly echo his thanks to the staff of other prisons who have had to bear a considerable burden in the past few days, and have borne it extremely well. The telephone number I mentioned has been available since Sunday. Obviously, we shall do our best to inform people, but people in prison now have the facility to ring their relatives, and people with members of their families in prison are invited to ring that number.
Mr. Julian Brazier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend pass on my congratulations to the governor and prison officers? Having an aging prison in my constituency, I know just how difficult conditions can be for them. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his twin-track approach to sentencing is the long-term answer to overcrowding? It combines the need to protect the public from more violent criminals with much longer sentences and the need to reduce the prison population by getting as many people as possible back into the community.
Mr Waddington: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I make it plain that our White Paper was not the beginnings of a policy; it was the culmination of it. In recent years, more and more people have been dealt with by punishment in the community, and that has helped greatly towards the reduction in the prison population over the past two years.
Mr. Terry Lewis: Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the inquiry will examine the efficacy of keeping remand prisoners in establishments such as Strangeways? Does not the effectiveness of the emergency services and the prison staff signal the end of discussions on the privatisation of prisons?
Mr. Waddington: There never has been any question of the privatisation of prisons. On remand prisoners, there is a difficulty and a balance is to be struck. We want remand prisoners to be near their legal advisers and their families, and not too far from the courts before which they must appear. We shall never see the day when all remand prisoners are in establishments miles from city centres where the courts sit.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that many hon. Members think that some irresponsible comments have already been made in this matter, which also affects other prisons? Is it not a fact that warnings are nearly always given when violent men are mewed up in prison? It is nonsense to continue to say that the governor was especially warned—he must always be warned. Is it not also a fact that there are 2,700 fewer prisoners now and that there are 3,000 more prison officers than there were three years ago? It is entirely unhelpful to give the

1345
impression that prisons are overcrowded and understaffed, because that affects the morale of prison officers and people outside, and that irresponsibility should stop.
Mr. Waddington: Over the past 10 years there has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of prison officers and only an 11 per cent. increase in the number of prisoners. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make the point that, sometimes in the past few days, people have overlooked the very big increase in the staffing of prisons that has taken place in recent years. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about warnings, but, now that the inquiry has been set up, the best thing is for people who have any information that they think is relevant to give that information to the inquiry.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is a private Members' day. I shall allow questions to continue for another five minutes, and then we must make progress.
Mr. Alan Meale: Bearing in mind the difficulties of this sad incident, the fact that many prisoners have been transferred to other gaols where subsequent incidents have occurred and that other incidents have been happening at other gaols anyway, will the Home Secretary comment, albeit briefly, on the practice of containment? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, bearing in mind the violence and everything else that has occurred, containment is in the best interests of people who may be left in prison for a considerable time?
Mr. Waddington: That is a matter for decision by governors. It would be rash for politicians to tell governors how best to make such difficult decisions.
Mr. Robert Key: Will my right hon. and learned Friend ask Lord Justice Woolf to look not only at the problem of rule 43 prisoners but at the problem of HIV-positive prisoners and prisoners with AIDS who have their own problems in prison and are not at all the same as those who are under rule 43 conditions, even though they are often segregated?
Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly it is not for me to tell Lord Justice Woolf what to look into. No doubt he will consider all those matters and will look at his terms of reference and then decide how he should approach the task that he has been set.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Are not the public entitled to know why only five prison officers accompanied 300 prisoners to the chapel last Sunday, a matter of 12 hours after a prison officer at Strangeways logged the fact that he believed that there would be violence the following day? Does that not show that inadequate manning inevitably leads to trouble?
Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong. I stated the other day that there were 10 prison officers inside the chapel, and there were also more prison officers outside. In any event, those matters are for Lord Justice Woolf's inquiry. I do not think that it helps when hon. Members propagate various rumours. All those matters can be established in due course by the inquiry.
Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Although I enormously admire the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend has handled this extremely difficult tragedy, I was slightly disappointed with his reply to the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) about remand prisoners and privatisation. It is essential that remand prisoners, many of whom may be guilty of no crime whatever, are segregated from those who have been convicted. One way forward may be to have privatised prisons in which remand prisoners can be held separately.
Mr. Waddington: There never has been any question of the privatisation of prisons. The matter that was raised by my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary was whether the private sector could play any part in remand centres. That matter is under consideration.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Home Secretary assure the House that the proposed Home Office reorganisation, which was deprecated by a number of prison governors, including the one at Strangeways, and its effect will be taken into account by the inquiry? Will he assure hon. Members that that reorganisation was not a prelude to privatisation of sections of the prison service, as many people thought? Will he, as a matter of urgency, review the proposed reorganisation to make sure that it is halted before any further adverse effects occur?
Mr. Waddington: It is not for me to express a view on that matter now because it goes wide of the statement, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is up to Lord Justice Woolf to look at his terms of reference and decide what matters are relevant and what matters are not relevant.
Mr. David Sumberg: I join hon. Members on both sides of the House in paying tribute to the courage of all those who have worked so hard to bring the matter to a conclusion. It should not be forgotten that they did not allow one prisoner to escape into the general public. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Home Office has plans to redevelop Manchester prison? Is it not important that any decision in the area should take account of the lessons to be learned from the distressing events of the past week?
Mr. Waddington: I said in my statement on Tuesday that, only days before the incident broke out, arrangements had been made for the purchase by the prison service of land adjoining the prison. My hon. Friend is right to congratulate all those involved. He has drawn attention to something that I should perhaps have mentioned earlier: not one prisoner escaped.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Whatever repugnance we may rightly feel for those convicted and gaoled for crimes involving sexual violence and abuse, they nevertheless deserve to be placed in circumstances governed by the highest degree of segregation. In the understandable haste surrounding the transfer of prisoners from Strangeways, was the need for protection of rule 43 prisoners maintained?
Mr. Waddington: Rule 43 prisoners were segregated. The trouble was that access was obtained to the part of the prison in which they were held. How any rule 43 prisoner is dealt with at the receiving establishment is a matter for the governor.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I too thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his wise handling of this tragic matter and for the Government's largest building programme this century for prisons which may bring an end to the disgusting circumstances in which prisoners have often been held hitherto. Does he agree that too many prisons are potential tinder boxes, because they are repositories of violent men, which are contained and made secure only through the bravery of prison officers? Will he make sure that not only the governors and the prison service but prison officers always have easy access to the constant support of his Department, and that their views are listened to?
Mr. Waddington: I would be the first to pay tribute to the bravery of prison officers, as many hon. Members from both sides of the House have done, for the way in which they responded to the emergency. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his remarks about the prison building programme. It is a great tragedy that this incident will set it back.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that it was not possible to call every hon. Member who wished to speak. I sought to call those who have a direct interest in the matter and those who were not called when the previous statement was made.

Iraq
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) must divide their time between them—they have 29 minutes each.
11.32 am
Mr. David Winnick: I accept that Britain has diplomatic relations with several dictatorships with deplorable human rights records. I am aware of the criteria by which recognition is given and which successive Governments have followed. There are instances, however, when outrages against British interests or nationals lead to the conclusion that we should break off diplomatic relations in peace time. Hence, at present, Britain does not have relations with the authorities in power in Libya, Iran and Syria. I think that I am right in saying that that has the approval of the whole House.
The Government have told us that, despite recent events in Iraq affecting Britain, they intend to continue diplomatic relations with that country. No doubt the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who will reply to the debate, will reaffirm that position today. Leaving aside the matter of diplomatic relations, the House should take an interest in events in Iraq. That country was the subject of statements and private notice questions recently over the long detention and then execution of Farzad Bazoft. The case turned the spotlight on the nature of the dictatorship in Iraq. Mr. Bazoft was there by invitation of the authorities and was with a group of other journalists. We should remind ourselves that he had previously visited that country, again by invitation, on five occasions. Mr. Bazoft was stateless, but he travelled on British travel documents.
The regime seemed to take a sheer delight in Mr. Bazoft's execution. In Britain, the reaction was one of widespread dismay and anger. As the Minister will probably remind us, two other British citizens—Daphne Parish and Ian Richter—are still being held in Iraq. We all want to see their return to Britain as quickly as possible. No doubt those two cases will be the subject of continuing questions to Foreign Office Ministers.
What about the dictatorship itself? What sort of a country is Iraq? How has it been led in the past 10 or 15 years? Such questions are important and relevant to the United Kingdom and should be taken into account by the Government in their relations with the regime. Many British people believe that the Government's mild reaction to the execution of Mr. Bazoft was not appropriate. The contempt that the regime showed for British protests and representations demonstrated again that when one is dealing with totalitarian regimes, mild protests or appeasement of any kind simply do not work.
As I said yesterday during Foreign Office questions, terrorist dictatorships work on the basis that democracies are unlikely to act tough and will find all kinds of excuses for not doing so. The reaction of totalitarian regimes is simply to show contempt for what they see as weakness. That was the lesson of the 1930s and the continued criticism of the Opposition towards the dealings of the British regime with Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy.

1349
I have referred to Iraq as a terrorist regime. I certainly believe that that is an accurate description. It is one of the most notorious and bloodstained dictatorships in existence. That is saying a great deal when one thinks of the other dictatorships in various parts of the globe. In Iraq there is constant spying on and intimidation of its citizens, mass arrests, prolonged and savage tortures, show trials and large-scale executions, including public hangings. Those are all part of the way in which Saddam Hussein has ruled Iraq in recent years.
One of the worst crimes of the regime, and there have been many, was the use of chemical weapons in March 1987 against Kurds in a town in northern Iraq. Thousands died from the effects of the poison gas used. The regime denied that chemical weapons were used, but does anyone in the House or outside believe a word of what it says? The recent comments of the regime about a possible attack using chemical weapons against Israel give us even more reason to disbelieve it. By any standards, the attack using chemical weapons was a crime against humanity.
All the abuses in Iraq have been well documented in reports by Amnesty International. In 1989 that organisation referred to other crimes carried out by the terrorist regime. It dealt with the hundreds of executions of those considered to be opponents of the Government and army deserters. It said that routine torture and ill-treatment of prisoners continues to occur and that many are tortured to force them to sign confessions or to renounce their political affiliations. It said that political prisoners are reported to have been beaten, whipped, sexually abused, subjected to electric shocks and deprived of food. It also mentioned the cruel and sadistic tortures that have been inflicted on women prisoners. That is all part of the regime ruled over by Saddam Hussein in that unhappy country, as it has been for so many years.
Another report from Amnesty International devoted entirely to the detention of children documents the brutal treatment of young people, many of them very young, held in Iraqi prisons. Some of those children are executed once they have reached 16 or 17. Children in Iraq are frequently arrested and held as hostages in lieu of their parents or other relatives.
Some hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members—I emphasise that they are not present now—may say that what goes on in other countries is not our concern, that we should not worry unduly about that and that we should mind our own business. Twenty-two years ago, I had an Easter Adjournment debate on the military regime in Greece. A year had passed since the colonels had taken over and I protested strongly about the dictatorship and the brutalities occurring there. I quoted then from Amnesty International reports. On that occasion I was sitting on the Government Benches and I did not receive much support, if any, from Conservative Members.
Mr. John Marshall: I place on record my concern, and that of many Conservative Members, that Iraq may, in the near future, have nuclear weapons which could have a destabilising effect on the middle east.
Mr. Winnick: I shall come to that point in a moment.
The House of Commons should always be concerned with brutality and torture in other countries. If we as a House refuse to show such interest, we shall lose one of our
1350
important roles and one of our most honourable traditions. That is my view and I am not likely to change my mind.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the possible manufacture of nuclear weapons by Iraq, and the events of last week at Heathrow airport were a timely reminder of the determination of Iraq's criminal regime to manufacture nuclear weapons. I know that the argument of British domestic policy is that we should have nuclear weapons because other countries have them. I shall not go into that controversy today. No doubt Saddam Hussein would use the same type of argument. But that undoubtedly shows the immense dangers to humanity of nuclear weapons of any sort being in the hands of a criminal regime with a bloodstained record such as I have been describing. I hope that the possible manufacture of nuclear weapons by Iraq will be the subject of much interest not only in Britain and the western world, but among Arab countries, too.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Would not that also be relevant to our attitude towards the protection of the state of Israel, because what happens in Iraq must be of direct concern to the democratically elected members of a state which is at risk?
Mr. Winnick: Yes. I am critical of the policies pursued by Israel, certainly in the occupied territories—the Minister knows my view—but I agree with my hon. Friend.
I strongly urge that the banning of all export high-level technology to Iraq should be given the highest priority and that every effort should be made urgently to seek co-operation on that, certainly from the countries of western Europe, but also, as I pointed out yesterday, from the Soviet Union and other countries of eastern Europe. One of the most significant things about the renewal or the beginning of the democratic process in eastern Europe and, I hope, in the Soviet Union, is that those countries will no longer wish in any way, directly or indirectly, to support terrorists or criminal regimes.
The sanctions that I have just been urging should be applied against Iraq as soon as possible. Trade credits to the regime should also be ended. I know all the arguments about the benefits to Britain of such trade, but the more that we can isolate such a regime the better it will be, not only for our well-being in Britain, but for humanity as a whole.
We also need the support of Arab states in spotlighting the dangers to their countries. That is not directly a matter for the British Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned Israel, and that is clearly a matter which will deeply concern the Israeli Government. But Arab countries in the region—Muslim countries—will recognise the dangers of Iraq acquiring nuclear weapons and, in particular, the territorial ambitions of Saddam Hussein. I hope that such dangers will be recognised by countries such as Egypt.
When we raise such matters, it is sometimes argued that we are being critical of Muslim countries. It should not be forgotten that the large majority of victims of the regime that I have been describing have been Muslims. In the main, the Kurds are Muslim. One should also remember that Iraq started the Gulf war. Perhaps at that time it was in western interests to see Iran defeated, but it should not be forgotten who started the war. The millions of casualties which resulted from those two ruthless

1351
dictatorships fighting for years were all Muslims. That was a needless and senseless war and I am only too pleased that it has finally come to an end. The leaders of Iraq may welcome a new war to divert attention from domestic problems. I have already referred to the territorial ambitions of Saddam Hussein.
I have chosen this subject because, following recent events, including what happened at Heathrow, it is necessary to spotlight what has been happening. I hope that this subject will continue to interest the House when we return after the recess. I hope that every opportunity will be taken by the Government to pursue the line that I have urged—not appeasement and not a show of weakness, but a recognition of all the dangers involved in the criminal regime in Iraq, to try to isolate it in every way possible and to seek the utmost international co-operation in pursuing that course.
11.46 am
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) for giving the House another opportunity to express, as I am sure it will wish to, its horror at the execution of Farzad Bazoft, and I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said about that case. I shall make one or two comments on the wider issues of our relations with countries whose regime we abhor and whose human rights records we know to be dreadful. Both those things, I am sad to say, are true of Iraq at the present time. We have made that clear in recent years.
I am responsible, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for relations with the middle east, Africa, eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. With the wonderful exception of events in eastern Europe, there are —with one or two honourable exceptions—few countries among those for which I am responsible whose human rights record or commitment to democracy would meet the approval of this House. If this country's diplomatic relations, let alone trading relations, were to be dictated as our hearts would like to dictate them, and if we were to maintain relations only with countries of which we approved, our relationships around the world would be few.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North is justified in saying that Iraq is among the nations having the worst record of human rights—although I could put others in that dismal competition.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Does the Minister accept that few other countries have taken action against someone travelling on a British passport, or at least with British travel documents, in the way that Iraq did recently?
Mr. Waldegrave: Mr. Bazoft was not travelling on a British passport, but, like many displaced people, used travel documents issued by the country in which he was staying.
The list of executions that have taken place in the countries for which I am responsible is very long, and there are many competitors—alongside the catalogue of those who have been tortured and wrongly imprisoned.
It is the duty of all countries which are signatories to the United Nations convention, and certainly the duty of this House, to protest whenever possible. When a case comes close to us, such as that of Farzad Bazoft, who was
1352
working for a British employer at the time of his arrest and travelling on British travel documents, it is right that the House should do what it can. My Government made major efforts to save Mr. Bazoft, aligning a huge international protest. Tragically, that effort failed, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Walsall, North acknowledges that Britain did all that it could to save Mr. Bazoft. Those of us working in the Foreign Office were as distressed as anyone by the terrible outcome of that affair.
Farzad Bazoft's confession, which was about the only document put before the court, is a pathetic document, because it clearly tells the truth about a number of rather low-level contacts that Mr. Bazoft had with special branch officers in this country when he was trying—as journalists do—to swap information with the police about Iranian dissidents and about demonstrations in London some years ago. Whether deliberately or in ignorance, that admission was taken by the Iraqis as evidence that Mr. Bazoft was in touch with the British secret services, and so on. The horror is complete because, from what I have read of his confession, Mr. Bazoft told the truth. By telling that truth, which was entirely innocent, he was taken as condemning himself.
As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Walsall, North concerning chemical weapons, at the chemical weaponry conference in Paris last year, Britain was the only country, not only in Europe but the world, to name Iraq as having breached its 1925 obligation. We were in the forefront of protests about that breach and welcomed the commitment given by Iraq at the conference that it would not recur—a commitment that we hope will be honoured.
As the hon. Member for Walsall, North rightly said, we were deeply involved in the desperate attempt to stop the export of nuclear weaponry technology not only to Iraq but to other countries, as was our duty under the non-proliferation treaty and the missile technology control regime. I join the hon. Gentleman in emphasising that one of the most hopeful developments is the new, genuine adherence to those measures by the Soviet Union, which is making it known that, although it is not willing at present to join the missile technology control regime, it will act as though it has done so and in parallel with its requirements. That is a most helpful and hopeful development.
Another hopeful development in the whole area of terrorism is that a number of former safe havens in eastern Europe have gone for ever. The countries that formerly served as safe havens are now taking steps to join those of us who act against terrorists, which is most beneficial.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is it true, as reported in The Independent on Sunday, that the same capacitors as were allegedly brought into the United Kingdom are available in university laboratories in London? Are efforts being made in the United States to monitor the production of the capacitors to ensure that they do not enter the export chain?
Mr. Waldegrave: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is no. The success of our extremely succesful joint investigation with the Americans over several months answers the hon. Gentleman's second question.
I have little argument with the hon. Member for Walsall, North about our horror at many practices of the Iraqi regime and of many others. He asked us to consider taking further steps against them. However, I genuinely

1353
believe that it would be wrong for us to break diplomatic relations with all those countries whose human rights records fall short of what we desire.
Mr. Winnick: I agree.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman concurs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out that we broke off relations with a number of countries that took steps against our citizens either from their diplomatic premises in Britain—as in the Libyan or Syrian cases—or in their own country, as in Iran. We maintain diplomatic relations with a range of other countries whose practices, I am sorry to say, we deplore.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out that if we were to withdraw from Iraq, where there are 2,000 British business men and British prisoners—the hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the cases of Mrs. Parish and Mr. Richter, on whose behalf we continue to work hard—we would leave British citizens without such help as our diplomats can provide. We would be left with a swathe of countries, from the Khyber pass in Afghanistan, across to the Mediterranean and Syria, without any British diplomatic representation. We must avoid that if we can.
The trade argument is one point on which I disagree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North. It suggests that we are granting the countries concerned a privilege by allowing them to buy things from us. However, it is worth remembering when horrible cases arise that we ask our business men to earn this country's living by going to some of the most unappealing places in the world, and by living often in constrained and unpleasant circumstances, to help keep people employed in our country. A Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, once remarked, "Exporting is fun." I am not sure to what extent that sentiment would be echoed by business men who have to operate in some of the countries that I have mentioned, to win orders to keep their factories running at home.
It is argued that Britain should cut off trade credits. Nothing would please Treasury Ministers more, for they are always against lending money to anyone. However, if British business men are to be sent in to bat against the Germans, Japanese and Italians without even the minimal support of trade credits, one might as well not send them at all. We are not granting Iraq a privilege but are competing against all the industrial countries in earning our living as a trading nation.
There is no question of isolating Iraq. The Arab League unanimously supports Iraq on the Bazoft case. A number of our friends in the Arab world asked for clemency beforehand, but the Arab League afterwards passed a motion supporting Iraq, and a further motion supporting Iraq against the media campaign on nuclear matters which it alleges has subsequently taken place.
Therefore, I fear that it is being hopeful to have the idea that cutting off British trade credits and trying to prevent British business men from going to that market—we could legally do it—would isolate Iraq. That could create satisfaction among our industrial competitors and it would lose us jobs and orders in Britain. It would have no other effect.
1354
Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I would have much preferred to stand at the Dispatch Box in the times of Lord Palmerston or perhaps even of Mr. Anthony Eden—although I doubt whether the hon. Lady would have supported his exercise of power in the middle east. However, those days are not with us now and it is no good pretending that they are.
Mr. Winnick: Although I was around at the time, but not in this place, no one could have been more opposed to that criminal Suez adventure than I was.
As I tried to emphasise in my remarks, is there not a need for co-ordinated action, or is the Minister of State telling us that other democracies are so short-sighted that they do not recognise that to take advantage of any actions we take would not be in their interests?
Mr. Waldegrave: I pay tribute to the European Community, which protested strongly, and to those countries in the Arab world which asked for clemency on our behalf—as a good many did, including King Hussein.
If the hon. Member for Walsall, North thinks that it is possible to arrange a trade boycott of Iraq because of these events, he is whistling in the wind. It is completely impossible. I fear that those are the facts. We have to live with them and to recognise the limits of our power.
However, that does not mean that we should not protest—we should. It does not mean that we should not conduct relations with a country that behaves in such a way, although it will obviously be in a different style than with those countries with which we are friendly.
Mrs. Dunwoody rose—
Mr. Waldegrave: I have only one more minute.
It is not sensible to pretend to our people that we have powers that we do not have. Nor is it sensible to pretend that we have the luxury of living as a self-contained island that does not have to trade with, potentially, hundreds of regimes round the world which do not meet the human rights standards that we seek to defend in the House. That is the truth of the matter.
The tensions and dangers in the middle east ultimately derive from the unsolved problems of the region. If the Iran-Iraq war was not still suspended, those countries would not be seeking to arm themselves with terrible weapons. If the Arab-Israel dispute was following the course of a peace process—which the hon. Member for Walsall, North and I would both like—tensions would diminish.
As diplomats, that is where we should put our primary effort—to trying to remove the underlying conditions that give comfort to and produce those dreadful regimes, because it is the tensions within that region that help the maintenance and growth of the dictatorial regimes about which the hon. Gentleman so rightly protests. That is where our principal effort should be directed and that is where the Government's diplomatic efforts are still directed in the Iran-Iraq and Arab-Israel conflicts. If we can help to get those on their way to a solution, we shall have done something, in the longer term, to dissolve the conditions that produce the regimes against which we have to protest all too often.

Baltic States
12.3 pm
Mr. David Atkinson: I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss the current situation in the Baltic states at such a timely moment.
I am sure that the House, if not the entire free world, including or course central and most of eastern Europe, have been watching developments from Lithuania with bated breath; with sympathy for the demands that its Parliament has made for independence, so recently and so clearly endorsed by the elections in February; with understanding for its declaration of independence and President Landsbergis's appeal for western recognition and support; with admiration at the cool and courageous way in which he and his colleagues are responding to the psychological pressure that is increasingly being applied by Moscow; with alarm at the intervention of the Red Army and its occupation of public buildings and of the free press, the expulsion of foreign correspondents and the closure of the border with Poland; with fear that the situation will lead to a classic confrontation in the tradition of the Breznev doctrine, which the world had understood had been abandoned; and with distress at the consequences of such an intervention for the remarkable progress that has been made to end the cold war and to improve east-west relations, and in arms control, and for President Gorbachev himself and his progress towards political and economic reform, which we fully support—provided, of course, that he means what he says.
That is where the matter rests at the moment, perhaps awaiting a further turn of the screw to encourage negotiations on the Kremlin's terms.
have no doubt that all that was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with President Gorbachev during their telephone conversation last week and is being discussed by Mr. Baker and Mr. Shevardnadze in Washington and that the limits beyond which it is unacceptable for both sides to go are being clearly spelled out.
To date, the line that western Governments have taken in public, including Her Majesty's Government, has been that the future of the Baltic states is an internal matter for the Soviet Union and the republics concerned. That is a lie which I cannot accept any more, and I do not believe that the House will accept it either.
As I said to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, the secret protocol of 1939 makes the Baltic states a special case. Their problem is not just a Soviet problem; it is a European one. Like German unification, it is the legacy of the last war, which can and should be resolved only by the four powers in a European context within the forums that already exist for the resolution of such matters, peacefully, securely and in a spirit of co-operation. That is what the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe—the Helsinki process—is all about. That is the principal argument of my debate today, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will respond to it.
Perhaps at this point it would be helpful for us to recall the events that led to the occupation and annexation of tilt Baltic states into the Soviet Union in 1939 and 1940. In 1918, the Baltic states gained independence of the Russian
1356
empire amid that turbulent period which saw the German advance, following the withdrawal of the Bolshevik forces, turn into a retreat in November.
The Russian civil war that followed became a war of independence for the Baltic peoples. Eventually, in 1920, peace treaties were signed with the Soviet Union which unreservedly recognised the independence of the new republics from Russia, which renounced all former rights of sovereignty "voluntarily and forever".
In 1921, the League of Nations recognised all three states to which de jure recognition had been extended by most countries and they became member states of the league. Further independently negotiated treaties with the Soviet Union confirmed the legitimacy of the new states.
Liberal democratic constitutions were adopted. Minority rights were guaranteed by law, and no one group exercised significant political influence. Tragically, proportional representation led to a plethora of small parties, which in turn led to cabinet instability, parliamentary paralysis and a series of largely pre-emptive coups d'etat and the setting-up of largely authoritarian regimes.
With the resurgence of Germany, the Soviet Union became concerned about its security in the event of German aggression against the Baltic states, and saw an opportunity for territorial expansion. On 23 August 1939, Ribbentrop and Molotov agreed a treaty of nonaggression. That was the public document published at the time. On the same day, however, a secret additional protocol concerning their respective spheres of influence in Poland and the Baltic area was signed. That was amended by a further secret protocol on 28 September transferring Lithuania to the Soviet sphere.
Following the German invasion of Poland, all three states were forced to conclude military alliances with the Soviet Union. All three treaties assured the Baltic Governments that their sovereignty would be fully respected, but it was not long before Soviet troops entered the Baltic states. They were incorporated into the Soviet Union behind a facade of ligitimacy.
When the Soviets returned in 1944, following the German occupation, there was a large-scale flight to the west which was not surprising. They knew what to expect: enforced collectivisation, industrialisation and integration into the Soviet economy, and persecution of the church and of all nationalist consciousness. Six hundred thousand people were deported to Siberia; hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Soviet prison camps. The process of Russification, through the immigration of Russian peoples, was designed to swamp the Baltic majority.
During the 40 years of apparent acquiescènce to the Soviet occupation that followed, it is clear that Baltic nationalism was barely affected. At every level of society, people used their official positions to preserve national identity and integrity. However, it is only during the past two years that there have been more changes in the Baltic states than at any time since Stalin—in response to unprecedented popular demands, themselves in response to glasnost and perestroika, that have led so dramatically to today's circumstances. The establishment of the popular fronts in Latvia and Estonia and Sajudis in Lithuania provided the impetus and the channel for national self-assertion, the adoption of national flags and symbols and the more recent demands for independence and a democratic parliamentary system.
Not far behind have been the Communist parties of all three states which, either through conviction or for

1357
survival, declared their own independence from the Communist party of the Soviet Union in support of national self-determination. Perhaps one of the most impressive and moving peaceful demonstrations in history of solidarity between peoples against an occupying power took place on 23 August 1989 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, when more than 1 million people linked hands in a human chain across all three republics.
In its initial response to such clear demonstrations of nationalism, Moscow postponed environmentally sensitive projects, restored Vilnius cathedral to the Roman Catholic Church, granted economic sovereignty and decentralisation and proposed the prospect of limited sovereignty. In addition, the Yakovlev commission was established to inquire into the status of the secret protocol. Throughout last year, and into this, the Parliaments of all three states seemed to outdo each other in declaring ever-more daring acts of defiance in pursuit of independence, with Lithuania making the running in declaring Soviet annexation invalid and adopting laws to pave the way for a referendum on independence and ending the party's leading role.
Given the fact that such unprecedented demands for nationalism were being emulated elsewhere in the Soviet Union, it became clear that it could not be allowed to continue unchecked without undermining President Gorbachev's position and authority. In December, he appealed to Lithuania to reject the idea of an independent state outside the Soviet Union, although in January, during his visit to Lithuania, he promised legislation to permit an orderly secession. The Yakovlev commission declared the secret protocol to the contrary to international law but claimed that that did not invalidate the incorporation of the Baltic republics into the USSR in 1940.
In February this year, the terms of such secession became clearer, including the requirement that three quarters of the population must participate in a referendum, which would be followed by a transitional period of five years—endorsed this week by the Soviet Parliament. If that was designed to discourage demands for immediate independence, it has failed. In last month's elections to the Lithuanian supreme soviet, Sajudis obtained 97 seats out of 141 and Gallup reported 63 per cent. in favour of full independence. Its supreme council has adoped a declaration of sovereignty and a resolution reinstating the constitution of 1938.
More recent elections in Latvia and Estonia have also produced majorities for independence candidates, despite the influx of Russian troops to influence the results with their votes. In response, the USSR's Congress of People's Deputies, which I attended last month, appointed a commission to review the position, since when the Government have refused to accept the Lithuanian declaration of independence and have sent Soviet troops to occupy party buildings in Vilnius and to arrest deserters.
As the whole world knows, President Landsbergis has refused to withdraw the declaration and has appealed for international recognition and support. It is an appeal reminiscent of Dubcek's in 1968 and of Nagy's in 1956. We
1358
must all hope and work for a solution that does not end in similar tragedies. President Gorbachev, of course, is cleverer than that.
Surely the events of the past two years have proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the Baltic peoples have demonstrated, demanded and voted for nothing less than a return to independence. There is even evidence that their ethnic Russian populations would opt for the prospect of the greater prosperity that would result from being in control of their own destiny. Moreover, we know from their previous independence that they are capable of economic self-sufficiency and would—like Finland, whose economy was much weaker after the war—have become fully integrated into the western economy by now. Indeed, they argue that it is in the Soviet Union's interests for independent Baltic states to act, as Finland is now, as entrepots for trade and technology with the west.
It seems to me that the way is now open for Her Majesty's Government to take initiatives to resolve the future of the Baltic states in a way that should not threaten President Gorbachev's position. First, let us confirm that the secret protocol of 1939 and its implementation in 1940 was a clear breach of international law which determines the Baltic states as a special case. Secondly, it is no longer good enough to regard this matter as one for the Soviet Union as the de facto power and as one for negotiation between the parties concerned. The fact that we withhold de jure recognition of Soviet annexation implies that we will recognise, de facto, a return to independence. If Soviet occupation remains illegal, as it does, current events mean that we can no longer remain silent as to what we would regard as legal. To do so would encourage Moscow to intensify its intimidation.
Does not article 12 of the Soviet constitution as it stands allow for secession? Does not article 1 of both the international covenant on civil and political rights and the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights proclaim the right of peoples to self-determination? Does not principle 8 of the Helsinki Final Act guarantee the right of people to self-determination and also their wish, in full freedom, to determine when and as they wish their internal and external status, with the Act itself providing for change in frontiers by peaceful means and agreement?
As they do, do not these international obligations, entered into by the Soviet Union, by us and by all other members of our European community, now require us to seek a solution to the Baltic problem in the wider framework of east-west relations and within that common European home to which President Gorbachev gives credence, which is the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe process?
Let us now consult our council of Europe and CSCE colleagues to agree to raise the future of the Baltic states at the forthcoming summit under the Helsinki process, which is already planned to take account of the irreversible events in central and eastern Europe, including, in particular, the forthcoming unification of Germany and the signing of a peace treaty? To ignore the consequences of the secret protocol in seeking to resolve, once and for all, the consequences of the last war, would be a lie.
I accept that these consequences go beyond the Baltic states. They apply to the western Ukraine and Moldavia too, but we should not be put off by that. Any solution must be a freely negotiated one, but it must be on Europe's terms, not those of the Soviet Union. Since no referendum

1359
was held in 1940 to determine the Baltic peoples' wish to nullify their independence, we certainly should not support any suggestion of a referendum to put right what international law has found to be illegal. The recent elections have confirmed the people's choice. As President Gorbachev said to the United Nations in December 1988:
"Freedom of choice is a universal principle which allows no exceptions."
The situation in the Baltic states today determines that these questions must be resolved, and resolved soon. The CSCE is the means. The forthcoming summit is the opportunity. Her Majesty's Government can be the initiator. I look forward to my right hon. Friend's response.
12.19 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): It give me genuine pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson), who has raised an extremely topical subject, and I congratulate him on his success in being able to introduce the debate. I shall comment on his extremely comprehensive and learned speech. My officials could find no fault with the history that he set out. I share with the House the fact that my hon. Friend did me the courtesy of showing me a copy of his speech in advance.
My principal points are in agreement with my hon. Friend. First, he is right to recognise that the progress that has already been made in the Baltic states must owe a great deal to perestroika and glasnost and to the much more liberal policy followed by Mr. Gorbachev and his colleagues in recent years. The response of previous Soviet regimes, let alone Stalin, was very different.
It is worth recognising that the fact that the Baltic people are now, we hope, on the way to recovering their legal rights of independence is another of the beneficial side effects of the general improvement and loosening up in the Soviet Union. That gives us and the Soviet Union the responsibility of doing nothing as any action would give such succour to the enemies of the process of liberalisation in the Soviet Union—and there are many of them—as to bring that process to an end. That is the tightrope which the Baltic peoples—with skill and restraint so far—are walking.
Secondly, I agree with my hon. Friend that the danger is extremely close to the surface. It is easy to imagine incidents as a result of provocation or accident which could lead to disaster. The mature behaviour of people in Lithuania—of whom we have seen most in our newspapers and electronic media—in Estonia and in Latvia deserves tribute.
My hon. Friend gave an interesting account of the passage of history, making passing reference to the usual disasters that follow from proportional representation. He made a rather pregnant remark when he reminded us of the disasters in Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968. Everyone of our generation remembers the poignant way in which the radio stations said, "Remember us," when they were closed down. That also reminds us of our responsibility.
The history books now show that many young people in 1956 and 1968 believed that in some impossible way the west would physically come to their rescue. Right until the end they were asking where were the American marines, the British and the French.
1360
We should do nothing in any physical sense—and I am sure that the passage of history has made the Baltic people much more aware of the truth—to raise any expectations that we cannot meet. I am not saying that we should not bring other pressures to bear and enter into the diplomatic process, but it is worth putting it clearly on record that the questions and propositions at the end of my hon. Friend's speech when he talked of the CSCE mechanisms and discussions and the process leading to independence. That is the path we must follow.
However, I must correct my hon. Friend on one point. Britain does not regard the matter as an internal one for the Soviet Union. Our position, like that of most of the principal western countries, is that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was illegal and that there has never been a legal incorporation of the Baltic states into the Soviet Union. Therefore, it is not pari passu with events in other parts of the Soviet Union; it is important to make that distinction. That is one of the elements that may lead to a solution. Clearly there must be many in the Soviet Union who fear any movement on the Baltic states as leading to a precedent that would make things extremely difficult for the Soviet Union.
We do not believe that that issue has to be addressed in relation to the Baltic states. They already have a ring around them, given the fact that we and the Soviet Union now believe that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was illegal. There is a ring of legality and separateness around the Baltic states, and it is worth drawing attention to that.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister put that clearly on record in the House on 27 March when she said:
"we have never recognised the annexation"
of the Baltic states
"to the Soviet Union as being legal."—[Official Report, 27 March 1990; Vol. 170, c. 205.]
I should like to raise a number of points about what will happen next and what we should be seeking to do, which was how my hon. Friend finished his excellent speech. We have taken a number of steps to make it clear that, although we have been urging restraint on the people of the Baltic states and congratulating them on their exercise of that restraint, we should be urging the same restraint on the Soviet Union. We made that clear at the Dispatch Box yesterday. The European Community has twice made it clear in authoritative statements that we do not approve of the threats that have been made. That is not the way to solve the problem.
There has been sabre rattling—with modern technological means rather than with sabres—and, in a repeated statement by the Twelve issued yesterday, we have all deplored that. The Twelve stated that the situation remains difficult and that we are concerned about the potentially serious consequences which an aggravation of the situation might have on the improved climate prevailing in Europe and that the Twelve expressed the hope that a purposeful dialogue between Vilnius and Moscow—they were talking about Lithuania—will commence in the very near future. They call for good will on both sides and the maximum restraint on all sides so as not to aggravate an already delicate situation. Therefore, the message goes very clearly to both sides.
Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Does the Minister agree that it is important for the Twelve, as part of their common foreign policy process, to take that a little further and to take some firm initiatives directly with Moscow to facilitate those negotiations?
Mr. Waldegrave: That leads me to what steps Britain can take. There will be continuous discussions with our European partners and at the recent General Affairs Council meeting and other informal meetings it has been, and will continue to be, near the top of the agenda. We now have a series of high-level contacts starting with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary going to Moscow on Monday, followed not long after by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talked to Mr. Gorbachev at length on the telephone in the spirit in which I am now addressing the House. The Secretary of State had a meeting with the Soviet ambassador in London on 28 March. We shall be pressing for dialogue and discussion, and a peaceful solution to the problem.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East rightly pointed out, everyone seems agreed about the long-term goal. Mr. Gorbachev has implied that he does not rule out independence; what concerns him is the legality of the process, and who are we to argue against legal processes? Nevertheless, we must be careful. I suspect that the Lithuanians would not fear any test of genuine opinion in their country. What worries us are the provisions in the new secession law agreed yesterday and published under article 72 of the Soviet constitution.
We can argue with some of the provisions concerning tests of opinion, but at least they are genuinely aimed at finding out what opinions are held in the Baltic states. The requirement for a two-thirds majority in the Congress of People's Deputies, however, is a different kind of hurdle, as it effectively gives two or three of the biggest republics a veto on secession, whatever the majority opinion in the Soviet Union—let alone that in the Baltic states, whose right to independence should be guaranteed by the legal background.
We shall discuss that problem with the Soviet leadership. Nothing could be worse than the development in the Baltic states of the idea that they will be tricked into a cul de sac; it would be difficult to control the resulting frustration, and that would lead to dangers.
We should not concern ourselves too much with tests of opinion, or with the length of the transitional period. I suspect that we know what the opinion is, and a transitional period of some years may be necessary in any event to disentangle the economy. We must, however, try to ensure that an impossible hurdle is not placed before the people of the Baltic states in the guise of legality, thus vitiating the welcome guarantee from Mr. Gorbachev and Mr. Gerasimov that independence—legally secured—is on the cards. That means concentrating on discussion and representation: we must not pre-empt the good will that can surely be engendered by the willingness to talk that the Soviets have expressed over the past few days.
A disaster is easily possible. The Government urge restraint on the Soviet Union, and also on the people of the Baltic states. What we want is a dialogue about how they are to achieve their legal right to independence.

Rail Services (North-West)
12.31 pm
Mr. Peter L. Pike: I have already pursued all the points that I wish to make with the Minister and with British Rail. Let me make it clear at the outset that I am not criticising or attacking British Rail. I do, however, criticise some aspects of Government policy: in my view, the Government fail to recognise the importance of public investment in the railway system—and, indeed, in public transport generally. There is a much better case for subsidising rail and bus services than they believe.
What I have to say is relevant not only to transport but to energy. Investment in public transport should commend itself to a Government who claim to be interested in the environment, as it is one of the best ways of dealing with some of our environmental problems.
Let me deal first with rail connections with the Channel tunnel, and services to the north-west as a whole. The service on the west coast line, which was the first long-distance rail network in the country to be electrified, does not remotely match that on the east coast. Prior to electrification, the service from London to York took two hours, whereas the best service journey from London to Preston takes about two hours 40 minutes. I accept that that is partly because junctions and curves restrict speed, but investment is needed to achieve the standard of service that the north-west deserves.
The north-west deserves not second best but the best. It has a large population and is a major manufacturing region. The Minister should take account of the important fact that since 1979 jobs in manufacturing in the north-west have declined by 30 per cent. Investment and output are also down by more than 30 per cent. in real terms. One of the reasons for that is that the north-west does not have the road and rail communications necessary to encourage investment.
The Channel tunnel offers British Rail one of the best opportunities for investment and improvement in services that it has had this century. However, it is restrained by section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987, which restricts public investment in international services using the Channel tunnel. The Government should review that section.
There is a case for a link for passengers and freight that bypasses west London to the west coast main line and the Channel tunnel. The proposed links with Euston and King's Cross are second best and are not an acceptable solution.
Lancashire county council is concerned about those issues. In a letter dated 12 March, Brian Hill, its chief executive, said:
"The passenger proposals underestimate the likely demand for Channel Tunnel services and, as a consequence, fail to provide the North West, and Lancashire in particular, with the level of service which is justified, and the freight proposals fail to acknowledge existing freight terminal facilities in the County and ignore the County Council's call for a freight depot in central Lancashire, and do not provide sufficient details about the services which will be provided when the Channel Tunnel opens."
That letter refers to British Rail's proposals under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act, which it had to publish last year. The county council's views are right, and I hope that the Government will have second thoughts about those important proposals.

1363
The Channel tunnel offers us an opportunity to get freight off the roads and on to the railways. Even if rail freight were to increase by 50 per cent., road freight would decrease by only 5 per cent. The current growth in road freight is 5 per cent., so it will be extremely difficult even to stand still.
All people who use roads know that, even if the Government meet the proposed investment in the roads programme, there will still be major traffic problems well into the next century unless we get some of the long-distance freight back on the railways. If the north-west is to have jobs and a future as a manufacturing region, which is so important to the future of this nation, we need rail investment to encourage people to use railways.
I and many colleagues have long campaigned for the link to Manchester airport. In a letter dated 17 August, Greater Manchester passenger transport authority confirms that the former Secretary of State indicated that it should be operational by 1993. I hope that that timetable is adhered to and that the rail link is operating by that date. I hope that the Minister will agree that, although the link improves the service from the north side of Manchester airport to the airport, we need to consider whether there should be rail access from the south side of Manchester airport for people who use that great international airport.
It would be wrong for me not to welcome some of the improvements made by British Rail to local services in the north-west in recent years. The improvements to some stations in Lancashire, in co-operation with Lancashire county council, are most welcome, although only last week, while travelling on the line, I saw that there had been damage to some of the new panels of the shelters. The shelters cost a considerable sum and it is a matter of great regret to me, to Lancashire county council, to British Rail and, I am sure, to the Minister that money has been wasted in that way.
Another example of a change for the better is the Windsor link, which has improved services between the north and south of Manchester. The Roses line, which runs from Preston, through Bradford and on to Leeds, was opened only about six years ago. Next month, it will provide an hourly service, which shows the potential for development of that line.
There is a case for electrification of some of the services within the region. It is ludicrous that Blackpool, one of the major tourist resorts of this country, does not have an electrified service. The line from Preston to Manchester should also be electrified, and there is a strong case for electrification of the Roses line. There is tremendous potential in linking east and west, and there could be an electrified service from Blackpool via Preston, Burnley and Bradford to Leeds. The Minister should consider that seriously, If that scheme were carried out, it would be stupid not to include the electrification of the east Lancashire line to Colne.
Another matter of concern to north-east Lancashire, part of which I represent, and especially to Burnley and Pendle, has been the service to Manchester. At present, one has to go to Blackburn and change for a train to Manchester, which takes a considerable time and is not a satisfactory solution. A link could be provided by going through Yorkshire, which would not involve great new investment in line, but only a small spur. That would give us a more direct and speedy service which would attract
1364
people. At present, few people from Burnley, Nelson or Colne use the rail service to Manchester because it is too slow and inefficient. Electrification of those services would bring about considerable improvement and benefits, and is worthy of consideration.
I know that the Minister will say that he and the Secretary of State are prepared to consider any case for electrification from British Rail if it can meet the Government's criteria and if it can justify it to the Government. The purpose of this debate is to say to the Minister that the Government's criteria are not satisfactory and that Government policy should change to enable British Rail to consider the electrification and development of services in a more positive light under new Government guidelines.
The removal of staff from stations is another important matter. I have here a letter from Sir Bob Reid, the chairman of British Rail, dated 26 February. He says that, at Burnley Central station,
"a single member of staff can encompass ticket issuing as part of his duties and a permanent booking clerk's position will no longer be a feature of Burnley Central."
That is not acceptable to me, to Burnley borough council or to those who use the station. We want staffing levels not only to be maintained but to be improved. When we do away with staff, whether on buses or on railway stations, we discourage elderly people, women and those who fear vandalism and violence from using the services. We must recognise that it can be short-sighted to save on staff wages, because the cost of the increase in damage and vandalism that results from destaffing, and the fact that it discourages passengers, can lead to a net deficit.
Preston station is a major interCity station, and a number of local Lancashire services also run from it. Lancashire county council and British Rail have done much work to improve the station. Incidentally, they are also to improve some aspects of Burnley Central station, where the improved access on one level will be a welcome development for disabled people. At Preston station, however, there remains a great problem for disabled people who need to use platforms 1 and 2 because the only access is by means of very difficult stairs. In a letter dated
3 April, Brian Hill, of Lancashire county council, wrote:
"I would, however, point out that, despite improvements to other parts of the Station, British Rail has failed to come up with a solution for improving access to platforms 1 and 2 for passengers with a mobility handicap. These are the main platforms for British Rail's provincial services at Preston."
We are seeing the end of an era during which the railways declined. In the past few years, there has been a move in a different direction. If the Government rethink their policy and accept that public investment in public transport—in particular, in the railway system, locally, nationally and internationally—they will improve transport and will bring environmental advantages that will certainly be welcome in the north-west.
12.47 pm
The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): I have great pleasure in responding to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) and I congratulate him on having secured the opportunity to talk about rail services in the north-west, which is an important subject. I enjoyed his speech greatly. He took us rattling around the north-west and covered a lot of ground.
However, I found a number of contradictions in what the hon. Gentleman said. He began with an attack on the

1365
Government for their lack of investment and then, with a generosity that is typical of him, paid tribute to the improvements made to stations, services and rolling stock in the north-west. He is absolutely right about that: there have been many improvements and the Government's investment programme has been substantial. The hon. Gentleman and I are not as far apart as he may think. I certainly echo the sentiments with which he ended his speech. I, too, believe that there is considerable scope for the revival of the railways in Britain—not least in the north-west.
At one point, the hon. Gentleman set about predicting what I might say in my speech, and he was accurate in that, too. I shall indeed be talking about the investment that has taken place. Investment in the railways is now at its highest level for 25 years—since the conversion from steam to diesel. We are looking at an investment in British Rail of £3·7 billion over the next three years. Investment in public transport over the next three years will be about the same as central Government investment in roads. I recognise the environmental advantages of investment in public transport, although where we have slow-moving traffic on congested roads, investment in roads can also bring environmental benefits, and we have a balance in Government policy between public transport and roads.
Mr. Pike: I in no way oppose investment in motorways. I am fighting for the extension of motorways in my own area, so I do not dispute the Minister's point.
Mr. Portillo: That is marvellous. We are even closer together than I supposed; we share our balanced policy.
The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to mention some of the new services available in the north-west. The Windsor link became fully operational last year. It is now possible for through journeys to be made, for example, between Bolton, Blackpool and Stockport, without the need to transfer between Victoria and Piccadilly stations. Manchester Piccadilly station has benefited from a successful remodelling and resignalling scheme to improve the approaches to the station.
Manchester airport will have a direct rail link which is due to be operational in the financial year 1992–93. I am happy to confirm that that is my information to the hon. Member for Burnley. That link will provide direct services from such places as Leeds and Hull as well as from Manchester. I know that the hon. Gentleman is looking for access from the south as well. The frontier always moves on when the Government do what they are asked to do. However, I know that he welcomes the decision on that link.
British Rail is also considering other cases for electrification around the north-west, including Hooton to Chester and Blackpool to Manchester. The hon. Member for Burnley was concerned that there were no electrified services to Blackpool. The north-west is also benefiting from investment in modern diesel rolling stock. Pacer, sprinters and super sprinters are in service in that area and they will be joined in due course by the new class 158 express vehicles which will offer inter-city levels of comfort, air conditioning and 90 mph running.
By 1993–94, the whole of British Rail's provincial sector fleet will be either electric multiple units or the new generation diesels, apart from some stock kept on hand for
1366
special requirements such as football special excursions. To achieve that, more than £ 400 million has been invested in the provincial sector rolling stock over the past few years and a further £340 million is planned over the next three years. That is a story of Government support for British Rail investment, and investment is the keystone to the strategy in the provincial sector.
New investment means greater reliability, lower maintenance and running costs, an enhanced quality of service and an opportunity to increase the receipts and revenue from the passengers attracted on to the services. Reduced costs and increased revenue mean that services can be maintained with a reduced call on the taxpayer in the way of subsidy. However, I recognise that large subsidies will continue to be needed for the provincial services for the foreseeable future. Indeed, even at the end of British Rail's current corporate plan in 1992–93, we are looking at public sector subsidy of £300 million to the provincial sector.
However, I recognise that some services in the north-west are not nearly as good as they should be, not least because the class 158 express units have been late in delivery. Therefore, some services have not been as good as they should have been because the life-expired diesels running on some routes have been breaking down. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's constituents, among others, have probably suffered as a result of that.
None the less, it is worth noting that currently revenue is 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. above the corresponding period in the previous year. There has been an increase of about 11 per cent. in Manchester PTE, and it appears that there has been considerable growth, mainly in off-peak periods. The conclusion that I draw from that is that services are at least attractive enough to bring in new customers. Otherwise, people would be voting with their feet.
As we are considering rail services in the north-west, I am proud of the fact that the Government have now approved the grant to be made to the Manchester Metrolink scheme. That £110 million scheme will provide a new rail-based public transport system within the Manchester area. It will offer services between Altrincham and Bury and will run on on-street track linking Manchester's two main railway stations. That will be an innovatory public transport system, and I am pleased that it will be designed, built and operated in the private sector but with a large subsidy from the public sector.
Moving a little outside the area to which the hon. Member for Burnley referred, we have issued credit approvals that will allow the Merseyside PTE to modernise the signalling and information systems on the Merseyrail network. The total cost of about £24 million will be staged over four years. British Rail will be able to cut running costs, and passengers will benefit from more reliable services and information.
Following the King's Cross fire, we have also given priority to a programme of works, costing initially about £14 million, to update the underground parts of Merseyrail for the better protection of passengers, staff, infrastructure and equipment. Credit approvals have been issued, and also, exceptionally, capital grant of £376,000.
The hon. Gentleman referred to inter-city services. He talked about the service on the west coast main line. As he knows, the fastest journey time to Manchester is just under two and a half hours, to Liverpool just over two and a half hours, and to Carlisle about four hours. From May, most

1367
services from London to the north-west will be operated with trains that are capable of running at 110 mph, and there will be an hourly service between London and Liverpool. The line will benefit over the next year from additional rolling stock and extra trains released by the electrification of the east coast main line.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point when he said that the east coast main line already provides higher speeds than the west coast main line. He is right, but the crucial factor in determining the speed of the line is not so much whether it is electrified, as the layout, the straightness of the tracks and the number of flat junctions that trains encounter. The Government are looking for good economic cases that show that electrification justifies itself. There is often a misunderstanding, which is not shared by the hon. Gentleman, that electrification is the key to speed. Electrification may be the key to more reliable services and lower operating costs, and it is on that basis that it tends to justify itself.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to Channel tunnel services. Section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 does not prevent public investment in Channel tunnel rail services. It prevents the Government from subsidising that investment. In other words, it must be an investment that justifies itself with a commercial rate of return.
The hon. Gentleman referred to section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act which sets out British Rail's current views of commercially viable services through the tunnel. As he knows, BR's proposals were based on extensive regional consultation prior to drawing up the plan. For passenger services it is important to recognise that people from places with fast, frequent inter-city services to London will find it convenient to change to inter-capital trains, so BR plans comparatively few daytime trains from the regions.
Notwithstanding that, BR plans a daily service to Paris each morning from Manchester, calling at Stockport and Crewe, where there will be connections with Liverpool services, and a return service each evening with a similar daily service to Brussels. There will also be an overnight service calling at Carlisle, Lancaster, Preston and Crewe.
On the freight side, British Rail recognises that about 70 per cent. of traffic will pass beyond London to the regions. It is anxious to compete in that important market, but clearly it can run only commercially viable services. It is planning a regional freight terminal for the north-west, but it has not yet decided on the site. I understand, though,
1368
that British Rail hopes to announce the locations of the terminals during this year. A train operating centre is also planned at Crewe.
Although I recognise the hon. Gentleman's impatience for decisions to be made, there are three years to go. Decisions are being taken in a timely way. Certainly British Rail's section 40 plan will be kept under review and it will be the subject of further consultation. BR would certainly welcome information from the hon. Gentleman's local businesses and other concerns that would enable it accurately to assess the developing demand for international services.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned also about some particular points. I share his ambition that Preston station should be made ever more accessible to disabled people. I very much hope that a way can be found to achieve that.
I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the change from the two-tiered structure of Burnley station to a single-level facility. All facilities will be merged at platform level. That will enable British Rail to reduce the number of staff required, but no exact decisions have yet been taken on the details of that. British Rail has made it clear that it intends to maintain the opening hours of the booking office to at least the present level.
I also hope that the refurbishment of Burnley station can proceed in a timely way. There has been a joint operation between Lancashire county council, which has provided some of the finance, and British Rail, which has provided the bulk of it. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed some of the results. I share his disappointment that vandals have been at work to destroy some of the good work that has been done. British Rail has had to defer some of the work that it hoped to do but, providing that Lancashire county council can come up with its part of the finance in the coming year, I understand that British Rail will be able to improve Burnley Central station and one other station. Despite the disappointing news that the programme of refurbishment will move more slowly than we would have hoped, it seems that there is a good chance that Burnley station and one other will benefit from the improvement programme in the coming year.
It has been a great pleasure to debate these matters with the hon. Gentleman. The review that I have given shows that a great deal of work is being done in the north-west area to improve services and stations. That is possible only under a Government who are committed to public transport and are prepared to see the railways invest massively for the future.

Rutland Water
1 pm
Mr. Michael Latham: Rutland water in my constituency is the largest man-made lake in Europe. It is a reservoir which provides the water supply of 450,000 people. It provides recreation and enjoyment for many walkers, cyclists, horse riders, sailors, fishermen and wind surfers and is an internationally famous bird sanctuary and nature reserve. It provides employment and a living to several small businesses and is a major amenity for the east midlands as a whole.
On 7 September last, Anglian Water announced an immediate ban on sailing and warned people to keep away from the water's edge and especially to keep animals away. The reason for the ban was the weird blue-green algae which had been building up progressively on the surface of the water and at the water's edge over the previous few weeks.
I had only just returned from holiday that day, but the following morning, 8 September, I went to Rutland water with the district manager of Anglian Water, Mr. John Green. At that time fishing was continuing, but by the afternoon of that day it had been banned. A major competition scheduled for that weekend was cancelled. The closure remained in force until 18 October and resulted in great financial hardship for the small businesses and clubs which depend on the water. As far as I am aware, they have not been compensated in any way.
The closure of the reservoir was sparked off by the death of 23 lambs and at least 15 dogs. It is worth examining the chronology of the death of the lambs owned by my constituent, Mr. Renner, at Normanton Lodge farm. The first eight deaths occurred on 21 August. Mr. Renner collected a sample of algae which was then very visible and took it with two dead lambs to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinary centre in Lincoln. All the lambs that died had blue-green algae on them. There were further deaths over the weekend of 26 to 28 August and on 4, 5 and 6 September.
The death of the dogs was also spread over several days. Some vets originally thought that they had eaten the rat poison warfarin because the horrible symptoms were similar to those which occur with such poisoning. There have been persistent local rumours since that that remains the cause. As recently as last month, a local councillor passed to me an allegation that someone had seen warfarin on the ground round the edge of the water. I have asked the water company about that allegation, but it was specifically denied in a telephone call to me last Friday by the managing director, Mr. John Simpson.
On 8 September, the day after the closure, the Leicester Mercury reported the affair. It quoted a spokeswoman for Anglian Water as saying that the public water supplies were not affected by the algae. She added:
"The treatment process deals with the blue-green algae. It will have no effect on the drinking water."
The same day, the newspaper quoted Dr. Garry Whitelam of the university of Leicester saying that several forms of the algae were toxic, that it was a worldwide problem, and that there were three different kinds of cyanobacteria, one of them a liver toxin which had caused catle deaths in other countries, another a neurotoxin which had caused convulsions and spasms in mammals and another a skin
1370
irritant known as swimmer's itch. If that was known to Dr. Whitelam, it should presumably have been known to Anglian Water.
On the day I visited the reservoir, I was specifically assured by Anglian Water that there was no danger to public water supplies and that the algae had been caused by the long dry spell of weather. I was told that it was an entirely natural phenomenon resulting from nutrients in the rivers which were pumped into the reservoir interacting with the sun.
However, I was not fully satisfied by those explanations, and directly after the weekend I wrote to Lord Crickhowell, the chairman of the National Rivers Authority, asking him to undertake an investigation. I also spoke on the telephone to his chief executive, Dr. John Bowman. I questioned Dr. Bowman closely about whether the problem had been made worse by discharges of phosphates into the rivers Welland and Nene or by the sewage being discharged from Okeham sewage works. He confirmed that discharges of that kind would certainly add to the process of eutrophication and thereby to the nutrient content of the water.
Since then I have been in continual correspondence with the chairman of Anglian Water, Mr. Bernard Henderson, with Lord Crickhowell of the NRA and with Ministers. I have been to see two Ministers, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier). I made a brief speech in the House on 13 November and I have asked numerous oral and written questions. However, I am still completely dissatisfied with the co-ordination and scope of the investigations.
When I went to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I felt great unease about the co-ordination between the NRA, which did not know the result of the post mortems on the sheep or the dogs, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which had not supplied information from its veterinary service to the Department of the Environment, and the Department of the Environment itself, which did not seem to know much at all, even about the important researches of Professor Geoffrey Codd at Dundee university.
However, a number of facts have emerged. First, the post mortem on Mr. Renner's lambs carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's veterinary service confirmed that microcystin toxin has been found in the liver and rumen contents.
Secondly, a substantial amount of scientific materials about algal poisoning is available in learned journals, mostly in the United States. For example, a note on algal toxins in Wisconsin waters experiencing blue-green algal blooms, written by three water scientists, appears in the 1988 edition of Lake and Reservoir Management. That is all on public deposit in the United States and it is widely available. The 1976 edition of "Black's", the standard veterinary dictionary in Britain also has an article on algal poisoning and is available in the library of MAFF's veterinary service with which MAFF vets are familiar, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food admitted to me on 24 January in a parliamentary answer. The recent learned paper by Professor Codd has five pages of references to other works on the subject.
Thirdly, I have not seen any post mortems on the dogs, but the Parliamentary Secretary told me on 11 January

1371
that two dead dogs had been examined by MAFF vets and that their deaths may have been linked to the ingestion of blue-green algal toxins.
Fourthly, the NRA, which is conducting an investigation which I hope will be published shortly, has confirmed that the principal species associated with the toxic blooms on Rutland water was microcystis acruginosa, which produces the toxin microcystin.
In the past few days, Anglian Water has sent me two reports which I intend to treat as public and which I understand have been given to the Department of the Environment and to Rutland district council. One of them hums and hahs at considerable length about the causes of the disaster last August and September and refers to the work of Professor Codd at Dundee university. It admits that the first report about the scum from toxic blooms was published as long ago as 1878, following the death of domestic animals. It says that none of the post mortems on the animals that died at Rutland water is conclusive, but it admits:
"the symptoms described are consistent with microcystin poisoning."
It accepts that phosphate and nitrate are key nutrients and that phosphate concentrations rose slightly in Rutland water in 1989 because of increased pumping from the Rivers Welland and Nene during a dry summer.
The report suggests that there must have been special factors at Rutland water to account for the heavier scum than at other reservoirs, which it blames on local physical features such as the prevailing winds or water movements. It adds that additional biologists and biological technicians are being recruited and that extra treatment is being installed at Oakham sewage treatment works
"to remove the minor load of phosphate."
However, the report admits:
"it is therefore possible that given similar climatic conditions, blue-green algal blooms could develop during the interim, including the coming summer."
There follow three extraordinary sentences:
"It seems likely from the evidence that healthy fish caught at the time of a microcystin bloom are probably safe to eat. However, if an angler has any doubts, it is open to him or her not to eat the fish. If more specific advice can be given at the time of an incident such advice will be made available."
Not many people will regard those statements as helpful or reassuring.
Anglian Water's second report concerns water supply. It is worth remembering that, at every stage, Anglian Water said that the drinking water was safe. The report is hard to understand and is full of endless qualifications about the difficulty of comprehending data and whether the scientific results are satisfactory. According to the report, there was a brief period, from mid-October to 1 November 1989, when some possible microcystin in the filtered, final water was measured at up to 16 mg per litre on one particular day, compared with less than 1 mg in late September 1989.
The scientists seem unsure whether their experiments are valid, whether the element really was microcystin or what they call pseudo-microcystin, or why some of the treated water had a higher concentration of it than the untreated water. Clearly, the experts are very sceptical about the findings. They say that there remains a strong possibility that the compound reported as microcystin was wrongly identified, and report that work is continuing. They conclude that the water did not contain—this is the vital point—microcystin at levels harmful to health. They
1372
make proposals, including the use of granular activated carbon, for an additional form of treatment if another major problem arises in the future.
There is no need to be alarmist about those vague, confusing and possibly incorrect findings, but my constituents and I are entitled to a specific answer—yes or no—from my hon. Friend the Minister to two simple questions. First, was the treated water at all times absolutely safe to drink last autumn, as the Anglian Water spokesman said publicly on several occasions? Secondly, has the water been absolutely safe to drink at all times since, including now? I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will answer unequivocally yes to both questions. If he cannot do so, the chairman of Anglian Water should resign immediately.
The very fact that I have to ask such questions shows how unsatisfactory the whole affair has been. It has revealed indecisiveness, defensiveness and inadequate research and action by Anglian Water. The Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have shown nothing like enough energy or determination in getting to the bottom of this disgraceful affair.
The Government have a duty to take action in five respects. First, they should establish an independent public inquiry under a High Court judge to determine whether that environmental disaster could have been prevented, its causes, whether the company was negligent or blame worthy. That inquiry should begin as soon as possible and report by the autumn. Last summer, 38 animals died—supposing a child had fallen out of a boat?
Secondly, the Minister should offer the full resources of Government scientific knowledge and advice, and if necessary fund additional research facilities at Dundee university or elsewhere. Department and NRA scientists should be sent at once to the United States to discuss findings with their American colleagues, who have great expertise in the subject.
Thirdly, the National Rivers Authority should be instructed to produce its own reports by the end of this month at the latest with specific recommendations.
Fourthly, the Minister should demand a full checklist for action from Anglian Water as to how it intends to prevent a repetition of the disaster this coming summer.
Finally, Anglian Water should immediately pay ex gratia compensation to all those people who lost animals and to business men who lost money because of the closure. If the commission of inquiry which I suggested finds Anglian Water blameworthy, the ex gratia sums could be augmented by the courts.
I hope that it will be clear to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that I have a deep sense of frustration and anger about this affair. Before I leave the House at the next general election, I intend to ensure that the matter has finally been settled and that public concern is fully allayed. I look to my hon. Friend for a full response today.
1.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) on securing this debate and on pursuing this issue with his characteristic persistence and vigour. I fully understand his desire to protect his

1373
constituents and to try to get to the bottom of this complex issue. I hope during my remarks to answer the points that he put to me.
It might be helpful to the House if I first say a few words about the nature of the algae of concern here, and recap on the events of last year.
As my hon. Friend knows, algae are minute aquatic plants which grow naturally in all surface waters. Their growth is determined by combinations of environmental factors such as sunlight, the length of day, temperature, nutrients and so on. With the constantly changing conditions in a lake, a succession of different species will thrive. There are more than 1,000 species of such algae in Britain. Towards autumn, the species which often dominate are of the blue-green type which is the subject of today's debate.
Although this succession rarely causes problems, under some conditions a so-called "bloom" of algae will occur. That is what happened at Rutland and in some other lakes last summer. Most algae are completely innocuous and are necessary for the life of the lake, but a few individual species of blue-green algae produce a toxic substance which can be released to the water. Microcystis is one of those algae and the toxin microcystin is sometimes, although not always, produced. We do not yet know of the mechanism by which this toxin is produced, nor the conditions favourable for its production.
Last year's problems of blue-green algae became apparent when reports were received in September of a small number of deaths in dogs and sheep following contact with Rutland water in my hon. Friend's constituency. Before 1989, we were not aware of any recorded incidents of adverse effects within the Anglian region.
Anglian Water's account of events shows that its biological monitoring of Rutland water in July and early August showed relatively low algal numbers in the main body of the reservoir. But following the reports of those animal deaths at the end of August and in September, Anglian Water carried out further sampling of algal scum, which was identified mainly as the blue-green algae microcystis. It then sought advice from Professor Codd at Dundee university on its toxicity.
By 7 September, Anglian had decided that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence available to show that the scum was toxic and could be hazardous. It therefore closed the reservoir to recreational activities and sought advice from veterinary specialists on the cause of the animal deaths.
For its part, the National Rivers Authority responded quickly. The Authority carried out extensive sampling of some 750 reservoirs and similar waters in England and Wales, to test for the presence of toxic blue-green algae; 53 of them in England were found to contain algae of toxic forms.
Secondly, having identified the areas at risk, the NRA suggested to site owners that they should consider taking a number of precautions, which they did. Apart from advising site owners on the action to take, the NRA of course informed local environmental health officers of its findings and advice. Finally, the NRA instituted a detailed analysis and review of last year's events.
1374
As for the public health effects, Anglian Water concluded, on the basis of the evidence available that there was no hazard to public health from drinking water supplied from the two treatment works fed by Rutland water. Our medical advisers are unable to give definitive advice because of the unreliability of the analytical information available and the absence of any reliable toxicological data for algal toxins. They agree, however, that water from Rutland put into supply for drinking after treatment is extremely unlikely to pose a threat to health. No adverse human health effects have subsequently been reported as arising from Rutland water's problems.
The algae were concentrated at the shallow margins of the reservoir. Water for treatment is drawn from 15m deep in the main body of the reservoir, where algal concentrations were relatively low. Furthermore, the comprehensive water treatment facilities, which include the use of granular activated carbon filtration at the two Rutland treatment works, are likely to have removed any algal toxins which may have been present in the raw water.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the report just issued by Anglian Water Services Ltd. which sets out its views and analysis of last year's problems and what needs to be done in the future. A number of Anglian's comments will be echoed in my remarks today. One of the report's main conclusions is that more data are required to produce a reliable determination of the longer-term significance of algal blooms and the production of toxins.
The detection of microcystin in water is a complex analytical process all of its own. That is why conclusions and recommendations must be qualified and must not go ahead of the available scientific evidence. Anglian Water Services Ltd. also concluded that, so far, post mortems have proved inconclusive, although circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that algal toxins were the cause of death of the animals concerned.
The report also concluded that no significant increases in nutrients occurred last year, so it suggests that climatic conditions were the major contributory factor for algal growth.
On the available evidence, the report concludes that drinking water did not contain toxin at levels which cause harm to health, although it draws attention to difficulties in interpreting uncertain analytical information about the presence of microcystin in drinking water.
Finally, the report set out Anglian Water's future proposals, which include an improved monitoring programme, investment to reduce the levels of phosphate inputs into Rutland water, greater use of granular activated carbon treatment for drinking water and suitable arrangements for warning local people of the risks if algal blooms recur. This report is both constructive and helpful.
It was against that background that the National Rivers Authority set up a task group last year to investigate the blue-green algae problem. The terms of reference of the group are very wide. They are to assess the problems that occurred last year at Rutland water and elsewhere; to assess the extent of the problem, not just in the United Kingdom but abroad; to review the influence of nutrients; to review the influence of water quality management techniques; to review the influence of biotic factors; to identify the research and development requirements; to assess the staff resource implications; and to make recommendations for monitoring and eutrophication control to minimise the problem in future.

1375
The task group is being chaired by Mr. Pearson of the NRA's Anglian region. It also includes Professor G. A. Codd of the university of Dundee, a leading expert in blue-green algae, Dr. Reynolds of the Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Mr. Fawell of the Water Research Centre, who is a toxicologist. My hon. Friend will agree that it is a wide-ranging inquiry conducted by experts.
The group intends to produce its report by early summer, but I cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request that it should be accelerated and produced by the end of the month. It will be produced before the main season for the development of blue-green algae. The group has contacted all NRA regions, water plcs and water companies that operate lakes and reservoirs.
In addition, since similar problems have been reported in a number of other countries, information is being collected from sources overseas and, as part of the NRA's research effort, the WRC is carrying out a full literature search and review.
I hope that that meets the point made specifically by my hon. Friend. I promise him that the group will aim to collate and review the problems and recommend future action to be taken. Research needs have to be indentified and budgeted within the NRA's programme to investigate the problem and produce effective systems for monitoring and control.
My hon. Friend will understand from my earlier remarks that it is simply not possible to prevent the growth of algae, as they are a naturally occurring phenomenon. Nevertheless, the task group considers that it is possible to take preventive action to reduce risk. It is therefore preparing a scheme to identify those lakes with the potential for problems. The group is devising a sampling programme which will categorise lakes used for public supply and immersion sports according to the risk of algal blooms occurring. A proportion of high-risk lakes will be subject to routine sampling and, by applying criteria for phosphate levels and algal content, it will be possible to inform owners when it would be advisable to take stock of the situation in the waters under their control and to make plans to minimise the risks.
1376
As I have said, there is no record of damage to health via drinking water, despite the widespread occurrence of algal blooms. Nevertheless, I consider that there is an urgent need to improve our knowledge of the toxic effects of microcystin and to develop a reliable methodology for the detection and analysis of the toxin. Research is currently being carried out by Professor Codd for the water industry to develop improved analytical techniques for microcystin. We shall build upon his work to investigate the potential risks to consumers' health from the occurrence of algal toxins in drinking water.
These are vital steps in broadening our knowledge of the subject which, together with the work that the NRA is already undertaking, will provide a valuable base from which to consider the development of standards for algal toxins in drinking water.
I recognise my hon. Friend's concern about the issue. I entirely agree that we need to obtain the best possible picture of what took place last year. However, it is a complex matter. We must rely on good science to produce the answers. We must not rush ahead with hasty conclusions that are not supported by research. We are determined to get to the bottom of what occurred and, perhaps more importantly, what can be done if the problem recurs. In the light of that, and the fact that the NRA investigation already under way, I am satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to inquire into that unfortunate and tragic incident in my hon. Friend's constituency, and that the necessary follow-up action is in hand.

Royal Assent
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990
Nottingham Park Estate Act 1990.

