Sitting of 5 July 1990

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [25 June],
That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment to Clause 3, page 3, line 10, to leave out '85' and insert '85E', instead thereof:
Debate further adjourned till Thursday 12 July.
REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration of Lords amendment read.
To be considered on Thursday 12 July.
MEDWAY TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Thursday 12 July.
BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 12 July.
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [26 February],
That the Bill be now considered.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday 12 July.
LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 12 July at Seven o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: As the remaining nine private Bills set down for Second Reading have blocking motions, with the leave of the House I shall put them as a single group.
GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 12 July.
LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [10 May],
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday 12 July.
SOUTHAMPTON RAPID TRANSIT BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 12 July.
EXMOUTH DOCKS BILL (By Order)
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [29 March],
That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday 12 July.
KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 12 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Bank Loans
    Sir Robert McCrindle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reaction he has obtained to his appeal to the banks for greater care in offering loans to their customers.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. John Major): My remarks on the marketing of credit were addressed to all the lending institutions. There are encouraging signs that they are taking the matter very seriously.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: While welcoming the recent attention paid to that important matter by my right hon. Friend, may I ask whether he is as concerned as I am by the recently issued figures showing that credit is still far from being under control? Does he accept that the financial institutions still engage in practices that pressurise people into effecting credit and that are far from the traditional practices in some corners of the City of London?
    Has my right hon. Friend given any consideration, even at this late stage, to the possibility that the banks and building societies should be required, on a temporary basis, to make special deposits with the Treasury, thereby limiting their opportunities to encourage people to engage in irresponsible credit-taking?
    Mr. Major: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved honour in the recent birthday honours list which will give considerable pleasure to his many friends.
    On my hon. Friend's specific points, I confirm that I share his view that the volume of credit being advanced is still higher than I would wish. That means that we will retain a level of interest rates higher than it would be otherwise. On his advocacy of special deposits, I feel that, alas, their disadvantage is that their practical effect might be to raise rather than to reduce interest rates which would be difficult territory. The prime difficulty with the activities of lenders lies not with the banks or building societies, but elsewhere. Sir Gordon Borrie, the Director General of Fair Trading, has expressed his view on that matter.
    Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is not it clear that the policy of relying on a single instrument for the control of credit is not working? Should not the right hon. Gentleman pay more attention to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) and think more seriously about proper credit controls, rather than rely on a weak form of exhortation?
    Mr. Major: My recent speeches were related not to credit controls, but to the marketing of credit. Credit controls are a separate matter. Although I understand the right hon. Gentleman's advocacy of them, I do not believe that a deregulated economy without exchange controls would be even remotely effective.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my right hon. Friend accept that when he appeared before the Treasury Select Committee, some hon. Members pointed out that organisations like the Halifax building society were
    1104
    making offers such as, "Take a second mortgage and have the trip of a lifetime round the world"? Many of us are pleased that, at long last, the Treasury is taking the view that long-term investment is good for the country, but that people mortgaging their homes for holidays is the way to financial and economic disaster.
    Mr. Major: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view. He will be aware that following the Jack report, a code of practice to cover the banks" and building societies" relationships with customers, including credit marketing and the use of confidential information, is being drawn up under the chairmanship of Sir George Blunden. I welcome that and look forward to the code in due course.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: When perfectly sensible suggestions such as those made by hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) were being put forward by the Opposition, they were derided by Treasury Ministers. Why does the Chancellor believe that the same ideas are now gaining currency among Conservative Members?
    Mr. Major: I have yet to hear any sensible ideas emanating from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.
    Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend resist any suggestion that we should return to the stupidity of special deposits? Does he agree that they will work only if we reintroduce exchange controls which is quite against our economic philosophy and that of the European Community?
    Mr. Major: My right hon. Friend touches on an important point, but I reiterate what I said a few moments ago. There is a very real danger that special deposits would have the practical market effect of driving short-term interest rates up, not down.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the monthly balance of payments deficit was last under £1 billion.
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the monthly balance of payments deficit was last under £1 billion.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Norman Lamont): Last December.
    Mr. Patchett: Does not such a high balance of payments deficit need to be financed across the exchange rates? Does not it cause high interest rates? If the Government could control the deficit, would not that contribute to reducing interest rates?
    Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman's question referred to the current account, not to the balance of payments which, by definition, cannot be in deficit. I do not believe that the current account deficit is a force for high interest rates. Interest rates are determined largely by domestic factors. The main reason why we need the present level of interest rates is to get on top of inflation.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that since the last election the balance of payments deficit figures have been utterly appalling? After 10 years of having a Conservative Government in control of our economic affairs, why do we

    1105
    have such huge balance of payments deficits, and the highest interest rates and inflation of any comparable western European country?
    Mr. Lamont: We also get the same questions week after week from the hon. Gentleman. It is a pity that he cannot comment on the highest rate of growth of any EC country other than Spain and that he cannot concentrate on the fact that Britain has had such dramatic investment growth and that our rate of inflation is very much lower than it was when the Labour party was in Government.
    Mr. Marlow: Is not one of the reasons that we have a balance of trade deficit the fact that whereas most people would obviously far prefer to buy British goods, which are of far higher quality and much more reliable, many people do not know what is British? For example, did my right hon. Friend know that Sierra and Granada cars are not assembled in Britain? Will he point out to people that if they want to buy a British car, they should take great care to buy British and not foreign-assembled goods?
    Mr. Lamont: I am sure that hon. Members will pay attention to what my hon. Friend has said, but the main reason why we have a current account deficit is simply excess demand because of changes in monetary policy in 1987 and not a lack of competitiveness. If it was a lack of competitiveness, we would not be experiencing such a spectacular growth in exports. Exports in the three months to May are up some 11 per cent. compared with the same period a year ago, whereas imports have gone up by only about 4 per cent. So the fundamental and underlying trend is strong and good and our rate of growth in exports now compares very well with any period in our history.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend explain to me and the House why the Government do not give manufacturing industry far more encouragement, bearing in mind the fact that manufacturing industry is the only non-inflationary source of economic growth and that in most European Community countries where there is a balance of trade surplus, they have low interest rates and a healthier economy?
    Mr. Lamont: I do not know why my hon. Friend—I hope that he is my hon. Friend—does not think that the lowest rate of corporation tax in the western world is of considerable help to manufacturing industry and that the restoration of profits to the highest level for 20 years is not the biggest possible help that can be given to every sector of the economy.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is not the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) perfectly right: the most worrying aspect of the trade deficit is the continuing high level of imports, particularly of manufactured goods? Since the trade deficit in manufactured goods first appeared under this Government—last year it amounted to £16 billion—is not it time that the Government reconsidered their refusal to take any serious steps to support manufacturing?
    Mr. Lamont: I totally reject what the hon. Lady says. As she says, manufacturing is extremely important from the point of view of the external trade balance, but the greatest help that we can give to manufacturing is to have low inflation and good growth. During the past decade we have had a far better combination of those two factors than the Labour party did when it was in government.
    Mr. Butler: If we joined the exchange rate mechanism at broadly the current rates of exchange, would not West Germany be particularly pleased, as that would lock us permanently into a £9 billion deficit?
    Mr. Lamont: I certainly do not intend to comment on any particular exchange rate parity and policy on the exchange rate mechanism. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made our position clear.

    Inflation (Europe)
    Mr. Loyden: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many European countries currently have a higher inflation rate than the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Major: Two, Sir.
    Mr. Loyden: The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister constantly make claims about the health of Britain's economy, but Britain has the worst inflation rate of the seven most industrially advanced countries. Is not that a disgrace?
    Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman is correct. The rate of inflation is a good deal higher than I would wish it to be, or than it will be in due course. As the hon. Gentleman clearly shares my view, I am surprised that he supports Opposition policies that would raise inflation and keep it high for a very long time.
    Mr. Higgins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we may be giving the impression that our currency is declining in value faster than that of other countries because of the appallingly poor quality of the paper used for the new £5 note? Will he ensure that paper of the proper quality is used and that he does not harmonise in that respect with the other European countries, whose currency notes have always been of far poorer quality than ours?
    Mr. Major: My right hon. Friend makes an important point that will be echoed in many quarters.
    Mr. John Smith: Does the Chancellor reflect that it is a poor comment on 11 years of Conservative Government that we have the worst rate of inflation of all the G7 countries, and that nine of the European Community countries have a better inflation record than ours? After 11 years in government, is not that a pitiful record?
    Mr. Major: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is being typically selective. He has overlooked the greatest growth in investment and productivity and the greatest underlying improvement in the economy over that 10-year period compared with any other nation in Europe.
    Mr. Beith: Now that the Chancellor has had an opportunity to discuss with the president of the Bundesbank the working of the anti-inflationary policy, why does he still believe that an autonomous central bank, with responsibility to maintain price stability, has no place in Britain and can be no part of European monetary union?
    Mr. Major: For precisely the same reasons as I have explained to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: With the approach of 1992 and the greater harmonisation of many activities in Britain and the other member states of the European Community, will my right hon. Friend give serious and urgent consideration to

    1107
    introducing a more reasonable and equivalent measure of inflation than the retail prices index, which is quite unlike the measure used in other European countries? The inclusion of mortgage interest rates greatly exaggerates the supposed rate of inflation, although interest rates are raised to reduce inflation. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the sooner that change is made the better, particularly so that comparisons with other Community countries can be more realistically understood outside the House?
    Mr. Major: My right hon. Friend is entirely correct that, on a more comparable basis that takes account of the differing factors in the relative inflation measures, the more correct rate of inflation in the United Kingdom is about 7 per cent., compared with a European Community average of about 5 per cent. He made an important point.

    Value Added Tax
    5. Mr. Skinner: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what a family with two children on average earnings paid in a year in value added tax in 1978–79 and in 1989–90.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Richard Ryder): Approximately 2.7 per cent. of gross earnings and 5 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that, for an average family with two children, that represents an increase of £364 a year over the figure that applied in 1979, when this wicked Government came in? Why does not he tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about total taxation? Why does not he tell the British people that total taxes have increased from 34 to 37 per cent. under this Government? Instead of ripping off pensioners with value added tax, why does not he claw back the £26.2 billion that the wealthiest 1 per cent. in Britain have had from the Government in the past 10 years?
    Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman's remarks were based on a working man with two children.
    Mr. Skinner: Is it true?
    Mr. Ryder: The truth is that the take-home pay of a working man with two children has risen by 34 per cent. in real terms since the Government took office. Under the Labour Government, it rose by a measly 1 per cent.
    Mr. William Powell: When my hon. Friend is telling the nation about the effects of VAT and the tax burden will he remind our people that the Labour party has a habit of inventing new indirect taxes, such as selective employment tax, which add considerably to the burdens of our taxpayers?
    Mr. Ryder: My hon. Friend is right, and we look forward to receiving the full details of the new taxes that the Labour party would impose if it ever took office.
    Dr. Marek: Will the Economic Secretary confirm that the Government are good at inventing new taxes and increasing indirect taxes—for example, almost doubling VAT, increasing national insurance contributions and inventing the poll tax? Will he confirm that the burden of taxation has increased under his Administration, and will he admit that the Conservatives are the high-tax party and that Labour is the low-tax party? Will he further admit,
    1108
    without squirming, that the rich have benefited from cuts in income tax in the past 10 years which have not compensated for the increases in indirect taxation, whereas those who have no jobs or low-paid jobs have borne the brunt of the Government's disastrous tax policies?
    Mr. Ryder: The hon. Gentleman asked several questions. The Labour party has four new taxes planned for Scotland alone. The contribution to the Revenue of the top 5 per cent. of income tax payers has risen by more than a quarter since 1979. The hon. Gentleman made several other claims about taxation. The truth is that if the Labour party ever took office it would need to raise taxes enormously to pay for the pledges made by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures merely show that there has been a shift from direct taxation, which is a tax on work, to indirect taxation, which is a tax on spending? Was not that policy precisely the one on which the Government were overwhelmingly elected to office in 1979?
    Mr. Ryder: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The policy is based on the extension of the freedom to choose. That was the reason why we made that change in 1979.

    Inflation
    6. Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the underlying rate of inflation.
    Mr. Ryder: There are a number of ways of estimating the underlying rate of inflation. As measured by the RPI, excluding mortgage interest payments and the community charge, it was 7 per cent. in May.
    Mr. Morris: Will the Minister confirm that the measure of the RPI which excludes mortgage interest payments is now at its highest level since July 1982? Why do some Conservatives now try also to exclude the poll tax from the calculation? Is not this very unfair on people with special needs, not least the many severely disabled people who are now paying over £700 more in poll tax than they paid in rates, due to the repeal of Labour's Rating (Disabled Persons) Act 1978?
    Mr. Ryder: I had a hunch that the right hon. Gentleman would raise the question of the disabled, so before I came here, I looked up the figures. In 1989–90 the Government will spend £8.3 billion on the disabled, an increase of £4 billion in real terms since 1979 when the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for disabled people.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Will my hon. Friend give the House some idea what the level of inflation would be if it were calculated on the same basis as for our European Community partners?
    Mr. Ryder: The only other country in the European Community that counts mortgage interest payments in its RPI is Ireland. Our figures would be far lower if mortgage interest rates did not count towards the RPI.

    Monetary Integration
    7. Mr. Spearing: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when, and in what year, he placed his proposals for further monetary integration within the European Community before its Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Major: I have not yet done so, but I expect to discuss it later this month.
    Mr. Spearing: I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that reply, especially as the question should have been "in what form", not "in what year". Does the Chancellor agree that in an authority that was charged with the responsibility of supervising a common currency, there would be some responsibility for the economy of the area over which that currency was dominant? If that supervising authority is to be accountable, should it be answering questions only to a person or body who must lump it or like it, or should it be accountable to a body that can do something about it? Will the right hon. Gentleman's paper address the distinction between the two types of accountability and which form do the Government prefer?
    Mr. Major: I certainly concur with the hon. Gentleman's view that the question of precisely what accountability means and to whom will be critical in future debates in the intergovernmental conference and elsewhere on economic and monetary union—whatever sort may emerge in the European Community. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government do not believe that the Delors prescription for stage 3, with its single central bank, its single monetary policy and its present lack of accountability, is a concept acceptable to the House of Commons. I will carry that view to all my fellow Finance Ministers.
    Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his proposal that the hard ecu should be accompanied by a European monetary fund which could require central banks to repurchase their own currencies with the ecu or equivalent hard currencies would be a powerful sanction against lax monetary policy and, as such, could be the beginning of an embryonic European federal bank?
    Mr. Major: I agree that the hard ecu would be the most effective counter-inflation currency yet devised and, for that reason, may commend itself to people in future years. The essence of my scheme for a hard ecu is that it is optional, evolutionary and gradualist. That is an immense improvement on what is presently on offer in the Delors report.
    Mr. Bell: In relation to monetary integration, does the Chancellor of the Exchequer recall the remark of Sir Alan Walters that by joining the exchange rate mechanism, currency speculators could force a realignment of the pound—and thus a devaluation—and take us back to the stop-go policies of the 1960s? In anticipation of our joining the exchange rate mechanism, has not the pound increased in value? How does the Chancellor reconcile the views of Sir Alan Walters with the pound's stability now?
    Mr. Major: I see no particular reason why I should. My view about the exchange rate mechanism is entirely clear —I believe it to be in the interests of the country to join, and in due course, when the conditions that we have set out are met, we will most certainly join.
    Mr. Dykes: As the independent central bank has been so spectacularly successful in Germany, and as a similar mechaism is now proposed for the European Community, why are the Government, who are anxious to counter inflation, so timid about the suggestion?
    Mr. Major: I certainly do not accept that we are timid about countering inflation or that there is a necessary parallel between the activities of the Bundesbank and the German national legislature, and the position of the Bank of England and our legislature. It is my clear view—I regret that my hon. Friend does not share it—that the man or woman responsible for monetary policy should be available to the House of Commons to answer for his or her policies.

    Scientific Research
    8. Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce fiscal measures to benefit scientific research.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Lilley): There is already a generous tax relief for capital expenditure on scientific research related to a company's trade, which is fully relieved by a special 100 per cent. capital allowance.
    Mr. Dalyell: On public company gifts for scientific research, would a Treasury Minister be prepared to meet David Baldwin, chairman of Hewlett-Packard in Britain, who says that if the arrangements were more generous —as they are in the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States—his company would be prepared to give significantly more to universities such as Edinburgh, Strathclyde, Bristol and Cambridge? Would such a meeting be possible?
    Mr. Lilley: It might indeed—if we received any such request. When I was responsible for these matters, as Economic Secretary, I was in correspondence with the gentleman to whom the hon. Gentleman has referred and I believe that I asked him for any evidence that there was more favourable treatment in the federal republic. I do not know whether my successor ever received it, but I certainly did not.
    Sir Ian Lloyd: Does my hon. Friend accept the important and significant conclusion of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in the other place that as a nation we are spending too little on civil research and development and that the situation is getting worse?
    Mr. Lilley: I would certainly not agree that the situation is getting worse. Over the past five years, spending by British industry on research and development has risen by 46 per cent. and companies now spend some £5 billion per year on research and development. We all welcome that trend.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not it true that our enormous and growing balance of trade deficit—currently more than £20,000 million—has risen at least in part because of the lack of scientific-based research and development, which has helped to diminish our manufacturing base? Is not it true that we are not catching up with Japan and West Germany and that under this Government we are becoming a nation of assemblers, without proper or adequate manufacturing research and development?
    Mr. Lilley: There were so many mis-statements in the hon. Gentleman's question that I cannot put him right on all of them. It is simply not true that things are getting worse—they are getting decidely better. During the 1980s

    1111
    manufacturing industry's productivity increased—not least because of research and development—faster than in any other G7 country. That is good news for the future.
    Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in spite of his answers to previous questions, the majority of the money to which he referred is in fact spent on development rather than research? Will he consider how the Government can help to encourage more research, particularly among manufacturing companies?
    Mr. Lilley: As I said in response to the main question, there is already more generous tax treatment for research than for any other kind of investment. We also have the lowest level of corporation tax on profits earned of almost any country in western Europe. That is beneficial to industry and leaves more money in industry's hands for investment in such activities, and I welcome the fact that that is increasingly happening.

    Excise Duty (Petrol)
    9. Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Chansellor of the Exchequer how much revenue was raised in excise duty on (a) unleaded and (b) leaded petrol (i) in the three months prior to 20 March and (ii) subsequently.
    Mr. Ryder: In the three months to mid-March, £417 million worth of duty was collected on unleaded petrol and £1,128 million on leaded petrol. In the two months to mid-May—the latest period for which figures are available —the figures were £347 million for unleaded and £847 million for leaded.
    Mrs. Fyfe: I expect that the Minister is aware that the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders estimates that sales of unleaded petrol represent about 34 per cent. of the whole. Does the Department have a target figure for sales of unleaded petrol, and what steps is it taking to achieve it?
    Mr. Ryder: Last year we set ourselves a target of 30 per cent., and we have reached that. This year we set ourselves a target of 40 per cent., which we hope to achieve by next March's Budget. We have reached 33 per cent. already, so I have high hopes that we can reach this year's target.
    Mr. Madel: New cars fitted with three-way catalytic converters have to run on unleaded fuel. Will my hon. Friend therefore consider removing the 10 per cent. car tax on such new cars? How much longer must cars have two taxes imposed on them—VAT and the 10 per cent. car tax?
    Mr. Ryder: As my hon. Friend knows, catalytic converters will have to be fitted to all new cars by 1 January 1993. For that reason, my hon. Friend's points are not relevant in the context of our European obligations.
    Mr. Boateng: Does the Treasury have a mechanism for assessing the impact of fiscal policy on the environment? If so, when will the Minister report to the House the impact of the Budget in that respect? If he will not do that, will he explain why?
    Mr. Ryder: I have already described the impact of the Budget in increasing the use of unleaded petrol. With regard to wider environmental considerations, the hon. Gentleman, like the rest of us, will have to wait for the
    1112
    publication of the White Paper from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment which is due in the early autumn.
    Mr. Hanley: Do not those figures show that our Government are prepared to make fiscal changes for environmental purposes when there is proper scientific evidence and when the fiscal studies show that that would be constructive? Does not my hon. Friend therefore believe that other fiscal changes might help the environmental cause? Does he believe that a differential road tax might also help and lead to savings for the environment?
    Mr. Ryder: Road tax has remained the same for five years. That is designed to encourage people who travel less to pay less. The differential was the subject of an amendment tabled by the Labour party during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. We turned that down on the basis that if we had that kind of differential there is no reason to believe that people's decisions about the sort of car that they may purchase would depend on a differential which any Government might introduce.

    Inflation
    12. Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the tax and price index rate of inflation.
    Mr. Ryder: The tax and price index rose by 8.1 per cent. in the 12 months to May.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is not it remarkable that no matter how the Government seek to change the method of calculation, our rate of inflation is still among the worst of all manufacturing countries? Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer like to tell us when his miracle is going to start so that our inflation will drop and our manufacturing deficit be eliminated?
    Mr. Ryder: Before the election.
    Mr. Gow: What is the cause of the present inflation rate?
    Mr. Ryder: Excessive demand.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will the Minister tell us which measurement of inflation the Treasury intend to use in estimating when we enter the exchange rate mechanism? Will he guarantee to tell us that now, so that we can judge exactly when the Government are likely to meet that average rate of inflation which will bring us into the exchange rate mechanism?
    Mr. Ryder: As we have said before, it will be a proximate rate of inflation.
    Mr. Oppenheim: What would be the effect on the underlying rate of inflation of a massive increase in public expenditure in addition to an immediate cut in interest rates, both of which are Opposition policies? How could any Government implementing such policies and committed to immediate entry to the exchange rate mechanism, however vague the conditions, hope to maintain the pound's parity within the ERM system?
    Mr. RyderThat is a question for the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the shadow Chief Secretary.

    1113
    If the Labour party were ever returned to office, she would be the Minister responsible for ensuring that all the gravy trains arrived on time.
    Mr. John Smith: The Minister told his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) that the cause of inflation was excessive demand. Will he say who caused that excessive demand?
    Mr. Ryder: It was caused by over-confidence among consumers, especially in the wake of the Wall street crash of 1987. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition is whispering advice to his right hon. and learned Friend. Perhaps they are correcting each other. The shadow Chancellor did not advise the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), to deflate after the Wall street crash of 1987.

    Charities (Tax Relief)
    Mr. Ian Taylor: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from charitable organisations on the decision to introduce new tax reliefs for single gifts to charity; and when he proposes to issue detailed guidance for donors and charities on the arrangements for claiming relief.
    Mr. Major: Charitable organisations are enthusiastic about gift aid, the new tax relief for single gifts to charity. Detailed guidance will be made available in good time for the start of the scheme.
    Mr. Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Charities Aid Foundation and other organisations have welcomed the Budget as the best news ever for charities? That is also shown by the fact that in the past few years the income of the 200 major charities has more than doubled. The Government have shown that we wish to restore the generosity of spirit of our people, who give to charities in which they feel most involved. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the negative, carping attitude of Opposition Members, who think that the work of voluntary organisations should be taken on by the Government, shows the lack of generosity of spirit on the Opposition Benches?
    Mr. Major: My hon. Friend puts his point extremely well. The Charities Aid Foundation was gracious about the budgetary elements that I announced earlier in the year. I hope that a large number of people will take the opportunity of the new tax relief to give generously.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Chancellor really believe that The Adam Smith Institute should be treated in charity law in the same way as Barnardos, the Save the Children Fund and Oxfam, when all that The Adam Smith Institute does is to pump out irrelevant, right-wing nonsense and rubbish?
    Mr. Major: Perhaps The Adam Smith Institute should be treated in precisely the same way as the Fabian Society, as indeed it is.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Neale: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans for further reforms of the income tax system.
    Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to continue to reform, simplify and prune the tax system, and to reduce the basic rate of income tax to 20p in the pound when it is prudent to do so.
    Mr. Neale: Does my hon. Friend accept that the actions of the Chancellor's two immediate predecessors to reduce the rate of income tax led to an increase in the incentive to work and an increase in the income tax take? Does he agree that it must be beneficial to go on reducing the rates of income tax as soon as it is prudent to do so?
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no doubt that lower marginal rates of tax improve incentive and the supply side performance of the economy. Sadly, that is a lesson the Opposition have not learnt— hence their plans to increase marginal tax rates, especially for the more successful members of society.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Are not the Government perpetrating a monstrous fraud on the British people by reducing the level of direct income tax but heaping up indirect taxation levels, so that people are more heavily taxed under the present Government than under any previous Government? Does the Minister not accept that most people, given the choice of improvements to provide decent services in this country, would vote for an increase in income tax?
    Mr. Lilley: There is a small element of consistency in the hon. Gentleman's position. Like the rest of the Opposition, he has voted against every cut in income tax that we have introduced, but at least he has been honest enough to admit that he favours a higher rate of income tax, which the policies of the Opposition would clearly require if they were honest enough to cost them.

    Central Unit on Purchasing
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects the new head of the Treasury's central unit on purchasing to take up his post.
    Mr. Lilley: The new head of the Treasury's central unit on purchasing is expected to be in post on 1 October 1990.
    Mr. Knapman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that, assuming that public money must be spent as carefully as we would spend our own, all the spending Ministries should take full advantage of the activities of the central unit on purchasing?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The unit has played a very valuable part. Since it was established, cumulative savings have amounted to about £1 billion, and that is very welcome. We expect an even higher rate of savings in the coming year, amounting to something like 6 per cent. of the expenditures covered.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister ensure that the central unit on purchasing and every member of the Treasury Bench receives a free copy of Sir Alan Walter's new book—or will they be given complimentary copies because, as I understand it, some of them are friends of the family?
    Mr. Lilley: Is that the best that the hon. Gentleman can do?

    European Currency
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his proposals for a European currency unit.
    Mr. Lilley: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 21 June.
    Mrs. Hicks: By proposing the hard ecu, is not my right hon. Friend the Chancellor offering the best of both worlds in that we should retain control over our national currency and monetary policy while at the same time adopting a common European currency for use when appropriate? As we actively prepare for 1992, the removal of trade barriers to our European partners, and easier travel throughout Europe, is not that the most logical and flexible approach that we can take at this stage?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend puts the advantages clearly and well. A common currency would be valuable to people travelling, working and trading in Europe. The whole of Europe can unite around our proposals. They are not divisive or exclusive, as are some other projects before the Community.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Q 1 . Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have been asked to reply—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is hosting the NATO summit meeting. This evening, she will be attending a dinner for NATO given by Her Majesty the Queen.
    Mr. Skinner: Gallivanting again.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Drag her back here.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the House has every right to answer questions for the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Bruce: Speaking as one Welshman to another, does my right hon. and learned Friend share with me—and, I hope, the whole House—a feeling of pride at the way in which the English football team conducted itself over the past three weeks? Does he agree that it deserves the warmest congratulations and good wishes of the whole House for its next game on Saturday?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House share the sense of pride expressed by my hon. Friend. The English team has got further in this contest than ever before on foreign soil. Even more important is that the team's quality of play and behaviour has been a great credit to the nation. We are proud of that as well. We certainly wish the team well in the match on Saturday.
    Mr. Kinnock: I at least agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in saying that the lads done magnificent.
    1116
    Will yesterday's decision by the Cabinet mean that people will pay lower poll taxes next year?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There has been no consideration by the Cabinet of the matter raised by the right hon. Gentleman. The review of the operation of the community charge is well advanced. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the outcome of the review will be announced at the end of the month. It is a great deal further advanced than any review undertaken by the Labour party of its proposals. The Opposition have gone through every gamut in the book—one tax, two taxes, local income taxes and capital valuation taxes—and have finally arrived back where they started, with rating system of the type that they used to condemn as discredited, as we condemn it now. We look forward to hearing the Opposition's proposals in a year's time. Our own proposals will be brought forward at the proper time and in the proper way.
    Mr. Kinnock: I rather believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is being kept in the dark on this subject, as he is on others. Perhaps he can answer a question from his fellow Conservatives. Is he aware that senior Conservative councillors have said, through their associations and very publicly, that next year in order to be
    "realistic and reflect the true costs of providing local services",
    the Government's grant should be at least £2.9 billion higher simply to meet inflation? Can he tell them how £2.5 billion will do the job? Which set of Tories have got it wrong—the Tories in local government who have to deal with the realities, or the Tories in the Cabinet who have to deal with the Prime Minister?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: A huge range of speculative figures are being published in the press. The figures on which the Government decide will be vouchsafed to the House in due course in the ordinary way when the grant proposals are announced in the ordinary way. The country continues to wait for an answer from the Labour party as to what it proposes to put in place of the rating system.
    Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps the deputy Prime Minister at least knows this much—that the poll tax is of itself regressive, unfair, very expensive and incapable of reform. Can he tell us whether anything decided by the Cabinet yesterday changes anything in that?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The review, which is still taking place, is of the operation and not the structure of the tax. What the country is still waiting to know is what the Opposition propose in relation to the rating system. If the Opposition still agree, as they originally did, that domestic rates are unfair and discredited, why do they propose to return to them?
    Q2. Mr. Andrew MacKay: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacKay: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my view that the commendable performance of Mr. Bobby Robson and his team in showing that we are at least the third or fourth most successful footballing nation in the world has been severely tarnished by the behaviour of

    1117
    many so-called supporters in Brighton and elsewhere yesterday? Does he agree that they should be severely punished, with prison sentences?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Once again, the whole House is bound to agree with my hon. Friend that the disappointment of yesterday's result cannot afford any justification for the kind of wanton violence and hooliganism that took place in Brighton and elsewhere last night. Especially regrettable was the willingness to damage cars because they had been made in Germany. We welcome the prompt police action in relation to such misconduct. It should certainly be dealt with effectively.
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Alton: Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to emphasise his support for the commitment of all the parties in Northern Ireland represented in the House to dialogue and partnership in the moves toward genuine power-sharing in Northern Ireland? Will he tell the House what new road blocks have been erected today, who is responsible for erecting them and what he is doing to remove those obstacles so as to ensure that that partnership can continue?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that topic is to be debated within a few minutes of the conclusion of business questions. The whole House wishes to see progress along the lines that he described at the beginning of his question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be addressing himself to the matter later in the afternoon.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is entirely fitting that the Prime Minister should be hosting today's NATO summit, as it was her resolution which ensured that, when the Soviet Union increased its armaments in Europe, they were matched armament for armament? Does he further agree that the only people who do not understand that that is why the Soviet Union came to the negotiating table are the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and the parliamentary Labour party?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am astonished that even one member of the Labour party expressed astonishment or dismay at the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was hosting the meeting. It is an entirely appropriate place for the Prime Minister of this nation at a time of such importance.
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Fyfe: If there is a ballot on whether a hospital should acquire self-governing status, and if the majority say no, is there any chance that the people who voted will get their way and be able to exercise that choice?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Hospitals which are to achieve self-governing status will achieve that status in line with
    1118
    arrangements approved by the House and designed to improve standards of performance in those hospitals for the sake of those who work there and the patients who go there.
    Mr. Fishburn: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fishburn: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that leasehold reform in this country is long overdue —especially reform that would allow individual flats to carry their own freehold rather than be tied to a leasehold? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that such a reform would complete the home ownership revolution which has occurred under this Government by permitting people in inner cities to own their own homes?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the merit in extending opportunities for home ownership. He will know that the leasehold system has been the subject of many proposals over many years. We are about to undertake a detailed evaluation of the working of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987. It would be premature to contemplate any particular changes until that study is completed.
    Mr. Trimble: Irrespective of any welcome devolution to an assembly in Ulster, this House will still have some legislative powers with respect to Ulster. Will the deputy Prime Minister therefore ensure that all such legislation is made properly by a Bill, thus ending the temporary, contingent and offhand manner in which the House has handled Northern Ireland affairs? It would also end the grotesque mistake that I discovered this morning, whereby a person moving from London to Belfast was refused income support because
    "England pays under Act of Parliament whereas Northern Ireland pays under Order in Council."
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the system for legislation in respect of Northern Ireland has been in its present form for some time. The question that he raised has been asked on a number of previous occasions. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to address it during this afternoon's debate.
    Q6. Mr. Gorst: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it crystal clear to the Romanian Government that there can be no economic aid from this country or from anywhere else until there is a sign of genuine democracy in that country? Does he agree that the arrest of Mr. Leon Nico and two others about three weeks ago contrasts very strangely with the marauding club-wielding miners who were praised but not prosecuted, that that constitutes evidence that there is no rule of law and no justice in Romania, and that, until there is, there can be no proper democracy in that country?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Again, I think that the whole House will share my hon. Friend's concern about the fact that there is still, as I understand it, no news about the three student leaders to whom he referred. He is certainly right in commending the proposition that we should continue to withhold aid except on humanitarian grounds until there is real progress towards democracy and economic freedom, in particular including respect for human rights and the rule of law.
    Q7. Mr. Fraser: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fraser: Is the Leader of the House aware that last night, following a cash crisis, at a meeting held in secret without proper consultation, it was decided to close one in 10 of the beds at King's College hospital in south London? When the Prime Minister said that the national health service was safe in her hands, did she mean 90 per cent. rounded to the nearest 100?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the arrangements that were made last night were designed to prevent the kind of short-term shortfall in revenue that has occurred in the past, and to provide for a sensible and sustainable pattern of health provision within the health authority's area.
    Q8. Mr. Jack: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jack: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that under this Government 15 out of 15 taxpayers have enjoyed lower rates of tax, that a man on average earnings now pays £1,000 per year less tax than in 1979, and that 15 out of 15 taxpayers can look forward to lower tax rates under this Government?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend has said. Under this Government, there has been progress not only in the direction of steadily reducing taxes on income, but towards the abolition of borrowing, with a movement towards the repayment of Government debt and a substantial expansion of real spending programmes as a result of the real growth that we have been able to achieve.
    Mr. Turner: I have a conundrum about the poll tax with which the deputy Prime Minister may be able to help me. How can it be fair that the good folk of Wolverhampton have to put £47 each into the safety net while the citizens of Wandsworth take £116 out?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The arrangements for the distribution of the safety net in relation to the community charge are in line with those approved by Parliament. I have a conundrum for the hon. Gentleman. When is the country likely to know what kind of arrangements the Labour party would put in place?