Child Abuse
1.30 pm
Mr. Peter Hardy: I wish to raise a serious aspect of child abuse that has caused increasing anxiety. I refer to ritualistic sex abuse, which certainly causes concern within the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and which was raised by it at a recent press conference. The matter is of significant social importance, as I am sure the Minister will recognise.
As a member of the central executive committee of the society, I felt that I should seek an opportunity to pursue the matter. In some quarters it may be rather fashionable to take a relaxed view about aspects of child welfare: that view was illustrated in an article in The Evening Standard last Tuesday week, which suggested that the NSPCC should take care that it does not harm people's liberties in the relentless campaign against people's vices. However, if there is a real or potential abuse of children, are not the society, the House and the Government under an obligation to take a serious view? It seems that that rather dismissive view of the society's record of vigilant concern was expressed in response to the recent press conference.
I was alerted to the problem two or three years ago when the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe considered a report from the legal affairs committee. It was a factual report, restrained in its approach, but nevertheless entirely horrifying. It contained information about the abduction and misuse of children internationally, and about the trade in obscene video films involving children. I was astonished to learn of the scale of the trade in western Europe and the United States.
From the report, I learned that people took holidays to places such as Bangkok, where wealthy citizens from countries such as our own could satisfy their paedophilic tastes. Children could be purchased as sexual objects and holiday sex toys. Against that awareness of evil, I was not so shocked about the matter aired by the NSPCC, and by others concerned about the development of ritual sex abuse.
What has been revealed is intolerable. The purpose of my debate is to ensure that the Administration perceive the evil and are committed to respond to it. I trust that the Minister will consider the view that the incidence of ritualistic sex abuse is likely to be significantly larger than the number of cases so far established. Perhaps he will accept that those involved, while perverse and evil, are likely to possess a degree of cunning to disguise their practice and to operate securely.
The article to which I referred earlier mentioned the society's fear that some parents were compelling their children to watch video nasties, and suggested that the evidence was entirely anecdotal. Evidence is difficult to secure, and it has often been difficult to present it within the context of prosecution. Perhaps the new arrangements will make the pursuit of legal action more meaningful. Although evidence about ritualistic sex abuse is not easy to obtain, sufficient is available fully to justify the society's anxiety, to justify my raising the matter here and to justify the call for adequate recognition by the Government.
There have been at least five successful prosecutions in the past couple of years, which were referred to in a serious article in The Independent on Sunday on 16 March. One parent, described as a devil worshipper, was sentenced at
1378
the Old Bailey to imprisonment for the ritual abuse of seven children, including his own son or daughter. In another case, nine adults were imprisoned by the court in Nottingham on 53 charges of incest, indecent assault and cruelty against 21 children. One child was cut and the rest were required to drink his blood during a period that the children spent in what was described as a vortex of cruelty.
At the Old Bailey in 1980, an old lady was sentenced after she had imprisoned a girl and forced her to engage in black magic and sexual activity. Three men and a woman were sentenced at Chester about 18 months ago for vile activity involving children aged between three and 12. Last year, at Winchester, two men, one described as a practising Satanist, were imprisoned for incest, indecent assault and gross indecency with children from their own families. Those cases are not anecdotal.
Nor can one wholly dismiss the views of a clergyman mentioned in the article to which I have just referred, who said that he knew of girls who had been impregnated to serve ritualistic purposes, or the views of a woman involved in Childwatch, who was reported as having said that she had spoken to 40 children from various parts of the country who had been victims of such abuse. Others from different localities appear to have encountered child victims or other evidence of abuse. That is mentioned in the growing anxieties of experienced officers of the NSPCC.
The society has conducted a survey of its child protection teams. A questionnaire was sent from Saffron Hill, the society's headquarters, last autumn. As the Minister will be aware, the respondents are experienced, responsible and qualified men and women of considerable ability. They noted that it is difficult to secure information, that the practices are necessarily carried out in secret, that the children are fearful of punishment or sanction should they give information and that they may have been almost brainwashed to ensure no disclosures.
Some of the responses from the NSPCC's officers have led to serious concern being expressed. Nine teams have worked, or are currently working, with children who have been subjected to ritualistic sexual abuse. In recent months, four cases have been referred to the society by the police or local authority social services departments. Responses specify that one, two or 15 or 16 or more children have been involved in a group practising these rituals. One respondent said that up to 20 children could be involved in such ceremonies at any one time.
The reports from the society's officers provide some information about the sick activities that are involved. Five of the responses refer to children drinking blood or urine, five to the killing or abuse of animals, and five to the invocation of supernatural powers and the use of masks and costumes. In four cases, faeces were smeared on children's bodies, and in some cases children were held under water. There have been seven reports of threats made to maintain control of children. In several cases, dolls have been mutilated as part of the ritual. Other bizarre elements are recorded. Some children were made to eat what was said to be part of a human heart, while others were shown what was said to be a baby in a microwave oven.
Seven NSPCC teams said that they had worked with sexually abused children who had described symptoms or given reliable accounts of ritualistic activities, including attendance at events where adults had sex before them or where they had been made to eat faeces or to take part in

1379
other disgraceful activities. The work of the NSPCC officers and others involved in helping such abused children is not easy, because the abusers tend to have a psychological hold on the children involved which may make them extremely fearful to talk about their experience to others.
It is likely to be extremely difficult to secure factual evidence. It may be rather more difficult than in many activities to establish the facts and to obtain evidence. More children may face such experiences than has been fully established so far. I hope that the House will bear that suspicion in mind as a serious aspect of the matter. I have been told that an NSPCC officer was recently threatened when he was seeking information about activities which he felt should be obtained to assist the child with whom he was concerned.
I am not about to suggest that we are now seeing the tip of an iceberg, but there are grounds for suspicion that such abuse is more frequent than one would have imagined a few years ago. The fact that there have been prosecutions of such cases of evil in different areas seems to justify my suggestion. As able and active officers of the society in various areas are concerned, it suggests that it would be foolish if there were to be a public assumption that the incidence of this evil is slight. I am also sure that the House will agree that even one case is too many. The experience of some children is so horrifying that society cannot readily allow any incidence of such experience to be ignored. Recent evidence suggests that child sex abuse is far more extensive than would have been assumed only a few years ago, and there is no reason for anyone to consider that ritualistic abuse is so odd, extreme or evil that it can exist only in fevered imagination.
These rituals may relate to satanism, to black magic or to devil worship. Such practices may involve ritual, ceremony, fancy words, mumbo-jumbo, strange equipment and weird activities. They may have no general appeal and they may be seen as neither sensible nor tasteful. However, we live in a free country and it would be inappropriate for Parliament or society to seek to interfere with or to outlaw such activities when they involve consenting adults. Such activities may be regarded as ridiculous, and if they became widespread it might be regarded as sad for the nation. However, we may be confident that there is sufficient common sense in this country to ensure that such activities remain a minority taste. Yet common sense must also apply to the protection of children.
There is evidence of evil practices involving children, so society and the House must make it clear that the abuse of children as part of such activities must not happen and that, if it does, resources will be made available to ensure that society provides a proper response.
I hope that the Minister will accept that I have taken a view which, although it might properly be regarded as stern, has not departed from balance. Whatever may be said of my view, I hope that those of the society and of the public and the voluntary organisations involved in child welfare will command respect.
In many ways, our society is nastier, greedier and more violent than it was in the earlier post-war period. I could give reasons for that, but I should not stray too far from the subject before us. Perhaps some of the possible causes of these undesirable developments will one day receive rather more attention. I hope that it will be one day soon. At this stage, I merely make the point that children—
1380
perhaps in larger numbers than might have been expected—have been abused or are at risk of abuse from these ritualistic sources and the public response needs to be clear and adequate.
I also want to put it on record that organisations such as the NSPCC—there are other deserving and responsible bodies serving the same cause—and the various professional people and volunteers involved in societies that care for children are fulfilling an essential role. Such groups must continue to receive that priority of public esteem and support that is necessary to enable them to provide the services, help and protection that so many of the nation's children sadly require.
Children are not only their parents' obligation; they are the nation's children as well, and I trust that the Minister will acknowledge that. Governments, parties and politicians may believe that people must stand on their own feet and take responsibility for themselves, but it would be negligent folly if such a rule were applied to children. I hope that the Minister will recognise that public responsibility is substantial, that decency in the treatment of children will continue to be firmly required, and that the abuse of children for perverse purposes of satanism and ritual must lead to firm sanctions being applied.
1.47 pm
The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): The House owes a debt of appreciation to the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) for raising this important subject. It is a constant source of horror and shock that, in a modern society, children continue to be abused and neglected.
The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has played a central role in the evolution of services for the care and treatment of children who have been abused and their families. It has once again identified an area which may have seemed inconceivable to some members of the public but on which sufficient attention needs to be focused. Over the past 106 years, the NSPCC—like many other voluntary organisations—has developed services and earned itself a proud name. It is greatly respected by us all.
In congratulating the hon. Gentleman, I should like to take him back five years, to the time when I introduced an Adjournment debate on precisely this subject, motivated in large measure by the increasing amount of information that was being produced by the NSPCC. I referred then to what the enlightened founder of the NSPCC, Benjamim Waugh, said at the turn of the century:
"It is better to remove evil from the home than to remove the child."
That view is part and parcel of modern thinking on child abuse.
Mr. Hardy: The Minister referred to her own debate on the subject. That leads me to comment that concern for children's welfare stretches to hon. Members on both sides of the House, as evidenced by the fact that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has been a member of the central executive committee of the society for longer than me and has given it distinguished service.
Mrs. Bottomley: Yes. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) continually raises subjects of this nature.
Frankly, there can be no room for party division in respect of child abuse, and that was borne out during the

1381
passage of the Children Act 1989. All hon. Members believe strongly that children should be entitled to a childhood free of sexual or physical abuse or of neglect. All that we know about the long-standing effects of abuse in childhood leads us to conclude that it is a thoroughly vile crime. We should not be satisfied until we have stamped it out.
The hon. Member for Wentworth raised the disturbing issue of the ritualistic abuse of children. The Government are aware of the concern about ritualistic abuse expressed by those handling child abuse cases. Through the social services inspectorate, the Department is monitoring the situation to assess the scale of the problem. I will consider at length the particular points raised by the hon. Member for Wentworth.
In November 1989 the Department arranged a meeting with representatives from the NSPCC, with whom we work closely, Childline, the Children's Society and the Association of Directors of Social Services. It became clear from our discussions that there is a need to obtain more information about ritual child abuse and child abuse networks in general. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that work is being carried forward.
The Department is well aware of the difficulties facing the statutory agencies when they handle such cases. Where networks have been discovered, close co-operation has developed between social workers and the police. Joint co-operation in investigations is always central to child abuse cases where obtaining evidence and establishing the facts is fraught with difficulty. That co-operation ensures that children can be interviewed sensitively and protected effectively.
So often, a child's abuse can almost be exaggerated or consolidated by the effects of the investigation. The sensitive handling of the investigations and the court hearing process, while protecting fair justice, must also give proper regard to the child's needs.
Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Minister ponder the fact that in many cases the simple fact that a child has received attention from the abuser highlights that that is probably the only form of positive attention that some children receive? In some instances, the neglect has been so great that the only care, even though that care was misplaced, vile, vicious and criminal, came from the abuser. It is difficult to get a child to realise then the iniquity of the incident and to appreciate that it should not have happened.
Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman shows a profound awareness of the details of child abuse cases. Such cases on the whole do not occur in isolation. They are part of a pattern of family interactions. The child must be considered not simply with regard to one traumatic incident, but in the context of his or her life and experience. It is important that handling abuse cases does not inadvertently consolidate the disadvantage that the child has suffered. So often that is borne out in the summary removal of a child.
The Children Act 1989 makes it clear that a child should not be removed from home unless it is essential for the child's safety and welfare. Very often the preferable course is to remove the perpetrator or potential perpetrator of the offence rather than the child, who
1382
frequently is left feeling responsible or guilty. That may sound perverse, but those involved in child abuse would recognise those responses.
We appreciate that we must give further consideration to ritual child abuse. However, it should be seen as part of the wider problem of child abuse in general. Once a new area of concern is identified, so often the professionals involved, the families and the public begin to identify and piece together parts of a jigsaw puzzle that was sometimes previously too horrific even to be contemplated. Once again, the NSPCC has served the public well by placing on the agenda an aspect that some people previously thought did not even bear contemplation.
Regrettably, there is little new about child abuse and neglect. The use of pathological terms to describe its roots, causes and effects and the media's preoccupation with horrific cases should not obscure its long-standing nature or delude us into thinking that its incidence and characteristics are any different now from what has been described in literature over the years. Descriptions of barbarous treatment are widespread in literature and popular culture. There are frequent tales of infanticide, ritual sacrifice, mutilation, starvation, flogging and exploitation. It is only relatively recently that a child has been thought to have any right not to be abused or neglected.
I notice that dogs are among the hon. Gentleman's interests. He will be aware, as we are all aware, that the legislation to protect animals was on the statute book decades before the first legislation to protect children.
Mr. Hardy: I was aware of that, but the Minister might care to note that the people who were responsible for the legislation to protect children tended to be the people who had sought to protect animals. There was no distinction in the early days.
Mrs. Bottomley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. Those who combined the protection of dogs and children in their interests clearly had sympathetic, kindly and sensitive personalities.
The Government attach high priority to the problem of child abuse and in recent years have embarked on a comprehensive programme to tackle it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the important part that is played by the Children Act. We had on the statute book a motley number of laws concerned with children. They were built up piecemeal over the years, and they were complex and confusing for professionals and familes alike.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, steered through the House the important Children Act, which sets a framework that integrates and provides a coherent set of laws to clarify the welfare of the child and the role of the parents and of the local authority, and it sets a much better framework for partnership. Above all, it maintains that the child's interests must always be paramount. All hon. Members would endorse that.
The Department is involved in a major training programme. The establishment of legislation on the statute book is not sufficent to ensure that the law turns into good practice. Before October 1991, we must be satisfied that all those involved in child protection and child care and all those in the judical system are aware of the detail and the implications of the new legislation.

1383
We have a training support programme for social workers, currently giving training in child protection to more than 70,000 social workers, and general child care training for more than 40,000 social workers. That amounts to more than £19 million this year. We are also producing guidance and detailed regulations on the Children Act. There has been a process of discussion and collaboration with the many organisations involved in child care. The NSPCC has certainly always been one such organisation with which the Department of Health has worked closely.
We are all aware that, in appalling cases in which tragedy has occurred, lessons must be learnt. Not only are the Department and agencies involved required to produce their own report for the area child protection committee; in extreme circumstances the Secretary of State will set up an inquiry, often with the great assistance of the social services inspectorate, to which I pay special tribute because of its work in investigating, advising and guiding. The inspectorate is universally respected and trusted. We are also examining the treatment of families, including abusers.
Hon. Members and Ministers may condemn child abuse, and many of us recognise that it often takes place in a family context. Facilities for the treatment of those who have been abused or who abuse are important. The Department provides assistance to the NSPCC. We are pleased to have done so over several years. We recognise its vital contribution and we respect it and continue to work with it.
I repeat my appreciation that the hon. Gentleman has raised this important issue today. It deserves our further attention. By working with him, the NSPCC and other organisations, we hope to create a society in which children grow up free from abuse and neglect.

Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency
2 pm
Mr. Tony Speller: It is always a pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Energy on the Front Bench ready to answer on behalf of the Government all the questions that I shall ask. The Government must give some sensible answers soon on energy conservation and efficiency. This is not a usual subject for debate in Parliament because by and large this nation, like this Parliament, has totally neglected all the sensible measures that can be taken on energy.
It is perfectly fair for British Gas or any other utility to seek to sell more of its product. The only problem comes when selling more of the product does nasty things to the environment, which we now all recognise as important. I have every respect for all the utility companies. Under their new plc logos I believe that at long last they will become energy-sensitive, whereas in the past they were simply sales-sensitive. That is in no way to detract from the excellence or efficiency of the utility companies, but as a nation we have never sought to be energy-efficient.
If one buys a refrigerator in the United States, there will be a label stuck on the side saying how much it will cost to run. In this country a label will probably be stuck on the side telling us how much more exciting, how much sexier and how much bigger it is. No one tells us the obvious truth that a big fridge costs more to run than a small fridge. We have always been hell bent on the search for turnover in the hope of a profit. Meanwhile, as we increase the sales, so we increase, for example, the greenhouse effect.
It is my happy view that the campaigner for energy efficiency and conservation—indeed, the energy environmentalist of the future—will not be seen as some pleasant woolly lady with a bobble hat on her way to Greenham Common, who is in favour of energy efficiency on the side. Instead, it will be the hard-headed, indeed perhaps hard-faced, business man with long-term plans who says, "I must plan for the future, and because I am building something"— perhaps a nuclear power station, although I hope not—"I must also think of the cost in 20 years' time of closing it down and getting rid of the waste." I am not having a go at the nuclear industry, but British industry has never been charged with the eventual cost of cleaning up its products.
We are aware of the costs of cleaning up now. We see it in the smog in the Antarctic and we all say that we are greener than thou. But we should be clean before we are green. The first place to do the cleaning is in our own industry—literally, in our own back yard—before we pollute the back yards of other countries. There is little distance between that and energy efficiency or conservation. Every time that we require a utility, whether the gas, electricity or oil industry, to produce more, we must also ask what else it will produce more of besides that which we want to buy.
In Barnstaple, youngsters are pushed around in pushchairs, at just the level for all the nasty vapours given off by the motor cars. Youngsters go swimming off our coast and when they have goggles, they do not like what

1385
they see below the surface. Our environment and its conservation and pollution are all part of the same matrix which, thank heavens, we have at last recognised.
I pay tribute to the Department of Energy, which has shaken off the sloth of some years, first under—I was about to say the premiership of, but it did not work out that way—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales when it first took an interest in the alternatives, then under my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, then under the Minister of State Department of Energy, who is now carrying on that work. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will follow the same line and say that it is not enough to produce energy or even to produce it cheaply; we must first produce it cleanly and only then cheaply because the environment costs are so high. We do not yet have any idea how or whether we shall be able to pay that particular piper.
I am the chairman of the all-party alternative energy group and it has been my great pleasure for the past six or seven years, along with the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) who is vice-chairman of the group, to work on a non-partisan basis. I am on the extreme right and he is on the extreme left, and we have met in the middle. Party political persuasion does not matter; what matters is how we persuade the globe that the search for more and more is not the answer; we must first ask at what cost.
We all talk of the unified market and the European Community. Happily, the EC appears to be facing up to some of its responsibilities. For example, it has been agreed by the Council of Ministers that the EC should improve energy efficiency by 20 per cent. between 1985 and 1995. That is a huge percentage increase, but no one has said how much that will cost. However, we must be talking of billions of pounds, all because, whether internationally at European level, nationally, or even locally in our communities, no one bothers about how much power we use because it is relatively so small a part of our total costs.
I am one of the few shopkeepers in Parliament. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) was Secretary of State for Energy and used to have his breakfast meetings around the countryside, I arranged for some of my people to attend. The only problem is that the cost of heating and lighting in our shops is relatively so small that they thought it would not be worth saving those costs. We all know the cost of our rent and various community charges, but we have never got down to the cost of energy in one's shop or business.
As we go home from the mother of Parliaments in the evening, we see great office blocks twinkling with light. Someone somewhere has given no thought to the cost of the energy that is being used or the implications of its use. We should start in the House. It may be boiling in summer and freezing or boiling in winter, but somewhere along the line we in this Chamber must give a lead and say that it is not enough to preach energy efficiency—we must practise it, too.
How do we do that? In some ways it is cheap. We can label appliances. I mentioned refrigerators in the United States. Will the Government consider, if only as a code of practice, telling manufacturers and importers of such
1386
equipment to stick a label on their goods telling the customer how much each unit will cost to run? That would be simple and easy.
I have one particular hate. This is the only country in the world that I know of where a new electrical appliance, whether a hair dryer or a toaster, never has a plug on it. People may wonder what that has to do with energy efficiency, but it has a lot to do with it. Why are we so backward in telling manufacturers to label their goods and put a plug on them? I wonder how many accidents happen when people like me do not know what wires go where because we remember the old colours.
What about lighting standards? We are probably all aware that the new soft, more expensive lights use only about 25 per cent. of the energy used by the old lights. Such bulbs will be paid for halfway through their lifetime and, thereafter, money is being saved.
We have never promoted the simple idea that energy conservation need not be expensive, and that the cost of insulating one's home properly will probably be recouped in the first year or certainly in the second. The money saved by the house owner over 10 or 15 years is almost as important as the environmental savings enjoyed by the community, in avoiding the unpleasant by-products of generating energy.
People who are buying a house are willing to pay for a structural survey, but no one considers the cost of heating it. The Department of Energy is keen on promoting energy audits, but perhaps more can be done. In the United States, an energy audit costs about $25, and for another $150, simple measures can be taken to improve insulation and to stop draughts. They are simple improvements of a type that we never get around to—like mending the staircase that always creaked in grandad's day. If energy can be conserved, fewer power stations will be required.
Whenever we want more of something, we build new capacity. The consequence is that we have more houses in this country than families even though they happen to be in the wrong place— but that is the subject of another debate. It would be a simple matter to require the vendor of a property to notify a prospective purchaser of its energy efficiency. Vendors would be likely to give more thought to that aspect before putting their property on the market—perhaps commissioning an energy audit and making improvements that they had hitherto neglected. If they did so, they would achieve a higher price for their property, and its value would also be enhanced in environmental terms.
There is a maintenance office within this building, but we should also have an energy efficiency and conservation office—as should many other major buildings. The cost of the staff would be saved many times over. Once a proper system is established, savings continue for ever.
Financial assistance always presents a problem, and I generally support the Government's view. Why should we give financial assistance for improvements that will help the owner to make money? Why should the state pay for insulation from which the householder will benefit financially in the long term? However, I should be happy to see loans made available for energy conservation purposes. Last night, we were arguing over student loans to be repaid over a number of years. It would be as good or even better to invest in insulating our housing stock.
There are many elderly people, most of them ladies on low incomes not enjoying any pension payable on their late husband's former employment, who cannot afford to

1387
live in reasonable comfort. They have to make do with the warmth provided by only one bar of an electric fire. There is no need for that. A little expenditure would provide for better insulation and allow a person to enjoy his or her remaining years in warm comfort.
The Building Research Establishment estimates that a 25 per cent. reduction could be achieved in energy consumption and in carbon dioxide emissions. The other side of excessive energy production is excessive production of carbon dioxide and of the other toxins produced by industrial processes. One cannot blame a vehicle manufacturer if the car that we all want pollutes the atmosphere with the oil and petrol that it must use. However, one can blame him if he does not take every possible step to reduce the volume of that pollution.
There have been market barriers and Government failings in not redefining the market so that there can be greater energy efficiency, but unlike in the United States, which normally leads us in energy efficiency, unleaded petrol is cheaper in this country than leaded. We have already said that we are prepared to tax petrol logically. Perhaps we should also impose less tax on other products that are more energy-efficient.
The Association for the Conservation of Energy would like value added tax removed from energy-saving products. Perhaps that is going too far, because it is likely that VAT will be with us for ever. Nevertheless, there is some logic in that argument, and we have already made something of a breakthrough in establishing the precedent of lower duty on unleaded petrol. We have said that we will tax less those things that are less damaging.
Let us consider the other side of the question. One sad example is British Gas—I have mentioned that company before, but not because I do not like it—whose tariff structure encourages customers who use less than 25,000 therms a year to waste gas. The bulk discount for the next level is such that it is worth burning and wasting power. The bulk tariff brings the total price and the unit cost down. These days that should be culpable. It should be legally wrong to be able to say, "The more you waste, the cheaper the price." That subject is also worthy of consideration by Government.
The other side of the equation is pollution produced by that vast excess of energy. We all know about carbon dioxide and I shall not insult the intelligence of hon. Members by going on about its bad effects. We know what they are. We are scared of the greenhouse effect, although we do not know why, and we are scared of nitrous oxides. We know that something is wrong and we know about global warming—or we think that we do. Perhaps, as is the case with AIDS, after a while we shall say that it probably is not as bad as all that.
The relative contribution of greenhouse gases to global warming in the past 10 years is straightforward—carbon dioxide is 50 per cent., methane 18 per cent., CFCs from our careless aerosols 14 per cent., nitrous oxides—NOs—6 per cent. and surface ozone 12 per cent. Let us just consider the 50 per cent. Half our global warming problems are caused by carbon dioxide, most of which comes from industrial Europe, using machines that it uses to produce the wealth to afford such things as studying the greenhouse effect. We can go further, as 80 per cent. of carbon dioxide is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. It is now estimated that in United Kingdom 92 per cent. of carbon dioxide is caused by fossil fuel burning, even though most of us do not have a coal fire in the house
1388
—although we may have a log fire for show. Basically we have stopped using open coal fires and that is why the house looks so pleasant and clean, and why the fogs of my youth are no longer with us.
Fossil fuel divides into coal—with the largest share—oil and gas. Unless specific action is taken, fossil fuel consumption—we largely produce our energy from coal— and carbon dioxide emissions will rise dramatically.
My other sorrow is that every European Community country except the United Kingdom has shown willingness to commit itself to working towards a 20 per cent. carbon dioxide reduction as part of the initial global goal. An agreement was signed in 1988. It is a shame that our country is not a signatory.
My thoughts are not of great significance nationally or locally, but they are of some significance. We are a relatively little country and if every little country took a good look at how it wastes or saves energy, we could also make many people more comfortable. We should consider the by-products of energy and clean them up—the Secretary of State is keen to do that and may be talking soon about the alternative energy sources that are so dear to me.
We should reverse the cuts made in the Energy Efficiency Office and reinstate energy service schemes. We should study building regulations—although the new ones are good. We should say, "What about clean, alternative energy sources?" What about the wind? It causes no pollution—it causes damage, but the sheer power of it is wonderful. What about the waves? They can cause damage, but again the power is vast. I shall not say too much about solar power in Britain, but we should think of the power that exists around our coast. We must think about the potential for energy conservation and the need for energy efficiency.
2.18 pm
Mr. Frank Cook: The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) has already described to the Minister the alliance in which we jointly conspire—that is, the all-party alternative energy group.
I congratulate my colleague on winning the slot today and commend him for raising this issue. I also commend his comments to the Minister for serious consideration because much of what he says makes sense.
The hon. Gentleman touched upon the financial aspects of energy efficiency and technology. I shall briefly mention employment and the benefits that can be gained there.
The hon. Gentleman and I went to Norway where we saw two semi-tech pilot plants at Toffteshallen. One is a multi-resonant oscillating water column. The other is a tapered channel. Each is experimental, but they are producing electricity for less than 2·5p per kWh. That is better than our best nuclear and our best fossil fuel plants. Each of the plants uses British technology. The turbines were developed at Queen's university in Belfast. Each plant is producing electricity reliably, efficiently, cleanly and cheaply.
Why do the Norwegians want to do that when they have hydro-electric power coming out of their ears? The answer is simple. They do not need electricity; what they need is employment for their skilled technicians, men and women, who will come on to the labour market after North sea gas and oil have run out. The Norwegians are planning ahead, using British technology to put together

1389
generating stations that are cheap, manageable and easy to control. They can be introduced one at a time. One does not have to wait the 20 years necessary for the completion of a nuclear power station. Wind and wave electricity-generating stations can be built for several tens of thousands of pounds. They use labour for whom employment in this country is needed. It is what I call the City and Guilds type of labour—not boffins walking around in white coats with masks on their faces but honest-to-goodness blue-collar people.
Apart from the efficiency and cost-saving that such plants represent, they would provide immediate employment for people on the Clyde, the Tyne, the Tees—from where I come —and the Mersey. The European Economic Community believes that Britain has the best wave climate in the world. That would also benefit the Third world. If we developed alternative cheaper, safer and more efficient forms of renewable energy, the Third world would be able to manage them. People there would be able to understand such forms of energy. Above all, we should provide them with something that they could afford. They could have them tomorrow, if only the political will were there.
2.22 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Tony Baldry): I congratulate the chairman and vice-chairman of the all-party alternative energy group, my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) and the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook), on their contributions to the debate. It is an important but large subject, and in the time available to me I shall be unable to respond to all the points that have been raised, or to deal with the subject as it ought to be dealt with. However, I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy welcomed the opportunity that was afforded to him recently to address the all-party group. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North and the hon. Member for Stockton, North that Ministers in the Department consider with great care everything that the all-party group puts forward. We are grateful to it for all the work that it does.
Energy efficiency can make a significant contribution to alleviating the problems of climate change. The Government believe that climate change could represent the greatest world challenge to sustainable development. We shall do whatever is necessary to meet that challenge. However, to act alone would be pointless. The United Kingdom alone produces about 3 per cent. of the world's carbon dioxide. So all nations must act together. A global problem requires a global solution.
The analyses of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will help us decide on the actions that we should take, and we shall fully meet our responsibilities once the necessary actions are determined. We shall also need to consider how climate change will affect different areas of the world so that affected regions can adapt in the future. The United Kingdom is taking a lead. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced at the United Nations General Assembly last November, we are establishing a new centre for the prediction of climate change.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also proposed that the work of the IPCC should continue in order to
1390
provide a proper scientific base for any protocols setting targets for restrictions on greenhouse emissions. Global targets have to be broken down for each country. I am sure that that is the right approach and that the Prime Minister has wide international support for that initiative.
However, international consensus is still some months off and in the meantime we would clearly be foolhardy to do nothing. Nothing is not an option. The widespread international concern about climate change is clearly felt here. The Government share that widespread concern and are fully committed to protecting the environment. Energy production is a major contributor to greenhouse gases and we have been taking positive steps to do what we can now to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. One of the obvious ways to do that is to obtain whatever contribution we can from renewable sources of energy. Direct electricity producers such as wind and tidal energy give no gaseous emissions, and biofuels, although they involve combustion, recycle the carbon dioxide so there is no net increase.
Our policy, therefore, is to stimulate the development and application of renewable energy sources wherever they have prospects of being economically competitive and environmentally acceptable. We are doing that via an extensive research, development and demonstration programme in collaboration with industry and by ensuring a legislative infrastructure which allows renewable energy sources to compete equitably in the market.
The research and development programme on which £161 million has been spent to date is identifying the markets and developing and promoting the technology where appropriate. A prime example of a project to promote renewables was a recent joint study with the North-Western electricity board, which identified a potential of 400 MW with good prospects of commercial development in the next decade or two. Our earlier success story was the use of landfill gas as a fuel, which has additional benefits, as methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. The technology was researched and demonstrated within departmental programmes and the first 300 commercial applications are under way with a further 30 planned or under construction.
The Electricity Act 1989 provides for a private sector market in which renewable sources of energy can compete equitably when they are fully developed. In the shorter term, however, they will need some market protection while experience is gained and a manufacturing industry built up. We have therefore also provided the non-fossil fuel obligation, which should enable renewable energy to develop during the 1990s with a premium price being paid for the electricity. Renewable energy, however, will be able to contribute on a significant scale only in the somewhat longer term and we must therefore also look to shorter-term measures.
One item that all Governments will include in any internationally agreed response strategy is promoting energy efficiency. My hon. Friend outlined the need for that. We are already doing it. Energy efficiency is worth while in the economic and in the wider environmental sense. But the community as a whole, not just the Government, has to act and the community as a whole gets the benefit. We must all take action and make an immediate impact. The consequences of our inefficiency are felt not just in environmental pollution but in the bills that we pay each quarter, as individuals and as businesses.

1391
The economic beauty of cost-effective energy efficiency improvements is that they do not really cost anything; savings of up to 20 per cent. of energy costs can usually be realised through simple, effective measures. Some cost literally nothing. On others we get our money back through lower energy bills in about two to three years. Savings after that come free.
At the end of the day, the efficient use of energy is the responsibility of each one of us. Where the Government are directly responsible for energy costs, we are taking positive action: Government Departments are looking to save 15 per cent. of our annual £300 million energy bill within five years, which is expected to involve a doubling of investment in energy efficiency measures.
However, the Government cannot force people to use energy more efficiently. The Government can offer advice and information to consumers on which they can base their decisions on investment and energy management, but the initiative to make the savings ultimately rests with the individual. In both the economic and the environmental sense, energy need not cost the earth. It is up to all of us to ensure that it does not.

Rural Communities
2.30 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: I am an urban dweller and an urban representative. However, I am aware from my travels around the country and from friends and constituents who have relatives in rural areas that rural life is not quite the comfortable picture given by the glossy magazines so beloved of city dwellers.
Over the past few years, there has been a massive population shift in England. The adult population of the shires, which contain most of the rural communities, has increased by 2·7 million since 1976, whereas that of London and the metropolitan counties has decreased by 500,000 during the same period. Yet the institutional framework of our nation remains overwhelmingly urban dominated.
That has led to the ignorance and neglect of rural problems, and has affected housing, health care, transport, jobs and poverty. Even play facilities for children are affected. The idea that the country is so much better for the children does not work when one realises that skateboards do not run on grass. A rural child's first bike can be a parental nightmare.
Villages should be vibrant communities with a variety and richness equal to those in our urban villages. They should not be pushed into single-class pieces of detached suburbia surrounded by fields. Fewer than one in 10 now have a bank, a pharmacy or a permanent library.
Progress is sometimes measured in our society by economies of scale—a concept that is the scourge of small shops, small schools and small hospitals. If we do not come to terms with changes taking place in rural areas, we will have a two-tier rural society: well-heeled, middle-aged and elderly people in holiday and retirement homes making use of urban rather than rural services, and the rural poor locked into poverty, long hours, no choice, no transport and poor housing.
On health matters, I cite the joint survey last year by the Maternity Alliance and the National Federation of Women's Institutes, which found that pregnant women in rural areas face restricted choice, hospital closures and long journeys to clinics. Two thirds of rural maternity units in England have closed since 1960, yet those units are crucial. Some 32 per cent. of births in rural areas are in GP centres or community hospitals, compared with 9 per cent. nationally. Home births in rural areas are 6 per cent., compared to 1 per cent. nationally. A report was recently issued by the National Audit Office on maternity services, on which the Public Accounts Committee—of which I have the honour to be a member— will take evidence after the Easter recess.
Women in rural areas risk long journeys during labour, with the attendant risks. Most litigation currently in process relates to births in larger hospitals, not small units or home deliveries. Local maternity units do have good safety records. However, it is the fear of litigation that is behind the idea that local units cannot cope, so putting pressure on women in rural areas to travel to larger hospitals.
It is clear that the closure of local shops, and particularly of post offices, which are little used by wealthier rural dwellers, is most likely to hit those on low incomes. Fewer than one third of the rural population use local shops, but a survey commissioned a few years ago by

1393
the Department of the Environment found that those who did were the poorest. The same survey by Brian McLaughlin and his team found that public transport networks were thinly spread. Since that time, they have been spread even thinner.
The most deprived poor in rural areas are those on low incomes who have no car. They cannot get to "competitively" priced rural supermarkets, which are not as low-cost as urban supermarkets. Nevertheless, for some, the car is so essential as a means of transport that other household essentials—I emphasise "essentials"—are forgone. I freely accept that car ownership in rural areas, even two cars, is not a luxury.
Transport problems in rural areas are so serious that they have a direct effect on health care. The McLaughlin study found that a higher proportion of the rural population had medical needs, yet compared to national equivalents they made less use of general medical services such as opticians and dentists, to name but two examples.
One in seven mothers living in rural areas do not attend baby clinics after giving birth. That must be a cause for concern, and it certainly was for those who wrote the report for the Maternity Alliance and the NFWI.
I briefly mentioned the forthcoming crisis, if there is not one already, for England's 8,500 village halls. Most of them—I think about 70 per cent.—are run as charities. Much depends on the location, but the potential for the extended use of those halls to help to create employment by using new technology and all the advances in communication, in addition to being used for committees, youth groups, playgroups, the elderly, doctors' surgeries, libraries and even post offices, is quite enormous. They are under pressure and will be snuffed out if we allow the European Community—these days, I support its general purposes—to impose VAT on charities from 1992. We have a major problem on our hands and a major threat to British rural life.
If we are serious about tackling deprivation and social isolation, which is prevalent, particularly of women in rural communities, who suffer from poor transport, we need action not only to secure and to improve existing facilities but to improve access to them by better transport. I receive enough complaints about the lack of buses in my heavily built up constituency, where the only blades of grass are in three or four public parks, but bus frequencies of more than 30 minutes are 77 per cent. in urban areas, but only 14 per cent. in rural areas. Bus frequencies of one per day or fewer are only 6 per cent. in urban areas but 62 per cent. in rural areas. We know that that causes massive problems for the millions of people who live in rural communities,
With transport—I do not put these in any order of importance because the people directly affected are aware of the importance of the problems—housing is by far the biggest problem in rural communities. I understand and share the concerns about development pressures and the environment, which must be addressed, but one in five of the population in England live in rural communities. That is millions of people and they are entitled to jobs, homes and a decent quality of life, but that is under attack because of the lack of "affordable" housing.
I well understand the changes in policy and emphasis, particularly through the Housing Corporation, but they
1394
are too slow. When I was shadow housing Minister—I took professional advice on this—I could see the sense in the geographical "rounding off" of villages and small towns with extra homes to stop sprawl. I was accused of wanting to build right across the south downs. However, as a result, I support Lord Vinson, the chair of the Rural Development Commission, who said recently that the housing needs of rural people would need, on average, only
"a handful of houses in every sizeable village".
Those homes must, of course, be affordable homes.
I want to illustrate the seriousness of the housing problem with two examples of real people. I do not intend to give the real names or locations. Barry and Judy, both in their 20s, started married life a couple of years ago in the third bedroom of Judy's parents' council home. They both come from old-established families in the village. They have been on the council list and have received no offers. Barry's ancestors are listed in the county records as farmers and his great-great-grandfather was a wheelwright—there may have been more than one all those years ago.
A cottage in the next village, just two miles away, came up for sale. It was two up and two down with no bathroom, and was priced at £30,000. They could just afford it if they both kept working. They started negotiations with the estate agent, but he advised the vendor to withdraw from the offer and to increase the price to £50,000. That was the end. Barry and Judy now live in a council flat seven miles away with no hope of returning to their local community.
My second example concerns Ian, the son of a farmer. He is getting married next year and wants no future other than to remain in his rural community and to work the land. He has no hope of a rented home in the area, so he wants to build a small bungalow on his father's farm. It will not be a mansion or an executive pile in the middle of a meadow, but a small bungalow set among the other buildings on the farm. The local community agrees that it would be a sensible thing to do, but permission to build there has been refused.
I began by saying—and I do not apologise for this—that I am an urban dweller and representative. I have no ready-made solutions to what I know are serious social and economic problems in rural areas. I know that part of the reason for the political neglect is that our current electoral system discourages the political parties from campaigning equally throughout the country. No one has ever contradicted me on that. It is a fact of life that in our system, votes cast in urban and rural areas do not have equal value in the link with elected representation.
The failure of rural communities to stop the closure of small schools and hospitals and to ensure that young adults can live in the same community as their families shows that under the present system the rural voice has no clout. However well intentioned the policies emanating from the centre—where most policies emanate—the people they affect remain without influence.
Most people—including myself—do not like change, but change happens whether we like it or not and we cannot opt out, wherever we live and whatever our position in society. The closure of a rural coalfield causes change to the rural community and that change is devastating and negative, especially if the closure is unplanned. Commuters moving into villages and taking them over, sometimes to stop others joining through new development, causes change. I read of an example

1395
yesterday in the midlands. One aspect of that change has been the closure of 20 per cent. of local banks and 100 post offices a year for several years. We must attend to the consequences of such change.
No one seeks a policy for rural communities that would turn villages into living museums. Those who visit the villages, those who have friends and relatives there and those who live there do not want such a policy. We require a policy that allows local communities greater control over their own lives than hitherto. We need active balanced communities for the next century, but if shops, schools and hospitals continue to close, and jobs to disappear, and if local people are forced to move away to find a home, there is no way that the problems of rural communities can be solved. Our urban-dominated nation should and must address those problems because they affect millions of people.
I gave my debate the title "The Problems of Rural Communities". I am humble enough to admit that I do not have the solutions. I hope that I have put the problems across positively, rather than negatively, but I admit that I have referred only to the problems and not to the solutions. I invite the Minister to reflect upon them.
2.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on securing the debate and on his choice of subject. He represents an urban constituency—a very urban constituency —but he clearly has a considerable knowledge of rural issues and has thought carefully about them. I was brought up in the country and I represent a rural constituency, so I value the opportunity to debate these matters and to explain how the Government are creating a framework with the dual objective of preserving an attractive rural environment while at the same time creating a healthy rural economy.
Before I go into detail, let me put the problems of rural areas into context. At the end of his speech, the hon. Member for Perry Barr said that change was constant. I agree with that. In the past 20 years or more, we have seen huge changes in Britain as a whole. Old traditional industries such as steel, coal and shipbuilding have declined somewhat and certainly shed labour. Agriculture, too, now employs fewer people. Those industries have been replaced by others—particularly in the service sector—which have grown up and now employ more people. The age profile of the population has also changed. We have more elderly and retired people, many of whom wish to retire away from their place of work. Our attitudes to home ownership have also changed and that has led in part to increases in house prices in some areas and the consequential difficulty for people living in villages in affording local housing.
These changes are not exclusive to rural areas; they are common to the economy as a whole. Rural areas are affected by the trend and they have their share of the problems, but in some areas the problems are no greater than those in other parts of the country, and in some they are less severe. Rural areas suffer some disadvantages. The hon. Gentleman touched on some of them, including greater distances and problems of access. But they can be
1396
compensated for, perhaps, by the fact that rural areas have fewer problems of overcrowding and environmental dereliction, which are probably more acute in urban areas.
I agree that there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding about rural issues. There is no such thing as a rural idyll. That is an illusion and perhaps the result of Britain being a urban society. Surprisingly few people have first-hand experience of the countryside. People do not understand the complex social and economic forces at work. The same is true of countryside issues; people often take a simplistic view of conservation and environmental matters. I therefore welcome any opportunity to increase mutual understanding between country and town. One of the reasons why I support greater access to the countryside is that it gives city dwellers an opportunity to get out and experience the countryside, to meet people in the countryside and to improve their knowledge and understanding of it.
I want to list some of the ways in which the Government are taking a range of steps to tackle some of the problems to which the hon. Member for Perry Barr referred. We are having some success, but we are keeping the situation under review. In an evolving and changing economy, new problems arise as old ones are solved or become less acute. We are certainly not working towards a two-tier rural society with well-heeled, middle-aged and elderly people in holiday and retirement homes while the rural poor are locked into poverty and poor housing.
We are aware of the dangers of creating such a stratum in our rural areas. However, to some extent, that would be a caricature. When I was elected, many people were concerned about our villages dying. It was said that young people would move away to the more exciting towns where recreational facilities were better. Now some people are expressing the opposite fear that our villages are being overwhelmed by people moving to them after retirement or using them simply as bases from which to commute. However, that is not a realistic picture and the issues are not polarised in that way.
Newcomers to villages are often essential. If we are worried about the fact that there are not enough people to keep the local post office open or about the village shop not having enough customers or the village school not having enough pupils, we must welcome newcomers. As the hon. Member for Perry Barr said so perceptively, we do not want to create or preserve living museums in our rural areas.
The Government are aware of the problem. Our main task in rural Britain is to encourage the enterprise of those who live and work in rural areas and to increase activity by the private sector. Another task is to make the best possible use of public money—which must always be limited—in the pursuit of those aims. We also want to make full use of the opportunities to influence others to use the money to the best ends by concentrating that money in areas with the greatest need. The picture is varied and not all areas suffer from the same problems.
In general, we want to create a climate in which small businesses can flourish. The Government act through legislation or by providing pump-priming finance. To do that we have set up and are funding a range of agencies. The chief agency in England, and the best known, is the Rural Development Commission, which is sponsored by my Department. It is the main agency for diversifying the rural economy.

1397
courseThe RDC's tasks are to highlight rural problems, to create a climate in which rural businesses and services can prosper and to initiate action to improve the economic and social development of rural areas. It achieves that by harnessing the voluntary and private sectors in the knowledge that the public sector cannot do everything on its own. Similar tasks are undertaken in Wales primarily by the Development Board for Rural Wales and the by the Welsh Development Agency. In Scotland, the Scottish Development Agency and the Highlands and Islands Development Board fulfil broadly similar functions.
Those agencies have achieved a great deal. For instance, the RDC estimates that it assisted in the creation or retention of some 3,900 job opportunities through its workshop programme in the financial year 1988–89. The Development Board for Rural Wales holds 474 factories and has sold a further 87. Together, they provide 8,500 jobs in rural Wales. Many other agencies also help to diversify the rural economy, by stimulating the flow of resources into more remote rural areas. They include the English and regional tourist boards, English Heritage, the Sports Council, the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council.
The hon. Gentleman talked with some knowledge about rural housing problems. Of course many people want, when they can, to buy rather than to rent a home. We have been very successful in giving council tenants the right to buy, and it would certainly be wrong if council tenants in rural areas were to be denied that opportunity. We are concerned to maintain the viability of rural communities. We recognise that affordable housing for local people to rent or buy has a key part to play. Our rural housing initiative, which was announced in July 1988, set out for the first time a specific policy on low-cost housing in smaller villages. Over the past two years we have introduced a series of measures to promote the provision of low-cost housing in rural areas.
We are increasing the level of investment in rural areas through housing associations, which have a major role to play in providing affordable housing both for rent and for low-cost sale, in particular through shared ownership. We have greatly increased the public funds available to the Housing Corporation, so enabling it to establish a special rural programme aimed at villages with a population of fewer than 1,000. When fully up and running, the programme should provide 1,500 homes a year for rent in small villages and 350 a year for low-cost sale.
We are introducing a scheme in some rural areas whereby housing associations can repurchase former shared ownership dwellings when the occupier moves on, thus ensuring their retention as low-cost housing. The Housing Corporation will guarantee to make the necessary funds available without reducing its rural rented or shared ownership programmes elsewhere.
Of course, public sector provision is not enough. We are also taking steps to encourage landowners and developers
1398
to help in providing affordable housing for local people. In particular, in February 1989 we announced changes to planning rules whereby local planning authorities may, in exceptional cases, release small pockets of land, not previously designated for housing, for low-cost schemes to meet local needs, subject to conditions that ensure that the houses remain available to local people.
Rural areas can also expect to benefit from the encouragement that we have given to private investment in the rented sector through deregulation and the tax incentives available under the business expansion scheme.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned health. General practitioners are the first line of health care. I remind the House that in England there are special rural practice payments for general practitioners when at least 10 per cent. of their patients in a rural area live four miles or more from the main surgery. In Scotland, there are similar provisions.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned maternity services. I understand that the clinical view is that women should be encouraged to have their babies born in hospital when possible. That must usually mean the larger and fully staffed consultant units of district general hospitals which can provide the full range of services, including those necessary in any emergency.
It is a trend of modern medicine to have larger units providing that full back-up, and hospitals of that size are inevitably located in urban areas, and it is not feasible to provide smaller community hospitals with the full range of staff and equipment. District and regional health authorities are alert to the problems experienced in rural areas, and they make provision for travelling and try to ensure that mothers living in rural areas nevertheless have proper access to such hospitals. In order to minimise the risk, provision is made so that during ante-natal care a woman who lives in an isolated area and is judged to be at risk from labour can be admitted to hospital before the expected date of confinement. I do not accept that the NHS is unresponsive to the needs of rural areas or that the standards of service that they receive are necessarily inferior to those provided in towns and cities.
We cannot expect public transport in sparsely populated rural areas to be as good as it is in towns and cities. Nevertheless, under the Transport Act 1985 we opened the way for operators to provide flexible bus services in rural areas on a commercial basis. When it is not possible to provide a service commercially, local authorities have continuing powers to subsidise such services. We have also introduced the rural transport development fund specifically to assist in the provision of rural bus services.
I am aware of some of the problems raised by the hon. Gentleman. We are not complacent about them. We are also aware that future changes will throw up new problems, and we are keeping the matter constantly under review. Our aim throughout is to protect the historic and valuable countryside that is our precious heritage, while providing excellent facilities and services for those who live and work in those areas.

Professional and Executive Emoluments
3 pm
Mr. Hugh Dykes: Mine is the last but not least of the Easter Adjournment topics. Perhaps I have the credit of having chosen the most obscure title. Hon. Members may wonder what the title is getting at. I hasten to add that the construction of the words in the title was not my own, quite rightly according to the usual procedure and custom. I wish to raise the question of top executive salaries that top directors of companies pay themselves and the need for them to show self-restraint.
I declare an interest in several business activities outside the House, which are listed clearly in the Register. I do not need to go into them in detail and take up the time of the House. I am second to none among my colleagues in being a champion of the virtues of free enterprise, good business, business success and commercial activity. I pay tribute to the way in which the Government have encouraged that by their philosophy and been successful since 1979 in bringing about a dramatic transformaton in business practices and attitudes, and in running companies. That has stood the country in good stead and achieved for it a considerable reputation abroad.
I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment for coming to the House for the last of these Easter Adjournment debates. I hope that I have not delayed him in going to his constituency. I am grateful to him for coming from the Department to give some answers to my comments.
It is apposite that this subject should be raised from the Conservative Benches because we have a record as a business-oriented party, and the Government espouse free enterprise. I have never been so partisan in politics that I believed that trade union reform could come only from the Conservative party and business reform only from the Labour party in a divided political society. I also pay tribute to the Government for the way in which they have taken side by side the reform of trade union abuses—particularly in the earlier years of this Government —with the need for companies to put their house in order and indulge in better practices, and for stronger legislation on directors' responsibilities. All the companies legislation in recent years has created the necessary balance.
It is particularly interesting and relevant to raise this matter on the Conservative Benches because of growing anxieties about the excessive amounts that some chief executives, chairmen, managing directors and leading executives of companies pay themselves. I deliberately say "some" because of the way in which mechanisms work on company boards of directors and the generally welcome and impressive self-restraint that most directors have displayed, particularly those in charge of fixing their own emoluments.
I have noticed that, in recent years in particular, that has become a matter of great concern to the Government. I remember my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's dramatic response to complaints about the excessive remuneration—if that is a fair phrase—of, for example, the chairman of British Airways. She specifically referred to that before Christmas in a notable utterance.
In the past few years there have been an increasing number of comments in the press and in journals rather than in the House. That is one reason why I am raising the
1400
matter today. There have some references to it in the House, but only usually from the more stakhanovite Labour Members on the Bench below the Gangway.
Many recent press articles, which I shall not quote because of the lack of time, have shown the growing concern about the subject. On 1 July 1989 The Guardian had an article entitled "How Britain's bosses are taking the rise", with details of the huge pay increases of top executives, chief executives and so on, in the largest 100 companies. On 23 July 1989, a newspaper well known for its support for private enterprise and the free market, The Sunday Times, had an article entitled, "How bosses justify £534,000 a year". It compared the salaries of the 30 highest-paid executives in Britain with the performance of their companies measured by profits and the change in earnings per share.
We know that highly paid executives, to some extent with justification, justify large salaries in terms of what they describe as the international demand for their expertise, but that is often more imagined than real. I do not detect an enormous international movement of senior executives all over the world according to the exact scientific market measurement of the best emolument and remuneration.
There is a growing abuse whereby directors and chief executives give themselves large contracts of three, four or five years at the outset of their tenure of office, or when they are threatened by a takeover bid, so that if the worst comes to the worst and they are ousted, by whatever means it might be, they know that they will be protected. That produces acid comments on the shop floor among junior management executives, the public and the admittedly rather docile shareholders who seem to be the norm even in our large plcs.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran) who was one of the first of our colleagues to express anxiety about the matter. He asked the Chancellor whether he agreed that British management must continue to resist excessive wage claims and ensure also that their own snouts are not too deeply in the pay trough. The Chancellor rightly replied that he would not put the second part of my hon. Friend's question in precisely that way, but he would agree with the underlying sentiment. Similar references have also been made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others.
On 19 January 1990, The Times referred to the salary of Sir Ralph Halpern, which came under fire from shareholders at the annual meeting. It referred to the fact that, once the company's profits and turnover had begun to turn down in the current recession, an additional undisclosed payment was made to Sir Ralph Halpern as the head of the Burton group, which he did not even have to reveal to shareholders. We see the difficulties that arise when shareholders assert themselves only when it is too late and the company faces a grave crisis.
We should move to a system under which such contract arrangements are established only after a chief executive, managing director, or executive chairman, has begun his or her successful remodelling or expansion of the company, rather than from day one in any given period, usually fixed—a disturbing phenomenon of modern times—through the rather phoney mechanism whereby the so-called independent sub-committee of non-executive directors on the board fix the salary of the leading

1401
executive directors. Sometimes—surprise, surprise—I then notice from the annual report that those non-executive directors have an increase in their fees.
The public are not fools and they will not be beguiled too easily into thinking that such increases are right. They compare them with the Government's fully justified exhortations to wage earners of one kind or another—including Members of Parliament—to show restraint by not making too heavy a wage claim. There is a big difference between one highly paid individual running a company with his team of directors and managers, and large numbers of the work force. The difference between the two is self-evident, but in a society that not only takes pride in the net, proven results of economic success that we hope to develop further in the future but bears some semblance still to being one nation, with fairness, balance and self-restraint by those in a position to fix their own rewards, there is a need for the Government to take a growing interest.
That is easy to say, but it is much harder in a free enterprise society and free market country to determine how the Government should involve themselves other than by exhortation. I make no apology for saying that there is no magic answer, particularly for an Administration who believe that it is not the place of Government to intervene in private matters.
The Government deliberately promote all kinds of specific and sometimes esoteric savings mechanisms and a commercial climate that encourages personal success and incentives. Above all, they have helped the higher-paid in society by reducing income tax. Those are all spectacular achievements, and the Government are entitled to ask senior executives of large companies and of publicly quoted plcs answerable to their shareholders, both institutional and private, to show self-restraint.
Earlier, I referred to the attack made on Lord King of Watnaby, who received a 116 per cent. pay rise in 1989, with the consequence that he was confronted by angry shareholders at the British Airways annual general meeting in the Barbican. It was asked whether the turnround by British Airways justified a doubling of Lord King's salary. An article in The Sunday Times of 23 July 1989 asked:
"what sort of example does it set for the British workforce as it is being asked to accept wage increases in single figures? BA justifies the increases on the grounds that King's salary only puts him on par with his opposite numbers in American airlines".
Again, there is the conundrum of international salary comparisons, which in reality is somewhat exaggerated.
The example of self-restraint set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is regarded by many people as being unfair on herself. She is perceived as very underpaid. She has a very modest salary by comparison with the huge incomes earned today that I could quote were sufficient time available.
What else can the Government do apart from set good examples of that kind? It is important for them to take an active role in pronouncing on such matters, even if they take no direct action in terms of imposing pay restraint, be it institutional or legislative. That would be totally alien to our philosophy as a Government, and I am not suggesting it as a solution.
1402
However, Government utterances can be an important influence. When there are examples of huge increases of £1 million-plus for some directors of leading plcs capitalised at more than several hundred million pounds, or for directors who have run their companies into the ground but continue to receive huge payments while everyone else is suffering or being made redundant, the Government have a role to play in making their views known.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the importance of monitoring statements, and so on, from his Department from time to time. If the Department merely exhorts wage earners to show restraint when making claims for higher pay, be it in the public or private sector, and does not pay attention to practices that create envy and jealousy among the lower-paid in society, it can unwittingly and innocently serve as an agent in the creation of an unfair society.
The lower income tax introduced by the Government means that the need for wage restraint among executives of leading public and quoted companies is even stronger. I pay tribute to the notable restraint shown by a number of chief executives, such as Lord Weinstock of GEC. Above all, it is important that the Government, the City, and others encourage shareholders not to remain docile but to be difficult and demanding.
I particularly call upon institutions in the City to show that they intend to play an active role in those matters, not only the matter of excessive pay levels manifested here and there and in quite a few other companies, but in these unwelcome contract developments which seem frequently to be a development of our commercial and industrial society.
I deliberately conclude my remarks—and once again I thank my hon. Friend for coming to answer the debate—by paying tribute to the number of exceptions which, if time had allowed, I would have mentioned in detail. I shall not do so today, for obvious reasons.
A total contrast is shown in Japan, which is the most successful economic system in the world, where 110 million people are creating a giant, highly successful, high-technology exporting economy and commercial system. It is interesting for us to consider the remuneration figures of the chief executives of Japanese companies which are successful worldwide. With a number of small exceptions, and not allowing for the separate question of perks and emoluments of a non-financial type, almost exclusively the picture is one of considerable restraint. The ratios are between six and 10 times the wages and salaries paid to management trainees on entry into those huge Japanese enterprises which export worldwide—and if we think of all those famous Japanese names, in almost all cases that is true—unlike the ratios of between 20 and 50 times that we find in this country, where chief executives pay themselves £1 million in comparison with a manager who may earn £40,000 for a senior executive post.
Although we accept the natural effect of inequalities in our society, and although we believe that it is part and parcel of what we hope will be a continuing economic success, we have to consider the other side of the coin, which is the Government's obligation to create a healthy economy and a moral economy. I hope I say that without showing any naivety or indulging in excessive wishful thinking. I think that the two can go together. We can create a fair society where the person on the shop floor

1403
feels part of the team and identifies with the chief executive and does not regard him as an overpaid prince of industrial and commercial society.
3.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Patrick Nicholls): I acquit my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) of having caused me any inconvenience by requiring me to be in the House today. I accept that the subject which he has chosen for debate is perhaps not debated often enough, and, even though the House is not entirely packed on this occasion, my hon. Friend knows that Adjournment debates often receive wider attention when they are printed in Hansard.
Before I turn to specifics, I should like to make some general observations. Few subjects in industrial relations generally generate more heat—and less light—than senior executives' pay. It is, unfortunately, all too easy for some commentators to act as though the factors which determine the pay of senior professional and executive staff are in some way different from those which determine the pay of all other workers. That is just not the case.
The plain—and no doubt to some unpalatable—truth is that the pay of all workers is determined ultimately by the interaction of supply and demand. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said on a number of occasions that the determination of pay levels and remuneration packages has to be a matter for the companies concerned and their employees. When arriving at those determinations—usually, although by no means always through the mechanism of collective bargaining—firms should ob-viously take into account four cardinal principles: affordability, or their ability to pay; the need to recruit staff; the need to retain staff; and the need to motivate staff.
For firms in the private sector, particularly those providing internationally traded goods and services, it does not make any sense to give—or to allow themselves to be forced to concede—wage and salary increases which, after taking associated productivity gains and investment needs into account, make them uncompetitive in the marketplace. To do so will spell, sooner or later. the decline and ultimately the demise of the firm. And of course that means the loss of jobs.
The second cardinal principle is the need to recruit staff, and it is the individual firm which is best placed to assess the conditions in the labour markets in which it operates. Only it, therefore, can know what type of staff it needs, in what numbers, and with what qualifications. Only it can assess what salaries it needs to provide to attract them.
Simply to recruit staff is not enough; they have to be retained, or the firm will face continual disruption as its staff turns over, as continuity and experience are lost and as the considerable costs of training and recruitment have to be incurred over and over again, with little return in terms of high quality and reliable production and service to customers. Remuneration packages—pay, hours and other conditions and benefits—are a major means of retaining staff. That is the third cardinal principle.
The fourth is the motivation of staff. In one sense, it is perhaps the most important of all. Staff who lack motivation and commitment cannot provide the basis for a successful and competitive enterprise which is capable of surmounting the challenges of the marketplace.
1404
Remuneration levels and conditions of service, such as holiday entitlement and hours of work, can be a powerful motivating force, if used imaginatively. Those principles apply just as much to the managing director as to the process operator, the chief executive and the delivery driver.
To try to build a ring fence around the upper management and to claim thereby that they are either more or less important than any other worker simply ignores the fact that a company's success is built on everyone in it, from the top down and the bottom up. Everyone has to be recruited, retained, motivated and rewarded.
So what are the Government's views on this crucial interaction between the individual and the firm for which he or she works? As my hon. Friend anticipates and, I think, agrees, the Government believe that pay has to be a matter for those who negotiate and determine it. We saw only too starkly between 1975 and 1979 what happens when Governments attempt rigidly to control incomes. Job-destroying economic distortions are introduced; spurious productivity deals are cobbled together; and industrial relations are harmed. Above all, the policy fails to deliver the goods: the long-term rate of growth in incomes is not moderated. None of us, therefore, would wish to return to those bad old days.
Companies, however, need the best management available. In sectors where managers are internationally mobile, their remuneration needs to be competitive, at least to some extent, internationally. It is not for the Government to decide what is or is not an appropriate remuneration for key managerial jobs. The Government have never tried to defend, nor will they now, wage or salary increases that are unjustifiable, either for management or for the work force as a whole.
The justification for pay increases for chief executives and managing directors are affordability and the need to recruit and retain appropriate talent. It is a matter entirely between companies and their shareholders how that is done. No Government can judge what damage would be done to a company's prospects by the loss of key staff who were the architects of its corporate strategy.
To turn to more specific issues, I must first remark that, typically, directors' and management salaries show extremely wide variations, depending on the size of the business, its profitability and turnover. According to a recently published survey, United Kingdom managing directors' salaries range from about £30,000 a year upwards. The average chief executive's pay in the United Kingdom is £62,820 which, according to a recent survey, is considerably lower than the average in West Germany, France and Switzerland.
It is fruitless and distorting to quote but not qualify the widely known salaries of a very few key individuals as proof that, across the board, our managing directors are overpaying themselves. We rank seventh in a recently published international league table of chief executives' remuneration, when all benefits are taken into account. On these figures we should not criticise ourselves for paying, as a general rule, overly high salaries. It may be that we are actually underpaying some key players in the fight for greater business efficiency, enterprise and trading success.
It might be worth saying a word or two about non-pay benefits. They, too, are part of the remuneration package. Contrary to popular belief, the company car, medical insurance, help with the house buying, share purchase or

1405
option schemes and performance bonuses are no longer the sole preserve of the company chairman and the board member. These benefits are spreading extensively to more junior employees, to smaller companies and to many more sectors of industry and commerce, including parts of the public sector. The wider spread of those elements is attributable to their effectiveness in recruiting key staff at all levels.
We must also take into account the fact that calculating meaningful average annual increases for this particular group is difficult. Recently, three respected management consultancies came up with quite different answers to the question: by how much have directors' and managment salaries increased over the last year? One answer was 9·7 per cent., one was 11·4 per cent. and one was a massive 27·8 per cent.
I suspect that consistent, clear and accurate figures will be well-nigh impossible to obtain because of the extremely high variability within the group, and the fact that a tiny minority of very high increases will seriously distort the average figures. Be that as it may, and accepting that any figures likely to be bandied about should be treated with the greatest scepticism, we must also take into account the fact that, while some directors are highly rewarded, many of them also suffer cuts in remuneration when their businesses run into difficulty. In 1988–89, for instance, directors' total pay fell in four major companies by 18·1 per cent. 32·9 per cent. 11·1 per cent. and 21·1 per cent.
Many directors and chief executives are much more directly exposed than their work forces to fluctuations in the performance of their companies. Therefore, I agree with the remarks that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made in the House on a number of occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East usefully drew attention to that.
Because time is short, I shall not quote any of those remarks at length, but when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he said:
"I have never justified wage or salary increases that are unjustifiable, and I do not do so now. It is not, however, for me to determine what is or is not justifiable in that respect." —[Official Report, 8 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 352.]
It must be accepted that the right salaries are not automatically synonymous with accepting unrealistically low salaries to satisfy the complaints from some hon. Members—not my hon. Friend—who believe that anyone earning more than they do has something to answer for.
Setting a good example must involve demonstrating real leadership; high levels of commitment to the company, at times with considerable cost to family life; high levels of expertise and experience; an enterprising and vigorous approach to expansion; a willingness to embrace change; and the continuous striving for more efficient business practices. All those valuable characteristics deserve appropriate reward, but it must be up to the businesses themselves to judge what they can afford to pay their key executives.
Paying an executive less than what is needed to recruit, retain and motivate, merely to counter some of the
1406
objections that might be made by others, simply will not set a good example. In the final analysis it might set a thoroughly bad one. It is as distorting to the internal economy of a business to pay chief executives too little as to pay them too much. It might be distorting to the point of disaster if the Government were to interfere directly with those crucial decisions. By paying too little, important skills and talents will be lost. Just as much for the work force, the need to recruit and retain good management is absolutely essential for business success.
My hon. Friend and I probably agree far more than we disagree. However, I should like to mention two points. My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of my Department conducting monitoring statements and said that it was easier to identify irresponsibility than to know how to deal with it. I have tried to give examples of some of the sources that are available to us. There is obviously a fair degree of variation, even on what commentators say. The only point that would trouble me about any formalised monitoring is that it would be difficult to know whether one was getting a comprehensive picture.
It is even more fundamental that, if one found that there had been a steady or perhaps dramatic increase in particular directors' salaries, knowing that in a formalised way would not enable my Department or any of my hon. Friends to say that those increases must have been unjustified merely because they were at such a level. It would not be possible to go so far.
I accept that that would be a more difficult argument for my hon. Friend and me than for the Opposition, who would take a more traditional and formalised attitude. It is difficult for us to debate the matters in the context of a society which my hon. Friend said should be economically and morally healty.
The problem with trying to lead by example is that those whom we expect to be impressed by our example are not impressed at all. I am sure that my hon. Friend, like me, will sometimes have been attacked at public meetings on the subject of the salaries of Members of Parliament. When I compare them with those of, for instance, civil servants or the senior chef in the Members' Dining Room, and point out that we have exercised considerable restraint over the years, my words are usually greeted with hoots of derision, the implication being that a Member of Parliament who is paid £24,000 a year is grossly overpaid. People's attitude is that, if they only had the time, they could do our job more effectively. I do not know whether that solves the conundrum, but at least it means that I can finish on a note that unites my hon. Friend and me.
I value the opportunity to consider the subject that my hon. Friend has raised and—I hope—to respond to some of his concerns.
Mr. Speaker: Before I adjourn the House, may I wish hon. Members and our officials and staff a very happy Easter recess?
It being half-past Three O'clock, MR. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order [27 March] and the Resolution [16 March] till Wednesday 18 April.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  First Aid
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many staff in the House of Commons have first aid or medical training; how many of these staff are available in the case of accidents; and where these staff are located.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Fifty members of staff of the House, 127 police officers, 108 security officers and 12 members of the fire section are trained in first aid including resuscitation techniques. Quotas of staff from all Departments of the House have been agreed bearing in mind the need to provide cover in the outbuildings as well as having first aiders available by day and night. Their location is shown in the green page supplement in the front of the Palace of Westminster telephone directory.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what first aid provision is provided by the House; what form this takes; where such provision is located; and what first aid information is made available to the staff who work in the House and its outbuildings.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  Details of first aid provision and procedures to be followed in an emergency are contained in the leaflet "Medical Facilities and First Aid in the Palace of Westminster and in the Parliamentary Outbuildings" issued jointly by the Serjeant at Arms and Black Rod. I am arranging for a copy to be sent to the hon. Gentleman. Notices indicating the location of first aiders and first aid boxes are displayed in the Palace of Westminster and outbuildings, and details of first aid and medical facilities are given in appendix D of the staff handbook which is issued to all members of staff.

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  (a) Palace of Westminster-reported accidents

  Members

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  3

  —

  1

  2

  Members' staff

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  —

  1

  1

  2

  Administration department's staff

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Refreshment department's staff

  15

  44

  26

  34

  47

  29

  31

  20

  25

  66

  Other departments' staff

  n.a.

  19

  13

  11

  9

  13

  14

  7

  7

  19

  Outside contractors

  n.a.

  2

  3

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  General public

  n.a.

  22

  29

  20

  22

  35

  18

  14

  8

  12

  (b) Parliamentary outbuildings—reported accidents

  Members

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Members' staff

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1

  3

  —

  1

  —

  Administration department's staff

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  2

  8

  1

  —

  —

  4

  2

  Refreshment department's staff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other departments' staff

  n.a.

  1

  1

  2

  3

  2

  2

  2

  —

  1

  Outside contractors

  n.a.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  General public

  n.a.

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  n.a. = Not available.

  The number of people in each category are:

  Toilets
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many toilets are provided(a) in the House and (b) in each of its outbuildings, (i) for women and (ii) for men; and if he will estimate separately the number of women and the number of men who work in these buildings with easy access to these toilet facilities.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of Lavatories

  Location

  Male

  Female

  Mixed

  Disabled

  Palace of Westminster (Commons Area)

  55

  34

  7

  1

  Norman Shaw North

  11

  9

  —

  1

  Norman Shaw South

  9

  8

  3

  —

  St. Stephens House

  8

  8

  5

  —

  1 Canon Row

  8

  7

  —

  1

  3 Deans Yard

  5

  7

  —

  —

  6-7 Old Palace Yard

  2

  2

  1

  —

  2 The Abbey Garden

  3

  4

  —

  —

  I regret that an estimate of the numbers of women and men with access to these facilities could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Accidents
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will state the number of reported accidents in(a) the Palace of Westminster and (b) its outbuildings for each year over the last 10 years for (i) hon. Members, (ii) hon. Members' staff, (iii) staff employed by the House in administration, (iv) staff employed by the House in catering, (v) staff employed by the House for other services, (vi) outside contractors and (vii) members of the general public; how many people work at the House and its outbuildings in each category; and what is the number of visitors from the general public each year.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The information requested is as follows:
  715

  Number

  Members

  649

  Members' Staff

  n/a

  Administration Department Staff

  94

  Refreshment Department Staff

  261

  Other Departmental Staff

  652

  Outside Contractors

  n/a

  Members of the General Public

  1

  1 See following table.

  The estimated number of visitors were:

  Line of Route

  Public Galleries

  1981

  287,700

  167,655

  1982

  98,639

  186,112

  1983

  103,375

  140,100

  1984

  134,332

  173,733

  1985

  140,390

  170,371

  1986

  118,304

  163,802

  1987

  112,176

  147,439

  1988

  128,084

  176,048

  1989

  115,312

  179,345

  Written Answers (Cost)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what is the current average cost of providing a written parliamentary answer.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The average cost is currently £54.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  European Commission Budget
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total net contribution to the European Commission budget made in the latest available year by(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the Federal Republic of Germany, (c) France and (d) Italy.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 22 March 1990 at columns 687-88.

  £ million

  (Principal and interest)

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Fixed-interest issues

  1 to 6 and conversion

  4·37

  4·05

  3·77

  3·44

  7

  25·12

  24·41

  22·89

  20·63

  £

  1·67

  1·64

  1·55

  1·39

  8

  12·82

  12·32

  11·14

  9·49

  9

  39·71

  38·59

  35·10

  30·03

  10

  93·38

  90·02

  79·99

  66·66

  11

  38·20

  36·56

  31·43

  25·44

  12

  153·11

  148·01

  126·55

  102·92

  Decimal

  316·04

  313·38

  279·13

  242·78

  14

  801·30

  749·18

  547·18

  388·34

  16

  430·39

  405·97

  288·66

  187·11

  18

  496·68

  459·82

  324·64

  218·33

  19

  784·12

  1,899·07

  1,145·74

  693·94

  21

  —

  283·24

  200·43

  132·67

  23

  —

  333·92

  696·82

  407·08

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency
  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have for the future of the Treasury's Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency.

  Mr. Ryder
  Following a review last year of CCTA's role, activities and organisation, the Government have decided that there continues to be a need, centrally within the Government, to provide and co-ordinate IT services and advice for Departments, both individually and collectively, and to help formulate Government policies on IT. CCTA will continue to discharge these functions as part of the Treasury.

  CCTA will be looking to make more use of the private sector in the development and maintenance of its own services and will focus its efforts on activities which the private sector cannot or is unwilling to undertake or where CCTA can add significantly greater value for money. CCTA will also increase its monitoring of the effectiveness and quality of products and services provided by the private sector to the Government.

  The latest decisions call in addition for a package of management reforms at CCTA encompassing:

  (i) improved services to customers,

  (ii) new management accounting systems, output and performance indicators,

  (iii) more systematic charging for direct services to Departments, and

  (iv) improved corporate and strategic planning.

  A new advisory board will be established under Treasury chairmanship to advise the Treasury's senior management on the scale and broad composition of CCTA's forward work programme.

  Copies of the management summary of the review and of the detailed decisions on it are being placed in the Library.

  National Savings
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total value of the holdings of each issue of national savings certificates for the last five years which have remained unencashed for more than a year after their maturity date.

  Mr. Ryder
  The estimated total value of the holdings of each issue of national savings certificates which have remained unencashed for more than a year after their maturity date was as follows at 31 December in each of the last four years. Figures for 1985 are not available.
  717

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  24

  —

  —

  466·42

  254·36

  25

  —

  —

  90·78

  315·04

  26

  —

  —

  —

  206·93

  TOTAL FIXED-INTEREST

  3,196·91

  4,800·18

  4,352·85

  3,306·58

  Index-linked issues

  Retirement

  1,056·62

  975·65

  843·99

  709·55

  Second

  253·85

  1,158·09

  1,575·96

  1,460·28

  TOTAL INDEX-LINKED

  1,310·47

  2,133·74

  2,419·95

  2,169·83

  TOTAL ALL ISSUES

  4,507·38

  6,933·92

  6,772·80

  5,476·41

  Wales (Official Visits)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the dates on which he has made an official visit to Wales since his appointment to his present post.

  Mr. Major
  I have not visited Wales since taking up my present post. I intend, however, to visit Wales in July of this year.

  German Monetary Union
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the implications for the British economy of German monetary union.

  Mr. Ryder
  The main implications of German monetary union for the British economy will be through its impact on world trade flows, an assessment of which was contained in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1990–91."

  Income Tax
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the individuals who, in the fiscal year 1989–90, were subject to the composite rate tax, would, if the Budget proposals for its abolition had been in force, have paid(a) income tax at the basic rate and (b) no income tax.

  Mr. Major
  About 75 per cent. of individuals with composite rate income would have been liable to pay at least some tax at basic rate, and about 25 per cent. would not have been liable to pay any. Wives with composite rate income have been included as taxpayers or non-taxpayers according to the liability of their husbands.

  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much income tax rates would need to be increased to fully meet an increase in Government expenditure in 1990–91 of 17½ per cent.; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  Assuming that it were all financed by income tax, a 17½ per cent. increase in general Government expenditure would require a rise in the basic rate of 13p.

  Merchant Shipping
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what investment incentives he intends to introduce to stop United Kingdom shipping companies flagging abroad; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what measures he intends to introduce to enable United Kingdom shipping companies to maintain their merchant fleets and crews.
  718
  Mr. Lilley
  We have already introduced a number of measures to help United Kingdom shipping companies in recent years. These have included the relaxation of the rules governing a seafarer's eligibility for the 100 per cent. foreign earnings deduction, and the extension of the business expansion scheme to ship chartering companies.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will extend for United Kingdom shipping companies, the maximum charter period permitted for BES ship schemes to five years.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will improve the terms for United Kingdom shipping companies, for roll-over relief for corporation tax on profits from ship sales.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. When a ship is sold, the present system ensures that tax relief is recovered where the depreciation allowed exceeds that actually incurred over the period of ownership.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reinstate for United Kingdom shipping companies for a period of five years, free depreciation, 100 per cent. ship allowance, against investment in new and second-hand ships.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. The present capital allowances regime is already more generous for ships than commercial depreciation.

  Married Man's Allowance
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total cost to the revenue of the married man's allowance in the 1989–90 financial year.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer my hon. Friend to "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93", chapter 21, appendix F.

  Charities
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received concerning his proposals relating to covenants to benefit charities.

  Mr. Lilley
  The whole Budget package for charities has been warmly welcomed. In response to requests, the Inland Revenue has issued some 1,350 copies of the guidance, first published on Budget day, to help charities and individuals making charitable covenants to get them right for tax.

  British Telecom
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to sell off to the public the Government's shareholding in British Telecom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend continues to keep the timing of a sale under review in the light of market conditions and the other priorities for the privatisation programme.

THE ARTS

  "The Three Graces"
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what consideration he has given to the bid for "The Three Graces" from the Scottish national gallery.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: I am aware of the interest shown by the National Galleries of Scotland and also that the gallery is prepared to commit £1 million from its purchase grant towards the purchase of "The Three Graces". I am also aware of the considerable expense and effort which the Victoria and Albert museum has put into its public appeal. It is for these institutions to decide in which way it would be appropriate for them to conduct their fund-raising efforts.

TRANSPORT

  Motor Vehicle Licences
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish for each post office district in England and Wales(a) the number of post offices currently issuing motor vehicle licences and (b) any planned increases in the number of post offices issuing motor vehicle licences.

  Mr. Portillo
  The number of post offices issuing vehicle excise licences in each post office district in England and Wales is currently as follows:

  Post office district

  Number of offices

  Newcastle

  138

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  129

  Leeds

  144

  Liverpool

  80

  Manchester

  128

  Sheffield

  137

  North Midlands

  127

  Birmingham and Coventry

  80

  South and West Midlands

  113

  Bristol

  132

  Wessex

  138

  Devon and Cornwall

  183

  East Midlands

  120

  Norwich

  141

  Oxford

  113

  Colchester

  117

  Aldershot

  132

  Hastings

  117

  Brighton

  93

  London North

  79

  London Central

  43

  London Western

  90

  London Eastern

  69

  London South West

  91

  720

  Post office district

  Number of offices

  London South East

  95

  North and Mid Wales and Marches

  166

  South Wales

  162

  Grand total

  3,157

  Any increase in the number of the licensing post offices increases the charges made by Post Office Counters to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The possibility of a further extension is, however, currently being examined with the Post Office. Any changes in the licensing network that result will be given full publicity.

  Daylight Saving
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effects on the totals of road casualties if the clocks were advanced by one hour throughout the year.

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 35 of the Government's Green Paper, Cmd. 722, where estimates of 813 killed and seriously injured and 2,060 total casualties saved are given. Copies of the Green Paper are in the Library of the House.

  Road Improvements, North Devon
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress in road improvements and bridge building of the Barnstaple downstream bridge and the Aller Cross to Blackmore Gate road.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Barnstaple downstream bridge scheme and improvements to the Aller Cross to Blackmore Gate road are the responsibility of the local highway authority, Devon county council.

  Roads (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many objections, petitions and letters of support were received for each of the London assessment studies between 15 December 1989 and 28 February.

  Mr. Portillo
  An analysis of the responses will be published shortly.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation methods will apply before he lays regulations concerning the introduction of red routes in London.

  Mr. Portillo
  There will be further detailed consultations on the proposals in "Traffic in London". Over the coming months there will be specific local consultations with the authorities and representatives of the residents and traders concerned in the proposed red routes pilot scheme.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what consultations he proposes before making detailed proposals concerning the widening of the A1 at Archway island and Highbury corner;

  (2) what meetings he plans to have with the local authority, local businesses and local community groups concerning the improvements to the A1 at Archway and Highbury corner.
  721
  Mr. Portillo
  It is too soon to announce the timetable and arrangements for taking forward the road proposals arising from the assessment studies.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers the London Traffic Commissioner will have; and when he expects to make an appointment.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) on 4 April.

  Railways (Electrification)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a table giving the percentage of total route miles of railway passenger services electrified in the United Kingdom and in each of the other EEC states.

  Mr. Portillo
  At present, 27 per cent. of British Rail's total route miles are electrified. Equivalent percentage figures for other EEC countries are as follows:

  Percentage

  Belgium

  60·0

  Denmark

  7·5

  France

  34·0

  Germany

  42·0

  Greece

  0·0

  Ireland

  2·0

  Italy

  57·0

  Luxembourg

  60·0

  Netherlands

  65·0

  Portugal

  13·0

  Spain

  49·0

  Figures for total route miles of passenger services only which are electrified are not available.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he is giving to giving loan sanction to West Yorkshire passenger transport authority, over several years, to finance the electrification of routes between Bradford and Leeds and along the Aire valley; and whether the scheme satisfies his financial criteria for such investment.

  Mr. Portillo
  The West Yorkshire passenger transport executive has put a case to the Department, and discussions are taking place. More details are needed before any decision can be taken.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals from British Rail he is considering to ensure a continuous programme of electrification on British Rail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail's 1989 corporate plan includes electrification of the following lines: Portsmouth-Southampton; Cambridge-King's Lynn; Heathrow Express to Paddington; Manchester international airport link; Birmingham cross-city line; Hooton-Chester to Ellesmere Port; and the east coast main line. It is for British Rail to come forward with any further proposals for electrification which would satisfy its normal investment criteria.

  Rail Pollution
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the amount of atmospheric pollutants produced by(a) electric traction for railways and (b) diesel traction; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Figures on atmospheric pollution directly attributable to United Kingdom railways are available in the 1989 digest of environmental protection and water statistics, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Traffic (Leeds-Bradford)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has for the reduction of traffic congestion between Leeds and Bradford and along the Aire valley which can be brought fully into operation within three years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  Work on the A650 Drighlington bypass to the south-west of Leeds is due to start on 23 April 1990. The 4 km long single carriageway road is expected to be complete in early 1992 and will relieve traffic congestion on the A650 trunk road through Drighlington and Adwalton particularly at the A58 Whitehall road junction.

  The Department has four further schemes in the national road programme to improve the trunk road between Bradford and Skipton in the Aire valley. These are the A629 Skipton-Kildwick improvement, the A650 Hard Ings road, Keighley, the A650 Airedale route section 3—Crossflatts to Cottingley Bar—and the Shipley eastern bypass.

  Haulage Licences
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what guidance is given by his Department to highway authorities for granting operators' licences to private hauliers in respect of examinations of the suitability of access routes to the applicant's proposed depot.

  Mr. Portillo
  Consideration of applications for goods vehicle operator licences is the responsibility of local independent licensing authorities. Local highway authorities have a right of objection to such applications. It is for the highway authority concerned to consider what action, if any, should be taken, using its traffic regulations powers, in respect of traffic generated by a goods vehicle operating centre.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of persons who have died in road accidents for every year since 1979 and for the first three months of 1990.

  Mr. Portillo
  The information is as follows:

  Number of persons killed in road accidents in Great Britain 1979 to 1989

  Numbers

  1979

  6,352

  1980

  6,010

  1981

  5,8461

  1982

  5,934

  723

  Numbers

  1983

  5,445

  1984

  5,599

  1985

  5,165

  1986

  5,382

  1987

  5,125

  1988

  5,052

  1989

  15,230

  1 Provisional.

  Figures for the first three months of 1990 are not yet available.

  River Tyne (Road Bridge)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to build a new road bridge across the River Tyne between the Newcastle upon Tyne, East parliamentary constituency and Gateshead.

  Mr. Portillo
  No, but I am aware that a cross-Tyne study is being undertaken by the local authorities in Tyne and Wear to consider traffic capacity across the River Tyne.

  Newcastle Quayside Development
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what impact the Tyneside urban development corporation's proposed east Newcastle quayside development project will have on east-west and north-south traffic flows in Newcastle upon Tyne.

  Mr. Portillo
  The traffic implications of the proposed quayside development are a matter for discussion between the city council and the corporation. There are no trunk roads involved.

  Safety at Sea
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the "Study into Hours of Work: Fatigue and Safety at Sea" produced by the Medical Research Council in December 1989 and subsequently submitted to his Department.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Professor Ivan Brown's report on his study into hours of work, fatigue and safety at sea was forwarded to representative organisations on 2 February for comment. All comments received will be taken into account before any decision is made on what further action, if any, is appropriate.

  Second Severn Crossing
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, in the new legislation to provide for the second Severn crossing, he will ensure that the toll concession for the disabled remains as on the existing bridge.

  Mr. Portillo
  I intend to propose in any new legislation that disabled people should continue to be exempt from tolls.

  Blind People
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce within the United Kingdom a provision to enable registered blind persons to take with them a non-paying companion on rail journeys; and if he will make a statement.
  724
  Mr. Portillo
  Local authorities in Great Britain outside London already have discretion to offer travel concessions on local public transport, including free travel, to the companion of a blind person who requires his assistance in order to travel.

  A5 (Nuclear Waste)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has on the transport of nuclear waste products along the A5.

  Mr. Portillo
  The Department does not collect information of this kind.

  Shipping
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the balance of payments in shipping in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The overall balance of the sea transport account is as follows:

  £ million

  1979

  +38

  1980

  +14

  1981

  -190

  1982

  -437

  1983

  -778

  1984

  -594

  1985

  -456

  1986

  -471

  1987

  -594

  1988

  -593

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Appeals
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General whether there are any plans to increase the number of staff at the Court of Appeal criminal division.

  The Attorney-General
  Yes; there are plans to make a small increase in staff in order to take account of the projected increase in work.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what is the average length of time that an appeal(a) against conviction and (b) against sentence currently waits to be heard by the Court of Appeal criminal division;

  (2) what is the average length of time that an expedited appeal (a) against conviction and (b) against sentence waits to be heard by the Court of Appeal criminal division.

  The Attorney-General
  A total of 32·3 per cent. of appeals against conviction are ready for hearing within six months of receipt of notice of appeal in the criminal appeal office and 84·3 per cent. are ready within 12 months. Thirty per cent. of appeals against sentence are ready for hearing within three months of receipt of notice of appeal and 65·2 per cent. are ready within six months. The time taken for an appeal to be heard is governed in part by the amount of preparatory work involved, and in trying to list cases with the minimum of delay the Registrar of Criminal Appeals must ensure that counsel and solicitors acting for each appellant have adequate time to prepare their cases. Where delays in listing appeals do occur they tend to be
  725
  caused by the court's obligation to balance the conflicting needs of applicants who all wish their appeals heard as soon as possible.

  Directions to expedite hearings are made by the court in individual cases. Those with leave to appeal against conviction or short sentences are, wherever possible, given earlier consideration than those appealing against long sentences. Information relating to expedited appeals is not recorded separately.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how many appeals(a) against conviction and (b) against sentence are waiting to be heard by the Court of Appeal criminal division;

  (2) how many expedited appeals (a) against conviction and (b) against sentence are waiting to be heard by the Court of Appeal criminal division.

  The Attorney-General
  At 31 March 1990 there were 339 appeals against conviction and 724 applications for leave to appeal against conviction waiting to be heard by the Court of Appeal criminal division. There were also 471

  Social security commissioners

  Year

  Number of appeals

  Total

  Number of days to disposal

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  Average

  Shortest

  Longest

  1985

  1,982

  104

  590

  2,676

  —

  —

  —

  1986

  11,860

  —

  406

  2,266

  —

  —

  —

  1987

  2,878

  76

  654

  3,608

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  4,015

  55

  779

  4,849

  250

  13

  450

  1989

  4,435

  38

  716

  5,189

  404

  1

  1,493

  1Including Wales.

  Land Registry
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Attorney-General what progress is being made towards establishing Her Majesty's Land Registry as an executive agency in accordance with the recommendations of the report of the Prime Minister's efficiency unit, "Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps."

  The Attorney-General
  The Land Registry is to be established as an executive agency on 2 July 1990.

  The Government consider the Land Registry is well suited to the executive agency form of organisation and that the resultant management flexibilities together with the possibility in the longer term of the registry operating a trading fund will provide significant overall improvement in the service provided to the registry's customers.

  Consistent with the basic approach of the Government's "next steps" initiative, the Lord Chancellor has decided that the Chief Land Registrar (who will be the agency chief executive) should no longer be required by statute to be a barrister or solicitor of 10 years' standing. He wishes to be able to appoint the best possible person for this important post and considers it essential that he or she should be selected primarily on the basis of his or her management abilities. The Government therefore propose to introduce amendments to the Courts and Legal Services Bill at Committee stage for this purpose. Arrangements will be made, by regulation, to ensure that the legal functions currently performed personally by the Chief Land Registrar are reserved to an appropriately qualified senior lawyer in the Land Registry.
  726
  appeals against sentence and 969 applications for leave to appeal against sentence. Information relating to expedited appeals is not recorded separately.

  Social Security Commissioners
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Attorney-General how many appeals have been made to the social security commissioners in each standard planning region in each of the last 10 years; how long on average it has taken to deal with these appeals each year; and what has been the shortest and longest time any appellant has had to wait for a decision in each year.

  The Attorney-General
  This information is not available in the form and for the period requested. However, the number of appeals made in each of the calendar years from 1985 to 1989 to the commissioners in the regions of England, Wales and Scotland are given in the first part of the table. The length of time taken to deal with these appeals to final disposal is available only in respect of those disposed of in the years 1988 and 1989 and the figures are given in the second part of the table.

  Australia Constitution Act 1900
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Attorney-General when the Government will respond to representations from the Australian Government to release one of the original copies of the Australia Constitution Act 1900 on a permanent basis.

  The Attorney-General
  The Government have received representations from the Australian Government requesting that the original copy of the Australia Constitution Act 1900, at present on loan to Australia and on display in Parliament house in Canberra, should remain in Australia permanently. The British Government have decided that it would be right to find a way to offer the document to the Commonwealth of Australia as a gift. The copy of the Act is a public record under the terms of the Public Records Act 1958 and cannot at present be disposed of as a gift or on permanent loan. The Government will, therefore, shortly be introducing legislation relating only to this particular case designed to place this document outside the provisions of the Public Records Act and enable it to be released to the Commonwealth of Australia as a gift.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Schools (Land Sales)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many sites within school grounds have been sold off as surplus to requirements for the period 1989–90 and so far in 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information is not held by the Department.

  Wales (Official Visits)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish the dates on which he has made an official visit to Wales since his appointment to his present post.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend's ministerial responsibilities in Wales are limited to provision of some higher education, and science. I am planning to visit the university of Wales within the next few months.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will set up an inquiry into the possible ways of improving further and higher education by incorporating teaching methods and materials currently used by Her Majesty's armed forces.

  Mr. Jackson
  At the invitation of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, Her Majesty's

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Training days

  Training days

  Training days

  Local education authority

  Requiring release

  Not requiring release

  Requiring release

  Non-contact days

  Other not requiring release

  Total not requiring release

  Requiring release

  Non-contact days

  Other not requiring release

  Total not requiring release

  Avon

  52,465

  36,847

  54,453

  38,491

  30,912

  69,403

  74,077

  55,000

  29,190

  84,190

  Barking

  12,835

  8,086

  131,259

  16,500

  110,950

  117,450

  26,545

  9,338

  12,300

  21,638

  Barnet

  21,809

  9,883

  9,735

  13,002

  5,233

  18,235

  10,665

  12,750

  20,421

  33,171

  Barnsley

  10,386

  8,240

  17,511

  19,855

  14,680

  114,535

  11,310

  9,000

  6,140

  15,140

  Bedfordshire

  46,118

  12,552

  35,883

  9,500

  8,611

  18,111

  50,807

  8,815

  3,741

  12,556

  Berkshire

  23,774

  25,735

  23,947

  30,325

  15,258

  45,583

  45,250

  29,120

  26,187

  55,307

  Bexley

  7,223

  5,523

  16,540

  15,250

  15,238

  110,488

  6,730

  11,720

  6,200

  17,920

  Birmingham

  64,570

  19,306

  63,346

  29,090

  45,085

  74,175

  80,797

  53,510

  37,172

  90,682

  Bolton

  10,887

  8,700

  9,360

  7,200

  11,675

  18,875

  16,310

  6,600

  7,100

  13,700

  Bradford

  59,084

  37,749

  26,234

  24,140

  31,502

  55,642

  88,877

  26,700

  9,600

  36,300

  Brent

  5,290

  9,250

  113,978

  114,500

  17,200

  121,700

  6,840

  8,300

  5,150

  13,450

  Bromley

  18,320

  6,500

  16,065

  2,340

  3,491

  5,831

  11,605

  5,000

  4,398

  9,398

  Buckinghamshire

  31,978

  27,728

  29,085

  14,070

  18,680

  32,750

  32,666

  16,500

  24,991

  41,491

  Bury

  20,223

  63,101

  20,116

  13,955

  7,678

  21,633

  48,538

  9,375

  65,496

  74,871

  Calderdale

  26,448

  11,300

  120,333

  17,272

  11,506

  18,778

  13,574

  6,768

  3,618

  10,386

  Cambridgeshire

  56,201

  11,674

  45,994

  1,545

  20,769

  37,314

  46,044

  21,528

  25,591

  47,119

  Cheshire

  27,020

  65,430

  31,139

  25,200

  19,222

  44,422

  51,576

  46,740

  50,275

  97,015

  Cleveland

  12,190

  37,348

  15,887

  26,400

  22,003

  48,403

  10,500

  38,000

  26,500

  64,500

  Cornwall

  19,942

  26,075

  62,708

  18,270

  10,057

  28,327

  15,110

  21,500

  37,462

  58,962

  Coventry

  33,798

  14,494

  12,524

  10,854

  9,175

  20,029

  14,030

  10,700

  8,000

  18,700

  Croydon

  11,364

  14,878

  11,939

  4,429

  21,495

  25,924

  15,492

  4,476

  42,874

  47,341

  Cumbria

  18,181

  19,285

  19,678

  20,210

  5,403

  25,613

  22,107

  19,475

  3,143

  22,618

  Derbyshire

  66,467

  56,696

  147,137

  145,000

  127,000

  172,000

  62,244

  40,500

  31,069

  71,569

  Devon

  28,735

  66,277

  129,448

  15,700

  112,464

  118,164

  75,608

  37,922

  61,650

  99,572

  Doncaster

  23,130

  4,976

  17,443

  14,415

  7,859

  22,274

  17,696

  14,259

  7,401

  21,660

  Dorset

  28,189

  38,198

  131,579

  122,880

  15,800

  128,680

  29,375

  22,750

  20,710

  43,460

  Dudley

  18,550

  4,100

  17,578

  11,708

  5,547

  17,255

  35,973

  13,190

  5,929

  19,119

  Durham

  16,276

  24,218

  15,635

  24,705

  20,347

  45,052

  19,300

  27,500

  44,417

  71,917

  Ealing

  11,247

  2,578

  18,895

  12,500

  1450

  12,950

  6,500

  10,200

  300

  10,500

  East Sussex

  44,090

  37,009

  138,820

  117,916

  17,811

  25,727

  30,425

  24,860

  8,759

  33,619

  Enfield

  25,865

  19,777

  27,035

  10,980

  4,420

  15,400

  27,297

  16,275

  22,394

  38,669

  Essex

  60,500

  40,500

  62,000

  37,000

  50,000

  87,000

  78,000

  35,000

  47,000

  82,000

  Gateshead

  5,990

  1,352

  19,274

  18,280

  1929

  19,209

  7,190

  7,950

  950

  8,900

  Gloucestershire

  35,378

  5,756

  43,231

  20,395

  9,886

  30,281

  62,005

  20,700

  9,337

  30,037

  Hampshire

  81,915

  44,198

  178,000

  19,000

  137,800

  146,800

  60,260

  42,000

  28,060

  70,060

  Haringey

  15,620

  14,076

  14,198

  17,300

  17,436

  114,736

  8,465

  7,550

  7,612

  15,162

  Harrow

  6,772

  14,472

  13,505

  17,000

  18,510

  115,510

  8,000

  7,150

  13,698

  20,848

  Havering

  24,550

  8,500

  5,750

  6,525

  53,224

  59,749

  5,000

  10,000

  48,200

  58,200

  Hereford and Worcester

  36,238

  7,612

  32,373

  20,000

  9,128

  29,128

  76,020

  20,520

  10,640

  31,160

  Hertfordshire

  44,800

  26,247

  46,235

  1,089

  34,206

  35,295

  55,339

  17,200

  22,833

  40,033

  Hillingdon

  8,106

  9,633

  13,782

  18,500

  117,489

  125,989

  4,600

  8,960

  16,357

  25,317

  Hounslow

  13,235

  11,439

  10,639

  10,020

  9,943

  19,963

  8,636

  10,025

  8,320

  18,345

  Humberside

  30,358

  32,836

  30,547

  21,519

  23,510

  45,029

  27,699

  35,580

  46,540

  82,120

  Inner London

  114,883

  168,124

  1117,500

  185,000

  177,600

  1162,600

  160,600

  48,000

  143,860

  191,860

  Isle of Wight

  7,279

  3,291

  7,238

  6,090

  2,831

  8,921

  7,00

  5,000

  2,740

  7,740

  Isles of Scilly

  59

  88

  1120

  0

  125

  125

  250

  125

  50

  175

  Kent

  62,332

  23,054

  167,304

  118,000

  112,000

  130,000

  146,159

  145,226

  139,892

  185,118

  728
  inspectors advise on aspects of educational and training provision within the armed forces. Through exchanges of information, a route already exists for the best of good practic e in either sector to be reflected in the other.

  Teachers (Training)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish for each local authority area the number of teachers in each of the last three years who have undertaken INSET and other courses of professional development(a) during school hours and (b) after school, at weekends and during school holidays.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: The information obtained under the LEA training grants scheme on the volume of training taking place for which release is or is not required, expressed as training days, is set out in the table:
  729

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  Training days

  Training days

  Training days

  Local education authority

  Requiring release

  Not Requiring release

  Requiring release

  Non-contact days

  Other not requiring release

  Total not requiring release

  Requiring release

  Non-contact days

  Other not requiring release

  Total not requiring release

  Kingston Upon Thames

  10,090

  6,055

  10,756

  4,056

  4,454

  8,510

  6,425

  4,882

  3,232

  8,114

  Kirklees

  31,504

  16,525

  33,843

  17,500

  4,511

  22,011

  30,278

  18,885

  4,279

  23,164

  Knowsley

  7,738

  3,054

  5,057

  4,800

  10,760

  15,560

  6,125

  9,600

  1,200

  10,800

  Lancashire

  87,432

  28,845

  89,509

  36,111

  30,050

  66,161

  90,000

  55,000

  25,000

  80,000

  Leeds

  32,455

  33,259

  126,080

  133,465

  135,683

  169,148

  57,712

  25,885

  9,887

  35,772

  Leicestershire

  50,895

  23,086

  162,814

  1520

  17,596

  18,116

  71,690

  19,500

  430

  19,930

  Lincolnshire

  24,178

  5,197

  42,706

  22,635

  9,176

  31,811

  35,099

  21,800

  17,314

  39,114

  Liverpool

  24,450

  20,370

  19,200

  118,000

  113,440

  131,440

  46,002

  22,500

  30,691

  53,191

  Manchester

  33,931

  19,278

  31,891

  21,210

  17,840

  39,050

  20,997

  21,210

  19,145

  40,355

  Merton

  6,961

  6,770

  9,895

  6,700

  3,335

  10,035

  2,670

  6,000

  3,023

  9,023

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  29,728

  17,263

  17,271

  12,419

  4,784

  17,203

  19,117

  11,935

  2,300

  14,235

  Newham

  15,498

  5,144

  112,922

  16,000

  114,013

  120,013

  9,935

  10,750

  7,885

  18,635

  Norfolk

  22,735

  62,695

  22,774

  37,248

  13,702

  50,950

  21,405

  27,260

  40,186

  67,446

  North Tyneside

  16,193

  11,348

  14,529

  5,597

  8,590

  14,187

  12,984

  6,423

  12,170

  18,593

  North Yorkshire

  69,024

  17,337

  188,603

  110,772

  111,503

  122,275

  85,252

  10,894

  10,419

  21,313

  Northamptonshire

  96,865

  39,285

  46,290

  21,958

  13,867

  35,825

  55,049

  25,190

  27,238

  52,518

  Northumberland

  14,453

  14,092

  14,903

  13,700

  18,158

  31,858

  16,653

  13,710

  19,797

  33,507

  Nottinghamshire

  85,056

  32,665

  137,101

  40,940

  27,451

  68,391

  139,402

  35,424

  26,123

  61,547

  Oldham

  18,402

  17,008

  116,207

  110,505

  16,503

  117,008

  17,390

  10,000

  12,000

  22,000

  Oxfordshire

  42,641

  47,957

  43,188

  24,775

  34,605

  59,380

  47,134

  23,615

  35,783

  59,398

  Redbridge

  8,400

  4,500

  12,707

  8,088

  3,794

  11,882

  14,494

  9,000

  6,000

  15,000

  Richmond Upon Thames

  5,532

  4,133

  7,217

  4,203

  1,715

  5,918

  7,762

  3,850

  2,415

  6,265

  Rochdale

  12,101

  9,803

  112,010

  111,000

  19,010

  120,010

  12,430

  8,336

  25,942

  34,278

  Rotherham

  13,511

  4,315

  16,939

  12,520

  3,362

  15,882

  16,081

  12,630

  10,167

  22,797

  Salford

  15,215

  5,059

  115,700

  12,770

  11,520

  14,290

  23,421

  0

  2,728

  2,728

  Sandwell

  9,102

  17,716

  12,358

  14,182

  16,321

  30,503

  12,630

  11,600

  23,825

  35,425

  Sefton

  11,934

  2,435

  14,802

  9,462

  3,953

  13,415

  8,773

  6,524

  5,454

  11,978

  Sheffield

  38,150

  12,400

  36,880

  13,000

  5,200

  18,200

  31,910

  12,000

  4,500

  16,500

  Shropshire

  34,450

  3,000

  29,005

  18,000

  8,940

  25,940

  23,080

  18,000

  12,470

  30,470

  Solihull

  29,825

  15,918

  18,508

  10,900

  7,783

  18,683

  10,510

  9,000

  4,753

  13,753

  Somerset

  24,183

  14,920

  24,015

  17,268

  13,685

  30,953

  18,261

  17,365

  13,181

  30,546

  South Tyneside

  13,315

  3,104

  119,928

  14,167

  125,000

  129,167

  4,985

  13,244

  6,817

  20,061

  St. Helens

  9,739

  4,085

  8,633

  8,865

  7,924

  16,789

  5,400

  8,865

  2,489

  11,354

  Staffordshire

  26,805

  61,085

  57,920

  41,500

  20,291

  61,791

  44,049

  41,500

  3,345

  44,845

  Stockport

  6,363

  14,675

  23,057

  6,729

  5,376

  12,105

  14,430

  14,460

  440

  14,900

  Suffolk

  30,290

  41,378

  36,361

  24,260

  24,428

  48,688

  43,510

  24,490

  12,100

  36,590

  Sunderland

  18,650

  18,357

  117,340

  115,000

  110,666

  125,666

  19,335

  14,675

  29,319

  43,994

  Surrey

  58,274

  12,286

  137,690

  135,190

  18,130

  143,320

  61,346

  35,190

  21,676

  56,866

  Sutton

  3,850

  5,204

  15,900

  13,750

  16,830

  110,580

  1,521

  5,497

  600

  6,097

  Tameside

  15,624

  5,484

  15,024

  10,828

  2,834

  13,662

  15,852

  9,235

  7,034

  16,269

  Trafford

  8,192

  6,318

  15,253

  6,177

  4,512

  10,689

  11,672

  6,660

  2,586

  9,246

  Wakefield

  14,218

  14,630

  11,030

  11,725

  3,469

  15,194

  17,338

  14,045

  4,579

  18,624

  Walsall

  23,691

  9,552

  9,993

  21,250

  4,733

  25,983

  13,805

  19,320

  2,000

  21,320

  Waltham Forest

  13,797

  11,100

  12,181

  9,420

  2,805

  12,225

  9,438

  13,300

  5,192

  18,492

  Warwickshire

  12,210

  35,929

  124,800

  125,000

  120,851

  145,851

  28,050

  17,500

  39,200

  56:700

  West Sussex

  14,503

  24,297

  121,949

  124,000

  126,539

  150,539

  34,479

  19,600

  19,981

  39,581

  Wigan

  27,335

  10,360

  22,347

  0

  10,970

  10,970

  23,664

  4,270

  5,437

  9,707

  Wiltshire

  23,797

  9,101

  135,135

  113,518

  17,902

  121,420

  20,694

  26,693

  12,159

  38,852

  Wirral

  10,934

  13,718

  8,743

  12,376

  18,265

  30,641

  11,120

  11,000

  10,600

  21,600

  Wolverhampton

  12,022

  42,314

  9,569

  9,105

  14,715

  23,820

  21,322

  19,068

  45,006

  64,074

  England

  2,683,951

  2,009,110

  2,650,513

  1,522,084

  1,353,582

  2,875,666

  2,891,772

  1,766,728

  1,754,454

  3,521,182

  Notes:

  1987–88 outturn.

  1988–89 outturn.

  1989–90 estimated.

  1 Estimated.

  Teachers' Pay and Conditions
  Mr. Gerald Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has now considered the views expressed by the local authority employers, teacher unions and others on his proposals following the third report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions.

  Mr. MacGregor
  After careful consideration of the representations I have received I have decided to accept 730
  the recommendations contained in the third report of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions, but to stage their introduction over the period up to 1 January 1991 and to make some minor modifications.

  I believe that the changes to be introduced will markedly increase the attractiveness of teaching as a profession and improve career prospects for good teachers. The introduction of range pay for heads and deputies, and of incremental enhancements and local scales for classroom teachers, will greatly improve the

  731
  scope for flexible local decision taking to meet local circumstances. The new discretionary £750 pay supplement for teachers in the inner London weighting area will help tackle the special problems in London.

  Drafts of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document 1990, an order which will give effect to this document, and a circular to local education authorities and others are being sent to the relevant local authority associations, teacher unions and bodies representing the interests of the governors of voluntary schools and grant-maintained schools, inviting their comments by Thursday 26 April 1990.

  The draft document incorporates the changes recommended by the IAC, subject to staging and to some modifications. These include the assimilation of deputy head teachers in existing school groups 6 and 9 one point higher on the new pay spine, and the addition of one extra spine point on the top of the normal range for deputy head teachers in new school groups 1, 2 and 3 and for head teachers in new school groups 1 and 2.

  Youth Service
  Mr. Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements he proposes to make at national level to assist the youth service in responding effectively to the challenges of the 1990s.

  Mr. MacGregor
  From 1 April 1991, I have decided to build on the experience and expertise of the national level youth service bodies I currently fund, particularly the unit comprising the National Youth Bureau and the Council for the Education and Training of Youth and Community Workers, by channelling that funding through one single, high-profile and comprehensive national youth agency (NYA). This will have clear responsibility to work with both the voluntary and the local authority sectors of the youth service to improve the quality, range and effectiveness of their responses to the priority objectives we are establishing with them.

  To ensure a co-ordinated approach, I shall fund this body to undertake a range of education-related functions, including the development of curricular content and methods, especially in advice and counselling; the development, endorsement, accreditation and, where necessary, the provision of youth worker training; the collection, dissemination and publication of information; support for managers of youth service organisations and operations, particularly in the voluntary sector, including management training; response to international interests and programmes; and direct support for Government initiatives in these areas. It will be open to other Departments and agencies to support similar work through the agency in their particular areas of responsibility.

  In recognition of the valuable contribution of the voluntary sector, and to realise an effective partnership between it and the local authority sector, I propose to implement the recommendations of the efficiency scrutiny of Government funding of the voluntary sector, published yesterday, by requiring the director personally to ensure that the agency, its work and staff are responsive to the needs of the voluntary sector and of volunteers, and to report to me annually on this. I propose also to permit the body to fund voluntary youth organisations to undertake curriculum and training development projects as an integral part of its functions in these areas. I shall expect
  732
  it, in all the work I fund, to promote the active participation of young people, and to seek to secure private sponsorship and otherwise increase its income from non-Government sources.

  These arrangements are designed to meet the needs of the clients of the bodies I currently fund. Should, however, the National Council for the Voluntary Youth Service and the National Association of Young People's Counselling and Advisory Services and the British Youth Council consider the needs of their members would not be fully met, I would be prepared to explore the possibility of them competing for limited funding as national voluntary youth organisations, for eligible programmes of work outside the scope of the national youth agency. Once this has been determined, my officials will consult the territorial education Departments as to which of the national youth agency's functions could usefully be undertaken in respect of their areas and otherwise to secure co-operation and co-ordination with any comparable bodies they fund. Detailed arrangements for managing the national youth agency will be settled in consultation with the interests concerned.

  Neil McCluskey
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will reply to a letter from the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth dated 9 February marked urgent and referring to Neil McCluskey esq. of Imperial college.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department has received a very large number of letters about student loans at the same time as the Education (Student Loans) Bill has been before Parliament. I am sorry that replies to some hon. Members have been delayed. A concerted effort is in hand to ensure that replies are despatched to all hon. Members urgently.

  British Council (Brussels)
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what benefits have accrued since February 1989 from establishment by the British Council Brussels office of the higher education programme within its European Commission liaison unit.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I have been asked to reply.

  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Indonesia
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to have the human rights situation in East Timor included on the agenda of the June meeting of the inter-governmental group on Indonesia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  It would not be appropriate for this subject to feature on the formal agenda of the June meeting.

  Education for All
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what goals were agreed at the "Education for All" conference in Thailand this month;
  733
  how Her Majesty's Government will ensure that these goals are reached; and what plans Her Majesty's Government have to increase the aid given specifically to primary education and adult literacy.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The ultimate goal affirmed by the world declaration on education for all is to meet the basic learning needs of all children, youth and adults.

  Progress towards this goal will rest mainly with individual developing country Governments establishing intermediate goals to suit local circumstances, and, in respect of the aid programme, the priorities they have. We are not able to order the way in which other Governments allocate resources to a variety of sectors, but I believe that the consequences of the conference will enable us more easily to encourage and expand support for primary education and adult literacy programmes, the latter with an emphasis on learning for women.

  Tropical Rain Forests
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how much British aid has been directed to the tropical forestry action plan to date; and how much is planned for the next three years;

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of all the representations he has received about the advisability of continuing support for the tropical forestry action plan;

  (3) what assessment has been made of the extent of deforestation resulting from the tropical forestry action plan; and if he will make a statement;

  (4) what input his Department has had into the tropical forestry action plan; and what account he has taken of recommendations about its effectiveness;

  (5) what specific measures are being adopted within the tropical forestry action plan to ensure the reversal of deforestation and the protection of biological diversity.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The tropical forestry action plan (TFAP) is not a fund or organisation to which donors contribute funds. It is a mechanism under which recipient countries review their forestry sectors, and donors can co-ordinate assistance and have a dialogue with each country about policy issues. The product is a national tropical forestry action plan for each country taking part in the process.

  The TFAP requires strengthening. I called for its revision when I addressed the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) general conference last November. I said that policies relating to forests need examining and those that encourage deforestation need changing. Policies should encourage reaforestation and agroforestry, and better agricultural practices which help take the pressures off forests. They should take account of the knowledge and interests of the peoples of the forests. Shortly after the conference the FAO set up an independent review to examine the TFAP and make recommendations for reform. The review team visited London last month and met my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs as well as representatives of the timber trade and NGOs. It is due to report in the summer. I have placed a copy of ODA's written submission to the review in the Library of the House.

  The ODA has supported or is supporting the preparation of national forestry action plans in 11 countries at a cost of £0·4 million; and we currently plan to assist with the preparation of a further nine plans. We are currently funding eight projects related to national
  734
  forestry action plans at a cost of £13 million. We are considering 22 further projects, the cost of which will depend on their precise design. All ODA assistance through the TFAP is subject to our normal rigorous appraisal and careful management.

  ODA forestry advisers participate in the twice-yearly meetings of an informal group of technical advisers responsible for TFAP from donor agencies, and liaise with the TFAP co-ordinating unit within the FAO.

  The FAO has been quoted in the New Scientist as saying that it is nonsense to say that the TFAP has promoted deforestation. The independent review should provide an assessment of the TFAP to date.

  Specific measures to reverse deforestation and protect biological diversity are included in national tropical forestry action plans. Conserving forest ecosystems is one of the five priority areas highlighted when the TFAP was launched in 1985.

  It is not normal practice to place departmental correspondence in the Library of the House.

  Romania
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any further plans to help improve health care in Romania.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In addition to the help we have already provided, directly and through the European Community, we now propose to contribute £500,000 to the World Health Organisation's programme of assistance for the Romanian health service.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government have any plans for additional overseas aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Yes. At the Zambia consultative group on 9 to 11 April we intend to pledge a new grant of £30 million. It is to be spent on essential imports required to implement the economic reform programme for 1990 that Zambia has agreed with the International Monetary Fund. We are also offering to reschedule some £12·85 million of repayments, including accumulated arrears, due to Britain in 1990–91 on past aid loans to Zambia. These new measures are additional to our technical co-operation programme, worth some £14 million last year. In addition, the external financing limit for the Commonwealth Development Corporation will be increased by £25 million from £28 million to £53 million. The increase will enable the corporation to continue assisting the economies of developing countries, in particular in the private sector. These increases in aid will be met in part by a charge to the reserve of £30 million; the remainder will come from the existing overseas aid programme.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Social Charter
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the action plan of the Commission to implement the provisions of the social charter largely by majority voting procedures.
  735
  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to raise the matter at the next Council. The voting arrangements for each proposal in the action programme will depend on the legal base put forward by the Commission and this will become clear only when it publishes its detailed proposals.

  Engagements
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 24 April.

  The Prime Minister
  I hope to have meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and carry out my duties in the House, after which I shall depart for Istanbul to be present at the 75th anniversary of the Gallipoli landings the following day.

  Floods, North Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will establish an appeal fund for the victims of the north Wales sea floods.

  The Prime Minister
  Appeal funds have already been established in the three areas worst affected by the floods and the Government have made contributions to each of them.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if she will receive a deputation of council leaders and residents of the north Wales coasts concerning the north Wales sea floods of March;

  Belgium

  Federal Republic Germany

  Denmark

  Spain

  France

  Greece

  Italy

  Ireland

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Portugal

  United Kingdom

  Measures notified

  53

  75

  77

  55

  68

  46

  36

  67

  58

  63

  37

  77

  Measures not notified

  22

  11

  9

  28

  16

  26

  30

  13

  18

  20

  42

  7

  Infringement proceeding

  12

  1

  1

  2

  3

  9

  20

  5

  9

  4

  2

  2

  Derogation

  —

  —

  —

  4

  —

  6

  —

  1

  —

  —

  8

  1

  Not applicable

  3

  3

  3

  1

  3

  3

  4

  4

  5

  3

  1

  3

  Per cent.

  61

  86

  89

  65

  78

  57

  42

  78

  68

  72

  46

  90

  Lithuania
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent communication she has received from Professor Landsbergis, the President of Lithuania; what has been her response; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a letter from Professor Landsbergis drawing attention to a number of documents and declarations relating to the status of Lithuania. Our views on the incorporation into the Soviet Union of the Baltic states, and on the status of Lithuania, are clearly on record.

  South Africa
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will seek to persuade the South African Government to allow the free flow of funds from outside South Africa to the United Democratic Front.

  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to her reply, 13 March 1990, c. 156]: Further information has come to my attention concerning impediments to the flow of funds to the United Democratic Front. The main South African
  736
  (2) if she will visit the Clwyd county council headquarters to meet the chief executive of Clwyd city council to receive a report on the impact of the north Wales sea floods upon the residents of those areas affected;

  (3) if she will visit north Wales to meet the victims of the sea floods of March.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has already visited the area to see the damage and meet the victims of the floods. He and his officials of his Department have held meetings with the local authorities most involved.

  European Single Market
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Prime Minister what information she has as to the number of directives concerning the creation of a single market within the European Community in 1992 which have been enacted in the national legislation of each member state and subsequently implemented; and what percentage of the total directives this represents in each case.

  The Prime Minister
  The latest information on the implementation of single market measures in national legislation comes from the Commission's fifth progress report on the White Paper on the internal market. I am delighted to report that this shows the United Kingdom in first place on its implementation record, with only nine measures remaining unimplemented. This highlights the United Kingdom's record as a reliable partner in the Community. The table gives the overall position member state by member state.

  laws dealing with foreign funding—the Fund Raising Act 1978 and the Disclosure of Foreign Funding Act 1989—do not impede the flow of funds to the UDF. However, the UDF is still listed under the Affected Organisations Act 1974 which prevents it from receiving funds from foreign sources. The other restrictions on the UDF were lifted on 2 February and we would like to see the restrictions under the Affected Organisations Act lifted also.

HEALTH

  Kidney Donors
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the willingness of people to become kidney donors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We receive frequent representations on organ donation from a wide range of individuals and organisations. On 16 November 1989 I chaired a seminar on ways of improving the voluntary donation of organs.
  737
  The transcript is now available and I have placed copies in the Library; my letter which accompanies the transcript sets out the action that is in hand.

  Discussions at the seminar illustrated both the complexity of the subject and the diversity of views on the best way forward. The initiatives we have already taken should, however, continue to produce results for a considerable time, and we do not propose to make any major changes in policy at present.

  Two initiatives of particular importance are the first national audit of potential donors in intensive care units, and the organ donation publicity programme. Both were discussed in some detail at the seminar. The audit and other recent studies have raised a number of medical issues which could significantly affect the potential for organ donation. Professional bodies are addressing these issues. We have expanded the Department's publicity budget, from approximately £50,000 four years ago to about £200,000 per annum today. The transcript gives details of the ways in which the money has been spent, and our plans for 1990–91.

  Mental Hospitals
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report the hospitals for the mentally ill and handicapped which he told the Committee on the National Health Service and Community Care Bill on 27 February, column 129, would become empty over the next five years, the number of patients in each at the latest available date, the district health authority in which each is situated; and whether it is in or near an urban area.

  Mr. Freeman
  The tables show mental handicap and mental illness hospitals planned to close over the next five years, the latest patient numbers and the district health authority in which each hospital is situated. The other information requested is not held centrally.

  Table 1

  Mental handicap hospitals

  Latest numbers of patients

  District health authority

  South East Thames

  Leybourne Grange

  360

  Maidstone1

  Eastry

  84

  Canterbury and Thanet

  Grove Park

  70

  Lewisham and North Southwark

  Laughton Lodge

  45

  Eastbourne

  Mount Pleasant

  39

  Hastings

  Yorkshire

  Brandesburten

  221

  Hull

  Claypenny

  167

  York

  Whixley

  46

  Harrogate

  Stansfield

  60

  Calderdale

  Caistor

  35

  Grimby2

  Oxford

  Wayland Hospital

  63

  West Berkshire

  Trent

  Aston Hall

  327

  Southern Derbyshire

  Balderton

  176

  Central Nottinghamshire

  Wessex

  Coldharbour

  40

  West Dorset

  Burderop

  65

  Swindon

  Pewsey

  85

  Swindon

  East Anglian

  Risbridge

  119

  West Suffolk

  738

  Mental handicap hospitals

  Latest numbers of patients

  District healh authority

  Lothingland

  67

  Great Yarmouth and Waveney

  Jane Walker

  83

  East Suffolk

  Hadleigh House3

  19

  East Suffolk

  Hales Hospital

  42

  Norwich

  North Western4

  Brockhall Hospital

  400

  Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  Scott House

  14

  Rochdale

  Offerton House

  80

  Stockport

  1 Managed by Tunbridge Wells.

  2 Located in North Lincolnshire but managed by Grimsby DHA.

  3 Mental handicap unit within St. Clement's mental illness hospital.

  4 Numbers of beds.

  Table 2

  Mental illness hospitals

  Latest numbers of inpatients

  District health authority

  Yorkshire

  Storthes Hall Hospital, near Huddersfield

  389

  Huddersfield

  Trent

  Rauceby Hospital

  304

  South Lincolnshire

  The Pastures

  454

  Southern Derbyshire

  Carlton Hayes Hospital

  470

  Leicestershire

  Mapperley Hospital

  305

  Nottingham

  Middlewood Hospital

  606

  Sheffield

  The Towers

  394

  Leicestershire

  Kingsway Hospital

  363

  Southern Derbyshire

  East Anglian

  St. Audry's Hospital, Woodbridge

  372

  East Suffolk

  St. Nicholas' Hospital

  131

  Great Yarmouth and Waverney

  St. Andrews

  335

  Norwich

  North East Thames

  Friern Hospital1

  673

  Hampstead

  Claybury Hospital

  722

  Waltham Forest

  South East Thames

  Cane Hill Hospital

  343

  Croydon2

  Tooting Bec Hospital

  420

  Wandsworth3

  Hellingly Hospital

  154

  Eastbourne

  St. Augustines Hospital

  235

  Canterbury and Thanet

  South West Thames

  Long Grove Hospital, Epsom

  404

  Kingston and Esher

  Brookwood Hospital

  489

  South West Surrey

  Wessex

  Whitecroft Hospital

  75

  Isle of Wight

  Herrison Hospital, Dorchester

  263

  West Dorset

  Old Manor Hospital1

  216

  Salisbury

  Oxford

  St. John's Hospital

  282

  Aylesbury Vale

  St. Crispin's Hospital

  263

  Northampton

  Littlemore Hospital

  226

  Oxfordshire

  West Midlands

  Barnsley Hall Hospital

  169

  Bromsgrove and Redditch

  Rubery Hill Hospital

  211

  South Birmingham

  Central Hospital

  298

  South Warwickshire

  Hollymoor Hospital

  279

  Solihull

  739

  Mental illness hospitals

  Latest numbers of inpatients

  District health authority

  Mersey

  Rainhill Hospital

  487

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  Parkside Hospital

  485

  Macclesfield

  Winwick Hospital

  815

  Warrington

  North Western

  North Manchester (Springfield) Hospital1

  145

  North Manchester

  Northern

  St. Mary's Stannington

  495

  Gateshead

  South Western

  Mendip Hospital

  96

  Somerset

  Moorhaven Hospital

  157

  Plymouth

  In-patient cases treated, North Western Region, 1983–1988–89

  Health Authority

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Lancaster

  21,738

  22,963

  24,538

  23,113

  23,592

  21,331

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  34,023

  35,896

  37,146

  37,972

  39,159

  40,963

  Preston

  35,178

  35,882

  38,803

  39,907

  40,499

  41,544

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  38,888

  40,454

  41,507

  40,465

  43,315

  41,988

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  28,951

  29,533

  29,658

  31,912

  31,695

  31,431

  West Lancashire

  15,501

  15,965

  17,359

  17,580

  17,540

  16,117

  Chorley and South Ribble

  4,429

  4,496

  4,415

  4,434

  4,503

  5,037

  Bolton

  33,471

  33,837

  35,289

  35,385

  37,205

  37,812

  Bury

  20,362

  20,988

  21,166

  22,125

  23,130

  22,702

  North Manchester

  41,236

  40,534

  40,496

  40,133

  39,332

  41,224

  Central Manchester

  43,053

  44,975

  46,418

  46,288

  50,285

  46,423

  South Manchester

  67,532

  68,509

  69,361

  69,798

  72,719

  72,389

  Oldham

  26,480

  27,581

  29,273

  28,902

  30,707

  31,392

  Rochdale

  20,137

  20,973

  21,597

  22,962

  22,494

  21,769

  Salford

  43,591

  42,806

  42,860

  43,636

  44,220

  43,934

  Stockport

  34,637

  34,822

  36,718

  37,623

  38,004

  37,375

  Tameside and Glossop

  23,555

  23,480

  26,858

  27,894

  28,766

  28,877

  Trafford

  18,604

  18,982

  18,487

  17,678

  17,570

  16,914

  Wigan

  34,301

  35,080

  35,679

  36,871

  39,805

  41,326

  Source: 1983–1986, SH3 return, 1987–88 onwards, SH3a return

  Qualified Nurses and Midwives1 30 September 1983–1988 (Excluding Agency)

  North Western by District

  Whole-time Equivalent2

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  North Western HQ

  20

  10

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Lancaster

  1,170

  1,190

  1,170

  1,190

  1,170

  1,150

  Blackpool Wyre and Fylde

  1,320

  1,350

  1,370

  1,390

  1,400

  1,450

  Preston

  1,400

  1,510

  1,590

  1,580

  1,600

  1,550

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribb

  1,530

  1,640

  1,690

  1,680

  1,320

  1,310

  Burnley Pendle and Rossendale

  1,550

  1,600

  1,660

  1,680

  1,880

  1,860

  West Lancaster

  570

  560

  580

  600

  600

  560

  Chorley and South Ribble

  400

  430

  450

  450

  450

  450

  Bolton

  970

  1,010

  1,060

  1,140

  1,160

  1,190

  Bury

  650

  680

  660

  670

  670

  680

  North Manchester

  1,310

  1,350

  1,420

  1,440

  1,440

  1,560

  Central Manchester

  1,230

  1,250

  1,340

  1,318

  1,320

  1,400

  South Manchester

  1,740

  1,820

  1,860

  1,890

  1,990

  1,930

  Oldham

  850

  880

  930

  960

  940

  920

  Rochdale

  740

  750

  770

  770

  720

  720

  Salford

  1,590

  1,640

  1,740

  1,800

  1,780

  1,870

  Stockport

  1,270

  1,340

  1,310

  1,280

  1,360

  1,310

  Tameside and Glossop

  730

  770

  790

  810

  840

  870

  Trafford

  690

  710

  740

  760

  750

  770

  Wigan

  1,310

  1,320

  1,330

  1,380

  1,370

  1,400

  Source: Department of Health (SM 13) annual census of NHS non-medical manpower.

  1 Excludes qualified nurses and midwives under further training.

  2 All figures are independently rounded to the nearest (10) whole time equivalent.
  740
  1 With some facilities remaining on site.

  2 Managed by Bromley.

  3 Managed by West Lambeth.

  North Western RHA
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each district of the North Western regional health authority the number of(a) in-patients, (b) qualified nursing staff and (c) consultants for the latest available year; and if he will give figures for the five previous years.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Information regarding the number of in-patients and qualified nursing staff for each district of the North Western regional health authority is given in the tables. Details relating to the total number of consultants in the North Western region and in the three teaching hospitals are given in the table.

  Information about the number of consultant contracts in non-teaching health authorities is not held centrally.
  741

  Hospital Medical and Dental Consultants at 30 September each year

  North Western Region

  Central Manchester (Teaching)

  South Manchester (Teaching)

  Salford DHA (Teaching)

  1983

  1,117·2

  129·2

  152·5

  98·5

  1984

  1,138·3

  129·9

  150·9

  99·2

  1985

  1,160·0

  132·8

  150·5

  101·6

  1986

  1,192·1

  138·2

  152·0

  102·6

  1987

  1,207·3

  139·7

  152·7

  97·9

  1988

  1,219·3

  134·6

  156·7

  97·1

  Notes:

  1 Figures represent Whole Time Equivalents.

  2Includes Permanent Paid and Honorary Staff.

  3Prior to 1987 Senior Hospital Medical/Dental Officers with allowance were included with Consultants.

  Income from Private Patients (Under Sections 65 and 66 of the NHS Act 1977) & Related Losses

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Income

  Amounts Written off

  Income

  Amounts Written off

  Mersey Region

  In-Patients

  Out-Patients

  In-Patients

  Out-Patients

  In-Patients

  Out-Patients

  In-Patients

  Out-Patients

  (Section 65)

  (Section 66)

  (Section 65)

  (Section 66)

  (Section 65)

  (Section 66)

  (Section 65)

  (Section 66)

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  District Health Authorities

  Chester

  22,090

  12,342

  229

  66

  35,543

  19,116

  0

  128

  Crewe

  259,678

  92,548

  2,114

  361

  285,494

  103,174

  1,864

  409

  Halton

  0

  1,849

  0

  0

  22,652

  10,856

  0

  0

  Macclesfield

  95,307

  30,867

  1,076

  912

  117,661

  36,647

  2,236

  208

  Warrington

  372,546

  22,401

  1,116

  37

  391,511

  23,164

  1,433

  271

  Liverpool

  397,819

  62,026

  1,187

  650

  363,060

  70,616

  3,034

  725

  St Helens and Knowsley

  123,694

  40,712

  0

  0

  92,258

  36,489

  0

  64

  Southport and Formby

  189,862

  24,399

  0

  0

  152,399

  29,296

  1,028

  210

  South Sefton

  90,957

  24,750

  0

  274

  88,552

  30,768

  6,210

  218

  Wirral

  136,729

  35,617

  3,038

  156

  113,396

  37,976

  7,138

  2,052

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Income

  Amounts Written off

  Income

  Amounts Written off

  North Western Region

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  District Health Authorities

  Lancaster

  24,780

  14,162

  294

  160

  21,602

  18,839

  1,201

  78

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  85,267

  15,446

  3,743

  300

  76,774

  21,684

  0

  0

  Preston

  255,714

  76,427

  75

  122

  165,886

  75,158

  919

  545

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and Ribble Valley

  37,663

  19,980

  0

  0

  26,124

  27,743

  830

  448

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  83,300

  17,082

  0

  169

  49,208

  15,573

  1,102

  33

  West Lancashire

  298,793

  26,401

  756

  463

  297,834

  30,581

  168

  147

  Chorley and South Ribble

  18,108

  3,586

  0

  9

  11,531

  2,058

  0

  0

  Bolton

  14,826

  6,253

  0

  0

  10,978

  10,261

  0

  0

  Bury

  264,029

  36,256

  2,402

  1,160

  256,608

  44,764

  1,216

  0

  North Manchester

  17,893

  19,418

  1,599

  911

  19,081

  32,568

  0

  771

  Central Manchester

  986,870

  91,110

  0

  0

  769,043

  98,038

  4,450

  356

  South Manchester

  595,354

  180,329

  0

  7,356

  618,542

  235,345

  10,357

  770

  Oldham

  80,433

  10,596

  1,646

  54

  127,835

  16,892

  1,088

  237

  Rochdale

  4,691

  6,451

  0

  69

  4,576

  9,780

  0

  124

  Salford

  66,146

  46,665

  0

  0

  77,565

  43,229

  1,305

  4

  Stockport

  53,893

  27,443

  0

  739

  34,681

  29,536

  232

  744

  Tameside and Glossop

  21,320

  11,807

  102

  394

  27,199

  15,846

  661

  76

  Trafford

  37,085

  12,451

  462

  190

  55,926

  12,050

  154

  97

  Wigan

  83,213

  38,910

  0

  0

  75,936

  40,042

  98

  875

  742
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish for each health authority in the north-west(a) the net income from private patients and clinics and (b) the amounts written off as bad debts in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following are figures recorded in the 1985–86 to 1988–89 annual accounts of the district health authorities comprising the Mersey and North Western health regions. The income shown arises from charges to private patients under sections 65 and 66 of the National Health Service Act 1977 and is recorded under each heading net of sums written off in each financial year (which may include amounts due from earlier years). Separate write-off figures for income due under sections 65 and 66 were not collected centrally before 1985–86.
  743

  Income from private patients (under sections 65 and 66 of the NHS Act 1977) and related losses

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Income

  Amounts Written off

  Income

  Amounts Written off

  Mersey Region

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  District health authorities

  Chester

  30,520

  17,932

  259

  305

  25,828

  11,459

  97

  147

  Crewe

  297,912

  104,288

  2,892

  533

  347,848

  124,830

  628

  318

  Halton

  64,978

  21,271

  103

  132

  55,916

  31,123

  9

  164

  Macclesfield

  118,123

  38,492

  1,637

  12

  131,203

  40,618

  1,713

  251

  Warrington

  390,064

  28,104

  241

  100

  214,403

  21,483

  1,327

  698

  Liverpool

  332,247

  81,828

  0

  0

  413,167

  104,785

  0

  0

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  96,315

  29,152

  0

  0

  79,233

  38,102

  0

  414

  Southport and Formby

  106,002

  15,094

  760

  248

  64,168

  17,272

  1,410

  391

  South Sefton

  85,646

  30,763

  1,751

  234

  142,072

  37,264

  0

  118

  Wirral

  118,265

  48,154

  876

  551

  74,065

  57,089

  0

  0

  1987–88

  1988–89

  Income

  Amounts Written off

  Income

  Amounts Written off

  North Western Region

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  In-Patients (Section 65)

  Out-Patients (Section 66)

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  District health authorities

  Lancaster

  7,415

  12,463

  512

  1,761

  14,797

  9,831

  386

  377

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde

  84,914

  30,249

  1,057

  264

  111,384

  39,115

  0

  225

  Preston

  151,073

  64,646

  797

  988

  136,515

  63,130

  1,216

  639

  Blackburn, Hyndburn and R.V.

  40,568

  30,912

  0

  213

  25,921

  38,477

  0

  0

  Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale

  35,617

  21,276

  0

  0

  35,092

  19,197

  0

  264

  West Lancashire

  347,255

  42,929

  1,820

  1,454

  376,807

  57,159

  868

  671

  Chorley and South Ribble

  7,927

  1,459

  0

  0

  9,502

  1,587

  0

  0

  Bolton

  8,888

  10,189

  0

  210

  8,399

  14,000

  0

  386

  Bury

  259,251

  43,118

  674

  0

  342,235

  78,185

  572

  0

  North Manchester

  23,154

  32,515

  1,544

  743

  12,090

  23,356

  162

  199

  Central Manchester

  976,350

  99,733

  39

  72

  935,099

  232,946

  552

  3,631

  South Manchester

  884,314

  252,105

  10,775

  5,118

  955,114

  345,357

  20

  2,642

  Oldham

  161,807

  18,820

  0

  294

  162,340

  19,453

  138

  223

  Rochdale

  17,484

  9,208

  0

  55

  6,474

  12,995

  52

  233

  Salford

  88,474

  44,899

  0

  0

  58,125

  57,398

  0

  249

  Stockport

  44,598

  34,965

  103

  362

  31,175

  36,829

  0

  238

  Tameside and Glossop

  22,080

  14,455

  0

  134

  28,802

  16,457

  0

  80

  Trafford

  40,943

  13,001

  360

  141

  16,914

  13,197

  0

  227

  Wigan

  77,302

  37,287

  0

  672

  119,063

  40,345

  0

  0

  Note: 1 The table excludes income due under Section 58 of the NHS Act 1977 (which arises mainly from services provided to private health care establishments) and which for the authorities shown totalled some £241,147 in 1988–89. Separate write-off figures for this category of income are not collected centrally.

  Adjournment Debates
  Mrs. Currie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Adjournment debates and Consolidated Fund debates have been answered by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health since his appointment in December 1988; and what was the mean time at which the Adjournment debates finished.

  Mr. Freeman
  I have answered a total of 52 Adjournment debates and Consolidated Fund debates since my appointment in December 1988 until today. I regret that the information about the mean time of finishing can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Alzheimer's Disease
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the district of Easington suffer from Alzheimer's disease and senile dementia.

  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are suffering from Alzheimer's disease(a) nationally and (b) in North Staffordshire district health authority.

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not collected centrally.
  744
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what support is currently available to local groups offering support to the carers of those with Alzheimer's disease; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Such local voluntary groups are eligible for grants from health authorities or local authority social services departments. They will continue to benefit from the project work centrally funded under the Government's "Helping the Community to Care" programme. At national level, the Department currently gives a grant of £130,000 per year to the Alzheimer's Disease Society as a contribution towards the running costs of its headquarters' services.

  Drugs
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the reasons why there has been no inquiry into discounts received by dispensing doctors on their drug purchases since 1983; and why there are no plans to hold such an inquiry.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Doctors are reimbursed only their actual expenses. The effect of a discount scale for dispensing doctors (unlike the one for pharmacists) is to
  745
  regulate reimbursement between dispensing and non-dispensing doctors. A further inquiry will be required in due course to establish whether there should be any change to the discount scale.

  Toxic Shock Syndrome
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from toxic shock syndrome have been reported in 1990.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Abortions
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding actions of the West Norfolk and Wisbech health authority in respect of terminating pregnancies on social grounds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department has received correspondence from four hon. Members on this subject. I understand that the health authority has not received any formal representations. Under the Abortion Act 1967 a pregnancy may be terminated only if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith, that an abortion is justified in terms of the Act. It is for health authorities to decide the level of their provision for abortion services in the light of local needs and priorities and competing claims on resources.

  Supra-regional service

  Hospital(s)

  1. Chorioncarcinoma services

  Jessop Hospital for Women, and Weston Park Hospital, Sheffield, Charing Cross Hospital, London

  2. Craniofacial services

  Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford, Queen Elizabeth Hospital and Children's Hospital, Birmingham, The Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London

  3. Endoprosthetic services for primary bone tumours

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, London, Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham

  4. Heart Transplantation

  Freeman Hospital, Newcastle General Hospital, Sheffield, Papworth Hospital, Cambridge and The Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, Harefield Hospital, St. George's Hospital, London, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester

  5. Liver Transplantation

  Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, King's College Hospital, London, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, and St James's University Hospital, Leeds

  6. Non-transplant liver services

  King's College Hospital, London, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, and Children's Hospital, Birmingham

  7. Neonatal and infant cardiac services

  Freeman Hospital, Newcastle, Killingbeck Hospital, Leeds, Guy's Hospital, London, Southampton General Hospital, Bristol Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Children's Hospital, Birmingham, Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital, Harefield Hospital and National Heart and Chest Hospitals, Brompton, The Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London

  8. Psychiatric services for deaf people

  Springfield Hospital, London, Whittingham Hospital, Preston

  9. Retinablastoma services

  St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London

  10. Stereotactic Radiosurgery

  Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield

  For some services, clinical activity also takes place in units which are not designated.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those medical conditions which cannot be treated by hospitals within England but can be treated by hospitals within Wales.

  Mr. Freeman
  We are not aware of any medical conditions for which treatment services exist in Wales which are not similarly provided in England.

  Public Services (Free Health Care)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of providing free prescriptions and free dental treatment to policemen, firemen and members of the armed services and their families.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Employment in these services confers no automatic exemption from NHS charges. Such personnel and their families pay prescription or dental charges if they use NHS facilities, unless they qualify for exemption under the NHS regulations by virtue of their age or other personal circumstances. The terms and costs of repayment schemes operated by the services themselves are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Hospital Services
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those hospitals in England which provide supra-regional (i) chorioncarcinoma services, (ii) craniofacial services, (iii) endoprosthetic services for primary bone tumours, (iv) heart transplantation, (v) liver transplantation, (vi) non-transplant liver services, (vii) neonatal and infant cardiac surgery, (viii) psychiatric services for deaf people, (ix) retinablastoma services and (x) stereotactic radiosurgery.

  Mr. Freeman
  Units designated to provide the supra-regional services specified are located at the following hospitals:

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State For Health (1) which hospital in England has the longest waiting list for arthritic hip joint surgery; which has the lowest waiting period for arthritic hip joint surgery; and if he will specify the number of waiting days for each;

  (2) which hospital in England has the longest waiting period for hernia operations; which has the lowest waiting period for hernia operations; and if he will specify the number of waiting days for each;
  747
  (3) which hospital in England has the longest waiting period for varicose veins surgery; which has the lowest waiting period for varicose veins surgery; and if he will specify the number of waiting days for each.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We do not collect centrally information on waiting lists and times for individual hospitals or specific medical conditions.

  AIDS
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will respond to the resolution of the European Parliament calling on member Governments not to sponsor visitors to the sixth international conference on AIDS in June 1990 in San Francisco;

  (2) whether his Department intends to sponsor any visitors to the sixth international conference on AIDS in San Francisco.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No decision has yet been taken on a response to the resolution of the European Parliament or on sponsorship of visitors to the sixth international conference in San Francisco.

  Community Homes (Secure Places)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many secure places there are in community homes and youth treatment centres; how many young people they currently contain; and how many of these young people are(a) on remand and (b) under sentence.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of places available in approved local authority secure units in England on 31 March 1990 was 288. There were 58 secure places in youth treatment centres on that date.

  Such accommodation is available for children in care generally, some of whom will be juvenile offenders or alleged offenders. Young people who have been convicted of grave crimes, and sentenced to be detained under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, may also be placed in such accommodation.

  Details of placements in local authority secure units are collected centrally only on an annual basis, although these do not provide full information in the form requested. The latest information available of the legal status of children in approved secure units is given in "Children Accommodated in Secure Units During the Year Ending 31 March 1988, England". Copies are available in the Library. On 31 March 1988, 228 children were accommodated in local authority secure units and 56 in security in youth treatment centres.

  South Manchester Health Authority
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has yet received any recommendations from the management team led by John Yates which is examining waiting lists in South Manchester; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The 1990–91 series of studies has only recently begun. We have not yet received any recommendations relating to South Manchester. The team will make recommendations to the Department once it has completed its assessment of the district's waiting lists.

  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current extent of the cervical screening programme for women between the age of 25 years and 35 years in England and Wales; and what is the current incidence of cervical cancer among this age group.

  Mr. Freeman
  For information on the cervical cancer screening programme I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) on 3 April at columns 518-19. The number of newly registered cases of malignant neo-plasm of the cervix uteri in women aged 25 to 34 years inclusive in 1984 (England and Wales) was 622; the rate per 100,000 (female) population was 18·3.

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been between 1979 and the latest available year in(a) general practitioners' remuneration and (b) the number of practice staff employed by general practitioners.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  From 1 April 1990 the intended average net remuneration for general practitioners will be £33,280. On 1 January 1991 this figure will rise to £34,680. Payments for reaching preventive care targets for childhood immunisation and cervical screening will be made outside this average figure. These payments will amount to as much as £1,800 for childhood immunisation (children aged under two), and £2,280 for cervical screening, per annum. The corresponding level of remuneration in 1979 was £12,830. All these figures exclude practice expenses which are reimbursed to GPs.

  The total number of practice staff qualifying for direct reimbursement under the ancillary staff scheme increased by 70 per cent. from 33,721 (20,121 whole-time equivalents) in 1979 to 57,410 (33,863 whole-time equivalents) in 1988.

  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in the Official Report those areas in which general practitioners will be in receipt of the proposed deprivation allowance.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on 15 March 1990, at columns 364-65.

  Student Nurses
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been between 1979 and the latest available year in(a) the basic remuneration and (b) the average overtime payments for (i) first-year student nurses and (ii) third-year student nurses; and what is the bursary for project 2000 student nurses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Between April 1979 and April 1990 the basic pay of first-year and third-year student nurses increased by 143 per cent. (6·8 per cent. in real terms) and 159 per cent. (14 per cent. in real terms) respectively. Information on allowances such as overtime and special duty payments to student nurses is available only from 1984–85 and indicates that their earnings from
  749
  these sources add about 11 per cent. to basic pay. For 1990–91, nurses have received a pay rise of 10·6 per cent. with a further 2 per cent. from January 1991. In addition inner London weighting has risen by 28 per cent. This means that average earnings now range from £6,320 (£6,440 from January 1991) for a first-year student nurse outside London to £9,025 (£9,168 from January 1991) for a third-year student nurse in inner London. Project 2000 bursaries for students aged under 26 at the start of their course are £4,700 in London and £4,000 elsewhere. For those aged 26 and over the equivalent figures are £5,200 and £4,500.

  Blind People (Certification)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he intends to revise the arrangements for certifying a person as blind or partially sighted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The content and format of form BD8, which is used by consultant ophthalmologists to certify a person as blind or partially sighted, has been substantially revised following the recommendations of the working group on inter-agency collaboration on visual handicap. The new form, which was introduced on 1 April 1990, has been distributed to health authorities together with instructions for its use. The new form is designed to secure significant improvements in the way that data are collected about the causes of blindness and partial sight and more efficient arrangements for passing on relevant information to the visually handicapped person's GP and local social services department. These improvements will assist local authorities in the effective planning and delivery of services for visually handicapped people.

  Mental Health (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the membership of the working group established in 1989 to draft the Mental Health Act 1983 code of practice; and if he will give details of any request he has made to the Mental Health Act Commission to monitor the code.

  Mr. Freeman
  The working group was composed of the following members:

  Chairman:
  Mr. A. J. Collier, CB—formerly deputy secretary, Department of Health and Social Security;

  Members:
  Professor E. Murphy—consultant psycho-geriatrician and general manager, Lewisham and north Southwark health authority;
  Mrs. J. Miles—general manager, priority care services unit, Aylesbury Vale health authority;
  Mr. M. Brown—director of nursing (mental health) West Lambeth health authority;
  Mr. N. Welch—principal officer, (psychiatric hospitals) Oxfordshire social services department.

  Secretary:
  Mr. W. Bingley—legal director of MIND, on secondment to the Department of Health while acting as secretary;

  Assistant secretary:
  Mrs. M. Houston—Department of Health.

  I have asked the Mental Health Act Commission to monitor the implementation of the code of practice, and from time to time to advise Ministers on any changes that
  750
  Ministers should consider making to the code. In addition, I have asked the commission to consider the criticisms of the code made by Lord Mottistone in the debate in the other place on 29 January 1990 at columns 68 to 86 and to advise Ministers upon them by the end of this calendar year. I know that the commission will be pleased to receive any representations on these specific criticisms or on the code generally.

  Welfare Milk
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that the modified welfare milk scheme is now operating fairly especially on milk retailers who provide doorstep deliveries, and that persons in receipt of milk tokens are not being deprived of such a service; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Following the change in the reimbursement system for the supply of liquid welfare milk, officials from the Department and the Department of Social Security have been advising all sectors of the dairy trade on the best means of operating the modified scheme fairly. I understand that many processors and suppliers have agreed and are currently operating cost-sharing arrangements.

  Very few beneficiaries have reported that their normal supplier has refused to accept tokens. In those cases where this has occurred the beneficiary can usually find an alternative without difficulty and local social security offices are able to offer advice.

  Salmonella
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has made an assessment of the implications for salmonella contamination levels of the inclusion of microparticulated egg milk protein as a replacement for raw egg in mayonnaise; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I assume that the microparticulated egg milk protein referred to is the product Simplesse recently approved for use in frozen desserts by the USA Food and Drug Administration.

  In the United Kingdom, food regulations require commercially prepared salad cream and mayonnaise to contain at least 1·3 per cent. egg yolk solids derived from pasteurised egg product. The microparticulated egg milk protein does not contain any egg yolk and could not be used to replace eggs in salad cream or mayonnaise. Therefore, there are no implications for salmonella contamination levels.

  "Home life"
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he intends to review his Department's publication, "Home Life"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  We have no plans at present to review "Home Life". It will, however, be reinforced and supplemented as a code of practice by a series of published guidance documents on standards to be looked for in residential care, as part of the community care implementation programme.

  Residential Homes
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the sufficiency of local registration authorities' resources to monitor and inspect registered care homes and nursing homes and unregistered care homes and nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Registered Homes Act 1984 gives local authorities responsibility for registering and inspecting private and voluntary residential care homes catering for four or more residents and district health authorities responsibility for the registration and inspection of all independent hospitals and nursing homes.