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Wearing another hat, I can tell the House that the business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 JULY—Opposition day (18th allotted day, 1st part). Until seven o'clock, there will be a debate on environmental policy on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru.
Supplemental timetable motion and consideration of Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill.
Motion on the Education (Student Loans) Order.
TUESDAY 10 JULY—Estimates Day (3rd allotted day). Until about seven o'clock, there will be a debate on sea defences and the avoidance of sea flood damage in Wales, followed by a debate on gipsy sites.
Details of the estimates concerned and the relevant Select Committee reports will be given in the Official Report.
At ten o'clock, the question will be put on all outstanding estimates.
WEDNESDAY 11 JULY—Motion on the Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Orders (1st day).
THURSDAY 12 JULY—Conclusion of the debate on motion on the Charge Limitation (England) (Maximum Amount) Orders.
Motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 13 JULY—There will be a debate on policing in London, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 16 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords amendments which may be received.
The House will wish to know that subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House should rise for the summer Adjournment on Thursday 26 July.
[Estimates, Tuesday 10 July:
Class III, vote 3, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: agricultural support, animal health, arterial drainage, flood and coast protection;
Class XVI, vote 1, Agricultural support, Wales;
Class XVI, vote 5, Tourism, roads and transport, housing, other environmental services (including civil defence), education, arts and libraries, and health and personal social services, Wales; and
Class XVI, vote 9, Welsh Office administration, so far as they relate to sea defences and the avoidance of sea flood damage.
Class VIII, vote 4, Local environmental and planning services, etc., England so far as it relates to Gipsy sites.
Relevant document: Third report from the Environment Committee of Session 1989–90 on the Department of the Environment's main estimates, 1990–91, (House of Commons Paper No. 373). (To be published on 9 July).]
Dr. Cunningham: Can the Leader of the House confirm that, before the House rises, we shall have an opportunity to debate the imminent recommendations of the Select Committee on the Televising of Proceedings of the House and, I hope, approve those recommendations? It is in all our interests that that report is considered by the House and debated before the summer recess. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman planning that that will happen?
As it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Government intend to attempt to solve their problems with the poll tax simply by throwing money at it, and as there is evidence that that money will be aimed partially at Conservative marginal constituencies, may we have an assurance that there will be an oral statement to Parliament about the Government's intentions before any announcement is made? I hope that we shall receive an absolute cast-iron assurance about that. Indeed, if the Government think that they have a good case, I hope that they will want to come forward and be honest about it. Surely it is preferable that those matters should be widely examined in this Chamber before the summer recess.
Last week's highest ever figures on crime in Britain, taken with the increasing widespread, disgraceful scenes, such as those of last night, of hooliganism, vandalism and anti-social behaviour, surely show that the Government's policies for Britain as a whole are failing to create a climate in which civilised social behaviour can flourish. Against that unprecedented background, none of which can be blamed on the football authorities, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the failures of Government policy in those areas before the summer recess?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the last point, I am afraid that the House cannot accept the simplistic analysis offered by the hon. Gentleman. He will appreciate that manifestations of hooliganism—for example, in the context of football—are by no means confined to this country; nor have they been confined to people from this country. In that respect, the Government are following the right policies. Our proposed implementation of the Taylor report urging the football authorities to install all-seater stadiums is clearly a move in the right direction. That has been demonstrated by the experience at grounds in Italy in the past few weeks.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the House will be kept informed of the outcome of any such considerations in the appropriate way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is meeting the local authority associations this afternoon to hear their views on next year's spending. That is one factor that he will take carefully into account before he makes a statement to the House later this month, as is customary, on our proposals for the settlement.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am glad to confirm that the report of the Select Committee on the televising experiment will be published next Wednesday and that I hope to arrange a debate on the subject before the House rises for the summer.
Mr. Patrick Thompson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend try to arrange an early debate on the workings and procedures of Parliament and of this House? Does he agree that, in the past 48 hours, we have seen perhaps the most shameful scenes that I can remember since 1983? Does he agree that Opposition

1123
Members in particular have behaved badly during the past 48 hours? Will he arrange an early debate so that the workings of this place can be improved and have more respect outside?
Mr. Dennis Skinner: You should have seen Heseltine with the mace—those were great days.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend about the need to keep the procedure of the House continually under review. We had a debate on one aspect of the matter last week, and there will be another before too long. I am afraid that no debate in the House can be guaranteed to deliver proper self-control from Opposition Members.
Mr. James Wallace: Given recent reports that the Prime Minister is anxious to promote family life by, among other things, making divorce more difficult, can the Leader of the House tell us whether she is aware of clause 53 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill which makes divorce easier? Is not that indicative of the shambles that the Government are in over the Bill? Will the Leader of the House announce next week that the Government will make things easier by dropping parts III and IV of that confused Bill?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I understand it, the particular provisions of the Bill which relate to divorce law are founded essentially on the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission. Therefore, they deserve careful consideration by the House. As a result of the arrangements announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Sectetary of State for Scotland yesterday about the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, it should be possible for due consideration to be given to all four parts of that significant Scottish measure. I am sure that the whole House will welcome that.
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to come to the House and explain how he can possibly justify the closure of the children's ward and the proposed closures of a general medical ward, a general surgical ward and even a ward where people who have had radiological treatment can stay overnight in the Leicester royal infirmary? Does he appreciate that the refusal of the Secretary of State for Health to listen to Members of Parliament from both sides of the House is a continuing disgrace which should be debated in this place?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised various aspects of the matter on more than one occasion. He must recall that the management of the resources available to local health authorities is essentially a matter for them to decide. He will also recall, as I have told him before, that the initial budget of Leicestershire health authority was significant and that it has been increased, since the initial figure, to £217 million.
Mr. James Paice: Will it be possible some time next week to have a statement about the Prime Minister's meeting with Mr. Mandela? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that would give us an opportunity to appreciate clearly that this country is
1124
completely against apartheid, and that Mr. Mandela recognises it? Does he further agree that we would have an opportunity to demonstrate completely the lie in the Opposition's accusations that the Conservative party in some way supports apartheid in South Africa?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the meeting yesterday between the Prime Minister and Mr. Nelson Mandela. I agree also with the importance of his observation about the Prime Minister's determination as an enemy of apartheid. I think that the whole House will agree that that should afford justification for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to withdraw the shocking statement that he made some time ago, that the Prime Minister was a friend of apartheid. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Mr. Ron Brown: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that The Sun—yes, The Sun —has reached another new low? In yesterday's edition of that newspaper, if it can be called a newspaper, a certain Mandy Smith and her husband Bill Wyman were attacked and embarrassed by an article and photograph which clearly should not have been published. It brings us back to the question of the invasion of privacy that repeatedly takes place. I am not concerned with hon. Members or pop stars, I am concerned with the working class, because it is clear that, unless one has money in this country, there is no justice. What do the Government intend to do about that —[Interruption.]—and about articles of that kind? The people at large want an answer to that question.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not follow The Sun quite as closely as the hon. Gentleman does. On the wider matter, the House will have an opportunity of considering the recommendations of the Calcutt report in due course.
Mr. Michael Latham: Will my right hon. and learned Friend arrange for two statements to be made next week? First, despite his earlier reply, we need a statement from the Secretary of State for Health about the difficult situation which the Leicestershire health authority faces, with hospital as well as ward closures causing great concern.
Secondly, we need a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment, and the publication of the report from the National Rivers Authority, about the disastrous state of affairs that arose at Rutland water last year as a result of toxic blue-green algae. Such a statement is long overdue.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand that the Secretary of State for Health has made his position clear in relation to the position of the Leicestershire health authority, and I have nothing to add to that. The answer to the second point raised by my hon. Friend about the case for a statement from the Secretary of State for the Environment is that I shall bring his request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that one question per Member at business questions enables us to get on more rapidly.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the Leader of the House accept any responsibility for what occurred

1125
on Tuesday, when clear Government abuse was involved in trying to answer questions after Question Time on an Opposition day? Will he make sure that that does not occur again and that there is no abuse of parliamentary procedures and the rights of the Opposition? Is he aware that the Opposition preserved parliamentary democracy and accountability on Tuesday and should be congratulated accordingly?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There was, I think, some misunderstanding between the usual channels on Tuesday. The difficulty of getting these matters precisely right was well illustrated by the fact that, on Tuesday, the Secretary of State for Health was criticised for answering questions in the form of a statement, whereas on Wednesday the Secretary of State for Scotland was criticised for answering questions at Question Time instead of making a statement. It is not always easy to get the judgment right.
Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister, in her important speech at the opening of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, uttered the trenchant phrase that Governments and international organisations everywhere must sit up and take notice and respond, and he, like all of us, will have received in the past couple of weeks a mass of cards from constituents asking us to mobilise political will in support of that general awareness. Therefore, will my right hon. and learned Friend respond constructively and generously to the suggestion made at the meeting of some 23 Parliaments in Ottawa some weeks ago that each Parliament there represented should hold a two-day debate on the papers and the conclusions of that conference?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot offer to make such a multilateral engagement at such short notice, but I shall certainly consider the importance of the point made by my hon. Friend, which he will have seen underlined, at least in general terms, by the success of the conference presided over by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last week.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the United States Government have just passed legislation outlawing discrimination against disabled people and providing their 43 million disabled people with new opportunities in employment, housing and access to transport? Is not it deplorable that Britain's disabled people do not have such rights? May we debate that next week, please?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman knows that the House has always been jealous of its right and obligation to take account of the need to look after disabled people properly. Obviously, I cannot respond by endorsing the particular proposals to which he has drawn attention, but I shall draw his general point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider an early debate on trade union reform in the light of the report on the internal workings of the National Union of Mineworkers during the miners' strike and the source of its donations? Has he received any requests from the hon. Member for Bolsover
1126
(Mr. Skinner), a member of the union and sponsored by it, about what in other circumstances the hon. Gentleman would describe as a cover-up and a whitewash?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have not received any such request, although I am not always prone to encourage requests from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). In this case, members of the union in question will be able to take advantage of the increased rights conferred by the legislation passed by this Government to investigate the conduct and misconduct of the union's officers.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that the NUM was hammered by his Government, by the judges and by all echelons of the British establishment during its year-long strike, and that in order to save its finances we made sure that the families of its members were fed and that we took on the Government? Will he make a statement admitting that the Government spent £8,000 million of taxpayers' money in one way or another in order to try to bludgeon the NUM into defeat, but we are still here and we are still fighting?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is one of a dwindling minority of folk who take such a view of history. The most important judgment was that passed by those who left the NUM altogether and formed the independent Union of Democratic Mineworkers.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman: May I endorse the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) for a debate on the conduct of the affairs of the House, and extend that to include the ridiculous hours that we work? I know that that is an old chestnut in this place, but it still merits debate. I am not surprised that we have short tempers in this place, when on some evenings this place is really suitable only for insomniacs. Last week, we had three very late nights, and on Tuesday morning this week some of us were wakened in the small hours of the morning in the middle of our legitimate sleep. How can we conduct the country's business in that manner? Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow time for us to debate that matter once more?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure whether to congratulate or commiserate with my hon. Friend. She was in bed at the time, but some of us were still here. Many proposals have been made directly to that end. It is difficult to make changes that will ensure compliance with a timetable. There is bound to be some elasticity in the way in which different people respond to different proposals. Some measures that are expected to take a short time to get through the House end up taking a great deal longer. I shall be ready to look at any specific proposals that my hon. Friend has to make, and I am sure that the House will join me in doing so.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's recent announcement of the setting up of a Select Committee on Social Security. Can we look forward to a similar announcement, before the end of the parliamentary Session, on setting up a Select Committee to examine the affairs of Northern Ireland? Is not 16 years without close scrutiny in this place a shame?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I think I have told the House before, if not the hon. Gentleman, that proposal is one of a number now being studied by the Select Committee on Procedure, which has taken evidence and is still taking evidence on that matter.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Do I understand that, once again, the Government intend to introduce a guillotine on Monday on Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill that relate to housing benefit for students? Will that guillotine apply also to the Education (Student Loans) Order, the saga of which continues? Perhaps, this time, the Government may get it right.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am glad that my hon. Friend looks forward to that matter being handled correctly. The motion on the Education (Student Loans) Order will be taken as last business on Monday, and can run for up to 90 minutes. Ahead of that, there will be a supplementary timetable motion providing for the consideration of all Lords amendments to the Social Security Bill that are covered by those regulations.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have a statement next week about the conduct of Scottish Question Time, which is being regularly hijacked by English Tory Members to such an extent that Scottish Opposition Members, who represent more than 86 per cent. of Scottish constituencies, are finding it increasingly difficult to get called? Yesterday, for example, every Scottish Tory Back Bencher in the Chamber was called more than once.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to ensure that all parties were represented effectively and fairly during Question Time. It has never been the case that territorial questions, whether for Scotland or for Wales, have been reserved for those hon. Members representing constituencies in those countries, and I do not think that that should be the case.
Sir Robert McCrindle: Following the important announcement yesterday of changes to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, as a result of which—if I understand it correctly—it will not be possible for house conveyancing to be undertaken by financial institutions, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that the Attorney-General makes an announcement to the House, at the earliest possible opportunity, confirming that the ability of such institutions in England and Wales to provide conveyancing service under the Courts and Legal Services Bill will remain unaltered?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The changes in the identity of those who can undertake conveyancing services are being made separately for England and Wales and for Scotland, according to their legislation. All the changes are directed towards increasing the scope of competition. That is the intention of those matters that were the subject of the agreement announced yesterday in relation to Scotland. Those provisions have yet to be considered by the Standing Committee. Nothing done in respect of Scotland can affect the arrangements for England and Wales.
Mr. Stan Crowther: Is the Leader of the House aware that the decision to allow a two-day debate next week on poll tax capping will be welcomed? Can he give the House any assurance that the Government will
1128
take notice of anything that may be said during that debate about the damaging effects of charge capping for school children, the elderly, the disabled and all those who are most in need of support from the capped authorities? In other words, will that debate have any constructive result, or will the Government adopt their usual dictatorial attitude and dismiss all arguments out of hand?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Government will continue to conduct themselves in relation to the community charge and capping orders relating to that in accordance with the provisions of the law, hearing representations to the extent that is necessary. The charge-capping orders are intended, with the approval of the House, to ensure that charges are not set at an unduly high level to the disadvantage of a large number of people in the authorities concerned.
Sir Anthony Grant: Would not it be a good idea to have a debate on behaviour and the procedure of the House, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson)? That might provide the House with an opportunity to give the Select Committee on Procedure some suggestions about how to deal with what is currently the worst parliamentary racket—the bogus point of order at prime television time?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, have the same anxiety about the importance of ensuring that points of order are used properly and not abused. I agree that that may be a point for consideration by the Procedure Committee. Of course, it is open to my hon. Friend to make representations to our hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) who is the Chairman of that Committee, and any hon. Member from any part of the House is free to do so.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Returning to the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, does the Leader of the House not understand that the concessions mentioned yesterday by the Secretary of State for Scotland may mean that, although he may have dodged the guillotine, he has certainly not saved his neck? Does he appreciate that those of us who serve on the Standing Committee are now witnessing the possibility of the right hon. and learned Gentleman touting a shopping bag of wares around the Committee and selling one item against the other? That brings into startling clarity the failure of the House to deal with Scottish law reform. Surely the most sensible thing to do would be to withdraw the Bill altogether and to bring back an appropriate Bill next Session.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It would seem a curious thing to deal with Scottish law reform by abandoning the enterprise altogether. The agreement announced by my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday was welcomed by the Law Society and by the Consumers Association in Scotland. In the light of the sittings motion that has been agreed, it should now be possible for the Standing Committee to give due consideration to all four parts of that significant Scottish measure. I am sure that that is the most sensible way to proceed.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a general debate on manufacturing industry and its importance to the British

1129
economy before we rise for the summer recess, as an announcement has been made about that this afternoon? Unfortunately, there has been an upturn in unemployment in strategic industries in Britain—in construction, textiles and other important manufacturing industries, such as the brick industry, in which huge investment has been made. That needs to be debated before we rise for the summer recess, so that the House can express to the Government its grave disquiet about the continuing use of high interest rates as the sole weapon to contain inflation and the great damage that that is doing to British manufacturing industry.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As my hon. Friend makes the point about high interest rates, he should not overlook the extent to which fast-rising unit labour costs, which are under the control of those who manage and work in the industries and which are rising at a higher rate than those of many of our competitors, contribute far more than high interest rates to rising costs and declining competitiveness. That is a point which he needs to take home and emphasise—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I worked in industry—you did not.
Hon. Members: That's the stuff.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Industry would benefit from a renewed contribution by my hon. Friend to that activity.
My hon. Friend will be able to raise that subject on at least two occasions between now and the summer recess, as we shall have debates on the Consolidated Fund and on the summer Adjournment, which will give my hon. Friend the opportunity to raise the matter if he so wishes.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Talking about rising unit costs, let me ask the Leader of the House a House of Commons question and tempt him to make a statement next week. Will he confirm that the only civil service grade not to receive a pay increase in the recent pay round negotiations is the grade to which Members of Parliament's salaries are linked, and that, in place of a pay increase, that grade has been given merit awards? Is the fact that the Leader of the House has been answering questions on behalf of the Prime Minister so often lately an attempt on his part to earn his merit award?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should be content to proceed under that system, but I am not sure whether all our 650 colleagues would be equally enthusiastic about it. I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's point.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will Ministers give careful thought this weekend to the wisdom of agreeing with the Lords in their amendment on housing benefit which is to be debated on Monday evening?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The matter can be debated on Monday evening. That is a more satisfactory answer than I have been able to give on some topics.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Mr. —em, Campbell-Savours.
Mr. Tony Banks: You will lose your merit award!
Mr. Speaker: I know, but it is difficult to deal with two things at once. Mr. Campbell-Savours.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In the light of the very courageous decision by Lady Elspeth Howe, the wife of the Leader of the House, to camp out in a cardboard box in the City of London as a protest against the Government's policy on homelessness, does not the Leader of the House believe that we should have a debate on the matter? Would he not have a personal contribution to make to that debate?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am always grateful to be able to pass on observations of a gentle kind to my wife, even if the hon. Gentleman mislocates the city; it was Westminster, not London. Moreover, it was not by way of protest against Government policy; it was by way of support for combined Government and voluntary organisation action to raise funds for voluntary organisations to tackle homelessness—an entirely commendable cause.
Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. and learned Friend find time for a debate in the near future on British Rail? Has he heard about the latest example of Hutber's law, which is that this week Network SouthEast has announced that, in order to improve services in my constituency, it is to cancel 43 trains a day'? My constituents are somewhat aggrieved about that.
Is my right hon. and learned Friend also aware that one of the fundamental causes of the chaos is that both British Rail management and, in particular, the trade unions, supported by Opposition Members, have refused to agree to local and regional pay bargaining? That is essential if we are to have sufficient drivers to drive enough trains to ensure that my constituents prefer to travel by rail because they can get to the place that they wish to reach without having to endure the current chaos.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Speaking as one Surrey Member of Parliament to another, I am prepared to endorse my hon. Friend's anxieties about the shortcomings on certain suburban rail services. I understand that the changes that are being made are intended largely to endorse those which follow from the absence of negotiations of the kind to which my hon. Friend referred. I shall certainly bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. We should like to see a real improvement in those services. I am glad that my hon. Friend still remembers with affection the inventor of Hutber's law, the late Patrick Hutber.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate on the subject of early-day motion 1238?
[That this House condemns the proposals by Bradford Health Authority to close either partially or completely Westwood Hospital, dump some two hundred mentally handicapped people into the community in order to sell off the land from this tranquil, sheltered site in an insensitive, money-grabbing operation which ignores people's needs, treats the mentally handicapped like pawns, rides rough-shod over the hopes of parents, staff and the community at the whim of stoney-hearted apparatchiks; and urges them to use the site for a small, hospital-linked village which would enable those who can, to manage a more independent life in a caring and collective environment .]
That debate ought to be held in the context of a general debate on care in the community.

1131
Does not the Leader of the House realise that Bradford health authority has made a proposal to close an important hospital for the mentally handicapped in my constituency and that it has sent shivers of fear through relatives, often aging relatives, who fear for the future of their loved ones in that hospital? The health authority is damaging the prospects for the mentally handicapped. They are also damaging the prospects of, and the excellent work carried out by, the staff.
Ought not the Government to encourage the Bradford health authority to use this excellent sheltered site for a village community so that those who are able to live more independent lives close to the hospital can do so? Instead, we have this wretched proposal to close yet another important hospital for the mentally handicapped.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman will know that Bradford district health authority is considering the development of community-based services for the mentally handicapped, and no doubt it will take note of his point. He will also know that any proposal to close Westwood hospital will be subject to normal consultation procedures.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for an early debate next week on competitive sport in schools, as in some areas only one in eight primary schools are teaching cricket and in others soccer is not on the curriculum? The England team could not possibly lose if every boy, and some girls, learned to play soccer and learned the discipline of playing competitive sport with a referee. Is not that highly valuable? If they also learned to take penalties properly, would we not succeed where we did not succeed last night and give proper backing to the excellence and sportsmanlike activity of Gary Lineker and his wonderful team?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As always, my hon. Friend has managed to get a mini-substitute for an entire debate in his intervention in business questions. Broadly speaking, I endorse his approach and will bring it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport.
Mr. Tony Banks: Did the Leader of the House see the horrific pictures in The Sunday Correspondent of the slaughter of pilot whales in the Faroe islands and the equally horrific pictures in today's Daily Mirror of dolphins being butchered in Japan? As decisions are being taken at the International Whaling Commission, will he arrange for an early debate so that we can discuss the plight of the small and great whales?
If we cannot have the opportunity to debate whether the House should adopt sanctions against Governments that so barbarously exploit whales, may we have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the position of the British Government and what they intend to do to make the highest level representations to Japan, Norway, Denmark and, indeed, now the Soviet Union?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The exchange between the hon. Member and myself on this topic will follow familiar lines. The position of the United Kingdom on ending the moratorium on commercial whaling is well known. The Government believe that the species should not again be
1132
placed at risk by the hasty resumption of whaling. That position is being maintained by our representatives at the International Whaling Commission meeting that is currently taking place. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take the matter further, I dare say that he will follow his usual practice of raising it on the summer Adjournment debate or perhaps on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. Barry Porter: May I return briefly to the Scottish Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill and to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle)? It appears that the Government, in the person of the Secretary of State for Scotland, have accepted a fundamental objection to the principle that the financial institutions—the lenders—should not also represent borrowers in conveyancing transactions. If they are prepared to accept that as a fundamental principle in Scotland, it is quite beyond my understanding why it should not also apply in England and Wales. Would it not be proper for the Law Officers, who are responsible for these matters, to re-examine their position? It cannot be right up there but wrong down here.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The last point made by my hon. Friend surely fails to take account of the fact that one of the reasons for having two different systems of law—one for Scotland and another for England and Wales—is that they should from time to time differ from each other. It is surely entirely sensible for people to advance arguments such as my hon. Friend's, comparing one with the other and seeking to advance change. I cannot provide for the unification of two separate legal systems.
Mr. Alex Salmond: As we shall all be hanging around for another three weeks, largely as a result of Government incompetence on the Scottish legislation, would not it be entirely appropriate to use the time productively by having another full-scale debate on the future of the Scottish steel industry—this time, in Government time—so that the Secretary of State for Scotland can say whether he is prepared actively to seek an alternative investor for Scottish steel assets? If such an investor were to emerge, would he be prepared to make British Steel sell the productive assets that it intends to run down to someone who is prepared to run them properly?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not think that, at this stage, I can go beyond the intention expressed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to ask the Scottish Development Agency to carry out an analysis of the prospects for the steel industry in Scotland.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Since the case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, has there been anything to match the Select Committee on Members' Interests in relation to the case of the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates)?
Will we have a statement before the end of the Session on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedure, because if oral questions are to be different next Session, the matter must be dealt with pretty quickly? Will something be done about syndication and about hon. Members handing in their own questions to the Table Office? The Order Paper is littered with questions about which hon. Members of all parties do not have a clue. That is a scandal and an abuse of the House of Commons.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The way in which the Select Committee on Members' Interests conducts its affairs is a matter for that Committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith).
I am very much aware of the importance of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee on questions. I had hoped to table my proposals today. However, I hope to table in the near future proposals designed to implement those recommendations. The whole House agrees that the recommendations are sensible and that we should press ahead with them as soon as possible.
Mr. Harry Cohen: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Conservative parliamentary candidate in Colchester was so desperate to avoid defending the poll tax that he said that he could not attend a public meeting because law breakers might be there? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make a statement to the House confirming that the Cabinet have had some papers that say that the Rover sweeteners were illegal, as that candidate might not want to attend the Conservative party conference this year?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I did not catch the last part of the hon. Gentleman's rather contrived question. However, I am glad to endorse the quality of the Conservative candidate for Colchester. He is the son of the former hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford, the right hon. Lord Jenkin of Roding, and he will be a credit to the Conservative party, just as his father was.
Mr. Keith Vaz: Does the Leader of the House realise how wholly unsatisfactory his answer to Leicestershire Members was when they raised the case of Leicester health authority? For his information, Leicestershire Members of all parties visited the Secretary of State for Health and he behaved in a cavalier manner towards the suffering of those who will be affected by the cuts.
Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman seen early-day motion 1237?
[That this House deplores the recent proposals for ward closures at the Leicester Royal Infirmary and the redundancies of 167 workers there, including doctors and nurses, announced by the local health authority as part of its plans to implement government cuts of £6 million from its budget; is deeply concerned that cutbacks at the Leicester General Hospital will lead to complete ward closures in the future; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Health urgently to inject vital funding into the local health budget to prevent the needless suffering of thousands of local people who are waiting to have operations and treatment.]
Does he realise that doctors and nurses will be made redundant as a result of what the health authority will do? When can we have a debate with the Secretary of State for Health on that important issue?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: This is the third question from hon. Members of all parties on this matter. As I said in answer to earlier questions, the matter has been raised in debates in the House by the hon. Gentleman. There will be an opportunity of doing so again either on the Adjournment debate or on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I can add nothing to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health has already said.
Mr. Jim Marshall: May I be the fourth hon. Member to address the Leader of the House on the health service in Leicestershire? I plead with him urgently to arrange either a debate or a statement from the Secretary of State for Health. Despite the platitudinous responses of the Leader of the House and of the Secretary of State for Health, there is a real crisis in the health service in the county of Leicestershire, as evidenced by the recent decision by Leicester royal infirmary to close 10 per cent. of beds and to get rid of 5 per cent. of nursing staff. As a consequence, waiting lists in some specialties will increase threefold over the next 12 months. If that is not a crisis, when is there a crisis in the service?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman should put those figures into perspective. Leicester royal infirmary is making service reductions that will involve the loss of 167 staff posts, but 122 of those are already vacant. In addition, the royal infirmary has some of the shortest waiting lists in the county, and staff and management at the hospital intend to do their best to maintain that record.
Mr. Alun Michael: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on early-day motion 1223, which refers to the outrageous delay in dealing with nurses' grading appeals in Wales?
[That this House deplores the delay in dealing with the clinical grading appeals of nurses, health visitors and others in Wales; notes that after 20 months 3,088 appeals have still not been dealt with; deplores the unfairness that such slow progress inflicts on thousands of dedicated and caring professionals; and calls on the Secretary of State for Wales to take a personal initiative to clear up all remaining cases by September.]
This matter is now becoming a public scandal, and should be debated in this place, especially as the delays in nurse grading appeals, taken with the appalling decision to delay the implementation of Project 2000 for nurse training in Wales, are doing enormous damage to the morale of the nursing profession on which we depend so heavily. Please may we have an opportunity to debate those two matters on the Floor of the House in the near future?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There may be an opportunity to debate those issues on the Adjournment or during the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. It is worth noting that just over half the 6,188 appeals lodged at local level have already been processed. The agreed appeal procedures are complicated and time consuming, but when the new clinical grading structures were introduced, the nursing trade unions insisted on retaining these complex procedures. Such a large and unprecedented volume of appeals has inevitably placed great strain on management and staff sides alike. Good progress is being made and the employing authorities are doing everything possible to deal with the outstanding appeals. Consideration is being given by Welsh officials, in conjuction with management and staff sides, to ways in which the procedures may be expedited.
Mr. Richard Tracey: Would my right hon. and learned Friend organise an urgent debate before the summer recess on the conduct of local government in London, so that the House can discuss the matter of the millions of wasted pounds which is now coming to light in

1135
Ealing, the thousands of empty houses in Labour-controlled boroughs and the millions of pounds' worth of uncollected rents? During such a debate, the Labour party might discover conclusively why it did so badly in London in the May elections.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the whole House would benefit from a wider discussion of the matters referred to by my hon. Friend, including the underuse and non-use of local authority housing and the number of empty council flats and houses that could be used for the homeless. The 10 authorities that have the worst record in that respect are all Labour controlled.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I was going to call the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) to ask a business question.
Tony Marlow: May we have a debate on why it is that, day after weary day for the past 10 years, we have been told by the Labour party that the health service is running down, with cuts here and loss of money there, given that the health service is improving daily? Everyone to whom one talks who has had any experience of the health service is singing its praises and saying how well they have been treated.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the massive increase in real resources devoted to the national health service—an increase of 40 per cent. since 1979. For every pound being spent on the health service then, no less than £3 is being spent today.
Mr. Speaker: That was more of a free kick than a business question.

Points of Order
4.18 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order Mr. Speaker. As you know, Back Benchers who table questions can find themselves at your door if there is any argument about the way in which they have been tabled. Since April this year, the Government have increasingly adopted the practice of hiving off employment questions to a fellow by the name of Michael Fogden, the chief executive of the Employment Service. It is bad practice for the Government not to answer questions but to send them instead to a civil servant to answer. The result is that, when the Low Pay Unit and other bodies look for the information in Hansard, all that they find are the words, "Mr. Michael Fogden will reply to the hon. Gentleman."
I should have thought that Hansard—in which you, Mr. Speaker have some interest—should be able to pass on the information, not just to Members of Parliament but to other interested people outside the House, especially the Low Pay Unit. I ask you to deplore the Government's growing practice of not answering questions but sending them to someone who is not a Minister or even a Member of Parliament. They ought to put an end to that practice.
Mr. Speaker: I think that I have the correct reference here. In answer to a question on this matter, the Prime Minister said that questions about agencies were passed to the chairman of the agency concerned.
Mr. Skinner: That is not good enough.
Mr. Speaker: Well, I think that that is the correct position.
Mr. Bob Cryer: When agencies have been debated in this place, the Opposition have always asked who is going to answer for those agencies. In every case Ministers have asserted that there will be no diminution of responsibility to this House. They have said that Ministers remain responsible and inevitably that means that they are responsible for answering written and oral questions in this House. That is an important principle which none of us wants to see eroded, but the Government appear to be doing just that. Therefore, I invoke your support to prevent that, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It is a very important matter, and I should like to look into it to refresh my memory as to what has been said about it. I agree that questions to Ministers in the House should be answered. I am aware that some letters written to Ministers are transferred to the chairmen of agencies. That is a different matter from parliamentary questions.
Dr. John Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I welcome your statement that you are going to look at the matter. It is important that hon. Members pursuing constituency interests and other important matters of policy have the absolute right to answers to their questions from Ministers. Otherwise, the whole purpose of this House is nullified. It is a facet of Government behaviour at the moment that, in answer to questions and to letters about constituents, the responsibility is being deflected to agencies and civil servants in a way that I want to make clear the Opposition believe is unacceptable.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): May I, by way of reply, draw the attention of the House to the fact that there have always been arrangements for questions on certain aspects of Government behaviour to be answered by the agencies concerned rather than by Ministers. That kind of balance has always been necessary to maintain a sensible distribution of the work load between Ministers and other Government agencies. The proposal for the establishment of agencies has in general been welcomed by all parties in the House. Obviously I will look, as you will, Mr. Speaker, at the point that has been raised, but it should be considered in that context.
Dr. Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We cannot accept that. The Leader of the House says that the point is one of balance, but the point is that the balance is being altered. Whatever the Leader of the House may say about agreement about the creation of agencies, there is no agreement about Ministers wriggling out of their responsibility for policy matters and deflecting questions to those heading the agencies. That is a matter for the House. Questions should be answered directly between Ministers and hon. Members.

BILL PRESENTED
  COMPUTERS (COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE)
  Mr. Harry Cohen presented a Bill to provide entitlement to compensation, in certain circumstances, to an individual who suffers damage by reason of the unreliability or lack of security of a computer, program or data; and to extend the application of the Data Protection Act 1984: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 20 July and to be printed. [Bill 180.]

Northern Ireland (Direct Rule)
4.22 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1990, which was laid before the House on 20 June, be approved.
The draft order renews the temporary provisions in the Northern Ireland Act 1974, under which government by direct rule continues in Northern Ireland. In presenting the draft order, I owe the House both an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern Ireland over the past year and an assessment of the prospect that these temporary arrangements can be set aside in favour of more permanent arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland.
As regards the Government's stewardship, our overriding aim is to provide good government for Northern Ireland. Given the challenges it faces, that requires a combination of policies designed to bring peace, stability and prosperity. As we know only too well, peace in Northern Ireland is still threatened by terrorism. By no means all of that comes from the republican side, but the principal threat to peace comes from the provisional IRA. It is difficult to see any kind of logic in the dreadful atrocities claimed—as though there was pride in the ownership of murder—by the Provisionals. But we must presume, from statements made on their behalf, that they believe that the continuation of the policy of killing and maiming will lead the Government, or some future British Government, to withdraw, or agree to withdraw, from Northern Ireland. If they do think that, they are wholly mistaken. No British Government—and here I am sure that I speak also for the parties in opposition—will respond to terrorism in that craven way. And if, for once, I can presume to speak for the Unionist population in Northern Ireland, the Provisionals are mistaken also if they believe that bombing and shooting will change the determination of Unionist people to remain British. The Provisionals' campaign is therefore not only vicious and depraved; it is also tragic because it is futile. It will not have its intended effect.
The first priority of the Government will continue to be to eradicate terrorism in Northern Ireland—from whichever side of the community it comes. All our policies for Northern Ireland are intended to contribute to, or be consistent with, that objective, but effective action by the security forces against terrorists will continue to be the key factor. The police and the Army know that they have the wholehearted support of Government as they courageously carry out what is, every day of the week, an enormously difficult and dangerous task. The whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to their courage and determination. We intend to ensure that the security forces have the necessary resources—both physical and legal—for their essential work. Terrorism will continue to be dealt with by firm and effective action within the law. We remain ready to strengthen this further if necessary. We shall shortly be looking at Lord Colville's review of existing anti-terrorist legislation as a preliminary to bringing forward legislation to replace the present emergency provisions Acts before they expire in 1992. When there is a demonstrable need for new powers, I shall not hesitate to ask the House to approve them.