  The scale of fees for registering and inspecting homes in the independent sector are fixed in regulations made under that Act and take into account the costs incurred by authorities nationally. In accordance with the proposals in the White Paper "Caring for People", social services authorities will be expected to inspect their own homes and the cost will be taken into account in the 1990 local authority settlement.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the sufficiency of the number of National Health Service nursing homes and social services part III homes to allow people a choice of private and public sector when considering residential or nursing care.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The White Paper "Caring for People" reaffirmed the Government's commitment to securing a wider range of options for people who need continual nursing or residential care. This includes NHS nurse-managed units, local authority homes, or nursing or residential care provided by the independent sector. It is for the statutory agencies involved to make an appropriate assessment of care needs which takes into account the views of the individual and his or her carer.

  The National Health Service and Community Care Bill includes provisions for local authorities to draw up and publish their plans for community care. We will expect such plans to aim at an appropriate balance between public and private residential care and nursing home provision, in the light of local circumstances.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to ensure that persons convicted of child abuse are deregistered from the nursing register maintained by the United Kingdom council for nursing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for the English National Board and the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting to investigate allegations of misconduct by nurses, midwives and health visitors in England, and to determine whether the person concerned should be removed from the professional register. If the hon. Member requires further information, he may wish to contact the chairman of the council.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list(a) the names of all the private security firms currently employed by his Department, (b) the number of
  752
  employees for each firm on the contract, (c) the total value of each contract and (d) the total value of all contracts for each financial year since 1984–85.

  Mr. Freeman
  At present Thorn Security Ltd. and Centuryan Security Ltd. hold contracts to guard some of our headquarters buildings. The number of guards employed, the value of each contract and the total value of all contracts for each financial year since 1984–85, is information which I am not at liberty to reveal because it relates to the security of our buildings and is a matter of commercial and contractual confidentiality.

  Olestra
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the nutritional implications of olestra.

  Mr. Freeman
  Olestras are sucrose polyesters classified as food additives by the Food Advisory Committee (FAC). The Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy (COMA), in response to a FAC request for advice, has convened a panel to consider the nutritional implications of the consumption of olestra. The panel is currently awaiting further data from the manufacturers.

  Food Hygiene
  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total number and percentage of successful prosecutions for breaches of the food hygiene regulations in the hotel and catering industry in each year since 1980.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is not held centrally. The following illustrative figures are taken from the annual reports of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers (IEHO). They are based on responses by local authorities to an annual questionnaire from the institution. Response rates vary and figures cannot therefore be compared year on year; they relate to all food premises.

  Prosecutions and convictions under the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Per cent.

  1980

  1,739

  1,631

  94

  1981

  1,139

  1,036

  91

  1982

  920

  821

  89

  1983–84

  1,128

  1,023

  91

  1984–85

  775

  712

  92

  1985–86

  790

  679

  86

  1986–87

  907

  679

  75

  1987–88

  960

  901

  94

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received against the provisions contained in clause 12 of the Food Safety Bill as they relate to the powers of environmental health officers to issue emergency prohibition order notices.

  Mr. Freeman
  Forty-two, apart from representations made in both Houses of Parliament during the current passage of the Food Safety Bill.

  Doctors (Staffordshire)
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will obtain and publish a list of doctors about whom complaints have been made to the Staffordshire family practitioner committee for their refusal to sign postal vote forms for patients to enable them to vote in elections.

  Mr. Freeman
  Apart from the hon. Member's letter received on 4 April by the Staffordshire family practitioner committee, the FPC has not received any complaints about doctors refusing to sign postal vote forms for patients to enable them to vote in elections.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost per(a) in-patient case, (b) out-patient case and (c) day case attendance in each year since 1979 in cash and constant prices.

  England—Average hospital costs

  In-patient case

  Out-patient case

  Day case attendance

  £ (cash)

  £ (at 1989–90 prices)

  £ (cash)

  £ (at 1989–90 prices)

  £ (cash)

  £ (at 1989–90 prices)

  1979–80

  466·72

  935·50

  61·58

  123·43

  35·80

  71·76

  1980–81

  593·08

  1,004·46

  78·22

  132·48

  45·16

  76·48

  1981–82

  640·40

  987·89

  87·55

  135·06

  51·74

  79·81

  1982–83

  689·83

  992·48

  94·23

  135·57

  59·53

  85·65

  1983–84

  687·74

  945·33

  98·21

  134·99

  58·71

  80·70

  1984–85

  708·29

  927·48

  102·25

  133·89

  60·69

  79·47

  1985–86

  718·94

  893·53

  108·88

  135·32

  65·80

  81·78

  1986–87

  759·52

  912·93

  116·14

  139·60

  70·60

  84·86

  Patients using a bed—consultant episode

  Out-patient referral

  £ (cash)

  £ (at 1989–90 prices)

  £ (cash)

  £ (at 1989–90 prices)

  1987–88

  445·60

  508·35

  96·71

  110·32

  Source: The annual costing returns (financial returns for 1987–88) of the district health authorities in England and their predecessor area health authorities.

  Notes:

  1. The figures have been expressed at 1989–90 prices by the use of the Gross Domestic Product deflator.

  2. The figures for in-patients/patients using a bed exclude the expenditure and activity data related to patients whose length of stay frequently exceeds the normal short duration (e.g. geriatrics, mental illness, mental handicap, etc.) by hospital type or by specialty for 1987–88.

  3. The 1987–88 cost per consultant episode (equivalent to a case) excludes general services overheads but groups in-patients and day cases (those who occupy a bed for at least a period of time but do not stay overnight) under recommended Korner definitions "patients using a bed".

  4. The figures for out-patients relate to new cases/referrals some of which necessitate more than one attendance at out-patient clinics.

  NHS Catering Costs
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the cost of catering per patient per day in each regional health authority in each year since 1979 expressed in cash and constant prices.

  Hospital costs—Average total cost of meals per patient day £ (cash)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Northern

  1·84

  2·11

  2·34

  2·52

  2·55

  2·66

  2·74

  2·84

  3·40

  Yorkshire

  1·89

  2·21

  2·42

  2·62

  2·60

  2·69

  2·77

  2·96

  3·58

  Trent

  2·05

  2·33

  2·45

  2·66

  2·71

  2·78

  2·81

  2·98

  3·54

  East Anglia

  2·56

  2·39

  2·58

  2·73

  2·78

  2·89

  2·94

  3·07

  3·71

  North West Thames

  1·96

  2·27

  2·44

  2·45

  2·58

  2·69

  2·83

  3·02

  3·46

  North East Thames

  1·85

  2·11

  2·28

  2·45

  2·54

  2·60

  2·70

  2·89

  3·43

  South East Thames

  2·06

  2·33

  2·42

  2·51

  2·55

  2·68

  2·91

  3·11

  3·56

  South West Thames

  1·91

  2·19

  2·22

  2·33

  2·39

  2·55

  2·66

  2·90

  3·51

  Wessex

  2·00

  2·27

  2·48

  2·63

  2·60

  2·81

  2·90

  3·02

  3·50

  Oxford

  1·95

  2·24

  2·44

  2·55

  2·63

  2·70

  2·76

  3·04

  3·46

  South Western

  1·94

  2·18

  2·37

  2·52

  2·58

  2·72

  2·74

  2·86

  3·29

  West Midlands

  1·97

  2·29

  2·44

  2·58

  2·61

  2·70

  2·75

  2·86

  3·69

  Mersey

  1·81

  2·09

  2·24

  2·39

  2·38

  2·49

  2·56

  2·63

  3·07

  North Western

  1·96

  2·32

  2·53

  2·68

  2·64

  2·76

  2·79

  2·94

  3·12

  754
  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: The information requested for the financial years 1979–80 to 1986–87 is shown in the table together with the available information for 1987–88.

  As a result of the implementation of the recommendations of the steering group on national health services information (the Korner committee), the costing information submitted by authorities from 1987–88 is not comparable to that for previous years. The returns for 1987–88 (the latest from which information is currently available)—focus on district-based treatment costs by specialty-specialty groups within all hospitals as opposed to the less satisfactory earlier basis which sought to produce overall average costs per patient by types of hospital determined only by the main bed usage.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 1 March 1990]: The information requested for the financial years 1979–80 to 1987–88 is shown in the table. The figures include the costs of provisions, labour and energy.
  755

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  SHAs

  2·81

  3·12

  2·40

  3·49

  3·56

  3·72

  3·93

  4·33

  3·41

  England

  1·97

  2·24

  2·41

  2·55

  2·59

  2·70

  2·78

  2·94

  3·45

  Hospital costs—Average total cost of meals per patient day £ (at 1989–90 prices)

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  Northern

  3·69

  3·57

  3·61

  3·63

  3·51

  3·48

  3·41

  3·41

  3·88

  Yorkshire

  3·79

  3·74

  3·73

  3·77

  3·57

  3·52

  3·44

  3·56

  4·08

  Trent

  4·11

  3·95

  3·78

  3·83

  3·73

  3·64

  3·49

  3·58

  4·04

  East Anglia

  5·13

  4·05

  3·98

  3·93

  3·82

  3·78

  3·65

  3·69

  4·23

  North West Thames

  3·93

  3·84

  3·76

  3·52

  3·55

  3·52

  3·52

  3·63

  3·95

  North East Thames

  3·71

  3·57

  3·52

  3·52

  3·49

  3·40

  3·36

  3·47

  3·91

  South East Thames

  4·13

  3·95

  3·73

  3·61

  3·51

  3·51

  3·62

  3·74

  4·06

  South West Thames

  3·83

  3·71

  3·42

  3·35

  3·29

  3·34

  3·31

  3·49

  4·00

  Wessex

  4·01

  3·84

  3·83

  3·78

  3·57

  3·68

  3·60

  3·63

  3·99

  Oxford

  3·91

  3·79

  3·76

  3·67

  3·62

  3·54

  3·43

  3·65

  3·95

  South Western

  3·89

  3·69

  3·66

  3·63

  3·55

  3·56

  3·41

  3·44

  3·75

  West Midlands

  3·95

  3·88

  3·76

  3·71

  3·59

  3·54

  3·42

  3·44

  4·21

  Mersey

  3·63

  3·54

  3·46

  3·44

  3·27

  3·26

  3·18

  3·16

  3·50

  North Western

  3·93

  3·93

  3·90

  3·86

  3·63

  3·61

  3·47

  3·53

  3·56

  SHAs

  5·63

  5·28

  3·70

  5·02

  4·89

  4·87

  4·88

  5·20

  3·89

  England

  3·95

  3·79

  3·72

  3·67

  3·56

  3·54

  3·46

  3·53

  3·94

  Source; The annual costing returns (financial returns for 1987–88) of the district health authorities in England and those of the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals. (Predecessor authorities prior to 1982–83).

  Nuclear Dust Storm, Towyn
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what health warnings and emergency procedures are being carried out at Towyn in respect of the nuclear dust storm warning that was issued on 27 March for that area; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  I have been asked to reply.

  A mini instrument environmental radiation meter type 6-80 was used to measure external radiation in Towyn and samples of sediment were analysed using a nuclear data high resolution germanium gamma spectrometer. The NRPB's assessment of the impact of the radioactivity in the sediment on the public took into consideration the inhalation of windblown dust and concluded that the resulting doses were only a small fraction of natural background radiation.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Private Security Finns
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of all the private security firms currently employed by his Department, the number of employees for each firm on the contract, the total value of each contract and the total value of all contracts for each financial year since 1984–85.

  Mr. Cope
  The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments currently employ a total of 10 security firms on guarding contracts. It would not be in the interests of security to release the names of the firms—details of each contract are subject to commercial confidence. The current total value of contracts, which are usually for a two-year period, is £3,128,785. The firms concerned at present employ about 210 security guards. The total value of all contracts for each financial year since 1984–85 is as follows:756

  Financial year

  Total value of contracts £

  1984–85

  1,202,889

  1985–86

  1,093,350

  1986–87

  1,086,330

  1987–88

  981,906

  1988–89

  1,007.958

  11989–90

  1,142,227

  1Estimate.

  These figures are not directly comparable to those given in earlier answers since they do not include the value of contracts for non-departmental public bodies.

  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now answer the question from the hon. Member for Walsall, South, No. 155, for answer on 13 February on the private security industry.

  Mr. Cope
  I am replying to the hon. Member today.

  Mr. Gerard Slane
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has received from the family of Mr. Gerard Slane or their representatives.

  Mr. Cope
  I have received no representations from the family of Gerard Slane or their representatives.

  Fair Employment Commission
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the chairman and the chief executive of the Fair Employment Commission are perceived to be(a) Protestants, (b) Roman Catholic or (c) other.

  Mr. Needham
  Under section 19 of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, with certain exceptions, the commission may not provide information which discloses, or from which there can be deduced, the
  757
  religious belief of any identifiable individual without his or her written consent. No such consent has been given by the chairman or chief executive of the Fair Employment Commission.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total publicity and advertising expenditure, including for privatisation, of his Department and public bodies for which his Department has responsibility in(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Cope
  The expenditure by the Northern Ireland Departments, the Northern Ireland Office and their sponsored bodies, where this information is readily available, was:

  Financial years

  1979–80 £

  1989–90 £

  11,967,657

  210,595,500

  1 Details of expenditure by the Department of Agriculture and the Northern Ireland Office are not available.

  2 Estimate.

  Western Health and Social Services Board
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, further to his written answer to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East of 9 March,Official Report, column 878, how many of the 48 per cent. of staff whose religion had to be ascertained by a search of their personnel files were (a) Roman Catholics, (b) Protestants and (c) of no religious persuasion.

  Mr. Needham
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 28 March at columns 212-13.

  Executive Houses
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the executive dwellings at Holly Park road, Killinchy, County Down, were built; and what the finance which had been allocated for the improvement scheme to these dwellings in the year 1990–91 has been spent on.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The information it would provide is that the dwellings were built in 1957 and that an improvement scheme is programmed to begin towards the end of the 1991–92 financial year covering kitchens, bathrooms, windows, rewiring, heating, flues, doors and insulation. Finance has not been allocated for 1990–91.

  Further Education Lecturers
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the likely effect on the numbers of full-time lecturers employed by colleges of further education of the new funding arrangements for the youth training programme.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) on 2 April 1990 at column 449.

  Road Accidents, Castlereagh
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many road accidents there have been on the road between Shaw's Bridge and the Miltown junction with the dual carriageway in the borough of Castlereagh for the calendar year 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  There were 16 road accidents reported to the police in which injuries have been sustained on this stretch of road during the 1989 calendar year. No record is kept of road accidents in which there have been no injuries.

  Anglo-Irish Secretariat
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to transfer the Anglo-Irish secretariat from Maryfield to within the grounds of the Stormont estate.

  Mr. Cope
  There are no plans to transfer the secretariat from its present location.

  Residential Care Service
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many children from the Republic of Ireland are presently transferred to the residential care service in Northern Ireland; and who pays for the care of such children.

  Mr. Needham
  There are at present no children from the Republic of Ireland transferred to the residential care service in Northern Ireland.

  Police Rent Allowances
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning the outcome of representations he has received on his decision to set aside certain elements of the police negotiating board's recommendations on rent allowance.

  Mr. Brooke
  Amending regulations were laid before both Houses of Parliament on 7 March. I have received representations about the effect of these on Royal Ulster Constabulary officers whose maximum limit of rent allowance was last reviewed in 1988, on the grounds that they are at a disadvantage when compared to officers in forces which had a review date in 1989. As a result of these representations I have therefore decided that Royal Ulster Constabulary officers should have their existing allowance increased as from 1 April by the movement in the retail prices index since the force maximum limit was last reviewed. Further amending regulations to give effect to my decision will be made as soon as possible.

  This is in addition to the arrangements already provided for in the amending regulations whereby no officer in receipt of rent allowance on 31 March will receive less after that date than he was getting then.

  Statistical Divisions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if he
  759
  will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiated between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1990–91.

  Number employed

  Complement

  Vacancies

  Forecasts

  Statistical posts

  Assistant Secretary Economist

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Chief Agriculture Economist

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Deputy Chief Agriculture Economist

  1

  2

  1

  2

  Senior Principal Scientific Officer

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Senior Principal Economist

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Principal Agricultural Economist

  3

  3

  —

  3

  Principal Scientific Officer

  4

  4

  —

  4

  Principal Economist

  10

  10

  —

  11

  Principal Research Officer

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Senior Agricultural Economist

  4

  5

  —

  5

  Senior Scientific Officer

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Deputy Economist

  14·5

  13·5

  —

  16·5

  Agricultural Economist

  5

  5

  —

  5

  Higher Scientific Officer

  2

  4

  2

  4

  Senior Assistant Economist

  19

  21

  2

  21

  Assistant Economist

  3

  3

  —

  3

  Scientific Officer

  7

  8

  1

  8

  Inspector Group 4

  3

  2

  —

  2

  Inspector Group 3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Inspector Group 2

  3

  3

  —

  3

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  2

  2

  —

  2

  Total

  86·5

  91·5

  6

  95·5

  Administrative posts

  Deputy Principal

  2

  2

  —

  3

  Staff Officer

  6

  6

  —

  7

  Executive Officer I

  13

  13

  —

  15

  Executive Officer II

  26

  27

  1

  26

  Administrative Officer

  65

  66

  1

  66

  Administrative Assistant

  33

  35

  2

  35

  Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  —

  1

  Total

  146

  150

  4

  153

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make it his policy that those soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment who were arrested in connection with the Stevens inquiry but who were not charged with a scheduled offence, are properly compensated for losses incurred as a result of having to move home for security reasons.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 23 March 1990]: My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Gentleman.

  AIDS
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of full-blown AIDS are presently being treated in Northern Ireland; and how many hospitals are involved in such treatment.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Six cases of full-blown AIDS are presently being treated in the Royal Victoria hospital in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many deaths in which AIDS was the main or a contributory cause have occurred in Northern Ireland during each year since 1984.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: The information requested is as follows:
  760
  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 12 March 1990]: The information in respect of the Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office is as follows:

  Number

  1984

  0

  1985

  1

  1986

  0

  1987

  0

  1988

  2

  1989

  7

  1 1990

  2

  1 To date.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many HIV positive cases which have yet to develop into full-blown AIDS have been detected in Northern Ireland; and what are the trends and projections for the years up to the year 2000.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Forty-four HIV positive cases detected in Northern Ireland have not yet developed into full-blown AIDS.

  The incidence of HIV infection and the number of AIDS cases in Northern Ireland are too small to provide a statistical basis on which to make meaningful projections of the likely rate of spread of AIDS.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Northern Ireland is to be included in the Government's programme of anonymous HIV serosurveys which began on 15 January.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Depending on the results obtained from the pilot studies

  761
  now taking place in Great Britain, the DHSS will consider whether to introduce such a programe in Northern Ireland.

  Robberies
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the Irish Republic's authorities have sought to extradite anyone from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic in connection with the Gormanston train robbery.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: It is not the practice either to confirm or deny the existence of an extradition request.

  Labour Statistics, Coleraine
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present level of(a) male and (b) female unemployment in the Coleraine area; and what were the levels (i) five years, (ii) 10 years and (iii) 15 years ago.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Unemployment in the Coleraine jobmarket area for the period 1975 to 1990 is as follows:

  Male

  Female

  February 1975

  957

  342

  February 1980

  1,452

  654

  February 1985

  2,853

  1,018

  February 1990

  2,580

  876

  The unemployment statistics given in the table for the Coleraine jobmarket area are not comparable over time mainly due to changes in the rules or procedures for claiming benefits. Seasonally adjusted figures, that is figures compiled on a consistent basis over time, are produced only for Northern Ireland as a whole.

  Retail Trade
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons he estimates to have been employed in retailing in(a) Coleraine town, (b) Limavady town, (c) Magherafelt town, (d) Londonderry city and (e) Belfast city in each of the last 10 years; how many of those persons were (i) employees and (ii) owners or partners and (1) how many were part-time and (2) full-time employed.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 April 1990]: Figures on the number of jobs in retail distribution for the areas requested are readily available only from the census of employment. The information available from this source over the past decade is as follows:

  Employees in employment—retail distribution

  Town

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  1981

  Belfast

  9,442

  4,260

  13,702

  1984

  Belfast

  8,111

  4,535

  12,646

  Coleraine

  425

  243

  668

  Limavady

  135

  68

  203

  Londonderry

  1,380

  683

  2,063

  Magherafelt

  180

  62

  242

  1987

  Belfast

  8,018

  5,383

  13,401

  Coleraine

  626

  376

  1,002

  Limavady

  204

  218

  422

  Londonderry

  1,378

  947

  2,325

  Magherafelt

  153

  99

  252

  Notes:

  1. The Coleraine, Limavady, Londonderry and Magherafelt towns have been approximated by electoral wards. The data for Belfast relates to the district council area.

  2. The information requested is available for 1981 only for Belfast.

  3. Part-time is defined as those working up to and including 30 hours per week.

  4. The census of employment does not collect data on owners and partners and this is not readily available from other sources.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC Liaison Unit, Brussels
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the first year of operation of the European Commission liaison unit in Brussels.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Know-how Fund
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the members of the advisory board of the know-how fund and the organisations they represent.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The members of the advisory board of the know-how fund and the organisations they represent are as follows:

  Mr. George Robertson, Member of Parliament.

  Sir Russell Johnston, Member of Parliament.

  Mr. Nigel Forman, Member of Parliament.

  Mr. Gavin Laird, CBE, Amalgamated Engineering Union.

  Dr. Zbigniew Pelczynski, Oxford University.

  Mr. Ralph Land, Rank Xerox.

  Dr. Edwina Moreton, The Economist.

  Dr. Norman S. Wooding, CBE, East European Trade Council.

  Hella Pick, The Guardian.

  Professor Richard Crampton, University of Kent.

  Mr. John Murphy, Theodore Goddard.

  Mr. Jolyon D. Larkman, Barclays Bank plc.

  Dr. John Howell, Ernst & Young.

  Mr. Angus Cargill, The Conservative Council on Eastern Europe.

  Sir Frank Lampl, Bovis Construction Ltd.

  Dr. Dennis Deletant, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University of London.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will institute an independent judicial inquiry into cases in which Mr. Warwick Reid was involved during his employment in the Department of the Attorney-General of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  In view of the continuing inquiries being conducted by the independent commission against corruption, it is not my intention to institute an independent judicial inquiry.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates he has as to the number of Hong Kong citizens who have emigrated to(a) Canada, (b) Australia, (c) the United States of America and (d) the United Kingdom in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Maude
  Estimates of emigration are available only on an aggregated basis. According to Hong Kong Government estimates, emigration from Hong Kong in each of the last 10 years was:

  Number

  1980

  22,400

  1981

  18,300

  1982

  20,300

  764

  Number

  1983

  19,800

  1984

  22,400

  1985

  22,300

  1986

  19,000

  1987

  30,000

  1988

  45,800

  1989

  42,000

  Over 90 per cent. of these went to Canada, Australia and the United States.

  During the past 10 years the number of BDTCs and BN(O)s from Hong Kong accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom was:

  Number

  1980

  1,710

  1981

  1,450

  1982

  1,070

  1983

  1,050

  1984

  1,040

  1985

  950

  1986

  880

  1987

  920

  1988

  1,150

  1989

  1,360

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the sale by the Hong Kong authorities of confiscated animal tusks, skins or antlers and other products during 1989; and what other methods of disposal were employed.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: No sale of confiscated animal tusks, skins, or antlers was conducted during 1989. Methods of disposal included releasing live specimens to the wild where appropriate, sending specimens to zoos, educational and scientific institutions or other CITES authorities, and incineration of perishable items.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when was the last auction in Hong Kong of endangered species products seized by the authorities; what items were auctioned; and how much was realised.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: The last sale of seized products of CITES appendix II species was conducted in February 1988. The items offered for sale included ivory, reptile skins, deer antlers, American ginseng, fur skins of otter and wildcat skins. Some HK $2 million was realised.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many prosecutions were initiated by the Hong Kong authorities in the second six months of 1989 arising from illegal imports, exports and possession of endangered species.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: In the second half of 1989 the Hong Kong authorities initiated a total of 92 prosecutions arising from illegal imports, exports and possession of endangered species.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many restaurant inspections were carried out by the Hong Kong authorities in the second six months of 1989 to ensure no rare and endangered species of animals and plants were offered for sale as food; and if any seizures were made.
  765
  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: Eighty-two restaurant inspections were carried out by the Hong Kong authorities in the second half of 1989 to ensure that no endangered species were illegally offered for sale: three seizures were made involving one monitor lizard, one monkey (pet), one sea turtle carapace and 0·79 kg of crocodile meat.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many investigations have been carried out by the special task force on ivory trade of the Customs and Excise Department in Hong Kong since it was set up; and how many seizures of ivory it has made.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: Sixty-two investigations have been carried out by the special task force of the Customs and Excise Department in Hong Kong since its establishment. These investigations have resulted in 20 seizures of ivory.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much ivory has been exported from Hong Kong since 26 February; and to which countries it was exported.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: The Hong Kong authorities have been notified of some 35 kg of ivory exports since 26 February 1990: 6 kg bound for Taiwan and 29 kg for Mexico.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much of the total ivory stockpile known to be in Hong Kong cannot be identified according to country of origin.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: One hundred and sixteen tonnes are not supported by CITES documents and their countries of origin cannot be ascertained.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any of the ivory in Hong Kong now known not to have CITES documentation has been confiscated by the Hong Kong authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: No.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will urgently reconsider their decision to allow a six-month reservation on behalf of Hong Kong ivory stocks; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: No. We shall withdraw the reservation on 18 July. From that date Hong Kong will comply with the ban on international trade in ivory.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the elephant ivory currently held in Hong Kong under CITES regulations has been physically weighed by the authorities.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: Yes.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Hong Kong 766
  management authority has now supplied the relevant statistical material relating to elephant ivory to the Hong Kong branch of the World Wide Fund for Nature.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: Yes.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply of 22 March,Official Report, column 718, if he will give details of the export destination of the 50 tonnes of ivory exported from Hong Kong since the original declaration was made and, in each case, whether it was raw or worked ivory.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 8 March, Volume 168, column 789.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West of 22 March,Official Report, column 718, how many traders made voluntary declarations of ivory stocks held which led to a figure of 670 tonnes of ivory stock in Hong Kong being given on 20 July 1989; and how many made declarations under the statutory requirements.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: The estimated figure of 670 tonnes was based on voluntary declarations by some 630 traders. Following the introduction of possession licensing some 880 applications for possession of commercial ivory were received. Many of the applicants for possession licences are ivory carvers and small retail shops holding small quantities of ivory.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 22 March to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West,Official Report, column 718, what was the nature of the inspections carried out by the Hong Kong authorities on the 116 tonnes of elephant ivory not possessing CITES documentation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: The quantity of ivory held was checked physically against the amounts declared by those applying for possession licences.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 22 March to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West,Official Report, columns 717-18, by what means the Hong Kong authorities were able to establish the legal acquisition of the 116 tonnes of ivory which did not have CITES documentation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: I cannot add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 22 March, Vol. 169, columns 717-18.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances ivory entered Hong Kong without CITES documentation.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: Some ivory entered Hong Kong before CITES came into effect. Some worked ivory was imported without CITES documents before the introduction in 1988 of import controls on worked ivory.
  767
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the mechanics of registration of Hong Kong ivory stocks.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: All holdings over 5 kg require a possession licence. This itemises tusks and large cut pieces which are individually marked to assist identification. The total stock of the individual licence holder is registered with the Hong Kong Agriculture and Fisheries Department. After registration, licensed traders holding ivory in excess of the licensed quantity, or any person holding commercial quantities of ivory without a licence, can be investigated and prosecuted, as necessary.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what difficulties have been experienced by the Hong Kong authorities with the software of the computer programme being used to register existing ivory stockpiles.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: The original software provided no facility for individual categories of ivory stocks. Improvements have been made recently.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of the commercial stocks of ivory in Hong Kong have now been entered into the computer system; and what this is in tonnes.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 29 March 1990]: Four hundred and seventy-two tonnes of commercial stocks

  1979–80

  1988–89

  Number of ancillaries1

  Ratio of ancillaries to teachers3

  Ratio of ancillaries to pupils

  Number of ancillaries1

  Ratio of ancillaries to teachers3

  Ratio of ancillaries to pupils

  Primary

  Clwyd

  329

  5·8

  128·5

  325

  5·4

  118·6

  Dyfed

  176

  10·5

  180·1

  286

  5·6

  106·5

  Gwent

  185

  10·9

  249·9

  425

  4·2

  97·4

  Gwynedd

  68

  17·7

  352·4

  117

  8·6

  169·1

  Mid Glamorgan

  344

  7·6

  175·5

  327

  7·6

  163·1

  Powys

  90

  7·2

  119·8

  100

  5·9

  97·5

  South Glamorgan

  190

  8·7

  196·0

  206

  7·8

  172·2

  West Glamorgan

  304

  6·0

  126·0

  345

  5·0

  103·5

  Number of ancillaries2

  Number of ancillaries2

  Secondary

  Clwyd

  237

  8·3

  139·5

  323

  5·5

  85·1

  Dyfed

  167

  10·3

  164·9

  167

  9·3

  141·9

  Gwent

  297

  8·3

  133·7

  327

  6·0

  89·9

  Gwynedd

  91

  12·7

  204·2

  114

  10·3

  143·7

  Mid Glamorgan

  354

  8·1

  136·2

  354

  6·8

  106·7

  Powys

  65

  9·0

  141·1

  71

  8·2

  112·6

  South Glamorgan

  240

  8·4

  144·8

  224

  7·4

  119·7

  West Glamorgan

  27

  6·9

  113·5

  315

  5·1

  73·8

  1 Includes National Nursery Examination Board (NNEB) qualified nursery assistants and other assistants employed in the classroom.

  2 Includes laboratory/workshop technicians, resource technicians, library assistants, nurses and office staff.

  3 Excludes peripatetic teachers.

  NHS Performance-related Bonuses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many health managers in each of the health authorities in Wales receive performance-related bonuses;

  (2) if he will make a statement on performance-related bonuses in the National Health Service in Wales;

  (3) what sums of money were paid in each health authority area in performance-related bonuses in 1988 and 1989.
  768
  have been entered into the computer system. This represents all the commercial stocks registered with the Hong Kong authorities.

WALFS

  Drug Trials
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if student nurses and nurses in Wales take part in drug trials; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  Clinical trials on drugs are carried out under strict protocols which are supervised locally in Welsh health authorities by clinical trial units and ethical medical research committees. No central records are maintained on the involvement of student nurses and nurses.

  Schools (Ancillary Workers)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each local authority area the number of ancillaries employed in(a) 1970–71, (b) 1979–80 and (c) 1988–89 in (i) the primary and (ii) the secondary sector, and the ratio of ancillaries to teachers and pupils in each case.

  Mr. Roberts
  The information as at September each year is given in the following tables. Data in respect of 1970–71 are not available.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 15 February 1990 and 15 March 1990.

  The numbers of general and senior managers in each of the health authorities currently authorised to receive a performance-related pay element in their salary are as follows:

  769

  Senior staff authorised to receive PRP1

  Health authority

  Number

  Clwyd

  10

  Gwynedd

  7

  Powys

  3

  Gwent

  7

  Mid Glamorgan

  10

  South Glamorgan

  8

  West Glamorgan

  7

  East Dyfed

  4

  Pembrokeshire

  3

  Welsh Health Common

  Services Agency

  5

  1 Subject to intervening staff movements.

  Particulars of actual payments made are confidential.

  Flooding, North Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will back new financial measures to assist in the provision of seven days a week creche facilities for families affected by the north Wales sea floods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The provision of such facilities would be a matter for the relevant local authorities to consider.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will call a conference of social services officials, health officials, housing officials, voluntary workers and local authority financial officers to review and extend the help and guidance given to sea flood victims of the north Wales coast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  My right hon. Friend and I have every reason to believe that the statutory and voluntary agencies have worked effectively together in coping with the effects of the flooding. None of the various bodies concerned has asked for such a conference to be convened.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will make a further payment of £150,000 to the north Wales sea flood appeal to assist residents with compensation claims; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will visit Rhyl to meet the March flood victims; and what measures he will take to assist those in the Rhyl area who suffered material damage and loss.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have visited the areas of north Wales which suffered the worst flooding, as has my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The Government have already taken exceptional measures in making contributions to the appeal fund for disaster victims and in increasing the rate of grant payable under the Bellwin scheme from 75 per cent. to 85 per cent. of eligible expenditure. I have also provided special assistance to farmers affected by sea water inundation.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the health of victims affected by the north Wales coast sea floods.

  Mr. Grist
  I understand from Clwyd health authority that there is at present no evidence of outbreaks of disease in the areas affected by the recent severe flooding.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet Clwyd county council and borough councils for the north Wales coast to consider further practical and financial measures to help flood victims.
  770
  Mr. Peter Walker
  I met the local authorities involved during my visit to north Wales on 6 March. Since then my officials have been in close contact with officials of the councils involved, and I have received no request for a further meeting. I have already announced that the Bellwin scheme of special financial assistance will apply to all eligible expenditure incurred by local authorities in dealing with the emergency. Exceptionally, grant will be paid at a rate of 85 per cent. In addition, I have announced a donation of £150,000 to the three appeal funds.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will meet farmers' leaders to dicuss the impact of the March sea inundation upon farming practice and finances; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have visited the area and been kept fully informed of the impact of sea water flooding of agricultural land. The farmers concerned have been advised of the special assistance I have made available to meet the cost of the remedial treatment to flooded land and of the assistance available under existing grant schemes to help meet other costs.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further action he will take to assist (i) elderly people affected by the recent sea inundation of the north Wales coast (ii) young children and (iii) parents of children of school age.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Consideration is being given to a report from a member of my social services inspectorate who recently visited the affected areas to experience the social problems at first hand.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest estimate of the cost of flood damage on the north Wales coast after sea inundation in March.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is still too early to make any firm estimates of the cost of flood damage in north Wales.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action his Department is taking to clear the mud contaminated by plutonium from the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant deposited in the Towyn area after the February storms.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) on 2 April, Volume 170, column 442.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what radiation monitoring equipment is being sent to Towyn in respect of the mud contaminated by plutonium from the Sellafield nuclear processing plant after the February storms and also in respect of the nuclear dust storm warning issued on 27 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  A mini instrument environmental radiation meter type 6-80 was used to measure external radiation in Towyn and samples of sediment were analysed using a nuclear data high resolution germanium gamma spectrometer. The NRPB's assessment of the impact of the radioactivity in the sediment on the public took into consideration the inhalation of windblown dust and concluded that the resulting doses were only a small fraction of natural background radiation.

  A40, Carmarthen
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what reason on Sunday 1 April, on the eastbound dual carriageway of the A40 one mile to the west of Carmarthen, speed limits of 50 mph on one stretch, 30 mph on another, together with road signs to the effect that the outside lane was closed, were in force.

  Mr. Roberts
  Work was completed on the major reconstruction of the A40 west of Carmarthen on 30 March. The cones, which were part of substantial traffic management measures, were removed on 31 March and the warning signs during the afternoon of 1 April. This period was not unreasonable for the amount of work involved.

  Mentally Handicapped People
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report a list of those centres in Wales which specialise in dental treatment for the mentally handicapped.

  Mr. Grist
  The policy of the Welsh Office, as set out in the all-Wales strategy for the development of services for mentally handicapped people, is that persons with a mental handicap should have access to public services, including generic health services, in the same manner as other people in the community. Any special needs of people with a mental handicap are generally provided for by the community dental service, as detailed in Welsh Office circular WHC(89)28 "The Future Development of Community Dental Services", or in the hospital service. The appropriate level and source of service for long-term hospital residents is a matter for local determination. Information is not held centrally on centres specialising in dental treatment for mentally handicapped people.

  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what provision is made in Welsh hospitals for the post-operative care of mentally handicapped patients.

  Mr. Grist
  The policy of the Welsh Office, as set out in the all-Wales strategy for the development of services for mentally handicapped people, is that persons with a mental handicap should have access to public services, including generic health services, in the same manner as other people in the community. It is for district health authorities to determine ways of meeting any special needs for post-operative care, including the provision of nurses qualified in the field of mental handicap. Information is not held centrally on the provision made in individual hospitals.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) which hospital in Wales has the longest waiting list for arthritic hip joint surgery; which has the lowest waiting period for arthritic hip joint surgery; and if he will specify the number of waiting days for each;

  (2) which hospital in Wales has the longest waiting period for varicose veins surgery; which has the lowest waiting period for varicose veins surgery; and if he will specify the number of waiting days for each.

  Mr. Grist
  Information about numbers of patients on waiting lists for individual operations is not collected centrally.
  772
  Hospital waiting list statistics, analysed by specialty, are published in the Welsh hospital waiting list bulletin 1990: No. 1, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the rate poundage that will be used in Wales as the basis for calculating the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The uniform business rate poundage for Wales is 36·8p. The method of calculating it did not depend upon a particular level of rate poundage. It has been set in line with the Government's commitment to raise broadly the same amount in real terms from private businesses and the nationalised industries in the first year of the new system as in the last year of the old.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is his estimate of the sums payable to the Welsh Office for the year 1990–91 in respect of non-domestic rates by each of the borough or district councils in the county of Dyfed;

  (2) what is his estimate of the sums that will be paid by the Welsh Office for the year 1990–91 in respect of non-domestic rates to the county of Dyfed and to each of the boroughs or district councils in Dyfed respectively.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Local authority

  Contribution into the pool1

  Entitlement from the pool2

  Carmarthen

  4,761,327

  1,399,793

  Ceredigion

  4,470,789

  1,578,656

  Dinefwr

  2,378,428

  961,446

  Llanelli

  7,741,743

  1,868,612

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  8,201,994

  1,718,363

  South Pembrokeshire

  7,852,064

  1,048,827

  Dyfed

  —

  45,635,651

  TOTAL

  35,406,345

  54,211,348

  1 Represents provisional estimates of 1990–91 contributions into the Welsh non-domestic rating pool as declared by authorities on form NNDR1.

  2 Represents each authority's share of the 1990–91 distributable amount of non-domestic rates.

  Community Councils
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will consider at a suitable legislative opportunity reintroducing the provision for an annual public meeting for residents of a community council area to question the community council as a body on its work in the preceding year similar to that opportunity which was available from 1948 until the enactment of the Local Government Act 1972.

  Mr. Grist
  I have no plans for legislation on this matter. The Local Government Act 1972 (section 27 and schedule 12, part V) enables a chairman of a community council, any two councillors representing the community on the council or any six local government electors for the community to convene, at any time, a community meeting to discuss community affairs.

  Workers Educational Authority
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning the organisation and funding of the WEA in Wales.

  Mr. Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 4 April to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a table showing the budgeted average expenditure per head for the year 1990–91 for(a) Berkshire, (b) Oxfordshire, (c) Westminster and (d) Wandsworth; and what information he has on the reasons for the variations.

  1990–91 Standard spending assessments by major service block (£ million)

  Education

  Personal Social Services

  Police

  Fire and Civil Defence

  Highway maintenance

  Other Services

  Capital financing

  Total

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  (£ million)

  Blackburn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  13·087

  2·095

  15·182

  Blackpool

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11·759

  1·608

  13·367

  Bolton

  87·298

  19·964

  —

  —

  9·814

  26·800

  14·000

  157·876

  Burnley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7·145

  0·838

  7·983

  Bury

  51·895

  11·132

  —

  —

  6·522

  13·971

  8·206

  91·726

  Cheshire CC

  294·559

  53·680

  30·911

  14·971

  31·175

  15·473

  33·922

  474·691

  Chester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7·587

  0·645

  8·232

  Chorley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·059

  0·453

  5·512

  Congleton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·888

  0·354

  4·242

  Crewe and Nantwich

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·330

  0·563

  6·893

  Ellesmere Port and Neston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·805

  0·692

  5·497

  Fylde

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·941

  0·400

  4·341

  Greater Manchester Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  —

  —

  —

  53·472

  —

  -1·536

  2·352

  54·288

  Greater Manchester Police Authority

  —

  —

  115·636

  —

  —

  -3·321

  1·744

  114·059

  Halton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7·719

  1·030

  8·749

  Hyndburn

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·728

  0·565

  6·293

  Knowsley

  64·361

  17·242

  —

  —

  4·200

  16·330

  10·820

  112·951

  Lancashire CC

  445·622

  92·854

  52·506

  24·768

  41·530

  25·634

  60·042

  742·956

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8·597

  0·831

  9·428

  Liverpool

  177·391

  57·952

  —

  —

  14·833

  63·099

  36·277

  349·552

  Macclesfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7·675

  0·677

  8·352

  Manchester

  163·642

  59·803

  —

  —

  19·332

  62·748

  35·107

  340·630

  Merseyside Fire and Civil Defence Authority

  —

  —

  —

  35·860

  —

  -1·030

  1·704

  36·535

  Merseyside Police Authority

  —

  —

  77·791

  —

  —

  -2·234

  1·249

  76·806

  Oldham

  76·526

  18·014

  —

  —

  6·962

  23·116

  14·550

  139·168

  Pendle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6·171

  0·523

  6·693

  Preston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  11·691

  1·510

  13·201

  Ribble Valley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2·585

  0·266

  2·811

  Rochdale

  71·852

  17·430

  —

  —

  6·378

  19·361

  12·929

  127·950

  Rossendale

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3·965

  0·362

  4·327

  Salford

  71·245

  23·705

  —

  —

  9·825

  24·040

  17·924

  146·740

  Sefton

  87·681

  20·254

  —

  —

  7·406

  27·657

  15·043

  158·041

  South Ribble

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4·774

  0·415

  5·190

  St. Helens

  60·740

  12·272

  —

  —

  5·277

  17·185

  13·615

  109·089

  Stockport

  81·829

  18·110

  —

  —

  10·334

  24·830

  13·058

  148·160

  Tameside

  69·741

  16·562

  —

  —

  8·074

  19·849

  10·589

  124·815

  Trafford

  64·046

  15·114

  —

  —

  8·672

  20·017

  14·020

  121·869

  Vale Royal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·982

  0·467

  6·449

  Warrington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10·947

  0·983

  11·931

  West Lancashire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·866

  0·579

  6·446

  Wigan

  95·977

  18·894

  —

  —

  8·993

  23·882

  17·879

  165·626

  Wirral

  112·387

  26·943

  —

  —

  8·066

  30·980

  18·760

  197·136

  Wyre

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5·665

  0·766

  6·431

  774
  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Budgeted 1990–91—Net revenue expenditure per head of relevant population

  £/head

  Berkshire

  732

  Oxfordshire

  714

  Westminster

  1,286

  Wandsworth

  1,176

  Expenditure differences reflect the decisions of the local authorities concerned, taking account of their functions and the needs of their areas.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the amounts of each component in the standard spending assessments of each council in the north-west, together with the respective totals.

  Mr. Chope
  The amounts are listed in the table:
  775
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will amend the community charge regulations so that in applying the standard community charge a distinction is made between properties that are in use as second homes and unoccupied properties which the owners are endeavouring to sell because they have moved somewhere else.

  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to increase the three-month period before which a standard community charge is liable for a domestic property which is for sale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on 21 March 1990 at columns 658-59.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy to assist the Data Protection Registrar's representative investigating the disclosure of personal data from community charge registers from London borough of Wandsworth sources to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Department has always given, and will continue to give, full assistance to the Office of the Data Protection Registrar.

  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out in the Official Report a list of charging authorities together with the other adjustment being made by each to its community charge precept.

  Mr. Chope
  I intend to lay a summary of the information returned by individual authorities in the Library of the House after the recess.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment who will be required to pay the costs involved in obtaining a liability order from the court pursuant to the operation of the Community Charges (Deductions from Income Support) (No. 2) Regulations 1990 No. 545.

  Mr. Chope
  The costs associated with obtaining a liability order would form part of the amount for which the order is made against the charge payer.

  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he is making for consultation about adjustments to the SSAs for individual authorities for the financial year 1991–92.

  Mr. Chope
  My officials have just started discussions with officials of the local authority associations. This will provide the associations with the opportunity to put forward any new evidence on SSAs.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list in descending order the percentage increases in budgeted spending by county councils for 1990–91 over spending for 1989–90 and indicate the political control of each council.

  Mr David Hunt
  I am arranging for a summary of the information returned by individual authorities to be placed in the Library of the House after the recess.
  776
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will provide a breakdown of the amount of central Government grant provided to local authorities per head of population in(a) England, (b) Scotland, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland for each year since 1979;

  (2) what factors lead to the difference between the percentage of local authority income represented by central Government grants in (a) England and (b) Wales;

  (3) what was the precentage figure of local authority finance provided in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, respectively, from (a) central Government grant, (b) domestic rates and (c) business rates in each year since 1979; and what are the projected figures for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 27 March 1990]: I will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the implementation of community charge regulations in respect of medical and other postgraduate students from overseas following specialist short courses of study of up to 12 months' duration in Britain.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 3 April 1990]: Everyone following a full-time course of education will be eligible for the student relief regardless of his nationality. In other cases, postgraduate or medical students will be subject to an authority's personal community charge if they are deemed to be solely or mainly resident within that authority's area by the relevant community charges registration officer. Guidance on these points is contained in practice note No. 9, "Sole or Main Residence", and practice note No. 23, "Students and the Community Charge", which have been sent to all charging authorities.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total amount of grant distributed by central Government to(a) the Essex and (b) East Sussex county councils; and what were the comparable payments in each of the previous five years.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The information is as follows:

  Revenue grants1

  Essex £ million

  East Sussex £ million

  1984–85

  190·340

  79·810

  1985–86

  167·120

  75·318

  1986–87

  162·469

  73·243

  1987–88

  167·537

  75·451

  1988–89

  152·197

  81·866

  1989–90

  130·358

  75·790

  1 Comprising Block Grant and specific and supplementary grants.

  Docklands
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been allocated to the London Docklands development corporation's social development fund; how much has been spent so far; and what projects have been financed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The LDDC does not have a "social development fund". However, total expenditure, arising from the memorandum of agreement between the LDDC
  777
  and the London borough of Newham is £25,349,000; details are listed in the table. Total docklands-wide expenditure by the corporation to date on social and community projects is £83,821,000 including housing, education, training and community support. It would not be practicable to list all of these projects.

  Project

  Expenditure (£ 000s)

  Queensland and Westland points—Environmental works and meeting rooms

  548

  Royal Victoria Gardens—Paddling pool, play equipment, safety surface

  155

  Becton Alps—remedial and safety works

  67

  Beckton district park—Various works

  83

  East Becton district centre—Phase 1 infrastructure works

  870

  Mid Becton school—Parking and pedestrian access

  91

  East side Cyprus by-pass landscaping

  119

  West side Cyprus by-pass landscaping

  88

  Refurbishment of Thames House for Newham community college

  315

  Winsor Park social housing

  19,863

  Dock directiors access centre

  850

  North Beckton housing refurbishment

  2,300

  Total

  25,349

  Mobility
  Mr. McWilliam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sums of money put into the national mobility scheme by(a) his Department and (b) local authorities in each year since its inception.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The level of funding provided by the Department of the Environment each year was:

  £

  1980–81

  6,258

  1981–82

  77,309

  1982–83

  76,382

  1983–84

  67,130

  1984–85

  70,625

  1985–86

  74,983

  1986–87

  152,596

  1987–88

  170,082

  1988–89

  178,451

  Local authorities have not made any direct financial contribution towards the national mobility office's cost of running the national mobility scheme.

  Boundary Commission
  Mr. Tom Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what timetable he envisages for implementing the recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend must allow a period of at least six weeks to elapse after he has 778
  received a report from the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. Usually a longer period is allowed in which the public can make representations about the report. When he decides to implement recommendations put to him by the commission it is his usual practice to put them into effect, with or without modification, from 1 April of the year following his decision. In a few cases a longer period has been allowed because of the magnitude of the changes, or because the decision has been announced only shortly before 1 April.

  In the current programme statutory reviews of London and the metropolitan counties, the commission is required to complete its reviews by 31 March 1992. The commission has not yet made any recommendations on these reviews to my right hon. Friend, but I understand that it expects to begin to do so in the latter half of this year.

  Skiing
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what Government money has been paid to(a) the English Ski Council and (b) any other body promoting skiing in England; and if he will make it his policy that no Government funding goes to any organisation to support attempts to build a ski slope in Reddish vale.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Sports Council allocated grants of
  £69,696 to the English Ski Council and £320,000 to the British Ski Federation in its financial year 1989–90. The figure for the Sports Council's regional expenditure for skiing in 1989–90 is not yet available. Neither the Government nor the Sports Council have received an application for funding towards a ski slope in Reddish vale.

  Bathing Waters
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that the coastal waters off the Durham coast will meet European Economic Community bathing standards; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Details were published on 20 October 1989 at column 261 of a £1·1 billion (1987 prices: £1·4 billion at November 1989 prices) investment programme to bring the remaining identified bathing waters up to European standards. An additional £1·5 billion investment programme to treat all sewage before discharge to coastal waters was announced by my right hon. Friend on 5 March at column 452. We intend that these programmes should be integrated and completed as soon as practicable.

  Discharge Consents, Stanlow
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consents the Shell site at Stanlow currently possesses for discharges into(a) the Mersey and (b) the Gowy; when they were last reviewed; and when they are next planned to be reviewed.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I understand from the National Rivers Authority (NRA) that consented discharges of trade, sewage and surface water effluent from the Shell site at Stanlow are to either the Manchester ship canal, or the River Gowy and its tributaries. Details of these consents
  779
  are held on the public register maintained by the NRA and available for inspection at the North West regional office, New Town house, Buttermarket street, Warrington.

  The consents for these discharges have been reviewed on an individual basis, as appropriate, the most recent reviews being in July 1988.

  The NRA is currently engaged in discussions with Shell with a view to improving the site drainage arrangements at Stanlow, and as a consequence is further reviewing all the discharge consents for the site.

  Dungeness
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on plans laid for the protection of Dungeness head in Kent.

  Mr. Trippier
  Dungeness is a site of special scientific interest notified by the Nature Conservancy Council under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It has also been identified as meeting the criteria necessary for designation as a special protection area under the EC directive on the conservation of wild birds (79/409/EEC) and as a wetland of international importance under the Ramsar convention (Cmnd. 6465) and, therefore, the advice to planning authorities contained in Department of the Environment circular 27/87 applies.

  County Councils
  Sir David Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table showing the population and the number of staff employed by Hampshire county council and that of the neighbouring county councils of Wiltshire, Berkshire, Surrey, West Sussex and also the same information in respect of Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is listed in the table:

  Authority

  Total staff (December 1989)

  Population (Thousands)

  Bedfordshire

  20,388

  531

  Berkshire

  22,749

  747

  Buckinghamshire

  22,069

  627

  Hampshire

  51,054

  1,543

  Hertfordshire

  37,427

  986

  Surrey

  26,852

  1,000

  West Sussex

  22,304

  703

  Wiltshire

  20,986

  557

  Note: The staffing figures are for general services only; they do not include law and order services. The police function in some of the non-metropolitan counties is carried out by a joint police authority.

  Sources:

  1. Joint Staffing Watch—December 1989 survey.

  2. OPCS mid-year estimates of population (1988).

  Leeds Development Corporation
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central of Wednesday 22 March, if he will list those activities designated by the Leeds development corporation as liaison with the local community.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Leeds development corporation is actively consulting and liaising with the local community about its activities. It is consulting the local community 780
  about the planning frameworks that it is preparing for the Leeds development area. It is consulting the local community about highway and development proposals.

  The corporation publishes and circulates a biannual newspaper called Update to keep the local community informed of its progress and activities. It holds and attends public meetings and stands ready to discuss local ideas and concerns.

  Water Privatisation
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many investors bought shares in the water industry when it was privatised.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 24 January 1990 to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) at column 747.

  Sewage Disposal
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the effectiveness of present sea outfalls off the Durham coast; and what recommendations the pollution inspectorate has made on primary, secondary and tertiary treatment of sewage.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The National Rivers Authority is responsible for consenting and monitoring the effectiveness of discharges to coastal waters. Sea outfalls at Crimden are known to affect adversely the identified bathing water there. Northumbrian Water plc has plans to improve these discharges. My right hon. Friend announced on 5 March at column 452 that all discharges to coastal waters will be required to receive at least primary treatment.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many comments and inquiries he has received regarding the future use of long sea outfalls or sewage disposal; and how the European Community's policies and directives affect this practice.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  As recorded in my right hon. Friend's statement on 5 March at column 452, the views of interested parties are summarised in the report by Consultants in Environmental Sciences Ltd., a copy of which is in the Library. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is also aware of evidence from a variety of sources (including the CES report) taken by the Environment Committee inquiring into bathing waters and long sea outfalls. The EC-proposed municipal waste water treatment directive generally requires secondary treatment of sewage prior to discharges where it can be shown that there are no adverse environmental effects. These requirements are in line with my right hon. Friend's statement on sewage treatement policy on 5 March. A copy o the explanatory memorandum on the proposed municipal waste water directive is in the Library.

  Greenhouse Effect
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the greenhouse effect.

  Mr. Trippier
  A paper on the greenhouse effect, prepared by the European Commission, was discussed at
  781
  the Environment Council meeting on 22 March when my right hon. Friend made a number of suggestions for positive action by the Community.

  Water Industry
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the total level of investment planned by the water industry over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The total investment allowed for in setting charges limits for the water industry in England and Wales over the next 10 years was £26·3 billion (1989–90 prices). The Secretary of State's recent announcement that in future all significant discharges of sewage to sea should be treated and that dumping of sewage sludge at sea should he ended will increase the investment programme to around £28 billion.

  Colliery Sites (Reclamation)
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has made with British Coal about the reclamation of colliery sites.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My Department and the Department of Energy have held a number of discussions with British Coal about the problems of coalfield dereliction. I am glad to say that, as part of the outcome of those discussions, the British Coal Corporation has accepted responsibility for the restoration of collieries which close in the four years following 31 March 1990.

  I regard this as an important step forward in placing environmental responsibilities where they belong. I believe that as a result of this agreement land will be reclaimed to an acceptable standard more quickly than would otherwise be the case. We shall keep the arrangement under review and will be considering how the problems of coalfield dereliction may best be tackled in the longer term.

  In large part, these additional liabilities will be eligible for deficiency grant under the Coal Industry Act 1990, so there will be no significant adverse impact on the corporation's finances.

  The undertaking does not apply in Scotland and Wales where the derelict land grant systems operate on a different basis.

  The full terms of the agreement are as follows:

  1. British Coal will continue its current practice of consulting with the relevant local planning authority(ies) about the appropriate planning future for the sites of any colliery which closes.

  2. In respect of any deep mine started before 1 July 1948 which closes within four years commencing 1 April 1990, British Coal will agree to an acceptance of responsibility for the restoration of such sites to a soft end use. This acceptance of responsibility will not affect in any way the corporation's present practice of seeking appropriate planning consents for redevelopment of the site as soon as appropriate following any announcement of closure.

  3. When the planning consent provides only for restoration to a soft end use, British Coal will demolish all buildings, plant and machinery structures or erections and will restore the colliery surface areas, together with adjoining or associated tip areas used solely for the deposit of mineral waste for that colliery, in accordance with a scheme agreed with the mineral planning authority, within a period of 24 months from the date when mining operations have permanently ceased, or such longer period as may be provided for in the agreed scheme.

  4. Where the planning consent provides that the whole site or part of the site is appropriate for redevelopment, the
  782
  land will be valued as if no responsibility for restoration to a soft end use existed, but to discharge its voluntary undertaking, British Coal will contribute to any subsequent derelict land grant-aided scheme the notional cost of restoration of the whole site to a soft end use to a standard acceptable to the mineral planning authority. In a situation where the cost of such restoration is unable to be agreed between British Coal and the mineral planning authority, then such costs will be determined on the basis of an independent valuation.

  Caravans (London)
  Mr. Cartwright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his most recent estimate of the number of traveller caravans in the Greater London area which are not based on permanent sites provided under the Caravan Sites Act; and what were his similar estimates for each of the past five years.

  Mr. Chope
  Estimates of the number of caravans in Greater London on unauthorised sites are:

  Number

  January 1985

  209

  January 1986

  638

  January 1987

  550

  January 1988

  450

  January 1989

  391

  January 1990

  318

  Palace of Westminster (Lifts)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many lifts there are in the House and its outbuildings, and if there have been any lift reports in the last 10 years.

  Mr. Chope
  There are 69 lifts in the Palace of Westminster and its outbuildings. There is also one escalator serving the underground car park. Regular internal maintenance reports are logged at monthly and quarterly intervals. Independent safety reports are also produced at six-monthly intervals.

  Strip Lighting
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment with what frequency the strip lighting for offices and corridors is cleaned and replaced.

  Mr. Chope
  Strip lighting in the Palace of Westminster and its outbuildings is cleaned approximately once a year and tubes are replaced as necessary.

  Parish and Community Councils
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will consider bringing forward proposals in the next local government Bill to extend the power of the local government Commissoner for Local Administration to investigate allegations of maladministration by parish councils in England and community councils in Wales.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Local Government Act 1974 did not extend the powers of the Commissioners for Local Administration (the local ombudsmen) to parish and community councils because the existence of parish and community meetings enables any local government
  783
  elector to raise any question or parish or community business directly with the rest of the electorate. This argument still appears valid.

  Dogs
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of measures taken to deal with dangerous dogs; what recent representations he has received calling for further measures, including a dog registration scheme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department is monitoring the effect of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989. Thre has been no problem in identifying owners in recent attacks so there would be no benefit from introducing a dog registration scheme.

  Palace of Westminster (Fire Inspection)
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when there was last a full fire inspection of the House and its outbuildings.

  Mr. Chope
  The last full fire inspection of the Palace, which took approximately six months to undertake, was completed in 1986. The majority of the outbuildings were inspected in the last financial year and the remainder will be in the current financial year.

  In addition, all proposed alterations to the fabric of buildings are agreed with the fire officer before the work is carried out.

  Crown Suppliers and PSA
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he is making in implementing his proposals for the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers and the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 15 March 1990 at column 311.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to implement any of the recommendations made by Lord Carver's committee arising from its recent inquiry into the future of the Nature Conservancy Council.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are at present considering the Select Committee's report and, as I indicated in Standing Committee, expect to make a positive response to its recommendations as soon as possible.

  Uniform Business Rate
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the rate poundage that will be used in England as the basis for calculating the uniform business rate.

  Mr. Chope
  The uniform business rate poundage in England for 1990–91 is 34·8p.

  Newcastle Quayside Development Scheme
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public money he proposes to spend through the Tyneside urban development corporation on the Newcastle quayside development scheme, in Newcastle upon Tyne, East constituency.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No final decision has yet been reached on the amount of public money to be invested in this scheme.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that(a) Mr. Godfrey Bradman and the Rosehaugh property group and (b) Stanley Millar Builders are able to meet their financial commitments through Newcastle Quayside Developments to the Tyneside urban development corporation's proposed scheme in Newcastle upon Tyne, East for which they are preferred developer.

  Mr. Moynihan
  No decision has been taken on the scheme for the east quayside area of Newcastle upon Tyne, which is being progressed by the Tyne and Wear development corporation. It is the responsibility of the development corporation to satisfy itself with regard to the financial standing of any companies with which it enters into agreements.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has concerning the toxicity of pesticides in combination; and what plans he has for further research.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am aware of the research that has been carried out on this subject by the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, in conjunction with Reading university. A proposal that the Department should fund further work in this area is currently under consideration by my Department.

  Newcastle (Inner-City Partnership)
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the present population of(a) the city of Newcastle, (b) the part of Newcastle covered by the inner-city partnership action programme's geographical boundaries and (c) the part of Newcastle upon Tyne, East parliamentary constituency that lies within the inner-city partnership action programme's geographical boundaries.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Registrar-General's mid-year estimates (1988) give the population of the city of Newcastle upon Tyne as 279,700. Newcastle city council estimates that the current population of its inner area is about 110,000, of which approximately 48,000 is within the Newcastle upon Tyne, East parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the criteria he used in deciding to withdraw inner-city partnership funding from the east Newcastle victim support scheme.

  Mr. Moynihan
  This project, a former Tyne and Wear county council scheme, has received UP support since 1980–81. In 1986–87 it was submitted by the city of
  785
  Newcastle for tapered funding on the standard arrangements for time-expired projects agreed by partnership committee. This funding ceased, as agreed, on 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which of the approved projects under the inner-city partnership action programme listed in his letter to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, dated 29 March, are located in Newcastle upon Tyne, East parliamentary constituency.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The following four projects approved in the 1990–91 Newcastle/Gateshead partnership action programme are located within the Newcastle upon Tyne, East parliamentary constituency: Wharrier Street school "Design For Play" (phase 2); the St. Oswald's environmental improvements project; the East End psychiatric community care scheme; and the East End carers outreach project. A further 10 new approved projects are inner-city-wide initiatives.

  Environmental Technology Transfer Programme
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the contribution made by his Department to the European Communities network of environmental technology transfer programme; and what benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom from this programme.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 3 April 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for industry and enterprise. The Department of the Environment has not participated in the European Commission network of environmental technology transfer (NETT).

  Local Government Boundaries
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he has under section 61 of the Local Government Act 1972; and if he has ever called a local inquiry under this section of the Act.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: Section 61 of the Local Government Act 1972 empowers the Local Government Boundary Commissions for England and for Wales and district councils to hold public local inquiries as part of their reviews of local government areas. The section confers no powers on the Secretary of State. It follows that the Secretary of State has held no inquiries under this section.

  Nuclear Dust Storm, Towyn
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement in respect of the nuclear dust storm warning issued on 27 March for the Towyn area.

  Mr. Grist
  I have been asked to reply.

  A mini instrument environmental radiation meter type 6-80 was used to measure external radiation in Towyn and samples of sediment were analysed using a nuclear data high resolution germanium gamma spectrometer. The NRPB's assessment of the impact of the radioactivity in the sediment on the public took into consideration the inhalation of windblown dust and concluded that the resulting doses were only a small fraction of natural background radiation.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Pensions
  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would have been the cost to public funds if the state retirement pension had been paid in line with increases in average earnings, rather than prices, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is contained in the reply given to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 20 March at column 595.

  Sir Peter Hordern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are dependent upon the state retirement pension alone; and what proportion they bear to the total number of pensioners, in each of the last 10 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The most recent figures available are set out in the table. The family expenditure survey does not identify state retirement pension separately from income support and housing benefits. However, few pensioners rely solely on their state pension as their only income as the vast majority would be entitled to extra help from income-related benefits.

  Proportion of pensioner tax units

  per cent.

  1979

  20·2

  1980

  19·8

  1981

  18·6

  1982

  17·6

  1983

  16·7

  1984

  18·0

  1985

  14·5

  1986

  15·9

  1987

  13·5

  Notes:

  1. Source: Family Expenditure Survey.

  2. A pensioner tax unit is the unit on which a tax assessment is made.

  One-Parent Families
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many one-parent families have applied for and been awarded Department of Social Security financial help during each of the last five years as a result of marriage break-up; and what is the total cost to the Department of Social Security of maintaining such families.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is available only for supplementary benefit/income support and is set out in the table:

  Supplementary Benefit/Income Support paid to lone parents who are divorced or separated: numbers and expenditure

  Annual equivalent

  Year

  Number of lone Parent claimants

  Cash (£ million)

  Real terms ( 1988–89 prices (£ million)

  1983

  304,000

  606

  837

  1984

  319,000

  680

  895

  1986

  364,000

  833

  1,041

  1987

  381,000

  902

  1,035

  1988

  400,000

  1,072

  1,072

  Notes:

  1. Source: Annual Statistical Enquiries for the relevant years. There was no Enquiry in 1985.

  787

  2. Information is for divorced and separated lone parents, men and women.

  3. Annual Equivalent: This is derived from the average amounts in payment to these categories of lone parents at the time of the Enquiries.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the total amount of central Government support required to cover community charge rebates in Scotland in 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will express this as a percentage of total expected income from the community charge in Scotland.

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

  Scotland

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Central Government Grant for Community Charge rebates/Benefit. (£ million)

  214

  225

  Rebates as a percentage of total expected Community Charge income (per cent.)

  21

  20

  Note: The figures for 1990–91 reflect the increase in the upper capital limit announced in the Budget statement.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to the answer given to the hon. Member for Colne Valley of 12 March,Official Report, column 66, concerning the cost of abolishing savings thresholds above which no community charge rebate is payable, what would be the estimated cost to the Exchequer of abolishing the capital limit (a) altogether and (b) for pensioners only, presuming that those people were
  receiving income amounting to 10 per cent. per annum from their savings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The cost of abolishing both the upper and lower capital thresholds and the tariff income, and assuming instead an income from capital of 10 per cent. per annum, would be(a) £20 million for all claimants and (b) £15 million for pensioners only. A total of 590,000 benefit units would gain by these changes (by becoming entitled or by increasing their benefit). A total of 2,330,000 benefit units would lose (by losing all or part of their benefit).

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of people within the district of Easington who will qualify for community charge rebate following the rise in the capital disregard to £16,000.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is not available. Data are not available to provide reliable estimates on such a detailed regional basis.

  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many of the people in Scotland estimated by the Government to be eligible for poll tax rebate are now in receipt of a rebate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  For 1989–90 the latest estimate of the number of community charge rebates in payment in Scotland is 930,000. Rebates to couples are counted as one rebate.

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what information he has about the length of time taken to process different types of benefit claims(a) now and (b) prior to implementation of the new social security system.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Since the Government reforms were introduced in 1988, the social security system has become simpler for claimants to understand and easier for staff to operate. As a result there have been very real all-round improvements in the clearance times of claims. The table shows comparable performance in key benefit areas.

  Average clearance time for benefit claims

  Days

  1987–88

  11989–90

  Income support

  6·3

  4·7

  Retirement pension

  26·7

  21·2

  Sickness benefit/invalidity benefit

  11·3

  9·8

  Attendance allowance

  40·5

  242·5

  Mobility allowance

  40·0

  37·0

  1 April to February.

  2 Provisional figure.

  Widows' Pensions
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average length of time that is taken to deal with applications for widows' pensions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that this information is not available. However, if the hon. Member had a particular case in mind perhaps he would write to me.

  Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the additional administrative cost, for each benefit where applicable, of paying half the appropriate benefit rate for couples to each partner and paying any child addition to the partner taking the major responsibility for the child.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, for community charge benefit, couples are already assessed jointly; entitlement is divided between them, and their community charge bills are individually rebated.

  Pensions (Additional Component)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the average additional component payable each year since 1978 on top of the basic retirement pension for persons who retired each year since then on average earnings; and what he estimates the additional component will be each year from now until 1998 if prices rise 5 per cent. per year and average earnings rise 7 per cent. per year;

  (2) if he will give his latest estimate of the average additional component from the state earnings-related pension scheme on top of the basic retirement pension payable each year since 1978 for persons who retired each year since then on average earnings; and what he estimates the additional component will be to 1998 on the basis of the Treasury forecasts of rises in prices and earnings.
  789
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answers 13 February and 26 February 1990]: Information as available is set out in the table. The amounts apply to a person in full-time employment who has been paid average earnings since April 1978, has never contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme and retires on 6 April in each year, assuming price rises of 5 per cent. per year and average earnings increase by 7 per cent. per year effective from April 1991.

  Year of retirement

  Additional pension at retirement (£ per week)

  1978

  nil

  1979

  0·95

  1980

  2·20

  1981

  3·95

  1982

  6·20

  1983

  8·45

  1984

  10·80

  1985

  13·55

  1986

  16·50

  1987

  20·20

  1988

  24·35

  1989

  29·25

  1990

  35·65

  1991

  41·30

  1992

  47·55

  1993

  54·50

  1994

  62·45

  1995

  71·10

  1996

  80·70

  1997

  91·35

  1998

  103·15

  Pensioners
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish figures for the latest year available showing the number of(a) single and (b) married retirement pensioners with gross weekly incomes excluding state pension benefits of any category, at the following levels: less than £5, £5 to £10, £10 to £15, £15 to £20, £20 to £30, £30 to £40, £40 to £50, £50 to £60, £60 to £70, £70 to £80, £80 to £90, £90 to £100, £100 to £150, £150 to £200, £200 to £250, £250 to £300, £300 to £350, £350 to £400, £400 to £450, £450 to £500 and over £500.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 22 February 1990]: The latest information, as available, is set out in the table:

  Percentages of

  Gross income less RP and income support £5 per week

  Single pensioners

  Married pensioners

  Less than 5

  11·3

  4·6

  5 to 10

  81·1

  4·4

  10 to 15

  10·1

  5·0

  15 to 20

  10·5

  5·9

  20 to 30

  21·2

  12·6

  30 to 40

  11·7

  9·7

  40 to 50

  5·8

  7·6

  50 to 60

  4·1

  5·5

  60 to 70

  2·5

  5·2

  70 to 80

  1·9

  4·4

  80 to 90

  2·4

  4·7

  90 to 100

  1·9

  2·8

  100 to 150

  4·0

  11·0

  150 to 200

  1·7

  5·0

  200 to 250

  0·9

  3·4

  250 to 300

  0·9

  2·4

  790

  Percentages of

  Gross income less RP and income support £5 per week

  Single pensioners

  Married pensioners

  300 to 350

  0·4

  1·5

  350 to 400

  0·2

  1·0

  400 to 450

  0·1

  1·0

  450 to 500

  0·1

  0·6

  Over 500

  0·3

  1·8

  Note: Due to rounding may not sum to 100.

  Source: Family Expenditure Survey 1987.

  Marginal Tax Rates
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the numbers of lower-paid families with and without children, whose marginal tax rates including benefit withdrawal will be(a) 90 to 100 per cent., (b) 80 to 90 per cent., (c) 70 to 80 per cent., (d) 60 to 70 per cent., (e) 50 to 60 per cent. and (f) 40 to 50 per cent., taking into account the tax changes for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 26 March 1990]: The information requested is set out in the table:

  Marginal deduction rates—working heads of tax units Numbers with marginal deduction rates at or above certain levels 1990–91

  Thousands

  100 per cent. and over

  0

  90 per cent. and over

  40

  80 per cent. and over

  220

  70 per cent. and over

  410

  60 per cent. and over

  420

  50 per cent. and over

  420

  40 per cent. and over

  550

  Notes:

  1. These estimates are not comparable with the figures in Table 14.19 of the Public Expenditure White Paper because of sampling and grossing factors, the incorporation of Community Charge Benefit, independent taxation, and the effects of earnings growth.

  2. Marginal Deduction Rates shown are for heads of benefit units in receipt of Family Credit, rent rebate or Community Charge Benefit when at least one partner works 24 hours or more a week.

  3. Estimates are based on 1985, 1986 and 1987 Family Expenditure Surveys uprated to 1990–91 levels.

  4. Estimates are rounded to nearest 10,000.

  5. Estimates incorporate the Department of the Environment guideline Community Charges announced in January.

  Family Incomes
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table showing the level of gross earnings in April 1990 at which(a) a single householder, (b) a married couple, (c) a married couple with two children aged four and six years and (d) a single parent with one child, aged three years, will lose in housing benefit, assuming full take-up of family credit, average rent and rates and other assumptions, as in his reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), Official Report, 1 December 1987, c. 565-66.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [pursuant to her reply, 2 March 1990, c. 366]: The information requested is given in the table:

  791

  Level of gross earnings at which housing benefit ceases

  Family type

  £ per week

  (a) Single householder

  81·20

  (b) Married couple

  108·00

  (c) Married couple with two children aged 4 and 6

  98·76

  (d) Single parent with one child aged 3

  57·58

  Notes:

  1. The examples assume child benefit is in payment for examples (c) and (d) and family credit is in payment for example (d).