1139
Despite the efforts of the terrorists to bomb jobs away, the Northern Ireland economy has been growing strongly over the past seven or eight years and it is continuing to improve this year. Visitors to the Province will see immediately the changes in Belfast and Londonderry—the new spirit of economic optimism following the privatisation of Shorts and Harland and Wolff. We have been frank about the Northern Ireland economy's structural weaknesses in our new economic development strategy, "Competing in the 1990s". We have set out in it our belief that, if Northern Ireland is to make its way in the Europe of the single market, its industry must become more competitive, its labour force more skilled and its culture more imbued with the spirit of enterprise. That will require much effort by individuals and the private sector. Though the Government will help, the drive must come from outside.
I am happy to say that, in the past year, there have been many hopeful signs of Northern Ireland's ability to bring off such a transformation in its economy. Unemployment is at its lowest point for over six years, though at 14 per cent. it is not, in any sense, at an acceptable level. In the past year or so we have attracted new industrial investors from France, the United States, Germany, Hong Kong, Norway, Korea, Great Britain and Japan. There are about 2,500 people employed in Japanese manufacturing companies in Northern Ireland, which compares very reasonably with the 3,300 in Japanese companies in Scotland. The increase in inward investment looks set to continue. Increasing job opportunities for all and improving living standards are a crucial ingredient to restoring social harmony and self-confidence, and reducing deprivation and communal division.
In the social field our aim is, through fair and effective government, to tackle the underlying problems of division and disadvantage in Northern Ireland. We have shown through the introduction of stronger legislation, which came into force on 1 January this year, our determination to ensure fair employment. We shall be studying closely the recommendations of the recent report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights on discrimination. We have taken a number of measures, including the "Making Belfast Work" initiative, designed to achieve real and lasting improvement in conditions in the most disadvantaged areas. The Springvale initiative provides a further example. We are addressing with renewed vigour and success the underlying community relations problems, through encouraging greater cross-community relations and co-operation, and fostering respect for the different cultural traditions.
As I said at the start, our aim is to provide the best possible government for all the people of Northern Ireland. We can, I believe, justifiably claim that we have had some success in that task, but we are governing via the artificial mechanism of direct rule, under constitutional arrangements which are avowedly temporary, and which no one would dream of inventing as a long-term way of governing any sizeable community.
Even if we are, in practice, getting most things right —and that is for others to judge—we are doing so in the knowledge that, as Ministers, we are not directly accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. It seems to me and my ministerial colleagues that we have a moral
1140
duty to seek to find ways of returning substantial responsibilities to politicians who are elected by the people of Northern Ireland and who will be accountable to them for their stewardship of Northern Ireland affairs. But before I turn to the efforts that I have been making to address that issue, I wish to deal briefly with a broader constitutional issue.
Although the constitutional question has often seemed central to matters in Northern Ireland, I turn to it now in the hope of putting it to one side. We regard the position as clear. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom in national and international law. It is part of the United Kingdom because that is the clear wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. There will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland unless and until a majority of the people there want it. That seems unlikely for the foreseeable future. I believe that most in this House, and I number myself among them, would wish to see the Union continue, but the principles of democracy and self-determination mean that the people of Northern Ireland must themselves be the final arbiters.
By virtue of its constitution, the Republic of Ireland has since 1937 also claimed sovereignty over Northern Ireland. We do not accept or recognise that claim, which has no basis in our law or, equally important, in international law. That claim is, I know, seen by some in Northern Ireland, and in other parts of this country, as a major stumbling block to the development of constructive relationships. I do not regard it as helpful. Nor, however, do I believe that it should be a major preoccupation—for this reason: the Republic of Ireland has accepted, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that the status of Northern Ireland could be changed only with the consent of a majority of its people. In short, through that binding international treaty it has shown that it, too, supports the right of the people of Northern Ireland to self-determination. The agreement also enshrines the Irish Government's support for our policy of establishing local institutions of government on a basis that would secure widespread acceptance throughout the community.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is not it a fact that the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of this United Kingdom is not spelt out in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that it contains no definition of Northern Ireland's status?
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman makes mention of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and I was seeking to put firmly on the record what is the position.
Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Brooke: Meanwhile, under the direct rule system we now have, I have found the framework for Anglo-Irish relations provided by the agreement valuable. Both the agreement and its working have demonstrated the desire of the two Governments to have a close and friendly relationship, and to tackle the reality of Northern Ireland's different cultural, historical and religious traditions.
Mr. Gow: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene now? He has gone past the point in his speech at which I wanted to intervene, when he was telling the House that he did not think that the continuing existence of articles 2 and 3 of the Republic's constitution is of any great significance. Will he address his thoughts to this

1141
element of that problem? In the McGimpsey judgment, the Irish Supreme Court relied specifically on articles 2 and 3 of the constitution in order to refuse the British Government's extradition request.
Mr. Brooke: I know that my hon. Friend—who follows these matters closely— will forgive me if I say that, in this instance, I do not think that the two matters were related.
While neither Goverment are seeking a new agreement, if a better agreement—which commanded widespread support within both sides of the community in Northern Ireland—were to be arrived at, that would prove to be an important step forward. Obviously, neither Government will abandon the agreement except for something that they regard as better. By what criteria might a new agreement be judged an improvement? I am clear that a central test will be the one that I have just mentioned—that it should enjoy widespread support not only within both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, but from the people of Great Britain and the Republic.
Mr. David Trimble: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Brooke: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, although, given the context of my speech, it is probably not in the interests of the House for me to give way to interventions.
Mr. Trimble: I know that the Secretary of State has said that a new agreement should enjoy widespread support, but does he not accept the indisputable fact that the existing agreement does not have, never has had and never will have widespread support?
Mr. Brooke: What the hon. Gentleman has said could probably be statistically sustained by opinion polls, but it is one of the reasons why we are addressing the matter today.
The second test would be that any new arrangement should address, at one and the same time, all aspects of the matter, including arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland and relations between the various parts of these islands.
I said on 9 January that any agreement between the constitutional political parties on new arrangements for exercising political power in Northern Ireland would have substantial implications for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that both Governments would be bound to consider those implications seriously and sympathetically. The Taoiseach also made clear later that month that
"if…a new and more broadly-based agreement can be reached by direct discussions and negotiations between all the parties involved, the Irish Government would be prepared to contemplate, in agreement with the British Government, a new and better structure, agreement or arrangement, to transcend the existing one".
I can confirm that, in the context of discussions about possible future arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland, we should give serious consideration to any implications for the agreement that such arrangements might have, and we would also consider any proposal—including any proposal for an alternative to the agreement —that would advance the underlying objectives of achieving peace, stability and reconciliation.
In this debate a year ago, my predecessor—my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Defence, who is here today—was less than fair to himself when he described political progress as being virtually non-existent.
1142
He made great efforts to explore the scope for political progress towards an accommodation that might be reflected in the re-establishment of local institutions of government. In my own efforts to carry that process forward, I have been conscious of building on the sound foundations that he laid down.
There are a number of reasons for continuing this work. Quite apart from the long history of devolved government in Northern Ireland, and the need to find means of recognising Northern Ireland's distinct local interests and needs, there are two important reasons of principle. First, the present arrangements—under which local government has only the most modest powers, while the regional government has been absorbed into the machinery of central Government—mean that there is no effective vehicle for local democracy in Northern Ireland. There is a gap in democratic accountability which the House cannot contemplate with equanimity.
Without a regional political forum, elected representatives in Northern Ireland are left with little opportunity to influence the decisions of the Government, or to exercise powers that are available to politicians elsewhere in the United Kingdom or, indeed, in the Republic of Ireland. It has been said that a healthy community needs as its respiratory system a healthy and well-functioning political machine. The present weakness of local political involvement in the government of Northern Ireland is not a satisfactory long-term arrangement, and it causes a local power vacuum which terrorists and their supporters attempt to exploit to their advantage.
Secondly, and most crucial to the future of Northern Ireland and for those of us who share the agonies which that community is facing, perhaps the best hope of reconciliation between the two sides of the community is to be found in the achievement and maintenance of a long-lasting local political accommodation. It is the existence in Northern Ireland of the two traditions and the two identities, one of them looking, as it is free to do, to another jurisdiction to the south, with which it feels cultural and other affinities, which, above all, distinguishes its situation from that of other parts of this country. It is that which suggests that a distinct approach is needed, whatever the constitutional arrangements made for England, Scotland or Wales. Although the constitutional position, as I have explained, is clear, the internal and external dimensions cannot be wholly separated.
I should like to report to the House that during the past year modest but, I hope, valuable progress has been made towards the goal of new, democratically accountable, political institutions. In the past few months I have had lengthy discussions with the Irish Government, with representatives of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, with spokesmen for other parties in the House, and, indeed, with a wide range of well-informed people in all parts of these islands. I have been greatly encouraged by the co-operative and constructive spirit I have encountered, and by the evident willingness to work to find a way through the difficulties. I have also been gratified by the discretion my interlocutors have shown and which I have sought to reciprocate, and, finally, for the patience of the House. It has been important to the building of confidence that such discussions must take place on a confidential basis.
Our discussions have been, for the most part, on preliminary issues: how talks might begin, how they might be organised, within what timetable and on what agenda.

1143
Those matters are important, because, in any talks, the participants should have a clear understanding of what is involved.
Let me briefly explain the Government's position in these matters. First, we wish to safeguard the constitutional guarantees that I have described and to ensure that the future of Northern Ireland is determined by the free will, without intimidation, of the people there. Secondly, we wish to establish arrangements for government which give full rein to the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland, and which safeguard both traditions and provide for the full expression of both identities. Our overwhelming concern is for the people of Northern Ireland, and those who think that we have some other interest mistake not only our sense of responsibility for our own citizens but our determination to ensure that their rights—the rights of all of them—are respected and preserved.
As I said, we seek institutions of government in Northern Ireland which will be directly accountable to all its people, and to which they can all give their wholehearted commitment and support. We do not prejudge the detailed form that such political arrangements should take. The local politicians who are expected to work them must help to create them. Our broad criteria for endorsing any particular system are that it should be workable and likely to prove stable and durable, and that it must command widespread support and provide an appropriate and fair role for both sides of the community.
The exploratory discussions that I have had, especially over the past six months, have confirmed and, I believe, modestly enlarged the shared appreciation of the common ground. They may, too, have strengthened the realisation that a number of those concerned share perceptions, or at least accept others' different views and the reasons for them, to a greater extent than previously.
It seems clear that, if talks are to be held, they would need to embrace all the main relationships and, accordingly, have different strands. One strand would involve the Government and the main constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland. Its objective would be to work towards agreement on new arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom, which might provide a basis for the transfer of political power, authority and responsibility to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland on a basis that was widely acceptable. That strand would need to deal, too, with the relationship between Westminster and any new institutions in Northern Ireland. That dimension of the issue is perhaps mentioned less often, not because it is unimportant, but because we on our side are clear about it. The Irish Government, who, as I have mentioned, are committed by virtue of the Anglo-Irish Agreement to support our policy to transfer power to locally accountable institutions in Northern Ireland, would not be directly represented in such talks, although we would certainly wish to take account of any views and proposals that they might put forward.
It is generally agreed, too, that the process of talks and negotiations should cover the relationships between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, and the implications for the relationship between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. It is also, I believe,
1144
common ground that such talks would need to lead to the simultaneous drawing together of the different strands. That is, no agreement on any one aspect would be reached unless and until all parties were finally satisfied with the whole of what might emerge from such a dialogue.
I detect also a significant measure of agreement on the structure that such talks might have, and the role that each of the potential participants might fulfil in the various stages of the process. I would not, however, wish to exaggerate the extent to which views on those matters converge.
The more immediate difficulty—although I hope that the House will join me in seeking to surmount it—is to secure agreement from all the potential participants that the conditions to start dialogue now exist. As is widely known, most, if not quite all, of the potential participants to these complex and interwoven issues have preliminary preoccupations of principle, some of which appeared at first sight to be irreconcilable. Some of the potential participants frankly acknowledge these as preconditions to talking; others do not. My task has been to explore the extent to which those important preliminary points can be overcome.
It is, of course, the privilege and responsibility of all political representatives to express their own point of view. I cannot speak for others, and I would not want it thought for a moment that I claimed to. However, I should tell the House that it is my judgment that there now exists, following the exploratory discussions that I have held, a basis for entering talks intended to cover all the relationships—a basis which I believe would meet everyone's essential interests and which would allow all participants to enter talks on a basis of mutual respect without any sacrifice of important interests or essential principles. The basis would also be consistent with our international obligations, including those under the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I pay tribute to the flexibility, imagination and resolution of those with whom I have conducted discussions. Many have, I believe, shown readiness to accept the challenges that the long history of Northern Ireland provides, and to respond, with a combination of strength of purpose on behalf of principles and of the interests of those they represent, with a capacity to seek a constructive way forward. I will not disguise from the House the fact that I had hoped to be in a position by now to give some indication of when it might be possible to move to formal talks. I am in fact not yet in a position to do so. It would no doubt have been convenient to be able to give such a report today, but this debate is a function of the parliamentary timetable, and no mystic significance therefore attaches to it. The provision for direct rule will shortly expire unless renewed. The important thing is that we have been making progress and will continue to seek to do so. That can only be on the basis of careful and detailed preparation of the ground at each stage, as has been my practice to date.
As the House is fully aware, I have throughout this process been careful to express the prospects in cautious terms. I have said that talks are possible rather than probable. I have also emphasised that, in the end, it is a matter for the potential participants and, in particular, for the political parties within Northern Ireland, to decide if and when the conditions for carrying matters forward exist. It is, above all, a matter of individual and collective political will. For my part, I will continue to work for a

1145
way forward, since it is clear to me that constructive dialogue, particularly between the representatives of the two sides of the community within Northern Ireland, is of the greatest importance.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I was present to support the Secretary of State when he launched his initiative at the beginning of this year. He deserves praise for his endeavours. I hope that, despite a hiccup—I do not think that it is more than a hiccup—the talks will progress to a successful conclusion. The Secretary of State certainly deserves congratulations on his endeavours up to the present.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said.
I firmly believe that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, and Great Britain would wish the process in which we are engaged to culminate in success. Only the terrorists resist the process, since they can have no part in it, for the views of those who use violence count for nothing while blood is their argument.
4.50 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Secretary of State has properly covered not only the immediate political problems that he faces, but the history of his first year in office and the situation in Northern Ireland. He is right to draw attention to the fact that there is still considerable unemployment in Northern Ireland —14 per cent.—and that in some pockets, such as Ballymurphy, the Shankill and other places, unemployment far exceeds that proportion and is far worse than anywhere else in these islands. It is therefore important that we attend to and address that problem.
I do not see the economy of Northern Ireland through the same rose-tinted spectacles as the Secretary of State. However, to be fair, I must place on the record the fact that "Competing in the 1990s" seems to owe more to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) than to the Department of Trade and Industry and the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). In view of that departure, one must ask why the previous 10 years were so disastrous.
I note also the profits of the Northern Ireland Electricity service which have just been announced. Obviously, the turkey is being fattened for Christmas and for privatisation. That, however, will not solve the economic problems of Northern Ireland. Energy costs must concern anybody who is seeking to invest in Northern Ireland.
We get the impression that the Government have only just started to turn their attention to the problems of 1992. That problem needs to be faced throughout the whole of the island of Ireland. Indeed, 1992 should be seen in that context. There should be discussions with Ministers on both sides of the water about the important transport and communication lanes that will be necessary if the economy of Northern Ireland—and of the island of Ireland—is to be properly joined with that of Europe.
The Secretary of State will be aware that this is the first year in which the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989 has been implemented. The right hon. Gentleman is also aware that the Opposition thought that, despite the improvements that were made in this House
1146
and elsewhere, major defects remained in the Act. However, as the Act is now on the statute book, it should be seen to be made to work. It is gratifying to know that employers in both the private and public sectors have registered in great numbers and that the monitoring returns are now coming in. However, the mere completing of those tasks does not take away the real fear of employment discrimination that still exists in Northern Ireland, as recent reports of the Fair Employment Commission have shown.
Direct rule has often been described as everyone's second-best option, but that comment epitomises the complacency with which Northern Ireland is sometimes regarded on this island. There is a clear implication that a second-rate form of government is acceptable. Indeed, direct rule itself bears a large part of the responsibility for that complacency. In this case, not only is second best not good enough; it is, in itself, an appalling state of affairs.
Direct rule is an arrangement for the containment of violence, not for its elimination. Important though it is to limit the level of violence, after all these years, we must be more ambitious and look for arrangements which will stop violence altogether. I say this because there is a high price to be paid for the present arrangements. The price is paid first and foremost by the security forces, on which we rely to hold the ring until such time as a political settlement can be found. On behalf of the Opposition—and, indeed, the House—I express our sympathy for the families of the victims of violence and pay tribute to the efforts of the security forces.
But if our concern for the security forces is genuine and not merely rhetorical, the best assistance that we, the politicians, can give them is to establish widespread and positive agreement on the way in which the Province should be governed.
The present system also exacts a toll from the peoples of Northern Ireland as a whole. People with no connection with the security forces, or the paramilitaries, continue to fall victim to violence. Sadly, young people continue to fall into the clutches of the paramilitaries and tread the path to prison or an early grave. Yet part of the Secretary of State's speech today took away any sort of excuse that the paramilitaries—certainly on the Republican side—could have. The Secretary of State said:
"I believe that most in this House—and I number myself among them—would wish to see the Union continue, but the principles of democracy and self-determination mean that the people of Northern Ireland must themselves be the final arbiters."
Unionism is not the policy of the Labour party, but it is important to note that Her Majesty's Government are stating that, despite what the paramilitaries put out, Great Britain has no strategic, economic or political interest in Northern Ireland which overrides the wishes of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. That is an important point. So, for the paramilitaries, there is no excuse—their weapon must be persuasion, argument and co-operation. From what the Secretary of State has said, there is no excuse for any form of violence.
The civil liberties situation in the Province continues to blacken Britain's name. None of us can or, I hope, do take comfort from the departures from normal western European standards of law and justice—derogations from the European Convention on Human Rights.
Closely related to the absence of successful political arrangements is the economic deprivation which so affects

1147
the Province. As the Northern Ireland Economic Council has pointed out, nothing could do so much for the economic future of the Province as a whole as the establishment of political stability. It is that for which we are looking.
Direct rule is also politically corrupting. There is an absence of accountability which can be filled only by giving power and responsibility to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. With the best will in the world, Ministers alone cannot exercise the degree of control and scrutiny over Government Departments and public authorities that a democratic system would involve. Direct rule almost inevitably concentrates power in the hands of civil servants and the managers of public authorities because, of their nature, Ministers are transient beings.
In this respect, the behaviour of the Government in undermining the status of bodies where there is some elected representation is unwise. In particular, the decision to overturn the decisions of health boards on contracts even further undermines the role of elected representatives. Furthermore, the increasing tendency to rely on appointees rather than elected representatives seems to me to store up more difficulties for the future. If elected representatives are not given responsibility for these matters, the Government are failing to provide incentives for participation in the political life of the Province. That applies to all parties in the Province.
Direct rule also has a pernicious effect on the political parties in Northern Ireland. The health of a democratic political system can be assessed by the vigour of political parties. Without institutions which allow the parties to exercise power and responsibility, the incentives to take part in public life are limited. With such institutions, the position of the elected representative would be enhanced. That would stop the drift towards the consolidation of rule by a small and unelected elite. There is a clear need to reverse the trend towards the concentration of power in the hands of appointed bodies. It would be far preferable that individuals should make their contribution as elected representatives rather than as unaccountable appointees, there at the whim of the Minister.
For all those reasons, a system of government which receives positive support from the people of Northern Ireland is required. The paramilitaries will not be defeated by direct rule. They will be finished when the vast majority of the population in Northern Ireland can wholeheartedly support the system of government under which they live. The present stalemate cannot last for ever. There is a crying need for effective institutions in Northern Ireland with a significant degree of power, if the possibility of genuine political progress is to be kept open and the hope of democracy kept alive. There is, therefore, a duty on all of us, the two Governments, the parties in Northern Ireland and the House to create new arrangements for the way in which the Province is governed.
The initiative of the Secretary of State in launching his series of wide-ranging talks with various participants was and is welcomed. We pay tribute to his brave and determined efforts to find a way out of the political morass. We wish him well in the endeavours which are to come. We understand his difficulties and the fear that protracted negotiations might run the whole process into the sands. We therefore hope that, before the House rises, he will be
1148
able to announce an agreed package. But we must still be careful not to allow artificial deadlines and constitutional necessities such as today's debate to prevent progress.
Above all, we hope that the Secretary of State can bring about the comprehensive accord on the three relationships to which he referred and which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has correctly argued, must be dealt with in any overall, workable settlement. It is significant that, even if everything were now to fail—I hope and pray that it will not—the agenda has moved on to the acceptance of tripartite discussions. That in itself is a considerable achievement. It is a tribute to the Secretary of State, but also to the parties in Northern Ireland. But we must remember that the negotiations which we hope will take place will not do so in a vacuum. They will be watched closely by those who do not wish democratic politics to prevail and we can be sure that such people will do their best to undermine the efforts of the two Governments and of the constitutional parties. Furthermore, we must accept that the negotiations do not take as their point of departure a tabula rasa. We must look at what has already been achieved, particularly in the years since 1985, what the continuing failures are and how further progress can be made. We must build on existing achievements. We cannot hope to remedy the defects by sacrificing the achievements.
In November 1985, the House adopted the Anglo-Irish Agreement by an overwhelming majority of 473 to 47. The Labour party formed part of that majority because we believed and continue to believe that the agreement is a valuable instrument for dealing with many of the problems of Northern Ireland and of Anglo-Irish relations. At the same time we have always been clear that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should not be confused with the ten commandments. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If a better way forward can be found, the Opposition will be only too happy to lend their support. But we must make sure that the arrangements which may supersede, transcend, replace, supplant—or whatever word is used —represent progress and not a reversion to an earlier form of stalemate.
A major achievement of the agreement is that it has established mechanisms by which the British and Irish Governments can deal with each other and which have been more successful than anything in the past. Given the importance of co-operation between the Governments, not only in terms of security but with respect to political stability and a feasible set of arrangements for Northern Ireland, the mechanisms are an asset which must be protected. Co-operaton between the Governments, not necessarily the Anglo-Irish Agreement, is an asset.
The major defect of the agreement was, of course, the exclusion of Unionism and the Unionists. Until such time as the Unionist parties play their full and constructive role in acceptable political institutions in the Province, Northern Ireland cannot enjoy political normality of any description.
We do not underestimate the difficulties which the Secretary of State will face during the next few weeks. But considerable progress has been made which could not have been imagined when he embarked upon this enterprise. Nor would it have been possible if the leaders of the major political parties in Northern Ireland had not been prepared to sit down with him and work out, equally painstakingly, a way forward which they felt might be acceptable to the other side of the argument. The leaders of the Unionist parties and of the Social Democratic and

1149
Labour party are to be commended for their patience and commitment in advancing the talks so far, as do the minority parties in Northern Ireland which do not have places in the House.
The task of the Secretary of State is not an easy one. We wish him well in his endeavours. We hope that, in association with the leaders of the parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government, he will be able to present to the House an agreed package for a durable and practical solution. He has travelled a long way in the past six months. The Opposition trust that he will successfully complete the course.
5.6 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: This is the 15th renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 which, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a temporary device for the annual renewal of the authority of the Secretary of State of the day to govern Northern Ireland. Back in the 1970s I well remember a leading London newspaper complaining that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and his colleague who succeeded him, Lord Mason, strutted about Northern Ireland and behaved as if they had the authority to govern Northern Ireland. I made no such complaint about the attitude of the right hon. Gentlemen. I make no similar complaint today about the right hon. Gentleman who now holds that office.
However, my colleagues and I do complain about the mechanisms available to the present Secretary of State and the mechanisms that were available, and only those which were available, to his predecessors, because I am certain that all his predecessors were far from satisfied and that he is far from satisfied with the efficiency of the mechanisms that he is forced to operate under the 1974 Act.
Since the Secretary of State received his seals of office, he has endeavoured to improve dramatically those mechanisms. Those of us who have worked closely and, I hope that he will concede, constructively with him over the past 10 months hoped that today, with 10 months of discussions behind us, he would be in a position to chart out the course for what could have been the last renewal of direct rule in its present form. Our optimism prevailed until some 12 hours ago when it became clear that an operation was under way to bring down the shutters. No purpose will be served by castigating the Government of the Irish Republic and the parties in Ireland who share their views, because the seeds of disaster were sown and are to be found in the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985 which appeared to concede to the Dublin Government—any Dublin Government—joint sovereignty over part of the United Kingdom. So the Dublin Government can hardly be blamed for refusing to relinquish that apparent—I say "apparent"—role. The pro-Union people of Ulster would in all charity ask the people and Government of the Irish Republic to accept that we have not consented, and never will consent, to interference by any external Government.
Repeated opinion polls and a recent election in Upper Bann have proved conclusively that what consent there was is steadily diminishing. So there is obviously need for a fairer, more acceptable and much wider agreement, and I hope that Her Majesty's Opposition will support us in trying to design an agreement which really will deliver that
1150
which we all wish to see—peace, stability and reconciliation—but which the present agreement has signally failed to deliver.
That should not be taken as any anti-Irish sentiment. I would expect the Dublin Government to react similarly and reject any interference by me on behalf of the large Protestant minority in the Ulster county of Donegal. So they should not take it amiss when I say to them that I am asking for no privileges and no right to interfere in their jurisdiction which I am rejecting for our part, or for the whole, of the United Kingdom.
Those, even in this House, who adhere to the idea of a united Ireland and who insist that, in the meantime, Northern Ireland must be deprived of real democracy, should heed the views of someone who can be called an impartial observer. I refer to the distinguished churchman constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), Father Denis Faul, who has assessed the situation as meaning that only 20 per cent. of Roman Catholics would vote for a united Ireland. That suggests that only 8 per cent. of the entire electorate of Northern Ireland would wish, if given the choice, to vote for a united Ireland.
This Parliament—and, I hope, the Parliament of the Irish Republic—will come to accept that if the right to self-determination and to have a workable and fair democracy is to mean anything, the wishes of the 92 per cent. of the Northern Ireland electorate cannot be ignored year after year.
I pay tribute to the integrity of the Secretary of State. In all our lengthy discussions, we have been impressed by his honesty and fairness. Although the main avenue appears to have been blocked off, hon. Members— especially those of us who have discussed issues and negotiated with him during the last 10 months—owe it to him to build on the good will that he, more than anyone, has established. We must assist him—I hope that he will have the assistance of hon. Members in all parts of the House—in achieving success in those avenues not subject to any foreign veto.
We have a duty to salvage what we can and to set about devoting the time that remains in the lifetime of this Parliament to taking every modest step possible to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland—all of them—enjoy standards of government and administration that are in no way inferior to those enjoyed by their fellow citizens in the rest of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
5.13 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is greatly to be regretted that the Secretary of State was not able to make today the statement that he no doubt anticipated being able to make. We must face the fact that the hands of a foreign Government—outside the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom—were able to keep a Secretary of State, answerable to the Crown for part of the territory of the United Kingdom, from making a statement of importance to the future of Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State is to be commended on his patience, diligence and truthfulness in approaching the members of various parties to whom he has spoken. My contact with him, along with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), was straight and plain. We did not agree about much, but we found the Secretary

1151
of State prepared to listen, to take aboard views that were put to him and to measure and weigh them in making decisions. We appreciate what he has done, and I think that I can say that on behalf not only of my hon. Friends but of the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), whom I believe I see nodding assent.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said that what we are discussing is not a happening of a few hours back. The happening took place in this Chamber, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said, when the House overwhelmingly committed itself, following an undigested consideration of the matter, to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, without realising what the implications were or what the outworking would be.
Had the House made a correct decision, we would not be having this debate. We would not have heard the official Opposition spokesman say, in effect, "If we can get something to replace it, we shall be happy to consider it and then support it." The Secretary of State would not have used the language he used today.
In no community can we afford to set aside the views of any sizeable part of that community. That is strengthened by the fact that in no community can we afford to set aside the views of the majority of the people in that community.
The Secretary of State says that it is vital to obtain widespread acceptance for what is done. The Anglo-Irish diktat did not have widespread acceptance. The Secretary of State says that neither Government is seeking a new agreement. While I do not go with his reasoning—because he was not arguing, in the language he used today, for a new agreement—the right hon. Gentleman should be looking for a new agreement. The Taoiseach of the Irish Republic should also be looking for a new agreement.
Some of us who live in Northern Ireland, on both sides of the religious and political divide, must reap the sowing of the decision on the agreement that was made in this Chamber. We reap it every day. I reaped it recently when two gallant police officers, Gary Meyer and Harry Beckett, who protected me every Friday as I stood at Belfast city hall conducting religious services, were shot through the head by two vicious assassins. As I sat with the widows and their children, I thought of the sad weeping that we have had because of decisions taken in the House of Commons. No one in the House can wash their hands, Pilate-like, of what flows from those decisions. We need to face up to the reality.
What support is there for the Anglo-Irish Agreement? The Roman Catholic community is divided on the agreement. The SDLP supports it, but a large section of the Roman Catholic community says no to it. Sinn Fein says no to it, and Sinn Fein takes a sizeable slice of the Roman Catholic community's vote. We are told by people in the House that those who vote for Sinn Fein are not really voting for murder or for the IRA but are expressing a viewpoint, and they are opposed to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The vast majority of the Unionists are opposed to it. That has been shown not by opinion polls, but by solid votes. All the Unionists in the House resigned their seats and put it to the test, and we know the result of that test.
We know that the majority of people in Northern Ireland do not back the Anglo-Irish Agreement. If they do not, and if the Government's criterion is that we should
1152
have a form of government which they do back, should not the House be applying itself to having the agreement replaced and superseded? I would go further and say that it is our bounden duty to seek to do that. That is why I and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley spent time with the Secretary of State and, as the Secretary of State knows, at times put ourselves to great inconvenience—willingly and gladly, as he acknowledges. Why? Because there is an urge upon us to apply ourselves to the matter.
I greatly regret the road block. I would not be so pessimistic as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I hope that the road block will be cleared. I hope that the Dublin Government will see that they are standing in the way of what could be a profitable move forward in Northern Ireland for a constitutional settlement which would help every part of Northern Ireland and all its people. I trust that there will be serious thoughts in Dublin tonight about the attitude and actions that they have taken. What they have done will be deeply resented by the people of Northern Ireland. It will strike into their hearts once again what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley has said—that they perceived that the Anglo-Irish Agreement gave sovereignty to the southern Irish Government over the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. That perception has been demonstrated today.
The Secretary of State told us:
"Although the constitutional question has often seemed central to matters in Northern Ireland, I turn to it now in the hope of putting it to one side."
It cannot really be put to one side, because the Anglo-Irish Agreement did not, as he would suggest, for all time put out of the realm of controversy the status of Northern Ireland. Article 1 says:
"The two Governments affirm that any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland."
It does not say what the status of Northern Ireland is. What is the status of Northern Ireland? By a constitutional imperative, as viewed by the highest court in Dublin and approved by Mr. Haughey, it is that Northern Ireland is part of the Republic and the laws that it passes have validity if applied to the whole island of Ireland. There was a reason why that was not spelt out. If it had been spelt out, its validity would have been tested before the courts and the Government knew that they could not win on that issue. That is why there were two Sunningdale agreements. One was signed by the south and one by the north.
Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is expounding, carefully and accurately, article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Does he agree that the crucial part of it is the reference to the fact that there would be no change in the status of Northern Ireland? It says, "would", not "could". The Secretary of State misquoted that. Could is normative, whereas would is merely descriptive. Therefore, there is no undertaking on the status of Northern Ireland and what should happen in the future.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I accept that, but I come back to the Sunningdale agreement, which had a section, signed by the United Kingdom, spelling out the status of Northern Ireland. But that was omitted from the document signed by the Republic. Why? Because the Prime Minister knew that, constitutionally, he could not sign that because it would have been challenged.
There were also two Anglo-Irish Agreements each describing the Taoiseach in different terms and each describing the British Prime Minister in different terms.

1153
That was done for the same reason. The people of Great Britain may be hoodwinked, but the people of Ulster will not be. We know what is written into the constitution of the Irish Republic. We imbibed it with our mothers' milk. We know it exactly. It came as no surprise to anybody in Ulster what the High Court intended to do. Everybody knew the situation.
I am glad that in the south of Ireland there is now a strong lobby in favour of the removal of articles 2 and 3. I am glad that Mr. Jack Lynch, a former Fianna Fail Taoiseach, now says that the time has come to get rid of articles 2 and 3. It will be a happy day for the whole of Ireland when that obnoxious claim is removed from the constitution of the Irish Republic. Then, for the first time, we shall have a normal constitutional relationship, and from that we will be able to achieve a neighbourliness which is not possible at present.
We cannot accept the Secretary of State's interpretation, and that will come as no surprise to him. But I plead with him to think carefully about the criterion. If the criterion is widespread acceptance, he does not have that for the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Therefore, he should think about setting himself to achieve a new agreement, no matter how difficult that may be. I emphasise that.
I worry about a paragraph on page 5 about enlarging the constituency, where the Secretary of State says:
"It should enjoy widespread support from Northern Ireland, Great Britain and the Republic."
If he intends to submit that to the people of Great Britain, he should remember that I was the first person in this place to say that we should ask the people of Great Britain what they wanted to do with Northern Ireland, and I was severely castigated for it. I have heard many people saying that they want to cast out Northern Ireland. They might get a rude surprise. Perhaps that is why the Government are delaying asking the people of Great Britain.
The internal affairs of Northern Ireland are no concern of the Republic, but neither are the internal affairs of the Irish Republic any concern of mine. I do not campaign against the Irish Republic. When the press pushes me to make statements, I refrain from doing so. It is no concern of mine, and the Republic is entitled to do whatever it wishes.
The Secretary of State needs to define the issue. I do not want to think that he is now suggesting that if there is to be a final package, the part relating to the internal government of Northern Ireland must be submitted to the people of the Irish Republic before it can be implemented in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will clarify that.
Much has been said about the majorities. The people of Northern Ireland can stay within the United Kingdom provided that there is a majority in favour of that. That does not mean widespread support; it could be a majority of one. Similarly, if they want to join the Irish Republic, they can do so, provided that they have a majority in favour of that. What if the people of Northern Ireland want to go somewhere else? Why is there no provision for that majority? All majorities should have equal status. If power is given to one, it must be given to all. Perhaps the majority of people in Yorkshire would like to go somewhere else. It is ridiculous that, every time we debate Northern Ireland, we are told that it is up to the majority to say, "Goodbye".
1154
When I was a boy of seven, I was told that the Protestants would be bred out. Protestants also breed; they have families. It would be foolish of the House to think that a majority will come about through some form of birth control or birth explosion. There will always be a majority in Northern Ireland wishing to remain a part of the United Kingdom, and if the United Kingdom treats them in the same way that it treats those in other parts of the United Kingdom and if they give them the same benefits, that will not change.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: It used to be the standard procedure of the Northern Ireland Office to tell English Members that the Catholic population was projected to exceed the Protestant population at some future time—I note that the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) nods —and it was suggested that all wise politicians should prepare themselves for that.
Rev. Ian Paisley: That might be true. I was never briefed by the Northern Ireland Office. I had the great privilege of escaping from its falsehoods and blatant lies. I was in a happy position.
The House should remember that not all Roman Catholics are republicans. We need to wake up to that fact. Many Roman Catholics vote for Unionist candidates. Indeed, I am sure that all Unionist Members receive post from Catholics. I cannot tell how people vote in a Westminster election, but I can tell how they vote in a European election. I have stood by the election box and noted the percentages. I was amazed at how many first preference votes for "John Hume" had "Ian Paisley" as second preference, although I did not notice many first preferences for me giving John Hume as second preference. That just happens to be a fact of life. I know that a box in an entirely Roman Catholic community contained many, many votes for me. I am sure that the SDLP would also claim that Protestants vote for its candidates, and that is probably true.
When I referred to a great birth explosion, I noted that the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the righ hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South—laughed. Perhaps he wants to be a party to that, or perhaps he wants to distance himself from it. He should disabuse himself of his folly, because the majority is there, and it will remain.
I am concerned at the inference in speeches in the House—it appeared in the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North today—that a constitutional settlement will somehow take the IRA off the streets of Northern Ireland. That is a fallacy. A few days ago at Bowdenstown, Gerry Adams and his friends made it clear that it mattered not what initiatives were being taken, the IRA would continue to turn on the heat in Northern Ireland. If we move towards a constitutional settlement, there will be many vicious murders, and soft targets will be attacked. There can be no doubt about that. Even when such a settlement exists, the IRA will continue its campaign. No one should be so naive as to think that a constitutional settlement would end the IRA menace.
People should read the history of the Irish Republic. At its birth, it faced a similar problem with the Irregulars, headed by De Valera, who murdered their kith and kin in the Irish civil war. That has been almost forgotten. Kevin O'Higgins was the man who settled that by saying that the only way to deal with republican murderers was to take

1155
them out of society. He brought peace to the troubled south, but he paid the price for doing so. He was murdered by those who realised that he had won. However, because he had won, the Irregulars became respectable and De Valera went into the Dail. He became Prime Minister and his successor is Charlie Haughey. When people read that history, they will understand what Irish republicanism is all about and the way to deal with it.
Terrorism and evil murder are stalking the land in Northern Ireland. I appeal to the Government not to handcuff the security forces. They must give the police the money that they need. More money than ever before is needed by the police in Northern Ireland. They approach leading figures and say that they are under severe threat —they want to provide security, but can provide only a certain amount because of monetary considerations. The Government will have to put the sinews of war and finance into their campaign against terrorism.
Where do we go from here? The Secretary of State must dedicate himself to progress. All hon. Members should make sure that people know our intent that the talks should take place. Finally, the press should quit speculating. I read in today's newspapers what was said at the talks and what concessions were made as if they had been real negotiations. But they were talks about talks; we have not yet reached the negotiating table where all those matters will be discussed. I trust that when there is a settlement, the Secretary of State will be man enough to put it to the people of Northern Ireland, not at an election but at a referendum so that they can accept or reject it.
5.40 pm
Mr. John Hume: I join the Secretary of State in saying that everyone in Ireland and in Britain wants his initiative to succeed. Contrary to the impression given by others who have spoken in the debate, the good will of the Irish Government in the matter is totally unquestionable.
I should place on record my own appreciation for the immense efforts that the Secretary of State has put into a difficult task, the sensitivity that he has shown to different points of view and to the integrity and dedication with which he has pursued the objective of bringing us all round the table. We all acknowledge that he has made considerable progress, and I look forward to the talks. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the leader of the Alliance party, who is in the Strangers' Gallery, for the integrity and good will with which they have approached the talks. We must develop that spirit in the full knowledge that we face a difficult task because there are deep differences and divisions. The talks will be a serious beginning in dealing with the problems.
We are helped by the wider atmosphere in which we work today. The Unionists are celebrating the 300th anniversary of the battle of the Boyne. Some feared that the celebration might turn out to be divisive, but we should remember who was there in 1690. In addition to the Irish, the Danes, the Dutch, the Germans and the French fought on both sides.
Since 1690, all those countries have settled the differences between them, but Ireland has not. They have settled many deeper differences and have moved on to a
1156
wider European scene. There are lessons for us in that, as the origins of our problems are European. From a nationalist Republican point of view, the English presence in Ireland was due to Ireland being considered the back door for her European enemies. The plantation of Ulster was England's response to O'Neill's and O'Donnell's links with Spain. The Act of Union was England's response to the French invasion of Ireland in 1798.
Today we have a new Europe, and Ireland is rebuilding her links with Europe, as is Britain. That has profound implications for the traditional reasons that are given for using violence in Ireland. We rightly condemn them for that and we must continue to condemn unequivocally. One has only to look at the statistics of death in Northern Ireland to see that 55 per cent. of the people killed in the past 20 years were ordinary people going about their daily work who were blown to bits or shot in so-called mistakes or accidents or in tit-for-tat killings. That will continue in future if the terrorists continue their campaign, and they know that. What is their justification? They say that Britain is an island defending her own economic and strategic interests by force.
Can anyone seriously say today that Britain has an economic interest in Ireland, when the British taxpayer is paying £1.5 billion a year to keep our economy going? Does anyone believe that Britain has a strategic interest in Ireland in a nuclear world, and that a military presence is necessary for strategic reasons? Does anyone believe that, when everyone knows that, if the violence stopped, the troops would be off the streets in a matter of weeks?
We have the legacy of our past, but the meaning of sovereignty and independence has changed. Today we have shared sovereignty and interdependence. The issues about which we quarrelled in the past are gone, but our legacy is a deeply divided people. What does the IRA say about that? It says that we are being prevented by force from exercising the right to self-determination. Is that true? The people who live in Ireland are deeply divided about precisely how to exercise their right to self-determination. Agreement on how to exercise that right cannot be achieved by force or physical violence, but only through dialogue and peaceful means.
We might follow the example of the European peoples who contributed to the origins of our problems. Fifty years ago, when millions of people were being slaughtered across the continent and cities were being devastated, had someone stood up in the House and said that in 50 years' time the British Prime Minister would be sitting in a Council of Ministers which had planned a single Europe and was moving towards European political union, yet the Germans were still German and the French were still French, everyone would have said that that person was a dreamer or a fool.
But that has happened. We who are trying to resolve a conflict might ask why. It has happened because people have set aside the past. We are very good at dragging up the past; our respect for the past paralyses our approach to the future. It is easy to drag up the past to justify our attitudes to the present, but everyone does that and it keeps the conflict going.
Let us leave aside the past and agree to build institutions in Ireland that respect our differences, but we must do that in agreement, as agreement is at the heart of the matter. There is no way in which we can solve our problems by one section of our people countering another. It is no longer about pushing difference to the point of

1157
division; it is about accommodation and respect for difference. Having set up in agreement those institutions which respect our differences, we can then work the common ground, which all hon. Members representing Northern Ireland would agree is substantial. Our economic interests in particular will increase as we move into the single market. By spilling our sweat rather than our blood, we can break down the differences between us and grow together at our own speed. That is the strategy that I believe we should follow.
After a terrible 20 years, there is a spirit abroad that demands political leadership and talks between the Governments involved as soon as possible. I wish the Secretary of State well, and I am confident that it will not be too long until the remaining loose ends are tied up, so that we can begin the difficult, but I hope successful, process of bringing lasting peace to our people.
5.49 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) will not misunderstand me when I say that I greatly admired the speech that he has just made. This is a special debate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland opened it with a characteristically thoughtful speech. Each of the three Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland who have spoken so far in the debate, each of whom has been involved in the preliminary discussions with my right hon. Friend, has paid tribute to his personal qualities and patience. I took no part whatsoever in the talks about talks, but those who have not seen the Secretary of State in action at first hand know enough about him to realise that he has precisely those qualities that are required to bring about agreement in the Province.
My right hon. Friend referred frequently to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. May I correct what I think may have been a misunderstanding on his part? He said:
"the Republic of Ireland has accepted, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that the status of Northern Ireland could be changed only with the consent of a majority of its people".
The implication of my right hon. Friend's words was that, before 15 November 1985, the Irish Government believed that the status of Northern Ireland could be changed otherwise than by consent.
The Government have frequently claimed that one of the prizes of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was that the Irish Government acknowledged for the first time that there could be a change of status only with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland. I have with me, however, the text of the communiqué that was issued after the Sunningdale agreement was signed 17 years ago —12 years before the signing of the Anglo-lrish Agreement. The text of the Sunningdale agreement reads:
"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 House will note that the words of the Anglo-Irish Agreement reproduced verbatim the words that appeared in the Sunningdale communiqué in 1973.
Mr. Trimble: Will the hon. Gentleman compare article I of the Anglo-Irish Agreement with the Sunningdale agreement? He is right to say that, to a large extent, the Irish Government's statement in the Sunningdale agreement was on similar lines to their statement in the
1158
Hillsborough agreement of 1985. Will he, however, please check that the word "could" that was used in 1974 became "would" in 1985, which changes the meaning?
Mr. Gow: The hon. Gentleman has made that point already. I do not quarrel with it, although I think that he goes too far in asserting that there is a difference between "could" and "would".
Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a substantial difference between that which is contained in the communiqué, which leads to no commitment by either Government in legal terms, and that which is written in a solemnly binding international agreement? Does he not agree with the suggestion that that which is contained in the solemnly binding international agreement is binding on both Governments and that anything which is stated in the communiqué does not bind either Government?
Mr. Gow: The House will remember that it was agreed that the Sunningdale agreement should be registered with the United Nations, whatever useful purpose might have been served by such registration.
Mr. Mallon: I was referring to the communiqué.
Mr. Gow: The next passage in my right hon. Friend's speech was very startling. It seemed to me that my right hon. Friend was calling for a new Anglo-Irish Agreement. The words that led me to that conclusion were these:
"There is no reason why the present agreement should be the last word. While neither Government are seeking a new agreement, if a better agreement—which commanded widespread support within both sides of the community in Northern Ireland—were to be arrived at, that would prove to be an important step forward."
What is so striking about my right hon. Friend's choice of words is that he asserts that a precondition for a successful agreement is that it should command widespread support within both sides of the community.
Before the Cabinet gave its final approval to the agreement, the question that was asked in the Cabinet, and that one would expect to be asked, was, "What about the Unionists?" The architects of the 1985 agreement—the Foreign Office, the present Foreign Secretary and to a very small extent indeed my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Defence—were obviously asked by the Cabinet what the reaction of the Unionists would be. The Foreign Office and the Northern Ireland Office said that, if signed, the agreement would be welcomed in Dublin, the Vatican, Roman Catholic Europe and, above all, the United States.
The question that was then put was, "You've told us how pleased all these people will be, but what will be the reaction of the Unionists?" It was not a bad question. The answer that was given to the Cabinet was, "Paisley will huff and puff, but most Unionists will be well satisfied with the agreement." With that assurance, the Cabinet gave its approval to the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is in his place. He answered a debate in April when I reminded him of this truth. However, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not in the House that day. I do not rebuke him, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State knows that the Prime Minister was misled. Five weeks after the agreement was signed, the Prime Minister gave an

1159
interview to the Belfast Telegraph. She was asked about the reaction of the Unionists during those five weeks. In that interview, the Prime Minister said:
"The reaction has been much worse than I expected. One is trying to find out why."
Mr. Trimble: Is she still trying?
Mr. Gow: No. I am saying that we have made progress.
Mr. David Porter: Are we not falling into the Irish trap of fighting old battles time and again? We won the argument about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. My hon. Friend knows full well that I voted with him against it. We won the argument, but we lost the vote. There is only one thing that I know today: that three constitutional parties want to make progress. I do not know whether the talks about talks have run into quicksands. I hope not. Until and unless the Secretary of State comes to the House and says that they have run into quicksands, I am willing —indeed, eager—for him to continue his negotiations. Please let us not say things in this House today that will make that less likely. Please let us get on with this debate, which is about direct rule. There is no alternative to it. Let us try to make progress.
Mr. Gow: I am praising my right hon. Friend, who said something this afternoon that none of his predecessors said. He told the House, in this most important debate, which has been conducted with intense good will on both sides of the House—which I want to continue—that any agreement made with the Government of the Irish Republic must command
"widespread support within both sides of the community".
He knows very well, as does every hon. Member, that the Anglo-Irish Agreement does not command widespread support in the Province. I am praising my right hon. Friend for acknowledging the defect in the agreement. Northern Ireland cannot be governed differently from the rest of the kingdom, save with the consent of a majority of the people who will be governed differently. We do not have that consent, or the consent for the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I have sent my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State an alternative to the agreement. He specifically said that, if a better agreement were to be arrived at, that would prove to be an important step forward. I think that it would.
My right hon. Friend has been engaged for several months in the talks about talks. His conduct has been praised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and those participating in the talks. He had hoped to be able to tell the House this afternoon that agreement had been reached and that talks would begin in the autumn. He regrets that he has not been able to secure that agreement. I understand fully his wish, which is declared in the agreement, that we should try to establish a form of assembly in Northern Ireland that would be supported by all the political parties, whose powers and power-sharing arrangements would be agreed. We have tried this before, and we were committed by the agreement to try again.
That policy has the support of the Irish and British Governments. I doubt whether the arrangement that my right hon. Friend envisages—a power-sharing assembly with legislative powers—will provide a stable structure of
1160
government for the Province. On the contrary, such an assembly, which by definition would mean that it did not enjoy the confidence of any of the political parties, would be built not on past success but on past failure.
Is there a different and better way forward in Northern Ireland than that proposed by my right hon. Friend? I believe that there is—the policy fashioned by Airey Neave when he was shadow Secretary of State, a post that he held from February 1975 until his assassination on 30 March 1979. The Conservative manifesto of 1979 said that, in the absence of devolved government, we would seek to set up regional councils with widely devolved powers over local councils.
There is not such a gulf between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself. I want administrative devolution; he prefers, apparently, legislative devolution. That is certainly the implication of article 4 of the agreement. There is no permanent resting home between the fact of the Union, to which he referred in his speech, and the claim in articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Republic.
The trouble is that the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the idea of an assembly with legislative powers were an attempt to split the difference between the fact of the Union and the claim of the Republic to a place of special privilege in relation to Northern Ireland. Instability will continue, even if we can cobble together a power-sharing executive and assembly.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider—he has wisely said that he will consider all proposals presented to him in good faith—Airey Neave's proposals, because Airey had studied this for about four years. We should confer modest additional powers on the 26 district councils. That proposal is not anathema to my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench. Even the hon. Member for Foyle would be quite happy to see modest additional powers conferred on the 26 district councils.
Mr. Mallon: I am reluctant to interrupt again, but in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) may I assure the hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend would take no satisfaction from his proposal. To avoid any misunderstanding, I feel it necessary to inform him of that.
Mr. Gow: I am grateful to the representative of the Social Democratic and Labour party for saying that it is opposed to modest additional powers being conferred on district councils. I am grateful for that elucidation, but I say that we should confer modest additional powers on them. Further, we should set up a regional council with powers analogous to those enjoyed by county councils in England and by regional councils in Scotland. We could proceed slowly, but administrative and not legislative devolution is required.
We should cease to legislate for Northern Ireland by unamendable Order in Council. The policy that I have outlined could and should guarantee to Roman Catholic and nationalist fair treatment under a just law, which is of the first importance in Northern Ireland.
I wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State well in the task that he has set himself, but if the talks are not able to reach agreement I hope that he will reflect again on the policy that was fashioned in 1979, which died with the assassination of Airey Neave.
6.8 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I apologise to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to all hon. Members for the fact that I shall have to leave this debate before long.
I place on record the fact that I have not heard or seen reported for the past two or three decades a debate that has carried as much hope as today's debate. It is a privilege to be here at a moment of tremendous hope, although that hope has not yet come to flower, as some of us had hoped it might, but is still in the bud. That hope is carried not only in the words of the Secretary of State—we can all understand his position—but in the important and perhaps almost historic speeches that we have heard from the leaders of all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, with the exception of the leader of the Alliance party, who is not in the Chamber. However, he is here in the Gallery, if I am permitted to say so. [HON. MEMBERS: "You are not."] I am reminded that I am not. We have heard many important statements and we all understand why people are covering ground for themselves in the difficult position in Northern Ireland. But we can all take a great deal of hope from the tone of the speeches.
History is important, but it is the curse of Ireland, and timing is often important as well. Once again, this debate comes at a most wretched time. The Secretary of State has been involved in delicate negotiations. It would be fair to say, to coin a phrase of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), that deadlines should not be part of that process. However, the Secretary of State, for reasons that we all understand, has had a deadline imposed on him by this debate. It would have been impossible for him to come here and not to make a statement about the progress of the talks which we all know have been going on. It is clear to us all that he has had to make that statement before—perhaps only shortly before—he would have liked to. That is a shame.
I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Secretary of State on a remarkable achievement. He has, without doubt, united efforts where most of us thought that it was impossible. He has laid foundations where none of us believed that it was possible to do so and he has created hope in Northern Ireland where many of us expected to see only despair for a long time to come. The House, the people of Northern Ireland and the cause of peace are greatly in his debt. It is right at this time to add my appreciation—and, I suspect, the appreciation of all hon. Members—for the leaders of the constitutional parties who have taken part in the process. All of them have displayed a great courage and have shown that they put the peace of Ireland before their own sectional interests. The fact that we have not been able to bring events to the conclusion that we might have liked now is a cruel blow, but a blow that can be understood.
I wish to change the tone of what has been said so far. We are now left in a dangerous position. We all know that some of what the Secretary of State and others have been trying to achieve has been exposed today. They have been travelling across no man's land and at the moment when the searchlight has come up, they are not quite on safe territory. There will be a delay until the Secretary of State can announce the finishing touches to the process. The delay is deeply dangerous because it may undermine the
1162
positions that people have been taking in private, if not necessarily in secret. The fact that the delay may incorporate 12 July makes the matter even more delicate.
Mr. Trimble: Why? That is a silly remark.
Mr. Ashdown: I speak as a Northern Irishman myself. The hon. Gentleman will know that the period around 12 July is one of some natural tension in Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
Mr. Trimble: It is one of the quietest periods of the year.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman and I have a different perception of the matter; perhaps we had better leave it at that.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am not a Member of the Orange Order, but I hope that I can put him right about the period around 12 July. Traditionally, it is a peaceful period. There was a time a few years ago when people who were ignorant about the meaning of 12 July did their best to build it into a period when there would be a flashpoint and trouble. For a year or two, especially when people felt angry about the advent of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, there was trouble. But that has not happened traditionally and it has not happened in recent years. It behoves all of us, including the right hon. Gentleman, not to suggest that we might expect trouble around 12 July. We in Northern Ireland know that there is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and I concede it to him. We all recognise that there have not been great disturbances around 12 July. When I was a child in Northern Ireland, I was very involved with 12 July. However, it is a period during which what is said rather than what is done may contribute to tension.
Mr. Trimble: No.
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman and I will have to disagree on that.
It is bound to be the case that those who seek to proceed in Northern Ireland by terrorism and by violence will see the next period as crucial. They believe that by the extended use of terrorism and violence they can undermine the climate that the Secretary of State has been creating so carefully. That is why I want to make three appeals. First, this is a moment at which we must not let acts of violence undermine what is now in prospect. It is essential that we hold with determination to our current positions. There is no doubt that those who wish to wreck peace in Ireland will use this period to attempt to do so.
Secondly, I hope that those who have been courageous in participating in discussions with the Secretary of State will hold their ground. Their courage and determination now will be a considerable ingredient in the success that I hope that the Secretary of State will achieve.
Thirdly, I appeal to those who now delay—and I do not seek to point the finger. Those who are causing a delay in putting the finishing touches to what the Secretary of State wants should realise that delay is profoundly dangerous. If the brave attempts of the Secretary of State and others now fail, the cause of peace in Northern Ireland may be set back considerably—perhaps by as much as a decade. That would be a disaster and a tragedy. Every day's delay, every week's delay and every month's delay put this delicate and

1163
precarious position at more risk. I appeal to those who are contributing to the process to ensure that delay is kept to the absolute minimum. As they delay, the chances of success, the chances of peace and lives are greatly put at risk.
6.18 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: This afternoon, the Secretary of State introduced for a further year direct rule in Northern Ireland. He rightly questioned it as a long-term solution to the system of government in Northern Ireland, and Unionist Members share that view. He mentioned that this was a temporary provision. For the past 16 years, Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland have described it as a "temporary provision." The House will recall that income tax was originally introduced as a temporary provision.
Our parties are totally opposed to the present system of direct rule in Northern Ireland and share with the Secretary of State the aspiration that there will soon come a time when we shall have a system of government that is answerable to the people who live in Northern Ireland. We despise and reject the system which, for the past 16 years, has denied the elected representatives of Northern Ireland in this our national Parliament the right to full parliamentary debates on our legislation and the right to table amendments to it. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) referred to eastern Europe. It is ironic that the people of eastern Europe should have greater parliamentary rights than the people of Northern Ireland, but those countries' representatives have the right to table amendments to new legislation. As a British Member of Parliament, I can table amendments to English, Scottish and Welsh legislation but not to the legislation of Northern Ireland. That system must be brought to an end.
The Secretary of State referred to the Northern Ireland economy and to security. I join him in expressing great appreciation at the improvement in the economic life of Northern Ireland. In the past 20 years, the terrorists and those who support them have done great damage to our economy. It must be remembered that Roman Catholics as well as Protestants have lost jobs as a result of the IRA terrorist campaign. On security, we join the Secretary of State in placing our full confidence and support in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, in the British Army and in its largest regiment, the Ulster Defence Regiment, for the work that they are doing for the citizens of Northern Ireland—Roman Catholic and Protestant alike.
Roman Catholics and Protestants also share in the great misery caused by the IRA. Several thousand lives have been lost, not all of them Protestant; many Roman Catholics, too, have suffered as a result of the terrorist campaign. Thousands of us, including myself, have been injured during that campaign—both Roman Catholics and Protestants once again. Many Roman Catholics and Protestants have had their businesses destroyed. In considering the economy and the security situation, we must remember that, during the past 20 years, Roman Catholics and Protestants alike have suffered as a result of terrorism.
There has been an air of disappointment about this debate. The Secretary of State said quite openly that he could not go as far as he had hoped to, and his remarks
1164
confirmed much of the speculation in the press. It seems that, even until yesterday, he had hoped to be able to go further. There used to be a slogan in Northern Ireland, which the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will remember well: "Ulster says no." It seems to me that today that slogan has been replaced by another: "Dublin says no." It appears that some form of veto has been exercised at the last minute to stall what many of us had hoped would be political progress in the totality of relationships in these islands.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland took the initiative in January this year, and during the past six or seven months the leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and, indeed, the Dublin Government have been in consultation with him. That is what politics is all about—dialogue, participation and an examination of the problems. I think that the Secretary of State will agree that there was a positive response from all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland, and we pay tribute to the leadership given by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who have jointly presented the Unionist position to the Secretary of State.
There has been some despondency today, but I am not despondent. Unbelievably, in November I will have been a Member of Parliament for 25 years. I have spent 10 years at the European Parliament as well as serving here and —more interestingly—eight years in the Northern Ireland Parliament and time in two Northern Ireland assemblies and at the constitutional convention in Stormont. All those various institutions created by different political initiatives have collapsed one by one, for reasons that we need not go into this evening. But with all my experience, I am not despondent.
I may be disappointed, but I say to the Secretary of State, "Carry on," because many of us in both sections of the community in Northern Ireland admire the leadership that he has given to the people of Northern Ireland in 1990. We want him to carry on the work that he has been doing and we will respond positively, as has been evident from the contributions made by the two Unionist leaders in recent months.
The first and most important question that needs to be addressed is Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom, and we warmly welcome the confirmation by the Secretary of State today of the Government's position on Northern Ireland. Our rights here in the national Parliament must also be addressed quickly.
We agree that there should be some devolution of power back to the people of Northern Ireland, although the exact form of that devolution has yet to be considered. It is tremendously important that Catholics and Protestants, Unionists and Nationalists should become involved in the administration of the state, so that they gain trust and confidence in each other and so that younger politicians become involved in the political life of Northern Ireland. We hold out the hand of friendship to the Nationalist minority—which will remain a minority for some time if the birth statistics given by the hon. Member for Antrim, North are anything to go by—and offer its members a shared responsibility in the administration of the state.
Then there is the question of the relationship with Dublin—a major problem. Dublin may today have exercised the veto given to it by a Conservative Government whose representatives flew in by helicopter

1165
unbeknown to the Ulster people, signed the Anglo-Irish Agreement and flew out again before we heard on the 1 o'clock news that they had for the first time given a say to a foreign Government in the internal affairs of part of the United Kingdom. That decision was taken without reference to the two pillars of democracy, consultation and consent. There was no consultation with the people of Northern Ireland and no consent was sought. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was imposed upon us. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) implied, it was thought that, in time, the Ulster people's opposition would be worn down, but that has not happened.
There is now greater realism in London and Dublin, both of which realise that the opposition of the people of Northern Ireland to the Anglo-Irish Agreement is much stronger now, in 1990, than it was four and a half years ago and that the agreement has become the major obstacle to political progress in the Province. That obstacle must be removed. London and Dublin recognise that today—unfortunately, four and a half years too late. We in Ulster —Roman Catholics and Protestants alike—have had to suffer the results of the stalemate during that period.
We must address the relationship of Dublin to Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Foyle said that history had implications for the internal affairs of Northern Ireland. He referred to the role of Ireland and of the United Kingdom in Europe. For 10 years, he and I served together in Strasbourg in the European Parliament and very often we co-operated in the interests of Northern Ireland. However, he missed one point in trying to draw a comparison between the situation in Ireland and that in France, Germany and elsewhere in Europe. Barriers are disappearing in Europe and borders are becoming more free. France and Germany are co-operating. However, they all recognise each other. France does not claim jurisdiction over part of Germany. It recognises Germany. Recognition is the main problem in the island of Ireland today as we look forward to co-operation.
Of course, in the European context today there are more reasons for co-operation between Belfast and Dublin than at any time since the Republic of Ireland left the United Kingdom in 1921. We have common policies now in fisheries, agriculture, the environment and in many other aspects of public life. It would be good for all the people in the island of Ireland if we could have some means of co-operating together on some of those issues. There is an openness on the Unionist side if the obstacles to co-operation can be removed.
The obstacles must be spelt out from the Unionist Benches. I disagree with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the constitutional claim by the Republic over Northern Ireland could more or less be forgotten or ignored. That is not so. As the recent judgment confirmed, in any negotiations with Northern Ireland, the Republic is under a constitutional imperative to use co-operation with Northern Ireland to try to gain a united Ireland. So long as the Republic does not come to us as a partner who respects us, I am afraid that we cannot have real co-operation within the island.
As Unionists, we are anxious to bring about more co-operation within our island. However, first of all Dublin must reconsider articles 2 and 3 of its constitution. They must be amended by a referendum within the Republic of Ireland. If we see that kind of progress, we can certainly get real co-operation within the island of Ireland
1166
between the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the Republic. That would be good for the totality of relationships within the whole of the British Isles.
I look forward to the day when we will have a settlement in Northern Ireland which involves both sections of the community and the Administration; which will bring about co-operation between Belfast and Dublin; which will guarantee Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom; and which will bring to an end the perennial squabbling between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland on the issue of Northern Ireland.
Should progress not be made—we remain hopeful that it will be made—should Dublin continue to say no, there must come a time, sooner rather than later, when the order that we are renewing tonight will cease to be the law of this land. We must move quickly to a situation in which the people of Northern Ireland, irrespective of those who are now saying no, are given their full rights in this our national Parliament.
6.33 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: As I listened to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I could not help but feel that I was listening to and watching someone who was sad because his expectation for today could not and would not be realised—or at least realised within the time scale that he had set himself. From various meetings with the Secretary of State since he first came to Northern Ireland, I have found him to have attributes which, dare I say it, some of his predecessors did not possess. He has the ability to listen and then to respond to the points that one has made instead of trying to lead one down an alley or divert one's attention to a different issue. This evening, the Secretary of State has, despite the setback, endeavoured not to lead us down a different alley or on to a different issue.
The Secretary of State spelt out clearly that the impediment to progress that we had all expected derives from the attitude of the Government in Dublin. If the Secretary of State has not been too harsh in dealing with that Government's attitude, perhaps that is because he recognises, as we all do, that a Government sitting in the Dail have an imperative enshrined within articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution to do nothing—I use the term in the constitution—before it achieves the
"reintegration of the national territory."
However, we all know that the island of Ireland has never been a single political entity except under the Administration based in Westminster. For the past 70 years the people of Northern Ireland have had a political identity. We cannot sweep away 70 years of history.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) referred to the changes in eastern Europe. If we look at the map of Europe, it is clear that many countries honoured today achieved their boundaries after the establishment of Northern Ireland as a political entity in the early 1920s.
The Secretary of State made one mistake this evening. He said:
"Although the constitutional question has often seemed central to matters in Northern Ireland, I turn to it now in the hope of putting it to one side. We regard the position as clear."
Irrespective of how the Secretary of State meant it—I think that I know what he meant when he said
"We regard the position as clear"—
the first part of his statement will be misunderstood. In the Irish Republic it will be interpreted as meaning: "Quite

1167
honestly, if nobody raises the matter, if nobody concentrates our minds on the issue or draws articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution to our attention, we here in the House of Commons do not particularly care about it." I want the Secretary of State or whoever replies on his behalf to emphasise that the second part of his statement is more important than the first. That will reassure us greatly in Northern Ireland. At this moment of some disappointment, we need that reassurance.
Will the Secretary of State reconsider the implications of the McGimpsey court case? It has become increasingly clear, not just in respect of what has happened regarding the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman had hoped to bring here today, but since 1 March, that when the McGimpseys went to the Supreme Court they managed unequivocally to bring out what the present Taoiseach said he has always recognised—that there is a constitutional imperative to unite the island of Ireland, and that the territorial claim is a real legal claim in Irish terms, not merely a political aspiration.
The extradition cases brought in the past few months have proved that there is a serious restriction on any Irish Government—whether a Fianna Fáil Government, or one made up of an amalgam of parties or of any other single party—as they are not permitted by their constitution to enter into any agreement that may respect the position of Northern Ireland or of Unionists in Northern Ireland. I challenge the Secretary of State to consider that issue, and to decide—if I am right, and if the courts have proved me right—whether it is the responsibility of the Government not merely to assert that they and the House do not recognise the Irish Republic's territorial claim, or to assert that that territorial claim is not recognised internationally, but to go a step further and take the issue to the international courts. The Government have taken other issues involving the Irish Republic to the international courts—successfully, in one or two recent cases—to have them resolved.
If the Government shirk their responsibility in this respect, some of us are prepared to take the case to be judged in the European Court. In the light of the strong statement that the Secretary of State made this evening, it is the Government's responsibility to take the issue to an international court, and to have his opinion and that of the House endorsed once and for all.
If hon. Members are serious about trying to bring peace, stability, understanding and co-operation to Northern Ireland—all Unionist Members are committed to that—we must establish the basis upon which we can do so. That basis does not exist now, as there is a fundamental difference of opinion between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Republic about the status of Northern Ireland.
I remind the House of the exact degree of scepticism voiced by the advocate of the Irish Government during the McGimpsey court case when he talked about article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the status of Northern Ireland. He referred to the McGimpseys' counsel thus:
"Now, Mr. O'Flaherty referred to Article 1, my Lord, headed 'The Status of Northern Ireland'. When one reads that Article, one looks at the status of Northern Ireland, it is not defined at all. It is carefully not defined, my Lord, carefully not defined."
1168
I have quoted those words in the House before, and I make no apology for doing so again. As long as we try to build progress on a lie or on a deceit we are bound to fail. I ask the Secretary of State to seek the truth, and let us build upon that.
6.45 pm
Mr. Ken Livingstone: I join in the general approval that has been given to the activities of the Secretary of State, and I hope that that will not cause him any problems. I cannot think of a more difficult job, and I was immediately impressed, early in his tenure of office, when he gave the press a review of his first 100 days in office. Not everyone shares my enthusiasm for that interview, but it was refreshingly honest after the best part of two decades of deceit, humbug and a lot of false promise and hope. If the House is realistic, it will realise that the right hon. Gentleman was merely relaying to the public information from Army intelligence sources and military strategists about the real balance of forces and potentials in the north of Ireland.
Equally, I hope that no one will be particularly surprised if I say that I hope that something will grow out of this initiative. It would be wonderful if it did. I agree with other hon. Members that there have been a lot of initiatives, about which much was said at the time, but over the two decades they have all run into the ground.
I would not want to do or say anything to damage the initiative if it can bring together the communities in the north of Ireland, provide a lasting solution to the problems that beset the island of Ireland and lead to the establishment of normal relationships within the two communities and between Ireland as a whole and mainland Britain.
The House knows that I should like to see a united Ireland. I suspect that, if it were united, people would, within a very short time, look back on these events with amazement. The horrors of the past few hundred years, and especially of the past 20 years, would rapidly recede into history.
I do not apologise for returning to a subject that I have raised before and I am not trying to undermine the Secretary of State's work, but for Britain to carry the enthusiasm of both communities in the north of Ireland they must be certain that there is a degree of justice and openness about what Britain does in Ireland. Those of us who have pursued the issue of some of the abuses that have taken place in the north of Ireland in recent years will help to create a lasting and peaceful solution. While abuses remain covered up there will be continuing suspicion and reluctance to trust that the British Government are genuinely even handed.
I shall again dwell on the events surrounding the Kincora boys home. We have been told again and again that that matter has been investigated and closed. We have been told again and again when we have raised the issue of what happened in Kincora that if hon. Members have any evidence they should submit it to the appropriate authorities and it will be fully investigated. Yet, with every month that passes, more and more damning information comes to light, showing that those who have genuinely tried to investigate what happened in Kincora—the RUC —have been blocked in their investigations.
I want to draw particular attention to what I thought was an excellent programme on BBC television on 2 June

1169
—"Public Eye"—which once again brought major new evidence to light by identifying a senior intelligence source who was able to point out that he had notified MI5 at the most senior level of the events in the Kincora boys home.
I shall recount the events at Kincora for the benefit of any right hon. or hon. Member who has not followed the story. Certainly anyone who has had to rely on the British press for that information will be very uninformed. Three men who were subsequently sentenced for their acts at Kincora—Joe Mains, Raymond Sempel and William McGrath—presided over the Kincora boys home for the best part of two decades and had a record of systematic, year-by-year child abuse of the most violent kind. They were guilty of acts that are deeply shocking. It is impossible to read the testaments of the boys concerned without being shaken—they are horrifying. That abuse continued for perhaps even longer than two decades.
It is worrying that disquiet at that state of affairs was expressed first not by someone on the left or even in the Labour party. When those three evil men were finally sentenced to prison for their long campaign of child abuse, the then Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, Sir Robert Lowry, said—
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Perhaps I may interrupt my hon. Friend to make this observation. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is usually the most courteous of men, but I note that he is leaving the Chamber. It may well be that he has urgent business elsewhere, but some of us are of the opinion—and the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), may laugh—that the issue that my hon. Friend raises will not go away. It will be raised again and again because it is a disgrace to the British state.
Mr. Livingstone: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pity that we do not have a further response from the Government to the points that have been raised. I also agree with my hon. Friend that the issue will not go away and that we will continue to raise it. There are other guilty men who should be in prison for what they did, or for what they did not do, but who remain free.
Sir Robert Lowry said when sentencing Mains, Sempel and McGrath:
"It is not my custom, nor is it wise, to allocate blame to people who are not before the court. But many people will be surprised to learn that such a state of affairs as prevailed in this boys home was able to go on for so many years."
Ten years have elapsed, and there have been six inquiries, but still no satisfactory answer has been produced to Sir Robert's point.
It is a matter of widespread public concern in Northern Ireland in particular that, although the authorities knew since at least the early 1970s what was happening at Kincora, there was no intervention. The suffering and abuse inflicted on those boys continued. The word "abuse" cannot fully describe what was done. There were two decades of systematic, continuous, violent anal rape of the most appalling kind. I commend right hon. and hon. Members to read the boys' accounts. Many of them have grown into men whose lives can never be put back together. They live with the consequences of the treatment that they suffered. If there is any evidence that the state knew what was happening as early as 1974 but decided to take no action, that is a crime as grave as that of the sodomisers themselves.
Mr. Dalyell: I ought to place on record that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber. Perhaps he had to leave his place for the same reason that we all do from time to time, but I am glad that he has returned to hear my hon. Friend's remarks.
Mr. Livingstone: I often find that people tend to hurry off when I am talking. It is a continuing problem that I have. It may be that people do not like to hear what I have to say.
This year, there has been a series of dramatic developments, and I refer not just to the findings of the investigation by "Public Eye". Earlier this year, after years of our hearing Colin Wallace being dismissed as a crank, a Walter Mitty figure, and someone who was to be ridiculed, the Secretary of State for Defence came to the House and admitted that there was evidence to support Colin Wallace's allegations. Although most press attention focused on Clockwork Orange and on whether there had been a campaign to destabilise the Labour Government in 1974, that was not the biggest crime. The vital point is that Colin Wallace was aware of events at Kincora and made his senior officers aware of them. He also drafted press briefing material that drew attention to the role of McGrath, who was running a paramilitary organisation called TARA. That material was forensically tested to provide evidence for Paul Foot's book, and it was proved that those documents were written at the time claimed by Colin Wallace and not after the event. The documents made it clear beyond doubt that senior Army intelligence officers and MI5 knew as early as 1974, and certainly by 1975, that systematic child abuse was occurring at Kincora—which was allowed to continue until 1980, until exposed not by the authorities but by the press.
We have a right to say that if the Government had devoted one tenth of the effort directed at denigrating Colin Wallace to investigating with an open mind the events at Kincora, the problem might by now be resolved, and all the guilty brought to justice.
We know that there is to be an investigation by Mr. Calcutt, but I regret that the Government have not made its terms wide enough to allow Mr. Calcutt to investigate Kincora. In the past, the terms of reference of those charged with investigating Kincora were so narrowly drawn that it was virtually impossible for them to investigate the claims that Army intelligence and MI5 knew what was happening. That has fed the strong suspicion that there was a reason for MI5 allowing that child abuse to continue. That is the most disturbing allegation that can be made.
Mr. Dalyell: If my hon. Friend will allow me to intervene once more while the Secretary of State is present, I emphasise the sheer anger that is felt by some of us. On 10 June, Colin Wallace wrote to the Prime Minister, mentioning certain persons by name:
"I enclose with this letter a selection of pages from a document which was typed during the period for the Information Policy unit by Mr. C. T. T. Whitehead, until recently Deputy Chief Press Officer at the MOD and currently with the Home Office".
At least a fortnight later, Mr. Whitehead had not been contacted and knew nothing of the matter. No one had bothered to do anything about Mr. Wallace's letter. There

1171
was a complete reluctance on the part of some individuals to get up off their backsides and find out more. That is why we are so angry.
Mr. Livingstone: I share my hon. Friend's anger. This issue should stand apart and not be subject to the usual restrictions on the length of time available for the Secretary of State to reply. It is not unusual when one writes to a Minister about detailed points of concern relating to Kincora that six months elapse before one receives a full reply. Instead, one is sent holding reply after holding reply. That suggests that someone is deeply worried.
The television programme "Public Eye" on 2 June brought new information to the attention of the public. It definitely identified that by 1975 the state knew about the abuse of young boys at Kincora. Roy Garland, who had been number two in the paramilitary organisation TARA, as effectively its deputy commanding officer, approached the police. He had been frustrated by not being able to get some movement by the RUC on the allegations that he had heard, so he conveyed his concern to two intelligence officers based at Army headquarters in Lisburn. A meeting was arranged by one of Roy Garland's Christian contacts who had introduced him to an Army intelligence officer. Interviewed on "Public Eye", Garland said:
"I must say I had the impression they knew a lot already —that like most of these situations, there was nothing terribly radically new that I had to tell them. One of these officers appeared to be really concerned about the situation. Now, when I say concerned, he seemed concerned about McGrath's job and the political involvements as well, and he seemed really and genuinely concerned about it. He said he was a Christian, an evangelical Christian like myself."
Roy Garland never knew what had happened to the information that he gave the two Army intelligence officers, and assumed that nothing further had been done. We owe a debt of gratitude to the "Public Eye" programme, which managed to find out what did happen to that information. Thanks to Roy Garland—not someone with whom I agree politically—by 1975 both the Royal Ulster Constabulary and Army intelligence knew that systematic child abuse was going on; yet for a further five years lives were destroyed and devastated because of the abuse of young boys.
We need to know what happened to Roy Garland's information. The "Public Eye" programme managed to find the senior of the two Army intelligence officers who met Roy Garland. He was given the alias "James" in the programme; for obvious reasons he does not wish to be named or identified, as certain people might want to take action against him, and I have no intention of naming him today. The officer was prepared to appear on television and to make very disturbing allegations. He claimed that the information that he had obtained from Roy Garland had been passed on to MI5. "James" continued to work in Northern Ireland for another year or two on various military intelligence operations, but was blocked from doing anything about the information from Roy Garland concerning child abuse.
The senior officer's job was targeting loyalist organisations to gather intelligence. Many people in Army intelligence at that time thought that there was a danger of UDI in Northern Ireland, and of some sort of coup d'etat. While the public believed that the main target was the
1172
IRA, a vast amount of Army intelligence work was devoted to the activities of some people who have managed to get themselves elected to the House of Commons. In retrospect, it will probably be found that Army intelligence got a bit excited and carried away; I do not think that there was ever any realistic prospect of an independent Northern Ireland state, but often Army intelligence does get carried away, to say nothing of what happens in MI5.
Watching the programme, we waited with bated breath to see what happened to Roy Garland's information. It was clear that he had filed his report, which went to a senior MI5 officer—who had been identified by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) as Ian Cameron. In a letter to my hon. Friend on 26 June, Colin Wallace identified the officer concerned—
Mr. Dalyell: I have the letter here. It says:
"For example, the BBC 'Public Eye' programme demonstrated very clearly that:

(a) both Army Intelligence and MI5 were aware of the Kincora situation in the mid 1970s;

(b) MI5 refused to allow one of its senior officers, Ian Cameron, to be interviewed by the police about the scandal".