  2. The rent is assumed to be £19·71 for examples (a) and (b), £23·48 for example (c) and £21·86 for example (d).

  3. Community charge is assumed to be £350·00.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Vagrancy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of those(a) arrested, (b) prosecuted and (c) convicted of (i) begging and (ii) sleeping out in 1987, 1988 and 1989 were aged (1) under 18 years, (2) 18 to 25 years (3) 25 to 55 years and (4) over 55 years;

  (2) how many of those prosecutions undertaken under the provisions of the Vagrancy Act 1824 in (a) the Metropolitan police district and (b) England and Wales were dealt with by way of (i) summons and (ii) arrest;

  (3) how many people were convicted of (a) sleeping out, (b) begging and (c) being found on enclosed premises in the years 1988 and 1989 in (i) the Metropolitan police district and (ii) England and Wales;

  (4) how many people were prosecuted under the provisions of the Vagrancy Act 1824 in the years 1988 and 1989 in (a) the Metropolitan police district and (b) England and Wales;

  (5) what figures he has as to the numbers of people prosecuted for (a) begging, (b) sleeping out and (c) being found on enclosed premises who (i) have been discharged from psychiatric care and (ii) have been discharged from local authority care.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not held centrally on the number of arrests under the Vagrancy Act 1824. Neither is it collected on people who have been prosecuted for offences under the Act who have been discharged from either psychiatric or local authority care. Information on the number of prosecutions and convictions under the Vagrancy Act 1824 is given in the tables.

  Data for 1989 will not be available until autumn 1990.

  Table A. Persons prosecuted for offences of begging and sleeping out under the Vagrancy Act 1824 by age-group for years 1987 and 1988.

  England and Wales

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Age-group

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  Begging

  Under 18

  11

  8

  9

  7

  18 to under 25

  55

  81

  54

  75

  25 to under 55

  349

  414

  327

  373

  55 and over

  51

  70

  50

  57

  Total

  466

  573

  440

  512

  Sleeping out

  Under 18

  1

  —

  1

  —

  18 to under 25

  6

  6

  6

  5

  25 to under 55

  5

  10

  5

  7

  55 and over

  2

  1

  2

  1

  792

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Age-group

  1987

  1988

  1987

  1988

  Total

  14

  17

  14

  13

  Table B. Total number of prosecutions under the Vagrancy Act 1824 by summons and arrest figures for the Metropolitan Police District1 and England and Wales 1988

  Area

  Prosecutions

  Arrests

  Summons

  Metropolitan Police District

  1,006

  996

  10

  England and Wales

  2,810

  1,988

  822

  1 Including the City of London.

  Table C. Persons convicted of sleeping out, begging and being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose under the Vagrancy Act 1824 in the Metropolitan Police District1 and England and Wales 1988

  Offence

  Metropolitan Police District

  England and Wales

  Sleeping out

  10

  13

  Begging

  455

  512

  Being on enclosed premises for an unlawful purpose

  83

  374

  1 Including the City of London.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the cost of detaining someone overnight in police cells following their arrest under the Vagrancy Act 1824; and what is the cost of the processing, conveyance and prosecution in a magistrates court of a person so arrested.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Most of the information requested is not available and would be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The average cost of a prosecution in the magistrates court is £21 (1988 prices).

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received about the Vagrancy Act 1824; and if he has any plans to abolish it.

  Mr John Patten
  In the past 12 months we have received seven written representations from hon. Members about the Vagrancy Act 1824, and written and oral representations from the National Association of Probation Officers, the End Vagrancy Act Campaign and the Children's Society. We have noted several observations on the subject in proceedings in both Houses. My Department has also received a few letters from members of the public.

  We have no present plans to repeal the Act, which covers a wide range of offences including indecent exposure.

  Pentonville Prison
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of convicted and unconvicted prisoners intended to be held in Pentonville prison; what is the current number of prisoners held in Pentonville prison; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  The certified normal accommodation (CNA) of HMP Pentonville is 6411. A programme of

  793
  major refurbishment currently in hand there will increase its CNA by more than 200 places over the next two years. The population of the prison on 30 March was 941 (including 194 unconvicted).

  1 On 11 February 1990.

  Lorrain Osman
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what nationality is Lorrain Osman; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Mr. Lorrain Osman is a Malaysian citizen. He is also qualified for the right of abode in the United Kingdom under section 2(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 1971 by virtue of his birth in Penang and five years' residence in this country, and he became a British citizen on 1 January 1983 when the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has examined documents in the matter of a request by the Government of Hong Kong for the extradition of Mr. Lorrain Osman which were prepared and sworn by Mr. Warwick Reid of the Hong Kong Government, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No documents prepared and sworn by Mr. Warwick Reid have been submitted by the Hong Kong Government in the matter of Mr. Osman's extradition.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has on who laid the complaint against Mr. Lorrain Osman in Hong Kong for which his return to Hong Kong is requested by the Hong Kong authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The complaint against Mr. Osman was laid in Hong Kong by Mr. Anthony Edmund Robey, a senior officer in the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

  Immigration
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports are currently held at(a) Lunar house, Croydon, (b) Liverpool nationality office and (c) Queen Anne's Gate.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Liverpool Nationality Department
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reasons for the industrial action taken by officers of the Liverpool nationality department on Friday 23 March and Monday 26 March.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  On 31 January, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) at column 205, my right hon. and learned Friend announced that the nationality work of the immigration and nationality department would be concentrated in the existing Liverpool nationality office. On 2 March, following initial discussions with the trade
  794
  union side of the immigration and nationality department Whitley council, a letter was sent to the trade union side setting out the Department's detailed proposals for the transfer of work from Lunar house, Croydon to the Liverpool nationality office and for the consequential staffing arrangements. A response to that letter is awaited.

  In the week beginning 19 March, some problems arose over the transfer of work and some members of staff of the Liverpool office did not attend for duty during the afternoon of 23 March or on 26 March. A meeting was held between management and the trade union side on 26 March, following which a joint statement on the future handling of the relocation was agreed. The staff who had been taking industrial action returned to work the following day.

  Extradition
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what provisions the courts examine any requests for bail in extradition cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Bail Act does not apply to extradition cases, and there is therefore no presumption in favour of bail, as with cases for trial in this country. Under section 9 of the Extradition Act 1989, however, the court of committal may grant bail if it considers that it would be appropriate to do so.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on the return of a person to any requesting country under the Extradition Act 1989 if the person requested might be prejudiced at any trial by reason of his race, nationality or political opinions.

  Mr. John Patten
  Section 6(1)(d) of the Extradition Act 1989 provides that a person shall not be extradited if it appears that he might, if returned, be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained, or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy on whether any period of remand suffered in the United Kingdom by an offender held for the purposes of extradition should be counted against any sentence that offender may incur in the requesting country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  This is a matter for the requesting state. The general practice in most countries with which we have extradition arrangements is for time spent on remand in the requested state to be taken into account when calculating sentence, and to facilitate this we provide information about such periods from our records.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in the case of prisoners held on remand for the purposes of extradition, the requesting country pays the costs so incurred should it oppose bail; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  It is a general principle of extradition arrangements between countries that the requested state meets the costs of a fugitive's detention.

  Durham Prison (Staffing)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was(a) the complement of officers and staff working within HMP Durham and (b) the prison population within HMP Durham for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Mellor
  The target staff in post for officers (including principal and senior officers) in HMP Durham is 387 for 1990–91 and the complement for other staff is 138·5. The number of officers in post dating back to just before the introduction of "fresh start" is:

  Number

  1 April 1986

  326

  1 April 1987

  330

  1 April 1988

  368

  1 April 1989

  377

  Other historical data are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Moreover, comparisons with staffing levels pre-"fresh start" are inevitably misleading because of differences in calculation methods, in particular the heavy reliance on officer overtime.

  The population at HMP Durham since 1 April 1979 was as follows:

  Number

  1 April 1979

  1,095

  1 April 1980

  1,123

  1 April 1981

  1,072

  Applications1 received for refugee status in the United Kingdom, and decisions1, by nationality and place of application, 1989

  Number of persons

  Nationality

  Applications received

  Decisions2

  At ports

  After entry3

  Granted refugee status

  Granted exceptional leave

  Refused refugee status

  Following port application

  Following after-entry application3

  Following port application

  Following after-entry application3

  Following port application

  Following after-entry application3

  Europe

  Czechoslovakia

  6

  46

  —

  11

  —

  19

  —

  12

  Hungary

  1

  17

  —

  2

  —

  12

  —

  3

  Poland

  3

  32

  —

  7

  —

  17

  1

  14

  Romania

  1

  12

  —

  6

  —

  8

  —

  6

  Turkey

  3,656

  697

  193

  134

  1,010

  400

  2

  26

  Yugoslavia

  6

  7

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  6

  Others

  12

  25

  —

  1

  —

  9

  —

  4

  Total

  3,685

  836

  193

  161

  1,010

  467

  3

  71

  Americas

  Chile

  2

  14

  —

  6

  —

  6

  —

  10

  Colombia

  47

  30

  5

  16

  —

  13

  —

  1

  Others

  —

  7

  —

  5

  1

  4

  —

  4

  Total

  49

  51

  5

  27

  1

  23

  —

  15

  Africa

  Angola

  80

  43

  1

  9

  5

  4

  3

  —

  Ethiopia

  271

  76

  22

  182

  7

  12

  —

  —

  Ghana

  30

  67

  1

  12

  3

  54

  1

  6

  Seychelles

  19

  6

  —

  58

  11

  30

  —

  —

  Somalia

  2,092

  204

  77

  317

  108

  31

  3

  —

  South Africa

  12

  11

  —

  23

  —

  2

  1

  —

  Sudan

  7

  33

  —

  22

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Uganda

  1,068

  141

  6

  35

  122

  115

  1

  6

  Zaire

  58

  136

  —

  28

  1

  2

  2

  3

  Others

  13

  35

  1

  9

  4

  7

  3

  16

  Total

  3,650

  752

  131

  695

  261

  258

  14

  31

  796

  Number

  1 April 1982

  1,013

  1 April 1983

  1,004

  1 April 1984

  934

  1 April 1985

  1,211

  1 April 1986

  942

  1 April 1987

  1,161

  1 April 1988

  1,232

  1 April 1989

  1,058

  1 April 1990

  992

  Asylum
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give, by nationality, the number of asylum seekers who have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom(a) at the ports of entry and (b) after entry during 1989 and 1990; and if he will state for each of the above categories and by nationality (i) the number refused, (ii) the number granted refugee status and (iii) the number granted exceptional leave to remain.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Provisional information on the numbers of applications for refugee status in the United Kingdom, and of grants and other decisions, in 1989, is shown in the table. Final information for 1989 will be published in the Home Office statistical bulletin, "Refugee Statistics United Kingdom 1989", in the summer. Information for 1990 to date is not yet available. Provisional figures for refugee applications and decisions, by nationality, are provided quarterly to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and copies are in the Library.
  797

  Nationality

  Applications received

  Decisions2

  At ports

  After entry3

  Granted refugee status

  Granted exceptional leave

  Refused refugee status

  Following port application

  Following after-entry application3

  Following port application

  Following after-entry application3

  Following port application

  Following after-entry application3

  Middle East

  Iran

  133

  291

  23

  119

  110

  554

  —

  19

  Iraq

  243

  116

  33

  52

  108

  227

  —

  8

  Lebanon

  86

  71

  —

  3

  19

  206

  2

  6

  Libya

  —

  16

  5

  4

  —

  15

  1

  6

  Syria

  —

  5

  —

  6

  —

  3

  —

  5

  Others

  5

  37

  —

  1

  —

  9

  1

  10

  Total

  467

  536

  61

  185

  237

  1,014

  4

  54

  Asia

  Afghanistan

  67

  52

  —

  28

  45

  36

  4

  1

  Bangladesh

  5

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  India

  9

  380

  —

  —

  —

  2

  6

  33

  Pakistan

  2

  232

  —

  7

  44

  63

  42

  519

  Sri Lanka

  1,325

  190

  —

  1

  278

  261

  8

  24

  Others

  9

  59

  —

  10

  —

  9

  —

  —

  Total

  1,417

  915

  —

  46

  367

  372

  60

  577

  Other and unknown nationality

  101

  114

  12

  57

  16

  37

  —

  18

  Grand total

  9,369

  3,204

  380

  1,171

  1,892

  2,171

  81

  766

  1 Provisional figures.

  2 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in 1989.

  3 Includes also figures for the small number of applications made from outside the United Kingdom.

  Fire Service (Lancashire)
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he expects to receive any proposals from Lancashire county fire brigade on fire cover in Lancashire; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that the chief fire officer of Lancashire fire brigade has recently completed a review of fire risk categorisation and standards of fire cover; and that he has presented his report and findings to the public protection committee of Lancashire county council.

  The fire authority has decided to consult widely within the county. This exercise, which will include district and town councils, local Members of Parliament and the fire service trade unions, is not expected to be completed until the end of August at the earliest.

  A fire authority which proposes to reduce the operational establishment of its brigade is required to seek the approval of my right hon. and learned Friend to the reductions under the terms of section 19 of the Fire Service Act 1947. My right hon. and learned Friend is committed to maintaining nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover and to the maintenance of an effective fire service.

  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current strength of the retained fire service in Pendle; and what is its annual cost and the cost per call-out.

  Mr. John Patten
  The combined retained strength of the four fire stations in Pendle is 55 firefighters operating six retained fire appliances.

  I understand from Lancashire county fire brigade that it does not hold information on the specific cost of the retained service in Pendle and it is not, therefore, possible to produce the costings requested.

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from police officers born in the United Kingdom who are serving in the Hong Kong police and who have married Hong Kong citizens, concerning the right of abode for their spouse in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government have received a number of representations on behalf of police officers in Hong Kong about the immigration and nationality status of their spouses. Under the British Citizenship (Designated Service) Order 1982 the normal residential requirements in the British Nationality Act 1981 may be waived if an application for naturalisation as a British citizen is made by the spouse of a member of the Royal Hong Kong police force who is a British citizen and was recruited in the United Kingdom. In addition the spouses of British citizens living abroad have the assurance that subject to the provisions in the immigration rules they may at any time come to live in the United Kingdom with their husbands and wives. We are considering whether any further arrangements are necessary under immigration provisions to protect the position of British citizen spouses in the special circumstances of Hong Kong and we will make an announcement in due course.

  Forensic Scientists
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many forensic scientists of(a) up to three, (b) three to six, (c) six to nine, (d) nine to 12 and (e) 12 to 15 years' experience, respectively, left the employment of the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory in 1989; and if he will make a statement.
  799
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is listed in the table:

  Number

  Up to three years' experience

  6

  Three to six years' experience

  1

  Six to nine years' experience

  5

  Nine to 12 years' experience

  4

  Twelve to 15 years' experience

  1

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many forensic scientists were employed at the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory as specialists in fires on 1 January of each year from 1986 to 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The number of forensic scientists employed at the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory as specialists in fire investigation on the dates in question was as follows:

  Number

  1 January 1986

  4

  1 January 1987

  3

  1 January 1988

  2

  1 January 1989

  4

  1 January 1990

  4

  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has any proposals to introduce a supplement to the salaries of scientists employed at the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We are discussing with the receiver a case for pay improvements for scientists at the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory.

  Deportation
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the numbers of people removed from the United Kingdom pursuant to a decision to deport them for each year since 1979 for the following nationalities:(a) Indian, (b) Nigerian, (c) Australian and (d) all Commonwealth Caribbean countries.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Number of persons removed from the United Kingdom under the deportation process for certain nationalities, 1979 to 1989

  Nationality

  Year

  India

  Nigeria

  Australia

  Commonwealth Caribbean countries

  1979

  45

  97

  11

  14

  1980

  59

  119

  11

  14

  1981

  62

  117

  4

  25

  1982

  52

  122

  7

  25

  1983

  45

  149

  3

  21

  1984

  45

  214

  6

  20

  1985

  52

  224

  5

  12

  1986

  37

  181

  3

  28

  1987

  64

  213

  8

  25

  1988

  102

  382

  5

  65

  1989

  125

  548

  4

  80

  Birmingham Six
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 633, what are the terms of reference of the Devon and Cornwall police inquiry into the new evidence submitted on behalf of the Birmingham Six; when he expects the inquiry to report; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has sent to the chief constable of the West Midlands police a copy of representations from the solicitor acting on behalf of the Birmingham Six, and has asked him for a report on matters arising out of those representations. The chief constable has asked the Devon and Cornwall constabulary to undertake inquiries on his behalf. It is too early to form a view on the length of time those inquiries are likely to take.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take concerning the missing evidence of the West Midlands police force on matters concerning the Birmingham Six.

  Mr. John Patten
  It has not been established that any relevant evidence concerning the Birmingham Six case is missing. Representations about this possibility are among the issues which have been raised by the solicitor acting for the convicted men. These have been passed by my right hon. and learned Friend to the chief constable of the West Midlands police and will be investigated by the Devon and Cornwall police.

  London Demonstration
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Irish tricolours were flown by demonstrators in central London on Saturday 31 March; what is the estimated extent of participation by Irish immigrants in the demonstration; and if he will make a statement about Irish Republican involvement in the demonstration.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that it is not known how many Irish tricolours were flown during the anti-community charge demonstration on Saturday in central London nor is it known how many people of Irish origin took part. There was no Irish Republican involvement in the organisation of the demonstration.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish an independent judicial inquiry into public disorder in London on 31 March; if he will ensure the terms of reference allow investigation into whether any groups or organisations were responsible for instigating violence; whether policing arrangements were appropriate and whether the march route and rally venue were suitable; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  As my right hon. and learned Friend announced to the House on Monday 2 April at columns 893-94, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is undertaking a review of the events of Saturday 31 March to see what lessons can be learned from what occurred. This will take into account all the arrangements which
  801
  were made for policing the demonstration. A full criminal investigation is being conducted with a view to identifying offenders from photographs and film and prosecuting them.

  Debt Default
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were in prison for debt default(a) nationally and (b) in Strangeways prison, Manchester, in the last week for which figures are available.

  Mr. Mellor
  According to the records held centrally, on 28 February 1990 435 fine defaulters were held in prison service establishments in England and Wales of whom 32 were in Manchester. Similar information for prisoners committed for non-payment of debts is not readily available. However, 55 non-criminal prisoners other than Immigration Act detainees were in prison service establishments on 28 February, none of whom was in Manchester. About half of these prisoners would have been debtors. Detailed information about the population of prisoners committed for non-payment of debts is published annually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales" (table 6.1 of the latest issue, for 1988 Cm. 825), copies of which are in the Library.

  Members' Inquiries
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer of 2 March,Official Report, column 350, he will make a statement on the delays in the case of IM (Prison No. W90297) (HO reference PDP M27656/8/1).

  Mr. Mellor
  I am writing to the hon. Member today. I apologise for the delay in replying to this letter.

  Residential Homes
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there have been in each of the last five years for offences against people in(a) registered care homes and nursing homes and (b) unregistered care homes and nursing homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  Information is not collected centrally.

  HMP Manchester
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many inmates from Her Majesty's prison Manchester have been transferred since 1 April to Her Majesty's prison Wakefield.

  Mr. Mellor
  Since 1 April, 22 inmates have been transferred from HMP Manchester to HMP Wakefield. By yesterday lunchtime two had been discharged, having reached the end of their sentences.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many officers from Her Majesty's prison Wakefield have since 1 April been temporarily transferred to duties at Her Majesty's prison Manchester.

  Mr. Mellor
  The numbers of prison officers from HMP Wakefield on detached duty at HMP Manchester on each day since 1 April is as follows:802

  Number

  1 April

  48

  2 April

  34

  3 April

  28

  4 April

  26

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to introduce additional standby teams of prison officers which can be drafted into particular prison establishments at times of particular staff shortages or disturbance.

  Mr. Mellor
  Contingency plans are already in place to enable additional manpower to be made available to establishments at short notice, if the need arises. This manpower is initially drawn from neighbouring establishments, but, where necessary, the catchment area can be and is extended nationally.

  Interception of Communications Tribunal
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has been appointed to succeed the late Lord Fraser of Tullybelton as president of the interception of communications tribunal; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The hon. Mr. Justice Macpherson of Cluny has been appointed as president of the tribunal established under the Interception of Communications Act 1985.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Disciplinary Procedures
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will list the firms criticised by his Department's inspectors or the joint disciplinary scheme.

  Mr. Redwood
  I assume the hon. Member is referring to accountancy firms. I listed the firms criticised in reports of inspectors published since June 1979 in the replies I gave to the hon. Member on 19 December 1989 at column 139 and 21 February 1990 at column 782. Copies of the reports of the joint disciplinary scheme are in the Library.

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to ascertain the merchant banks which promote off-balance sheet financing schemes.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 3 April.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will amend the Companies Acts to require the directors of a company to respond to the circumstances mentioned in the statements filed by auditors in accordance with section 390 of the Companies Act 1985.
  803
  Mr. Redwood
  With effect from 1 April, section 390 has been replaced by section 394, which was inserted into the Companies Act 1985 by section 123 of the Companies Act 1989.

  I have no plans for further legislation in this area. It is for the shareholders to decide what explanations from the directors may be called for in the light of statements made by a former auditor of their company.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will amend section 385 of the Companies Act 1985 to require directors or auditors to give an indication of the details of the audit tender to shareholders.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The appointment of auditors by the general meeting gives shareholders the opportunity to seek details of the terms of the proposed appointment.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to amend the Companies Acts in order to specify auditors' responsibilities in detail similar to those of directors of companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  Under the Companies Act 1985 it is the responsibility of the directors to prepare accounts and of auditors to report whether those accounts have been properly prepared in accordance with the Act and give a true and fair view. Parliament has only recently considered and amended, in the Companies Act 1989, the relevant detailed provisions of the 1985 Act and I see no need to reopen the matter.

  Germany (Trade)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effect of a united Germany on the medium-term prospects for the United Kingdom balance of trade with West and East Germany.

  Mr. Redwood
  In 1989 exports to the FRG were £11 billion and imports £20 billion; exports to the GDR amounted to £106 million and imports £169 million. The medium and longer-term effects on the balance of trade of a united Germany remain uncertain. In the shorter term, exports to the present FRG could increase as a result of British companies supplying customers in the GDR through or in co-operation with companies in the FRG. In the medium and longer term, unification should free the GDR from the constraints imposed by shortages of convertible currency and the potential for increased exports could be considerable; but so too will be competition for the business. As to imports from a united Germany, it remains to be seen how successfully GDR producers are able to compete following a move from a command to a market economy. My Department is keeping prospects under review.

  Wales (Visits)
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish the dates on which he has made an official visit to Wales since his appointment to his present post.

  Mr. Ridley
  I visited Companies House and ECGD in Cardiff on 23 February this year. I also visited the Patent Office in Newport on 1 March this year.

  Accountancy Firms
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will launch an independent inquiry into the influence of major accountancy firms on the accountancy bodies and their major policy-making committees.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Departmental Reports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his practice that his Department reports shown to trade associations will be made available to Parliament.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Astra Holdings
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received concerning the company Astra Holdings; if he will institute an inquiry into the company's affairs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  I cannot comment on the affairs of individual companies. I am prepared to consider any information the hon. Member may provide which might warrant an inquiry.

  Flooding, Wales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will visit Clwyd county and borough councils to discuss residents' problems concerning insurance claims after the inundation by the sea in the March floods; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Neither the Department nor the Association of British Insurers has received any representations about problems on insurance claims but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me about residents' concerns, I would be glad to look into them.

  Shareholders' Rights
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has any plans to alter the rights of shareholders in any privatised industries or companies.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to do so. The Government reject the idea of "public interest companies" where Government take voting control without buying all of the equity or where the rights of shareholders to profits and dividends are deliberately curtailed.

  Tampons (Health Warnings)
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received about the need to write health warnings on the outside of tampon packaging.

  Mr. Forth
  I have received representations from the Department of Health, the Women's Environmental Network, and the hon. Members for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short). The industry has agreed to improve the safety labelling on the outside of packets of tampons and on the leaflet enclosed, and the Department of Health is content that these improved warnings are an adequate safeguard.

  Garston Amhurst
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 15 February,Official Report, column 389, if his Department has discovered further contacts with Garston Amhurst Associates.

  Mr. Redwood
  Since I told the House on 15 February, at columns 390-91, of a contact between my Department and Garston Amhurst Associates in 1984, a further letter has been found on a general file when looking for unrelated documents. This was dated 13 October 1987 and sent to my Department by GAA's solicitors. It enclosed a letter from GAA to a third party, which stated categorically that GAA did not need a PF(I) licence because it did not deal in securities. It also recorded a telephone conversation with an official in the DTI of which we have no independent record. I am sorry that this came to light only after the previous question was answered.

  Faulty Goods
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps the Government are proposing to take in response to the Law Commission's conclusion in paragraph 5.18 of the report on "Sale and Supply of Goods", Cm. 137, concerning the right to a refund for faulty goods shortly after purchase.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 28 March 1990]: The Law Commission's recommendations are summarised in part 8 of its report. The Government have announced the intention to implement its recommendations for legislation (subject to minor clarifying amendments). However, paragraph 5.18 of its report reached no conclusion and made no recommendations.

  Ethnic Enterprises
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what effect the harmonisation proposals under the Single European Act, due to be implemented by 1 January 1993 or thereafter, will have on black and minority ethnic enterprises in(a) hairdressing, (b) food imports and exports, (c) other import/export trades, (d) restaurants, (e) arts and crafts, (f) clothing manufacture and retailing, (g) books and periodicals, (h) videos and films and (i) music, entertainment and sports; what other major effects the proposals will have on black and minority ethnic people in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: The effects of the single European market will be felt long before 1 January 1993. Indeed, many single market measures are already in force. It is not possible to tell what the effects of the single market will be on the detailed sectors mentioned: the outcome will depend on the dynamic reaction of individual businesses. However, the single market offers enormous opportunities to all British businesses. The Cecchini report, carried out for the European Commission, suggests optimistically that there will be a 4·5 per cent. boost to EC GDP. These opportunities are open to ethnic minorities enterprises as they are to all others. In addition, under the Home Office's ethnic minority business initiative, business advice centres are open in north, south and west London, Birmingham and Bristol, to offer advice to ethnic minority enterprises.

  Correspondence (MEPs)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, since 18 June 1989, how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice, where such matters are involved, to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: Where Members of the European Parliament raise matters in correspondence which are exclusively of local interest, the practice is to reply suggesting that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. As with other correspondence, replies to such communications would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had himself copied his letter in this way.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the practice of his Department on answering questions about the balance of trade with the EC.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: Following the reorganisation in 1989 of the Government statistical service as a result of the recommendations of the review of economic statistics, the responsibility for publishing the main economic aggregates now falls to the Central Statistical Office, and questions about such aggregates are answered by Treasury Ministers. Questions concerning disaggregated trade statistics are answered by DTI Ministers. They would include a question on the balance of trade in manufactured goods with the EC. A copy of the guidelines for the allocation of questions seeking economic statistics is available in the Library of the House.

  Japanese-owned Car Firms
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice the Council of Ministers has had from the EC Commission about transitional restrictions on the export of cars from United Kingdom Japanese-owned firms to the continent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 2 April 1990]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend gave him on 22 January 1990 at columns 504-5.

  Pension Funds
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many complaints his Department has received in the last five years concerning pension funds in general and pension fund re-investment in pensioners' holding companies from(a) individuals and (b) others;

  (2) how many representations his Department has received in the last five years concerning pension fund re-investment; how many of the representations were critical of the present re-investment system; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will estimate how many pension schemes include (a) director trustees and (b) employee trustees;
  807
  (4) if he will estimate the total value of pension fund surpluses re-invested in the pensioners' holding company; and if he will supply the figures where the pension fund invests in (a) equity issues of the sponsoring company, (b) convertible securities issued by the sponsoring company, (c) preference stocks issued by the sponsoring company, (d) restricted classes of stock, (e) any form of loan stock issued by the company other than convertible and (f) any property occupied by the sponsoring company;

  (5) if he will list in order the companies he has received most complaints about concerning (a) general practice and (b) pension fund re-investment over the last three years;

  (6) what is the total number of companies that have disclosed pension fund re-investment under regulation 7 and schedule 3, paragraph 6, of the Occupational Pension Schemes (Disclosure of Information) Regulations, SI 1986, No. 1046, since November 1987; and if he will make a statement;

  (7) which aspect of pension fund administration he has received most critical representations about; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information is not held by the Department on all matters raised by my hon. Friend. Representations have been received on a range of issues related to occupational pension matters in recent years, but details of numbers are not kept.

  The Occupational Pensions Board, in its report "Protecting Pensions", recommended that restrictions should be introduced on the extent of self-investment by pension schemes in their related employer. This recommendation was accepted and appropriate powers have been taken in the Social Security Bill.

  There have been some representations about these proposals from employers, outlining the possible effects for their businesses and pension schemes if the scheme is required to dispose of assets held in the company too quickly. As a result we intend to mount a survey which will provide up-to-date information on the extent of self-investment and which will guide us in framing the necessary regulations.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Moorland
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about measures to prevent the over-grazing of moorland.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no easy solutions to the problem of environmental over-grazing of moorland while maintaining the viability of upland farming so essential to the less-favoured areas (LFAs). The current national restrictions on payments of hill livestock compensatory allowances (HLCAs) of six ewes per hectare in the severely disadvantaged part of the LFA and nine ewes per hectare in the disadvantaged area serve to discourage over-grazing while the new EC limit confining HLCA payments to 1·4 livestock units per hectare will further limit the extent of the problem from January 1991. We are now considering whether the new EC legal provisions permitting member states to take account of environmental considerations in this scheme can be made more specific. Grants available to 808
  farmers through the farm and conservation grant scheme facilitate the regeneration of heather and payments under management agreements in the North Peak environmentally sensitive area are directed at the specific problems of moorland management.

  Arthioposthia Triangulata
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has as to the spread of arthioposthia triangulata on the British mainland and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Planarian can grow up to 15 cm long and weigh 2 g. It is found under stones and dead wood on the soil surface where it rests between feeds on its earthworm prey. The Planarian attaches itself to a worm and moves up the body until its mouth comes into contact with worm tissue. It releases digestive juices which dissolve the worm. The Planarian can then suck up this earthworm "soup". A whole worm can be completely eaten in 30 minutes.

  In Northern Ireland the Planarian has apparently wiped out a normal earthworm population in a field which the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland had been monitoring. This is abnormal. The Planarian would appear to co-exist happily with earthworms in southern Scotland.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will allow representatives from animal welfare groups to inspect the control methods used by his Department on cattle being used for research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy at the experimental husbandry farms at Boxworth, Drayton, Gleadthorpe, High Mowthorpe and Redesdale.

  Mr. Maclean
  We welcome the interests of any responsible animal welfare groups and would be willing to make arrangements for them to visit the farms referred to; but like any professionally organised research and development undertaking they cannot accommodate unscheduled visitors.

  Although the cattle at the EHFs mentioned are part of a research programme into bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), none is affected by the disease. In the event of any of these cattle showing signs of infection with BSE they will be dealt with under the procedures laid down in the BSE order, but in the interim all are subject to the normal codes of practice for animal welfare and to ADAS's normal high standards of animal husbandry.

  Drift Net Fishing
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on drift net fishing.

  Mr. Curry
  No.

  EC Rivers and Oceans Programme
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on progress made with the European Communities European rivers and oceans system programme; and what benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom from this programme.
  809
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European river ocean system programme (EROS 2000) is an interdisciplinary research project on biogeochemical processes in the European coastal environment. Most effort has focused to date on the Gulf de Lions area of the Mediterranean. I understand that progress has been good, and the results are beneficial to United Kingdom and European science. The Commission's water pollution research report 13 describes the first EROS 2000 workshop held in March 1989. The report of a second workshop in February 1990 is in press. These reports can be obtained direct from Directorate General XII in Brussels.

  Agriculture Council
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the detailed agenda of the European Community Agriculture Council on 25 and 26 April and on United Kingdom ministerial attendance at that Council.

  Mr. Curry
  The principal item on the agenda of the Agriculture Council on 25 and 26 April will be the Commission's 1990 farm price proposals. There are also likely to be discussions on the non-food use of agricultural products, the small-scale cotton producers' aid and an exchange of views on the GATT multilateral trade negotiations.

  The Minister and I shall attend the meeting.

  Sewage Sludge (Plastic)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made an assessment of the quantities of plastic contained in sewage sludge dumped in the sea and what effect the presence of plastic has on(a) the marine environment and (b) the fishing industry; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The Ministry's monitoring of sewage sludge disposal grounds has identified a significant quantity of litter only at the Tyne disposal ground. This litter contains a small percentage of plastic material. Litter presents an aesthetic problem in the marine environment. It is an unpleasant inconvenience for fishermen whose gear becomes contaminated. The Ministry has required the holder of the disposal licence to instal effective new screening to prevent litter from contaminating the sludge. Screening is now in place at one of the two treatment works concerned, and will shortly be completed at the remaining works.

  Simplesse
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what labelling requirements will apply in respect of products containing Simplesse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Products containing Simplesse would be subject to the Food Labelling Regulations 1984. The regulations require a precise product description to ensure that the purchaser is fully informed about the true nature of the food, and can distinguish between similar foods. The presence of Simplesse would also need to be indicated in the list of ingredients.
  810
  In addition, under section 6 of the Food Act 1984, the labelling should not be false or misleading.

  Olestra
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food and the novel food panel of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, to report on the product Olestra; whether the nutritional implications of the product are being considered; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  Before giving its advice to Ministers, the Food Advisory Committee has sought advice on the safety and nutritional implications of Olestra from the two expert committees referred to by the hon. Member. More information has been sought from the company concerned and the committees' advice is not likely to be available in the near future. Food additive regulations would have to be amended before Olestra could be used in food in the United Kingdom.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is yet able to announce the outcome of his recent consultations with the fishing industry about changes in the licence transfer rules to permit the aggregation of fishing vessel capacity.

  Mr. Curry
  Yes. Fisheries Ministers have carefully considered the industry's reactions to the consultation document which was issued last November. In the light of the views we received, we have decided to introduce capacity aggregation arrangements, but, in response to a number of useful comments and suggestions, we are making some important changes from the proposals which were outlined in our consultation document.

  We have decided that we should introduce arrangements which allow fishermen to transfer the licences from more than one vessel to a larger vessel. A fisherman will also be allowed to aggregate more than one licence on to an existing licensed vessel. This would enable him, for example, to lengthen or re-engine his vessel. These aggregation arrangements will be subject to the rule that the capacity of the newly licensed vessel must not be more than 90 per cent. of the aggregate capacity of the previously licensed vessels as measured by a formula which takes account of both vessel size and engine power. As envisaged in our consultation document, it will be possible to aggregate only licences of similar type.

  We are also changing the rules for the transfer of licences from one vessel to another. We are continuing the current provision which permits such transfers as long as neither the tonnage nor the horsepower of the newly licensed vessel exceeds that of the previous licensed vessels. However, to provide some improved flexibility, fishermen will be allowed to transfer licences from one vessel to another larger or more powerful vessel provided the capacity of the new licensed vessel is no more than 90 per cent. of the capacity of the previously licensed vessel as measured by the formula. The present restrictions on transfers between length bands will be removed.

  In the light of a number of representations, we have also decided to extend licensing to commercial fishing for all species by United Kingdom vessels over 10 m in all waters round the United Kingdom, although the exemption from

  811
  licensing for mackerel fishing by hand-held line will continue to apply. Thie extension will not apply to salmon and sea trout which are already covered by licensing arrangements run by the National Rivers Authority. Vessels fishing other than for profit will also be excluded from the need to be licensed. A statutory instrument will be laid before the House as soon as possible after the Easter recess. Subject to parliamentary approval, the new licensing order will take effect in early May. The new arrangements for capacity aggregation and licence transfers will take effect from the same date.

  With the introduction of these new arrangements, it is necessary to clarify policy for dealing with licence transfers among freezers and pursers with pelagic licences. In future, if the pelagic licence of one or more freezers or pursers is transferred to another freezer or purser intending to fish against a producer organisation's pelagic allocation, the receiving vessel's producer organisation will receive allocations reflecting the track record or records of the licence or licences transferred. Similarly, if the pelagic licence of one or more pursers or freezers is transferred to a purser or freezer fishing or wishing to fish with an individual vessel pelagic allocation, the allocations to the receiving vessel will reflect the track record or records of the licence or licences transferred. Vessels with individual vessel allocations will in future be able to arrange for up to 70 per cent. of their allocations to be fished by other vessels in the same ownership or producer organisation which also have individual vessel allocations.

  The new capacity aggregation and licence transfer rules will provide some useful extra flexibility for fishermen wishing to restructure their businesses. We will be keeping under close review the operation of these arrangements and particularly the impact of the new capacity formula and the new provision for capacity aggregation.

  We are also preparing another consultation paper about further liberalisation in our licensing and management arrangements which would allow fishermen to acquire increased fishing possibilities without necessarily increasing their fishing capacity. We have called these arrangements entitlement aggregation. We intend to circulate this paper for the industry's comments by the middle of May and will hope to receive the industry's views by the end of June. In the light of the industry's reactions we will consider how to take forward the issues raised, and this could include pilot schemes.

ENERGY

  Offshore Oil Platforms
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) in respect of the Auk production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been 812
  reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

  (2) in respect of the Central Cormorant production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

  (3) in respect of the Hutton production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation;

  (4) in respect of the Montrose production platform, how many times this has been inspected by the appropriate certifying authority in the last five years; what were the dates of inspection; what are the dates of inspection by his Department's inspectors in the same period; what was the result of these inspections; what regulations and guidance notes were in force at the time of construction of the installation; whether any exemption was applied for or granted to these provisions; whether the facilities on the installation comply with all current regulations and guidance notes; what is the number of injuries, including fatalities, occurring on the installation since it was positioned; how many breaches of regulations or Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 provisions have been reported to him; how many he has passed to the appropriate prosecution authority for action; and what is his latest estimate of the life of the installation.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on Monday 2 April 1990 at columns 406-11 about the offshore safety regime.

  The most recent inspection of the Auk platform took place in May 1989, of Cormorant A in October 1989, of North Cormorant in February 1990, of Hutton in July 1989, of North West Hutton in November 1989, and of Montrose in January 1990. Central Cormorant is an underwater manifold centre linked to Cormorant A. The dates on which these platforms were installed are as follows:

  813

  Platform

  Installation Date

  Auk

  July 1974

  Cormorant A

  May 1978

  North Cormorant

  April 1981

  Hutton

  September 1984

  North West Hutton

  September 1981

  Montrose

  August 1975

  Source:
  Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom, Department of Energy 1989.

  There has been one fatality on these platforms during the past five years; this occurred on Cormorant A in April 1989. My Department investigates all fatal accidents.

  Over the same period, there has been one conviction for breach of United Kingdom safety legislation on these platforms following investigations by my inspectors. This involved Santa Fe UK Ltd. on which a penalty of £250 was imposed on 6 July 1988 following an incident on the Montrose platform.

  Non-fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many non-fossil fuel obligation projects he expects to accept; and what will be the criteria used in assessing the project for acceptance in the obligation.

  Mr. Baldry
  In setting the level of the non-fossil fuel obligation to be placed on the public electricity suppliers in respect of renewables-sourced electricity generating capacity, my right hon. Friend will have regard to the amount of capacity that could be secured through projects that are ready to sign contracts with the PESs. However, the arrangements that the public electricity suppliers make in order to meet their respective obligations are a matter for the suppliers themselves.

  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many projects and for what capacity his Department expects to apply for inclusion in the non-fossil fuel obligation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The public electricity suppliers have received applications from over 300 renewables-sourced electricity generating projects, representing between 1 and 2 GW of capacity, for contracting within the non-fossil fuel obligation. These are now being processed by the PESs, and my right hon. Friend proposes to make an order in the early summer to reflect the amount of capacity that would be secured though those projects that are ready to sign contracts.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the intended duration of contracts for purchased wind power under the renewable energy tranche of the non-fossil fuel quota; and whether such contracts will be renewable under similar terms at the expiry of that period.

  Mr. Baldry
  The first order setting the level of the non-fossil fuel obligation in respect of renewables-sourced electricity generating capacity will cover the period from 1990 until 1998. The arrangements that the public electricity suppliers make in order to meet their respective obligations are a matter for the suppliers themselves. In deciding what terms to offer to renewables-sourced generators after 1998 the suppliers will wish to take 814
  account of the extent of any non-fossil fuel obligation beyond 1998. The Government expect to take decisions on this in 1994.

  Low-sulphur Coal
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) of 26 March,Official Report, column 85, on low-sulphur coal imports, what methodology he has employed to calculate that the United Kingdom will comply in full with the European Community large combustion plants directive.

  Mr. Baldry
  The means by which the Government intend to ensure that the United Kingdom complies with the EC large combustion plants directive were set out in a consultation paper published by the Department of the Environment last August. A copy of this paper is in the Library of the House.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of evacuation plans from the neighbouring locale in the event of a serious incident at either(a) Heysham or (b) Hartlepool nuclear power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The effectiveness of evacuation plans for the neighbouring population of nuclear power stations is regularly tested in exercises. Exercise participants, which include the police, local authorities and the emergency services, help assess these exercises with a view to identifying possible improvements.

  Electricity Licences
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what licences have been granted under section 6 of the Electricity Act 1989 authorising the generation, transmission or supply of electricity.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have now issued licences to all those requiring licences from commencement of the new regime: principally, but not solely, the successor companies of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales and Scotland. Copies of those licences will be placed in the Libraries of each House. They are substantially the same as the model licences published on 12 February and 22 March.

  These and future licences will also be available for inspection and copying at the offices of the Office of Electricity Regulation.

EMPLOYMENT

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his answer of 2 February,Official Report, column 375, to the hon. Member for Stretford, on what date work on estimating the effect of a national minimum wage first began; and when it was completed.

  Mr. Howard
  In recent years my Department has considered the effect of minimum wages on a number of
  815
  occasions. Work estimating the effect of a national minimum wage in the context of the social charter started in early October 1989. After consultation between officials, both within and outside my Department, the work was completed towards the end of January 1990, and a note explaining the method used was placed in the Library on 2 February.

  Steel Foundries
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what assessment he has made of skill shortages in the 1990s among those working in the steel foundry and casting industry; and what action he is taking to provide skills such as pattern making.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The statutory engineering industry training board currently has responsibility for assessing future skill needs in the steel foundry and casting industry. There are indications that skill shortages are developing in this sector. The Government look to the employers in the industry to work together to solve such skill shortages.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to increase the staffing of the wages councils.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met his counterparts in the Council of Ministers; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Howard
  I last met my European Community counterparts at an informal meeting of EC Labour and Social Affairs Ministers in Dublin on 1 and 2 March. Our discussions covered action to assist the long-term unemployed, and training assistance for eastern Europe.

  At the meeting I secured a commitment from the EC Commission to make regular reports to the Council of Ministers on member states' records in implementing European legislation.

  Youth Training Scheme
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if unemployed young people over 18 years who(a) refuse to participate in a youth training scheme or (b) leave a youth training scheme early without good cause, will be subject to the benefit sanctions which apply to approved training schemes.

  Mr. Eggar
  The youth training scheme (YTS) is the only training scheme approved by the Secretary of State for Employment for the purposes of social security legislation. Under that legislation a young person over the age of 18 who is offered a place on the YTS and without good cause refuses or fails to apply for or accept that place, or voluntarily leaves YTS, can be subject to the unemployment benefit sanctions.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give the estimated expenditure on YTS for 1989–90, 1990–91 and 1991–92.
  816
  Mr. Nicholls
  Planned expenditure on youth training, as set out in "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93", Cm 1006, is £1,010 million in 1989–90, £907 million in 1990–91 and £808 million in 1991–92.

  Training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies in Scotland whose bids to run training credit pilots are accepted will have additional funds available for their training credit pilots. These will involve a transfer of the appropriate proportion of relevant elements from the revenue support grant, and additional sums of £12 million in 1991–92 and £25 million in subsequent years will be made available.

  Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what requirements will be placed on youth training and employment training providers by TECs and LECs in respect of disciplinary and grievance procedures for non-employed trainees, what will be the role of the regional office of the Training Agency; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  When TECs and LECs take over the delivery of training programmes they will be required to determine and establish the grievance and disciplinary procedures applying to non-employed trainees. It will be the role of the Training Agency to establish effective contractual arrangements with TECs and LECs, including the establishment of grievance and disciplinary procedures.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidance he will issue on how youth training and employment training non-employed trainees will have any disciplinary and grievance procedures explained to them during their period of induction and on the role of trade unions or other representatives in taking up individual cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Under existing guidance, providers of youth training and employment training are required to have a written code of practice setting out the disciplinary and grievance procedures for trainees. These procedures, together with any relevant agreements with trade unions, should be explained to trainees during the induction process.

  After exhaustion of normal local procedures, trainees may refer their grievances to officials of the Training Agency and also, in the case of YT trainees, to the careers service.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications for work permits remained unsettled with his Department at the latest available date.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of applications for work permits under consideration at 30 March 1990 was 3,945.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many work permits were issued to foreign nationals in each of the past two years; in what main areas of work; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The total number of work permits granted in 1988 and 1989 for overseas nationals to work in Great Britain were 25,973 and 29,730 respectively. The main areas of work for which permits were granted were:
  817

  Occupational group

  1988

  1989

  Performers

  11,705

  12,107

  Companies secretaries, accountants

  2,999

  4,877

  Directors and general managers

  2,319

  2,059

  Personnel and management specialists1

  1,770

  1,279

  Engineering researchers, designers and consultants1

  1,086

  1,695

  Natural science researchers and consultants

  981

  1,155

  Teachers and instructors1

  806

  840

  Cooks and waiters1

  779

  1,104

  Health diagnosing and treating occupations1

  685

  973

  Sportspersons2

  647

  —

  Marketing and public relations specialists2

  —

  629

  1 Ranking changed in 1989.

  2 Appeared in top ten for one year only.

  Of these, 3,790 and 4,228 work permits were granted in 1988 and 1989 under the training and work experience scheme.

  Training
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the total sum to be expended by his Department on the finance of training in the current year; and by what percentage this has changed in real terms over the past five years.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Records are kept on the basis of the standard financial year for Government expenditure, which runs from 1 April to 31 March.

  The total estimated expenditure on training, by the Training Agency, in 1990–91, is £2,693,000.

  There is a reduction in the estimated provision for 1990–91 against forecast outturn for 1989–90, both in cash terms and constant 1990–91 prices. This is due to reduced expenditure on youth training, reflecting demographic changes, and savings accruing from the transfer of the operating costs of the Skills Training Agency to the private sector.

  The total spent by the Training Agency, and its predecessors, the Training Commission and the Manpower Services Commission, for the years 1985–86 to 1988–89, and the forecast outturn for 1989–90, at constant 1990–91 prices, and the percentage year-on-year changes are as follows:

  Year

  £

  Per cent.

  1985–86

  1,648,500

  1986–87

  1,830,700

  +11·1

  1987–88

  1,945,400

  +6·3

  1988–89

  2,328,800

  +19·7

  1989–90

  2,840,400

  +22·0

  1990–91

  2,693,000

  -5·2

  Prices were calculated by use of the GDP deflator index.

  The figures are inclusive of the following programmes:

  Youth Training Scheme

  Employment Training

  Technical and Vocational Education Initiative

  Non Advanced Further Education

  Business Growth Training

  Skills Training Agency

  Adult Training

  Scientific and Technical Equipment in Schools and all related administration costs net of receipts.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the latest level of unemployment for(a) England and (b) Cornwall.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In February 1990 the unadjusted number of unemployed claimants was 1,272,230 in England and 14,678 in Cornwall and Isles of Scilly.

  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes he intends to make to the compilation and publication of labour market statistics and other information following the introduction of training and enterprise councils.

  Mr. Nicholls
  None.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total number of working days lost due to industrial action in(a) January and February 1979, (b) 1988 and (c)

  Mr. Nicholls
  The total number of working days lost as a result of industrial action in January and February 1979 was 5·4 million. There were 3·7 million days lost in the whole of 1988 and it is provisionally estimated that 4·1 million days were lost in 1989.

  Health and Safety
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will estimate the additional resources which will be needed by local authorities to enforce the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989;

  (2) whether he will allocate additional funds to local authorities in whose areas major pop concerts are held, to enable them to implement the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  It is for local authorities to determine the resources they need to enforce the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The local authority associations agreed to local authorities undertaking additional responsibilities, including health and safety in entertainment, under the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989, without extra resources, but acknowledged that local authorities would need to have effective priority planning systems to ensure that they address the higher-risk activities.

  Easington Colliery (Flooding)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will call for a report from Her Majesty's chief inspector of mines on the flooding of the low main seam at Easington colliery.

  Mr. Nicholls
  No. The Health and Safety Executive has inspected the flood site and will continue to monitor the situation.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average annual net cost to the Treasury of(a) a disabled person supported in the sheltered placement scheme and (b) a disabled person supported in a sheltered workshop or Remploy factory.
  819
  Mr. Eggar
  The most recent estimates made by my Department, which relate to 1986–87, are:

  £

  Sheltered placement scheme

  260

  Sheltered workshops

  2,620

  Remploy

  2,630

  The basis for these estimates, which depend upon a number of assumptions, is described in the Department of Employment research paper No. 69.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each training and enterprise council established, how many board members have(a) small business experience, (b) hotel and catering experience and (c) tourism, leisure and related industry experience, excluding (b); and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) will include lists of their board members in their corporate plans. Private sector board members should broadly reflect the mix of commerce and industry in their area and should include executives with first-hand experience of running small businesses as well as major employers. In addition, TECs will need to demonstrate that they command support in the business community across the whole area which they cover.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many offers for the skill centres included a request that the Government should provide money to take over the skill centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Skills Training Agency (STA) was offered for sale by private tender. Details of individual offers received are commercially confidential. It was for individual bidders to decide whether to make allowances in their offers in respect of particular expenditures which they envisaged if their bids were successful.

  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the offers received for the skill centres, give the reason for rejection, where applicable in each case; and state who made the evaluation of the offers.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Skills Training Agency (STA) was offered for sale by private tender. Details of individual

  Single Pensioner

  1989–80 Annual Community Charge and Community Water Charge payment

  As a percentage of total Community Charge (including Water Charge)

  1990–91 Annual Community Charge and Community Water Charge payment

  As a percentage of total Community Charge (including Water Charge)

  Berwickshire

  72·00

  31

  70·20

  29

  Etterick and Lauderdale

  74·20

  30

  72·00

  29

  Roxburgh

  74·20

  30

  72·60

  29

  Tweeddale

  74·40

  30

  72·40

  29

  Clackmannan

  72·00

  24

  82·20

  23

  Falkirk

  63·80

  25

  69·60

  24

  Stirling

  74·00

  24

  83·40

  23

  Annandale and Eskdale

  73·10

  29

  83·00

  30

  Nithsdale

  71·50

  29

  81·80

  30

  Stewartry

  71·10

  29

  79·60

  30

  Wigtown

  71·70

  29

  79·80

  30

  820
  offers received are commercially confidential. The Government's sale advisers, Deloitte Corporate Finance, assessed all offers against the Government's six objectives for the sale (a copy of which was placed in the Vote Office on 13 February 1990). Deloittes, in conjunction with my Department's other advisers, evaluated all the offers and made recommendations to my Department.

  Correspondence (MEPs)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many communications he has received from Members of the European Parliament since 18 June 1989 that concern local or United Kingdom matters; and if he will make it his practice where such matters are involved to provide the hon. Member for the local constituency with a copy of the correspondence and the reply for information.

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 4 April 1990]: I have received a total of 40 communications since 18 June 1989, 29 of which dealt with local matters and the remaining 11 with national matters.

  When a Member of the European Parliament writes about a matter which is of purely local interest, my reply would suggest that the MEP should refer the matter to the hon. Member for the constituency concerned. Such replies would normally be copied to the hon. Member concerned only if the MEP had copied his own letter in this way.

SCOTLAND

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the maximum payment of community charge, including community water charge, payable by a single pensioner and a pensioner couple on a basic retirement income in Scotland in 1989–90 and 1990–91 for each local authority; and if he will express each sum payable as a percentage of the total community charge in that area.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  Single pensioners and pensioner couples in receipt of only basic state retirement pension (currently £43·60 a week plus £26·20 a week for a dependent partner) with no other source of income and savings of £3,000 or less are entitled to the maximum community charge rebate of 80 per cent. of the community charge for the area. This excludes community water charges, which are not rebated.

  The information requested is in the tables.
  821

  1989–80 Annual Community Charge and Community Water Charge payment

  As a percentage of total Community Charge (including Water Charge)

  1990–91 Annual Community Charge and Community Water Charge payment

  As a percentage of total Community Charge (including Water Charge)

  Dunfermline

  73·00

  25

  77·20

  24

  Kirkcaldy

  74·00

  25

  77·80

  24

  North East Fife

  78·40

  25

  80·40

  24

  Aberdeen City

  84·80

  28

  86·60

  28

  Banff and Buchan

  79·14

  29

  79·60

  29

  Gordon

  76·60

  29

  76·00

  30

  Kincardine and Deeside

  74·20

  30

  72·60

  31

  Moray

  76·20

  29

  75·80

  30

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  63·00

  27

  70·00

  28

  Caithness

  61·00

  27

  69·40

  29

  Inverness

  61·20

  27

  69·20

  29

  Lochaber

  63·40

  27

  73·40

  28

  Nairn

  61·60

  27

  69·60

  29

  Ross and Cromarty

  63·80

  27

  73·80

  28

  Skye and Lochalsh

  61·00

  27

  69·40

  29

  Sutherland

  57·20

  28

  67·20

  29

  East Lothian

  89·20

  24

  96·60

  24

  Edinburgh City

  92·80

  24

  102·80

  23

  Midlothian

  87·20

  24

  94·00

  24

  West Lothian

  86·20

  24

  92·60

  24

  Argyll and Bute

  70·60

  25

  80·80

  25

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  74·80

  25

  81·00

  25

  Clydebank

  74·60

  25

  85·40

  25

  Clydesdale

  75·40

  25

  82·40

  25

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  70·20

  26

  78·00

  25

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  70·40

  26

  78·20

  25

  Cunninghame

  70·80

  25

  79·80

  25

  Dunbarton

  74·80

  25

  87·60

  25

  East Kilbride

  78·80

  25

  87·40

  25

  Eastwood

  71·60

  25

  74·80

  26

  Glasgow City

  76·40

  25

  84·40

  25

  Hamilton

  73·40

  25

  81·40

  25

  Inverclyde

  73·40

  25

  80·40

  25

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  69·00

  26

  77·20

  26

  Kyle and Carrick

  76·80

  25

  83·20

  25

  Monklands

  73·80

  25

  84·00

  25

  Motherwell

  76·20

  25

  80·00

  25

  Renfrew

  74·20

  25

  84·80

  25

  Strathkelvin

  75·00

  25

  83·80

  25

  Angus

  75·40

  26

  77·00

  26

  Dundee City

  81·60

  25

  84·00

  25

  Perth and Kinross

  76·60

  26

  77·60

  26

  Orkney

  50·40

  34

  56·80

  36

  Shetland

  28·26

  25

  57·49

  45

  Western Isles

  61·40

  36

  75·20

  38

  Pensioner couple

  1989–90 Annual Community Charge and Community Water Charge payment

  As a percentage of total Community Charge (including Water Charge)

  1990–91 Annual Community Charge and Community Water Charge payment

  As a percentage of total Community Charge (including Water Charge)

  Berwickshire

  113·00

  26

  112·40

  25

  Etterick and Lauderdale

  117·40

  25

  116·00

  25

  Roxburgh

  117·40

  25

  117·20

  25

  Tweeddale

  117·80

  25

  116·80

  25

  Clackmannan

  129·00

  22

  149·40

  22

  Falkirk

  112·60

  22

  124·20

  22

  Stirling

  133·00

  22

  151·80

  22

  Annandale and Eskdale

  118·20

  25

  132·00

  25

  Nithsdale

  115·00

  25

  129·60

  25

  Stewartry

  114·20

  25

  125·20

  26

  Wigtown

  115·40

  25

  125·60

  26

  Dunfermline

  128·00

  23

  139·40

  22

  Kirkcaldy

  130·00

  22

  140·60

  22

  North East Fife

  138·80

  22

  145·80

  22

  Aberdeen City

  139·60

  24

  141·20

  24

  Banff and Buchan

  128·28

  25

  127·20

  25

  Gordon

  123·20

  25

  120·00

  25

  Kincardine and Deeside

  118·40

  25

  113·20

  26

  Moray

  122·40

  25

  119·60

  25

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  106·00

  24

  114·00

  24

  822 823

  1989–90 Annual Community Charge and Community Water Charge payment

  As a percentage of total Community Charge (including Water Charge)

  1990–91 Annual Community Charge and Community Water Charge payment

  As a percentage of total Community Charge (including Water Charge)

  Caithness

  102·00

  24

  112·80

  25

  Inverness

  102·40

  24

  112·40

  25

  Lochaber

  106·80

  24

  120·80

  24

  Nairn

  103·20

  24

  113·20

  25

  Ross and Cromarty

  107·60

  23

  121·60

  24

  Skye and Lochalsh

  102·00

  24

  112·80

  25

  Sutherland

  94·40

  24

  108·40

  25

  East Lothian

  160·40

  22

  174·20

  22

  Edinburgh City

  167·60

  22

  186·60

  22

  Midlothian

  156·40

  22

  169·00

  22

  West Lothian

  154·40

  22

  166·20

  22

  Argyll and Bute

  122·20

  23

  140·60

  23

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  130·60

  23

  141·00

  23

  Clydebank

  130·20

  23

  149·80

  23

  Clydesdale

  131·80

  23

  143·80

  23

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  121·40

  23

  135·00

  23

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  121·80

  23

  135·40

  23

  Cunninghame

  122·60

  23

  138·60

  23

  Dumbarton

  130·60

  23

  154·20

  22

  East Kilbride

  138·60

  22

  153·80

  22

  Eastwood

  124·20

  23

  128·60

  23

  Glasgow City

  133·80

  23

  147·80

  23

  Hamilton

  127·80

  23

  141·80

  23

  Inverclyde

  127·80

  23

  139·80

  23

  Kilmarnock and Loudon

  119·00

  23

  133·40

  23

  Kyle and Carrick

  134·60

  23

  145·40

  23

  Monklands

  128·60

  23

  147·00

  23

  Motherwell

  133·40

  23

  139·00

  23

  Renfrew

  129·40

  23

  148·60

  23

  Strathkelvin

  131·00

  23

  146·60

  23

  Angus

  129·80

  23

  133·00

  23

  Dundee City

  142·20

  23

  147·00

  23

  Perth and Kinross

  132·20

  23

  134·20

  23

  Orkney

  74·80

  28

  82·60

  29

  Shetland

  49·73

  22

  74·94

  35

  Western Isles

  88·80

  29

  105·40

  30

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pensioners have been refused community charge rebate in Scotland because of the level of their savings.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply. The information requested is not available.

  Travellers
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many proposals from each of the district and islands councils to provide sites for travelling people he has received to date; how many he has accepted from each district and islands council and how many he has rejected, and on what grounds he rejected them, from each district and islands council.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Twenty-three official traveller sites have been provided to date and building work on a further three permanent sites is expected to be completed shortly. In addition 16 locations identified by local authorities are currently at various stages of consideration. Three sites have been refused planning permission following public local inquiries, in the district councils of Dundee, Stirling and Perth and Kinross. More detailed information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  824
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consider legislation to compel local authorities to meet their pitch targets for official sites for travelling people in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if it remains official policy that permanent sites should facilitate the movement of travelling families; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government are continuing their long-established policy of encouraging the provision of a network of properly equipped sites for travelling people throughout Scotland. The policy is backed by the availability of 100 per cent. capital grant towards the development costs of the sites. A full network of official sites should help to make it easier for travelling families to move legally from area to area.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what formula was used to determine how many official sites should be provided for travelling people in Scotland, as recommended by his advisory committee, SDD circular No. 5/1989, appendix C.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The advisory committee held extensive consultations with individual local authorities to assess traveller site requirements throughout Scotland and its recommendations form the basis of the pitch targets set.
  825
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has on instances where travellers have been encouraged by local authorities to provide their own site, as recommended in the third report of his advisory committee on travelling people.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No information is held centrally on the extent to which local authorities have encouraged provision of travellers' sites by travellers.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate for the number of travelling people in Scotland; who provides this estimate; how it is updated; and what information about travelling families will be sought within the 1991 census.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest estimate, based on information from local authorities, suggests that there are about 3,000 travellers in Scotland, in 750 families. Information on number is reviewed by the Secretary of State's advisory committee on Scotland's travelling people in the course of its regular contacts with local authorities. Travelling families will be expected to provide the same information as anyone else in the 1991 census. No special information about travelling people will be sought.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest target set, and by which date this target should be met, for(a) the total recommended number of official sites for travelling people in Scotland and (b) the recommended number of official sites for travelling people for each of the district and islands councils.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The pitch target set for each district council is listed in the table. No specific date has been set for the achievement of these targets, but local authorities are encouraged to meet them as soon as possible.

  Pitch targets

  Region and District

  Target

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  15

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  6

  Roxburgh

  10

  Tweeddale

  10

  Central

  Clackmannan

  20

  Falkirk

  28

  Stirling

  42

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  12

  Nithsdale

  18

  Stewartry

  3

  Wigtown

  17

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  8

  Kirkcaldy

  18

  North East Fife

  20

  Grampian

  City of Aberdeen

  36

  Banff and Buchan

  20

  Gordon

  0

  Kincardine and Deeside

  0

  Moray

  10

  Highland

  826

  Region and District

  Target

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  6

  Inverness

  24

  Lochaber

  30

  Nairn

  20

  Caithness

  20

  Ross and Cromarty

  20

  Skye and Lochalsh

  20

  Sutherland

  20

  Lothian

  City of Edinburgh

  40

  East Lothian

  20

  Midlothian

  20

  West Lothian

  45

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  38

  Cunninghame

  24

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  12

  Kyle and Carrick

  8

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  6

  Dumbarton

  20

  Clydebank

  12

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  12

  Strathkelvin

  20

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  20

  Glasgow

  55

  Monklands

  32

  Motherwell

  56

  Hamilton

  42

  East Kilbride

  6

  Clydesdale

  15

  Eastwood

  0

  Renfrew

  16

  Inverclyde

  0

  Tayside

  Angus

  37

  City of Dundee

  20

  Perth and Kinross

  85

  Total—Scotland

  982

  There is no identified demand for travellers' sites in the areas of the islands councils.

  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the district and islands councils have met their recommended pitch target for their provision of official sites for travelling people in their area to the latest available date.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At 31 March 1990 the local authorities which have met their recommended pitch target are listed in the table:

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Tweeddale

  Falkirk

  Annandale and Eskdale

  Stewartry

  North East Fife

  Banff and Buchan

  Gordon

  Kincardine and Deeside

  Caithness

  Inverness

  Nairn

  Ross and Cromarty

  Skye and Lochalsh

  Sutherland

  Clydebank

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  Cunninghame

  Dumbarton

  Eastwood

  Hamilton

  827

  Inverclyde

  Kyle and Carrick

  Renfrew

  There is no identified demand for travellers' sites in the areas of the islands councils.

  A9 Alness-Tain
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current anticipated start date for improvement of the A9 Alness-Tain; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are two remaining sections to be upgraded on the A9 between Alness and Tain. The sections are between Broomhill and Logie Easter and between Logie Easter and Garrick bridge. The necessary preparatory work and statutory procedures are planned to be completed by September 1991 and September 1993 respectively. Actual start dates for schemes are decided annually for the year ahead, in the light of the relative priority of the competing schemes and of the available financial resources.

  Maternity Services, Moray
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he has yet received the option appraisal document relating to maternity, obstetric and gynaecological services in Moray; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what official consultations he has held in the past three months with (a) Grampian health board and (b) Moray health council in connection with the development of maternity services in Moray;

  (3) what time scale he envisages for (a) improvement of existing maternity services in Moray and (b) the establishment of enhanced maternity services in Moray;

  (4) when he anticipates making a public pronouncement on the future development of maternity services in Moray.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Grampian health board's option appraisal submission has been received and, in view of the scale of investment required for the preferred option, it is being given detailed and careful consideration.

  I have not met either the Grampian health board or Moray local health council within the last three months.

  Grampian health board has already improved maternity services in west Grampian and I understand that agreement has also been reached on the transfer of obstetric, gynaecological and paediatric services for patients west of the Spey to Highland health board.

  Moray
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to visit Moray constituency.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I have any plans at present for a ministerial visit to Moray constituency. However, as chairman of the Conservatives in Scotland I will be addressing a public meeting in Moray constituency on 10 April 1990.

  Scottish Office (Staffing)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the full complement of staff employed by the Scottish Office in each of its Departments, and what are the projections for number of employees in each of the next three years.

  Mr. Rifkind
  There is no fixed complement for the Scottish Office, but at 1 March 1990 the number of staff employed in the Scottish Office (including the Scottish prison service) was 10,212. Details are as follows:

  Department

  Number of staff

  Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland

  1,474·5

  Scottish Development Department

  1,289·5

  Scottish Education Department

  552·0

  Scottish Home and Health Department

  876·5

  Industry Department for Scotland

  384·5

  Central Services

  1,700·0

  Scottish Prison Service

  3,935·0

  Total

  10,212·0

  Estimates of the number of staff who could be employed within the relevant running cost provision are contained in tables 15.11.3 and 15.7.12 of the commentary on the Scottish public expenditure programmes to 1993, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Registers of Scotland
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about his plans to establish the Department of the Registers of Scotland as a "next steps" agency.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I informed the House on 11 January that the Department of the Registers of Scotland was to be established as the first "next steps" agency from within my sphere of responsibility on 1 April. I shall preside at a launch ceremony on 6 April.

  Over the next three years I have set the agency a target of reducing the turnround times on its two principal categories of work as follows:
  for recording writs on the Sasines Register, a reduction from 30 to 17 weeks;
  for registration of dealings on the Land Register, a reduction from 35 to 19 weeks.

  The agency's long-term aim will be to achieve turnround times of eight weeks for both registers.

  During the coming year, the Keeper will be presenting a phased programme for the extension of the Land Register to the remaining two thirds of Scotland.

  In addition, I have set the agency a target of achieving a reduction in unit costs of at least 5 per cent. in real terms for each of its main categories of work in each of the three years from 1990–91 to 1992–93.

  I am establishing an advisory board to give me a view on the range and quality of the agency's services and on its priorities. The membership will represent the main users of the agency's services.

  The Keeper of the Registers of Scotland as the agency's chief executive, will be directly accountable to me for the agency's achievements.

  I have placed a copy of the agency's framework document and the accompanying press release in the

  829
  Libraries of both Houses. This latter document contains details of the target turnround times I have set for the main activities of the agency over its first three years.

  Health Service Staff
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the total staff pay bills for speech therapy, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, clinical psychology and pharmacy, for 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, and 1989–90; and if he will provide the latest figures on staff pay bills for speech therapy in each area health authority.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 27 March 1990]: Information on total staff pay bills is not available centrally before 1988–89 nor at health board level. The figures for 1988–89 and estimated figures for 1989–90 based on returns for the first three quarters are shown in the table.

  Total annual gross pay by staff group: Scotland

  £ million

  Staff group

  1988–89

  1989–901

  Speech therapy

  2·9

  3·8

  Physiotherapy

  13·8

  15·7

  Occupational therapy

  5·9

  7·1

  Clinical psychology

  3·0

  3·5

  Pharmacy

  6·9

  8·0

  1 Estimate.

  Anthony Cavendish
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total cost to the Crown of the proceedings in relation to Anthony Cavendish.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 3 April 1990]: My right hon. and learned Friend does not yet know the total cost to the Crown of the legal action The Lord Advocate v The Scotsman Publications and Others relating to the book "Inside Intelligence". These costs still require to be finally determined.

  Skiing Developments
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received in relation to that portion of the Highland regional council structure plan relating to skiing development at Lurcher's gulley and in the northern corries of the Cairngorms; how many of these representations were opposed to such development; how many were in favour; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Proposals for the extension of skiing into Lurcher's gully in the Cairngorms feature in Highland regional council's structure plan review which was formally submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend for his approval on 19 January. The period during which objections could be made ended on 2 March, by which time 7,120 letters objecting to the proposals had been received. A further 135 letters had been received expressing support for the proposals. My right hon. and learned Friend is considering the council's proposals and the representations received and will announce his decision in due course.

DEFENCE

  Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there have been any recent British nuclear weapons tests or United States tests carried out on behalf of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The last United Kingdom nuclear test was, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement informed the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) on 14 December 1989,Official Report, column 820, conducted at the Nevada test site on 8 December 1989.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has any further information regarding recent joint United Kingdom/United States nuclear warhead tests in the United States.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Yes. Pursuant to the answer of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) of 14 December 1989,Official Report, column 820, I can now say that on 16 December, some eight days after the test, a minor seepage of radioactive gas began in the vicinity of the test site. The seepage, which lasted for about three weeks, involved barely detectable levels of radioactivity and posed no health or environmental hazard on or off the site. Very low-level radioactive seepage following such tests is not unusual.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley on 7 March,Official Report, column 709, what height restrictions and operational radius are in effect for low-flying military jet aircraft at the aerodrome at Netherthorpe.

  Mr. Neubert
  As a licensed aerodrome, Netherthorpe is allocated, under the provisions of the Air Navigation Order, an aerodrome traffic zone of 2 nautical miles radius to a height of 2,000 ft during its daily hours of operation. Although military aircraft are not generally bound by the Air Navigation Order, it is my Department's practice to reflect such provisions in military flying regulations, and this is the case in respect of Netherthorpe.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what changes are planned for the structure of the military low-flying system in west Yorkshire as a result of the changes to the boundaries of the Leeds-Bradford special rules airspace with effect from 3 May; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what changes are planned for the structure of the military low-flying system in the vicinity of Blackpool following the abolition of the Blackpool special rules zone with effect from 3 May; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  Changes in regulations governing civilian air traffic in the United Kingdom are, where appropriate, reflected in the regulations governing the United Kingdom military low-flying system, and the implications, if any, of the changes to which the hon. Member refers will be
  831
  considered in due course as part of the continual monitoring of the operation of the military low-flying system.

  Bombs (Accidental Release)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, by date and location for the last four years to date, the occasions when a bomb has been accidently released by a Royal Air Force aircrew; and if he will show in his answer(a) the type of aircraft involved and (b) whether it was (i) a live or (ii) a dummy bomb.

  Mr. Neubert
  There has been one occasion since March 1986 when RAF aircrew accidentally released a weapon outside military range danger areas. This was on 2 March 1988; the aircraft was a Tornado GR1; the weapon was a practice bomb containing only a small "spotting" charge; and it was not found.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list, by date and location, for the last four years to date, the occasions when a bomb has been accidently released by the aircrew of a NATO air force over the United Kingdom; and if he will show in his answer(a) the air force involved, (b) the type of aircraft and (c) whether the bomb was (i) live or (ii) a dummy one.

  Mr. Neubert
  We have no record of any bombs being accidentally released over the United Kingdom by the aircrew of other NATO air forces.

  Air Traffic Controllers
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many military air traffic controllers are working alongside civil air traffic controllers to date; at what locations; if he will list them by unit; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will list by year for the last five years, and by location, the number of military air traffic controllers who have worked alongside civil air traffic controllers.

  Mr. Neubert
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Sea Harrier (Accident)
  Mr. Boyes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the date, location and circumstances of the crash of a Sea Harrier aircraft aboard the aircraft carrier Ark Royal during February; what injuries were sustained by the pilot; what was the tail number of the aircraft; and what lessons have been learnt from the series of Sea Harrier accidents in the past year.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply on 9 February 1990, at column 816. There was no such crash. All accidents which occurred during 1989 remain under official investigation.

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreements have been reached at ministerial level regarding the deployment of sea-launched cruise missiles by NATO.
  832
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  NATO Ministers have agreed that, as part of the post-INF restructuring of nuclear forces, SACEUR should consider the availability of the whole spectrum of nuclear weapons, including SLCMs.

  Defence Review
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is currently conducting a full defence review of United Kingdom requirements and deployments.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 3 April to the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson).

  Soviet Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the security implications for the United Kingdom of the decision by the Government of the Soviet Union to transfer testing of nuclear weapons from Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan, to an island test site within the Arctic circle.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There is none.

  Soviet Aircraft (Interceptions)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if a Soviet aircraft has even been intercepted by a Royal Air Force aircraft operating from Stornoway;

  (2) how many interceptions of Soviet military aircraft were made by Royal Air Force aircraft in the United Kingdom air defence region per week, on average, during 1989.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Detailed information about interceptions of Soviet aircraft by the Royal Air Force is classified.

  Stornoway Airport
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many simulated attacks on Stornoway airport are scheduled during Exercise Elder Forest 90.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  None.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in the phase II construction work at Stornoway airport.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Construction of new fuel installations at Stornoway started in 1989, and work on a new fuel jetty and pipeline began in January this year; both are due for completion in early 1991. Planning is well advanced for work on nine aircraft shelters and associated support facilities, which is expected to start at the end of this year and be completed in late 1992; some additional work on upgrading elements of the airfield infrastructure will be carried out in the same period.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the numbers and types of aircraft to be deployed at Stornoway airport for Exercise Elder Forest 90, the units to which these aircraft belong and the dates of their arrival at and departure from Stornoway;
  833
  (2) what are the earliest and latest times of the day when flying activity is scheduled for jet aircraft deployed at Stornoway airport for Exercise Elder Forest 90; and whether any activity outside those times will be permitted.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  There are no plans to deploy military aircraft to Stornoway airport during Exercise Elder Forest 90, which is scheduled from 23 to 27 April. However, a number of Tornado F3 aircraft will use the airport as a turnround base during the exercise. It is not possible to specify in advance the numbers of aircraft, the units involved, or the arrival and departure times; these will depend upon how the exercise develops. There are, however, no plans to use the airport outside the hours of 8 am to 10 pm.

  Link-Miles Ltd.
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts his Department has with Singer Link-Miles.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The Ministry of Defence has at present 106 current headquarters contracts with Link-Miles Ltd; a further 34 have been completed and closed during the financial year 1989–90. The total value of these contracts is £175 million, of which £30 million remains to be paid. The company supplies flight, maritime and vehicle simulators, and training systems.

  Hydrographic Office, Taunton
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about agency status for the Hydrographic Office at Taunton.

  Mr. Tom King
  On 6 April, I will be launching the Hydrographic Office as the Ministry of Defence's first defence support agency. The agency comprises the Hydrographic Office at Taunton and the associated chart depots at Portsmouth, Devonport and Rosyth naval bases. The Hydrographer of the Navy, Rear-Admiral J. A. L. Myres, has been appointed the agency's chief executive.

  As I said in the House on 18 October 1989, columns 154-55, defence support agencies will be run on "next steps" lines but will remain within the defence chain of command. Such agencies complement my Department's new management strategy, under which I am to secure better value for the defence budget through closer alignment of financial accountability with line management responsibilities, and by a system of performance reviews. The establishment of the Hydrographic Office as a defence support agency is a significant landmark in this process.

  The aim of the Hydrographic Office has always been, and will continue to be, to supply hydrographic, oceanographic and other such information to the Royal Navy, while also offering unclassified charts and publications to the merchant marine and other non-naval users. The professional standards which have been the hallmark of success for the Hydrographic Office for nearly two centuries will continue to be upheld. The greater freedom and flexibility now granted to the chief executive will provide him with new opportunities to build on this firm base.

  Accordingly, the chief executive has been set the following key targets:
  To improve the quality of service by reducing, within the year 1990–91, the time taken to promulgate all immediate
  834
  dangers by radio navigation warnings from 24 to 20 hours; increasing the number of new charts and new editions by at least 5 per cent. per annum; reducing by 70 charts per annum the imperial unit charts through modernisation.
  To increase the revenue from commercial sales by 10 per cent. over 5 years.
  To increase productivity by an average of at least 1 per cent. per annum.
  To reduce gross operating costs by £100,000 in 1990–91.
  By these and other improvements in performance, to achieve an overall increase in efficiency by an average of 3·5 per cent. per annum over the years 1991–92 to 1994–95.
  To develop, within 1990–91, an improved system of output measurement so that progress against this overall target can be accurately assessed.
  To develop, within 1990–91, improved management information and management accounting systems.

  Procurement Executive Airfields
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a statement about the future of the procurement executive airfields.

  Mr. Neubert
  In due course.

  Royal Naval Armaments Museum
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide an inventory of items in the royal naval armaments museum, Gosport.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the ownership of items in the royal naval armaments museum, Gosport.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The majority of items held in the naval ordnance collection are owned by the Ministry of Defence, but the collection does contain some exhibits which have been loaned by museums or private individuals.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the future of the royal naval armaments musuem, Gosport.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A number of options for the future of the naval ordnance museum, Gosport, are under consideration in the wider context of our disposal of the ex-royal naval armament depot at Priddy's Hard.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what talks he held with locally elected representatives prior to the issue of a letter by Ms. Jan Wildy, head of central disposal unit at the Ministry of Defence stating that further discussions with the borough of Gosport over the future of the royal naval armaments museum at Gosport are to be abandoned.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Talks on the disposal of the ex-royal naval armament depot, Priddy's Hard, Gosport, including the future of the naval ordnance museum, were held with locally elected representatives by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) on 16 December 1987 in Portsmouth, and on 25 May 1988 in London; and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on 5 July 1989 in London.

  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the royal naval armaments museum, Gosport in each of the last five years.
  835
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Annual maintenance costs of the naval ordnance collection were:

  £K

  1985–86

  52·41

  1986–87

  53·95

  1987–88

  55·98

  1988–89

  54·83

  11989–90

  55·95

  1 Estimated.

  European Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what problems have arisen in the reaching of an agreement on the nose radar development contract for the European fighter aircraft; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) when he expects an agreement to be reached with his counterparts on the choice of consortium for the European fighter aircraft nose radar development contract; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  At this stage I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have said on 6 March, column 712, and 23 January, columns 869-72, respectively.

  Duchess of Kent Military Hospital
  Mr Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement about the future of the Duchess of Kent military hospital at Catterick.

  Mr Archie Hamilton
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) on 5 March 1990,Official Report, column 537.

  Hunts (Licensing)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the conditions of the licence held by the Borders/West Percy hunt that allows them to hunt on Ministry of Defence land at Otterburn;

  (2) what are the conditions of the licence held by the Cambridgeshire hunt that allows them to hunt on Ministry of Defence land at Brampton wood;

  (3) what are the conditions of the licence held by the Tynedale hunt that allows them to hunt on Ministry of Defence land at Ouston;

  (4) what are the conditions of the licences held by the Bedale and West of York hunt that allow them to hunt on Ministry of Defence land at Ripon Parks and Catterick;

  (5) what are the conditions of the licences held by the Wensleydale harriers that allow them to hunt on Ministry of Defence land at Stainton and Bellerby;
  (6) what are the conditions of the licences held by the Zetland hunt that allow them to hunt on Ministry of Defence land at Feldom and Catterick;
  (7) what is the cost of issuing licences to hunts to use Ministry of Defence land; and what contribution individual hunts make to this cost.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

  Challenger 2 Tank
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Vickers Defence Systems has been notified that it has successfully completed the second of three contractual milestones for the development and demarcation of the Challenger 2 tank.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  No. The milestone 2 report was received from Vickers Defence Systems on 9 March and is now being assessed by my Department.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.
Earl Sondes Earl Sondes— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

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 will be attending the ninth Commonwealth Law Conference in Auckland, New Zealand, from 9th April to 22nd April 1990. I trust that the House will agree to grant me leave of absence for that period.

Rural Unemployment
11.7 a.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps are being taken to deal with rural unemployment, particularly in those areas where it is exceptionally high.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, all the national programmes run by the Department of Employment are available to those in rural areas. Other initiatives supported by the Government include the activities of the Rural Development Commission in England and the development agencies in Scotland and Wales.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that over 24, 000 jobs— about a fifth, I believe, of the total— have been lost in farming in the past five years? Is he further aware that there is no indication that the decline has been arrested? Can the Minister say what steps are planned to halt the advance of rural poverty in some of these areas which will be added to enormously by the burden of the poll tax?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right in saying that there has been a steady decline in the number of jobs connected with agriculture. They declined by 19 per cent. between September 1979 and September 1989. That decline is likely to continue. More specifically, the employment service has a number of schemes aimed particularly at isolated rural areas. For example, jobs, instead of being advertised at Jobcentres, are advertised in local libraries, post offices, church halls and so forth. There is an outreach scheme to send officials who specialise in finding jobs for people to isolated communities in order to help the unemployed to find work. The provision of new technology is also important.
1510
The most successful travel to interview scheme finances people to go for interviews and occasionally to stay overnight. It was ingenious of the noble Baroness to bring the community charge into her question. I believe that people will be served considerably better in rural areas because the local authorities will be more accountable to their wishes.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, can the Minister provide some real figures? Can he say what was the unemployment position in rural areas, say 10 years ago, as compared with today?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, unemployment is now nearly at half the level that it was in July 1986, though it is marginally higher than in 1979. The noble Lord must know that since then three million new jobs have been created by the policies of this Government.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the success in creating jobs achieved by rural co-operatives, particularly in parts of Scotland, Ireland and Wales? Does the Minister not agree that that success has been achieved despite the difficulties which small co-operatives have in raising capital for their enterprises? Therefore, should not the Government be considering ways and means of providing capital for rural co-operatives in order to spread their effect throughout the United Kingdom?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, there are several initiatives through which government departments have backed private and voluntary schemes. For example the Rural Development Commission provides a wide range of advice, financial help and training. The RDC also has a building programme for workshops especially in areas where the return on investment is too low to attract private sector investment. There is also a full range of Department of Trade and Industry services to help advise small businesses which are starting up so that they may maintain their impetus and therefore provide future solid employment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the important areas of rural employment in Scotland is forestry? Is he further aware that the target for UK forestry established by the Government is around 32, 000 hectares? The figures for last year reveal that the planting programme is now only 12, 000 hectares. Does the Minister not agree that this is a matter of considerable concern?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in dealing with employment we should not consider just the planting of trees but also their cutting down which provides an enormous amount of employment. In the course of the next 15 years we shall see tremendous growth in the harvesting of the product which will provide a large number of jobs.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that because of the depression in agriculture and the effects of cutting back, there are a great number of empty buildings? I must declare an

1511
interest here. If those buildings were more readily available to small industries, that would considerably help the situation. I wish to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, the former chairman of the Rural Development Commission. He has done a great deal to try to persuade county councils that they have to be more lenient.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am not sure that I fully understand the point made by the noble Lord. The Rural Development Commission is there partly to deal with the problem and to provide the buildings and workshop space so that firms can carry out some kind of useful function.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, are the Government engaged in encouraging the development of small trading and industrial estates in rural areas where they can be of very great value and opportunity?
Lord Strathclyde: Yes, my Lords. Local offices of the Rural Development Commission, which are supported by private sector-led committees, are able to provide general advice, supported where necessary by expert advice on management, marketing and technical matters in order to assist small businesses to grow. Part of the key to that is also to provide the workshops— the small industrial areas— so that those businesses can continue to thrive.
Lord Walston: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that an improvement in rural transport would be of great assistance in reducing the seriousness of this problem? At present there are many people out of work in villages who do not have their own cars and who are therefore unable to get to places where there may be work for them. Public rural transport has diminished very greatly during the past 10 years or so.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on those comments to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. However, my understanding is that in recent years rural transport has begun to improve.

BSE Cows: Offspring
11.15 a.m.
Lord Hunter of Newington Lord Hunter of Newington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the offspring of cows suffering from bovine spongiform encephalopathy are allowed to continue as members of milking herds.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): Yes, my Lords.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that brief reply. However, if we accept that the disease is due to feeding from contaminated
1512
bonemeal and that some of this bonemeal has been exported, perhaps I may ask this question. Has this disease occurred in Europe? For example, is the disease that is described in Holland as mineral deficiency the same disease as BSE?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we have kept other countries fully informed about the development of BSE in Britain and of the probable role of meat and bonemeal as the source of infection. In the light of that, it is for importing countries to decide whether to accept this material and, if so, under what conditions. For example, this material may be for use in pig and poultry rations which is permitted in this country. BSE has not been reported in the Netherlands. Research studies in this country show that the most likely cause of BSE is the feeding of ruminant-based rations containing protein material derived from sheep, some of which were infected with scrapie; but we have no further information.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that although we might not wish the offspring of spongiform animals— to give them a name— to enter milking herds, they might be almost impossible to trace?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are permitting breeding from some offspring. There is no evidence which points to a need for breeding to be prohibited; but farmers, as a matter of prudence, may wish to consider taking their own action.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the department still maintains close liaison with the British Veterinary Association on this and similar problems?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, can the Minister say whether her department still permits the delivery of calves by Caesarian section from cows suffering from BSE? If so, what is the justification for that policy in the light of present circumstances?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is permitted, and it is up to farmers to make their own decision.
Lord Hunter of Newington: My Lords, given the fact that it takes four or five years for this disease to develop in affected cows, what happens to the animals in the interval? Are they used for ordinary beef purposes?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are carrying out an enormous amount of research into this disease, which the noble Lord will appreciate is a very new disease. We have a project under way, which is costing £ 5 million, to ascertain whether the disease is transmissible from dam to calf. Over 300 offspring of affected cattle have been purchased, together with a similar number of control animals. All are being kept at Ministry experimental husbandry farms. The offspring of infected animals in this country are not being allowed to breed.

1513
However, we have imported 160 cows from New Zealand which have never been fed on the food that we think causes this disease. They will be implanted with embryos from BSE-infected cows. The reason for the importation is to see whether there is maternal or paternal transmission via the embryo. This is extremely important to our farmers who wish to export embryos.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, could there be any risk to bovine-type zoo animals and deer from BSE?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, five antelopes have died of a transmissible encephalopathy, probably as a result of consuming ruminant-based feed. The ruminant feed ban imposed in July 1988 applies to zoo animals as well as to livestock. Advice about BSE has been given to all zoos.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Minister will remember that when the scheme for compensation was first introduced, the Government were pressed extremely hard to pay compensation at 100 per cent. of the market value. Can she say what was the saving to public funds regarding paying compensation at the rate of 50 per cent.? Further, can she say what the increase has been in the number of reported cases since the compensation rate has been increased to 100 per cent.?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am unable to give the noble Lord the figure that he desires. However, I shall write to him on the matter. Up to 30th March, 11, 815 cases have been confirmed in Great Britain. There is no evidence to show that the availability of full compensation has made any difference to the numbers because we have been expecting them to increase in any event.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, further to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, to which an answer was given relating to zoo animals, has the Ministry taken any steps to ensure that there is no danger of transmission into herds of deer for producing venison?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, to my knowledge— and if I am wrong I shall most certainly write to the noble Lord— there have been no such cases among deer.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, if the disease has affected antelopes, what is to stop it affecting deer?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, as I said, we are carrying out an enormous amount of research into the whole matter. Farmers with herds of deer will have been aware, as are farmers of cattle, of the dangers we believe to be inherent in the type of food which is now banned for cattle.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the Minister know whether any cases have been reported from an organic farm?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not know.
Lord Walston: My Lords, is there any likelihood that a test will be developed which will show whether cows are affected by BSE before they are showing signs of clinical disease? Given the long period of incubation, would it not be enormously important to be able to test animals before they have produced offspring, and before their milk has been consumed by human beings? That can only be done by tests in the pre-clinical stage.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the assumptions made by the noble Lord are correct. That is why we have a wide-ranging research programme which has been underway since the disease was first identified. More than £ 12 million has been allocated over the next three years to the programme.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to build up and isolate stocks of cattle which are known to be free of BSE?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it is hard to tell which herds are free from BSE because the disease does not show itself immediately. It can occur in a cow in any period between about three years old up to a really old cow— that is, however old an old cow may be.

Jobs and Overseas Investment
11.26 a.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many jobs overseas investment has created or safeguarded in the United Kingdom since 1979.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, according to the latest figures available to the DTI's Invest in Britain Bureau, from 1979 to 1989 there have been 2, 839 inward investment decisions of various kinds to locate in the United Kingdom. The projects were expected to create about 225, 000 new jobs and since 1983, when records were started, to have safeguarded a further 127, 000.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very interesting Answer. Can he tell the House what proportion of those jobs are in the car industry? Further, bearing in mind that the export volume of the car industry in 1989 was in the region of £ 8–2 billion— more than either the oil or aerospace industries— can he say what effect the growth of the Japanese car industry will have on the UK balance of payments?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is certainly true that many of the enterprises to which I referred were involved in the manufacture of motor cars. They will certainly represent an important aspect of our export performance in the future. That is why it is so important that there should be free circulation within the European Community in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I welcome the figures which the noble Lord has just given us. However, can he explain what assumptions have been made as to the 225, 000 jobs which have apparently been created and the 127, 000 jobs which have apparently been safeguarded? It must have been an extremely difficult statistical calculation. Can he give us some of the background to those figures?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, these figures were announced by the promoters at the time that they launched their projects. They do not take account of changes which have taken place since that time, whether they were reductions or even increases.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not my noble friend's Answer particularly satisfactory inasmuch as it indicates the confidence which overseas investors have in the stability of the British economy and, indeed, in the economic policies of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am certain that my noble friend is right. It is also a reflection of the improved industrial relations climate in this country which has resulted from the various pieces of legislation that have been brought in.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I give a general welcome to the scale of inward investment in this country. However, does the Minister agree that there are areas in manufacturing industry which do not particularly attract inward investment and whose needs are not being met by domestic investment? Is not that at least to some extent a criticism of what the Government are doing to encourage domestic investment? Should not something be done about the situation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I must point out to him that that is another question. In my view these are satisfactory figures, as my noble friend indicated. I agree that not every aspect of manufacturing industry has benefited from these inward investment decisions, but clearly major areas have benefited, including important areas of the United Kingdom.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I greatly welcome the benefits that stem from this inward investment which has been stimulated by the policies of Her Majesty's Government. However, does my noble friend agree that most of the research and development work upon which these activities are based has been carried out overseas? Does he further agree that it is important to do everything possible to stimulate and encourage British companies to invest more in new competitive products?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not sure that my noble friend is wholly correct. There have been many important inward investment decisions relating to research and development establishments per se. I hope that he will also find that to be satisfactory.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that production plans of the three Japanese firms in this country indicate that they will produce about 500, 000 cars over the next five years? If that is to happen, is it not true that our balance of trade will be assisted to the tune of £ 13 billion and that it will greatly improve general confidence in this country and in our pound?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is certainly the case that the balance of payments deficit at present is almost wholly taken up by motor car imports of one kind or another from one country or another. That is why investment decisions such as those referred to by my noble friend are so important and why they will indeed have a very beneficial effect on the balance of payments, as he indicated.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, while the noble Lord is in such a self-congratulatory mood perhaps he will also extend his congratulations to his noble friend Lord Cockfield on the work he carried out towards the implementation of the single market when he was a Commissioner in Europe.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am not in a particularly self-congratulatory mood. The figures speak for themselves; they need no help from me.

Community Charge: Scotland
11.29 a.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe asked Her Majesty's Government:
What costs will be incurred by extending to Scotland retrospectively the new limits for community charge liability in England and Wales announced by the Chancellor in his Budget Statement.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden): My Lords, none. The Government are not extending to Scotland retrospectively the new limits for community charge liability in England and Wales announced by the Chancellor. My right honourable friend intends to set up a temporary scheme outside the social security system to provide for special payments to those in Scotland who came into entitlement to community charge benefit as a result of the change in the rules. Such a scheme will require financial provision of up to £ 4 million to cover the cost of payments and administration costs.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in his statement which dealt with this matter the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had forgotten all about Scotland? This has caused considerable resentment in Scotland. The Government's rating in the latest opinion poll has now dropped to 15 per cent.— not 50 per cent.— in Scotland. Can the Minister give an assurance that any further refinements or concessions on poll tax legislation in England and Wales will automatically

1517
apply to Scotland? That part of the country has suffered the imposition of the poll tax for more than a year.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the Government have taken account of the perceived injustice resulting from the fact that the community charge was introduced in Scotland a year earlier than in England and Wales. They have produced a generous scheme which should be widely welcomed. Incidentally, I recall the noble Lord saying that he disliked domestic rates as much as I did. As to local income tax which he wished to bring in, his friends on the Labour Benches do not seem to like that either.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind the large sums of money that have to be found for the Scottish Office and the various ways in which Scottish agriculture and the economy of Scotland benefit indirectly through the policy of the Government, is my noble friend aware that it is impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to forget Scotland?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am glad to hear what my noble friend says about the affairs of Scotland. I too realise that £ 9–5billion is being spent in Scotland by the Government and the Scottish Office this year.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, we welcome the scheme for rebates to Scottish poll tax payers. However, does it not create an injustice to English ratepayers who were in receipt of rate rebates last year? Ought they not now also to receive a payment to put them in the same position as Scottish poll tax payers for the past year?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I understand the feelings in Scotland about arrangements for the community charge there. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the noble Lord—
Lord Gridley: My Lords, is the high increase in spending seen in the first year of the community charge in Scotland reflected in charges for the second year?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, local authorities plan to increase budget expenditure in 1991 by 9–6 per cent. The increase last year was of the order of 12–3 per cent. It is gratifying to know, however, that the high increase in spending in the first year of the community charge is planned to slacken off in 1991. This suggests at least that some authorities are responding to the discipline of the community charge to restrain their expenditure. Perhaps I may add that I emphasise "some authorities". The Lord Provost of Edinburgh refuses to pay the community charge. The city district of Edinburgh has an increase this year of 24 per cent.
1518
in its contribution to the community charge. That is where accountability ought to be recognised.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister gave an interesting reply to my noble friend Lord Glenamara. He said that the matter should be referred to his right honourable friend on behalf of English ratepayers. When that is done, will the Minister come back and tell the House what views and what action his right honourable friend intends to take on the question submitted by my noble friend?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, that is entirely another Question. If the noble Lord wishes to put down a Question on the subject he is perfectly free to do so.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, I assume that I am in order at last! Can the noble Lord send a copy of the latest Scottish NFU report to his noble friend Lord Renton? I imagine it would give a different idea of how satisfied Scottish farmers are with what the Government spend on them.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord has hit on an area which is my responsibility in Scotland. I can tell him that I attended a meeting of the Scottish NFU at Oban. After one-and-a-quarter hours of questioning, I got the impression that the Scottish farmers are realistic about how the future lies. I am glad to see that they are now opening up good markets in Europe for the products which the noble Lord knows only too well come best from Scotland.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, as the community charge has been in operation in Scotland for just over a year, will my noble friend the Minister comment on the incidence of non-payment of the charge?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, regarding non-payment the figures we have to 1st March this year indicate that in some areas a high proportion of people have paid. In my own area of the Borders, 98 per cent. of charge payers have made some contribution. I should add that above 50 per cent. of those who have received summary warrants have taken action to cover their debts.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, do I understand from the answers given by the Minister that he considers that a great benefit was conferred on Scotland by the introduction of the charge a year earlier than in England?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, when we debated the matter in your Lordships' House under the Scottish Bill, the whole question was whether accountability would come through. As I instanced in regard to the Edinburgh city district, perhaps one of these days people will wake up to the fact that the 24 per cent. increase in that district this year is way above what it should be. Surely the councillors concerned should be accountable for that.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland spoke recently of the Prime Minister falling into line "with his better judgment" on the poll tax. Can the noble Lord advise the House on any further improvements the Secretary of State for Scotland will suggest to the Prime Minister? For instance, can the Minister confirm whether his right honourable friend will advise her to introduce 100 per cent. rebates for the 75, 000 people in Scotland who live on income support and suffer real hardship?
Can the Minister also remind his right honourable friend that when the Bill was introduced in the House there was great euphoria on his side of the Chamber and the feeling that it would be a vote winner? As my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe suggested, the Conservatives stand in the Scottish opinion poll at 15 per cent. Is there not something wrong? Is it not time now to rethink the tax?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I am always grateful for the advice that the noble Lord might give to the Government on these matters. Of course I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend. As to how he advises my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that is a matter for him. I say to the noble Lord that it is well known now in Scotland that local income tax has been rejected by his own party. All I can find in the roof tax which the noble Lord's own party suggests as the alternative is a glorified version of the discredited and disliked rates system.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, in replying to such questions in future will the Minister be less selective in the statistics he gives on non-payment? He referred to 98 per cent. payment in the Borders. There are more sheep in the Borders than people. Will he give the figures for the Strathclyde region? Does he accept that 20 per cent. of the population of Glasgow have so far not paid and that 400, 000 people in Scotland have either not paid or are at least six months in arrears?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, the noble Lord is usually very selective in the figures that he gives. Of course I realise that in Strathclyde many people have not paid the community charge. That is understood. Perhaps it has something to do with the level of the charge which is far too high.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I am a little confused. Can my noble friend the Minister inform me whether sheep have to pay a community charge?
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said there were more sheep than people in the Borders. However, I can assure him that the people in the Borders are not sheep.

Manchester Prison: Violence
11.40 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat
1520
a Statement about the serious events at Manchester prison over the past few days which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Since I reported to the House last Monday prison staff have continued progressively to regain control of the buildings. During the same period a large number of prisoners have surrendered. But 12 prisoners can be seen inside the prison who have been identified by name. Pending a final check of our records I cannot say whether there might not be more.
"Negotiations are continuing in order to bring this appalling incident to a close and I know that the governor and his staff, who throughout have conducted themselves with great courage and professionalism, will continue to do so. I should also like to thank the police and the fire and ambulance services for the work they have done.
"I am very sorry to have to inform the House that a Manchester prison officer died in hospital this morning. He had been on duty on Sunday, 1st April, and although he suffered no injuries during the disturbance he was admitted to hospital later that day. I wish to express my deep sympathy to his family in their loss. The House will already be aware that a remand prisoner, Mr. Derek White, who suffered serious injuries in the course of the events of last Sunday and who was admitted to hospital on that day, died as a result of those injuries on 3rd April. Again I offer my sympathy to his relatives. During the past few days a number of prison officers have also been injured but all but one have now been discharged from hospital. The Greater Manchester police have opened a murder inquiry and other criminal investigations into the incident.
"A special telephone number for the use of relatives concerned as to the whereabouts of individual prisoners in Manchester prison at the start of the incident has been available since Sunday. It is 061–817–8178. All governors receiving prisoners from Manchester have also been asked to enable them to make a telephone call to a relative or friend without charge. Urgent consideration is also being given to the new arrangements which will need to be made to accommodate people committed from the courts in the Manchester area.
"I have already indicated my intention to set up an inquiry into this incident as soon as it has been resolved. It will be conducted by a Lord Justice of Appeal, Lord Justice Woolf. The terms of reference will be to inquire into the events leading up to the serious disturbance in Her Majesty's Prison Manchester and the action taken to bring it to a conclusion. I intend that the report, which will be separate from and will not conflict with the criminal investigation, should be published".
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
11.42 a.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the very first words that one wishes to utter from these Benches is to echo

1521
the sympathy that has been expressed to the family of the prison officer who has died and to the family of the remand prisoner who has also died as a result of his injuries. Our next thoughts automatically go to the governor and the prison officers who have endured a most unforgettable and dreadful occurrence and whose courage, coolness and calmness in the face of all this have merited the full approval of their fellow citizens.
Having said that, we have heard that there will be an inquiry and that it will be headed by Lord Justice Woolf. The terms of reference of that inquiry are not very clear from the Statement. I believe they were that the inquiry would consider the events leading up to these dreadful occurrences. To be of any use, the terms of reference must include the condition of the prison, the adequate or inadequate staffing at the prison and the whole flexibility of the arrangements that can be made in an emergency. I wonder whether the terms of reference will include those criteria.
Noble Lords who were present on the occasion when the first Statement was made will remember that I ventured to tell the Minister that there appeared to be evidence that in the dead letter box where anonymous messages are left, sometimes obviously of impending danger, there was some kind of warning about a disturbance. I asked him whether that was true. The Minister made his usual courteous reply to the effect that according to present information some warning had been given. However, he added that such warnings were not infrequent and they could not always be considered. I deal with this matter as regards the terms of reference of the inquiry because my present information is that an officer had reported on the Saturday at 2247 hours that,
"a riot situation may occur in the Chapel",
the next day, which is the very thing that occurred. I am informed that only five prison officers were on duty to look after the 300 prisoners who were in the chapel that day.
I believe all your Lordships would wish the terms of reference to look into the question of flexibility and what happens as regards investigating warnings of this nature. This is a dreadful occurrence. It is possibly one that may remain unique. However, as I said from these Benches on the occasion of the previous Statement, my fear is that copycat episodes may occur in various prisons around the country. I hope that what I have ventured to say about flexibility and taking into account warnings and the possibility of copycat exercises, will result in adequate staffing arrangements being made to ensure that the dreadful events that have occurred recently do not occur elsewhere.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, in thanking the noble Earl for repeating the Statement, I wish to pay tribute to the governor, Mr. O'Friel, and the prison officers at Manchester who have behaved with considerable heroism over the past few days. I also wish to associate myself and my noble friends with what the noble Earl said about the prison officer and the remand prisoner who have died.
1522
Is the noble Earl aware that copycat episodes have occurred since Sunday at a number of other prisons, including a particularly menacing incident at Durham? It is right that the House should recognise that sensible action taken by members of the prison service has prevented those incidents from getting out of hand, as the situation at Manchester did.
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether one of the matters which Lord Justice Woolf will look at will be the position of Rule 43 prisoners. Is he aware that some of us remain deeply alarmed about the fact, first of all, that there was a concentrated attack upon Rule 43 prisoners by some of the other inmates, and that there is an ever present risk of that situation developing at other Prison Department establishments where there are Rule 43 prisoners? Pending the result of the inquiry by Lord Justice Woolf, is the Home Office taking action specifically to deal with the possible threat to Rule 43 prisoners at other establishments? I do not think we can simply wait for the report. Some interim action is clearly called for.
All of us who know Lord Justice Woolf will welcome his appointment. However, will he be assisted by an assessor who has specialist knowledge of some of the issues involved and will Lord Justice Woolf sit in public?
Finally, does not the noble Earl recognise that as long as we have appalling conditions in our prisons where in hundreds and hundreds of cells in Prison Department establishments there are still three men to a cell, and as long as we have slopping out and the situation where large numbers of men are locked up for 22 or 23 hours a day, there is an ever present risk of incidents of this kind taking place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for their remarks about the Statement, which was not a very pleasant one to have to make. Both noble Lords were concerned about the terms of reference which will be given to Lord Justice Woolf. I can best answer those questions by repeating that he will be asked to inquire into the events leading up to the serious disturbance in Her Majesty's Prison, Manchester, and the action taken to bring it to a conclusion. It will be up to Lord Justice Woolf to interpret those terms of reference in the way that he thinks fit.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked whether the inquiry would include the condition of prisons, the adequacy of staffing and arrangements for dealing with emergencies. My guess is that the terms of reference which Lord Justice Woolf has been given will cover all of those aspects should he consider it appropriate.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will allow me to intervene. Does he really believe that we ought to leave the matter to a guess? That was the word that the Minister used. Ought it not to be made thoroughly clear what is within the terms of reference?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, uncharacteristically picks me up on a

1523
matter of interpretation and the use of a word. I have told him the terms of the inquiry which Lord Justice Woolf will undertake. Those terms are for the interpretation of Lord Justice Woolf. They are wide enough. I said that it will be up to Lord Justice Woolf to use such inquiries as he thinks fit within those terms of reference. I said that my guess was that his inquiries would cover those points. I did not say that it would be up to Lord Justice Woolf to cover them. It will be up to him to interpret the terms of reference. I do not believe that there is any need for hesitation by the noble Lord on that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked whether the inquiry would cover Rule 43 prisoners. Again, the terms of reference are wide enough to cover the point. It would not be for me to tell the judge how to interpret those terms of reference.
The noble Lord also referred to the fact that Rule 43 prisoners were subjected to a concentrated attack and were always at risk of such attacks. That is perfectly true. That is why they are Rule 43 prisoners. That is why they are given special housing in order to protect them as far as possible. This particular incident happened when 300 people were at chapel at the same time as a great many others were attending their dinner break. Therefore a large number of prisoners were out of their cells at one time.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred on a previous occasion to the dead letter box. I have made inquiries and have been unable to ascertain as yet that there was a note in the dead letter box. However, it is perfectly true that a conversation took place with a prison officer who from his home said that such a rumour abounded. As a result extra staff were posted near the chapel when people went in and when they came out. There were not five members of staff in the chapel. There was a senior prison officer plus nine other officers. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will realise that rumours of suspected outbreaks always abound in prisons. It is difficult to know when they are rumour and when they are fact. However, the noble Lord is correct. There was such a communication and action was taken as the governor thought appropriate.
11.54 a.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend convey to the prison officers concerned and to the Manchester police the gratitude of a great many of their fellow citizens for the fact that, despite those dreadful happenings inside the prison, it appears from my noble friend's Statement that none of those dangerous people escaped to become a menace to the public outside? Recognising that the events continued for some time and some very dangerous people were involved, that was obviously a very considerable achievement. I hope that my noble friend will feel that both the prison officers and the police are entitled to the warm gratitude and appreciation of their fellow citizens for protecting them from the risk of those people getting out.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter for mentioning
1524
that point. In our concern about what happened inside the prison it is sometimes easy to forget what might have happened outside if adequate steps had not been taken. I shall certainly see that the remarks of my noble friend are passed on both to the police and to the prison officers. If they had not taken the action which they did conditions might have been even worse.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, following from the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is it not clear that our present penal system is producing conditions which are indefensible in an advanced society? Is it not further clear that those problems are fundamental and that the time has now arrived when there is a need, quite apart from this particular inquiry, for a fundamental review of penal policy in this country?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have just had a review of penal policy in this country. That is why it is the Government's intention and desire that a greater proportion of sentences should be served within the community as opposed to people going into prisons, for the very reason that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, stated. It has also been part of the Government's policy to ensure, as my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow suggested, that there should be a re-arrangement of prison sentences to ensure that they more accurately reflect the time that is served in prison.
I remind the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that the Government are immensely concerned about the state of the prisons. A very great deal of money has been spent and is being spent on them. It is not something that can be done overnight. The trouble with this kind of disturbance is that the very overcrowding which caused the troubles will now be exacerbated in the other prisons to which prisoners from Manchester now have to go.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the situation in Manchester appears to have arisen from dangerous people being kept in dangerous conditions? Would it not be a good idea if Lord Justice Woolf were asked to look at the matter in two segments: the immediacy of the cause of the problems in Manchester, and the broader question which has given rise to the prospect of such outbreaks also taking place in other prisons? That is a very much broader question. Is it not right that Lord Justice Woolf should look at both aspects, the immediate problem and the background to it?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that is precisely what Lord Justice Woolf will look at. The noble Lord, Lord Hooson, referred to dangerous people and dangerous conditions. That may well be the case. However, it is up to Lord Justice Woolf to consider the background to what has happened. When he has done that in regard to Manchester it will be possible to see how such improvements or alterations as he may suggest may be applied throughout the system.
Lord Renton: My Lords, have all those prisoners known to have been in Strangeways now been accounted for or are any thought to be missing?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, it is not clear exactly what the position is. Twelve people have been identified as still being in the prison. The chances are that the number is greater. However, I cannot tell my noble friend the exact position because it is not known.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether in the long term the Government will look at employing prisoners who have to be in prison on productive and useful work such as providing a laundry service for hospitals, which would save the National Health Service money? The frustration of being locked up for 22 to 23 hours a day leads to smouldering conditions, especially when prisoners have only one shower a week.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that suggestion. A great deal is being done to encourage prisoners to work, to make things— not just mailbags— and to operate in workshops. I gave some figures the other day to indicate how very much greater, certainly in Manchester, is the time that prisoners now spend out of their cells. The noble Baroness is perfectly correct to say that if we can encourage people— and we can only encourage them; we cannot make them do it— to learn trades and to operate successfully, that will be a great help from the point of view of their morale.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Earl will recall that I asked him, first, whether Lord Justice Woolf would sit in public and, secondly, whether he would have an assessor. Can the noble Earl help me with answers to those questions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will realise that the decision to set up an inquiry has only just been taken. I cannot as yet tell him whether it will sit in public because no such decision has been made, nor can I tell him whether he will have an assessor.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, the noble Earl informed us that there was some doubt as to how many prisoners remained in the prison. That must mean that there is some doubt as to whether anyone escaped. Will the Minister assure us that, in spite of that fact, that is known not to have happened?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that anyone has escaped. When the disturbances took place, a number of prisoners wanted to get out of the prison and to have no part in the disturbances. Over 1, 300 prisoners were removed during the night to other prisons. There are a number of other prisoners left and they have been coming out during the past few days. However, I am unable to tell the noble Lord how many are left inside.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I hope that I shall have the indulgence of the House in returning to a topic which I regard as extremely important. I hope that the noble Earl will also forgive me. It was not a question of semantics. I asked something which in
1526
my view was fundamental regarding the terms of reference of the inquiry. One cannot be satisfied by guesswork or by leaving it to the interpretation of Lord Justice Woolf. He can only interpret the terms of reference that he is given. We want to see recommendations which the chairman of the inquiry or the person holding the inquiry may have to make. They should not be limited to the words in the Statement; namely:
"events leading up to the [serious] disturbance … and the action taken to bring it to a conclusion".
Those are terribly narrow confines in which Lord Justice Woolf is asked to conduct his inquiry and make his recommendations.
Will the noble Earl speak to his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the terms of reference specifically include the questions that I mentioned which dealt with staffing, warnings, flexibility and recommendations along the lines mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Marsh and Lord Harris, on the conditions in the prison leading up to such events, not just on this occasion, but, Heaven forfend, on other occasions?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I realise the seriousness with which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, takes that point. I discussed the question of the terms of reference with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary this morning. It was considered right for the Lord Justice to interpret those terms of reference as he thought appropriate. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is concerned. I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend, but I reiterate what I said— I know that I cannot satisfy the noble Lord, however much I try to do so— namely, that if the Lord Justice felt that it was appropriate to inquire into those matters in order to seize himself of the position leading up to the disturbances, he would be entitled to do so. I realise that that does not satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, so I assure him that I shall ensure that my right honourable friend knows of his concern.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am sorry to speak once again, but I was not certain from what the noble Earl said whether all Rule 43 prisoners have been accounted for.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, as far as I am able to tell the noble Lord, I think that they have all been accounted for.

National Health Service and Community Care Bill
12.3 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hooper I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the whole House to whom the National Health Service and Community Care Bill has been

1527
committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 1,

Clause 26,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 27 and 28,

Clauses 3 and 4,

Clause 29,

Clause 5,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 6 to 11,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 30 to 32,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 12 and 13,

Clause 36,

Clauses 14 to 17,

Clause 33,

Clause 18,

Clause 34,

Clauses 19 and 20,

Schedule 4,

Clause 35,

Schedule 7,

Clause 21,

Clause 37,

Clause 22,

Clause 38,

Clause 23,

Clause 39,

Clauses 24 and 25,

Clause 40,

Clause 53,

Clause 41,

Clause 54,

Clauses 42 to 44,

Clause 49,

Clause 45,

Clause 52,

Clause 46,

Clause 50,

Clause 47,

Clause 48,

Clause 51,

Clauses 55 to 57,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 58 to 62,

Schedule 9,

Schedule 10,

Clause 63.— (Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning Bill [H.L.]
12.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 336 [Interpretation]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the following Amendment:
Page 227, line 18, leave out from ("means") to end of line 24 and insert—
1528
(" (a) a charging authority, a precepting authority (except the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District), a combined police authority or a combined fire authority, as those expressions are defined in section 144 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988;
(b) a levying body within the meaning of section 74 of that Act; and
(c) a body as regards which section 75 of that Act applies; and includes any joint board or joint committee if all the constituent authorities are local authorities within paragraph (a), (b) or (c); ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like to point out that the Marshalled List contains a misprint. The correct position of the amendment is at page 227.
This amendment gives effect in the Bill to amendments made to Section 290 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by the Local Government Finance (Repeals, Savings and Consequential Amendments) Order 1990. The amendments made by the order are consequential upon the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 and came into force on the 1st April 1990. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [H.L.]
12.5 p.m.
Report received.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
12.6 p.m.
Report received.

Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
12.7 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill 74 as first printed for the Commons]
Clause 4, page 4, line 32, at end insert—
' (2A) Where it appears to the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Lord Advocate that the request relates to a fiscal offence in respect of which proceedings have not yet been instituted he shall not exercise his powers under subsection (2) above unless—

(a) the request is from a country or territory which is a member of the Commonwealth or is made pursuant to a treaty to which the United Kingdom is party; or

(b) he is satisfied that the conduct constituting the offence would constitute an offence of the same or a similar nature if it had occurred in the United Kingdom.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.

1529
Some degree of anxiety has been caused by Clause 4 of the Bill, in particular about the possibility that it might endanger the confidentiality of our banking system. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, twice moved amendments to this clause and my right honourable friend the Minister of State recently met representatives of the British Bankers' Association, the Law Society and the Confederation of British Industry to discuss their anxieties. Their fear was that the ability which was created by Clause 4 to offer assistance to any country could pose a threat to the high reputation for confidentiality which our banking system rightly enjoys. I know that the noble Lord, Lard Mishcon, is concerned about that. When replying to him, I said that we did not believe that those fears were justified.
Nevertheless, we appreciated the strength of the concerns which the noble Lord and the bankers expressed. Our aim in drawing up this amendment has therefore been to seek to allay the fears of the financial community without weakening our ability to co-operate with other countries in the real fight against international crime. The amendment therefore states that where the Secretary of State or, in Scotland, the Lord Advocate receives a request from an overseas country relating to the investigation of a fiscal offence, assistance can only be granted on certain conditions.
The first of those conditions is that the request for assistance must come from a country with which we have formal, mutual, legal assistance treaty arrangements, or a member of the Commonwealth.
Therefore we shall automatically be able to help all the other Council of Europe states which are signatories to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance and any countries with which we have a bilateral treaty of this kind. The Commonwealth scheme of mutual assistance, which is similar to the European convention, does not have the status of a formal treaty but we feel that it is right to be able to co-operate to the fullest possible measure with our Commonwealth partners.
Where there is a request from a country which is not in one of the categories that I have just described, it may still be possible to respond to it but only if there is dual criminality; that is to say, only if the conduct which constituted the offence would also constitute an offence of the same or similar nature if it had happened in the United Kingdom.
These conditions only apply to cases which are still under investigation. In cases where proceedings have actually been instituted we will always be able to provide assistance where we judge that it is right to do so.
I hope I have been able to show the House that this amendment both meets the concerns which the banks and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, expressed and preserves our ability to co-operate fully with our international partners. I hope, therefore, that this amendment will be welcomed by the House, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, whose views I always listen to with special care.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.— (Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I should like my immediate words to be words of gratitude to the noble Earl the Minister for the consideration that he gave to the arguments that were put forward in this House. I am sure that they were also considered in the other place when this amendment was made to the Bill. It is an important amendment.
I have only one question to put to the Minister. I hope that I do not take him by surprise. I should have given him warning of it. There is some anxiety, which I understand was expressed also in the other place, as to whether the words "fiscal offence" in fact cover an offence under the exchange control regulations of another country. I think I am right in saying that in the other place assurance was given that they would be so interpreted. However, to finish off the matter tidily in your Lordships' House, I wonder whether there could be confirmation of the fact that "fiscal offence" is deemed also to cover exchange control offences.
Because of the suddenness with which I have thrust this question upon the Minister, if he finds that he cannot answer me now I shall well understand it and await his reply. I know that the banks in fact regard this as a very important point.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the difficulty of defining the term "fiscal offence" was one of the factors which underlay the Government's reluctance earlier in the Bill's passage to accept a suggestion by the British Bankers Association which would have made the grant of assistance in all fiscal cases subject to a dual criminality test. I wrote to the noble and learned Lord about this. The comment that I then made was directed to a suggestion which would have left it to a court nominated by the Secretary of State to decide for itself whether the overseas offence was a fiscal one.
The government amendment that we have now tabled places a duty on the Secretary of State with regard to this question before nominating a court. In doing so the intention will be to apply the definition referred to in the Explanatory Report to the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance which states that fiscal offences are offences in connection with taxes, duties, Customs and exchange.
Since exchange control offences will therefore form part of the wider definition of the term "fiscal offence" which the Secretary of State will apply, I believe that there will be no need for them to be separately mentioned. I am sure that when the noble Lord absorbs this matter, as he always absorbs everything with astonishing rapidity, he will realise that his anxiety has been allayed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am deeply grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2 Clause 7, page 7, line 36, after 'that' insert 'the conduct constituting'
3 Clause 8, page 8, leave out lines 42 and 43 and insert ' (b) that the conduct constituting that offence would constitute an offence punishable by imprisonment if it had occurred in Scotland, '
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc.
I do not think I need detain the House long over these amendments. Their purpose is simple. They are designed to bring Clause 7 (2) and Clause 8 fully into line with the approach of Clause 7 (1). Clause 7 (1) provides for the exercise of powers of search and seizure on behalf of another country in cases which in the United Kingdom would involve serious arrestable offences. In deciding whether to issue a warrant authorising the use of such powers the court in this country has to consider not the precise formulation of the overseas offence but the conduct which constitutes it. If the conduct by the person concerned would have amounted to a serious arrestable offence, it is possible for the court to issue a warrant.
On the other hand, both Clause 7 (2) and Clause 8 as they stood when the Bill left your Lordships' House would have restricted the court in other circumstances such that search and seizure powers would only be used if the formulation of the overseas offence and the United Kingdom offence corresponded exactly.
The amendments, therefore, prescribe that in considering whether to issue warrants under Clause 7 (2) and Clause 8 the courts should, as with Clause 7 (1), consider the conduct constituting the offence overseas rather than the precise wording of the offence.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that these are sensible changes.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 en bloc.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
12.15 p.m.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
("Increase in realisable property: Scotland

'(1) This section has effect where by virtue of section l (l) (b) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 (insufficient realisable property) the amount which a person is ordered to pay by a confiscation order is less than the amount assessed to be the value of his proceeds of drug trafficking.

(2) If, on an application made in accordance with subsection (3) below the Court of Session is satisfied that the amount that might be realised in the case of the person in question is greater than the amount taken into account in making the confiscation order (whether it was greater than was thought when the order was made or has subsequently increased) the court shall issue a certificate to that effect, giving the court's reasons.

(3) An application under subsection (2) above may be made either by the prosecutor or by an administrator appointed under section 13 (1) of the said Act of 1987 in relation to the realisable property of the person in question.

(4) Where a certificate has been issued under subsection (2) above the prosecutor may apply to the High Court of Justiciary for an increase in the amount to be recovered under the confiscation order; and on that application the court may—

(a) substitute for that amount (not exceeding the amount assessed as the value referred to in subsection (1) above) as appears to the court to be appropriate having regard to the amount now shown to be realisable; and

1532

(b) increase the term of imprisonment or detention fixed in respect of the confiscation order under subsection (2) of section 396 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (imprisonment in default of payment) if the effect of the substitution is to increase the maximum period applicable in relation to the order under subsection (1A) of section 407 of that Act.'.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This new clause does no more than bring the position in Scotland into line with the position in England and Wales as it will be following the passage of Clause 16 of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4 .— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
5 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
("Part HA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash

'(1) A customs officer or constable may seize and, in accordance with this section, detain any cash which is being imported into or exported from the United Kingdom if its amount is not less than the prescribed sum and he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that it directly or indirectly represents any person's proceeds of, or is intended by any person for use in, drug trafficking.

(2) Cash seized by virtue of this section shall not be detained for more than forty-eight hours unless its continued detention is authorised by an order made by a justice of the peace or in Scotland the sheriff; and no such order shall be made unless the justice or, as the case may be, the sheriff is satisfied—

(a) that there are reasonable grounds for the suspicion mentioned in subsection (1) above; and

(b) that continued detention of the cash is justified while its origin or derivation is further investigated or consideration is given to the institution (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) of criminal proceedings against any person for an offence with which the cash is connected.

(3) Any order under subsection (2) above shall authorise the continued detention of the cash to which it relates for such period, not exceeding three months beginning with the date of the order, as may be specified in the order; and a magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff, if satisfied as to the matters mentioned in that subsection, may thereafter from time to time by order authorise the further detention of the cash but so that—

(a) no period of detention specified in such an order shall exceed three months beginning with the date of the order; and

(b) the total period of detention shall not exceed two years from the date of the order under subsection (2) above.

(4) Any application for an order under subsection (2) or (3) above shall be made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or a constable if made to a justice or magistrates' court and by a procurator fiscal if made to the sheriff.

(5) At any time while cash is detained by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section—

(a) a magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff may direct its release if satisfied—

(i) on an application made by the person from whom it was seized or a person by or on whose behalf it was being imported or exported, that there are no, or are no longer, any such grounds for its detention as are mentioned in subsection (2) above; or

(ii) on an application made by any other person, that detention of the cash is not for that or any other reason justified; and

(b) a customs officer or constable, or in Scotland a procurator fiscal, may release the cash if satisfied that

1533
its detention is no longer justified but shall first notify the justice, magistrates' court or sheriff under whose order it is being detained.

(6) If at a time when any cash is being detained by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section—

(a) an application for its forfeiture is made under section (Forefeiture) below; or

(b) proceedings are instituted (whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere) against any person for an offence with which the cash is connected, the cash shall not be released until any proceedings pursuant to the application or, as the case may be, the proceedings for that offence have been concluded.'.

6 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Forfeiture

'(1) A magistrates' court or in Scotland the sheriff may order the forfeiture of any cash which has been seized under section (Part HA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash) above if satisfied, on an application made while the cash is detained under that section, that the cash directly or indirectly represents any person's proceeds of, or is intended by any person for use in, drug trafficking.

(2) Any application under this section to a magistrates' court shall be made by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise or a constable and to the sheriff by a procurator fiscal.

(3) The standard of proof in proceedings on an application under this section shall be that applicable to civil proceedings; and an order may be made under this section whether or not proceedings are brought against any person for an offence with which the cash in question is connected.'.

7 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Interest
'. Cash seized under this Part of this Act and detained for more than forty-eight hours shall, unless required as evidence of an offence, be held in an interest-bearing account and the interest accruing on any such cash shall be added to that cash on its forfeiture or release.'.
8 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Procedure
'(1) An order under section (Part HA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash) (2) above shall provide for notice to be given to persons affected by the order.
(2) Provision may be made by rules of court with respect to applications to any court under this Part of this Act, for the giving of notice of such applications to persons affected, for the joinder, or in Scotland sisting, of such persons as parties and generally with respect to the procedure under this Part of this Act before any court.
(3) Subsection (2) above is without prejudice to the generality of any existing power to make rule.'.
9 After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Interpretation of Part IIA
' (1) In this Part of this Act—
"cash" includes coins and notes in any currency;
"customs officer" means an officer commissioned by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise under section 6 (3) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979;
"drug trafficking" has the same meaning as in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 or, as respects Scotland, in Part I of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987;
"exported", in relation to any cash, includes its being brought to any place in the United Kingdom for the purpose of being exported;
"the proceeds of drug trafficking" has the same meaning as in the said Acts of 1986 and 1987 respectively and includes proceeds received by any person before as well as after the coming into force of this Part of this Act.
(2) In section (Part IIA: seizure and detention of drug trafficking cash) above "the prescribed sum" means such
1534
sum in sterling as may from time to time be prescribed for the purposes of that section by an order made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and in determining under that section whether an amount of currency other than sterling is not less than the prescribed sum that amount shall be converted at the prevailing rate of exchange.
(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that notwithstanding sections 8 and 9 of the Isle of Man Act 1979 references in this Part of this Act to importation into or export from the United Kingdom include references to importation into the United Kingdom from the Isle of Man and exportation from the United Kingdom to the Isle of Man.'.
10 Clause 24, page 17, line 43, at end insert:
' (2) Any money representing cash forfeited under Part IIA of this Act or accrued interest thereon shall be paid into the Consolidated Fund.'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 en bloc. I should like to speak at the same time to Commons Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. It may be for the convenience of noble Lords if I were to speak to all these amendments together as they form a consolidated package, as it were.
They will constitute a new part of the Bill and a significant extension of its effectiveness in countering drug trafficking. They were introduced in another place in the light of the report of the Home Affairs Committee and of the expression of concern at Second Reading in another place. They are designed to prevent the proceeds of drug trafficking, or money which is intended to be used for drug trafficking, to be imported to or exported from this country as cash. I hope, therefore, that the provisions will be also acceptable to your Lordships.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 gives our enforcement agencies and courts wide powers to trace, freeze and confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking. An important consequence of that Act has been that banks and other financial institutions have introduced systematic reporting of suspicious transactions to the National Drugs Intelligence Unit. I am glad to say that banks and other financial institutions have co-operated very fully with the enforcement agencies, and their help has been immensely valuable and led to the detection of both drugs money and drug traffickers. These are effective provisions, and £ 16 million worth of assets have already been ordered to be confiscated as a result. This is a very considerable success in a fairly short while.
However, if we are aware of the success of this legislation, so are the drug traffickers. If they feel that it is no longer safe to use the financial institutions to launder the proceeds of their evil trade, they will look elsewhere. Equally, if they can no longer use the banking system to bring money into this country to finance their activities they will find another way to get the money here. All of this highlights what I am afraid is a loophole in our current legislation, and that is that we have no power to detain large sums of actual cash which is suspected of being drugs money from being brought across our borders.

1535
Suitcases full of banknotes can be brought into or taken from this country with impunity.
That was one of the points which was highlighted by the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place in its recent report on drug trafficking and related serious crime. It proposed urgent measures which would,
"allow Customs officers to detain money entering or leaving the country which they know or suspect arises from the proceeds of such crime".
We have therefore brought forward these amendments in order to close this loophole.
These new clauses seek to overcome the problem by enabling customs and police officers to detain money which is being imported or exported where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the money represents the proceeds of drug trafficking or is intended for use in drug trafficking. The power can be exercised only where the amount of cash in question is above a minimum figure which is to be prescribed by order. We have in mind that the first place to set that figure is £ 10, 000. Once the cash has been seized, its continued detention for up to three months may be authorised by a justice of the peace, and for three month periods thereafter, up to a minimum of two years, by a magistrates' court. During that period a magistrates' court may at any time order the release of the money if it is satisfied that its continued detention is no longer necessary; for example, if the person from whom it was seized is able to show that it was held legitimately. A magistrates' court, which is satisfied that on the balance of probabilities detained cash represents drugs money, may order for its permanent forfeiture. While the cash is being detained it will be held in an interest bearing account and interest earned will be added to the capital forfeited or returned, depending on the outcome of the case.
I know that it is unusual for the Government to seek to make quite such major additions to a Bill so late in its passage, especially when in order to do so makes it necessary to make changes to the scope of the Bill. Our view was that it was worth taking that step in order to get these important provisions on to the statute book. I am glad to say that we had support for this from all parts of the House in another place. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will be equally good enough in your support for these measures which will form one more important weapon in our armoury against the international drugs trade.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 10 en bloc.— (Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, from these Benches and from other parts of the House complaints are made when a whole host of government amendments are suddenly inserted into Bills. On this occasion there will be no complaint from these Benches. We welcome wholeheartedly the insertion of these clauses. We are extremely glad that the gap to which the noble Earl clearly referred has now been closed. If we have made it more difficult, even almost impossible, for the wretched drug traders to get hold
1536
of their ill-gotten gains the whole House will be delighted as will the country.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. It is well known that a substantial number of money launderers, have brought into this country suitcases packed with high denomination bank notes. The noble Earl does not need to apologise to the House for introducing the amendments at this stage. They are highly desirable and in accord with provisions of the United States Bank Secrecy Act. I welcome the fact that we are moving in that direction. I give an unreserved welcome to the amendments.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords. I had an idea that what is proposed would meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, because he has always been concerned about the matter. I also thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would approve. Nevertheless, I anticipated being chivvied vigorously for introducing the matter so late in the day. Noble Lords have been kind enough to understand and appreciate the reasons. I hope that you will content yourselves with the thought that the Government always listen.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 26, page 18, line 25, leave out subsection (5).
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. It removes the privilege amendment.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
12 Schedule 4, page 22, line 26, at end insert:
'The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
In section 27 (1) after "1986" there shall be inserted the words "or an offence to which section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987 relates".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. It is a technical Scottish amendment. Section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1987, to which the amendment refers, makes similar provision for Scotland to that which is made for England and Wales by Section 28 (1) of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 which defines the term "drug trafficking offence". The forfeiture provisions for the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 were applied to drug trafficking offences in England and Wales by virtue of Section 70 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. That provision did not apply to Scotland. Therefore the amendment achieves for Scotland what has already been achieved for England and Wales by Section 70 of the 1988 Act.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
13 In the Title, line 2, leave out second 'and' and insert '; to enable the United Kingdom'.
14 Line 5, at end insert '; and to provide for the seizure, detention and forfeiture of drug trafficking money imported or exported in cash'.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 en bloc. I spoke to them when speaking to Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 en bloc.— {Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.

Contracts (Applicable Law) Bill [H.L.]
12.26 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Conventions to have force of law]:
Lord Wilberforce Lord Wilberforce moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 26, at end insert:
(" () This Act shall apply as between any parties to a contract who at the time of conclusion of the contract have their habitual residence, or in the case of bodies corporate or unincorporate, their central administration in a Contracting State.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is the same as that which I moved in a speech of inordinate length in Committee. Your Lordships will be glad to know that on this occasion I shall not indulge in a similar oration.
Noble Lords may remember that in Committee there was confusion about whether the United Kingdom had already ratified the Rome Convention of 1980, there being in existence a Command Paper which on its face stated that the United Kingdom had ratified but there being doubts about whether it had done so. There is no longer any confusion because it is now clear that we have not ratified the convention to date and that our hands are free to do so or not.
In Committee I took the position that to apply the convention outside the sphere of EC contracts would be damaging to our law because it would deter many potential litigants from coming to our commercial court. That argument was supported by other noble Lords on these Benches. It was not disputed that that might be the case but the best that could be said was that the convention could do no harm and that it would be useful to us in the European context. Secondly, I took the position that we are not bound to apply the convention outside the sphere of EC contracts to contracts generally and that we are free to limit it. The purpose of my amendment was to limit the convention.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor took a different view but kindly said he would take further advice on the matter. He has now done so and I am grateful for the trouble that he has taken
1538
to obtain advice and communicate it to me at great length. However, I am in the unfortunate position of not being able to agree with that advice. I had hoped that the view that was expressed from these Benches, even though the Government took a different view, may have justified the conclusion that the convention is ambiguous. Therefore, we should be able to take the course least damaging to our own interests.
That is not the Government's position; they wish to apply the contract universally. Therefore, I am not in a position to press my amendment. I remain of the opinion, which may arise later, that if that is correct, and under the convention we should be obliged to extend it to all contracts irrespective or whether thay have any EC connection, we should not ratify the convention. That would certainly be my position when that stage is reached. However, at this point I beg formally to move the amendment, though I indicate to your Lordships that I shall not be pressing it to a Division.
12.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce for raising the matter again. Because the question of the extent of the convention is an important one, and because some questions have been raised about it by some of my noble and learned friends, I hope that it may be right and acceptable for me to give a fairly full explanation of the matter as I see it.
Article 1 (1) of the convention provides in the English text that:
"The rules of this Convention shall apply to contractual obligations in any situation involving a choice between the laws of different countries".
The other five language versions are in similarly general terms. The texts are identical in referring to "contractual obligations" at large and not, for example, to contractual obligations entered into by persons domiciled within the contracting states.
The remaining paragraphs of Article 1 limit the scope of the convention, but they do so purely by reference to the subject matter of the contract and not to the parties' country of residence or administration. I should, however, draw attention to Article 1 (3), which states that:
"The rules of this Convention do not apply to contracts of insurance which cover risks situated in the territories of the Member States of the European Economic Community".
This express exclusion to my mind clearly suggests that the words in Article 1 (1) are to be given a universal meaning.
As I have said before, had it been intended that the convention should apply only to European Community contracts, one would have expected to find such a limitation stated expressly. One obvious place for it would be the preamble. The preamble states that the contracting parties are,
"anxious to continue in the field of private international law the work of unification of law which has already been done",
and that they wish,
"to establish uniform rules concerning the law applicable to contractual obligations".

1539
I believe that these words make it clear that the primary concern of the convention is with the conflict of law rules of the member states, and not with contracts entered into by parties within the member states. The European Community states have agreed between themselves to apply certain uniform rules in a universal way; it does not follow from the limitation of the convention to such states that the subject matter to which the rules will be applied must be similarly limited.
The ordinary meaning of Article 1 (1) points to the application of the convention to all contracts, and there is nothing in the other provisions of the convention to suggest otherwise. The negotiating history of the convention bears this out entirely.
On page 8 of the Official Report of the Convention the authors, when considering the work of the working group which prepared the convention, say that,
"From the very beginning of its work the Group has professed itself to be in favour of uniform rules which would apply not only to the nationals of Member States and to persons domiciled or resident within the Community but also to the nationals of third States and to persons domiciled or resident therein. The provisions of Article 2 specify the universal application of the convention".
On page 13, when considering Article 2, the authors say that,
"This Article underlines the universal character of the uniform rules laid down in this convention. The Convention does not apply only in situations involving some form of connection with one or other of the Contracting States. It is of universal application in the sense that the choice of law which it lays down may result in the law of a State not party to the convention being applied. By way of example, under Article 3, parties to a contract may opt for the law of a third State, and in the absence of any choice, that same law may be applied to the. contract under Articles 4 and 5 if it is with that State that the contract has the closest links. In other words, the Convention is a uniform measure of private international law which will replace the rules of private international law in force in each of the Contracting States, with regard to the subject matter which it covers and subject to any other convention to which the Contracting States are party (see Article 21) ".
The leading English text-book writers have no doubt as to the universal nature of the Convention. In Dicey and Morris, The Conflict of Laws, on page 1251, it is said that,
"The Convention requires the application of its rules even as regards contracts with a non-EEC element, and its rules will therefore apply to all contracts with a foreign element coming before the English courts".
Cheshire and North's Private International Law states on page 505 that,
"The Convention is world-wide in effect. In other words, it does not just provide choice of law rules for contracts with an EEC connection. It provides rules harmonising contract choice of law rules in all Member States. If implemented here, it would apply, in principle, to all international contracts coming before the courts in this country".
Finally Morris's The Conflict of Laws states on page 298 that,
"The Convention is world-wide in effect: it will apply to all contract cases having a foreign element, whether or not they have any connection with the EEC".
Lest it be thought unwise to rely solely on the interpretation of the convention as seen from this country, your Lordships may be interested to know that when the German Government introduced
1540
legislation to give effect to the convention its eplanatory memorandum to the Bundestag made it entirely plain that the convention would apply universally. I am not aware that any member state has sought to limit the convention to EC contracts, nor that any academic writer has taken the view that it is so limited.
The question arises whether we are entitled, if we so wish, to limit our application of the convention to EC contracts. I do not believe we are; if we ratify, we are bound to comply with the obligation under Article 1 (1), which means legislating to cover all contracts. Furthermore, the effect of legislation only partially giving effect to Article 1 (1) would require a reservation to that article. Article 22 indicates two reservations which may be made to the convention and it follows that no other reservations may be made.
Finally I must say that to introduce a limitation to EC contracts would go completely against the objective of the convention, which is to unify the choice of law rules of member states. A limitation would lead to considerable complication and introduce a distinction which does not exist at present in our conflicts rules for contracts nor, so far as I am aware, in those of any other member states.
I hope that this explanation has been clear and that there is now no doubt that it is neither possible nor right for this Bill to limit the scope of the Rome Convention as applied in the United Kingdom. I understand from what my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has said that he still has an opposite or different point of view. However, I have tried to canvass opinion as fully as I can, and I am now putting on record the results of that.
I should perhaps deal with one last matter. As my noble and learned friend said, at Committee stage he showed me the print of the text of the convention published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office in 1982. That I thought at the time contained a misprint. I understand that a correction slip was issued shortly after publication to say that the convention has not been ratified by the United Kingdom. That remains the position.
To conclude the matter, I should add that we had conducted consultations at the time that this convention was being negotiated. My noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, with his great knowledge of this area of the law, was very naturally one of those who was consulted on the almost final text in June 1979, and then on the final text in August 1980, in order that the Government might take a view about the appropriate way forward. I understand from what I have been told that my noble and learned friend did not have any adverse observations to offer and did not respond on either of those occasions.
In the light of all these circumstances, I believe that the right way forward is for the convention to be ratified, and this legislation is put before the House in order to enable us to ratify it properly with the full approval of Parliament. My noble and learned friend said that having heard the explanation he did not intend to press the amendment.