Ministers should not take it that we are necessarily against the intelligence services. I do not want to be too personal, but it so happens that next Thursday—along with the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—I shall be attending a memorial service for George Young, formerly of MI6. To put it bluntly, people are not asked to do that if they are automatically against the intelligence services. Some of us are very concerned about this matter.
Mr. Livingstone: The MI5 officer who received the information indirectly was Ian Cameron. The Army intelligence officer wrote a report of his meeting with Garland, and sent it to his Army superiors as a matter of routine. He said that it was then passed to MI5—which shared the same building at Army headquarters—and that he was summoned to see the senior MI5 officer. On the "Public Eye" programme, he said of that meeting:
"I can't honestly say that I was expecting three gold stars but I went up feeling pretty positive, expecting a normal meeting. Instead I got blown out of his office. He's rude to me, he tells me that the kind of information that I have submitted is not proper intelligence, that we have nothing—we, as intelligence officers, don't dabble in homosexual affairs, that these moral matters are nothing to do with us. He vilifies my report, he tells me to cut off the contact. I can remember him saying to me words to the effect 'get rid of him, break the contact, just get rid'. I'm surprised because we had had a pretty good relationship going up until then. He blows me out of the office."
That, surely, is a remarkable position for one of the most senior MI5 officers on operational duty in the north of Ireland: having been told of systematic child abuse by a leading militant Protestant paramilitary, MI5 decided to do nothing about it.
We were told in the programme about other information made public by "James", the unidentified Army intelligence officer. We were told that he was involved in discussions about trying to blackmail another Unionist paramilitary leader, of suggestions that MI5 had film of that Unionist leader involved in homosexual activity, and of how that information was to be used to make him more amenable. It seems likely that, when MI5 arrived in the north of Ireland as the troubles blew up at the end of the 1960s and found—as we now know from all

1173
the published accounts of intelligence sources there—that there was virtually no effective intelligence-gathering network, it would have found a nest of vipers burrowed away inside Kincora, and tremendous opportunities. One could either expose that abuse and stop it, or use it to entrap people that one wished to control—people who were perceived as a threat to the integrity of the United Kingdom. I think that that is what happened—that MI5 was aware of what was going on at Kincora, but considered it more important to continue to gather intelligence that could be used to blackmail those Unionist politicians who were not part of the establishment network.
I have not the slightest doubt that the prime target of much of that activity was the Democratic Unionist party. All kinds of rumours began to float around. The leader of the DUP—the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)—has raised in the House other attempts to smear leading members of his party, involving forged bank accounts and a network of rumour and suspicion. Senior officers in MI5 made a calculated decision that it was better, on balance, to allow the child abuse to continue, because the intelligece being gathered gave them a hold over some of the more eccentric figures inside the Unionist paramilitary organisations.
Mr. Dalyell: It should go on record that some of us think that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and his colleagues suffered far more, and far more outrageously, at that time than did Harold Wilson or Ted Short.
Mr. Livingstone: I agree with my hon. Friend. The vast amount of time that I have put into this matter has led me to the conclusion that the British state sought to destroy the hon. Member for Antrim North, but has been unable to do so. He was the prime target, not the IRA or the Irish National Liberation Army. For all our disagreements, he is a democratic politician who puts his views to the ballot box. Elements within the British security services decided to destroy him and his party by any means possible. Kincora was part of that. After three years of examining the matter, I have not found a shred of evidence to link that party with the events at Kincora, although I have had many interesting titbits dropped in my direction to try to lead me to make such a suggestion in a public speech.
In the past 10 years there have been six inquiries into Kincora, and a vast amount of work has been done. However, all the public disquiet remains.
In 1980, the first of the three RUC inquiries led to the conviction of McGrath, Mains and Sempel. A month after those convictions—December 1981—the then Northern Ireland Secretary, James Prior, announced the establishment of a committee of inquiry to be headed by Stephen McGonagle, the former ombudsman for Northern Ireland. It sat for one day, three members resigned, and that was the end of that. McGonagle, who was interviewed on the "Public Eye" programme, made it quite clear that he thought that all the inquiries that had been conducted so far were unsatisfactory and had not indentified what had been going on, and that there needed to be a full, frank and open inquiry.
Two new investigations were set up after that. One involving possible criminal matters was headed by the chief constable of Sussex, Sir George Terry. Sir George was asked to oversee a new RUC inquiry into allegations
1174
that Kincora was part of a homosexual vice ring involving civil servants and other prominent figures. That was conducted by the same RUC team under Superintendent George Caskey, who had brought McGrath and the others to justice. Sir George completed his report in October 1983. The following year, the public inquiry got under way with a retired English judge, William Hughes, as its chairman.
Whenever I have raised the matter in the House, I have been told again and again by leading members of the Government that it has been investigated by Hughes. The first page of the Hughes inquiry report states that under its terms of reference it was not investigating anything to do with the intelligence services or public figures. That is right at the beginning of the report—we do not need to read the rest of it. I ploughed through it—it is not the lightest or most entertaining reading. It is quite a horrifying story. It is nonsense to suggest that that is the answer to the allegations that many hon. Members have raised.
The RUC team, led by Superintendent George Caskey, under the supervision of George Terry, tried to probe the activities of the Security Service, however. That came to light in the "Public Eye" programme; most hon. Members had not been aware of it before. The programme makers tried to put key questions to the senior officer in MI5 but they were denied access to him by the Ministry of Defence. There we have the RUC charged with investigating this matter and being blocked, not by some criminal or by some sleazy character in the shadows, but by the Government—barred from interviewing the MIS officer about why he had not acted on the information that was passed to him by Roy Garland. It is absolute nonsense.
Mr. Dalyell: Has my hon. Friend heard that Sir John Hermon was absolutely livid when he found out, albeit in retirement, exactly how he was treated and how his colleagues were treated? Sir John Hermon, whom I do riot know, has every right to be extremely angry.
Mr. Livingstone: It will be obvious by now that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and I are not defending people with whom we find ourselves broadly in political agreement. None of the people whom I have been defending so far would throw a vote my way this side of hell, but they were right. They were sought to be targeted and destroyed by the British state. Few people have been more critical than I of abuses by the RUC, but it is not the fault of the RUC that this matter has not been brought to a conclusion. It tried but it was blocked by the Ministry of Defence, which denied it access to the MI5 officer who refused to take action on the information that was passed to him from Roy Garland via the Army intelligence officer.
Roy Garland told the RUC team about his meetings with the Army intelligence officer who was given the name James in the programme. The RUC then spoke to that Army intelligence officer, and he gave his account of the way in which he had been treated by the senior MI5 officer who refused to take action. It was obvious that the RUC would need to interview that MI5 officer.
Its attempt to gain access to MI5 began at Stormont, at a meeting with a deputy secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, who had recently been attached to the Ministry of Defence. Arrangements were made for detectives from the RUC team to visit Ministry of Defence offices in London. Over two months, several meetings took place between the RUC and an official representing the Ministry of Defence,

1175
but, despite repeated requests, the MI5 officer was never made available for interview. No explanation was ever given. Further approaches were made through the Northern Ireland Office and, eventually, a compromise was reached. The RUC would submit a series of questions in writing. The list of questions included why no action was taken to investigate the allegations Army intelligence had passed on, why the Army intelligence officer concerned was told to drop Kincora, why he was told to set up contact with the source, and whether MI5 knew what was going on in the home and, if MI5 did know, whether it was prepared to let it continue for another purpose. No answers to those questions were ever received.
We are not talking about a bunch of criminals using a slick, expensive barrister to avoid justice; we are talking about the British Government, some of the most senior officers answerable to the British Government, and this Government—not a previous Government—blocking the RUC's attempt to bring the guilty to justice.
The avenue of inquiry came to a halt, not surprisingly, when the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that there would be no further criminal prosecutions with regard to Kincora. As far as the RUC was concerned, the case had been closed—over its objections at the squashing of its investigation. The RUC investigation was completed without the evidence of the senior MI5 figures and, as late as 1982, the Security Service had managed to obstruct a top-level police investigation overseen by a senior English chief constable. I find that breathtaking. This really is the time to hear members of the Government explain why the Government took that action. Would there have been a threat to the security of the British state if the matter had come out into the open? That would be so only if something absolutely horrendous was being done.
I am prepared to give way if any hon. Member wants to volunteer some information on why this Government stopped their own loyal officers in the RUC investigating the Government's own Security Service's involvement in the matter. I notice that no Conservative Member is rushing to intervene to enlighten me or the House on what has been going on.
When Sir George Terry completed his report, he made one conclusion, which he worded carefully. He thanked the military authorities with fulsome praise and said:
"the military sources have been very frank with me and perfectly open during the ongoing inquiry under Detective Superintendent Caskey."
That clearly does not include MI5. There is no reference to the co-operation of the intelligence services.
Frankly, I do not think that the Government can continue to stonewall any longer. I have raised this matter in the House for three years. Members of other parties have been doing so for over a decade. There has been waffle and bluster. Clearly, one does not blame the present Secretary of State, who has inherited an explosive mess. It is not his fault. Most of those who are responsible for the decisions have long since retired, but that does not mean that they should be able to retire with honour.
Mr. Dalyell: There has been bluster, but there has also been abuse. I happen to think that the present Ministers are courteous and helpful. However, I remember that awful night—I have never been angrier in the Chamber
1176
—when my hon. Friend and I were given by a Minister a load of abuse such as I have not had in 27 years. It was from the then junior Minister at the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten). I thought that he was a disgrace to that university town that night. The right hon. Gentleman has never apologised or withdrawn his remarks. He said things that were subsequently proved wrong by a Government statement; if they were not wrong, the Calcutt inquiry would not have been set up.
Mr. Livingstone: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding me of some of the unkind things that have been said. As someone who has spent 20 years in the London Labour party, it did not seem too bad to me at the time—I have heard worse.
The Army intelligence officer, who interviewed Garland and passed on information to his seniors and to MI5, said:
"We are not talking here about great national secrets, we are talking about covering up a matter concerning a moral issue of the gravest importance: the abuse of young men and officials knowing about it and officialdom apparently, for some reason, doing nothing. That's something that not only shocks and horrifies me, that's something that will shock and horrify in every part of our society and I believe that this issue … has to be brought out into the open and we have to say these three most difficult words in the English language: 'we were wrong'—either because it was bungled or because there is some more sinister, conspiratorial reason for covering it up. And I don't know what the reason is but I do know that it was covered up because I put the information in and nobody did anything about it."
Surely someone on the Government Benches can explain what went on to justify that decision not to take action when MI5 was told about the child abuse, and to allow it to continue for another five years. I do not believe that that was a mistake. I do not believe that someone simply filed it away. The abusive way in which the Army intelligence officer was treated by the senior MI5 officer makes it clear that it was not a mistake; it was an MI5 operation which it did not want blown and wound up.
I do not blame Conservative Members for this, because it all happened years ago, but the cover-up must stop because the people who decided to take no action are guilty of the most appalling crime. They are complicit in the destruction of the lives of young boys, many of whom will never by able to recover or lead normal lives. The sums that are now being handed out in the courts as compensation are irrelevant to the damage that those young men suffered. Elements in MI5 decided to allow what was happening to continue because they felt that it was in the national interest to be able to blackmail Unionist politicians who were involved in the abuse.
I could have made a speech about who might or might not be involved in the abuse. Any hon. Member who travels to Ireland and picks up a copy of a magazine such as Now will read a list of names of the great and the good. I am not prepared to repeat those names in the House because I am not certain that the lists are accurate. We know that several people were involved, but only three men have gone to prison for the continual violent anal rape of young boys at Kincora. I believe that many more leading figures were involved. We know—I wrote about this outside the House last year—that four people who were suspected of abusing those boys died in mysterious circumstances while the RUC was investigating them. Even in terms of the violence that exists in Northern Ireland, it is a remarkable coincidence that people were killed between one interview with the RUC and another.

1177
I believe that something absolutely rotten at the heart of the British intelligence services is festering away. As long as I am a Member of the House—or even outside it —I shall continue to keep on about this, because the people who took the decision to allow that abuse to continue are guilty of an appalling crime and they should be exposed for it—not just the three scapegoats. They sought not only to destroy the lives of those boys, but to use what was going on to try to destroy the reputations of Members of this House and of legitimate political organisations. I do not agree with those organisations but they have every right to exist and function in a democratic society. There is no justification for those people continuing to be employed by the British Government in any form whatsoever. It is time that they were exposed.
It is time that the Government stopped waffling and admitted what went on, punished the guilty people and made damn certain that we make changes in the way in which our intelligence services operate so that something like this can never happen again.
7.22 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I follow the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), not wishing to travel down the road that he has detailed, but certainly expressing some concern about it. My greatest concern is why the present Administration seem to be continuing to cover up the past. One could perhaps have understood the cover-up if they were responsible but, as they were not, I find it very difficult to understand. I recognise that one difficulty with popular journalism is that there are many false trails and that people were smeared by innuendo and suggestion. The sooner it is cleared up, the better for all.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) did not give us one of the finest commando raids when he concluded his speech with some absolutely irrelevant statements and departed, although he apologised for doing so. I believe that it is still one of the conventions of the House that an hon. Member remains in the Chamber until the hon. Member who succeeds him on the Floor concludes his or her speech, and does not simply leave. We all have pressures upon us, and it seems wrong that an hon. Member should pull rank to catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye and then depart, leaving the rest of us to carry on the business.
I categorically refute the right hon. Gentleman's innuendoes about the institution of which, for 18 years, I have been privileged to be the Grand Master in Ireland and, for 10 of those years, in the world at large. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the speeches on 12 July. I should like him to provide the evidence. For someone who grew up in the sheltered area of Comber in North Down, the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to know much about the community and the bonds that have bound people over the years, whether they were Orange or Green. It is fascinating that, on the 300th anniversary of the battle of the Boyne, there are still those who differentiate between the Orange and the Green. It shows their bad understanding of history. The Williamite forces wore green to distinguish themselves at the Boyne. Thereafter, they stood for the principles of civil and religious liberty.
That is one reason why I am speaking in this debate. Although Ministers may not be happy to acknowledge it, I happen to believe that in Northern Ireland today we are
1178
suffering from as much arbitrary power and tyranny as James I sought to impose upon this nation and upon Ireland at that time.
We in this land have the privilege of parliamentary constitutional government. As it comprises human beings —male and female—it is not necessarily perfect, but until we get a better system, it is the one that I favour.
I stand here with a sense of regret in two respects. Perhaps events have proved me right and we have not had the detailed statement that some people thought we would have—the press certainly speculated that that was what we would have today. You will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and colleagues who have read Hansard will know, that at business questions last Thursday I urged that a detailed statement should not be made and that, because of the sensitivity of the discussions, it would be better if a document were circulated among the party leaders concerned so that there might be a considered response.
I am happy that the response in this debate has, to a large extent, been balanced and sober. My fears of last week have not been realised, but there is a road block. As I understand the vibrations and the drums that beat throughout the land, it appears that the breach came from Dublin. When I heard about it, I was reminded of something that happened some years ago in Dublin when the then Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Ryan, said to me, " I have always said to the Government here that if they were serious about Irish unity, they would build a better road towards Belfast". It appears that today they have joined the IRA in putting a road block between Dublin and Belfast. That is their responsibility, and history will judge them on it. I hope that the Secretary of State, who has gone down that road of negotiation, and paid tribute to those who have been engaged on it, will continue to move down that road.
I should like to put the record straight. It seems to me that, because we in Ulster have clearly said no to the Anglo-Irish diktat, some people say that we are absolutely negative. Since 1987 and the general election, the leaders of the Unionist people have been in regular touch with the Secretary of State. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bridgewater (Mr. King). who is currently Secretary of State for Defence, received a document, but it was obvious either that somebody in the Northern Ireland Office was unable to read or that the Northern Ireland Office has developed the secrecy of MI5 or MI6. It was suggested at one stage that it did not have the document. There was much good-humoured discussion about whether we should have literacy classes to help them to read it. If it had been written in my handwriting, I could have understood the difficulty, but that could not have been the problem because the document came from others.
Subsequently, the current Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has had conversations and discussions with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), seeking to be positive and to restore a form of democratic rule to Northern Ireland, as part of the United Kingdom, but holding out the hand of friendship, which we have done more than once to those who seceded from us.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) is missing. I understand why he had to leave and I knew that he was leaving. He treated us to the concept of

1179
Europe. We are prepared to play our part in Europe. Some of us are not terribly keen on certain movements that are taking place in Europe, but we have sought to play our part in various ways. However, our neighbours have not been prepared to play in the spirit of neighbourliness. As a result they have again put road blocks on the intermixing of people from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
We are told that one of the poorest areas of Northern Ireland is Newry, and the House has been berated regularly for not putting industry and so on into Newry. However, when people from Dundalk, Drogheda and even Dublin travelled across to Newry to shop we were told that it drained the Exchequer of the Republic. Against European regulations the Republic pulled down the shutters. Even when the courts in Europe said that it was wrong, it continued to filibuster in an attempt to look after its self-interest. That is fair enough, if it is open about it But when we look after our self-interest we are told that we are bad boys and we should not do it.
In 1921 in the island of Ireland, in keeping with the pattern that was prevalent at the time, the people were given a choice. The people of Northern Ireland said that they wanted to remain within the United Kingdom, but the people of the Republic said that they wanted to leave. A council of Ireland was set up. The Unionists of Northern Ireland appointed delegates, but the people of the Republic of Ireland refused to appoint delegates. Ever since, we have been maligned for various reasons.
I appreciate why the hon. Member for Brent, North—
Mr. Livingstone: East.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Yes. Brent, North is across the way. I appreciate why the hon. Gentleman paid tribute to the RUC. Even in the worst days of 1969, with less than its establishment of staff because it had played fair by the laws of the land and reserved places for members of the Catholic community, the RUC acted impartially. Whoever broke the law was on the receiving end of the RUC's actions. The RUC sought to investigate the case to which the hon. Member for Brent, East drew our attention. They exercised their rights within the law in other cases. As the RUC is made up of human beings, I do not doubt that some of its members acted amiss. When we achieve a perfect society we shall have joined the Prime Minister in her expectation of twanging the harp. I do not expect to achieve a perfect society this side of eternity but, with the imperfect circumstances that pertain, we must consider other matters.
I am glad that it has been clearly demonstrated that obstructions were not created by Ulster Unionist leaders. Suggestions have been made in the media that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley has constantly changed the goalposts. Our election manifesto and every statement that we have made show that we have not changed an iota of our pattern of policy. We sought to negotiate. The London and Dublin Governments said that there could be no change to the agreement. We sought to persuade them to change it. They said that to do so it would be necessary to suspend the workings of the
1180
Anglo-Irish Conference. There are those in Northern Ireland who say, "Hang the whole bunch; we should not have them near the place." The reasonable request of Ulster Unionist leaders was that the working of the conference be suspended. It would have been an absolute abomination—Ministers will confirm this—to have men and women sitting round a table discussing the future of Northern Ireland when the helicopter was coming in or, what is even worse, when they left the conference a well-known journalist would stick his microphone in their faces to find out what their reaction was to Mr. Collins's or Mr. Haughey's visit to Northern Ireland. It would be nonsensical and the atmosphere would be wrong. We have maintained that position.
The House has been lectured for 10 years on the market economy and value for money. Ulster Scots would say that if the job of the secretariat was to staff the working of the conference and the conference did not work, the secretariat should be dismissed because it did not give value for money. Those are the three things for which we have asked and we have not changed those requests. We have not changed the goalposts.
Northern Ireland has had 16 years of direct rule. As a Unionist, I would not mind if it were direct rule. People say that it is a second-best solution. None of us wants second best; I want the best. There is something wrong with a Parliament that allows civil servants in Northern Ireland to escape the scrutiny that we demand of civil servants in the rest of the Kingdom. Whether they are Northern Ireland bred and based civil servants or those who are seconded for a period, like Ministers, they should be under the scrutiny of the House.
There is no reason why there should not be a Northern Ireland Select Committee. Let us get away from the nonsense that if there were devolved government in the Province we would not need a Select Committee. There will always be issues which affect the House and which require the scrutiny of the House. There is no reason for any further delay. I should like the Secretary of State to read over some of the answers that the Lord President has given me on the matter. He said that I should speak to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friends are speaking to him. As I understand the working of the House, it is not the job of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to create a Select Committee. It is for the Lord President to move a motion on behalf of the Procedure Committee. That will be done in due course to establish a Select Committee on Social Security. I plead that we should stop drifting in so-called direct rule. Let us have a Select Committee of hon. Members to monitor what is going on with greater scrutiny.
The hon. Member for Foyle dreamed dreams and saw visions. I could do the same. Our neighbours have a view of history that is debatable. Yorkshire miners and other people were abused by the landlords in Yorkshire at the same time as my family and others were abused by landlords in Ireland. It is far too simplistic a view of history to say that the bad English were oppressing the Irish. Thousands upon thousands of people from the Republic of Ireland are voting with their feet and coming back into the Kingdom. I suggest that the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen's support for devolved administration for the regions would be a way forward. The Labour party may not yet have my vision of a federal solution for the islands, but ultimately that will be the way

1181
forward. Few people in the Republic of Ireland will argue against that when they have already crowned Jack Charlton an honorary Irishman.
7.40 pm
Rev. William McCrea: Hon. Members on both sides, including the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), have raised important issues which need investigating. I hope that, in view of the representations that have been made, the Government will carry out the fullest possible in-depth inquiry so that the full facts and the truth may be revealed.
As we debate this extension measure dating from 1974, it is clear that the way in which we legislate for the people of Northern Ireland is disgraceful. Vital issues affecting the lives of the people there do not receive sufficient consideration. Having said that, I must admit, as I look round the Benches on both sides of the House, that we have adequate debating time today for Northern Ireland affairs. That is happening only because so few hon. Members want to take part in the debate
That will not be the case on future occasions—for example, at Northern Ireland Question Time, which is prime television time. On those occasions, hon. Members will crowd into the Chamber, trying to remove the fire from the remarks of hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. It is to be hoped that there will be fewer planted questions, even from Conservative Members.
I note, as I speak of planted questions in those terms, that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland shakes his head in dissent. Does he really believe that the Government have never even thought of using that tactic? I assure him that I have seen pieces of paper with questions written on them being handed by certain hon. Members to other hon. Members, the former asking, "Will you please sign this, and it can go in for Question Time?"
Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend will be aware that, even though hon. Members representing constituencies in Northern Ireland may hand in their questions first, they never appear first on the Order Paper for Question Time. Indeed, some of them never even appear among the listed questions. Of all questions that are asked, the House should be interested in hearing from hon. Members who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland. I am not suggesting that other hon. Members should not have an opportunity to ask questions, but Northern Ireland hon. Members should have their questions called if those questions are handed in on time.
Rev. William McCrea: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. He will agree, however, that hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies would be delighted to know that other hon. Members in all parts of the House were deeply interested in the internal affairs of all parts of Her Majesty's domain, including Northern Ireland. Irrespective of prime television time, it is a shame that, for this debate, the Benches are so unoccupied. The public who see the television screening of the debate will appreciate that for themselves. They will also realise that many hon. Members do not care about the problems of the people of Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State said that he owed the House an account of the Government's stewardship in Northern
1182
Ireland over the past year. The facts of that stewardship should be drawn to everyone's attention, and that is why we need full debates regularly on matters affecting the people of Northern Ireland. In that connection, we should have the same privilege as other hon. Members of tabling amendments to legislation affecting the people of Northern Ireland.
That is why I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) that there should be a Northern Ireland Select Committee, in which we could scrutinise in depth what is happening in the various Departments. After all, it is time that questions were put to civil servants about what is going on. Although we have the front men—the Ministers—we should be able to question civil servants on issues affecting the Province, for they are beavering away in the background. May we have an assurance tonight that such a Select Committee will be established and that instead of the Order in Council procedure, which is a despicable and deplorable way of legislating for the people of part of the United Kingdom, we will have a proper forum in which to discuss all relevant issues in depth?
I join other hon. Members in commending the Secretary of State for the way in which he has endeavoured to make progress in Northern Ireland. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) commend the efforts of the Secretary of State. Although I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has acted, and will continue to act, with courtesy and refreshing honesty, members of the Northern Ireland Office have been beavering away with private press releases, press conferences and interviews with members of the press, seeking to undermine the elected leaders of Ulster Unionism. That has been a despicable action on the part of members of the press corps in the Northern Ireland Office. They would be better employed putting out propaganda to benefit the Province, rather than seeking to undermine the leadership of Ulster Unionism.
The elected leaders of the Unionist parties in the House have the backing of the members of their parties for the stand that they have made for Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. All the underhand efforts of those little, despicable men and women in the Northern Ireland Office will not destroy the character and integrity of the leaders of Ulster Unionism.
I urge the Government to tell certain people in that press corps to get on with the business of projecting a bright future for Northern Ireland across the world, instead of adopting a negative attitude, trying to backstab those who are in the front line and who, through the ballot box, represent the will and wishes of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
When the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke about unemployment, he referred to the situation in Ballymurphy. I am not suggesting that that area does not have an unemployment problem. I want all the people in our Province, and throughout the United Kingdom, to enjoy productive employment. But I remind the hon. Gentleman that not only Ballymurphy suffers from high unemployment. We in Mid-Ulster have massive unemployment—the second-highest in the United Kingdom.
I urge Her Majesty's Opposition to look wider than particular Nationalist areas. Let us consider not whether a person is a Nationalist or a Unionist when we debate

1183
unemployment. Let us ensure that the people of Mid-Ulster, be they Protestants or Roman Catholics, have jobs. I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) will agree that everyone in the Province has a right to a job.
The Secretary of State spoke about encouraging employment, and to that end we have had visitors from Japan, France and the rest. But if he studies the figures carefully he will find that not much employment has been brought to Mid-Ulster or west of the Bann. It is essential that the Government encourage employment in those areas west of the Bann which are suffering massive unemployment, for example, Castlederg. It has also suffered more from terrorism than any other area of equivalent size in the United Kingdom. The people there are terrorised by merciless IRA attacks from over the border. That is fact, not rhetoric. The IRA terrorists come from over the border, carry out their terrible acts and then return to their safe haven in the Irish Republic until they desire to move again.
Once again, I beg the Government to look afresh at the needs of my constituents. That is what stewardship in Northern Ireland is all about. People have an urgent need for a job, but it does not follow, as some would maintain, that because they have no job they turn to terrorism. That is an excuse for terrorism. In my constituency of Mid-Ulster, neither Protestants nor Roman Catholics turn to terrorism because they lack employment. However, it would be a major benefit for my constituents to have a job to go to in the morning. There is nothing more refreshing than to rise in the morning, go out and do a good day's work and, one hopes, receive respectable payment for it at the end of the week. That would benefit not only my constituents but the community as a whole.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North spoke about the Fair Employment Act. The impression given today and in previous debates is that discrimination is endured by only one section of the community. It is interesting that Newry and Mourne council has been accused of discriminating against its Protestant community, yet the SDLP is the major group on that council. It is also interesting to note that not one SDLP Member is present for this important Northern Ireland debate. I accept that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has had to leave to attend to other business, but others could have been present to deal with this important matter.
The SDLP and the Nationalists were in control of Strabane council for many years, and Protestants were discriminated against by that council. It is easy for people to identify a particular religious group and claim that it is being discriminated against. I do not agree with discrimination against a person. A person should not get a job because of his religion, nor should he be denied a job because of his religion.
The head of the Fair Employment Agency, Mr. Bob Cooper, came to Magherafelt district council, on which I had the honour to serve for some 17 years, during which time the SDLP was in control for 12 years and the Unionists for four years. A report on that council accused Magherafelt council, under the control of the SDLP, of discriminating against Roman Catholics. We have not yet had Mr. Cooper's final report, but it has emerged from his inquiries that for 16 years, 12 of them under the SDLP, the
1184
only years during which there was fair employment were —wait for it—the four years when I was chairman and the Unionists were in control. I make it abundantly clear that I and my party believe that every person has a right to a job, irrespective of who that person is and from what community he comes. I am delighted that scrutiny showed that when the Unionist family was in control of Magherafelt council there was fair employment for all. There will be no praise from the Government for Magherafelt council for those years under Unionist control, and Mr. Cooper will also be strangely silent on that.
I could deal with many aspects of the Government's future, but I must deal with an important matter which has affected my constituents since November 1985 and which was dealt with by the Secretary of State in the second part of his address—the Anglo-Irish Agreement and what is to happen now.
Most of us, on coming to the House today, expected that the Secretary of State would tell us that we were moving forward and that things were progressing. But that is not the case. We are told that optimism has turned to pessimism or, to use other words that we have heard today, that the optimism has been blighted. The reality is that the southern Government have once again vetoed a statement from the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State did not make the statement that he intended to make today because of the veto of a foreign Government.
I have been a Member of the House for eight years and during that time I have heard many boasts about Parliament's sovereignty. It is strange that, despite all the boasting, the Secretary of State could not make the speech to the House of Commons that he intended to make because of the desire of the leader of a foreign country to veto progress in Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland are sickened by the interference from Dublin in the affairs of our part of the United Kingdom. Let it be abundantly clear that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. That is the stance of the people of Northern Ireland. By entering into an alliance with a foreign Government through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Government have changed that. I do not have the same rights as every other citizen within the United Kingdom. What is happening in my part of the United Kingdom is not happening in every other part.
The Secretary of State told us today that the Anglo-Irish Agreement confirms the fact that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. That is not true. Article 1 states:
"Any change in the status of Northern Ireland would only come about with the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North said, that status is one thing in Dublin but quite another in this House and in the United Kingdom. If the Government believe that we are misinterpreting the agreement, why not test it in the European Court, in the light of all that has happened such as the McGimpsey case in Dublin?
If the Government believe that they are right, surely they would be delighted to prove it. Nothing would please them better than proving that our interpretation was wrong. I genuinely believe that the Government do not believe what they are saying, so they are misleading the House by declaring that the Anglo-Irish Agreement