1541
Therefore, I hope that he may feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the explanation that he has given of the advice that he has received. I do not propose to weary the House by answering it. However, there is an answer and there is a different view.
I was rather embarrassed by the reference to a consultation which the noble and learned Lord said took place in 1979. I have no recollection of that. I was not reminded of it in the course of the exchanges which have taken place with the noble and learned Lord. I can only say that at that time I must have taken the view which I now take, that the convention was not intended to have universal effect, and on that view thought that it was quite harmless.
In my case, the Brussels Protocol, which introduces very objectionable references to the European Court, did not exist. Having said that, I reiterate that I do not propose to renew the arguments. However, I wish to state as respectfully as I can that I maintain the view that I put to the Committee at length. I beg to move the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think my noble and learned friend wishes to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, no. I beg to move it.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Clause 3 [Interpretation of Conventions]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("O.J. 1980 No. C282/1.
(3) Without prejudice to any practice of the courts as to the matters which may be considered apart from this subsection—

(a) the report on the Rome Convention by Professor Mario Giuliano and Professor Paul Lagarde which is reproduced in the Official Journal of the Communities of 31st October 1980 may be considered in ascertaining the meaning or effect of any provision of that Convention, and

(b) any report on the Brussels Protocol which is reproduced in the Official Journal of the Communities may be considered in ascertaining the meaning or effect of any provision of that Protocol.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment replaces the previous Clause 3 (3) which was in the Bill as drafted. It differs from the previous subsection in two ways. At Committee stage my noble and learned friend Lord Simon expressed concern that the effect of the subsection was that the courts would not be able to consider the works of English text book writers but only the report which is referred to in the subsection. I do not share his concern. To my mind there is an important difference between a report on a convention which has been specially prepared and which can be said to have some official status and the work of textbook writers.
I believe that it is helpful for the Bill to refer specifically to the official report but I do not agree that such a specific reference has the effect of preventing the courts from following their usual
1542
practice of looking at academic writings when it is desirable to do so. However, in order to put the matter beyond doubt, I offer this amendment which makes it clear that the courts' discretion to consider the official report is to be without prejudice to their practice in considering other matters.
The new subsection also provides that the courts may consider any report on the Brussels Protocol which is reproduced in the European Communities' Official Journal when interpreting that protocol. A report on that protocol is at present being drawn up, although I have to say that progress so far makes it unlikely that it will be published before the Bill completes its passage.
Your Lordships will recall, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce has just mentioned, that the Brussels Protocol relates to the powers of the European Court of Justice to interpret the Rome Convention, about which misgivings have been expressed. I hope that the report on the convention will help to allay those misgivings. It will therefore be desirable for our courts to be able to consider the report. For that reason, and because the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act 1982 contains a similar provision, I commend this amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
12.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend and particularly for his allowing me to enter into correspondence on this matter which has its technical aspects and is more suitable to be resolved through correspondence than discussion.
Unfortunately, we did not see eye to eye on the law. I tried to ingratiate myself with my noble and learned friend by referring to the maxim in question as a brocard. Whether that softened him or whether it was the consideration of the possible legal implications of the clause as it stood unamended, my noble and learned friend kindly came up with this amendment with which I am entirely content.
I am also grateful that his department let me see the amendment in draft in a form in which I could let the co-signatories of the Committee amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who spoke in support of it also see in advance. I believe that they are content with it. I do not doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, probably thinks that it does not go far enough and would like a reference enjoining the court to consider specifically the leading textbook on intellectual property, preferably one written by himself. For myself, I am content with this and I reiterate my thanks to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, was trying to guess before your Lordships what argument it was that led the noble and learned Lord to bring forward this amendment. I add a further guess and I think I am much nearer the mark. It was the weight of the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, which he put forward with such clarity. That will always weigh not only with this House but also with

1543
the noble and learned Lord. I am sure that that is what has led to this amendment.
I add only that it obviously gives clarity to a matter which worried us. One is grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the amendment with which I personally am satisfied. The pertinacity, quite apart from the wisdom of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has won a victory.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am also satisfied with this amendment. I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, on the way in which he has presented his case. I have always been brought up strictly that one should not consider any book a matter of law or precedent unless the author is dead. If the author is dead, then it can be an authority. Therefore, I am very grateful for the reference which the noble and learned Lord made to at least one of the books on intellectual property which I had the privilege to edit. I have edited only two: one on trade marks and the other is the third edition of Halsbury's Law on Trademarks and Design. However, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for his amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is right that it is the fact that my noble and learned friend felt that the Bill would be improved by an amendment along these lines, along with the support of the noble Lord and others, that made me think that it was wise to table such an amendment.
In reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, said, I believe that the courts are now more ready than they were to look at the writings of textbook writers who have not yet been made authoritative by their demise. I have no doubt that that would be particularly so of the textbooks to which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, has referred.
I believe that the courts are able to look at those writings for whatever value they may have and that we are now more prepared to look at them for the value of the argument rather than the status of the author. Of course it is always possible for counsel to incorporate those views into their argument by reference in any case so that the value of the distinctions which may have been made hitherto is perhaps not particularly great. I believe— and I believe that many of my noble and learned friends who are here would share my view— that the decisions of the court are often greatly improved if the members of the court are given an opportunity closely to study academic writings relating to the subject matter where the authors are happily still with us and able to improve the texts with the passage of time.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Rome Convention]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert:
("The High Contracting Parties to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Anxious to continue in the field of private international law the work of unification of law which has already been done within the Community, in particular in the field of jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments,
Wishing to establish uniform rules concerning the law applicable to contractual obligations,
Have agreed as follows:").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is designed simply to incorporate the preamble into the context, as suggested at Committee stage. I agree that it is an improvement and that is what I have done.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4:
Line 8, after ("obligations, ") insert ("but not including contractual obligations or situations relating to intellectual property").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to move an amendment to the amendment of the Lord Chancellor. The purpose of my moving the amendment is to ascertain whether the Bill and its schedules, on their proper construction, establish that the rules set out in Schedule 1, Title I, entitled "Scope of the Convention", exclude matters and situations relating to intellectual property in the UK in addition to the eight subparagraphs (a) to (h).
My prime reason for raising the matter is that questions of intellectual property are well known to be complex. They have been referred to as labyrinthine. It is well known that they have very important industrial applications; therefore, Bills relating to intellectual property, as I have often said, should be simple in their exposition of the law. I submit that on the face of the Bill, with its schedules relating to the convention, it is clear that there has been an omission or error. For some reason matters relating to intellectual property have not been referred to.
If one looks at the list on page 4 of the matters to which the Rome Convention shall not apply, under UK law, it includes the status or legal capacity of natural persons, contractual obligations relating to wills and succession, rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship and rights and duties arising out of a family relationship, obligations arising under bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes, and arbitration agreements and agreements on the choice of court.
Under subparagraph (e) there are a large number of exceptions to which the rules of the convention do not apply, including,
"questions governed by the law of companies and other bodies corporate or unincorporated
A number of illustrations appear. A very wide branch of corporate law is excluded from application under the convention. Subparagraph (g) excludes the application of,
"the constitution of trusts and the relationship between settlors, trustees and beneficiaries".
I understand that exception because the law of trusts is not known as clearly under UK law as in foreign countries. I therefore understand that the position of UK law relating to trusts should be excluded. The eighth exclusion is,
"evidence and procedure, without prejudice to Article 14".
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to paragraph 3 which says that the convention does not apply to contracts of insurance and certain other risks which I need not read out. Clause 2 (2) of the Bill refers to two articles of the Rome Convention— I need not read them— which will not have the force of law in the United Kingdom. I and many of my noble friends find it very difficult to understand why intellectual property rights and situations were not included in the list of exceptions from the Rome Convention under UK law.
That raises the question of how one is to correct what I referred to as an error or omission on the face of the document? What do common sense or natural justice require should be done? In that regard I am in some difficulty. I have therefore sought to add words to the preamble. My reason for so doing is to illustrate to your Lordships the importance of an exception in relation to intellectual property rights.
In the construction of a patent specification the words must have their grammatical meanings. But we at the patent Bar always have great fun with judges of the Chancery Division when explaining to them that the patent specification is directed, in the jargon of the patent Bar, to those "skilled in the art". The numerous authorities say that a specification can be made its own dictionary to interpret what is the sta:e of technology at the date of the publication of the specification.
It has been the experience of many of us— I remember my own experience as a junior— to try to persuade a Chancery judge that he must put himself in the position of a person "skilled in the art" (a person who is aware of the scientific and technological situation at the date of publication) before he can construe that specification and deal with questions of infringement.
I heard one noble and learned Lord— who shall be nameless— recently say that in his experience Chancery judges of first instance in his time were almost carnivorous. I also found that difficulty. I am sorry the noble and learned Lord looks somewhat disturbed and horrified by that quotation from one of his learned brethren; nevertheless it was always difficult to make a Chancery judge understand how to construe a patent specification because it did not conform simply to the matters of construction which apply, say, to trusts or contracts.
There is then the question of the onus on a party. That differs in certain patent matters. It is quite different from the general law of onus in relation to other contracts. I cannot understand— it is entirely my fault— why no consideration was given to the position of patent rights. Why were patent rights not added to the list in Schedule 1, which outlines the scope of the convention, as one of the matters to which the convention shall not apply?
As your Lordships know, intellectual property rights cover not only patent matters but trademarks
1546
and passing off. I should have thought that the law of passing off should have been included in these series of exceptions to the Convention because that law is based on the common law rights of this country. So far as foreign countries are concerned, the common law rights are not accepted in the same way as they are in this country.
I am encouraged to suggest that UK copyright ought to have been excluded having regard to an extract of the report in The Times of the 17th February 1990. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that I have not given notice of this case but it is the case of Tyburn Productions Limited v . Conan Doyle. The defendant in this case was Dame Jane Conan Doyle, the surviving child of the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It came before Mr. Justice Vinelott, and the report says this:
"English courts would not entertain claims relating to disputes involving foreign patent, copyrights, or trademark laws. Such disputes concerning intellectual property rights were properly to be considered as actions of a local nature".
I shall not go on to read the judgement, but that in my view, would support my contention that the law of copyright ought to have been one of the matters excluded from Schedule 1 to the Rome Convention. It is an interpretation about which I registered my protest and therefore it is difficult to see how properly one can get this across. I am slightly encouraged to know that since the Second Reading and Committee stages of this Bill the Foreign Ofice has been closely consulted. Therefore I wonder whether the amendment that I am suggesting to the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might have some further consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I should like to say just two words, if I may. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for proposing Amendment No. 3 in response to a comment which I made at Committee stage. I have no doubt that it is an improvement to the Bill.
As regards the amendment to that amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I have a great deal of sympathy with the substance of his observations. Any effective partial demolition of this convention would have my very sympathetic support. The difficult about it is that I cannot quite see how the noble Lord is in a position to amend the preamble, which is simply a preamble to this convention. If he were able to introduce something substantive into the body of the Bill it might be possible to proceed, but the noble Lord does not take that radical step, and in its absence I feel difficulty in supporting his amendment despite having a great deal of sympathy with everything he said about intellectual property, copyright and so on. I am very glad to welcome the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful for the observations of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce. I do not know how far he would go along with some of the observations of the noble Lord, Lloyd of Kilgerran, with respect to the characteristics of judges of the Chancery Division,

1547
which in the past my noble and learned friend would have been in a particularly strong position to comment upon.
So far as the amendment itself is concerned, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, what we are doing here is simply narrating, as a result of a suggestion from him at Committee stage, the preamble to the Rome Convention, which is an existing document. No ingenuity of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, can alter that.
So far as the substance of the point is concerned, this Bill is intended to implement what has been agreed. During the negotiations so far as I know it was never suggested that the matters to which the noble Lord has referred should be excised from the scope of the convention. The Bill and the convention do not in any way seek to alter our substantive law in these areas. It is only the conflict rules concerning these areas which would be affected in this way.
If the noble Lord wishes to pursue the matter, the only way that seems to me possible is either to negotiate a separate convention altogether or seek to revise this convention in accordance with Article 26. The desire of my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce to limit the scope of the convention would of course apply to any way in which its ambit could be restricted. However, as I say, I am not aware of any reservation on this line expressed during the negotiation of the convention. If there is concern now and if the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, cares to pursue that with me later, obviously the Foreign Office would be closely involved if we were to seek a modification of the convention. However, as at present advised, I do not see any real ground for seeking that, although I am open to further persuasion if the noble Lord wishes to raise the matter.
I hope that in the light of these explanations the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, may feel able to withdraw his amendment to my Amendment No. 3.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has just said. I do not propose to detain the House any longer and I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment to the amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [The Luxembourg Convention]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, line 23, at end insert:
("The High Contracting Parties to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Considering that the Hellenic Republic, in becoming a Member of the Community, undertook to accede to the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19th June 1980,
Have decided to conclude this Convention, and to this end have designated as their plenipotentiaries:
(Designation of plenipotentiaries)
1548
Who, meeting within the Council, having exchange their full powers found in good and due form,
Have agreed as follows:").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment inserts the preamble to the Luxembourg Convention before the text of that convention, as set out in Schedule 2. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Brussels Protocol]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 13, line 22, at end insert:
("The High Contracting Parties to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,
Having regard to the Joint Declaration annexed to the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, opened for signature in Rome on 19th June 1980,
Have decided to conclude a Protocol conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice of the European Communities to interpret that Convention, and to this end have designated as their Plenipotentiaries:
(Designation of plenipotentiaries)
Who, meeting within the Council of the European Communities, having exchanged their full powers, found in good and due form,
Have agreed as follows:").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment inserts the preamble to the Brussels Protocol before the text of the protocol, as set out in Schedule 3. This is in accordance with the spirit of a suggestion made at Committee stage. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Border Control of People: ECC Report
1.8 p.m.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton Lord Oliver of Aylmerton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on 1992: Border Control of People (22nd Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 90).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I think I should begin by saying a word or two about the background of the report which forms the subject matter of the Motion. The Single European Act introduced into the EEC Treaty a new Article 8A which required the Community to:
"adopt measures with the aim of progressively establishing the internal market over a period expiring on 31st December 1992".
The internal market is defined there as:
"an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, personal services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this treaty".
Systematic border control in the three Benelux countries had already ended in 1960. In 1985 they became parties, with France and West Germany, to what has become known as the Schengen Agreement, which provided for a long-term objective of the abolition of controls at common borders, a process which started with permitting vehicles to cross at reduced speed but without stopping and subject to spot checks. The process was intended to be

1549
completed by 1st January of this year by a rather elaborate system of further agreements on matters such as extradiction, joint law enforcement and police co-operation. That has not in fact been achieved, largely, I believe, as a result of the opening of the border with East Germany.
The matter was carried one stage further in 1988 at a meeting of the European Council in Rhodes which set up a group of co-ordinators who reported in 1989 to the Council in Madrid. The report has been christened the Palma Document. It sets out a list of desirable measures to be adopted and defined for discussion. That report has since been adopted and endorsed by the Council.
The starting point of the inquiry on which Sub-committee E had been engaged and which led to the present report was a communication of the Commission to the Council in which it is stated:
"The Single European Act sets an objective which goes beyond the mere easing of frontier controls. The concept of an 'area without frontiers' necessarily implies that internal frontier controls must also be abolished".
However, it has to be borne in mind that on the adoption of the Single European Act, the final act of the conference of the representatives of the governments of the member states declared specifically in relation to Articles 13 to 19 of the Act:
"Nothing in these provisions shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of controlling immigration from third countries, and to combat terrorism, crime, the traffic in drugs and illegal trading in works of art and antiques".
Article 13 is the article which introduced the new Article 8A to which I have already referred. So the central problem is how to reconcile this general declaration with the stated object of the Commission in its communication.
Turning to the position of the United Kingdom, it may be said that we have lagged somewhat behind our European partners in the matter of easing frontier controls. But this country does enjoy the unique geographical distinction of having, with the exception of the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, no land frontiers with other member states. We have a particular security problem which militates very strongly against rendering our external frontiers more porous.
In the debate in the other place on the control of intra-Community frontiers which took place in May of last year, the then Home Secretary, Mr. Douglas Hurd, emphasised the Government's view that,
"frontier checks will continue to be useful, indeed an indispensable part of the protection afforded to our citizens against the evils of terrorism, drug trafficking and organised crime, and also against illegal immigration".
In 1983 the Select Committee, in reporting on an earlier proposal to ease border controls, concluded that it was unable to endorse the abolition of systematic border controls. It will be seen from the present report that that position has not changed.
So much for the general background. What has now happened is that we are presented with sweeping proposals— they are at the moment only proposals— governing the free movement of persons, the regulation of the movement of weapons and the
1550
total abolition of frontier controls as such as opposed to what may be called normal policing in frontier areas. These are conjoined with proposals for the dismantling of checks on grounds of animal and plant health which form the subject matter of a separate report on which the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, will shortly be addressing the House.
The text of the Commission's communication is in Appendix 4 which starts at page 40 of the committee's report. It proposes the total abolition of controls of people at intra-Community frontiers. That necessarily means abolition as regards all people, not merely Community citizens, because you cannot differentiate without imposing a control.
There are six corollaries. There has to be established a satisfactory control at all the external frontiers of the Community; co-ordination of visa policies with regard to persons entering from outside the Community; a significant strengthening both of cross-border police co-operation and of internal policing; a system in which confidence can be had for the prevention of international terrorism and drug trafficking; some co-ordination of control over the movement of weapons; and a reliable system of cross-border law enforcement and extradition. None of this necessary infrastructure is in place at present. The crucial question is whether these are objects which can be practically attained.
In commending the report of the committee on these proposals to the House, I should like to express gratitude to the Members of Sub-committee E and to the witnesses who gave evidence, both written and oral, on which the report is based. It will be seen that while the committee welcome the continuation of co-operative work between police and customs authorities, and attempts to harmonise criteria for the establishment of refugee status, it did not feel that the strengthening of the external boundary control, increased police co-operation and harmonisation of visa and drug enforcement policies, can offer, at any rate at the moment, an acceptable substitute for the present system of frontier controls on people entering the United Kingdom.
The report is a fairly lengthy one running to some 27 pages. It is not possible in the timescale of this debate to do much more than summarise its principal conclusions. When it came to be discussed in Sub-Committee E in its final form, I think there was a degree of unease that its conclusions were essentially negative and that it might be thought to display some psychological insularity. It is for that reason that I would like to draw the attention of the House to certain important aspects of the problem which I hope will explain how and why the committee came to express the conclusions that it did.
There are practical commercial advantages in the easing of controls in the form of the saving of time in crossing frontiers, the greater convenience of the travelling public and so forth. There are psychological advantages as well— the avoidance of the need to intrude into personal privacy and the increased sense of belonging to a single Community. But these have to be kept in proportion. In a recent article in the House Magazine, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, a Member of the European Parliament, was

1551
able to say that the average time required to check a Community passport was of the order of four seconds. As regards customs control of persons, the evidence was that some 95 per cent. of people walk or drive through the green channel without stopping.
The psychological advantages have to be weighed against the substantial practical advantages which border control confer on the states which impose them. To begin with, a system of efficient border checks tends to reduce the opportunity for international crime. The committee received some very valuable evidence from Professor Schermers, of Leiden University, from which it emerged that since the lessening of border controls under the Schengen Agreement, there has been a significant increase in international crime, an increase which he thought would get worse when border controls were lifted entirely. Particular aspects of this are drugs and weapons.
Evidence from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise indicated, first, that substantial seizures of drugs are made at points of entry and that, secondly, a very substantial part of the drugs imported from abroad arrive either from or through other member states. For instance, in 1987, 40 per cent. of the drugs seized by customs came from or via another Community country. It was and is the view of the customs that to rely simply on spot checks based on intelligence would mean the loss of a major deterrent to drug importation.
As regards weapons a draft directive of 1987 proposed the establishment of an elaborate system of registration which would make way for the free movement of weapons. That was heavily criticised and fresh proposals have now been made.
In principle, however, the free movement of weapons and any relaxation of the provisions of the Firearms Act 1988 for the sake of harmonisation of weapon control was strongly opposed by the Association of Chief Police Officers and by the Home Office. It is interesting that Professor Stein of Heidelberg University and of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law saw no alternative to systematic border controls unless and until it becomes possible to harmonise the weapons laws of the various member states and to impose a strict and uniform system of control on their acquisition and possession. The problem is not insignificant. Between March 1988 and March 1989, for example, 681 weapons were seized in frontier checks in this country.
Reference to control of weapons naturally prompts consideraton of another important aspect— the prevention and control of terrorist activity. The Commission's view is that international collaboration and intelligence can be an acceptable, and possibly even a more effective, substitute for border checks. That view is strongly dissented from by the Metropolitan Police Special Branch, which testified to many instances of terrorists or their associates being identified and arrested at ports. The tables on pages 174 and 175 of the evidence show the very sharp decline in the number of terrorist
1552
incidents in mainland United Kingdom since the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 first gave the police powers to carry out examinations at ports. It would be quite impossible to enforce the exclusion provisions of that Act without port controls.
A further important area of course is the control of immigration. Any relaxation of the internal controls necessarily postulates the establishment of an effective control at external borders and the adoption of some form of common visa policy. Apprehension was expressed by those concerned with the welfare of immigrants; first, that the dismantling of border controls might lead, of necessity, to the introduction of a system of compulsory identity cards and, secondly, that a common policy for the issue of visas would be likely to lead to the adoption of the standards of the least liberal member states of the Community. Similar fears were expressed by organisations concerned with the welfare of refugees. I am afraid that we have to recognise, whether or not justified, that there is a very real suspicion harboured by members of immigrant groups that increased internal controls may lead to police harassment.
The view was also expressed that the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 put a substantial obstacle in the path of anyone seeking refugee status. That may be right, but it should be balanced against the statistics contained in the table on page 103 of the evidence which shows a sharp rise in the number of applications for refugee status in this country last year.
Finally, I should refer to the very formidable logistical difficulties involved in the reorganisation of, specifically, airports to cater for three streams of passenger traffic— domestic, intra-Community and extra-Community— and particularly baggage. The difficulties are particularly acute in relation to transit passengers— some of whom may be going on to destinations outside the Community— and to the segregation of passengers and baggage on international flights. The British Airports Authority is currently planning its investment strategy on the basis of there being no significant change in the method of processing passengers and their baggage; but if major restructuring is rendered necessary by the abolition of internal controls as regards Community passengers, they estimate capital costs running into many millions of pounds, all of which would ultimately have to be recovered, I suppose, by increased landing fees, which in turn would lead to increased fares. In addition, the process of restructuring would be a very lengthy one. The Association of European airlines estimated this to be a minimum period of five years.
In the end, the committee was compelled— I think that I can say it was reluctantly compelled— to the conclusion which is reflected in the report that checks for drugs and weapons would have to remain, and that systematic passport controls will continue to be necessary both to establish community citizenship and to prevent illegal immigation.
It is important to note that the Single European Act does not impose a legal obligation to abolish national frontier controls, though it is of course

1553
highly desirable that such controls should be carried out with the minimum of delay and intrusion. While therefore the Committee wishes to see every encouragement given to co-operation between member states as objectives desirable in themselves, it does not consider that the framework exists at present, or is likely to exist in the foreseeable future, for lifting restrictions entirely.
In his evidence to the committee Professor Stein observed:
"The decision completely to abolish all border controls"—
I have eliminated the split infinitive in that sentence—
"thus appears to be a political decision which one may welcome or not, but not a decision which is indicated by Community law as it stands".
If that is right, as I believe it is, I am sure I would be expressing the view of the whole committee if I say that it is a political decision that should be taken only if and when it is clear that the disadvantages of abolition referred to in the evidence before the committee can effectively be overcome. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on 1992: Border Control of People (22nd Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 90).— (Lord Oliver of Aylmerton.)
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I rise to speak to the Motion, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on 1992: Health Controls and the Internal Market (9th Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 47) and of the response from Her Majesty's Government (Cmnd. 815).
The concept of a Europe without internal frontiers is fundamental to the creation of the single market. The Commission is therefore seeking to do away with frontier controls. There are obvious difficulties. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, in presenting the report of Sub-Committee E on the Commission's proposals for relaxing border controls on people has reminded the House that where people and goods are able to move freely, so can undesirable people such as terrorists and undesirable goods such as drugs.
Sub-Committee D examined the Commission's proposals to relax the border controls on the passage of live animals and animal products and similar controls regarding the passage of plants and plant products. Where such goods can be moved freely, so can animal diseases and plant pests.
It is now nearly 11 months since my committee's report was completed. At this stage I should like to acknowledge our gratitude for the help given to the committee by our two specialist advisers, Dr. Andrews of the Royal Veterinary College and Dr. Maude of the Institute of Horticultural Research.
The Government responded to the report in October last, agreeing substantially with our conclusions and recommendations. Since that time new proposals affecting animals and animal products, as well as plants and plant products, have
1554
been put forward by the Commission and more are to come. Therefore, I propose to deal as briefly as possible with our 1989 report because the situation is changing all the time. It is on these newer developments and on what scope there may be for further improvements to the Commission's ideas about how to establish common animal and plant health standards throughout the Community that I shall listen with great interest when my noble friend replies for the Government.
First, however, I summarise the original proposals and my committee's reactions to them. The directive dealing with the veterinary checks proposed as a first step that existing checks on animals and animal products at the internal frontiers should be discontinued. Quarantine would be permitted but not as in the United Kingdom at the ports but only at the farm or place of destination. Thereafter, in order to prevent the introduction of disease, rules for veterinary checks will be established under Community legislation. A system of documentation would be established and the Commission would take on additional powers of control and inspection. There were similar proposals relating to plants and plant health.
Members of the committee were aware that the United Kingdom is free from serious animal diseases such as foot-and-mouth, swine fever, Newcastle disease of chickens and, above all, rabies. We are also aware of our own system of controls involving Customs and Excise, port health authorities and Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinarians and plant health inspectors which has been effective in protecting the high health status of the United Kingdom in respect of both animals and plants. The particular geographical characteristics inherent in our island status are a major factor in this respect.
The committee was wholly in sympathy with the chief veterinary officer of MAFF. He told us that the proposals as regards checks on animal products was, to use his word, "premature". He said that,
"the thrust should be to achieve harmonised, high health standards and then, having achieved that, you can consider the movement controls".
He continued,
"All we are going to do by introducing these measures without introduction of harmonised standards is to produce more and more complications, more and more bureaucracy and introduce new systems when in fact the old systems have been perfectly effective in preventing importations when they should not occur".
In regard to plants, we were told in evidence that the control of plant pests and diseases was more complex than the control of animal diseases. While the longer-term strategy for plant health outlined by the Commission commanded a degree of support in principle, it must be borne in mind that the process of establishing uniform Community standards over the control and prevention of plant diseases is at a far less developed stage than it is for animals and animal products.
In such circumstances the approach adopted by the Community for removing border controls before establishing common standards of control and testing throughout members states was, we were told, misguided. We agreed. Our report was sharply

1555
critical of the Commission, which we said was being irresponsible in appearing to sacrifice practical realities to the ideology of the single market. As I said, the concern expressed in the report was shared by the Government in their response.
Perhaps I may refer to the more recent proposals by the Commission. I shall deal first with animal health. The central proposal on veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to completion of the internal market has been amended and adopted in part as a directive. But it covers only animal products and it applies only until the end of 1992. Until then member states will be able to check meat and meat products for compliance with regulations on foot-and-mouth disease and swine fever, which are two particular concerns of the United Kingdom. Moreover, over this period the United Kingdom would be allowed to maintain checks on animals products at all ports and airports.
The Council of Ministers has now produced revised proposals on the more contentious issue of live animals. Although presented as transitional measures reviewable before the end of 1992, these proposals appear to represent a first step towards the establishment of uniform veterinary measures within the single market. However, I understand that the likely impact of these proposals is by no means clear and that the working group of the Council of Ministers has already narrowed the scope somewhat. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to enlighten the House on that point.
In our report we emphasised that establishing common health standards and fair and effective methods of dealing with disease outbreaks remains the most urgent priority. We also considered that no arbitrary date could be set for allowing completely free movement of animals and animal products throughout the Community. Therefore, the following questions must be asked: first, whether the assumption by the Commission that by 1992 disease eradication programmes will be successful throughout the Community and common health standards established may not be very optimistic; secondly, what action member states would be able to take in the single market in order to protect their animal health status in the event of a serious outbreak elsewhere in the Community.
The Commission's proposal to prohibit vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease and to adopt a slaughter policy in line with that in the United Kingdom is a major step towards eradicating FMD throughout the Community. The Commission is to be congratulated. Intra-Community trade would, however, be allowed for vaccinated animals and birds, notably horses and poultry. Therefore, it may be asked how far the Government are pressing the Commission to undertake proper evaluations of the economics, the efficacy and indeed the safety of vaccination against serious diseases before coming forward with proposals for legislation.
There are other proposals now before the Council of Ministers concerning trade in horses, trade in rodents, trade in meat, meat products and poultry meat, trade in game (which could present
1556
considerable practical difficulties), trade in fish and milk, treatment of animal waste and other matters to which noble Lords may wish to refer. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has strong views about the proposed regulations affecting trade in game and deer but, unfortunately, he is not able to be here today.
The sheer weight of the task before the Council of Ministers in coming to decisions on all of these areas should not be underestimated. The issue which strikes me, therefore, is the glaring need to establish priorities for action in this field. It seems common sense to concentrate first on establishing uniform, Community-wide standards for those products or animals which are most extensively traded between member states.
However, in recent weeks Sub-Committee D has been confronted with numerous proposals. One dealt with a wide range of creatures, including buffaloes, monkeys, bees and parrots. If that proposal were adopted it could cause immense animal health problems. This at a time when common standards are still to be laid down for the trade in live sheep and when little progress has been made on the vital issue of deciding, and agreeing with our trading partners, what kind of uniform standards the Community should enforce at its own frontiers for livestock and genetic material.
Finally, in connection with animal health, all the proposals emanating from Brussels imply much greater demands being placed on vets. I know that the Government recently accepted proposals to expand the available university places for that profession. However, the worry is that in the short term there will be too few trained vets. Although we were given to understand that the supply of vets may be less of a problem in some other member states, it appears to be a serious potential obstacle to the establishment of harmonised conditions throughout the Community.
I turn now to plant health controls. The Commission has established a Plant Health Inspectorate and has put forward further proposals which provide a legislative framework for the implementation of the plant health strategy which we examined in our report. The proposal to establish health zones is in line with the recommendations in the report. The idea that once issued with a plant passport a plant should not be susceptible to further inspection has also been dropped. This is also in line with our recommendation, as are other proposals regarding plant passports.
So far, so good. It should, however, first be asked what progress has been made in establishing the Plant Health Inspectorate; secondly, what the timescale is for setting up harmonised standards and conditions and whether the Commission still thinks that this can be done by 1993. As recently as last week we were told that the Commission has now withdrawn its original proposal that border plant health checks should be phased out by 1992. Such checks will now continue until the measures proposed to implement plant health strategy have been agreed and implemented. This makes sense.

1557
As I have indicated, there is movement on the part of the Commission in regard to the modification of its original proposals for animal and plant health and the relaxation of border controls. What part our 1989 report played in this continuing process I do not know— perhaps some, perhaps none. At any rate, there was a good deal of room for improvement. In my view that is still the case. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has to say.
1.40 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, first perhaps your Lordships will permit an apology, then a tribute, then an explanation. The apology is that unfortunately I shall have to leave shortly after the welcome stage has been reached of my sitting down, as a result of an urgent professional engagement. The tribute is to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, not only for their chairmanship of the two committees— I include in that tribute obviously the members of the committees— but also for the clarity with which both have addressed the House. The explanation is that I intend to deal only with the control of human beings. My noble friend Lord Gallacher will deal with other animate and inanimate objects which may be subject to control.
It is interesting that we are discussing proposals for the abolition of controls of persons at intra-Community borders. We have been clearly told by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, that his committee considered two bases upon which that abolition was recommended. The first was psychological. I merely choose the psychological heading to cover the unity of the EC family as the expression of that psychological objective. Then there was the practical objective— the ease of travel, the comfort for human beings, so often upset. A whole holiday may be ruined by delays at frontiers, whether travelling by air, sea or vehicle.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, mentioned, the same sub-committee of your Lordships' House considered back in 1983 and 1984 the question, not of abolition, but of easing controls. I had the privilege of being a member of that sub-committee and of sitting under the magnificent chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. His presence in the House is greatly missed.
We considered a great deal of evidence. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, mentioned, we studied the special geographical elements of the United Kingdom and why we were possibly an exception to what might otherwise be a general EC rule. Only because of its relevance to this afternoon's discussion do I venture to read, not the whole of our conclusions, I assure your Lordships, but a couple of paragraphs in the conclusions. I read from page xiii of the 4th report of the 1983–84 session. Paragraph 31 on the easing of frontier formalities states:
"In the case of the United Kingdom, these beneficial aspects of the proposals have to be weighed against the consequences of abandoning a system of immigration and security controls uniquely suited to an island nation. If, as the Committee believe,
1558
the consequence of abolishing systematic frontier controls would be a substantial increase in the number of undesirable persons entering the United Kingdom, a development which could only be avoided by the introduction of an unacceptable system of internal registration and police checks, the price to be paid for the benefits would be too high".
That was exactly what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and his committee concluded some six years later. I believe that it still holds true.
The sub-committee back in 1983–84 recommended— and we thought that we were doing something quite revolutionary— that there should be two channels: one for British subjects and one for EC members who travel through our airports and ports. Your Lordships will know that there is now one channel. At all events, it is an easing of travel for members of the EC. That was done only last year.
The consideration that we are giving is not something based upon careful planning and gradual methods over a period of approximately 10 years. We are asked to consider this as happening by the end of 1992. I was glad to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, say in the clearest possible terms that on the evidence that he and his committee had and the documents at which they looked, the best advice was that it was not a legal obligation to do so by 1992. I too have read the evidence and the expert view. I am delighted to be able, with respect, to support the view that there is no such obligation by 1992.
Obviously, in an ideal world, we should love to see frontiers disappear, except for the pleasure to be derived from looking at a map if the country happens to have substantial frontiers or possibly with commiseration if one's country has less substantial frontiers. I am reminded of what Mr. Ernest Bevin, as Foreign Secretary, gave as the aim of his foreign policy. It was to be able to take a ticket at Victoria Station and "go anywhere I damn well please". That put in most succinct language the whole philosophy as well as the political idealism. We should all love that. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, employed statistics I had proudly culled from the 1983–1984 report. I do not intend to repeat those statistics. I merely illustrate the point about the dangers that would exist, certainly with abolition and even— as we decided back in 1983–1984— with the easing of frontier controls in the manner suggested. I have 1987 figures; the Minister may have later ones. If he has, I shall naturally listen to them or rather read them in Hansard with interest in view of the apology that I have already made.
In 1987 our Customs seized some 90 per cent. or more by weight of the heroin, cocaine and cannabis that was seized in the whole of the United Kingdom. That occurred at the frontier. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, said, there is, unfortunately, a significant trade in drugs within the Community itself. That obviously has a relevance to frontier control. I believe the noble and learned Lord mentioned the figure of 40 per cent. in this connection. I am proud to say that I have a little more detail in regard to that 40 per cent. figure. I know that half of the weight of cannabis and one-third of cocaine that was seized by our Customs

1559
in 1988 came from or through EC countries. That is a formidable statistic. As the sub-committee so wisely suggested, more police co-operation would be welcome, as would more intelligence co-operation throughout the EC. The sub-committee also suggested that harmonisation of procedures would be welcome, in so far as that is possible.
However, I now come to the question of immigration, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, also touched upon. If there were an abolition of control in that regard as regards EC nationals, it would lead, without any doubt at all, to
the abolition of the control at the frontier and to an increase in the control within our country itself. That would lead to police control, and, I suggest, almost without doubt, to the introduction of identity cards. I fear for the political party that endeavours to pass legislation making it imperative that our citizens carry identity cards and giving the right to stop people and request production of the card.
As regards non-EC citizens, the idea was that some kind of a girdle should be placed around the EC and that people wanting to enter EC territory would have to obtain permission at the frontier of one of the countries concerned. The choice of country might be one of necessity. But the country might have difficult regulations. Entry to another country, on the other hand, might be terrifically easy. I know of no appellate procedure that has been suggested; therefore the extraordinary situation would occur where a non-EC citizen would be debarred from entering any EC country if he failed to pass through the frontier of just one of the EC countries involved. He would not have a chance of applying at a frontier which was beyond the original frontier at which he had applied. Unless we have complete harmonisation and a great lessening of the evils with which we are faced, I am afraid that the question of abolition of frontier controls is, from our point of view, not on the cards.
I shall complete my remarks by referring to something that we on these Benches— although I believe that I speak for the whole House on this matter— regard as rather more important than the comfort of travellers, however important that is, and the psychological advantages of belonging to an EC family. We may possibly regard ourselves at this moment as being fortunate to belong to countries within the EC. However, the people I am thinking of are those who do not have that benefit and who crave asylum within one of the countries of the EC because of the persecution they are suffering in their countries of origin. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to that point. One prays for a council within the EC to make life easier for those seeking asylum. We ask for a proper appellate procedure for those who are refused asylum by officials. I say that in no pejorative sense but merely in terms of a matter of justice. One should be able to appeal against the decision of an official who is possibly denying a person or a whole family the chance of a decent life, even if it is not a question of sheer survival.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to an Act. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I, and other
1560
Members of this House discussed that Act some little time ago. We talked then from these Benches in terms of disappointment, if that is not an understatement, that we in this country were passing legislation which would fine airlines and make them take passengers back if those passengers did not possess the correct papers and were asking for asylum. We said from these Benches that that situation meant that carriers were adjudicating on the matter of whether a person was a genuine refugee.
I personally cannot put it better than a fine High Court judge of this country who was dealing with the decision of the Home Secretary in regard to six applications for asylum and certain directions for the removal of the people concerned. Having considered the regulations and the Act I have just referred to, the High Court judge said:
"He who wishes to obtain asylum in this country, short of a prior contract with the Home Secretary offering him asylum, has the option of lying to the UK authorities in their country in order to obtain a tourist or some other sort of visa; obtaining a credible forgery of a visa; or obtaining an airline ticket to a third country with a stopover in the United Kingdom".
Neither the conscience of this country nor of a united Europe will rest when we treat asylum seekers in this way. I can only hope from these Benches that that Act will be repealed. I can only hope that a Europe of which we are happy to be members, an EC which we are proud to regard as a family, will be a family which exercises human rights for those who want, deservedly, to enter in order that they may receive relief from persecution and the possibility of a decent and safe life.
2 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, as a member of Sub-Committee E, which produced the report on 1992: Border Control of People, I should like first of all to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for his able chairmanship of our committee and in particular for introducing our report so clearly and comprehensively. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for his able introduction of his report, which was published some months ago. In particular I am grateful to him for bringing us up to date with what has been happening in Europe since the publication of the report. It is perfectly natural that we should discuss the two reports together as they both deal with border controls within the EC. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the conclusions of the two reports are very similar.
The noble Lord, Lord Oliver, said that he felt a certain amount of unease about his report being negative. When I heard that we were to investigate the subject of the easing of border controls I entered the first committee meeting thinking that we were to abolish border controls in Europe. However, those of us who would like the United Kingdom to be more positive about European integration are still fully conscious that we have to be very careful not to fall into the trap of blindly supporting any proposals coming from Brussels that seem to assist that end regardless of what other consequences they may

1561
have. It is in that light that I should like to discuss our report.
The noble Lord, Lord Oliver, has already referred to Article 8a of the EC treaty. In that article the internal market is defined as,
"an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured".
That is now on our statute book. Therefore the discussion must focus on the interpretation of free movement of goods and people. Although the Commission takes the view that the "free movement of goods" means that there should be no border controls it has also been interpreted as meaning simply that there should be no substantive legal impediments to such movements. Since both interpretations are held by eminent people in the field the obligation to accept the removal of all border controls is not contained in our statute book as it stands. We must therefore decide whether we agree with the European Commission in believing such a move to be beneficial.
Both noble Lords, as chairmen of committees, have referred to what seemed to be the essential two reasons put forward by the Commission for the removal of border controls. The first is that citizens of Europe will feel more European if they do not have to show a passport when travelling from one country to another. The second is that it is needed for the creation of a single market because goods could travel more easily and much faster around Europe if there were no controls to delay their passage.
The first point seems to me to be rather spurious. I believe that there are many reasons why some people do not feel real citizens of Europe. I believe that the carrying of a passport through a border control is one of the minor ones.
The second argument is much more substantial. It is true that the long queues to pass through borders add to costs by slowing the movement of goods. Although totally removing border controls is one way of solving the problem, there are others. We could, for instance, as a palliative, increase the number of staff at border posts and substantially reduce or in some cases eliminate waiting time. We could harmonise laws in different member countries so that there are fewer items to be checked at a frontier. That would be one way of dealing with the problem that faces us.
There is a distinction between the direct benefits of removing border controls and the desirable measures that removing border controls would force us to take. We can choose to implement and reap all the benefits from the second category without removing border controls. We can choose, for example, to have much greater co-operation between our police forces in combating drugs, organised crime and terrorism. We can choose to establish pan-European organisations to monitor, control and eradicate animal and plant disease. We can choose to act together on foreign policy issues. In fact, we can choose: to co-ordinate and unify our actions on all manner of issues. All of that can be done without dogmatically insisting that we remove all border controls.
1562
After reading the two reports that we are discussing today it is hard not to believe that the real reason the Commission is pushing so hard for the removal of border controls is that it knows that such a move will necessitate massive co-operation in the wide spectrum of issues which I have just mentioned. The rushed implementation of such co-ordination will be necessary simply in order to minimise the chaos that removal of borders would no doubt cause if implemented before such co-operation was properly up and running.
The proposed date of 31st December 1992 is an incredibly unrealistic timescale. I imagine that the Commission has introduced it because it feels that unless there is a timescale the goals of co-operation will not be achieved. It believes that it needs the impetus to get itself on the way to being able to remove the border controls, but we must be careful that we do not rush into implementation before the problems have been adequately considered.
All noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have referred to the problems of immigrants from third countries, visitors and the movement of EC citizens around the Community. The Commission essentially believes that the simultaneous strengthening of borders with third countries will compensate for the effects of removing internal borders.
First, with regard to non-EC citizens— that is where the greatest problem appears— if there are no border controls within Europe at which visas would normally be checked, we shall have to have European visas rather than visas for specific countries. As has been said, the refugee organisations are more than worried that as a result the only people who will be allowed to come into Europe will be those who are acceptable to all member countries, so Europe might become a fortress which would exclude many people who would otherwise come to some parts of Europe.
Secondly, the different geographical conditions of countries have led to the development of different methods of controlling and detecting criminals, illegal immigrants and illegal substances. Those countries with long land borders such as Germany find that they cannot effectively control the borders as we do in this country. That is undoubtedly the reason why countries with long land borders have had to adopt an identity card system. I do not have to tell noble Lords that such a solution would not be very acceptable in this country. The British aversion to identity cards is well known. We need only look at what happened with the football spectators' identity card. However, if we abolish border controls, it might force us to introduce identity cards because that would be the only way in which control of undesirable individuals could be checked within the country.
The second report, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, deals with health controls within the internal market— the implications of the movement of plants and animals. Again, the solution to those problems and the rules and regulations that countries within Europe have adopted have grown up largely because of their geographical situation in Europe. For instance, it is no coincidence that Ireland, Denmark and the UK have the highest

1563
health status within the Community. They have the shortest land borders.
Some countries tackle disease through eradication, the higher cost of that being justified because it can be maintained. That is true of this country, Ireland and Denmark. Other countries with long land borders have to accept the recurrent costs of vaccination and crop spraying because it would not be practical to keep out the disease once eradicated. Different countries have developed different policies which are the most cost-effective and least costly given their own conditions. Taking away border controls will therefore significantly increase both health risks and costs. That could well jeopardise our trade with third countries, which would need guarantees that standards would not fall. I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, that certain steps are being taken to move Europe towards a much more efficient system of eradication.
Those are just some examples of the problems involved. The Commission has said that present frontier controls are ineffective— no doubt some are— but it has also said that it is looking for the most effective and, in these days of shortages of manpower resources, above all more cost-effective controls. The abolition of internal frontiers will allow us to use our manpower and resources on the external frontiers of the European Community. So far as this country is concerned, I believe that the abolition of internal frontiers could increase to an unacceptable extent the cost of protecting our country.
The fact that different European countries have different policies with regard to border control must not prevent us from jointly pursuing the other and much more important objectives which I have already mentioned and which make up the bulk of these reports; namely, the greater co-operation of police forces and the co-ordination of external controls and foreign policy.
We must ask ourselves whether the benefits of removing border controls, feeling more European and having speedier transportation of goods are greater than the costs. The reports show that there are valid reasons why we should not support the indiscriminate removal of border controls. That does not imply that we are any less positive about the European ideal. Perfectly consistently we can still believe that we should move toward greater co-operation and co-ordination.
I hope that one day our policy of co-operation will have progressed so far as to have reduced the costs to the point where they will be outweighed by the benefits of a border-free Europe, at which time I should heartily welcome such a move. I believe that the present proposal to remove border controls by 1992 runs the risk of doing more harm than good to the ideal of a unified Europe.
2.16 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, as another member of Sub-Committee E which produced this report, I wish to make a few very short general observations on the background against which it should be read. Like most matters which are considered by the
1564
sub-committees of the Select Committee, we looked at proposals which were under consideration by other bodies within the Community as well as the United Kingdom and which are likely to be altered before being finalised. In its report, the sub-committee looked at the underlying principle being put forward and then considered the various specific areas which might cause disadvantage and difficulties in its implementation.
Looking at the underlying principle from the point of view of the Economic Community as a free trade area, the abolition of border controls within the Community has much to commend it. It is therefore within the ideals of the free trade area. There will be major savings in the cost of transportation of goods, and the savings in costs will benefit the consumer by enabling manufacturers and producers throughout the Community to compete on a better and more equal basis.
Apart from the economic factor, there is another that may not be generally appreciated throughout the United Kingdom. All institutions must develop and change. The European Community is no exception to that rule. There is pressure now present in the Community to develop in a political as well as an economic area. Any proposal which not only has economic benefits but also is a step toward a wider political Community will have great impetus. For instance, there are two proposals now current to which this consideration especially applies: the abolition of border controls throughout the Community, and the granting of rights to vote in local elections on the basis of residence throughout the Community.
Other matters which tread on a political as well as perhaps an economic area are the establishment of a central bank under Community control through the Commission, and the talks which are taking place on the harmonisation of taxes and the reconstitution of the European Parliament. If we stay in Europe we cannot avoid being subject to the pressures to concur in the development of the Community along those lines. But in relation to border controls at which we are looking today, our geographical position is such that we are reluctant to make changes. This reluctance to make changes results in the report dealing extensively with the difficulties and other disadvantages that too hasty a move towards the abolition of frontier controls might produce.
I mention the three that stand out: the importation and exportation of firearms; the importation and exportation of drugs; and the admission of undesirable persons, terrorists and the like. Since the report was printed, I understand that proposals for the control of firearms throughout the Community on a Community basis have been made by the Commission involving the issue of Community firearms licences throughout the area. Such proposals are obviously the right way to tackle the problem and if proposals are (a) satisfactory, and (b) effectively controlled. I would submit that this disadvantage is thereby overcome. However, we are proceeding on the basis that this disadvantage is tackled on a Community level and effectively controlled before we abolish the border controls. Such an approach is the one that I believe the

1565
Community should be urged to follow under the other two areas that I mentioned: drugs and immigration.
Drugs are a difficult problem because the rules about illegality of drugs differ throughout the Community as does the enforcement. Whereas in the United Kingdom Her Majesty's Customs and Excise have very wide powers of search and arrest— not only at border points but also within the four countries— which we would wish to retain, in the European context we should like to see a unified form of control of drugs and an effective method of control by the countries involved.
Immigration is an even more difficult subject than drugs. These requirements are suggested by the Community to control immigration. However, policies throughout the European countries now differ widely. On this area, before we can proceed to the abolition of border control, we want a unified understood policy throughout the Community on immigration and the imposition at Community entrance points of some outer ring form of control before we dismantle ours. That is another matter which the countries themselves have to tackle. It is not a matter that the Commission can tackle because they have no executives, no administration, and they rely on the countries themselves to enforce the Community policy.
Therefore on these two subjects— drugs and immigration— from the point of view of abolition of border controls, the member countries should appoint ad hoc committees to consider such points. They should put forward to the Commission and to the countries a unified policy which would enable us to move towards the principle that we could then implement of abolition of border controls. I hope that eventually we can move towards the benefit of the abolition of border controls. However, the message should go back to the Commission that before we can do so steps must be taken by the countries in these difficult fields.
2.25 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and his committee for the report and for the exemplary way in which he presented it to us today. It would be arrogant of me to offer any criticisms or comments. However, I certainly do not accuse him, as have some people, of psychological insularity. Perhaps he could be accused, as undeniably could I, of physical insularity, but that is a different and realistic attitude.
He has outlined the difficulties which lie ahead as we approach 1992 and as we move beyond that to an even better and more closely integrated Europe. I shall not delay your Lordships by commenting further on the matter about which I am completely unqualified.
I shall now turn to the report and speech of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. Again— and to my disappointment because it is dull to have no criticisms— I am in complete agreement with his committee's report and the manner in which it is expressed. It covers a wide range of aspects, but I
1566
shall deal primarily with those involving animal health. However, first I remind noble Lords that this country is a substantial exporter and importer of different plants and the maintenance of their health is of great importance. It is vital that we should continue to import from countries such as Denmark, Germany and France the valuable new varieties and seeds which they produce and export to those and other countries, plants for which we are becoming increasingly and rightly famous. Therefore, the comments on the phytosanitary aspects of the proposals of the Commission are pertinent and wise.
On animal health certain aspects of the report are worth underlining even at the risk of repeating what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. However, I first wish to remind noble Lords that we are not alone in taking such an attitude. We have the benefit— which historically was enormous and remains a benefit in certain aspects, although in others it may well be a handicap— of being an island with no land frontiers. That is so with the exception of Northern Ireland. If we include ourselves with Ireland itself, we have complete protection by the sea from invasion— if one can use that word— by diseases carried by animals. We very nearly share that unique privilege with Denmark. That is not quite an island but very nearly so. It is worth remembering that Denmark's only boundary with continental Europe is something like 60 kilometres along the borders of Schleswig-Holstein. In order to preserve its integrity, it has erected a 2 metres high wire-mesh fence running along the whole of that area in order to make sure that it can maintain its high standards of animal health which is so vital to its agriculture in which it has for decades— and one can almost say generations— been a world leader.
Denmark is as dependent in its way as we are on the export of animals both live and dead to third world countries. Any risk to the health of their livestock and particularly pigs would have a very profound effect on its economy, and particularly exports to Japan which are rising all the time. Therefore, we should not look on that matter as one which affects only the United Kingdom. It affects all those countries which are susceptible to the protection which the sea has afforded to them.
There is a further aspect here which is becoming increasingly important for us to bear in mind. The Commission hopes, as we do, that it will be possible to establish throughout the whole of the Community equivalent high standards of animal health so that there will be no need for any impediment to the free movement of animals and also plants. That is the ambition.
The Commission proposes, as do the member states through their governments, various methods in order to raise standards of health. However, we cannot escape the purely geographical fact that many countries— and in particular Germany— have very long frontiers with Eastern Europe. Whatever success Germany may have in the next few years in improving its standards of animal health— and it has enormous expertise and very well developed agriculture in all aspects so that it has a good chance of succeeding in that— it will never be able to patrol, by a form of Berlin wall, against animal disease and

1567
prevent the influx of wild animals, which in many cases are carriers of disease, and to a certain extent smuggled animals. That will undo much of the good work which otherwise has been done.
For that reason, while we applaud and support the efforts of different countries to improve their own health standards, we must not forget that they do not have the advantages which we have and have always had and which have enabled us to become, as we once proudly boasted, the studfarm of the world, exporting pedigree livestock throughout the world.
That enviable position has for various other reasons been eroded but we must not allow what remains of it to be jeopardised by relaxing in any way the present disease controls.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one or two items from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and his committee. In paragraph 96 the report speaks of a transitional period, which is a very important aspect of this subject. I draw your Lordships' attention to the following comments,
"The Committee are utterly opposed to the poposal that in the 'transitional' period up to 1992 health checks on imported goods should be carried out at the place of destination of the goods and not at the frontier. A system of checking imports at destination would provide neither the same degree of protection nor the cost-effectiveness of frontier checks."
Moving to the next paragraph on quarantine, which is even more important, the report states:
"Quarantine is an essential defence for countries free from certain specially virulent diseases like foot-and-mouth and rabies. The Committee do not support the Commission's proposal that in the short term quarantine should take place at the holding destination. This increases the risk of spreading disease in transit through the importing country and would be prohibitively expensive. Quarantine facilities, if they are to be effective, must conform to the highest standards. It is quite unrealistic to suppose that such standards could be maintained at hundreds of separate potential destinations inland."
Those are strong words, but the situation warrants strong words and it is important that we should always bear those words in mind.
I now turn to the question of vaccination, particularly vaccination against foot-and-mouth disease. Paragraph 100 states:
"Vaccination may mean that livestock are free of clinical disease but may also mean that they are a source of disease agents which are difficult to detect".
That is vitally important. The paragraph continues:
"The United States and certain other countries therefore regard vaccination virtually as the same as infection. If no controls were to be applied to the trade in vaccinated stock, countries which do not vaccinate run the dual risk of infection of their fully susceptible animal population and of losing export markets in third countries".
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said that the latest proposals from Brussels indicate that they are proposing to discontinue vaccination. That is an admirable suggestion and I hope that we shall give them all the support that we can. However, we must be realistic and remember that it will take a long time before that can be achieved. Timescale is of vital importance in that matter. Again, the report quite rightly underlines that point in paragraph 118 where it states,
1568
"It will be apparent that the Committee do not believe that all import controls can be abolished by 1992. This timescale is unrealistic. In the veterinary and plant health fields 1992 is more valuable as a slogan driving on the programme of harmonisation than as an achievable objective and the Committee think it now important to recognise this fact".
To sum up what the report has made abundantly clear, the proposals which are the subject of the report are to my mind ill-thought out, inefficient and will be ineffective. I am glad that the Committee came down so strongly against them in such a constructive way.
2.39 p.m.
Lord Swansea: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for introducing this debate and also to my noble friend Lord Middleton for his contribution in a slightly different field.
I shall confine myself to one aspect of the report: that concerning weapons, and firearms in particular, together with shotguns. I declare my interest in that I am the current chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council, which acts as a watchdog body over all aspects of legislation concerning shotguns and firearms.
The intention of this directive is to control the importation from one country to another of firearms by criminals or terrorists. Such people, however, are the least likely to be affected by the laws of any country. They tend by their very nature to ignore laws. These directives, as with our own domestic legislation, will serve only to bear more harshly on the legitimate user, be he or she a sportsman or a target shooter.
The text of the directive is described in its own introduction as "complex and detailed". That is an understatement. It has suffered in translation from the original language: I am not sure whether that was French or German. Our own domestic legislation is more or less precisely drafted but, even so, it is still open to interpretation by the courts. The imagination boggles at what a United Kingdom court might make of having to interpret some of the provisions in this directive, which does not use one word where two will do.
Our own country now has the most restrictive legislation of any within the Community, and I believe that other countries are amazed at some of the restrictions to which our citizens are subject. The interchange of visits from one country to another, whether for sporting purposes or for target shooting, is all two-way traffic and it is one which is greatly cherished by the participants. The visits by overseas sportsmen to this country for game shooting are an important source of overseas revenue, and there are facilities here for shooting game of one sort or another which do not exist on the Continent and vice versa. Also for competitive shooting we regularly interchange visits. Teams from the United Kingdom go to countries overseas and we receive return visits. I hope that that situation may continue for a long time to come.
The directive makes no distinction, as our parliamentary legislation does, between different types of weapons: for example, shotguns, rifles,

1569
pistols, air weapons and so on. It merely divides them into three broad categories: prohibited weapons, weapons requiring authorisation and weapons requiring only declaration. Therefore there is a wide discrepancy between our legislation and that proposed for the European Community.
Article 5 of the directive proposes a minimum age limit of 18. This is completely out of step with our existing laws and I hope that the Government will no: accept that provision at least.
The directive also provides for a European firearms certificate or firearms passport— call it what you will. That will ease the movement of weapons for lawful purposes from one country to another, but nothing is said about the period of validity involved. I should like to think that it would be five or six years. I have said on more than one occasion that the period of validity of our own firearms and shotgun certificates should be more than three years. I say the same about the European firearms certificate. What is not made clear from anything I read is whether a certificate will cover more than one weapon. Will it be necessary to have a certificate for each weapon or can more than one weapon be included on the same certificate?
There is also a conflict between the directive and United Kingdom law concerning visitors' permits. I hope that that matter will receive some attention from Her Majesty's Government. It is too much to hope that this directive will result in any relaxation of our domestic laws, and I hope that the Government will think very carefully before they agree to accept some of these provisions.
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of Radnor: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for presenting his report so lucidly and also to my noble friend Lord Middleton for producing the report of Sub-Committee D. As regards the first report, the noble and learned Lord expressed a fear that some of his committee members felt that it was a little on the negative side. Having heard the speeches that followed, I was very pleased that it was and that it did not go along with some of the European suggestions.
As far as the admirable report prepared by my noble friend, it must have become evident to everyone that, first, the report is a little stale and, secondly, it now represents something of a moving target. There seem to be more directives coming through at the moment and more precise standards are being produced. I suppose that these factors are moves towards ultimate harmonisation.
As the last speaker before the gap, the only course open to me is to speak fairly broadly and to try not to repeat too much of what was said before. Having said that, I must begin by reinforcing something which has been said more than once. I refer to the unique position of the British Isles as far as plant and animal diseases are concerned. Apart from the internal border with Southern Ireland, the sea has provided us with a tremendous physical barrier which has made it very easy to check undesirable things coming in. Certain ports are allocated for
1570
quarantine and others are just for checking. There are not too many points of entry, which is a factor to be borne in mind.
There is a subsidiary point in that respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said, to check items when they arrive at their destination would be almost impossible. It came out very clearly in our inquiry that it would be literally impossible. It would demand the presence of so many environmental health officers, people from MAFF, veterinarians and so forth that we might just as well forget about it.
The other matter which I must touch on is that of change and harmonisation. When animals or plants start off on their journey towards their ultimate destination— presumably they have been purchased— they are meant eventually, because of harmonisation, to be acceptable. It appears to me— no one has yet mentioned it— that this is an open door to fraud. On the whole, it is the farmers who send produce from one place to another and from one country to another. They send animals from one place to another. Your Lordships well know that farmers are never dishonest, but they are quite capable of taking advantage of a market situation. I believe that there is a subsidiary problem brewing up.
The real and central problem, however, is timing and it is on that aspect that I intend to base my short speech. It would appear that the powers in Brussels have in fact read the report of Sub-Committee D, or so I like to think, because they have in certain respects bent towards our suggestions. Your Lordships will well remember that the final conclusion was that the Commission should think again. So perhaps it has.
Certainly in regard to foot-and-mouth disease the Commission has decided— it must have been a very harsh decision for it to make— that it will adopt a slaughter policy rather than a vaccination policy, which was a major block towards proper harmonisation. I believe that on the Continent it is a major blow to the pharmaceutical industry, which produces a considerable number of gallons of vaccine because vaccination has to be carried out every three months or so.
The Commission has bent a little on timing. If my memory is correct, 1992 has been stretched to 1993 to accomplish an amazing number of objectives. It is impossible to contemplate, as we said in our conclusion, that there can be any inspectorate in place that makes sense or any proper standard accomplished which might be agreed upon on paper. I think we said that progress in the foreseeable future is unlikely. I suggest that it is so unlikely, disease being no respecter of boundaries or harmonisation, that a completely different approach should be adopted.
I listened carefully to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that although boundaries between countries are to be abolished there is still some scope on interpretation. That should be used as much as possible.
I suggest that harmonisation of standards should go forward but that the border controls for each

1571
country should remain as they are. There is nothing new about that. If any noble Lords have passed from Victoria to South Australia, as I have, and had their fruit confiscated they will know that there are boundaries between the states, as there are throughout the world. It is nothing to do with a united Europe or anything of that nature. Therefore, interpretation will be important.
I would put in place a cross-country inspectorate; in other words, a small inspectorate of observers who would literally check to see that cheating does not take place. It could even be a roaming inspectorate. I believe that that proposal is worthy of consideration. Therefore, my whole theme is that all this mass of detail which has been coming forward— draft directives, new directives and so on— would be better swept aside and the whole issue turned on its head in the way I have described.
If noble Lords will bear with me for a moment longer, I have a particular matter that I should like to bring to the attention of my noble friend Lord Ferrers. During the discussions which took place in the committee I raised the question of live fish travelling across boundaries. It was quite clearly stated that that matter would not be dealt with in these directives from Brussels. However, since the report has been published a directive on live fish has recently appeared. I have read it, as no doubt has my noble friend. It seems to me to be a very sensible document. I think that I understand it entirely. I hope that conformity with this directive will in no way upset the present legislation on fish diseases which I had the privilege to take through your Lordships' House. The Act has served us very well indeed. I am quite sure that it should be left in place, come what may.
We can talk about foot-and-mouth disease, rabies, Colorado beetles and so on, but for the fish industry there are two diseases which have never occurred in this country and which we must not allow to be imported in any way, both for the sake of the industry and possibly for the sake of the wild fish in our rivers.
I noticed one part of the directive which stated that there would be zones. Of course I should like the zones to be the boundaries of countries, but these zones would be considered to be free of two diseases, one in list 1 and the other in list 2; namely, IHN and VHS. These zones would be considered to be contaminated until they had been examined four times by the veterinary inspectorate. After that time they would be cleared and presumably there would be cross-border fish sales. However, under the Act we do not import any salmonids, if I remember correctly. Moreover, I think that under regulations produced since that time we do not bring in ungutted salmonids. Those two points are most important and perhaps when my noble friend replies he will be able to deal with them.
I have spoken for long enough and perhaps a little controversially. However, I hope that what I have said has put an idea in people's heads that we may on this occasion as regards diseases interpret the harmonisation of Europe a little differently than
1572
perhaps we do in respect of the composition of chocolate or something of that nature.
3 p.m.
Lord Brain: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, for their very comprehensive introductions to these two reports. I hope that noble Lords will understand that because it is late in the afternoon, and also because I am not an expert in many of the matters covered by the reports, I shall concentrate on only two points.
The first concerns the report of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. I refer to the problem of the control of game and the veterinary control of game. I think that the noble Lord commented very constructively on the problems which are seen in this country in that respect. It is perhaps because our sporting fields are different from those in Europe that the techniques and controls must be different.
The second point concerns very much the same topic. In this respect, I shall follow the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, although I shall differ from him on certain points and also the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I refer to the control of the movement of firearms or weapons which is also commented upon in the report.
The committee was at a definite disadvantage. One day after it had reported, what I personally— unlike the noble Lord, Lord Swansea— feel is an excellent document was published, updating the frontier control and the proposals for frontier control of firearms. I suspect from what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said and the general tenor of paragraph 85 of the original report, the committee would support the document but feel as the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, said, that it needed amendment.
The committee found in its evidence that there were three categories of users of weapons or firearms. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, in feeling that terrorists, by their nature, do not obey the law. Therefore they will probably not be concerned by any frontier controls other than the broad control by spot checks or something similar.
With criminals we are in a different position in England. We have no land frontiers. I suspect that most criminals will not normally carry arms across a frontier, whether a port or airport is involved. They will draw on a local pool to the extent needed. I know that the committee has doubts as to whether there is an illegal pool of arms. If one gets to talk to people at the Home Office or chief constables in a quieter moment and ask them to consider the situation, they will admit there almost certainly is. I suspect it is also occasionally topped up by illegally imported weapons. However, I should not have thought that there was necessarily a major traffic in weapons.
I should be interested to know how Customs and others estimated the destination of the 681 weapons which they quote as being found in one year. It may be that some were a bulk shipment, or from people who fall into my last class— sportsmen. The latter

1573
might have come in not realising the strict UK regulations on the movement of firearms, being used to the much more relaxed methods and techniques in Europe. They arrived and then fell foul of our legislation.
Sporting users cover stalkers, game sportsmen, target shooters, clay pigeon sportsmen and those using other targets. To those I add people who collect weapons. Again they may need them for lectures and similar purposes. It is a perfectly sensible reason for holding weapons. If the gun is properly certificated, I can see no great reason why it should not be moved across a frontier by a law abiding citizen.
Controls are required for the criminal and the terrorist. I hope that we can put into place a simplified, recognised set of controls that law abiding people will find easy to use, even if it means presenting the weapon with a certificate at a frontier post or something similar.
Where perhaps I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Swansea, is that I believe that we should work for a sound basis under the latest EC proposals. I hope that the Government will pursue the matter constructively and the result will be an acceptable European passport or certificate, call it what you will. That certificate will enable people lawfully entitled to hold weapons to bring them in. They know that certain classes of weapons may not be acceptable in certain countries. I quite accept that this may be true in the UK where the law is much stricter. I hope that there will be a degree of flexibility in that some or indeed many European countries have classes of weapons which might be allowed in here on a temporary importation basis, properly controlled. I have a feeling that the way things are going we could have a computer readable card so that people can clearly check that the person carrying the weapons is genuine and is entitled to carry them. If we ease the routine measures, more spot checks can be made to deter the illegal and criminal terrorist elements from moving weapons.
I was interested in the definition of weapons in the annex to this proposal. Again I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Swansea. I agree that they are both prohibited and permitted, but I found the classification in Annex 1 constructive and useful. There is the question of what constitutes a weapon. I was glad to see the crossbow included in that list. I know that during the passage of the firearms legislation we had a debate on crossbows. Unfortunately, although the Government were pressed, they were unable to agree to the measures proposed on crossbows.
I also noticed that bows are included in the weapons list. Perhaps this will allow our civil servants or other negotiators a time of refighting the battle of Hastings in trying to allow the traditional English longbow to be moved around freely, whereas that is not the case for the crossbow. I think that the longbow is a less lethal weapon than the crossbow, but that is another matter.
There are some useful classifications of weapons which, if adopted, might prevent football hooligans from moving some of their equipment around. I hope that the Government will work constructively
1574
on this proposed new directive. On page 6 it is stated that travel with weapons will be made easier. It is stated that a person may hold,
"a European firearms certificate, which represents proof acceptable to all national administrations that the traveller is lawfully in possession of the firearm in question in his country of origin. Decisions concerning the movement of the weapon will also be recorded on the certificate".
That is a positive hope. It will also mean that sportsmen will be able to travel with their weapons,
"on condition that they possess a European firearms certificate and that they can establish the purpose of their journey".
I hope that the Government can negotiate a satisfactory position from those constructive points.
3.7 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, will recognise that my remit covers animate and inanimate objects. Therefore, I shall turn at once to the report on health controls and the internal market which was so excellently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton.
In my opinion the consideration of that report has taken too long to come before your Lordships' House. In that respect I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, not merely for the manner in which he introduced the report but also for the update which he was able to give us. I, however, must deal with the report as it stands. In doing so I consider that the key phrase it contains is given at paragraph 141, which states that 1992 is a useful slogan but not an achievable objective in these areas. To that could be added in the case of plant health that the cost of achievement outweighs benefits for member states from the dismantling of barriers.
As regards trade in plants, a distinction needs to be made between those used for food production and those used for domestic use. Both are important but plants used for food production are vital. As an example of that I refer to the recent Rhizomania case with sugar-beet, which fortunately has been contained so far.
The case for retention of border controls is dealt with at paragraph 122. It is stated that border controls should not be accepted until four conditions are met. That is well stated, but I wonder whether those controls can ever be fully met. The discontinuance of checks at the point of import would be risky, even when the Commission's system is in place. The United Kingdom has a good record of control at ports and benefits from the absence of land frontiers with other member states.
Even so, there are problems; for example, the recent case of lead in feedstuff's which came in via two ports, Teignmouth and Liverpool. Flagrant dishonesty was at the heart of this matter on the part of a foreign exporter, yet the fact is that the contaminated feedstuffs got in and were distributed. It required commendable speed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, backed by the Department of Health and the Milk Marketing Board, to contain an outbreak, which was described in a written reply in your Lordships' House and whose dimensions are considerably worrying to those who are responsible for the safety of food in this country.

1575
I also ask whether the Community Inspectorate for Plant Health, details of which were described in paragraph 130 of the report as vague, can cope with the workload. I also wonder whether the passport system, which will be different for each product depending on the health status of the zone of production and the requirements of the destination zone, is really a starter in the race to 1992.
Tests of a common standard during growing, at harvest and post-harvest are not sufficient in all cases, according to paragraph 132. They are to be reinforced at any period before export even if a passport is issued. Again I ask myself whether that can really happen in 12 member states.
At paragraphs 109 and 110 the committee supports the development of health status zones for plants and animals, defined initially in terms of existing frontiers and zones where means of enforcement already exist, so removing unnecessary barriers between zones of similar status. That is good so far as its goes and will pave the way for their removal when it is safe to do so.
Turning to the safeguarding of meat supplies, as a result of a freer regime for trade between member states we confront the old policy of control by vaccination versus slaughter. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has advised the House today that the Commission has now chosen slaughter as an acceptable method. I believe that we all applaud that decision. The United Kingdom has prided itself on its livestock control. However, bovine spongiform encephalopathy reveals the risk even in the domestic market. The widespread nature of the disease in England and Wales calls in question the safety zone concept on the basis of 12 member states. Again the problem is feedstuffs derived, and protein from sheep, in which the disease is endemic in the form of scrapie, is thought to be the cause of the BSE outbreak in the United Kingdom.
Far from lifting barriers of health control, in my opinion it may be necessary to strengthen existing controls. Here I draw the attention of the House to the press release by the Ministry dated 28th March in which it is stated that the Government propose to take new powers to protect livestock from rare diseases which may be difficult to identify at an early stage of investigation. Therefore there is now the Movement of Animals (Restriction) Order 1990 which enables movement restrictions to be applied to livestock where a potentially serious situation appears to exist and where the disease in question is not already subject to control. The Ministry, I believe commendably, is making sure that we are prepared for any new disease which may require urgent and complete action internally. One must consider that care and caution in the context of the Commission's proposals to dismantle barriers.
Apart from ensuring humane conditions for travel to and health at the point of slaughter, the export of live animals is a fragmented operation in the United Kingdom, as indeed is the marketing process. Speeding controls at ports places great reliance on the accuracy of certification. Can such documents be fully trusted in every case in 12 member states?
1576
Standards, including veterinary standards, at present vary widely and will certainly not be uniformly satisfactory by 1992. Even a Commission veterinary inspection service, though essential, will be fully stretched to do more than exercise limited control and influence progress towards a uniform standard. Criticisms of inspection systems under the common fisheries policy indicate the realities of life and the limitation of Community initiatives in the area of inspection. It may be that in that area, so far as concerns the export of livestock, there will ultimately need to be a system of licensing either by member states or even the Commission itself if present health controls on meat are to be removed. It will also be necessary to ensure that during the process of transport and slaughter not merely are humane conditions observed but full safety standards are applied.
In my view Her Majesty's Government is wise to continue with the training of vets. That point has already been touched upon. The Commission proposals will certainly add to costs. That may be a reason for the absence from the original proposals of what is described as a fiche financiè re.
In particular, the quarantine proposals are both onerous and, if implemented as they stand, likely to be costly. The report wisely emphasises that aspect. If funds are to be established to compensate for animals slaughtered on the outbreak of contagious diseases— that seems likely now as the option to slaughter has partly been taken up— or even to recompense for an outbreak of a disease from plant importation, they should be based on sound insurance principles, even though not conducted for profit. In our view, the premium should relate to the degree of risk in each member state and practical experience of claims. Mutuality should be the keynote in all that.
The effect of the proposals on third world trade is wisely stressed in the report. If different regimes for control are used, exporters from third world countries will resent that and might reciprocate. Thus, two different systems of control will reduce any benefits which we may hope to obtain from the Commission's proposals. All that argues, as the report's conclusion does, for a controlled approach to implementation without the overriding pressure of a year for completion.
The report was commended by the Ministry of Agriculture as far back as 4th October 1989. We commend it equally today. The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, asked for an update from the Minister who is to reply to the debate and we join him in asking that that be done. In the meantime we renew our congratulations to the sub-committee on its excellent report.
3.16 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate and a very particular debate in a number of respects. We have dealt not only with our own country, but with other European countries, Community practice and future policy on individual problems as well as specific subjects ranging from bovine spongiform encephalopathy down to firearms

1577
and identity cards. I can only pay tribute to the authors of the two reports— the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and my noble friend Lord Middleton— not only for their reports, but for having stimulated such a wide-ranging debate.
It is difficult to do justice to two important reports which cover such wide and intricate subjects. At first sight it is difficult to see what connection there could possibly be between such matters as measures against terrorism and the health of plants. The connection between the two, of course, is that both reports deal with the implications for the United Kingdom of developments in the European Community as we proceed to the establishment of the internal market after 1992. The matter at issue is what should be the nature of the controls at the common frontiers between member states.
It is axiomatic to say it, but it is nevertheless not a bad thing to remind ourselves that Britain is an island nation. We have come to cherish the advantages which we derive from our geographical position, not least of which is the value of the natural barriers which constitute our frontiers; in other words, the sea. Our natural advantages have helped us in two ways. Our national defences, such as immigration, customs and police controls, against threats from the outside world have been concentrated at ports of entry where they are most effective. Consequently, it has not been necessary for us to impose the kinds of internal measures and controls which many of our Community partners have found necessary because of the fact that the controls at their land frontiers are inevitably less effective.
Border controls are not considered to be vital in some other member states of the Community and some would be prepared to see them abolished. They are, of course, perfectly entitled to take whichever view best accords with their own circumstances. We would not seek to criticise the European Commission for advancing its vision of a Europe in which crossing national frontiers was as straightforward a process as is crossing in our country from Surrey to Berkshire.
However, border controls are important for this country. They provide a vital and effective first line of defence against drug traffickers, terrorists and criminals; illegal immigration; threats to human and animal health; and the spread of harmful plant pests and diseases.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that if one removes controls at borders it will inevitably increase controls within the country. He sent shivers down our spines by talking about police control, identity cards and so on. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, also expressed some concern about that. It was helpful to be reminded of those matters.
Perhaps I may first deal with the report on health controls and the internal market which was introduced by my noble friend Lord Middleton. The report deals with two aspects of health control; namely, animal health and plant health. I shall deal first with animal health. The Commission's aim to ensure that the completion of the single market is achieved without animal diseases being spread into parts of the Community where they are not at present
1578
established is very important. The Government support that aim. Until serious disease threats have been eliminated, effective measures have to be maintained in order to contain them. It is as well to remember that however frustrating controls may be, it is disease that creates the barriers and not the controls because the control measures are there after all only because of the disease.
A directive on veterinary checks on trade in meat and other specified animal products was agreed upon just before Christmas. The outcome reflected the United Kingdom's view that existing methods of control at the frontiers should not be dismantled if, by doing so, we were to increase the risk of the spread of disease. The directive has to be reviewed before the end of 1992 but, until then, we retain considerable discretion over maintaining our own border checks.
A lot of work remains to be done in the area of animal health. Discussions have started on veterinary checks on the movement of live animals. We are waiting for proposals from the Commission on the rules affecting imports from third countries. Progress towards the removal of frontier controls between member states will be impeded if one member state may import from a third country goods which another will not accept.
Above all, we await proposals on the disease control measures which are to apply after 1992. A Commission strategy document confirms that attaining a uniformly high health status throughout the Community is an objective. It envisages several categories of disease control, which will reflect the differing seriousness of individual diseases and the prospects of eradicating or controlling them.
My noble friend Lord Radnor was concerned that standards should not be dropped. The Government fully appreciate the risks posed by exotic diseases— fish diseases such as the ones he mentioned of viral haemorrhagic septicaemia and infectious haemotopoietic necrosis, which my noble friend described as IHN, an acronym which is a much easier form. We shall be seeking to negotiate arrangements which afford adequate protection to maintain our high fish health status with sound enforcement and the provision for safeguard action.
My noble friend Lord Middleton was concerned about the proposals on game meat. There has been no discussion yet in the Council of the Commission's proposal. However, the Government have secured some improvements in the Commission's proposals which take better account of the way in which game meat is produced and marketed; for example, allowing the importation of small game to be inspected on a sample basis rather than probably on a 100 per cent. basis. The Ministry of Agriculture is consulting interested organisations on the proposals as they now stand.
My noble friend also referred to rabies, which I know is a matter of concern to a great many people. The Government support the action that has been taken at Community level for the eradication of rabies. They would resist any suggestion that the Community should commit itself to any particular date for the elimination of quarantine. The

1579
Government's position is that the elimination of quarantine can only be considered when quarantine is no longer necessary in order to exclude the disease. We believe that eradication will take longer to achieve than three years. It is therefore likely that the quarantine will remain necessary beyond 1992.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Brain, also referred to the availability of veterinary surgeons. The Government asked the Page Committee to review veterinary manpower and education and broadly accepted its findings. Veterinarians from elsewhere in the Community are already free to establish themselves in the United Kingdom, and the Government are encouraging this. However, this is not the whole answer. For example, government veterinary surgeons need to be British nationals. The Government have therefore agreed to raise restrictions on the intake of the veterinary colleges— accepted in principle by the Universities Funding Council— with a view to realising an annual intake of some 400 students a year compared with the current figure of 335.
My noble friend asked how far the Government were pressing the Commission to assess the effectiveness of vaccination. In many cases vaccination can be a sensible way of dealing with animal diseases. For example, we are currently pursuing a voluntary vaccination policy for Newcastle disease in poultry but each case needs to be looked at on its merits. We always look very carefully at Commission proposals from the point of view of new cost effectiveness.
Plant health controls give rise to not dissimilar considerations. Border controls against the spread of plant health pests and diseases cannot be removed until satisfactory alternative defences are in place.
The European Commission strategy introduces a new concept for preventing the spread of harmful plant pests and diseases. The strategy hinges around a new control document, the plant passport, and it contains many new ideas. However, at present we can see only the framework of the new system. Fundamental points, as well as matters of detail, still remain in doubt. These will need to be developed during the future negotiations that we shall have. During these negotiations we shall take full account of the helpful views that the committee expressed in its report.
It is encouraging to note that since the committee's report was published, there have already been developments in some of the areas to which it drew attention. Last June the Council adopted a proposal to establish a Community plant health inspectorate which should play a valuable role in ensuring that plant health standards are applied equally across the Community.
My noble friend Lord Middleton asked what progress was being made on the inspectorate. The Commission has not yet announced any appointments; we expect to hear who the new chief inspector will be shortly. We shall be pressing for early action to be taken to set up the inspectorate.
My noble friend also wondered about the timescale for harmonised plant health standards. The
1580
Commission's declared aim remains to have the new arrangements in place by January 1993, but much has still to be settled. It remains to be seen whether that date will be achieved.
At the agricultural Council on 26th March, Ministers agreed that border checks should remain in place until new systems for checking material have been brought into effect. The Council also agreed that member states should retain the right to safeguard action against the threat of infected material arriving from elsewhere in the Community until the Commission has been able to investigate the extent of the threat and to propose measures to react to it. The views of the committee have been reflected in both those decisions.
The Commission has recognised the need to establish isolated or protected zones in order to allow them to remain free of diseases which are prevalent in other parts of the Community. Although the Commission's latest proposals give only a general framework for this aspect of its strategy, as the discussions progress in Brussels such issues as the enforcing of controls within the zones will become clearer. The Government will be concerned to ensure that they provide an effective plant health protection. It is our hope to aim for a higher level of plant health throughout the Community and not to lower standards.
The Government consider it essential to maintain our plant health status for the continued well-being of our industry, and we welcome the report of the Committee which has highlighted many of the areas of concern which we shall be examining with other member states and the Commission in the negotiations.
I now come to the report on border control of people which was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver. If there is one area above all others in which the United Kingdom relies for its continued well-being on the maintenance of effective controls, it is in the movement of people. It is the Government's view that checks on people seeking to enter this country provide an essential defence against drug traffickers, terrorists and serious criminals. They also act against illegal immigration and they are a vital part of the enforcement of immigration control. Consequently, the Government are firmly of the view that border controls on the present pattern must remain in place. I am delighted that, having carefully considered the issues, the committee should have come to much the same view.
I was not surprised that my noble friend Lord Swansea referred to firearms and shotguns. He is well versed on the subject and is most concerned about it. The noble Lord, Lord Brain, referred to the effect on sporting users. He was particularly concerned about the possible implications for firearms of the European passport. He said that not only should controls be required; they should also be simple and effective. Controls are required. We see advantages in the proposed firearms certificate which makes it easier to obtain the necessary national certificates. It may not meet entirely with the noble Lord's wishes but it is essential that we have control over the weapons which are introduced

1581
into this country. We are not in favour of firearms permits being granted by other than our own author: ties. The control of firearms is less strict in some other countries than in the UK and, therefore, it is important that we have control over the types of firearms brought into this country. The British visitors, permit allows overseas sportsmen to come here with their weapons and with the minimum possible fuss. However, it involves authority from our police.
In particular, the committee endorsed the Government's interpretation of their obligations under the Single European Act. Its report confirms the value of border checks. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the abolition of border controls which she said would produce problems in cases of theft. I believe that that is right. The report provides a convincing analytical framework against which the effectiveness of border controls might be assessed.
The committee emphasised the value of co-operation among member states in tackling questions about border controls. The Government agree with this wholeheartedly, and we are grateful for such an authoritative endorsement of our policies.
I fear that in the time which is available I shall be unable to do full justice to the committee's report which excels in the breadth as well as the depth of its analysis. However, there are two particular points on which I should like to offer comment. The first relates to arrangements at airports. The committee's report contains a cogent and illuminating assessment of the implications for airports of the possible developments in the field of frontier controls within the European Community. It concludes that, for the time being, no changes should be required to the structures and systems which at present operate at airports in Europe.
However, the committee recommends that serious efforts should be made to agree a common Community system which will respond to the wishes of travellers and to implement such a system over a long transitional period. As a matter of principle, I think that the Government could readily accept the wisdom of such an approach. In practice, though, I fear that we are still some way from a situation in which agreement on such a common policy is a realistic prospect.
At the heart of the problem lies the fact that arrangements at airports reflect, to a very large degree, the nature of the system of controls which are in force. Current negotiations on frontier controls in the Community are designed to determine the basis for those controls in future. Consequently, I think that we must accept that plans for airports cannot realistically be considered in isolation from the main issue which is the nature of frontier controls in Europe. And, at least in so far as the intention of other member states is concerned, the future is far from clear.
Certainly, the logic of our position on the retention of necessary frontier controls is that the operational arrangements and structures at our airports are likely to remain fundamentally unchanged. The
1582
Government therefore agree with the committee's recommendation that no changes should be contemplated at present. However, we accept that the issue of airports in particular is one which merits further study. I can tell your Lordships that an interdepartmental working group of officials is shortly to be established, under the leadership of the Department of Transport, to look at the implications of developments on frontiers in Europe for airports within the United Kingdom, given our position on border controls. Representatives from airports and airlines are being invited to join that study.
The second matter to which I wish to draw specific attention is one on which it is only fair to make it clear that the Government's approach differs in some respects from that which was recommended by the committee. This is the subject of refugees and asylum.
The committee recommended that the criteria for refugee status and procedures should be harmonised with the close involvement of the United Nationals High Commissioner for Refugees; that an agreement on which member states of the Community should be responsible for handling an asylum application should not be brought into operation until harmonisation is achieved; and that accepted refugees should be given the rights of free movement which is available to Community nationals.
The Government play an active part in the European discussions on refugees and asylum. The presidency of the European Council keeps the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees informed of these discussions. Member states have jointly recognised that it is desirable to work towards harmonised criteria and procedures for the grant of refugee status. This is, however, likely to be a sizeable task, given the different judicial and administrative systems involved, and I cannot guarantee that it will be thought right to postpone the coming into effect of the convention, which is under preparation, until harmonisation is achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was concerned about the treatment of asylum seekers. There is a need to balance the importance of ensuring that genuine refugees are given asylum against the need to operate a firm but fair immigration policy. The noble Lord referred to the carriers liability legislation. There is a necessary reaction to immigration pressures. It is not aimed at refugees. The United Kingdom remains committed to obligations under the 1957 Geneva Convention.
The noble Lord was also concerned— and quite rightly so— about the position of drugs. He quoted the fact that the customs seized 90 per cent. of cocaine and heroin at airports. In 1988 93 per cent. by weight of all drug seizures were carried out by customs. The provisional figures for 1989 are that 49 per cent. of all drug seizures by weight came from or through the European Community countries. Sixty three per cent. of cocaine came from or through the European Community and 49 per cent. of cannabis.
The Select Committee considers that harmonisation of procedures for refugee status should be based on best national practice. We agree

1583
with that conclusion in general terms, but we do not accept that it necessarily means an automatic system of judicial appeals against decisions to refuse refugee status, as the report envisages. In those European countries which have such appeals systems, there is considerable anxiety about the delays which they create. Those delays often run into many years and they provide scope for abuse by applicants whose cases are unfounded.
It is the Government's view that any effective refugee determination procedure must be workable and must provide for quick and effective decisions both on those cases in which refugee status should be granted and on those cases which are without merit. We are not persuaded that a special case should be made in favour of those with refugee status from the general rule that freedom of movement under the Treaty of Rome does not extend to non-EC nationals.
If I conclude these observations of mine on a slightly negative note, that is only because I am anxious that the very warm welcome, which I am giving on behalf of the Government, to the report on border controls should not mislead your Lordships or the public as to these particular matters which of course form only a small part of the report.
Leaving those particular matters aside, I repeat the Government's admiration of the contribution which both these reports, under their distinguished chairmen, have made to the general debate, and I express our profound appreciation of the support which they have given the Government for the objectives which they are pursuing.
Lord Harvington: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down perhaps he will allow me to raise a question with regard to scrapie. I was chairman of the National Sheep Breeders of Great Britain in the 1950s and, if he looks into his files, he will find that I have raised the question many times. I hope the noble Lord who is to follow will allow me a few moments.
For years I have been asking for some assurances regarding the steps taken and the nature of the research into the disease of scrapie. I at once declare an interest in that subject because in 1951 I was a leading exporter of pedigree sheep to Australia and New Zealand. As a result of the imposition of a ban of all British sheep, due to scrapie, I naturally suffered considerably.
My main point is whether my noble friend is satisfed that everything possible has been done to improve research into the isolation of that ghastly virus, which has impeded the export of British sheep for so long. I apologise if that matter has already been dealt with, and for not being present at the beginning of the debate. If I had been I should have tried to take part earlier. However, I apologise for my absence and hope it will not be too difficult for my noble friend to give me an answer. I do not expect an answer now; perhaps, however, my noble friend will take the matter on board.
The matter arose in the time of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, when he was
1584
chairman, I believe, of the Agricultural Research Council.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, perhaps, for the Leader of the House, I might briefly answer that question. My noble friend has invited me to look into the files and I shall take up his invitation. I have been briefed on a great many matters, from firearms to immigration and plant health, but not specifically on scrapie. I am not quite sure what the connection is between my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham and scrapie, but I am sure that it is a totally reputable connection. I will find the answer to my noble friend's question, and perhaps I may write to him.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, the afternoon is well advanced and I do not propose to take up a lot of time now. As chairman of the sub-committee which produced the report on border controls, and as the mover of this Motion, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and also to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has been good enough to compliment the committee on the report. I am also grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, drew attention to the earlier report. It is interesting to see how closely the conclusions of two differently composed committees, separated by a period of six years, coincided. The noble Lord referred in terms which I think can have left nobody unmoved to the plight of those seeking asylum, and he suggested a council of the EC to ease the situation of the refugees, and also a common appeals procedure.
There may be some who are disappointed in the reaction of the Government to the suggestions contained in the report, and I think we would all agree on the desirability of some common approach to the refugee problem as a desirable objective. However it is approached, it is an end which can be pursued quite independently of the sweeping proposals of the Commission's communication. As the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, observed, there are dangers to the position of those seeking asylum which lurk in the abolition of internal border controls and the substitution of what would be in effect an external wall round the Community.
The report refers to the psychological effect of border controls and more than one speaker has also referred to that aspect of the matter. There is a psychological feeling of belonging to a single community to some extent. That it exists and is important, I do not doubt; but I think it really has more to do with freedom of association than with border controls. I was interested to read in a newspaper that one of the first suggestions made by the Lithuanian Parliament was the establishment of border controls. So the absence of border controls in that instance does not seem to have led to any particular psychological feeling of belonging to a single community.
Everything that has been said this afternoon— and I think this is equally applicable in regard to the control of weapons— leads us inevitably, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and almost irresistibly, to the conclusion that the

1585
Commission, in proposing the abolition of border controls almost at breakneck speed by 1992, is putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps one should say that it is trying to construct the cart and the horse at the same time. At the moment it has got half a horse and, if I may be forgiven for trespassing on the area of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, it appears to be possibly a wooden horse which is suffering from a bad attack of dutch elm disease.
The objective of a frontier-free Europe is a desirable one, but this is not the way to go about it. The conditions in which a frontier-free Europe can operate do not follow from the abolition of border controls. The abolition of border controls can follow only from the creation of the conditions in which they would be possible; and it is that objective to which I think we must all work.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Health Controls and the Internal Market: ECC Report
3.50 p.m.
Lord Middleton: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. At this stage I should merely like to say how grateful I am for the way in which our report, Health Controls and the Internal Market, has been received by the noble Baroness and by noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, was my predecessor in the chair of Sub-Committee D. He set a very high standard, so his comments and remarks are all the more appreciated. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for bringing us up to date with government thinking on these matters. It is very gratifying to know that this seems to be very much in accord with the ideas of the committee, which is still studying the matter in depth.
Perhaps I may pick up two matters. I was specially reassured by the view which my noble friend expressed concerning the Government's thoughts on the question of quarantine. It is absolutely essential that we keep out these diseases, especially rabies. I am delighted to hear that the Government are going to keep quarantine until there is no more risk. I was also grateful to hear what my noble friend had to say about increasing the number of vets. I commend the Motion to the House.
Moved, that this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on 1922: Health Controls and the Internal Market (9th Report, Session 1988–89, HL Paper 47) and of the Response from Her Majesty's Government (Cmnd. 815).— (Lord Middleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Assent
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance
1586
with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act, Nottingham Park Estate Act.