1185
secures Northern Ireland's position in the United Kingdom. It does nothing of the sort; it allows a foreign Government to meddle in the affairs of Northern Ireland.
I listened carefully to the considered speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). He asked whether a new agreement would need the widespread support of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland. Why did not the Government seek that widespread support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Why did not the Government want to find out whether the people of Northern Ireland oppose the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Why not put it to the people? They must accept that I and other Unionist Members were elected on a platform of opposition to the Anglo-lrish Agreement.
We were told that the agreement would be judged on three criteria—peace, stability and reconciliation. That was not how we said it would be judged; that was the stance of Mr. Garret FitzGerald, who entered into the agreement with our Prime Minister. He is from the south of Ireland. We must judge it on peace, stability and reconciliation. The Government know well that there is no widespread support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
In his statement, the Secretary of State said that there was no reason why the present agreement should be the last word. The Government know that it is opposed by the people of Northern Ireland. They say that if a better agreement which commanded widespread support from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland were to be reached, it would be an important step forward. Therefore, any alternative to the agreement must command widespread support. If the current agreement is to stand, should not it also command widespread support from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland?
The reason why the Unionist view was not sought at the time the agreement was entered into was that the Government had bought the SDLP line—to face down the Unionists. The leader of the SDLP said that. Reconciliation was not a consideration, only facing down the Unionist population. No matter how long the agreement stands, the Government must realise that it will never be accepted, and anyone who suggests that it will be is deceiving both himself and the House.
Mr. Dalyell: Some of us care deeply about what happens in the north of Ireland. To the dismay—indeed, minor annoyance—of our colleagues, we voted against the agreement. I have no regrets. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not mean it, but he appeared to label everyone generically as having voted in favour of it. That is not fact: I voted against it.
Rev. William McCrea: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. A small number of hon. Members—47 out of 650—voted against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. However, it was forced upon the people of Northern Ireland by the vast majority of hon. Members. Many hon. Members came to the House when the vote was called, not having listened to the arguments or the debate. They were the usual Lobby fodder and they forced through the agreement. Both the Government and the Opposition believed that they could force it upon the people of Northern Ireland, who they thought would huff and puff, but whose resistance would disappear. If those hon. Members wish to be honourable before this House, they must admit that they were mistaken, first, about the opposition to the agreement and, secondly, in thinking
1186
that it could be forced upon the people of Ulster under the disguise of democracy. Some 600 hon. Members voted to force it upon the people of Northern Ireland, against their will, and that is called democracy.
The people of Northern Ireland oppose the agreement. I am delighted that the Government, at this late stage, appear to recognise that fact. The Secretary of State now accepts that the agreement is not working and cannot work and that an alternative must be sought. The Unionist population are willing earnestly to consider that. They are willing to play their part, as the Government acknowledge. After the agreement was signed, the Prime Minister stated that it could be devolved away. There were people in the Northern Ireland Office who sold to the Prime Minister something that was not reality because it cannot be devolved away. The people of Northern Ireland have a democratic right to oppose that obnoxious agreement and to seek something that is durable, practical and constructive.
Yesterday evening I watched the television hoping that the English football team would win and today I read in the papers about the disappointment and the tears of despair on the faces of the players. I honestly believe that Members of Parliament do not fully understand the tears of despair that have been shed by the innocent people of Northern Ireland who have suffered a terrible campaign of destruction and murder.
My constituents have suffered as much as if not more than most. The other day, I walked behind the coffins of two policemen. I spoke to their widows and sought to bring them some comfort and succour in their hour of need. I stood there having suffered the ravages of the IRA within my own family. I ask hon. Members, whenever they think about despair, to think about the way forward and to remember that all the settlements and constitutional talks one could ever conceive of will never talk away the Provisional IRA. Its members are roaming at will in my constituency. They are blowing up businesses and have been blasting and scattering bodies across my constituency for the past 20 years.
Few hon. Members have visited the homes of widows, met their children and experienced the tragedy for themselves. Although I do not doubt the sincerity of those who sympathise, widows are sick to the teeth of sympathy from people who have the power to allow a campaign of military might against the IRA and to bring about the defeat of those who are terrorising the community.
The Prime Minister said that it was her desire to eradicate terrorism. Twenty years on I ask the Minister, without beating about the bush, to tell me and my constituents, the widows and the intended widows, when the nightmare of terrorism will end. With all respect to the leaders of my party, the Official Unionist party, the SDLP and Ministers, if anyone in the House thinks that a constitutional settlement tomorrow will wipe out the IRA, he has been fooled. The IRA is embedded in the community and the only way to defeat terrorism is to root it out of the community and to allow every decent citizen, Protestant and Roman Catholic, to live in peace, enjoy stability and to have lasting and real reconciliation.
8.14 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: First, I should like to comment on the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). Some may think it

1187
strange that one who has spoken as often as I have should be called at 8.14 pm on a subject that is so important to the United Kingdom. In response to the hon. Gentleman, I register a personal sadness that so many on this side of the water for one reason or another have not taken more interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I am guilty of that as, like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), I want to refer to a particular matter, but I hope that it will not be interpreted as meaning that I do not care about the wider and general issues involved in the agony experienced in Northern Ireland.
I address my parliamentary colleagues of all parties. Anyone who has been a Member of Parliament for as long as I have, or anyone who sits in the House of Commons, almost by definition is not easily shocked. We become ever more resigned to the ways of the world. However, I should like to raise two issues that greatly shock me, and I shall start with the one that shocks me least.
In an appendix to his evidence to the Royal Commission on the press in 1977, the former Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson revealed that
"seven burglaries of the homes of members of my staff took place in the three months before I announced my resignation".
He continued:
"Within a week of the announcement of my forthcoming series of interviews with David Frost on Yorkshire Television, the contracts section of Yorkshire Television was burgled and papers examined".
He went on:
"My political secretary has had two burglaries from her home…Shortly before Easter 1977, a break-in took place in my study in my home in Buckinghamshire."
I make that 19 burglaries. In most of them nothing was taken, although in all of them papers had been rifled through. One can match all those incidents with what Peter Wright says rather sooner than one would think.
I shall not go on about Harold Wilson's disquiet about those matters, but I stress that it is an all-party affair. I was as deeply shocked when I saw with my own eyes an extremely nasty document referring to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in a personal capacity. It was marked with the stamp of the Army headquarters at Lisburn.
I do not believe that Labour or Conservative Prime Ministers should be smeared in that way. I repeat that if Wilson and Heath suffered, as did Ted Short and William van Straubenzee, certain politicians from Northern Ireland suffered much more. I admit that what happened on this side of the water was less than what happened to the colleagues of some of those in the Chamber. But politicians can look after themselves, and that brings me to the second matter which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East said, will not go away.
Generically it must be called Kincora and the Wallace affair. I am utterly shocked by what has emerged about Kincora and the knowledge that vulnerable boys in the care and guardianship of the British state were repeatedly abused over a period of time. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East was right to say that it took place over a considerable time. That knowledge was in the hands of the intelligence services of the state but was withheld for a considerable time from the proper police services of the
1188
state. I repeat that, were I in the shoes of Sir John Hermon, whom I do not know, and the RUC, I should be simply livid at what happened.
I refer to an answer that I received on 21 June 1990 from the Minister of State. I make no complaint about the fact that temporarily he is not in his place. In an oral question I asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
"what information his Department received concerning obstruction into the process of inquiry into alleged sexual abuse of boys and the Kincora boys home."
In his reply the Minister of State said:
"I do not believe that any relevant information was withheld from successive inquiries."
Well may my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East smile. I then asked:
"What evidence does the Minister have for that opinion? Does he share the disgust of many of us that for some reason the interests of the security forces apparently took precedence over the interests of vulnerable boys in care in a real sense and under the guardianship of the nation?"
The Minister replied:
"My opinion comes from my study of the papers on the matter. I would share the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed if I thought that the facts were as he described them. I do not believe that they were; the RUC had information, but as Sir George Terry's report explained, that information was acted on not immediately but some years later."—[Official Report, 21 June 1990; Vol. 174, c. 1105.]
Naturally, I sent a copy of the Hansard report to Colin Wallace. In all the dealings that I have had with him he has not yet brought information to me that proved in any way to be false. He has impressed, under scrutiny, some of my right hon. and learned Friends, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). They made very careful inquiries. I intend, therefore, to put on the record Mr. Wallace's reply to the Minister. He said:
"I have just read Mr. Cope's disgraceful reply of 21 June to your question about MI5 withholding information about the Kincora scandal from police officers engaged in the Terry inquiry. Quite frankly, I think Government Ministers now treat Parliamentary questions with utter contempt and make no attempt whatsoever to provide proper answers to any queries raised by Members."
I have always been treated with courtesy by the Minister of State. He is a great improvement on some of his predecessors. Mr. Wallace continued:
"For example, the BBC's 'Public Eye' programme demonstrated very clearly that:

(a) Both Army Intelligence and MI5 were aware of the Kincora situation in the mid 1970s;

(b) MI5 refused to allow one of its senior officers, Ian Cameron, to be interviewed by the police about the scandal."

I believe that to be true. Colin Wallace continued:
"(c) Although an Army Intelligence officer informed detectives on the Terry inquiry team about his knowledge of the matter in 1982, no reference to his evidence was made in the official report written by Sir George Terry, the conclusions of which were given to Parliament. Indeed, Sir George Terry even claimed that military sources had been very frank and he was satisfied that military intelligence knew nothing about the scandal."
However, Colin Wallace added:
"You will recall that on 7 June, in reply to a question from you about the 'Public Eye' programme, Mr. Cope"—
the Minister of State—
"confirmed to Parliament that 'James', the Army Intelligence officer who appeared on the BBC programme, had indeed been interviewed by the police in 1982, but that the programme contained 'no material about Kincora not available at the time to Sir George Terry's inquiry'."

1189
I am satisfied about the credentials of James. He is no particular friend of Colin Wallace—in fact, not a friend at all. He is a very Christian man; I use the word "Christian" in the sincerest sense, a sense which I believe that I share with Northern Ireland Members of Parliament. Mr. Wallace continued:
"The issues which Mr. Cope refuses to address, therefore, are:

(1) Did MI5 refuse to allow Ian Cameron to be interviewed by detectives from the Terry inquiry?

(2) If so, what were the grounds for refusal and how can he justify his reply to you"—

that is, to me—
"on 21 June?

(3) Why did Sir George Terry fail to record in his Report MI5's refusal to co-operate with his investigation?

(4) why was no reference made in Sir George Terry's report to the information provided to his officers by 'James', the former Army Intelligence officer?"

Those questions have to be addressed. Colin Wallace continued:
"I think you will agree that had Parliament known of MI5's refusal to co-operate with the police on this issue there would have been a very justifiable outcry from many Members."
If any hon. Member thinks that I am taking up the time of the House, I ought to point out that I sent to some Northern Ireland Members—who, I believe, gave it to their colleagues—a copy of the letter because they have, as they have said, a genuine interest in the matter. Colin Wallace continued:
"The Government's behaviour on the Kincora issue is utterly deplorable."
That is his judgment. The subject will not go away. If Ministers believe that this is being dragged up just by the bloody-minded Members who represent Brent, East and Linlithgow, they should realise that a good deal more than that is at stake. Collin Wallace continued:
"There have been widespread cries of indignation in Parliament and the media over child abuse scandals such as that in Cleveland, but almost total silence over Kincora which went on for almost 20 years with the full knowledge and 'approval' of Government agencies. The Government should be hunted from office by every decent person in the country because of its cover-up of this disgraceful episode."
This is not a party political matter. I must say that bluntly both to Colin Wallace and to anyone else who thinks so, though I do not believe that he is motivated by party political issues. I believe that this is a moral issue. I had a great deal of sympathy for the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster when he asked why we make such a fuss about things on this side of the water, yet when the same occurs in the north of Ireland there is a cut off. That attitude may have led to the displacement of Robin Chichester-Clark, Stratton Mills, Rafton Pounder and several hon. Members who represented Northern Ireland when I first came to the House. I can see that they came to political grief because of the collective attitude of the House of Commons.
Colin Wallace made available to me his rather important letter from Mr. Miller of the Ministry of Defence. I refer to one paragraph:
"You attached to your letter of 23 April seven documents which you suggested support your allegation of a smear campaign by Crown servants against Members of Parliament. As to the document which you identify as a draft of the synopsis of part 1 of Clockwork Orange, you have provided no information to indicate that its references to Harold Wilson were the work of anyone but yourself. I am aware of no substantive evidence that such drafting received any official sanction, nor that the use of such material was ever authorised. As to the remaining documents, it is not evident from them that any was written by a Crown servant with
1190
intent to smear Members of Parliament or that they were ever used by Mr. Mooney or any other Crown servant for that purpose. In the letter that you addressed to the Prime Minister on 12 May, you sought to justify a number of allegations by quoting from the transcript of a telephone conversation between General Leng and Mr. Penrose. In fact, General Leng has given a firm assurance to government officials that he has no knowledge of any capaign, under any codename, by Crown servants to smear Members of Parliament."
I put that on the record because it is important to the remainder of my remarks. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, I doubted whether any of those sources had been cross-checked. I realise that it is a heck of a sweat delving back into the past, but the issue and the background are such that we as a nation cannot afford to be lazy. The letter continues:
"As regards Mr. Calcutt's inquiry, contrary to the allegations in your letters of 12 and 18 May, there is no question of the Government or officials attempting to influence individuals in the way you suggest or of putting pressure on them not to give evidence to Mr. Calcutt. I have nothing to add to the conclusions of the Report made available on 14 May, to which your letter of 18 May also referred. Finally, I understand that the Home Office is currently considering the representations made on your behalf concerning your conviction, and will be replying shortly on the matters raised."
I am unaware of any substantial activity by the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and I know that, before the Calcutt inquiry was established, the attitude of the Home Office Minister was absolutely disgraceful.
How is the Master of Magdalene, Mr. Calcutt, getting on, because he seems to have much to do? I should have thought that there was some urgency about this matter.
On 10 June, Mr. Wallace wrote to the Prime Minister. It is important that the House understands exactly what he told the right hon. Lady, especially as she tells me that someone is replying on her behalf. Normally, I am absolutely reasonable about these matters. Prime Ministers cannot be expected to do everything, but the Prime Minister is in charge of the security services—I do not know who else is—and the buck stops there. I see the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) nodding. Prime Ministers have some responsibility for these matters. I am dismayed by the developments that are taking place in the modern prime ministerial role, because the awful open questions that are asked mean that a Prime Minister has to delve in and be prepared and briefed for the yah-boo of Question Time on everything that affects every Department. That may undermine Cabinet Government, but it also means that Prime Ministers may not have the time to concentrate on matters that they should be concentrating on, such as responsibility for the security services.
I remember that Mr. Macmillan, my first Prime Minister, would transfer anything that did not affect him or relate to the work of No. 10 Downing street. That is how the system should work, and that is why this afternoon I asked the Leader of the House when we shall debate the report of the Select Committee on Procedure and the scandal of oral questions and the syndication of questions.
The letter to the Prime Minister says:
"I refer to my letters of 23 April and 12 May to you and to my letter of 18 May to the Secretary of State for Defence. I have now received a response dated 4 June from Mr. J A Miller, Private Secretary to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces."
That is the letter to which I referred:

1191
"Even by the abysmal standard of past MOD answers, Mr. Miller's latest letter is perhaps the most misleading and dishonestly evasive reply I have received to date. Bearing in mind that his reply will almost certainly have been approved by your office and that of the Defence Secretary, the contents of his letter can best be described as a grotesque insult to Parliament. My letter of 23 April had attached to it two documents which contained examples of blatant smears about a number of Members of Parliament, including Harold Wilson, Tony Benn"—
and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume).
"Those documents also bore what is almost certainly the handwritten editing comments of Mr. Hugh Mooney, a former Information Research Department officer who was until December 1973 Information Adviser to the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland. You will have noted that Mr. Mooney's editing marks on the documents do not delete any of the smear material about either the Parliamentary Labour Party in general or the named politicians in particular."
I do not make a great party issue of this, because the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup suffered as much as anyone. The letter continues:
"Referring to those documents, Mr. Miller says: 'It is not evident from them that any was written by a Crown servant with the intent to smear Members of Parliament or that they were ever used by Mr. Mooney or any other Crown servant for that purpose.' Bearing in mind that the above reply has been sent to me on your behalf, are you seriously suggesting that the documents bearing Mr. Mooney's handwriting were produced by some unidentified person who has no connection with any Government department or agency? Is it your view that the documents were edited by Mr. Mooney knowing full well that they were never going to be disseminated to anyone either inside or outside the Security Forces?"
I propose, when Hansard is printed, to write to Downing street asking for a reply to that question. Mr. Wallace continues:
"In the light of Mr. Miller's reply and the 'thorough inquiries"'
—that is gobbledegook; they were not thorough—
"which you assured Parliament have been carried out into my allegations, I would be grateful if you would explain

(a) How those documents originated:

(b) How the Information Adviser to the GOC Northern Ireland came to be in possession of such documents;

(c) Why his job required him to edit documents containing political disinformation;

(d) What was the purpose of those edited documents;

(e) How part of them came to be reproduced in a Conservative Party pamphlet in 1976."

Time goes on. However, as one who was here at the time and who thinks that those who are either dead or ill, as Harold Wilson now is, have rights, I care about the reputation, controversial though it may be, of a former Labour Prime Minister, and some of his friends also care. I used to talk a lot to Harold Wilson. Like the rest of us, he had his faults, but on this matter, I believe that his sustained anger was justified.We should get to the bottom of this matter because when Harold Wilson wrote his submission to the Royal Commission on the press, his remarkable mind was still fully there. I care what happened 14 long years ago and I think that I am entitled to care.
Mr. Wallace continues:
"Mr. Miller makes no reference to the forged Sinn Fein documents bearing what appears also to be Mr. Mooney's handwriting and which contain information indicating that the Parliamentary Labour Party leadership is not only Communist, but also working in partnership with Sinn Fein against Britain's membership of the Common Market."
1192
I do not take that kind of thing very seriously; we all have our own views on the Common Market and the allegation was not going to alter very much. However, the taxpayer should not be expected to finance such nonsense against any democratically elected Government.
Mr. Wallace continues:
"Perhaps even more outrageously misleading is Mr. Miller's reference to my letter to you"—
that is, the present Prime Minister—
"of 12 May, with which I enclosed extracts from the transcripts of the tape-recorded telephone conversations between Barrie Penrose of the Sunday Times and General Sir Peter Leng, former Commander Land Forces Northern Ireland. In his letter, Mr. Miller claims:
'In the letter which you addressed to the Prime Minister on 12 May, you sought to justify a number of allegations by quoting from the transcript of a telephone conversation between General Leng and Mr. Penrose. In fact, General Leng has given a firm assurance to government officials that he has no knowledge of any campaign, under any codename, by Crown servants to smear Members of Parliament'."
Mr. Wallace says:
"Mr. Miller's comment is typical of the disinformation disseminated by Government sources about my allegations. As you know very well, my letter of 12 May did not claim that General Leng had any knowledge of any campaign by Crown servants to smear Members of Parliament. My letter said"—
I have checked this and it is true—
"I attach for your information extracts from the tape recordings of the exchanges between General Leng and the Sunday Times. I think you will agree that they show:

1. Senior Army officers at HQ Northern Ireland were aware in the mid 1970s of allegations of homosexual abuse at the Kincora boys home.

2. That the 'Clockwork Orange' project originated at the Northern Ireland Office and involved members of MI5.

3. Setting aside the first paragraph of the story which I think is much too strong, the tape recordings do support the Sunday Times account of what the General allegedly said".

I have talked to Andrew Neil, the editor of The Sunday Times, about this and it is a complex story. I suggest that Ministers also talk to the editor of The Sunday Times and get his version of events at first hand. Although I cannot speak for Andrew Neil, I am sure that he will talk frankly to them as he talked frankly to me.
Colin Wallace continues:
"You will also recall the following extracts from my letter and the tape recordings."
The document says:
"The first telephone call begins with Barrie Penrose reading to the General an extract from page 28 of Paul Foot's book, 'Who framed Colin Wallace' in which Paul Foot refers to General Leng and the 'Clockwork Orange' project.
PENROSE: … So, I don't know whether you recall this 'Clockwork Orange'?
LENG: Well, I hardly recall it and certainly I had no part at all in anything to do with politicians and nor would I. I mean my policy at that particular stage was that we had to play the game straight. We had to find out, we obviously had to do some research into terrorists but there was to be no dirty tricks at all as far as I was concerned, and one or two people, and I don't recall who, came up to me and said to me we'd like to do this, and my answer was always no. The Army has got to be played clean because these things get found out in time."
Page 4 of 27 of the document, which is in my possession, says:
"PENROSE: … And how many people would have known about Clockwork Orange? Would it … I am just wondering …
LENG: Well, I think the senior Intelligence officer would have known. Broderick [Chief Information Officer] would have known. Mike [Len] Garrett [Chief of Staff HQ Northern Ireland] …
PENROSE: And on Kincora you come out absolutely as one would expect, saying there has got to be action on Kincora. Do you recall that?

1193
LENG: No …
Page 7 says:
"PENROSE:…You said in the memo according to [Mike] Taylor that the RUC and the social services I think ought to be brought in here because the file named men and boys who were obviously part of this abuse which we all know about since."
Ministers should talk directly to Mike Taylor and I shall ask them whether they have done so. The document continues:
"LENG: Yes, I recall that.
PENROSE: Do you? And you said take action. They waited because obviously there had been other members suggesting this from junior officers, but it was yours that finally convinced Taylor that this was going to happen, but of course it went on for another six or seven years, but again that wasn't your fault."
Page 8 of 27 says:
"PENROSE: It was just to remind you that there were homosexual abuses taking place, namely by the housefather named McGrath.
LENG: Yes.
PENROSE … who was also the leader of TARA, and of course eventually that was all proven in court some years afterwards, and also a man named McKeague, but I mean this is obviously outside …
LENG: Yes I do remember the homosexual insinuations and I do remember saying this is a police business, not ours."
I may be naive but it seems to me that if a Commander-in-Chief, Land Forces says, "This is a police business," someone somewhere should be doing something about it. Commanders-in-Chief, Land Forces are not exactly ignored—at least, I think it would be very strange if they were.
Page 16 of 27 reads as follows:
"PENROSE: The actual operation, I mean Clockwork Orange, when it was first mooted was in fact Denis Payne —several people have mentioned that—who was at NIO."
That must be in the records of the Northern Ireland Office. I confess that I do not know whether the Secretary of State has access to those records, because there is a difficulty with past records. Perhaps the Secretary of State wants to intervene—
Mr. Brooke: No, I am having a drink.
Mr. Dalyell: I must make it clear for the record that the Secretary of State is drinking water.
Page 16 continues:
"LENG: That's right. There was of course that branch as well. NIO would come in and cross fertilise if they wanted to keep something from the RUC—dont't quote me again. PENROSE: No, No. No."
Page 18 of 27 reads:
"PENROSE: No, of course. It's just to see how, if you would forgive me, how the bureaucracy works. So, Clockwork Orange in this case comes from Denis Payne's office, so it's Intelligence to Intelligence, and then you're shown it …
LENG: I'm not always shown it. Only if they need to involve someone at a higher level.
PENROSE: Right …
PENROSE: … Clockwork Orange was Policy. This sounds like a statement rather than a question, but a statement asking for confirmation.
LENG: And Clockwork Orange was Policy.
PENROSE: Yes. And so … Denis Payne sends the file over and this is Policy from NIO.
LENG: I wouldn't have thought he would even send a file over if I may say so because the less that was committed to paper the better."
I am not convinced that that is in the honourable tradition of the Grenadier Guards. People do not say that things should not be committed to paper unless there is some reason for that.
Page 19 of 27 reads:
1194
"PENROSE: Oh, of course, I'm sorry, of course.
LENG: And I think there would be discussions because certainly Intelligence and Intelligence are meeting continually.
PENROSE: Yes. So … fine, so it comes from there. Your job is of course … you have to OK Peter Goss, the senior Intelligence officer, and Tony Holman and others, to release information to the unit, to the Information Policy unit."
I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) is getting restive. I do not want to annoy him but the debate can go on until 11.30 pm, so we have time.
Page 19 continues:
"LENG: Yes, to the Information Policy unit or down to the units of the Army.
PEN ROSE: Yes.
LENG: As the case may be.
PENROSE: So, you knew obviously there was a five [MI5] involvement in Clockwork Orange, but you obviously wouldn't have known …
LENG: The detail.
PENROSE: The detail.
LENG: Correct."
I do not want to start criticising individual officers, but it seems to me that General Officers Commanding should not pass by on the other side of a very awkward road. If such things happen, it is up to commanding officers to get themselves involved.
Page 19 continues:
"PENROSE: Right, and the other thing is that—which is obviously very important—is that as you didn't see the file that was kept at Lisburn, you wouldn't have known obviously its contents because there would have been no need for you to know.
LENG: Right."
The principle of the need to know is all very well but General Officers Commanding in Northern Ireland should be a bit inquisitive about what goes on in the north of Ireland.
Wallace then said to the Prime Minister:
"I think even you will agree from the above extracts that General Leng does not deny:

(a) He was aware of the allegations of homosexuality al: the Kincora Boys Home;

(b) He was aware of a project known as 'Clockwork Orange', albeit not the full content of it.

(c) There was MI5 involvement in the project.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Miller totally ignores virtually all of the other documents which I sent to you"—
the numerous documents that had been sent to the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street—
"He makes no comment on the forged bank account purporting to belong to the Rev. Ian Paisley, nor does he attempt to explain why the Security Forces should have been collecting documents such as the one containing the homosexual smear about Edward Heath."
As an Opposition Member, I am outraged by the document that I have seen carrying the imprimatur of the headquarters in Northern Ireland in which allegations are made about the Prime Minister of this country. Years later, that is still quite unacceptable. Wallace continued:
"The key question which the Government refuses to address is: 'Did those documents exist at Army Headquarters Northern Ireland during the mid 1970s, and if so for what purpose were they created or collected?' Given the many false assurances provided by Ministers in the past, the Government has a duty to tell Parliament the truth about these issues. For example, I enclose with this letter a selection of pages from a document which was typed during that period for the Information Policy unit by Mr. C. T. T. Whitehead, until recently Deputy Chief Press Officer at the MOD and currently with the Home Office, and which contains information designed to smear Irish Prime Minister, Charles Haughey. It should be a very simple task for your advisers to check if this is correct or not."

1195
The Minister may recall that the matter was referred to last Friday on page 3 of The Independent. I mention that in passing; I do not wish to go over the whole of Mr. Anthony Bevins's contribution. But if Ministers think that I am talking about something in the distant past of purely academic interest I would point out to them that it is strange that the political editor of The Independent should decide to deal with the matter on page 3. Heaven knows, there was enough news. The article referred to the fact that Mr. C. T. T. Whitehead, who apparently had no information about those matters or that they were going to be raised, now holds the very important and sensitive post of press officer to the prisons department of the Home Office. Is it true that he typed all that stuff? The Prime Minister has copies of all that. What have the Government done to check with various other people to whom the documents were sent to discover whether they are false? There is a good deal of potential corroborative evidence around. Or have the Government simply, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and I suspect, pulled the shutters down and adopted an attitude like Henry to Thomas a'Becket—"Who will rid us of these people?"— and done nothing about it?
To be blunt, we are going to use every parliamentary stratagem to stop that happening. This matter refers to Parliament as a whole. Parliament has a right to be inquisitive about such matters. That is why I have spoken at great length and have read out the letter to the Prime Minister. It is clear that she had no intention of answering it. What can we do about that other than to put everything on the parliamentary record and badger her day after day until she produces some kind of an answer?
In his letter Mr. Miller refers to the draft of the first part of Clockwork Orange which was sent to the Prime Minister. He claims:
"I am aware of no substantive evidence that such drafting received any official sanction."
If that is the Prime Minister's view, Colin Wallace says that he would be grateful if she would explain who authorised and instructed a member of MI5 to type that draft. What was Mr. Whitbread, Penny Sadler or anyone else doing drafting those documents? They did not draft them simply because they wanted to. Those things do not happen out of thin air like alchemy. Someone, somewhere issues instructions that they should happen. They do not happen by chance.
Many serious people are interested in this matter. I will quote from an unprompted letter from Laura Grimond, the granddaughter of former Prime Minister Asquith. She wrote to me on 12 June from Orkney:
"Just a line to thank you for sending me the most interesting correspondence re Colin Wallace, and also the Hansard of your extremely effective speech in the Army Debate 5 June."
Laura Grimond may think it was effective, but I have not had much of an answer from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He did not say anything. Speeches are effective only if they achieve something. Therefore, I do not think that my speech was particularly effective. She continued:
"The fact that predictably it was ignored by the Government … says much and simply underlines the continuing cover-up on as much as can be covered up in matters relating to Colin Wallace and the conduct of the Security Forces in Northern Ireland. Apart from Inspector Byford's letter in the Times of 8 June 1990 I haven't seen any
1196
come back from the Yorkshire TV Film, but don't see the full coverage of the National Press up here. If no replies to the questions you put are provided there must be further reactions."
She then says that she is sending copies of the correspondence to a number of people with personal contacts. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Staffordshire, East (Mr. Lightbown) should not be dismissive about this matter because the Lord Chancellor is not. The Lord Chancellor has offered me an interview. I have known him for many years and I regard him as a most serious and honest man. I hope that all these matters will be brought before him before he is prepared to grant me an interview.
Wallace says:
"My comments about the Calcutt Inquiry are equally valid. If, as has been shown above, the Ministry of Defence is determined to continue providing false and deliberately misleading information about my case then it is clear it will do so to the Calcutt Inquiry. Furthermore, given the obviously evasive nature of Mr. Miller's letter to me and the fact that you allowed such an inadequate reply to be issued in your name, the Calcutt Inquiry seems utterly pointless."
That is not my view, because David Calcutt has his own reputation to safeguard. Some people, including some of his fellow academic lawyers, will be intensely interested in the rigour of Calcutt's inquiry. I hope that he will uphold his considerable reputation—I do not know how he has time to do all this—by going in detail into what he was asked to do. I was pretty unhappy when I heard him describe his narrow terms of reference on the radio.
For reasons that the Secretary of State knows, I shall not refer to another inquiry tonight, but everything depends on the terms of reference of inquiries. If Calcutt comes up with a narrow report, the Secretary of State should not think that that will shut up the growing number of hon. Members who are concerned about the case of Colin Wallace.
Wallace says:
"Although the Inquiry was set up more than three months ago, my legal advisers and I still do not know what official documents we will be allowed to have access to; what witnesses, if any, we will be able to interview or cross-examine; or whether or not we will be able to see any of the evidence submitted by other witnesses. Even worse, although the Ministry of Defence has unlimited access to legal advice, I have still been refused counsel's opinion unless I pay for such advice myself."
That is one of the reasons why some of us have gone on and on about Colin Wallace's case. The set-up in this country means that the very rich can afford some defence, but people who cannot pour out a great deal of money in legal fees encounter great difficulty. Of course Colin Wallace will not get legal aid. He says:
"It would appear, therefore, that half of the inquiry will be able to have unlimited funds and assistance from the taxpayer, but any help I receive will be strictly limited."
I will send a copy of this speech to the Master of Magdalene and I hope that he will take it into account, because it is a serious problem for him.
I ought also to refer to one or two extracts that bother me and some of my colleagues from Northern Ireland, if I may call them that.
Mr. Molyneaux: Yes, the hon. Gentleman may.
Mr. Dalyell: The leader of the Ulster Unionists says that I may, and I thank him. He, too, has seen the documents, and he wonders where they came from. We wonder whether the Government know where they came from.

1197
The document says:
"In Belfast, the need was for arms immediately. The commander had been interned the previous week but the acting commander became the established representative of the IRA in Belfast. In response to his cry, an assortment of arms of varying antiquity and condition from a variety of sources started to materialise. A Mr. Naughton, an executive of the GEC factory in Dunleer claimed to represent a body that could supply £150,000 with no trouble, although he personally would not be a supplier. He also made it clear that the money would not be handed out freely as Haughey had done. He asked questions as to the IRA's socialist policies and political involvement in the South and to what use the guns bought with this money would be put. The IRA man recognised the situation and gave the correct answers, answers that pleased Naughton as well as Padraic Faulkner who was behind Naughton. Faulkner had been appointed to the Committee on the previous day and £100,000 had been allocated for the relief of victims. Mr. Naughton offered £3,000 to the IRA leadership through Paddy Devlin and Paddy Kennedy. He handed over £1,000 and promised a further £2,000 which never came. His Committee appeared to think that the rebels cause was a better investment."
Who on earth typed that? I should like to know whether it was paid for by the British taxpayer. Who gave authority for it to be typed? Those documents are in the hands of Downing street, and it had better reply. It goes without saying that Mr. Haughey is only the Taoiseach. What exactly happened ought to be established, because those matters are widely known.
The document goes on:
"The same people except for Blaney met on September 18 at Charles Haughey's home. The IRA officer said that there would be no problem in obtaining arms provided £50,000 was forthcoming. It was suggested that he open a bank account so that the money could be paid in. This he did in Dundalk the following morning with a £5 deposit. No further money was paid in. The Dublin Cabinet was realising that it would not be so easy to take the IRA over. A new IRA could be quicker and cheaper.
Meanwhile, the Director of Army Intelligence had met Haughey to talk about intelligence moves in the North again. They decided to use the relief centre at Monaghan as a clearing house for information from the North—Army I.O. John Duggan and Finbarr Drohan had already advised on its suitability. It was agreed that the £100 a week should cover running expenses and the cost of producing a weekly newssheet which would help establish contacts in the North.
Seamus Brady had produced a booklet called 'Terror in Northern Ireland'—an account of the August fighting in Belfast—for the Central Citizens Defence Committee in Belfast. The Government Information Bureau paid for the book, and over a thousand copies were given to Paddy Devlin to distribute at the Brighton Labour Party Conference. Two thousand copies were kept for distribution overseas, and the rest went to the CCDC to sell at 2/6d a copy. Hugh Kennedy became the PRO CCDC for CCDC and began to build the image of Tom Conaty, a wholesale fruit importer whom it was planned to make Chairman of the CCDC in place of Jim O'Sullivan."
I would like to know where all that sort of stuff came from. I believe that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has views to express on that subject, so I shall give way if he wants to intervene.
Mr. Trimble: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) showed those typescript pages to me earlier. I wondered whether they were extracts from a document that was published in Dublin round about 1975, by members of the Official IRA, as it was called then, giving its account of the formation of the Provisional IRA. It was subsequently declared a subversive document under the Republic's emergency legislation and is now extremely difficult to get hold of.
1198
It is certainly consistent with accounts that appeared elsewhere, notably at the arms trial in which Blaney, Haughey and others were defendants. A short version of the thesis that lies behind it is to be found in Connor Cruise O'Brien's introduction to Martin Dillon's recent book.
Mr. Dalyell: It raises serious questions which deserve an answer. I am not in a position to begin answering them. However, it is high time that we had the truth. Ministers can find out, though I admit that there may be difficulties. I am to some extent a little embarrassed because all that happened a long time ago, but there should be records.
If Ministers really wanted to find out the truth, they could ask Mr. Whitehead certain questions. He is a very senior official. I will tell the House what he was reported as saying in The Independent on 29 June this year:
"The Prime Minister was urged yesterday to reply to an allegation that a civil servant was involved in a 1970s attempt to smear Charles Haughey, the Irish Taoiseach, with an IRA connection. The allegation was made in a letter to Margaret Thatcher from Colin Wallace, a former Army press officer in Northern Ireland, on 10 June.
But in the Commons yesterday, Tam Dalyell, Labour MP for Linlithgow, asked Sir Geoffrey Howe, Leader of the Commons, for a full response to the letter, 'containing a document, which may well have been a smear, typed by Mr. Christopher Whitehead, currently head of public relations of the prison service, linking Charles Haughey with the IRA'."
All that does not—or should not—come out of the blue, because the deputy Prime Minister said that he would draw the attention of the Northern Ireland Office to the fact that if I was called I would hope to raise those matters.
The Leader of the House said that my
"intervention would no doubt be taken into account when ministers replied to a Northern Ireland debate next Thursday.
Mr. Wallace said yesterday that the document, an extract from a 100-page original in his possession, was one of eight that he has submitted to Mrs. Thatcher. He said the documents substantiated his allegation that officials had carried out a disinformation campaign in Ulster in the mid-1970s. Mr. Whitehead, a Home Office chief press officer"—
this is why I say to the hon. Member for Upper Bann that we must know whether or not the allegation is false—
"said last night"—
28 June, that is—
"that he had no response"
to the allegation that I had made. If he had said that he knew nothing about it, and that he did not do it, that is one thing, but to have no response to an allegation such as that —well, hon. Members must draw their own conclusions.
The article continued:
"The official, who was on detachment to the Army press service in Northern Ireland towards the end of 1973, said he had not been asked whether he had typed the document. I was not aware this had happened at all, he said."
This is why I am so angry, as I said when I intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East. The Prime Minister has had the letter for 14 long days. No one has bothered to ask a man in a senior position in the Government service—in a key Department such as the Home Office—whether or not he had typed the document. It is a simple question.
The article went on:
"The Independent passed a copy of the document to an Irish official last night. There was no reaction, but the allegation is bound to worsen Mr. Haughey's already delicate relationship with the United Kingdom."
Things are now out in the open. I suspect that the matter was not exactly news to the Irish Government, who, I know, want the matter cleared up. The article added:

1199
"Mr. Wallace's letter was prompted by a Ministry of Defence official who told him earlier this month:"—
I refer to Mr. Miller's letter—
"You attached to your letter of 23 April seven documents which you suggested support your allegation of a smear campaign by Crown servants against Members of Parliament."
Have the Government bothered to try to find out about any of the other seven documents? If I am going on at inordinate length, it is because I want to suggest that I will do it again if I am given an opportunity, unless the Government bestir themselves.
Mr. Livingstone: May I help to put this in context? Many people will be surprised that we have not had a reply from the Prime Minister. She received a detailed file of all the most serious allegations from Colin Wallace at the beginning of the last decade, and nothing was done about it. For nearly 10 years those serious allegations have been in the Prime Minister's possession, and in all that time there has been not one serious response: they have been laughed off, brushed aside and denied.
Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and I have had the experience of being repeatedly laughed off. In 1986 I started off pretty sceptical, as I was told by Lord Mason not to touch this subject. However, other people said that I should examine the matter.
I was asked to start on this matter by a friend of the late Sir Maurice Oldfield, who was a mutual friend. I did not start with an attitude of destruction or of wanting to cause embarrassment. Frankly, I do not want to play party games in this matter. I am not sure whether I have pleased many of my colleagues—in fact, I am jolly sure that I have not. The article goes on:
"'As to the remaining documents, it is not evident from them that any was written by a Crown servant with intent to smear Members of Parliament or that they were ever used … for that purpose.' Mr. Wallace said that response ignored identifiable handwriting on the documents."
The question about the handwriting must be gone into. Again, that matter can be easily checked. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland are saying, "Yes," because they know the whole background.
I do not want to go on endlessly, but, on 4 June, there was a very direct letter. If the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), would like to help—his Minister is taking the matter very seriously—he could persuade his colleagues that they and my colleagues too will save themselves much time and bother by taking the letters seriously. What reply will the Secretary of State send to a letter dated 4 June? It states:
"Dear Secretary of State,
I am writing to you once more about the Kincora affair in the light of the reported broadcast by the BBC2 Public Eye programme on 1st June 1990.
You will no doubt be aware that the contents of the programme cast into doubt previous claims that the issue has been fully investigated.
The programme alleged that the Security Service refused to co-operate with the enquiry conducted by Chief Superintendent George Caskey on behalf of Sir George Terry. In particular, it claimed that the following questions were put to the Security Services"—
we are back on the same matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East mentioned—
1200
"1. Why was no action taken to investigate the allegations the witness described as 'James' had passed on?"—
I have a clear idea about James, and I believe him to be a credible witness—
"2. Why was this witness told to drop the Kincora case?"
If the matter had all been part of the past, do hon. Members think that television, with all else that goes on, would still devote a long programme to it? Television does not do these things unless someone is interested, and we are interested in that question. The letter asked:

"3. Why was he told to sever contact with his source?

4. Did MI5 know what was going on in the home?

5. If MI5 did know, was it prepared to let it continue for another purpose?"

I am very concerned about "another purpose", but I shall not get into difficulty tonight by surmising what those purposes may be. Some of us have certain thoughts, and I just leave it at this: I am very curious about what the purpose could conceivably have been. The letter went on:
"No reply … was ever received. In the circumstances, I would appeal to you to provide an explanation for this failure to co-operate with the RUC. There are obvious implications for the primacy of the police and the respect for the rule of law by all security agencies. The whole issue should now be subject to the full and thorough investigation which it is obvious has not yet taken place.
Furthermore, the testimony of 'James' validates the evidence of Mr. Roy Garland. This fact alone indicates that the security forces were aware that there was cause for concern in connection with Kincora. As a result, the key question is no longer whether or not the security forces were aware of the concern, but why they did not act upon this awareness. Once again I appeal to you to recognise that the Government has a responsibility to the innocent victims of Kincora, whose lives have been devastated, to establish finally for once and for all the truth about this squalid business."
The Secretary of State knows that he received a letter of 12 May. He also knows about the personal letter to the Secretary of State for Defence on 18 May. He further knows that some of us are bothered about the passing of the buck. On Thursday 24 May, I tabled a question:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Calcutt inquiry announced on 30 January, Official Report, column 112, will be taking evidence from (a) Len Garrett, (b) Sir Peter Leng, (c) Denis Payne, (d) Jeremy Railton, (e)"—
this is most important—
"Penny Sadler, (f) Bernard Sheldon"—
who was the legal adviser for many years—
"or (g) John Waterfield; and whether it would be open to representatives of Colin Wallace to cross-examine witnesses."
I should have thought that that was an important matter of public policy, but the Minister of State for the Armed Forces stated:
"These matters are for Mr. Calcutt."—[Official Report, 24 May 1990; Vol. 173, c. 379.]
I do not know how David Calcutt will decide, but I should like it on the record in Hansard that some of us will be very disappointed if he does not see every one of those named individuals. It is all very well to say that there should be a quick conclusion, but seeing witnesses takes time and Mr. Calcutt may have to see them more than once. What sort of an inquiry is David Calcutt supposed to be undertaking? No inquiry could be full without seeing those witnesses.
In conclusion, there is a whole history of letters to the Prime Minister. There was a very important letter on 12 May which was not properly answered. The answer that I

1201
received to my speech in the Army debate on 20 June— D/Min(AF)/⅓—was no response whatsoever to my detailed speech.
I do not apologise for speaking at such length. I thank my parliamentary colleagues for having been so patient and, by their demeanour, not signalling impatience, but concern.
Several Hon. Members indicated assent.
Mr. Dalyell: When I say that they are signalling concern, they are nodding. I do not know whether any of them would like to confirm that—
Mr. Roy Beggs: I am pleased to state that by nodding I was assenting to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and supporting him in his efforts to establish the truth and, through that truth, to establish justice and proper treatment for those who have been guilty of offences that bring into disrepute this House and the entire establishment that is responsible for this nation's affairs.
Mr. Dalyell: I cannot put it more eloquently than that. On that note, I sit down.
9.28 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I trust that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will forgive me if I do not take up any of the concerns that he expressed because I wish to return to the Secretary of State's speech. However, I shall make just one comment on the matter to which he referred, which is more relevant to the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).
I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to the work of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to make it clear that, in the investigation into that very sorry affair, the RUC was not party to any cover-up, and pursued matters as far as it could. The same is also true in respect of another issue that also appears to be becoming a cause célèbre—the so-called Stalker matter. If people are fair when they look into that matter, they will see that the RUC investigated it carefully and thoroughly. If there were obstructions and cover-ups, they tended to come from the same source about which the hon. Gentleman complained.
However, that is to go off at a slight tangent. I wish to come back to the speech made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he opened the debate. Together with my colleagues who spoke earlier, I express our appreciation of the Secretary of State's efforts over the past few months to find a way forward from the present impasse and to get round the obstacles concerning the administration of Northern Ireland. We appreciate what he has done. We particularly appreciate the integrity with which he has pursued the matter. It gives us some confidence for the future. I hope that he will not allow the road block that he has run into to bring him to a complete stop but that he will consider ways in which he can surmount or avoid it.
I welcome some aspects of the Secretary of State's statement. When discussing the administration of Northern Ireland there is a tendency to talk about three aspects. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) referred to a tripartite arrangement, and other hon. Members have used that phrase. They referred to the circumstances within Northern Ireland, the relationship between Belfast
1202
and Dublin—the so-called north-south axis—and the relationship between Dublin and London—the so-called east-west axis. I was glad that the Secretary of State made it clear that there are not only three parts.
There is a fourth part—or one could regard the fourth as implicit in the first. It is impossible to discuss representative institutions in Northern Ireland without addressing their relationship with this House and with London and their position within the kingdom. When one talks about arrangements within Northern Ireland, one does not talk solely on a Northern Ireland basis but on a United Kingdom basis. That must be underlined, and the Secretary of State did so.
We are glad that the Secretary of State made it clear that, in any discussions about arrangements for Northern Ireland and its place within the United Kingdom, the Government of the Republic of Ireland would not be directly represented. Unfortunately, he went on to mention ways in which the Republic might have an input. We would not welcome that. We hope that that will be one of the changes that will result from the developments that will certainly take place—whether today, this month, this year or whenever.
I do not want to speak at length about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but it has had its day. It is on the way out. It was a bad mistake. We are sad that it has taken the Government so long to appreciate that a mistake was made. The Secretary of State used the ritual phrases that the Government are not considering an alternative agreement, that the current agreement is a valuable instrument and so forth. The logic of his position on replacing the agreement, however, is fatal to the agreement. He referred to the need for institutions to have widespread acceptance and support within the community. He knows—indeed his reply to my intervention showed it—that the agreement does not have widespread support in Northern Ireland. It never did and never will. He referred to the opinion polls that underline that fact. We can refer not only to opinion polls but to election results, which show that opposition to the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not diminished. If anything, the opinion is becoming firmer. The sorry shambles that we have seen today and yesterday will only reinforce that.
The Secretary of State and others who may speak at the end of the debate will not want to describe too bluntly the nature of the problems that they encountered during the past day or two but the press and the public are aware of it. They also know that the Government of the Irish Republic have put down their interdict and that the Government appear to have stopped as a result. That itself will give rise to renewed anger over the agreement. So one can confidently predict that opposition to the agreement will not diminish but will, if anything, get stronger.
Having praised part of the Secretary of State's speech, I fear that I must express disappointment—my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) dealt with this at length—over the fact that he did not deal with the constitutional position, and particularly with articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the Irish Republic. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to treat that as a matter of no great import and suggested that it would not provide an obstacle.
The hon. Member for Foyle encouraged us to look at European parallels. One parallel that springs immediately to mind provides an instructive contrast. I refer to one aspect of the unification of Germany which is now taking

1203
place. Hon. Members will recall how, a few months ago, intense pressure was brought to bear on Chancellor Kohl over the recognition or otherwise of the Oder-Neisse line, which demarcates the border between what is still technically the Democratic Republic of Germany and Poland. That line was produced as a result of Stalin's expulsion of millions of Germans from Pomerania and Silesia. Those people, or their forebears, had lived in that area for eight to 10 centuries. They were expelled violently with massive bloodshed in the months after May 1945.
One understands why, in the past, German leaders were reluctant to give unequivocal recognition to the Oder-Neisse line. But nobody suggested a few months ago that Chancellor Kohl—if he achieved a united Germany and was still its Chancellor—would launch a European war to recover Pomerania and Silesia. He was reluctant finally to disappoint the dispossessed Germans whose homes were in the lost territories. Because of that reluctance, tremendous pressure was brought to bear on him, by our Prime Minister among others.
The recognition of that frontier—the withdrawal of any possibility of a territorial claim, bearing in mind that Germany does not have a territorial claim over Poland; there was just the possibility that there would be a claim in future—was regarded as a matter of massive concern, yet the border existed, with peace on both sides. Nobody was conducting a war, or even a proxy war, by encouraging or supporting terrorism, directly or indirectly, in other territories.
Move to the frontier of the United Kingdom, for it has a frontier, and one finds that it is disputed. There is disturbance there. Something close to a form of proxy war is being waged, indirectly, by the Republic of Ireland against the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State says that that is not an obstacle. Of course it is an obstacle.
Consider what has happened in Europe in the last 20 to 40 years. A number of states with minority and boundary problems are beginning to evolve a relationship together —we need not go into the vexed question of what the nature of that relationship will be in future—on the basis of forswearing territorial claims over the territory of each other and on the basis of the recognition of existing frontiers. That recognition is achieved not in a qualified but in an unqualified manner which does not recognise any possibility of change.
Consider the situation in the Sud Tyrol, an area which is 75 per cent. German-speaking. It was always part of a Germanic state up to about 1922. Austria, by the treaty of Vienna in the 1950s, forswore any territorial claim to recover those territories which had been part of Austria. On that basis, it is proving possible to construct a legitimate regime within the Alto Adige and to have some local administration that is functioning, admittedly with difficulty. That is an example of what should be done.
When one looks at other societies in Europe that have had such problems, one sees again and again that the key to the solution is the recognition of existing frontiers and a recognition that they will not change. That is embodied in the Helsinki and the Vienna agreements. To say that the matter will not be raised with the Irish Republic and that its territorial claim will be ignored is not good enough.
I should add that the so-called guarantee in article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is, as we all know, worthless. It
1204
might be more fruitful to take up with the Irish Government the fact that their constitution is in breach of the Helsinki and Vienna agreements, which the Irish Republic has signed. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs might occasionally refer to that matter. I am sure that the other countries of Europe would be interested in taking up that matter.
I emphasise that the recognition of existing frontiers is important if they are regarded as immutable. To hold out the possibility of change is to encourage terrorism. The so-called guarantee of Northern Ireland's position that has been repeated here again tonight by the Secretary of State —that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom so long as the majority of the population wish—is in itself a cause of instablility because it recognises the possibility of change.
If by some strange chance it should happen that at some future referendum a majority in Northern Ireland voted in favour of unity with the Irish Republic and that was carried into effect, creating an all-Ireland state, does anyone think that the next day the Taoiseach of the Irish Republic would turn round and say that the six counties that were previously Northern Ireland would be part of the Irish Republic so long as the majority so wished? No. The national unit would be regarded as settled, in just the same way as people in England regard the English national unit as settled. They would be amazed if a Minister said that Kent would remain part of England so long as the majority of its people so desired.
To refer to change is to hold out the possibility of change. Here again, the institution of direct rule reinforces the possibility of change. The fact that since 1974 the House has not been prepared to handle Northern Ireland affairs properly gives terrorists the message that the Government do not really want Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom; that they would get rid of it if they could.
The Secretary of State said that the Government would not bow to terrorism, would not want to see change, and so on. He also said, I think wrongly, that all the policies and actions of his Administration are consistent with the eradication of violence. They are not. The maintenance of direct rule is inconsistent with policies designed to eliminate terrorism. Eliminating direct rule, treating Northern Ireland as if it is part of the kingdom, and dropping the reference to the possibility of change would help to reinforce policies to eradicate terrorism.
If it is thought that dropping the so-called guarantee presently enshrined in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Consitution Act 1973 would create some uncertainty, I can say that it would not. The position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom was created not by the 1973 Act, but by article 1 of the treaty and section 1 of the Acts of Union, which all stated the union to be for ever and to be immutable. That is the correct position to which one should return.
That issue should be addressed and if, as a result of any future progress, one wants to see stability in the affairs of Northern Ireland, that is the way to achieve it. I note that it was said that stability was one of the aims of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and now we have shown how it can be achieved.
I commend other aspects of the Secretary of State's speech. He recognised the disadvantage of the present system of direct rule to the political health of Northern Ireland. I hope that he will deal with that problem

1205
urgently, not only through promoting schemes for devolution—although that would be good—but through tackling the position of local government.
It is not healthy that the present 26 district councils have no effective powers. At the last local government elections, we and other political parties encountered considerable difficulty in persuading people to become candidates. Indeed, there was an average of only 1.7 candidates per seat—a remarkably low figure. There is a real danger that the district council system will collapse at the next elections unless something is done to make local authorities more attractive, especially against the background of the Government's policy of contracting out such services as are left to them.
Those problems should be dealt with urgently. If local government is to be attractive and if people are to be encouraged to serve in it, legislative changes must be made well in advance of the next elections. We all know how difficult it is to fit legislation into the parliamentary programme and to get it enacted.
I am talking about legislative programmes because I do not envisage any such change being made by Order in Council. It is generally acknowledged that that procedure is indefensible. I am only amazed that it has taken so long for the necessary changes to be made. No legislation is required to end the Order in Council procedure. It could be ended tonight or tomorrow simply by the Minister deciding to make no more such orders and to take through the House, under the proper Bill procedure, all those measures that it is currently intended should be made by Order in Council.
There is no obstacle in the way of the other major change that is required to remedy the defects of direct rule, namely, the introduction of a Select Committee. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). It can and should be done, and there is no reason why it should not be done urgently. We must consider whether we are sending out the wrong signals. Failure to handle Northern Ireland business in a proper, democratic, accountable way is sending out a message that Northern Ireland's position in this House and in the United Kingdom is temporary and contingent. If we want stability, and if we want to discourage those who seek change by violent means, we must make it clear that Northern Ireland's position is neither temporary nor contingent, and that its affairs are treated with real concern by this House.
I wish to deal with those parts of the Secretary of State's speech that outlined forms of devolution, and to comment briefly on the concept of widespread acceptance. That is usually regarded as being a synonym for power sharing. It means that one party is guaranteed a position in the Administration, whatever the circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "democratic accountability". I hope that he recognises the incompatibility between democratic accountability and power sharing.
Under power sharing, one or more parties is guaranteed a position in power, irrespective of the election. Therefore, by definition there cannot be accountability. Democratic accountability must mean that it is possible for the people to vote a Government out of office. Power sharing means that certain parties cannot be voted out of office.
The Secretary of State referred to widespread acceptance. I shall draw a parallel that relates directly not
1206
to Northern Ireland, but to the House and the Government. Do the present Government have widespread acceptance throughout the community?
Mr. John D. Taylor: No. They have 38 per cent. support.
Mr. Trimble: But does the present system of government have widespread acceptance? of course it does, because the system springs from the operation of the House, in which Governments are formed. The system has widespread acceptance, although any particular Administration may or may not have widespread acceptance or support, depending on their popularity. One would not automatically decide that the system of government cannot operate if, for example, the Government's standing should fall below 40 per cent. in the opinion polls, which I believe happens occasionally.
Mr. Taylor: It has fallen to 34 per cent.
Mr. Trimble: In that case, should one say that the House should be abolished and closed down because the Government no longer have widespread support? Of course not; what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The principles and standards of democracy must remain, and so long as the institution has widespread support, Governments may come and go. If that holds true here, it must hold true across the few short miles of water that separate Northern Ireland from Great Britain.
In that light, we are sometimes puzzled by the concept of widespread support and acceptance, and we wonder whether the matter has been properly thought through. In the past, proposals for power sharing have tended to give a certain party a guaranteed position in Government. As a consequence, that party has a veto on the Government, so a minority group is given a veto over the operation of an Administration. Obviously that creates an impossible situation, just as the veto exercised by the Dublin Government over the proposals that the Secretary of State was about to introduce to the House creates a difficult if not impossible situation.
In one sense, we were rather amused, because we remember that a number of years ago the hon. Member for Foyle went around lecturing people saying that the problem was the existence of a veto and that, if the Unionist veto were removed, everything would be sweetness and light. But now we discover other vetos that he does not recognise as vetos and does not wish to remove. We hope that the rather salutary lessons of the past few days will encourage the Government to remove those vetos. They should be removed, as they are obstacles to progress.
We do not regard what the Secretary of State has done or the talks that have taken place as anything new. Immediately after the 1987 general election, the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party initiated a series of talks with the then Secretary of State. Those talks about talks went on for some time, until in 1988 the Unionist leaders put before the Secretary of State an outline of proposals for an alternative to and replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The then Secretary of State let them gather dust and did nothing about them. Following the appointment of the current Secretary of State, the Unionist leaders brought the matter before him and the recent series of discussions emerged from that.

1207
From our point of view, what is happening is a response to the initiative which the Unionist leaders launched two years ago. It has taken a long time to reach this stage, but we appreciate the fact that the present Secretary of State has at least made an effort which has always eluded his predecessor, and we are glad that some progress has been achieved.
We are also glad that the sequence of events outlined by the Secretary of State corresponds with the sequence of events often outlined by the Unionist leadership—that there will be statements by the Governments of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom about their willingness to replace the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to be followed by suspension of the meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference and of the working of the secretariat, followed by bilateral talks to establish whether there is a basis on which people can proceed. They would have to be followed by inter-party talks, aimed at trying to achieve an acceptable solution with regard to the Northern Ireland dimension, which includes the United Kingdom dimension. Consideration would then have to be given to the consequences of that for the north-south axis and the east-west axis.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) outlined that sequence of events some time ago. We are therefore surprised that, within the last week, the Dublin Government have found difficulty with a sequence of events that was made clear to them months ago.
Mr. Molyneaux: In August of last year.
Mr. Trimble: Yes, in August of last year. Presumably they were aware of them. They intimated a number of months ago that they were willing to proceed along those lines, so they must have known what they were doing. One wonders, therefore, why those difficulties have emerged during the last few days and what caused the Irish Government to change their mind. Was it because they thought that some kind of manoeuvre would extract last-minute concessions from us? If so, they are wasting their time.
As for the issue that concerns the Irish Government —the circumstances in which any Unionist might find himself holding discussions with the Dublin Administration—it is remarkable to us that it does not seem to have occurred to them that, in the last analysis, the only people who will decide when Unionists will speak to the Dublin Government are Unionists. We shall not speak to the Dublin Government unless we are satisfied that the circumstances are right. One wonders, therefore, why they approach the matter indirectly. Is it yet another example of their inability to treat the Unionists who live in Ulster with the respect with which they insist that other people should be treated?
9.57 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: My role once more seems to be to sweep up before the speeches from the Front Bench. The issue is direct rule and, therefore, the lack of democracy in Northern Ireland.
Democracy is partly about people having the vote. Northern Ireland is ahead of England, Scotland and Wales, in that its electoral register is in a very healthy state.
1208
The effects of the poll tax mean that 600,000 people in England, Scotland and Wales are missing from the electoral register. That is not the case in Northern Ireland. The number of those who could vote for the first time last year in Northern Ireland increased by 18 per cent. During the past three years there has been a fall in the number of people who could vote for the first time in England, Scotland and Wales.
Although Northern Ireland's electoral register is healthy, unfortunately the electors have little opportunity to vote. They can cast their votes in general elections, European Community elections and local government elections of limited importance, but they cannot vote on matters that affect Northern Ireland. Democracy is not just about having the vote. The minorities in Northern Ireland feel that majority rule is oppressive.
The spirit of democracy and the civil liberties arrangements in the system are of great importance. The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was relevant to the matters that we need to discuss —the health of the democratic system generally in this country and in Northern Ireland in particular. The civil liberties and rights of minorities and individuals are of overwhelming importance, but the rights of the majority must be fully considered, responded to and reflected on in that spirit.
We often forget how much people from the island of Ireland and Northern Ireland, especially working-class people, be they Protestant or Catholic, have in common. Their interest in having jobs with decent wages, in seeing that the prices that they pay for goods in the shops are correct and in having proper and decent health service and social security provision is the stuff of politics. They are matters of common concern. Hon. Members from Northern Ireland advance those common interests, especially in appropriation debates and in debates on the economic and social welfare of Northern Ireland.
That is not to deny the fact that strong issues divide people in Northern Ireland. We are only too well aware of them because Northern Ireland affairs sometimes bring the House to life. Yet sometimes we forget the issues of common interest.
The cultural divisions—with religion as their symbol —and the divisions in loyalty among people of the two communities are powerful, but surely in looking for solutions to Northern Ireland's problems we should be building on their common concerns and interests. At last, the Government and the Secretary of State seem to be searching for a democratic framework for Northern Ireland that will allow their differences to be expressed without destroying the political framework. I welcome the noises that have been made in that regard.
There is a fracture in the position that the Secretary of State outlined in his speech. At one point he said, correctly, that we should be considering
"increasing job opportunities for all and improving living standards."
He sees that as crucial
"to restoring social harmony and self-confidence, and reducing deprivation and communal divisions."
Earlier in his speech, he said:
"Industry must become more competitive, its labour force more skilled and its culture more imbued with the spirit of enterprise."
There might be nothing wrong with that last quotation, but the problem is that we know that it is coded language for other values and ideas. Crude free enterprise,

1209
devil-take-the-hindmost Thatcherism is pushed as the economic and social framework for Northern Ireland, as it is for England, Scotland and Wales.
There is a difficulty. It may be possible for the Secretary of State, by sleight of hand, to advance some of the principles in his speech, to consult the oracle and to draw the various forces together so that moves can be made towards greater democracy and unity in Northern Ireland, but unless the economic and social elements of a democracy are involved, that will be achieved only by clever politics, rather than by more deep-rooted factors which could begin to draw people together.
We have fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland which sometimes assists both sections of the community, but full employment is even more important and would allow the principles on which fair employment is based to function more readily. I hope that the democratic principles of voting. of civil liberties, of rights for the individual and of concern for the different sections of the community will be considered as principles that can be drawn together, both in the devolution measures that Northern Ireland needs so that it can have its own Parliament making its own decisions, and in allaying the fears of individuals among the minority and the majority. A Bill of Rights is especially important for Northern Ireland.
We are not discussing whether a Bill of Rights is relevant to England, Scotland and Wales. The position in Northern Ireland is different from that in England, Scotland and Wales, but we might learn from a Bill of Rights being established there. The question of what is in a Bill of Rights is beginning to be important. Civil liberties, rights of access to education and jobs, and other provisions that need to be built in are beginning to be important considerations for the Northern Ireland community.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about the contents of a Bill of Rights. However, as far back as the Northern Ireland constitutional convention, which produced a report that the House did not bother to read or to debate properly because an element of the convention would not vote for anything unless it was given a guarantee that it would be in government, we gave a commitment that failing a Bill of Rights for the United Kingdom, an assembly in Northern Ireland would introduce a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Barnes: As part of the discussions leading up to the establishment of devolved government for Northern Ireland, a Bill of Rights may begin to be worked out, whether it is instituted through the House or in Northern Ireland. It may be an essential element in helping to knit those areas together.
In Northern Ireland, we have policies, for example, on education for mutual understanding. That development is to be welcomed, but we also need participation and democratic procedures through which mutual understanding can begin to develop and grow throughout the community. If we are not prepared to work solidly in that area and if the politicians from the different parties are not prepared to be pulled together in working for this, there will be considerable shortcomings. That is a contrast with the developments in eastern Europe and the developments, which many of us support vigorously, in South Africa. The
1210
principles that we believe are to be exported from the United Kingdom sometimes need to be imported into areas such as Northern Ireland. I remind the House of my initial point about the extension of the franchise and the defence of the franchise for England, Scotland and Wales.
Unfortunately, many of our debates on Northern Ireland take place on Orders in Council and are crammed into one and a half hours late at night. Our debate on an education measure that was as significant as the Education Reform Act 1988 lasted three hours—about one minute for each clause and 10 minutes for some 13 schedules. That measure did not merely duplicate the Education Reform Act; it contained many provisions that were special to Northern Ireland.
Those hon. Members who do not attend our appropriation debates—and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who made a very interesting speech—would be most welcome to come and debate the bread-and-butter issues with us. Democratic Socialists may have differing views about the solutions to Northern Ireland's problems and to constitutional matters, as well as to the major and more dramatic issue of terrorism, but we have a view of the way forward, and it will be a long haul. We believe that the answer lies in democratic arrangements for which we Socialists believe there is a social context. Where markets lead to monopoly and exploitation, collective action must come in. Collective action is open to bureaucratic abuse, which can be contained only by democratic and participatory forces. The solution for Northern Ireland is very different from that which has been peddled in England, Scotland and Wales in the past 10 years.
10.13 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: The task of the House today has been to consider the extension for a further year of direct rule in Northern Ireland, although I note that the column listing parliamentary business in this morning's edition of The Independent said that we would be debating home rule. I do not know whether that was a Freudian slip. Since I came to the House in 1979 it has been something of a ritual to come along every year to renew direct rule. There never appeared to be much prospect that we could look forward to anything other than the previous years' arrangements.
As we are considering the renewal of direct rule, it seems to me appropriate to look at what direct rule means to Northern Ireland and how it works in Northern Ireland. First, let us consider how direct rule works in relation to legislation that comes before the House and how Northern Ireland is treated. I am a Northern Ireland Member, but, in dealing with the mass of Northern Ireland legislation, I do not have the opportunity to do what I can do when the House considers legislation for England and other parts of the United Kingdom. We take Bills through their various readings, and in Committee we can table amendments. On each of those occasions, we can speak for as long as we like or for as long as Mr. Speaker or the Chairman will tolerate us. We can have dozens—in some cases even hundreds —of hours of debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House. That appears to me to be a reasonable way of dealing with legislation. Lest this House should allow anything to slip through its fingers, the other place goes through exactly the same process. That is how the arrangements work for England, Scotland and Wales.

1211
As a Northern Ireland Member, I can table amendments to legislation affecting other parts of the United Kingdom and I can speak on it until I am blue in the face—by and large, in prime time on the Floor of the House.
When it comes to Northern Ireland business, we are treated in the most shabby way possible. We have what is called an Order in Council which first sees the light of day by way of a draft order that arrives on our desks. It also goes to various organisations that might have an interest in the legislation and they are permitted to comment on it by a certain date and to offer their views and suggestions. When that draft order comes to the House and is considered, we do not have the various stages and we cannot table amendments even if we see something that is blatantly inaccurate in the proposed legislation. We cannot amend it: it is on a take-it-or-leave-it basis and, with the Government's majority, it is usually a take-it basis.
That is the way in which our laws are made for Northern Ireland. They pass through the House in 90 minutes flat. The Government Front-Bench spokesman will expect at least 15 or 20 minutes in which to open the debate and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman will expect the same time. What time does that leave for Northern Ireland Members out of that one and a half hours? In the face of that, we are supposed to be happy that the United Kingdom is treating Northern Ireland in that way.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Are not we getting extra time tonight only because this is an Order in Council and we have an hour and a half after 10 pm?
Mr. Robinson: As always, my hon. Friend is right.
We should consider the attendance in the Chamber during this debate. We have been dealing with an important Northern Ireland issue, but the attendance is different when we deal with issues that affect the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is treated badly by the House in the way in which its laws are made.
The Secretary of State said:
"We are governing via the artificial mechanism of direct rule under constitutional arrangements which are avowedly temporary"—
they are "temporary" but we are extending a 1974 order—"and which no one would dream of inventing as a long-term way of governing any sizeable community."
That is inadequate in relation to the way in which the laws are made for Northern Ireland in the House, and it is just as bad when we consider the way in which Northern Ireland is administered. While hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom have local government which is responsible—no matter how much the Government would like to control it—for health, housing and important issues relating to the environment, in Northern Ireland we have none of those powers. In our local government we are allowed to be responsible for recreation and community centres, for parks, for emptying the bins and for burying the dead. That is the beginning and the end of it.
The people who take the local decisions in Northern Ireland are people from England, Scotland and Wales who
1212
come over as Northern Ireland Office Ministers. Occasionally someone who has left our shores returns to take over some of the administration of our Province.
With the best will in the world, and no matter how dedicated to the task those people may be, they are not elected in Northern Ireland. They are not accountable to the people of Northern Ireland and very often, although I do not blame them for it, they do not know the nuances of what is happening in Northern Ireland. I have known occasions in Northern Ireland when members of the SDLP and the two Unionist parties and representatives of all sorts of other varieties of constitutional parties in Northern Ireland have agreed on an issue, but the Government have taken another view. They know better than we do, so they just jolly away and do what they intended to do in the first place in spite of the wish of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland.
That is not the way to rule Northern Ireland. That is not a satisfactory way in which to deal with the situation. However, the Government admit that that cannot continue and that there must be more accountability and a greater role for the elected representatives in Northern Ireland. However, when the situation changed in November 1985, instead of giving control and responsibility to elected representatives in Northern Ireland, the Government gave a role and responsibility to the Government of the Irish Republic, still leaving the elected representatives in Northern Ireland without any real responsibility for their own affairs.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. Tonight we were expecting to debate a speech somewhat different from the one delivered by the Secretary of State. I must express my disappointment—and I know it is also a disappointment to many other hon. Members—that the speech that we are debating is somewhat limited in its scope. We believe that it is limited because the Government of the Irish Republic were not prepared to give their consent to the delivery of the original speech, because they wanted to have an input at an earlier stage in the dialogue.
If I were unkind, I might tell the Government that the thorn that pierces their flesh comes from the tree that they planted. Through the Anglo-Irish Agreement they led the Government of the Irish Republic to believe that they have a control and responsibility in Northern Ireland which they now seek to exercise. If the Government of the Irish Republic are reticent to agree to this sort of process because they believe that Unionists are insincere, that Government are wrong.
I pay tribute to two Unionist leaders—I fully support the steps that they have taken—who have entered into this arrangement genuinely and sincerely. They are not interested in a process that only deals with one aspect of our problem, as they want to deal with all its aspects. If they merely dealt with the internal relationship in Northern Ireland, and with the problems of creating structures there, they would still have the Anglo-Irish Agreement around them, and that is not satisfactory to Unionists.
I am as bitter and angry about the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement today—I am no more likely to accept it today or tomorrow—as I was on 15 November 1985. It is not an acceptable way to govern Northern Ireland and it does not have the consent of the community there. That has been proved in elections and signalled in opinion polls. The Government should be in no doubt that the agreement is not an acceptable way forward.