Aviation and Maritime Security Bill
3.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide another weapon in the fight against international terrorism in the air and at sea. It was almost a year ago that the then Secretary of State for Transport announced in another place that he intended to seek new powers for Parliament in order to secure more effective implementation of aviation security measures. I believe that this Bill provided these powers. It also extends to maritime activities similar powers to those currently available and proposed for aviation security. I shall deal firstly with aviation security and then with maritime security.
I am sure that the mention of aviation security immediately brings the Lockerbie disaster into your Lordships' minds. On 21st December 1988 Pan American Flight 103 from Heathrow to New York crashed at Lockerbie killing 259 people on the aircraft and 11 on the ground. The disaster was caused by a terrorist bomb and was a grisly example of the depths to which these callous individuals will descend. Further evidence of terrorism since Lockerbie has been the destruction by bombs of a UTA aircraft in Niger and an internal flight in Colombia. The Government are totally committed to opposing terrorism whether on the international or the domestic front and will do all they can to eradicate such heinous acts as those I have just mentioned.
The Government are determined to learn all they can from Lockerbie. The police investigation has made impressive progress with the help of outstanding forensic work and unprecedented international co-operation. The Air Accident Investigation Branch is continuing to do valuable work and will report the results of its investigation to my right honourable friend in due course. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has announced his intention to hold a fatal accident inquiry under Scottish legislation. This can be expected to consider the reasonable precautions by which the disaster might have been avoided. The Government have concluded that a confidential independent inquiry should not be held but that established procedures should be followed. In reaching this decision consideration was given to the legal implications, including those for the continuing police investigation, and the implications for foreign relations and security among other things.
Since the Lockerbie disaster the Department of Transport has carried out a major review of aviation security. Immediately after Lockerbie security was tightened for United States airlines operating from this country; in this there was close liaison with

1587
the Federal Aviation Administration. New security procedures were also brought in dealing with electrical equipment carried by passengers. In addition, the whole pass system has been tightened up for those employees and vehicles which have to have access to the restricted areas of our four major airports. There are also tighter checks for the issue of passes, the control of vehicles, the searching of staff and vehicles and the control of passes at the gate. Electronic checking of all passes should be in place this month.
The department's Aviation Security Inspectorate has been doubled and" new requirements for recruiting and training security staff have been introduced. The money available for research and development into equipment and techniques has been doubled.
The Commons Transport Select Committee has, also since Lockerbie, conducted a constructive inquiry into airport security. The Government have been able to respond positively to 21 of the committee's 28 recommendations. In spite of all this, it became apparent that aviation security could perhaps be more effectively enforced if the existing powers in the Aviation Security Act 1982 were enhanced.
The Secretary of State is already able under the 1982 Act to direct airports and airlines. Directions under the 1982 Act have been in force for many years. Improvements in security last year were made using these powers, but further powers are needed to give the aviation security inspectors more flexible and effective means to enforce directions, to enable directions to be made to other businesses, as well as airports and airlines, that have access to airports and aircraft and to make it an offence for individuals to do certain things which are prejudicial to security. Because the proposed legislation builds on the 1982 Act the aviation security provisions of this Bill are framed very much as amendments and additions to that Act. The 1982 Act and Part I of this Bill need to be read together and taken as a whole.
The measures to improve aviation security are in Part I of the Bill. Clause 1 enables the Government to ratify the International Civil Aviation Organisation's Montreal Protocol of 1988, which we signed in October 1988. This protocol commits the Goverment to make it an offence under our own law for any person to carry out armed attacks at any international airport and to cause damage or disruption at such an airport. The protocol requires severe penalties for these offences. In relevant cases offenders can be extradited.
Part I of the Bill widens the categories of persons to whom directions can be given. In future as well as giving directions to airport and aircraft operators the Secretary of State will be able to give directions to other businesses which go on to airports. In practice, this means that catering suppliers, cleaning firms, aircraft maintenance and servicing firms and suppliers of aircraft stores will all be brought within the scope of the Act. It will be possible under Clause 2 for the Secretary of State to direct these undertakings to carry out searches of persons or
1588
property entering land under their control and under Clause 3 to direct them to take other measures for the protection of aircraft, aerodromes and air navigation installations against acts of violence.
Clause 4 gives powers to aviation security inspectors to issue enforcement notices where there is a failure to comply with a general requirement of a direction. The person served with an enforcement notice may be required to carry out remedial action. He may alternatively be required to secure that certain operations are stopped until remedial action has been taken. An objection procedure will be available to a person served with an enforcement notice. It will be an offence not to comply with an enforcement notice.
Clause 5 creates new offences relating to security at aerodromes. It brings individuals within the scope of aviation security legislation so that certain acts prejudicial to aviation security become offences. It will be an offence: for a person to give false information in answer to questions relating to baggage, cargo or stores; to give information in relation to an application for or the holding of an identity document; to be in a restricted zone or to go on board an aircraft without proper authority; to refuse to leave a restricted zone or an aircraft when requested to do so; or to obstruct or falsely pretend to be an authorised person.
Clause 6, which was added during earlier consideration of the Bill, enables the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for a list of aviation security approved air cargo agents to be compiled and maintained so that those not already covered can be brought within the direction-making and enforcement notice powers and other provisions in the 1982 Act, as amended by this Bill.
Clause 7, which was also added during earlier consideration of this Bill, enables the Secretary of State to make regulations which would establish an aviation security incident reporting system.
Finally, this part of the Bill, along with Schedule 1, provides for revised information-gathering powers under Section 11 of the 1982 Act. It provides for daily penalties to be imposed for continued refusal or failure to comply with a direction after being convicted of the offence. The procedure to be followed for designating an area of an aerodrome as a restricted zone is also set out in this schedule.
The Bill also deals with maritime security. There is at present no satisfactory legal mechanism by which the Government can ensure that adequate precautions are taken against terrorist threats to maritime activities. Cruise ships and ferry operators and the ports serving them have voluntarily accepted the need to improve their security arrangements. However, individual companies are not well placed to assess the overall threat, and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that the necessary progress is made in implementing new measures. A rapid response may be needed to new types of threat. The provisions of the Bill will apply equally to both British and foreign ships. When foreign ships enter British ports they will be treated no more and no less favourably than British ships.

1589
Part II of the Bill enables the Government to give effect to the International Maritime Organisation's convention on terrorism at sea and its linked protocol of fixed platforms. It makes it an offence: to hijack any ship or unlawfully to seize or exercise control of a fixed platform; to destroy or damage a ship or fixed platform or to destroy or interfere with any property used for providing maritime navigation facilities or to transmit false navigational information; and to issue threats which could endanger the safety of ships or fixed platforms.
Part III of the Bill extends to maritime activities comparable powers to those available under the Aviation Security Act 1982 or proposed for aviation security in Part I of the Bill. The powers will cover shipping and ports operations and will apply to those handling freight as well as passengers.
The extension of these powers to maritime activities does not imply that the same level of security measures will be required at all ports and on all ships as is presently required at airports and on aircraft. Ships are inherently somewhat less vulnerable than aircraft to the worst effects of terrorist attack. But we must bear in mind the attacks on the "Achille Lauro" and the "City of Poros" and on more than 50 other vessels worldwide during the 1980s.
At present the problem is being tackled by voluntary co-operation with the industry. It is hoped that this will continue. But there is a need for a framework for setting out and enforcing standards for the protection of the travelling public, the crews of ships and others engaged in the maritime industries. The provisions of Part III of the Bill are intended to provide this framework. They will aim to achieve a level of security which is appropriate to the level of threat to shipping.
I turn now to Part IV of the Bill which contains miscellaneous and general provisions. In particular, the Civil Aviation Authority will be enabled to examine and send for analysis the contents of any package or baggage which it believes contains dangerous goods, to seize and detain such goods, to take samples of them and to require related documents to be produced.
A further clause which was added during the earlier stages of the Bill's consideration will enable the Secretary of State to take action against any foreign registered aircraft which lands in the UK from a state which has banned UK registered civil aircraft from its airspace, by restricting access to that aircraft other than that which is necessary to prepare it for its flight out of the UK. The Secretary of State will be able to direct aerodrome managers and other persons on whose land the aircraft is situated to ensure that access to the aircraft is thus restricted.
During your Lordships' consideration of the Bill the Government propose to introduce amendments which will confer express statutory authority on authorised persons to test the effectiveness of security procedures and practices.
In conclusion, I am confident that the measures in the Bill will improve aviation and maritime security still further. It is encouraging to know that the proposals have the backing of the relevant
1590
industries and the police. I hope your Lordships will give this important piece of legislation a Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
4.3 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think that the House will be grateful to the Minister for having gone through the Bill and explained its purpose. We on this side of the House give our general support to the Bill, especially as it carries out international conventions and protocols. However, as no doubt the Minister expects, there are several matters which we shall wish to raise more fully in Committee.
While considering the Bill we have received from the Select Committee in another place helpful reports on aircraft security which were published in 1986 and 1989. Indeed, the Minister has already referred to them. The 1986 report contained 21 recommendations, while that of 1989 contained 28. Though the Government are not compelled to adopt such recommendations, the Minister stated that they had carried out 21. I am not sure which report those came under. I should be interested to know how many and which of the 49 recommendations have yet to be carried out. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on that at some point during the Committee stage.
We all want 100 per cent. airport security. We recognise that there are problems particularly in cost and time involved in checking baggage for the hold. I should like to ask the Minister whether research is still being carried out to ascertain some speedy way of carrying out this essential checking. Are we satisfied with the criteria and the system for checking and training staff of the private security firms? If a firm fails to satisfy the inspectorate, the firm should be stopped from operating at the particular airport in question. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether this has ever happened. Has a firm of any importance ever been excluded from the contract allowing it to take part in the security work of an airport?
The Commons committee made one or two recommendations. One was that aircraft parked overnight or temporarily unstaffed during turnround should be searched before being brought back into service. Is that being applied?
Both reports recommended the resumption of the aviation security fund, which was set up in 1978 and wound up in 1983. The Government rejected this recommendation, I know, but are we satisfied that all airports can meet the necessary security costs, particularly those in connection with international flights? Do the Government accept the recommendation that cargo should be accepted only from registered shippers?
Turning to the maritime side, the officers' organisation, NUMAST, has expressed serious concern at the use of other persons in addition to the police in carrying out important security functions. The House will recall that concern was

1591
expressed at the substitution for British transport police at Harwich of a private security firm. The Minister will also be aware that the General Council of British Shipping has grave doubts about some of the matters of ship security raised by the Bill. It has sent us a number of amendments, most of which we shall table at least for information or for discussion with the Minister when we reach the Report stage.
Under the Bill, private guards are to have powers to arrest and will be able to search both property and people. The Minister, Mr. Portillo, said that it was up to firms to satisfy themselves about the persons they would employ. However, the Police Federation has expressed serious concern at such persons being given these powers. It expressed this in a letter of protest to the Home Secretary. The complaints are particularly relevant to Clauses 21, 22 and 23.
There is also reference in the Bill to unreasonable duties placed on masters and their consequential exposure to penalties. It should be kept in mind that ships are the homes of seafarers as well as their workplaces. Any searches of crew accommodation should be carried out by police only and not by private security staff.
Clause 19 refers to information that must be supplied by a master. The notice to request information must allow seven days. The Minister must surely realise that this is impractical unless the notice is served before the ship arrives in the UK port. Otherwise turnrounds could be unreasonably lengthened in certain circumstances.
Clause 21 deals with keeping people from the proximity of the ships. It is virtually impossible for the master to accept this responsibility. He may not have the resources to institute the necessary searches, nor would he have the authority to make modifications or supply the specified equipment. The master should be separated from the owners and others mentioned in the clause so that, if necessary, he can be directed not to sail.
Clause 22 contains references to other persons specified in the directions. We should be told who those other persons are. Searches of ships appear not to require a warrant. That makes it even more important that searches should only be carried out by constables and not by private security staff. Obviously Customs staff are in a different class and they would also be entitled to carry out searches.
Clause 24 refers to guarding ships against acts of violence. Who is intended to carry out the guarding? Is it to be the crew members? The words "acts of violence" imply that there is a risk of violence, perhaps by armed individuals. Clause 25 follows on with that point. The qualifications of persons in Clause 25(1) should be defined. In respect of Clause 25(4), surely no one who is unconnected with the Home Office or the police should be able to give authority to constables to carry firearms. It would be interesting to know the views of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation on that point.
One of the most objectionable clauses in the Bill is Clause 29. Despite the Minister's assurance, this
1592
clause could put a master in the position of having to comply with directions which are intended to apply to the owner and to others who are mentioned. However, failure to comply exposes a master to offences and penalties under the provisions of Clause 31. Clause 45(8) and (9) appear to me not to make sense when, under Clause 29(3), a copy of an enforcement order overrides the whole provision of that clause.
This Bill also covers the supply by ships to oil platforms. In a news release by the Department of the Environment of 16th March it was stated that Mr. David Trippier, the Minister of State, had announced on 15th March that the Government would support an amendment to the environment protection legislation to be tabled by Roger Knapman MP which would seek to provide additional controls over marine oil pollution.
The owners of registered vessels are to be held accountable for illegal spillages of oil when in UK harbours. The authorities would be able to obtain direct financial leverage against the owner. At present only masters can be brought to court and anti-pollution measures in merchant shipping legislation are generally targeted at masters. The Bill refers to oil spills when a ship is in harbour. However, there is no reference to spillage by a ship in UK waters outwith harbours.
Although I may have sounded rather critical of the Bill, I did not intend to be. There are obviously parts of the Bill that we cannot give total support to. However, anything that can be done to tighten up airport and maritime security will, of course, gain our support. We will discuss the department's suggestions and say whether we think it has got the matter right. It will be our intention to move a number of amendments in Committee. We hope that all our amendments will be treated as constructive.
4.13 p.m.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, the Minister will not be surprised to find that he obtains general approval for the Bill from all around the House today. That was the case in another place. No one in his right mind would stand in the way of legislation which was properly designed to reduce the fear of terrorism, whether in the air, on land or on the sea. The Bill goes some considerable way to tightening up the existing legislation. In passing I should say that it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I believe that the Bill was to a certain extent his brainchild so it is good to see him taking it through your Lordships' House.
For once in another place there was very little partisan posing either in Committee or on the Floor of the Chamber. That is perhaps the reason for the Bill arriving in this House having been rather better scrutinised than some Bills.
As another aside, I am fascinated to see the word "aerodrome" in the Bill. It is a splendidly archaic word which I have not seen for a long time.
Also in passing perhaps I may ask the Minister how far the provisions already apply to the Channel Tunnel. It is obviously not proper for that to be included in the Bill but I should be interested to

1593
know to what extent the provisions written into the Bill have already been applied to the Channel Tunnel. I ought to know because I spent a great deal of time on the Channel Tunnel Bill in your Lordships' House. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could let me know the answer.
We are glad that the Government are putting into legislation the Montreal Protocol and the Rome Convention. I should like to ask how many other countries have signed those agreements. These are matters which can only be successful if they are carried through on a widespread international basis. How many other nations have signed the protocol and how many, like the British Government, have taken steps to include it in their own legislation?
The Minister will not be surprised to hear that our major worry concerns the question of private security firms taking on the job of police officers. The terrorist attack on the Royal Marines at Deal highlighted the inadequacies of some private security companies. We know that a number of the better ones have first-class employees and take their responsibilities very seriously, both in terms of selection and training of employees. That is by no means the case with every organisation. Such organisations spring up like mushrooms and disappear overnight at an alarming rate. The idea of replacing highly trained police officers with such people, although it may save money, must not be allowed to undermine security.
When one reads of the criminal elements which have infiltrated some companies, one recognises the dangers that are inherent in the situation. It may be a flight of fancy, but one could imagine the possibility of a security company falling into the hands of a foreign power which would use it as a means of infiltrating terrorists into the docks and harbours. That may be fanciful, but until there is an acceptable code of practice—and there is nothing written into the Bill—for the recruitment and training of security officers those worries will continue.
After all, the security firms have to undertake some onerous tasks as well as the more mundane ones. The Bill makes provision for property searches both inside and outside ports and harbours. People living in houses inside a dock area could be searched by the private security firms in their own homes. People who work in the ports and live outside could also be searched in their homes. What redress do people have against private security operators undertaking such searches? We know that if the police were to step out of line when carrying out a search the Police Complaints Authority would be brought into operation. There does not appear to be any form of complaints authority overseeing security firms. That is, therefore, a most important aspect which has not been dealt with successfully in another place.
The second matter that I wish to raise is one that was raised by my honourable friend the Member for Southport, Mr. Ronnie Fearn, in another place. At the Committee stage he sought an amendment to what was then Clause 23 but which is now Clause 25. He sought to delete from subsection (4) the words
1594
from "the direction" to the end of the subsection and to substitute the words:
"inform the local Chief Constable of the direction given and in consultation with him request that constables be duly authorised to carry firearms when carrying out searches or other measures".
The point that he was trying to make was that not everyone should be able to institute the carrying of firearms. In general, the questions asked about the right to carry firearms were adequately answered in another place by the Minister, but this matter is still outstanding. The noble Lord will perhaps recall that on Third Reading my honourable friend raised the matter again, having had an assurance from the Minister, Mr. Portillo, in Standing Committee that his amendment had "considerable attraction" and that the Minister intended to reconsider the phraseology of that part of the Bill, although he said that he was not sure that the proposal was strictly necessary. He went on to say:
"A specific fault in the hon. Gentleman's wording is that it would require constables to be authorised to carry firearms, but that is not enough. We want to ensure that they actually carry them, if that has been specified in the direction. For that reason, I shall not accept his wording. However, I should like to review it to see whether we can provide something better".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 15/2/90; col. 139.]
On Third Reading my honourable friend again asked what had happened to the amendment and there was no reply because the Minister did not reply at the end of the Third Reading debate. Will the Minister, either now or at a later stage in our proceedings, let me know whether the Government have taken a view on the amendment or are prepared to return with one of their own, or whether they consider that the provision is unnecessary?
The question of private security firms is worrying because civil liberties comes into it. The number of searches carried out by those people will be far greater than the number carried out by members of the normal police force. Perhaps I may reiterate once again that we are extremely worried that there appears to be no enforceable code of practice for dealing with such matters. However, having said that—we shall no doubt return to the matter at a later stage of the Bill —let me say that the Bill as a whole has our full support from these Benches. We wish it well and hope that it will go a long way to discouraging terrorists and incidents such as the one at Lockerbie and that involving the "Achille Lauro" to which the Minister referred.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, perhaps I may also say how pleased I am to see the Minister reverting to his former incarnation on this Bill, if only temporarily.
I shall confine my brief remarks to the maritime section of the Bill. The Minister has already pointed out a number of recent occasions when terrorists have attacked ships. The memories of some noble Lords may go back a little further to 1961 when a Portuguese passenger liner, the "Santa Maria", was effectively hijacked by rebels. It was at sea for over a week before being tracked down and finally forced into port in Brazil. Thankfully, terrorist events are rarer at sea than they are in the air. There are several obvious reasons for that. It is more difficult to seize a ship. They are not as standard in layout as aircraft;

1595
indeed, hardly any two ships are the same. In addition, an aircraft can normally be steered towards what I might term a friendly country within a comparatively short period of time, whereas a ship might need perhaps two or three days' steaming to reach a friendly country, with the added risk of running out of fuel on the way.
One of my worries in legislation of this kind regarding terrorism and security is that any benefits accruing from it, however necessary the legislation might be, are largely negated if applied on a unilateral basis. For example, what is the use of one port at one end of a regular ferry service having the latest and most sophisticated equipment if the port at the other end does not have the equipment to match it? We in this country are perhaps more advanced than most in that respect. Indeed, the passenger facility at the port of Tilbury has the most sophisticated X-ray machinery available. It can search every single item of baggage that goes aboard a ship, whether cabin or hold baggage. That is very admirable, but we must ensure that the standard of equipment used by the ports is used on a worldwide basis; otherwise, there is no point in proceeding. I feel that it is perhaps better to proceed on a broad basis working through the International Maritime Organisation, for instance, rather than on a unilateral or even an EC basis.
I share the anxieties voiced by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Tordoff, regarding the creation of a new inspectorate which is to be given very wide powers of search, detention of ships and interrogation. The inspectors' qualifications are not spelt out in the Bill, and their duties would seem to me to be of a kind much better carried out by the police.
I agree with other remarks that have already been made regarding the issue of firearms. I am sure that we shall revert to those points at the Committee stage. I shall touch briefly on one other matter; namely, that directions can be given to extend the search of persons or property to those who have access to a port. That includes a very wide range of people, such as hauliers, freight forwarders and so on. Such searches could cover the whole country. I believe that that is a function to be carried out by the police in the normal course of their duties. It is a matter perhaps best dealt with by the Home Secretary rather than the Secretary of State for Transport.
In these uncertain times it is wise to be prepared and safe rather than sorry. Therefore I wish the Bill well. However, I again emphasise that common policies and common standards of protection, enforced worldwide by means of an IMO convention, are perhaps the best and ultimately the safest way of achieving the desired result. I hope that the Government will proceed along those lines.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, one way or another I can support every noble Lord who has so far spoken. It is interesting to note that when the transport specialists get together their speeches interrelate much more than in the adversarial
1596
discussions that we sometimes have in this Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, spoke in particular about the duties imposed on ships' masters. At the back of my mind is the question of whether it would not be worth going back five or six years to look at an early football Bill and the duties that we imposed on coach drivers with regard to their passengers. Noble Lords will remember that we did not impose by means of an amendment the same duties upon locomotive drivers of passenger trains who were felt to be in a more remote position.
My welcome for the Bill is tinged with some regret because of the sorry pass we have come to in needing such legislation in the first place. Sadly we are potentially all victims of terrorism. We need the Bill. I have regrets; nevertheless I congratulate my noble friend on having brought the Bill forward.
I have three reservations about the measure —one fairly global and touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and the other two somewhat closer to home. It seems to me that aviation security is a chain, not least because there is so much transit traffic through London's intercontinental airports. Are the Government satisfied that the actions that we are discussing today will be mirrored throughout the world? It is one thing to devise a convention or protocal. It is a second thing to get the signatories to it. That can take a long time. And even when one has the signatories it is a third thing beyond our jurisdiction to make sure that they abide by the document that they have signed and undertake the activities to which they have committed themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, mentioned common standards when discussing ports on this side of the Channel and ports on the other side. The main reason that I wish to raise the matter is because of the debate that we had last month on the report of our Select Committee on Overseas Aid. It came across very strongly that it is no good giving people in some countries of the third world high technology equipment —and high technology equipment comes within the remit of the Bill—if they do not have the ability to use or maintain it and if they do not have hard currency resources to buy spare parts when needed.
A simple example stems from a friend on mine who was until recently our deputy high commissioner in Kaduna, Nigeria. I asked him, "How are Nigerian railways?" He said, "They are in terrible trouble." The reason is lack of skills to maintain the locomotives and lack of resources to buy the parts for such maintenance. A railway locomotive is a relatively unsophisticated piece of equipment compared with the high technology that will be needed around the world in support of the proposals in the Bill. Are the Government convinced that the common standards to which the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Greenway, in their different ways, have touched upon will be available to us?
Closer to home, I ask a much simpler question. The Bill deals with airports, planes, ports and ships. Can my noble friend assure me that it also deals with what I might call new technology means of crossing water such as hovercraft and catamarans?
Several noble Lords wish to see common standards. I have a reservation relating to the islands

1597
off our coasts. I think of the Isle of Wight, the Scillies and the Scottish islands. We are looking for universal standards world wide. I am concerned about the effect upon places such as Bembridge airfield, Fishbourne, Land's End airfield, or perhaps I may call it aerodrome, St. Mary's in the Isles of Scilly, and the ferry ports and airports of the inner and outer Scottish islands such as Barra, Benbecula, and Campbeltown. We could be in danger. The cost of applying necessary standards —and people fly from Barra to Glasgow, to Heathrow and elsewhere—could penalise those passengers and freight shippers who depend upon the Isles of Scilly steamship company, the Isle of Wight ferry, the Isles of Scilly skybus aviation operation, or, Caledonian MacBrayne. These carriers are essential to the livelihoods of the island communities which they serve. I therefore ask my noble friend for an assurance that these islands' terminals and carriers will not be so directed as a result of the Bill that passengers and freight are penalised. With those questions I am happy to support the Bill.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am very pleased to note that there has been such a generally warm welcome for the Bill. I believe that it is important that there should be no significant differences of opinion about the proposals in the Bill so that we in your Lordships' House can demonstrate a united approach in the fight against international terrorism. I am grateful also to those who welcomed me back to this role. However, I cannot help being reminded of the night of the Lockerbie accident, which was one of the most harrowing events that I have ever had to attend.
A number of points were raised during the short debate and I shall attempt to deal with as many as possible. However, I suspect that I must deal with some of the detailed points raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Tordoff in Committee. At this stage I shall try to deal with many of the points in a general manner.
Both noble Lords rightly asked about the quality of security staff and the use of private security firms. The Government make the rules and set the standards for security. It is for industry to implement those requirements and standards. The Department of Transport lays down a code of practice for the recruitment of directly employed security staff, the training to be given and the prescribed physical standards to be fulfilled. The department carries out inspections to ensure that satisfactory standards are achieved.
Where private security firms are used for aviation security they must be members of the British Security Industry Association or the International Professional Security Association. They must be bound by their terms of contracts to comply with the associations' rules. Subject to that, it is not the Government's function to say which particular firms an airline or an airport may employ. It is not realistic to employ the police throughout airports inspecting baggage, operating archway metal detectors and so forth—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I accept what he said about airports. Is he saying that the same provisions will apply to ports and harbours?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure whether the requirements relating to membership of the various associations, training and so forth will apply to ports. I must come back to the noble Lord about that.
The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Tordoff, asked about ports police. Nothing proposed in the Bill will have any effect on the powers or status of port police forces. We have agreed to full consultation with the industry and other interested parties on the future of port police forces.
In association with that I turn to the arming of police forces. Again nothing in the Bill will require, allow or lead to the arming of police forces. The authority to carry firearms can be given only by the chief constable. The other persons to carry out security functions would be specified by the Secretary of State. He will endeavour to use the procedures which have served the aviation industry over many years in the same way for the maritime industry. Perhaps that answers in part the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. There is no reason to believe that the private security procedures used in the aviation industry are unsuitable for equivalent maritime settings.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, raised the old question of the aviation security fund. As he is aware, the Bill contains no provisions to revive the fund. The Government do not accept the idea that there must be a centrally run fund to ensure that security improvements are implemented. The absence of the fund since 1983, when it was wound up, has in no way prejudiced the implementation of measures in the aviation security programme. If the fund were to be re-established, the administrative costs of running it would have to be met from the moneys raised. A nationally administered fund would provide no incentive for efficiency. The Government remain convinced that aviation security should be funded by airlines, airports and others in the industry. They should foot the Bill because security is for the benefit of passengers and air crew. There is no evidence to show that airports have lacked money to implement security measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, also asked whether the searching of aircraft parked overnight, as recommended by the Select Committee, was being enforced. Yes, it is a requirement of the national aviation security programme that such aircraft should be checked before being brought back into service. The noble Lord also asked whether cargo should be accepted only from known shippers. Again the national aviation security programme requires cargo other than that from known shippers to be subject to security screening procedures.
On the maritime side, the noble Lord was concerned about persons other than the police undertaking searching and guarding duties. He was also concerned about the imposition of duties on the master. I recognise that those are important points

1599
of concern and we shall have an opportunity to discuss them fully and give them proper consideration in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, asked me how many other countries had signed the two protocols which this Bill covers. Ten have signed the Montreal Protocol and to date six countries have signed the Rome Convention and the protocol. There is every indication that the Rome Convention and the protocol will secure worldwide international support. We hope that our ratification will encourage others to follow us.
In passing, the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, is aware that this does not affect the Channel Tunnel. However, security arrangements for the Channel Tunnel are still being discussed with Eurotunnel and the railway authorities.
The noble Lord, was concerned about searches of property outside harbour areas under Clause 23(2)(b). A search can only apply to land occupied for the purposes of a business.
Reverting to the constables and firearms issue, the noble Lord asked what happened to the amendment of his honourable friend in another place. That matter is still being examined and I hope to be able to return to it in Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and my noble friend Lord Mountevans said that the benefits of the Bill would be negated if measures were applied unilaterally and that we needed to ensure that the measures were applied worldwide. I believe that that was as regards the maritime rather than aviation provisions. The IMO has provided guidance on a worldwide basis. The Government are discussing comparable standards with foreign governments and will be pursuing that on a broader basis as suggested.
Following on from that point, both the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and my noble friend Lord Mountevans said that security would be wasted if ships were vulnerable in foreign ports. However, the Bill enables the UK to meet the requirements of the IMO and, for aviation security, the IKO. I agree that we must work through those bodies to ensure that standards are applied worldwide. However, responsibility for security in foreign ports and airports must rest with the governments concerned. That said, I assure the House that the Government will spare no effort to encourage other states to adopt those standards and, if invited to do so, to consider how best to advise and help them.
My noble friend Lord Mountevans asked whether the Bill deals with hovercraft, catamarans and other forms of maritime transport. It will do so. He was also concerned about the possible impact of the Bill on smaller domestic flights and short domestic sea voyages. As regards domestic flights, the Secretary of State determines the security procedures to be applied. The present position is that for domestic flights other than those to and from Northern Ireland security measures are implemented in full in respect of all airlines registered or operating in the UK with aircraft having a maximum take-off weight exceeding 15 tonnes. Limited measures apply to domestic flights of small aircraft of a maximum
1600
take-off weight not exceeding 15 tonnes. As I said, special security measures apply to flights to and from Northern Ireland.
As regards sea voyages, it is intended that security provisions will apply to domestic seafaring routes on an individual basis. They will be designed to meet the perceived needs of the particular route in question. Clearly some routes are more sensitive than others and while appropriate levels of security will be introduced, we do not wish generally to introduce high levels unless there is a good reason for doing so.
I hope that I have managed to answer some of the questions raised during this afternoon's debate. I have no doubt that we shall revert to some points at the next stage. This new legislation, taken together with the Aviation Security Act 1982, will provide a stronger statutory framework for aviation and maritime security. However, security is only as effective as those in the front line responsible for enforcing it. There is therefore a responsibility on all who work at airports and ports to be eternally vigilant and to co-operate in making security procedures work. Passengers also have their part to play by being co-operative, patient and forbearing; their willingness to do so has been particularly evident since Lockerbie.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that notes on clauses will be available very shortly and I hope that your Lordships will now give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

National Code of Local Government Conduct
4.46 p.m.
Lord Reay Lord Reay rose to move, That the draft code laid before the House on 20th March be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft National Code of Local Government Conduct be approved. This code of conduct has been laid by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Wales and Scotland under Section 31 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. The code is for the guidance of members and there are no criminal sanctions attached to it. Nevertheless it sets the standard of conduct which members of local authorities will be expected to uphold, and against which they will be judged by the public and their fellow councillors. I am pleased to report that approval to the draft code was given by the other place on 3rd April. I would now hope that your Lordships' approval will also be forthcoming.
A code of conduct for councillors was originally proposed in 1974 by the Prime Minister's Committee on Local Government Rules of Conduct, chaired by Lord Redcliffe-Maud, which was set up in the wake of the Poulson corruption scandal. It was intended not only to set clear standards in areas of uncertainty, but also to increase public confidence in the integrity of local government. The draft code

1601
which they put forward forms the basis of the existing National Code of Local Government Conduct which was agreed by the local authority associations in England Wales and Scotland, and issued as a joint departmental circular in 1975. This code was warmly welcomed by the Royal Commission on Standards in Public: Life, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, who described it as an "admirable document".
The code was looked at again by the Widdicombe Committee which concluded in 1986 that while the code served a valuable purpose in encouraging proper conduct by councillors, it needed clarifying and updating. The Government agreed this conclusion, and accordingly set up a joint working group with officials and representatives of the local authority associations to revise the code. The draft code which is before the House is largely the fruit of their endeavours, modified as appropriate by subsequent comments received from the local authority associations. I am glad to report to your Lordships that the new code has been generally welcomed by the local authority associations and is regarded as an improvement on the 1975 version.
In modifying the code we have, so far as possible, tried to retain the general format and style of the 1975 code. The main changes have been to the section dealing with non-pecuniary interests which has previously caused problems for councillors involved with public bodies and voluntary groups, which have been prevented from speaking on the very subjects about which they have experience and expertise. The code now enables councillors in this situation to speak, and sometimes to vote, provided they have declared the interest. This parallels more closely the law on pecuniary interests.
The new code also provides a procedure for councillors to "self-dispense" themselves in certain circumstances, enabling them to speak and vote where they would otherwise be required to withdraw. These criteria are similar to those used by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to give statutory dispensations to speak and vote where councillors have a pecuniary interest.
I should mention that it is the Government's intention to make the necessary orders under Section 30 of the 1989 Act that will require councillors, on accepting office, to declare that they will be guided by the code, to come into effect on 3rd May for the new intake of councillors. We also intend commencing Section 32 on the same day so that the complete package of reforms intended to enhance the status of and give greater prominence to the code will be in place for the forthcoming local government elections.
Finally, I mention very briefly the statutory register of members' pecuniary interests, since although we are not debating that today, it concerns the same general issue of members' conduct. We intend introducing the necessary regulations to enable the new statutory requirements to come into effect on 1st October. We have always made clear that the register would be introduced somewhat later than the new code. The register can be introduced at any time, while the code must be in place by 3rd May so that the newly-elected councillors can declare
1602
their acceptance of it. For the register we need to consult not only on the policy, which we have done, but also on the drafting of the regulations, which we shall do.
Turning once again to the draft code, I have no hesitation in commending it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft code laid before the House on 20th March be approved [Nth Report from the Joint Committee].—{Lord Reay.)
4.50 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, we on this side of the House are very well satisfied with the appearance of the code, and I understand from our contacts with the local authority associations that they are satisfied that the code, so far as it goes, serves the purpose intended. The Minister is quite right in alluding in the history of these matters to the sad situation of some aspects of local government in the early 1970s. He also mentioned the Widdicombe Report. I have read very carefully the report of proceedings in another place, as the noble Minister will no doubt understand. Many of the questions I would normally have raised have already been raised by my honourable friends in another place.
There is one point on which I think the Minister should say a word or two. That is the register of interests. We on this side of the House see both the code and the register as part and parcel of the same nexus. Therefore, although the Minister has made out a case for wanting to get the code working in practice before 3rd May, so that it binds the incoming councillors, the register of interests, with its divisions into pecuniary and non-pecuniary columns, is something that can wait. We would like the Minister to say just a little more about the consultation he is going to have to ensure that this result comes about.
I should like to direct the Minister to paragraph 9 of the code, where we are talking about pecuniary interests which can be just as important, and non-pecuniary interests which can be just as important. It says there, as the Minister knows:
"Private and personal interests include those of your family and friends, as well as those arising through membership of, or association with, clubs, societies and other organisations such as the Freemasons, trade unions and voluntary bodies."
I should like to say to the Minister that we believe membership of a masonic lodge ought to be a declarable interest. It is an honourable estate and something which many people in this country are proud to belong to, but I believe that because of the nature of Freemasonry it is something that ought to be known publicly.
The other point I want to raise is that the code talks in terms of members of local councils who fail to declare a pecuniary interest or who give false or misleading information for the register. Apparently they are liable on conviction to a fine of up to £1,000. I wonder whether the Minister can tell us why such a punitive cost is not visited upon Members of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords. Why should local councillors carry the burden? Of course, they must act honourably, declare interests and comply with certain criteria. That monetary penalty,

1603
however, does not appear anywhere as being applicable if a Member of either House transgresses. Those are the two points on which I should be grateful for the views of the Minister. I certainly accept, as he has said, that there is unanimity across the political spectrum that the code and the register are necessary, and are welcomed in 1990.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, asked me about the register. In that regard we intend to lay the necessary regulations before the Summer Recess, after we have consulted the local authority associations. We see the question of the register as being a separate issue from that of the code, and we want to have further discussions.
The noble Lord also referred to non-pecuniary interests and asked whether they should be included in the compulsory register. In our view, it would not be appropriate to include non-pecuniary interests. They are much more diffuse, and it would be impossible to provide a definition sufficiently robust to give grounds for making failure to register a criminal offence. The noble Lord referred to the code of conduct and penalties for a breach of it in respect of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. I do not think that it would be proper for me to say anything about that. That is a separate matter which is for the Houses themselves.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Redbridge London Borough Council Bill
4.55 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill seeks authority for the London borough of Redbridge to establish a market in Ilford. I have been asked to speak at Second Reading because my former constituency lay in the other part of the London borough of Redbridge.
The Bill comes to us after extensive scrutiny and debate in another place, much of which I have read. I doubt if everyone will disagree with me if I were to venture an opinion that some parts of those debates appeared to owe more to factors other than the specific issue of whether Redbridge should be allowed to have its market. Be that as it may, there were long debates. Perhaps, because of the controversy that apparently surrounded the Bill, I owe it to the House to explain a little of its background.
Ten years ago, in April 1980, after a long public inquiry, the borough council adopted what was called the Ilford Town Centre Action Area Plan. In doing so, the council accepted all the recommendations made to it by an independent inspector appointed by the Secretary of State. The plan now constitutes the current development plan for the area.
The plan has been the catalyst for some very remarkable improvements which have taken place
1604
in the physical environment of Ilford town centre. There is a new relief road, the A118, which takes through traffic away from the main shopping area. There is the pedestrianisation of the high road itself and in addition there is a splendid new award-winning central library and many other features. All of this has made Ilford today a really attractive place to live, work and in particular to shop. I believe that the local authority deserves considerable credit for that.
Such is the confidence of business in its new town centre that two major insurance companies are currently investing around £100 million in a new development to be known as the Exchange at Ilford. When finished this will provide 51,000 square metres of new shopping floor space together with a car park with 1,200 spaces.
The Ilford Town Centre Action Area Plan referred to the potential of
"an attractive covered retail market"
which, together with other developments,
"could be a vital feature of the improved shopping centre"
since it was recognised that a successful shopping centre depends, among other factors, on the diversity and breadth of choice available to consumers who themselves are becoming more and more discriminating.
Since the adoption of the plan, the council has had a number of approaches on behalf of about 250 traders who wish to see established an open market in Ilford. Planning permission was granted to an applicant to use one small town centre site for such a purpose. Moreover, the council has power under Section 50 of the Food Act 1984 to establish such a market within its district.
The question immediately poses itself: why then does it need this Bill? In this respect one has to go back not just 10 years, but about seven centuries, for the legal protection of markets is nearly as old as the common law itself. We must assume that our ancestors believed that, in order to avoid what they saw as undesirable competition between rival markets, where a market was established by royal writ, no new market was allowed to be established within a distance of six and two-thirds miles.
Further, even where there is now no extant evidence of such a royal writ, the law established the fiction of a,
"lost modern grant"
which is deemed to have the same effect. Section 50 of the 1984 Act does not override that ancient common law. Therefore, if a council wishes to establish a new market within six and two-thirds miles of an existing market, whether established by royal writ or by lost modern grant, the only way for that council to avoid being sued for infringement of the law is to obtain express statutory authority; hence we have the Bill.
Your Lordships may ask why six and two-thirds miles. The source of that rule appears to be in the writings of the great English jurist, Bracton, in the 13th Century. He treated six and two third miles as being one third of the Roman dieta— that is, a day's journey. The effect is that a man going to market

1605
should have one-third of a day to get there, one-third to attend to his business in the market and one-third to return home. If one does one's sums it probably meant that he was driving a flock of sheep as well, otherwise he would get to market rather quicker than in one-third of a day.
Therefore, we have the position that if the rival market was within six and two-thirds miles, it would attract customers who might otherwise go to the authorised market; that is, if the distance is less than six and two-thirds miles. Correspondingly, if the authorised market was given a wider protection than six and two-thirds miles people would have to spend much longer in getting to what would be their nearest market; hence the limit of six and two-thirds miles.
I draw attention to a recent remark made by the Vice-Chancellor of the Chancery Division, Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson, who in a High Court case last year said:
"The whole basis of the rule [the six and two-thirds miles rule] unbelievably archaic as it is, is therefore linked to the distance from an actual market, the customers of that market and their ability to get to it".
One might be tempted to think that such an archaic law has no place in a modern society which has motor cars, trains and buses, where consumers increasingly want choice and diversity and, moreover, in a world which has come to recognise that consumer choice is best served by competition.
However, it remains the law and those seeking a new market must take account of it. Human nature being what it is, the existing market owners and market traders who ultimately benefit from the restriction—for such it is—will fight like tigers to protect their vested interest.
In this case there are rival markets which enjoy protection at common law within a distance of six and two-thirds miles of Ilford town centre. They are located at Romford in the neighbouring London Borough of Havering. The distances are about four and three quarters and five miles away. It is claimed—I have to say that it is not disputed by Redbridge—that Havering has market rights by virtue of a writ issued in 1247, in the reign of Henry III, establising a market at Romford which enables Havering to hold markets anywhere in Romford on every Wednesday throughout the year.
Havering council also asserts that it has a right, established in common law, under the concept of a "lost modern grant", to hold a market in Romford on Saturdays throughout the year. In addition, Havering has exercised power under Section 50 of the Food Act to establish a further market held on Fridays in Romford throughout the year. Therefore, Havering has three markets, all of a similar nature. There are approximately 600 stall places of which most market traders have two and some, three. The market therefore supports about 300 traders at any one time. The goods sold in the markets are of a general nature, including food, and there is also an antique and speciality section in the market.
I have to say that the market is and has been immensely successful. It undoubtedly forms a considerable attraction at the centre of Romford. Havering is proud of its markets, and rightly so; but
1606
does that entitle Havering to stop Redbridge having a market of its own merely because it would be within six and two-thirds miles of the Romford market? With respect, I do not think that it does, especially, if I may say so, given the relatively modest nature of the Redbridge proposal embodied in this Bill.
I turn now to deal with the Bill. Its proposal is very modest. There will be only one market and it must be located within one mile of Ilford Town Hall. It will be held on council-owned land which is currently used as a car park with space for 50 cars and it will be situated towards the eastern end of Ilford town centre beneath what is called the Griggs Approach Road flyover which forms part of the town centre ring road.
The market will contain some 80 stalls, as compared with Romford's 600. In fact, given the need to provide adequate facilities on site and circulation areas for servicing, it could not physically accommodate more. It will be a high class market selling a wide range of goods, although, as one might expect, offensive and obnoxious products will not be sold and no stall will be permitted to operate if it will cause a nuisance. It may be open for up to six days a week but not on Sundays.
Even if the Bill is passed, the market will still need planning permission. That will be sought and will be subject to the full planning consultation procedures in the normal way. I must point out that the Redbridge market is very strongly supported by the Redbridge Chamber of Trade and Commerce and the Ilford Traders Association. That is an important point. It used to be said that the established shop-keepers and department stores in an area rather dreaded the thought of a tatty open air market being situated somewhere near them as they would feel that it would lower the tone of the area and perhaps drive shoppers away. However, today such is the attraction of these modern open-air markets that they are an added inducement.
The Ilford Chamber of Commerce and the Ilford Traders Association organised a petition because of the efforts being made by the London Borough of Havering to block the Bill. In the relatively short time that the petition was being completed it attracted 6,500 signatures of people in favour of a Redbridge Market. Perhaps I may quote from an article in a local newspaper, the Ilford Recorder. On 4th May of last year the newspaper wrote strongly in support of the council's Bill. While making the point about the Romford Market, the article stated:
"Nothing that has been thriving for 642 years" —
it is now 643 years —
"is going to be upstaged by a newcomer but that newcomer could enhance a town that surely deserves it. Ilford's town centre has fitted together like a giant jigsaw. Now let's have the missing piece".
Again, the two insurance companies strongly support this proposal. In emphasising the importance which they attach to the market, they say that it would complement the major new shopping centre development and will be a great benefit to the town. They have invested heavily in the project and they do not feel that their new shopping centre, which is only a stone's throw from the site of the

1607
proposed market, has anything to fear; nor should Havering have anything to fear with its markets, which, as I said, are between four-and-a-half and five miles away from the area.
Therefore, one has to ask why Havering council still objects to the Bill. The council's Petition to the House is a long one and it would be quite inappropriate for me to deal with it now in detail. But if your Lordships agree to give the Bill a Second Reading, it can be sent to a Select Commitee where the Petition will no doubt be examined fairly and thoroughly.
The main burden of the council's case is that it is entitled to the ancient common law protection which is based on the six and two-thirds miles rule. The council justifies that fact by arguing that the market at Ilford will be "seriously detrimental" to the success of the Romford markets. Redbridge vigorously refutes that argument and it has a mass of consultants' evidence to support its case. However, it is an issue best argued out before the Select Committee rather than in this Chamber.
It is right to point out at this stage that during the passage of the Bill through another place several significant amendments were made in Havering's favour, including—and I read this with some astonishment —a right in perpetuity, as I understand it, to have paid over to Havering 10 per cent. of Redbridge's profits from its market. I thought that was perhaps going a bit far but I was told that the matter could not be re-opened in this House because of well-established rules between the two Houses. Redbridge has accepted this, even though it argues strenuously that its 80-stall market, nearly five miles from Romford's 600-stall market, will have a negligible, if even noticeable, effect. I see the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, in his place. He will no doubt develop the case against the Bill. Perhaps I should do better to reply to his comments, if I can, at the end of the debate.
The case for the London Borough of Redbridge is straightforward. There is a strong demand for an open market at Ilford. Councils can normally meet this demand by using their powers under Section 50 of the Food Act 1984. Redbridge cannot do so on this occasion because of the existence of an ancient royal writ market and an alleged lost modern grant market—a legal fiction—at Romford, some 4–84 miles away. That market enjoys what the courts have described as an "archaic" protection at common law. In addition to its two common law markets, Romford has itself established a third market under Section 50. It has expanded its own market operations.
The proposals of the borough of Redbridge are modest: only one market on a small site. The borough is quite certain that it will cause no loss to the Romford markets. However, it is prepared to offer compensation and the Bill now reflects that to the tune of 10 per cent. of the annual profits in perpetuity. The best place to test the arguments about loss of trade, size, location, trading days and compensation must be in the Select Committee and not on Second Reading. However, the Bill will not
1608
get there if the House does not give it a Second Reading. I hope it will do so. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
5.11 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I too hope, in fact I know, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading. Like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I shall rest content that detailed scrutiny of the Bill will be carried out properly and carefully in a Select Committee of your Lordships' House.
I wish to begin by acknowledging that from his knowledge of the area, his commitment to the people of the area in his previous role, and his careful reading of what has happened so far, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has given the House a fair picture of the desires of Redbridge Council and of the concerns of Havering Council.
I wish to declare an interest. I advise the National Market Traders' Federation on parliamentary affairs. To that extent I shall put forward the worries of market traders. They are not opposed to but alongside those of the Havering Council. I have had the benefit of the references brought directly to my attention by Havering Council and, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, having seen the petition that has been put in. It will go to the Opposed Bill Committee and will quite rightly be argued out there.
The National Market Traders' Federation makes no great claims. It has 25,000 members, some of whom stand at the market of Romford. There are many more than 25,000 market traders throughout the country. The federation does not claim that it represents the views of market traders. It is inevitable that in a democracy such as ours one seeks to represent views of some people who favour and some who are against proposals.
If we look at the action taken we know that at least one-third of the ruling Conservative Party in Redbridge is opposed to the Bill. It comes before us from a divided council. We know that it is opposed by a united council as concerns Havering. We know that when the Bill reached us it had received a Third Reading in another place by the very narrow majority of 48 to 43 votes. Therefore we are looking at a piece of legislation which is certainly not universally welcomed.
The legislation bears directly on the interests of the London boroughs of Redbridge and Havering. However, it affects much more than simply the interests of those two boroughs. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, mentioned a matter which I would refer to as charter rights. In this instance we are talking about a charter right dating back not to time immemorial but to the year 1247. Hundreds of places have charter rights. Those places have established markets with accompanying rights. Those rights were enjoyed in the main by local authorities, although that was not always exclusively the case.
The Select Committee of this House will, I hope, not consider just the narrow confines of the Bill, but rather the totality of what is envisaged. There are

1609
many areas with charter markets which could be affected by the historic precedent that will be set by the Bill when it becomes an Act. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, very fairly gave us the history of this matter. In 1891 a Royal Commission considered the grievances that many people felt as regards the protections that were enjoyed under charter rights. The Royal Commission recommended that those ancient rights should be abolished. However, that recommendation was never proceeded with. I submit to your Lordships that 100 years later it is about time that a Royal Commission or a government body of some kind should look at the whole situation. I submit that it is not right, fair or proper that the ancient market rights which have been enjoyed in many of our towns and cities should be whittled away. I can tell the House that if the Bill becomes an Act it is likely to be the beginning of a long continuous process of action by neighbouring authorities which will use the Redbridge Bill as a precedent for their own actions.
I referred to markets which could be affected by the measure. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, quite fairly pointed out what was proposed in the Bill. The preamble to the Bill states that it would be of public and local advantage to provide for the establishment of a market in the part of the borough known as Ilford, notwithstanding any infringement or non-compliance with any rule of law or enactment. We shall have to assess what is meant by the words
"public and local advantage".
The noble Lord said that in the absence of agreement, as in this case—market rights can, of course, be breached, assuaged or compromised if there is agreement—the Private Bill route could be used to override existing rights and entitlements. I believe that that is a dangerous precedent. I certainly think we should consider carefully in your Lordships' House before we embark on this costly piece of legislation, as we have been given the Bill on a tenuous basis. It is not only costly to your Lordships' House but also to the authorities concerned. I know that authorities these days are very careful about the amount of money they spend and about the size of the poll tax that they levy. I shudder to think what the poll tax payers in both the boroughs I have referred to are saying as regards the enormous cost of this measure.
I have looked at what happened in another place. I picked up a suggestion that the sponsors of the Bill have seen fit to allocate £50,000 and £4,000 a month plus expenses for their lobbyists. I do not know whether that is true, but it was never denied. Big money is being spent on behalf of ratepayers in order to achieve those ends.
It is right that I should indicate to the House the position of the London Borough of Havering. A great deal of its case has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and I am grateful to him for saving the time of the House. He is right about the distances and the special protections involved. Redbridge council is perfectly entitled to establish a statutory market within its own borough. If it chooses Co site it in the part of the borough which is outside the six and two-thirds miles from Romford then Havering would have no say in the matter.
1610
However, if it wishes to site a statutory market within six and two-thirds miles of Romford market it can do so only by obtaining the consent of Havering. In effect, the Bill seeks to require Havering to tolerate a rival market at Ilford, operating six days a week, notwithstanding that it infringes the Romford market rights. Havering would therefore be placed in much the same position as if it had been compelled to grant a licence in perpetuity for that rival market.
I do not have the same knowledge of either Ilford or Romford as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. However, I have been to the Romford market a score of times. The noble Lord is right; it is a good market. I have not visited the market in connection with the Bill, but I used to live in Becontree and therefore I know the Ilford market. I noted his sense of pride in the way Ilford town centre has become alive. I passed by it a month ago and I did not recognise where I was. I could not see Harrison Gibson's, I could not see the ice-cream shop that I used to go to and I could not see a great deal of the Ilford I used to know. However, I know what the noble Lord was talking about. It is a vibrant place. Nevertheless, in the context of Havering, a market at Ilford is likely to be a danger.
We maintain that there is no real difference in the circumstances applicable to Romford market and those applicable to common law markets up and down the country. Conceding the principle in this Bill would make easier the compulsory extinction of other market rights.
The Bill is being promoted by Redbridge and still being opposed as a matter of principle by Havering—and that needs to be put on the record for the Select Committee to take careful note of the fact. Although agreements of a kind have been reached, particularly in respect of compensation, in another place the Members who represent Havering—who in my view did a very good job as constituency MPs—hammered home time and time again the fact that the London Borough of Havering does not want the Bill even though substantial changes have been made to it.
Already neighbouring London boroughs are making discreet inquiries as to the progress of the Bill and may consider doing something similar.
It is a question of compromise. Is it possible to compromise and avoid a great deal of cost? Attempts have been made to reach a compromise. However, it would be a compromise on a principle. There are some principles which we all hold on which we would not compromise. This is a principle upon which apparently compromise cannot be reached. However, I hope that an accommodation can still be reached at this late stage on what Ilford wants and what Havering denies it in order to avoid the enormous costs involved in the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to the Petition. He said that this may not be the appropriate place to go through it in detail. However, in making the case for the committee to consider it is right for me to quote selectively from the Petition. Paragraph 11 states:
"As a result, market traders have built up substantial businesses and your Petitioners are aware of large sums having been paid

1611
for goodwill of businesses established in the market. The market is extremely successful, forming an attraction to Romford, and is considered by your Petitioners to be a major factor in the economic success of Romford town centre".
Paragraph 14 states:
"The Bill would enable the Council to establish the proposed market at Ilford without regard to the common law rights enjoyed by your Petitioners".
The committee should consider the manner in which common law rights will be taken away from people who enjoy those rights. Paragraph 15 states:
"Your Petitioners submit that it is not proper for their market rights to be removed in this way. As a matter of policy, all public general Acts relating to local authority markets, found in Part III of the Food Act 1984 and its predecessors, have scrupulously preserved all rights such as those enjoyed by your Petitioners. The proposals in the Bill accordingly represent a departure from a policy accepted nationwide by governments of varying political complexions. The Bill should be seen as running contrary to the accepted norm and should not be allowed in the absence of special circumstances. In your Petitioners' submission there are none in the present case".
Paragraph 16 states:
"The preservation of rights such as your Petitioners' is not, it is submitted, the perpetuation of an ancient and unjustified monopoly. Market law in England and Wales forms an integral part of the system of checks and balances which has been evolved over the centuries to cater for the needs of a mobile society in which regulation is required to some degree so as to ensure that enterprise and prosperity are not stifled by uncontrolled free trade".
I turn now to the main point which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, thought was the cause of the aggravation in Havering. Paragraph 18 states:
"The Bill would jeopardise Romford's position. By giving the Council power to establish the proposed market in sufficiently close proximity to your Petitioners' market to attract rival trade and within the common law protected distance, the Bill would in your Petitioners' opinion be likely to result in the Romford/Ilford area becoming over endowed with markets all vying with each other for a comparatively limited volume of trade, to the disadvantage of all concerned".
The noble Lord tells me that there are consultants and advisers able to produce statistics which show that that is not true. Paragraph 18 continues:
"Your Petitioners consider that the small size of the proposed market compared with Romford market is to a large extent offset by the fact that the proposed market will operate six days each week as against Romford's three. If the proposed market were to be covered its advantage would be further increased".
Paragraph 19 states:
"They [your Petitioners] nonetheless submit that the movement of trade from one town to another does not increase its volume but merely effects a redistribution, in the present case from a town which is reliant upon its market to one which is not. Your Petitioners fear that there is not sufficient trade to support markets held in such close proximity, especially if they are held on the same days".
Paragraph 21 states:
"Your Petitioners are greatly concerned by the complete absence in the Bill of any provision for the protection of the market traders whose livelihoods are likely to be badly affected by a rival market at Ilford or the other businesses in Romford whose trade may suffer if your Petitioners' market ceases to prosper. Nothing in clause 4 would benefit such people whose loss would not, therefore, attract any monetary compensation".
I am not competent to say whether that is so. However, if the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is correct—namely, that the incredible amount of 10 per cent. in perpetuity is to compensate
1612
the London Borough of Havering, not the shopkeepers or the stallholders for a diminution in their profits —that point must be taken into account by the committee.
Your Lordships' Select Committee will have a very onerous responsibility. Not only must it draw upon the history of this issue, it must consider the very closely divided way in which the Bill was brought before it. It will look at the narrow majority that the Bill obtained at Third Reading in another place. It must also look at the enormous domino effect which, in my view, will be put into operation if this Bill is enacted.
I referred earlier to other places which have markets that could be affected: Yeovil, Banbury, Chelmsford, Swindon, Plymouth, Shipley, Watford, Mid-Staffordshire—I pick that up particularly and perhaps Mrs. Heal will be interested to follow up that point—Grantham, Witney, Bridgewater, Kingston-upon-Thames, Morecambe and Lunsdale, Huntingdon—a certain gentleman called Mr. John Major may be interested—Plymouth Devonport, Aylesbury, Ribble Valley—of interest to a certain gentleman who is the Home Secretary—Colchester South and Maldon —there there is the Minister for Energy —Bristol West —which is the constituency of Mr. Waldegrave—Worcester, and so on. All those places have markets which are currently protected by a charter. In my view all those markets will —not could —be at risk if this Bill makes progress.
I ask your Lordships to take very careful note of all that has been said. I look forward with confidence to the outcome of the committee's consideration of the Bill.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I intervene very briefly to restate the Government's view on the Bill. My noble friend Lord Reay has asked me to apologise for his absence. He had to leave to catch an aeroplane.
It is traditional on Private Bills that the Government take a neutral stance, and this Bill is no exception to that tradition. The Government have considered the content of the Bill and have no objection in principle to these powers being sought to establish a market at Ilford by Redbridge London Borough Council. No department has any point outstanding on the Bill. We have reviewed the whole matter of charter market rights to consider whether they are a restraint on trade. We found this a highly complex matter, which could involve compensation for loss of rights and which might well be expensive. We concluded that as existing franchise rights, present little impediment to trade —market trading being such a very small part of UK retail trade—we should leave matters as they stand at present.
The Government take the view that the issues raised by the Bill and other similar Bills in relation to markets and existing market rights are essentially of local concern and that it would not be right for the Government to intervene. It is for the Bill's promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they seek are justified, bearing in mind all the local circumstances.

1613
There is one Petition against the Bill in your Lordships' House and the Petitioner will have the opportunity to present his objections to the Select Committee. The committee will be in a very much better position that we are today to examine in detail the issues involved and it will have the added advantage of hearing expert evidence.
I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual, conventional way to a Select Committee for detailed consideration.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have taken part in the debate. I am in particular grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, for the painstaking way in which he spelt out the objections to the Bill. I entirely understand the Government's position. I see the difficulty that they would face if they tried to bring in general legislation. I suspect that it would certainly need to be preceded by a proper inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, indicated. However, that is not the issue before the House and it will not be an issue in the Select Committee.
I shall not respond to every point made by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. Those points will be argued out before the committee. The noble Lord was good enough to indicate that he at least is prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
However, I cannot resist making one point. The noble Lord said that if the London Borough of Redbridge had chosen a site that was over six and two-thirds miles distant, there would be no objection —perhaps he said that there could be no objection —because the whole basis of the petition and the opposition to the Bill has to be based on that ancient law as spelt out by Bracton 700 years ago. Is the noble Lord saying that there would be no objection? Let us suppose that the market were to be sited at the south end of the borough, let us say on Wandsworth Flats, where it might be more than six and two-thirds miles away. Is he saying that it would have so little effect compared with one sited at Ilford, which is four and three-quarters miles away, that that changes the whole picture? I do not believe that that is the case. What he is really saying is that a market in Redbridge, wherever it is, will have very little effect on this large, prosperous and thriving market in Romford where the sites go for a premium.
However, the Bill provides for 10 per cent, compensation to Havering. The noble Lord asked what the traders will get out of it. The answer is that, if the market suffers, if the traders find that indeed they lose custom —I shall not anticipate the evidence and suggest that that is fanciful, but it is fanciful —the rents that Havering should command would fall and the traders would be paying a lower rent for their premises. It would indeed be Havering that would have to have the compensation to make up to its community charge payers what it would have lost. But, as I say, I believe that that is fanciful.
1614
That is the way that the traders would benefit. If they lose nothing, why should they receive any benefit? There is another answer. Most of the traders will be the same people. Many of the people who operate in the Romford market will wish to operate in the Redbridge market. I therefore believe that the argument about the traders is a little unreal.
Reference was made to a rash of Bills. Of course there have been some Bills. While the present common law remains in force and Section 50 of the Food Act 1984 does not override the charter rights, the correct course is that each case should be argued out on its merits each time through this procedure. That is precisely what the London Borough of Redbridge is doing. It has been done by others —the London Borough of Bexley, for example. The case is argued out. If serious damage would result and no proper compensation can be negotiated, the Bill can be thrown out. If not, it seems to me that it should go through.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I was waiting for the noble Lord to mention the magic name "Bexley" which he was kind enough to do before he finished. The committee that will consider this Bill will, I am sure, take careful note that the position with regard to Bexley is wholly different. At Bexley there was a complete agreement. There is no agreement in this case. The London Borough of Greenwich approved the Bexley Bill. The London Borough of Havering disapproves of the Redbridge Bill.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I understand that the councils of Havering and Greenwich took different views, as the noble Lord has correctly stated. But it cannot be an argument against this Bill that other promoters of new markets may bring forward proposals for markets, by private legislation. With respect, this House has to look at the Bill that is before it and examine the merits and demerits on their own without regard to what others may do on another occasion or in relation to a different part of the country. It is amply clear that the Bill must go to a Select Committee. I hope very much that the House will give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments agreed to; with an amendment disagreed to but with an amendment proposed in lieu thereof and with the remaining amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement; the Commons amendments and reasons ordered to be printed.
House adjourned for the Easter Recess at twenty-two minutes before six o'clock until Wednesday, 18th April.

  AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT 1900
  AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT 1900
  LAND REGISTRY
  LAND REGISTRY
  NHS THEATRE STAFFING: BEVAN REPORT
  NHS THEATRE STAFFING: BEVAN REPORT
  INCONTINENCE PADS: QUESTIONNAIRE
  INCONTINENCE PADS: QUESTIONNAIRE
  WALVIS BAY: RETURN TO NAMIBIA
  WALVIS BAY: RETURN TO NAMIBIA
  ROMANIA: HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE
  ROMANIA: HEALTH CARE ASSISTANCE
  GAME MEAT: EC DRAFT REGULATION
  GAME MEAT: EC DRAFT REGULATION
  SHOPPING CENTRES: RATING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCES
  SHOPPING CENTRES: RATING OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCES
  PRISONERS' UNOCCUPIED HOMES: COMMUNITY CHARGE
  PRISONERS' UNOCCUPIED HOMES: COMMUNITY CHARGE
  POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS' COMMUNITY CHARGE RELIEF
  POSTGRADUATE STUDENTS' COMMUNITY CHARGE RELIEF
  FISHING VESSEL CAPACITY AGGREGATION
  FISHING VESSEL CAPACITY AGGREGATION