1213
Behind the Secretary of State's speech and the trend in policy that he has been pursuing capably has been a recognition that the best structure for Northern Ireland is one which will have the consent of both sections of our community. The Secretary of State has recognised that the Anglo-Irish Agreement does not enjoy that consent, and a better agreement is possible.
Unionist parties have put proposals to the Secretary of State to demonstrate that we are sincere and genuine. Let no one inside or outside the House doubt that the Unionist parties have entered into this process in good faith, that they now stand ready to take part in a dialogue, that they want to be a part of that process and that no responsibility for delay should be left at their doorstep.
The Secretary of State is to be thanked by the community in Northern Ireland for the efforts that he has made. He need not expect that divisions which have lasted for decades—indeed, centuries—in Northern Ireland can so easily be removed. If that had been an easy task, someone would have been able to perform it before. The Secretary of State should not be so downhearted as to lay down the task. I urge him to persevere with it, because it is in the interests of the community in Northern Ireland that we have stable political processes. That very stability will cause a reaction from the men of violence, who will not want the creation of stable structures.
The vacuum that will exist in the absence of political stability in Northern Ireland would create the atmosphere in which terrorism thrives. Terrorists will always find it easier to do mischief when a country has no political stability. I urge the Government not to give up the task, because we need firm and stable political structures. The people of Northern Ireland deserve them. I urge the Government not to give up the task, because we need to defeat terrorism. The best way of doing that is to place responsibility for law and order in the hands of an elected representative assembly of the people of Northern Ireland. They will then be in a stronger position to take on the IRA than any British Government could be.
I wish the Secretary of State well with that process. He should not give up. I trust that, before long, he will be able to report to the House that he has produced an agreement between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland and all the others concerned on the basis of which a dialogue can begin.
10.25 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: This is the first time for years that I have sat through a debate on Northern Ireland that has given me personal hope for its future. I believe that the debate has also given the people of Northern Ireland grounds for hope. I am impressed by the fact that the right hon. and hon. Members representing the constitutional parties of Northern Ireland all expressed cautious optimism this evening, which is something on which the Secretary of State can start to build political structures in the Province.
It is impossible for me to respond to all the points that have been raised, but I hope to do so where most appropriate. Before doing so, I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) accused me, about halfway through his speech, of being disgruntled with him. I do not know whether that was the correct choice of word, but I have no complaint at all with the content of my hon. Friend's speech. If I was disgruntled,
1214
it was at the length of his speech—it was not a question of personal dissatisfaction with him. I recall that in a debate on 20 April my hon. Friend drew attention to a fairly long speech of 77 minutes made by the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown).
Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) also accused me of not listening to my hon. Friend the Minister.
Mr. Marshall: Perhaps that is not unusual in the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes. In any event, I was only drawing attention to the ambiguous nature of my hon. Friend's remarks, in complaining about the length of speeches made by other hon. Members but making an extra-long contribution himself.
Turning to the speech of the Secretary of State, I am sure that he must be pleased both personally and politically that the leaders of all the Northern Ireland parties have praised him this evening. He is probably also aware that this afternoon, in the Dail, the Taoiseach commented on the task that the right hon. Gentleman has undertaken and gave further support to the Secretary of State's personal position. The Taoiseach said:
"The Irish Government have consistently supported the Secretary of State's initiative. We have been as helpful and as positive as possible. We have engaged in an intensive programme of discussions and at least eight meetings have been held at Ministerial level with the British in recent months."
The penultimate paragraph of the speech is particularly welcome and important. It reads:
"Further consultations with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are necessary at this stage but we are confident that a satisfactory formula and basis for meaningful discussions can be found."
I think that we can all say amen to that.
At the beginning of his speech, the Secretary of State again gave us an overview of the Government's economic and social policies in Northern Ireland. He was, I think, proud to draw attention to the progress that the Government claim to have made, especially in the economic sphere. No objective individual would deny that great strides have been made in that regard; nevertheless —as I have told the House and the Government before —there is no room for complacency. Unemployment is still far too high, and productivity rates are still intolerably low compared not just with those in Britain, but with those of our main European competitors. Much still needs to be done.
Referring to the emergency provisions Acts, the Secretary of State said:
"When there is a demonstrable need for new powers, I shall not hesitate to ask the House to approve them."
I have no idea what he has in mind, but, if he will not hesitate to ask for approval for new powers, will he at the same time show a similar initiative and energy in removing from the statute book powers that are no longer required or used, such as those relating to internment? We have made that point to him repeatedly in debates on the emergency provisions Acts.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) made specific reference to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He said that Northern Ireland had
"not consented, and never will consent, to interference by an external Government."
He would argue that such interference was implicit in the agreement. I do not wish to dispute his point of view, although it may not be the same as mine; let me point out,

1215
however, that the agreement has been overwhelmingly approved by the House of Commons, and my guess is that, if it were put to the House again this evening, it would still be approved by a massive majority. The only way in which it can be removed or superseded is through the normal political process—in this place, in London generally, in Belfast and in Dublin.
Mr. Maginnis: I note that, in five years, the Anglo-Irish Agreement has failed to deliver peace, stability or reconciliation; nor has it brought us the better security and extradition procedures that were promised, or an end to megaphone diplomacy. Given that the hon. Gentleman still supports it on the same grounds, I presume that he would still endorse the piece of paper waved by Neville Chamberlain in 1938, which—having received an overwhelming vote of approval in the House—proved equally unsuccessful.
Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman's last comments are unbecoming both to him and to the House.
When we compare the present position in Northern Ireland with the position five or 10 years ago, there is no doubt that there has been progress in controlling terrorism, advancing the cause of the nationalist community, and ensuring that the nationalist community is now more confident in its position in Northern Ireland and in the security forces in Northern Ireland, and far more inclined to pass on information to the security forces, which helps in the pursuit and arrest of terrorists. Co-operation between the security forces in Northern Ireland and in the Republic is now such that even the security chiefs in Northern Ireland would praise the security forces in the Republic.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that the internal affairs of Northern Ireland have nothing to do with the Government of the Republic. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to his point of view, but, as he already knows, the troubles in the north have a knock-on effect in the Republic. They place an intolerable financial burden on the people of the Republic to pay for security. Much of that security arises as a consequence of the co-operation between our security forces and those of the Republic.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) gave the European dimension of the events of 300 years ago, which certainly made an impresson upon me—I do not know whether they made an impression on hon. Members from Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman said that perhaps the present and future European dimension offers the best hope for all the people of the island of Ireland. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman's main point: that we need to build institutions north and south that respect differences between the various communities but emphasise the common interest. Anyone who examines the economy and the social problems of the island of Ireland is inevitably struck time and again by common matters, whether they be problems or whatever. Common interests exist, and we must continue to build upon them.
The hon. Gentleman said that it is better that we share sweat rather than blood. That sums up the matter. All hon. Members hope that the people of the island of Ireland can work together and produce a more prosperous place for all the people.
1216
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) referred to shared economic and social hardships and the victims of violence. He said that we must build upon shared experiences to build political institutions that are able to ensure that both communities have responsibility for the internal government of Northern Ireland. Again, we can all share that expression of hope.
I am sure that the Secretary of State will be pleased to note that, according to the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), he has made only one mistake today; he is normally accused of having made many.
Although much of the debate has been devoted to the future governance of the Province and the likely success or otherwise of the talks, we are talking about the renewal order for direct rule in the Province. It is clearly unsatisfactory that Westminster politicians should make day-to-day decisions that would be better made by local politicians in the Province.
Direct rule is inadequate and occasionally unjust. On the one hand, it encourages complacency and arrogance from the Government, as is evidenced by Lord Skelmersdale's recent overruling of the health boards over contracts, while, on the other hand, it denies power and genuine responsibility to the elected representatives of the Province, with a consequent detrimental effect on democratic politics and political parties. However, as has been said many times this evening, a real glimmer of optimism now exists. We can all only hope that that optimism is built upon so that we can begin to make new arrangements for the governance of Northern Ireland.
We should not underestimate the daunting task facing the Secretary of State and the harsh realities that he and politicians, both north and south of the border in the island of Ireland, will have to face. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Antrim, North may believe, Opposition Members have never regarded the Anglo-Irish Agreement as an end in itself, but as part of a mechanism that would eventually lead to a better alternative.
I believe that there is cross-party agreement on the need to find a better alternative to the agreement, but the key word is "better". Some people have deliberately attributed unattainable goals to the agreement—perhaps the better and more easily to undermine it—but that has never been the Opposition's position. As the House knows, we formed part of the vast majority in favour of the agreement when it was voted on in the House, but our support was not based on over-inflated expectations about what the agreement could achieve. We never viewed it as a final solution.
As has been said, the great defect of the agreement is the exclusion of the Unionist parties. The agreement does not purport to deal directly with the relationship between Unionism and Nationalism in the Province, but it has inevitably altered the framework within which that relationship exists. The key issue is to deal with that defect without jeopardising the progress that has been made in other areas. Protecting that progress does not mean that substantial institutional changes cannot or must not take place.
However, and in conclusion, all dimensions of the conflict must be tackled if the original problem of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not to be replaced by new ones. If there is a Division—which I somehow doubt—we shall certainly vote with the Government in support of the renewal order.
10.42 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Last year when replying to the debate, I had the privilege to point out that in their election manifestos all the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland had made constructive statements about the future. But even in that debate, we did not have the sense of hope that has pervaded today's debate. If a new agreement is reached, I have no doubt that people will look back and see this debate as one of the important milestones along the way to that process.
The majority of hon. Members who have spoken have referred to political developments. Two speeches were exceptions to that, so I shall address them first. Both the hon. Members for Brent, East ( Mr. Livingstone) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), whom incidentally I should like to thank for his expressions of courtesy as they related to those on the Front Bench at that moment, and especially —and deservedly so—to my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope), referred to their concern about what is known as the Kincora affair and related matters and to the conduct of some intelligence officers, among others. Both made detailed speeches, especially the hon. Member for Linlithgow. We shall examine those speeches carefully, not least to ascertain whether issues have been raised that might require a response from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, or from other ministerial colleagues.
Mr. Dalyell: I thank the Minister for that statement.
Dr. Mawhinney: I pay tribute to not only the content but the tone of the speeches in the debate. It would be improper of me not to start by recognising a unique feature of the debate. It is not often that representatives of six different political parties in the House stand up and pay a united tribute to a working colleague. The words used included "integrity", "honesty". "fairness", "patience", "diligence", "truthfulness" and "sensitivity". All were addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That was a remarkable tribute. I suspect that he will subsequently rebuke me, although in character mildly and graciously, for drawing attention to that fact. The House has spoken and, especially in a Northern Ireland debate, it is worth drawing attention to the united view of the House. I know that my right hon. Friend will appreciate it.
No matter how great my right hon. Friend's contribution, he would be the first to recognise that others have contributed significantly to what progress has been made thus far. I pay tribute, and know that he will want to be associated with it, to the leaders of the three parties represented in the House—the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party—for their role in moving the process forward as far as it has moved. I have no doubt about the contribution that they will continue to make as we seek to move it further forward. On behalf of the Government, I assure the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that the sincerity of the Unionists' participation in the process is in no sense in doubt.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) opened his speech by saying that direct rule is an arrangement which is designed to contain but not to eliminate terrorism. I hope that on reflection he will change that sentiment. I remind him again of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at the
1218
beginning of his speech. It will continue to be the first priority of the Government to eradicate terrorism in Northern Ireland. That remains the position. Given the robust support that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends have given to the fight against terrorism, I know that he will want to be associated with that sentiment.
Mr. McNamara: Yes, we want to see the eradication of terrorism, but we believe that while we have direct rule, the weapons of democracy are considerably weakened. It would be far better to have representative institutions which are acceptable to the whole population in Northern Ireland, thus reducing the area in which the terrorists can gain support.
Dr. Mawhinney: That view would command widespread support throughout the House. The hon. Gentleman and I also have common ground when we say that terrorism cannot be either excused or condoned in any circumstances. Indeed, the very word terrorism occasionally gives me cause for concern. To those who are not well versed, it might conceivably conjure up a picture that gives some vague justification for those acts or gives a degree of glamour to what these people do. Let us be clear that when we talk about terrorists we are talking about murderers.
During the debate there was a significant discussion about the constitutional point that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made in his speech. There may have been some misunderstanding when he said that he turned to the constitutional question
"in the hope of putting it to one side."
Indeed, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) invited me to reaffirm the second half, as he put it, of that sentence, which was:
"We regard the position as clear. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom in national and in international law."
That remains our position. I am happy to oblige the hon. Gentleman by confirming that.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and I took part in an Adjournment debate not long ago on the constitutional question and articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. Most people understand the concern, unhappiness and disquiet caused by the existence of those articles. As I told the hon. Gentleman in that debate—I speak from memory—we would certainly expect the Unionist parties, as part of the discussions that we hope will take place, to want to put those articles on the table for discussion.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) all, in their individual ways, again identified the continuing concern and unhappiness of the majority community in Northern Ireland about the Anglo-Irish Agreement and their need and desire to see that agreement replaced. I believe that I am right in saying that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said at one point that its replacement was of paramount concern to the Unionist community.
I think that we have reached the position where the possibility of a new agreement now exists. I remind the House that my right hon. Friend said that there was no reason why the present agreement should be the last word. He said:
"While neither Government are seeking a new agreement, if a better agreement—which commanded widespread

1219
support within both sides of the community in Northern Ireland—were to be arrived at, that would prove to be an important step forward."
I have heard speeches which described that as a departure, a new emphasis or a change of mind on the part of Government. I do not care to become involved in any of those designations. I am happy to reaffirm what my right hon. Friend said, and to the extent that it is an encouragement, that is good. But any such new agreement will have to flow from dialogue and discussion. That is self-evident. As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said, it will have to be built on what has already been achieved.
One is looking for agreement among the political parties that any talks, taken as a whole, should be the occasion to tackle all the dimensions of the problem. That can be expressed in terms of the relationships between the various peoples and communities involved. It can also be expressed in terms of possible institutional arrangements and relationships. Indeed, the manner in which those matters are expressed is, like so much else, sensitive. But more important than that sensitivity is the fact—I believe it to be a fact—that there is general agreement, or common ground, to use my right hon. Friend's expression, that all these matters should be addressed as part of the same process.
It is important to realise that the shared perceptions go further than that. It is also of central importance that each of the potential participants in any talks takes the view that in practice it will be possible to reach a conclusion on any one aspect of the matter only with full knowledge of what will be involved in the others. The various questions interlock and, in the end, while much work would need to be done to address questions separately, final decisions could be taken only on the outcome of the talks taken as a whole. That is of great importance, not least because of the reassurance that it offers to all concerned. Any talks which began with the local political leaders feeling that an important interest had been compromised could not be expected to succeed.
It is essential that any agreement emerging from the talks should be one to which all participants can give their wholehearted assent. No one should feel pressurised to take part or to reach an agreement except on the basis of full and willing consent. Perhaps everyone would readily understand and agree with that, with the exception of the Provisionals, who appear to believe that dialogue can be conducted with the bomb and the bullet.
All neighbours in Northern Ireland need to learn to live together. On behalf of the significant majority of people in Northern Ireland, I reaffirm that they do live together. There is a perception in Britain that everyone in Northern Ireland is at everyone else's throat. Nothing could be further from the truth. If any hon. Members do not believe me, I invite them to come to Northern Ireland and see for themselves. They will be impressed and they will return. That is the acid test.
Most people in Northern Ireland live as good neighbours, one with the other. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) was correct to point out that the events which affect the lives of people in Northern Ireland affect them irrespective of which church they worship in on a Sunday. There is a commonality of experience, and of aspiration, which provides a degree of hope for the future.
1220
The hon. Member for Antrim, North was right to remind the House that there is no direct relationship between where people worship on a Sunday and how they vote. The easy and misleading use of labels to describe what is going on in Northern Ireland is frequently an obstacle to progress. The House owes the hon. Gentleman a debt of gratitude for pointing that out.
Differences exist in Northern Ireland, but they do in every community. It is the responsibility of all of us to make sure, and to do what we can to ensure, that those differences are not allowed to lead to division. Differences can become the strengths of our society, but the legacy of the past too frequently leads to the division of today and the perpetuation of division tomorrow. That was the message of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and he was right to point it out.
No one is seeking an homogenised Ulster man or Ulster woman to remove differences. One is simply seeking to put differences in their context and to help people to understand, to appreciate, and in some cases to come to terms with the fact that others are different. But that does not make them in any sense threatening. There are misconceptions to be addressed and all of us have a role in that process, not least in the process of political progress.
The Government believe, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, that there is now the basis for talks aimed at achieving political progress in Northern Ireland. There is a basis for entering talks intended to cover the three relationships and, as my right hon. Friend said, it is a basis which he and the Government believe would meet everyone's essential interests.
We have reached that point, not least because throughout the process no one has set a deadline. There has been some suggestion that today's debate constituted, in some form or other, a deadline. It did not. As my right hon. Friend said, direct rule must be renewed if it is to continue, and it must continue in the interim because that is the means of governing Northern Ireland. While there are those who argue that there may have been a degree of convenience, there was no deadline. The process has prospered because no deadline was imposed. I think that my right hon. Friend would agree that, having made progress thus far without a deadline, he is not about to be tempted down that road. We hope to go further, but that remains for another day.
The right hon. Member for Strangford said that he thought that the slogan had been changed from "Ulster says no" to "Dublin says no". The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) spoke of road blocks. I hope that they are as encouraged as I am by what Mr. Haughey said in the Dail this evening:
"While substantial progress has been made on a number of important aspects—progress which we believe can be built on at an early date—a satisfactory basis which would avoid problems later and ensure success has not yet been fully established. Further consultations with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are necessary at this stage but we are confident that a satisfactory formula and basis for meaningful discussions can be found."
I venture to suggest that, on this occasion at least, the House should unite in endorsing the words of the Taoiseach to the Dail.
Mr. Maginnis: I have listened to what the Minister said. Does not he think that it would have been helpful if, after five years, the Taoiseach had said those words yesterday, thus enabling the Secretary of State to come to the House

1221
today with a more hopeful and positive message—as he wished to do—rather than with a statement issued this afternoon that suggests ambiguity?
Mr. Mawhinney: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman reflects the understandable impatience of everyone in Northern Ireland and the House to move to arrangements that will be lasting and will command widespread support in the Province and the House. But he will recognise that the issues with which we are dealing have been around for a long time. People feel strongly about them. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, they are not issues that lend themselves easily to resolution, or they would have been resolved long ago. The characteristic of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to which the House paid tribute was his patience. We have made progress. We do not make that statement flippantly. We recognise the issues that remain to be resolved. We hope to make further progress, but we are more likely to do so if we do not set deadlines.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is not it true that we have been stymied in our debate because of the Taoiseach's actions? It is wrong for the Minister to end his speech without the honesty and integrity that were characteristic of the Secretary of State. Let us have the whole truth from him. We know, and the leaders of the talks know, that it was Dublin which prevented the sort of speech that we had expected to hear from the right hon. Gentleman today. The hon. Gentleman should admit that.
Dr. Mawhinney: What I shall admit is that throughout a series of discussions over the past 10 months my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State used his judgment in making progress. He has taken people with him step by step. At times he has patiently addressed what, on the surface, appeared to be irreconcilable differences in a way that satisfied the people concerned. The ultimate reason why the Secretary of State did not make a different speech today was that, in his judgment, the time is not yet right for him to make that speech. It would not command the support of all those with whom he had held discussions and therefore would not lay the best possible foundation on which to build for the future.
Rev. Ian Paisley: That is not true. The fact of the matter is that I have been deceived by the Secretary of State. Let us get that out into the open tonight. The people of Northern Ireland wanted to hear the Secretary of State say certain things today. A few hours before the debate began the Secretary of State was going to make a different speech. The Minister should lay it on the line that it was Dublin that held it up. If the Secretary of State can persuade Dublin during the next few days to take a different route, we shall all welcome it, but let us not bluff anybody. We should let the world know that today that speech was not made because of Dublin's actions.
Dr. Mawhinney: I am not seeking to bluff anyone. The people of Northern Ireland want the Secretary of State to be able to say that there is a basis for making political progress. I hope, as does the hon. Gentleman, that the day is not far removed when that speech will be able to be made to this House. What is not at issue is that that speech has to be made on a particular day at a particular time. As my right hon. Friend said, today's debate has no mystic significance. It is a function of the parliamentary calendar; it is not a function of the talks that he has had during the
1222
past 10 months. However, I join the hon. Gentleman and the other party leaders in their wish to see progress made to the point at which the Secretary of State can make the sort of speech that I believe the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland want to hear.
Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me the opportunity to confirm what has already been said. As far as I know, there was no disagreement between the leaders of the main parties in Northern Ireland. The blockage came from elsewhere. We can only guess from whence it came. However, the clear implication of what the Minister said about three sentences back was that the leaders of the parties in Northern Ireland had judged that the time was not yet right. I think that I can say, subject to what the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) may say, that we came into this building today on the clear understanding and in the expectation and hope that, at long last, on the 15th renewal of direct rule, we should hear the good news that from now on we were in business, and that before the next anniversary of direct rule arrived we should have achieved something for the people of Northern Ireland—as I said in my speech, for all the people of Northern Ireland, not just for Unionists.
Dr. Mawhinney: I believe that the record will show that I said that it was the Secretary of State's ultimate judgment that today was not the day on which to make the sort of speech which I happily acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman, along with other hon. Members, wished to hear.
A few weeks ago I had the privilege of hosting a reception in Parliament buildings in Belfast for a group of school children from the constituency of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. Seven primary schools in Lisburn had come together under "Education for Mutual Understanding" and had produced an anthology of poetry, which is well worth reading. The event attracted a certain amount of media attraction. A 10-year-old boy from Largymore school—the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley will be aware that it is a controlled school —was asked what "Education for Mutual Understanding" meant to him. Most adults would find that question difficult to answer, never mind a 10-year-old boy. He made three or four attempts to answer and told a story which initially seemed to those who heard it to be a diversion.
The boy told of a trip that his school and St. Joseph's school had made to Canada, how good it had been and how much he had enjoyed it. He said that the highlight of the trip was being allowed to get into a kayak and row across a lake. He made it clear that after a little while they learnt how to row straight across the lake. He told the interviewer, "There were two of us from Largymore who were paddling on the left of the kayak, and the two from St. Joseph's were paddling on the right. We eventually got it going in a straight line." He paused and said to the interviewer, "Do you know, if the two boys from St. Joseph's had got out of the kayak we would have just gone round in circles."
From the mouth of a primary school boy in Northern Ireland, that seems to sum up the overwhelming need of the Province—the ability to combine together to make progress in a straight line.
I am conscious of the political realities of Northern Ireland. I know of the significant difficulties that still must be resolved and I am aware of the sensitivities, but equally

1223
I know of the hope and the magnitude of the prize to be won. I commend the order to the House and hope that it will be the last time that it will be necessary to move it. I also hope that the spirit of the debate can at last be translated into substance.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 20th June, be approved.

ESTIMATES
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Report [3rd July] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

PETITION

  Local Government Finance
  11.12 pm
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: I beg leave to present a petition signed by some 25,000 people from Cornwall in opposition to the poll tax. It is an opportune moment for it to be presented, because not only did those people oppose the poll tax, but they asked for changes to be made to make it more related to people's ability to pay, specifically through a system of local income tax.
  A Committee of the Cabinet is meeting to consider alternatives to the poll tax and how it may be improved. If reports in the newspapers are anything to go by, next year people will have to pay more and the destitution that faces many at present will not be answered by its proposals.
  Those proposals have not been finally drawn. The petition suggests a specific way ahead through the Liberal Democrat scheme of a local income tax, and I hope that that Cabinet Committee, whose attention has been drawn to the petition by a letter delivered to No. 10 Downing street by the people of Cornwall, will pay attention to the opportunity and the option that it presents the House.
  The petition is signed by 25,000 people from across the county of Cornwall. If it had been collected United Kingdom-wide, that would be the equivalent of 2.5 million signatures. It is a significant petition from my county, and I hope that the Government will respond to and respect the heartache and despair that led so many to put so much effort in collecting it.
  To lie upon the Table.

Local Government Boundaries (Lincolnshire)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Patnick.]
11.14 pm
Sir Peter Tapsell: My purpose in initiating this debate is to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to request the Local Government Boundary Commission for England to give further consideration to the desirability of recommending the abolition of the present county of Humberside, and its replacement as an administrative entity north of the Humber by a county of East Yorkshire and south of the Humber by a restoration of the historic county of Lincolnshire under the administration of the efficient and economical Lincolnshire county council.
I recognise that my right hon. Friend cannot simply wave his magic wand and return the county of Humberside to the estuary mists from which it unhappily emerged in 1974. He can only table an Order in Council to that effect following a recommendation to that effect by the commission. The commission has been giving much attention to the subject in the knowledge of the great unpopularity of the county of Humberside among its residents on both sides of the Humber. So far, the commission has stopped short of recommending abolition. I hope that this debate will help to persuade it to do so in its next report.
In its interim review, published on 7 March this year, the commission states on page 13 that there are three strands to any consideration of boundaries. Paragraph 47 of the interim report says that the three strands are:

"(i) whether the boundary accords with the wishes of the local inhabitants;

(ii) whether it reflects the pattern of community life; and

(iii) whether it is conducive to the effective operation of local government any associated services."

In the next paragraph, it goes on to say:
"The Commission has never sought to place any of these criteria above the others in principle. It treats each case on its merits, taking all three strands into account."
The commission adds, significantly, the words:
"Any one of them may, in particular cases, be more important than the other two as justification for change".
In the limited time at my disposal tonight, I want to say a few words under those three headings. First, does the boundary of Humberside county accord with the wishes of the local inhabitants? The commission, in a number of its reports, including the interim report, accepts that it does not so accord, although the commissioners seem still to underrate the strength of feeling on the point. The commissioners say:
"these feelings were very strong in Humberside"—
that is, hostility to the county of Humberside.
The commissioners add that their report No. 563 remarked on
"the intensity of feeling against the county, and took the view that there must come to a point at which longstanding and strongly held feelings of alienation towards an authority on the part of large numbers of its residents must in themselves call for a re-examination of the justification for its existence."
However, in that interim report, the commissioners concluded—incorrectly, in my view—that that degree of alienation had not yet been reached in the case of

1227
Humberside. I think that it has been reached and passed. To everyone who knows the area well, it seems that alienation has grown into exasperation.
The commissioners are not local people. No doubt that helps them to be impartial, but it lessens their insight into local public feelings. It is widely felt that they pay too much attention to local government officers, who are, of course, concerned with jobs for the boys.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to tell the House how much of the county of Humberside he represents?
Sir Peter Tapsell: I do not represent any of the county of Humberside; I represent a constituency in Lincolnshire. But if there is to be any change in the arrangements, I have to make remarks about Humberside, which I shall go on to justify, having undertaken considerable research in Humberside and having spoken to quite a large gathering in Grimsby within the past three weeks.
I have been a Lincolnshire Member of Parliament for more than a quarter of a century. My constituency is contiguous with south Humberside. My home, where I have lived for more than 25 years, is not far from Grimsby. I am also a member of the court of Hull university on the north bank of the Humber. I can assure the commissioners from my personal experience that there is a strong and almost unanimous wish among those living north of the Humber to return to a county of East Yorkshire and an equally strong desire among the residents living south of the Humber to return to Lincolnshire.
Mr. Michael Brown: As one who represents a constituency wholly in south Humberside, I can assure my hon. Friend that he speaks for the overwhelming majority of my constituents.
Sir Peter Tapsell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. All the opinion polls confirm what he has just said. The local newspaper editors confirm it. Mr. Simon Jenkins, the editor of The Times, in an earlier article on Humberside, described it as
"a Frankenstein of a county".
Even the lord lieutenant of Humberside has suggested that a change in the name of the county might help to reconcile its residents to its continued administrative existence. That is faint praise indeed.
Extraordinary as it may seem, the news of this strong body of hostile public opinion has actually reached the Department of the Environment. My right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Environment, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who usually prides himself on his contempt for public opinion, was moved to write to the commissioners noting
"the degree of unhappiness at the concept of Humberside which evidently persists among many of its residents some 15 years after its creation".
The then Secretary of State added that, on the basis of submissions received by his Department,
"No other principal area established in 1974 has provoked such widespread and sustained opposition from its residents."
Nor is that surprising. In no other part of England are county loyalties as strong as they are in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. It is the duty of Parliament to reflect these feelings and it is doing so.
1228
In the House of Lords on 13 June, their Lordships debated this issue. Of the nine Back-Bench peers who spoke in that debate, many of them with the closest personal and family ties with Humberside—some stretching back over centuries—only one was not in favour of the abolition of Humberside county. My noble Friend Lord Kimball, who initiated that debate described Humberside county as
"an unloved bastard that no one has been prepared to adopt." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 June 1990; Vol. 520, c. 380.]
Our debates in this House tend of course to be less robust than those in their Lordships' House. However, I am confident that every Lincolnshire Member and most Yorkshire Members would privately echo that lordly sentiment. Therefore, I hope that the commissioners will now conclude that public opinion on the matter has passed the point of no return.
The commissioners' second criterion is whether it reflects the pattern of community life. Humberside county clearly does not. Very few people from south Humberside go to north Humberside and very few people from north Humberside go to south Humberside. All the statistics confirm that. I will refer to only one set of statistics, but they are symptomatic. More than 6,000 residents of Lincolnshire work in south Humberside, but only 180 residents north of the Humber work in Humberside to the south of the Humber. That speaks for itself.
The Humber is a formidable barrier, physically, socially and one might almost say ethnically. It is one of the widest estuaries in the world. It is three miles across, and is not to be compared with the Tyne or the Tees. The Humber bridge, although in my judgment beautiful and certainly a magnificent feat of engineering, does not begin to unite the two sides of the Humber. It is some distance from Grimsby and Hull, and the toll to cross it is £3.
The chairman of Humberside county council recently said that, if tolls were abolished, more people would use the Humber bridge. I dare say that is true. However, the Government have made it clear that the tolls will not be abolished. One of the association branch chairmen in my constituency—a very strong lady—has swum the Humber. Her sister has swum the English channel. They assure me that the Humber is the more daunting challenge. Their exceptional prowess does not reflect the pattern of community life.
The boundary commission's third criterion is whether Humberside county is conducive to the effective operation of local government and associated services. Clearly it is not. The community charge is £100 per head higher in Humberside than in Lincolnshire. The county of Humberside has spent huge sums—its council leader said recently that the sum was £18 million—trying to popularise its existence, but to no avail, either with its own residents or with people elsewhere.
For instance, I am told that North Sea Ferries positively avoids any mention of Humberside in the literature that it distributes about its business activities on the continent of Europe. Most non-governmental organisations conduct their affairs on both sides of the Humber as if the county of Humberside did not exist.
Lincolnshire county council sent me a list of 76 organisations that operate in Lincolnshire, as if no boundary existed between Lincolnshire and Humberside and as if the barrier of the Humber was the de facto boundary. The list, eloquent in its comprehensiveness and

1229
length, includes the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the Methodist Church and the Jehovah's Witnesses. It ranges from the Amateur Swimming Association through the Lincolnshire Steam Engine Preservation Society to British Telecom, thus embracing every phase of travel and communication through which mankind has so far passed. For all of them, Humberside does not exist.
The same is true north of the Humber. A local newspaper editor from there sent me an almost equally expressive list, ranging from the Hull and East Riding rugby union club to the Hull and East Yorkshire council for drug problems. These bodies, too, avoid using the dreaded word "Humberside" if they possibly can. Apart from the bureaucrats and a few Labour politicians, the great mass of residents north and south of the Humber do their best to conduct their lives and run their organisations as if the county of Humberside did not exist.
In these circumstances it should be self-evident that the continued existence of the county of Humberside is not conducive to the effective operation of local government and associated services. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for coming to listen to this debate. I hope that he will ask the Secretary of State to request the Local Government Boundary Commission to give further study to option three of its interim report of last March, with a view to recommending the abolition of the county of Humberside, the revival of a county of East Yorkshire north of the Humber and the return of South Humberside to its natural, historical, geographical and social place as part of the county of Lincolnshire.
11.30 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I am delighted to support my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) in putting the case for one Lincolnshire. In a balanced scale of history, tradition and local sentiment far outweigh the convenience of leaving in place the recent bureaucratic structure that is Humberside —ugly in name and cumbersome by nature. Lindsey, Kesteven and Holland are proud parts of an ancient county. Who says, "I am a Humbersider?" I doubt whether even the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) does. His constituents say, "I am a Yorkshireman," and we, south of the Humber, are proud to say that we are yellow bellies.
Public opinion is clear: the Humber is a divide between two different cultures. Why not allow people to do what most people want to do—return to their roots? Is not that the nature of Conservatism? For the interim report of the Local Government and Boundary Commissioners to argue that there is
"nothing unusual in Humberside apart from the estuary"
shows a staggering lack of appreciation of 1,000 years of social history.
I need not rehearse now the obvious administrative advantages—in terms of police and educational provision —of ending the ludicrous invented boundary that runs like the Berlin wall in the minds of administrators between villages which, for 1,000 years, have been one. Thirty-one thousands cars a year pass between Lincolnshire and south Humberside, and only 13,000 cross the bridge, which shows that the links between Lincolnshire and south Humberside are infinitely greater than those between south and north Humberside.
1230
I ask the Minister to trust the people and to create a local government structure that is effective and convenient—and which can inspire loyalty. That course is favoured by no fewer than 60 per cent. of the population. After 15 years of propaganda, the leaders of Humberside county council have managed to persuade only a paltry 28 per cent. of the population to support what my predecessor as the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle called a bastard county.
I urge my hon. Friend to trust the people abolish this bastard county and create one Lincolnshire again.
11.32 pm
Mr. Michael Brown rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the hon. Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) and of the Minister to speak?
Hon. Members: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Brown: I congratulate and thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell). Everything that he has said will be endorsed by the overwhelming majority of my constituents. He will be the toast of the people of Brigg and Cleethorpes tonight, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will ensure that the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for East Lindsey and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and of myself —on behalf of all the people of south Humberside—are drawn to the attention of the Local Government Boundary Commission.
11.33 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Sir P. Tapsell) on securing this debate and on the forceful and cogent way in which he set out his views on local government boundaries in his part of England. I also carefully noted the interventions of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), and of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who left the House in no doubt about his strength of feeling on this issue.
I will briefly describe the background to the boundary commission's deliberations, with particular reference to Humberside. The Local Government Act 1972 created a major innovation in local government. Before then, the review of boundaries proceeded by fits and starts. There were periods of intense activity interspersed with periods of stagnation. The 1972 Act provided a new system. There was general agreement that it should not be possible for the Government of the day to make changes as they saw fit. The new system ensured that changes could be made when desirable for
"effective and convenient local government."
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey said, that has three components.
First, changes should reflect the wishes of the majority of the local residents. Secondly, they should allow for the provision of more efficient services at county or district level, or both. Thirdly, they should better reflect the pattern of community life. My hon. Friend set out his reasoning for a return to what he considers an earlier pattern of local government, taking what is now part of Humberside into the rest of Lincolnshire.

1231
Under the 1972 Act, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England was established. It is a small expert body of people that studies and reviews local government boundaries. The legislation provides for the commission to take the Government's views into account, and the Secretary of State is given power to give it guidance—and that has been done in a series of Department of the Environment circulars.
The 1972 Act also provides for local people to be given every opportunity to make their input. The commission must publicise the fact that reviews are taking place, and must make public in draft form any proposals.
Only after all that has been done does the commission formulate its final proposals—but the public then have yet another opportunity to have their say. When the Secretary of State receives a set of proposals, he cannot take an immediate decision but must wait for at least six weeks to allow anyone who wishes to have a further say. His decision must be based on the commission's report and recommendations, and on all the other representations that he receives.
An important feature of the system is that the Secretary of State can only act within the framework of the commission's recommendations. He can accept its recommendations or he can reject them, or he can accept them with modifications—but the modifications must still leave the proposals in line with the commission's recommendations.
The Secretary of State has no power to go off on his own and do something quite different from that which the commission recommended, or to act when the commission makes no recommendations.
I turn to the situation in respect of Humberside. In 1986, the Secretary of State issued guidance for the current round of reviews, making it clear that the commission should be reluctant to recommend the abolition of a principal authority, such as a county council, unless the existing arrangements did not provide satisfactory local government services. Against that background, the commission reviewed Humberside and recommended no change, to the extent of abolishing the county council.
Public comment was massive. More than 7,000 representations were received, and in the light of the degree of dissatisfaction so expressed, the former Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) decided that the commission should re-examine the Humberside question without all the constraints of the general guidance that it had previously been given.
The commission is now engaged in that further review, and is taking a fresh look. It is free to consider the abolition of Humberside county council and the division of the county in whatever way seems appropriate. We now await the commission's report on the further review.
Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister —and I am bearing in mind the difficulties that you
1232
encountered earlier this week, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman will be aware, however, that, as this is an Adjournment debate, only one side of the case can be given. May I ask whether the Local Government Boundary Commission will be able to take into account the result of the local election, in which those who argued forcefully for what the hon. Member for East Linsey (Sir P. Tapsell) has recommended were trounced?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The commission will take into account anything that it deems relevant. We are awaiting its final review, and we know that it is carrying out a very careful and thorough study of all aspects of the question, including the costs of any change.
Mr. Leigh: I appreciate that my hon. Friend may not be able to reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but—on behalf of my hon. Friends—I must do so. What the hon. Gentleman said was nonsense. The boundary was not an issue at that election, and he knows it. Every public opinion poll clearly shows that people living in south and, indeed, north Humberside want to return to their roots in Lincolnshire and east Yorkshire.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I should make it clear that it is not for the Government to express a view at this stage. Parliament clearly intends that the Government should form a view on a boundary change only in the light of the expert recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission. We do not have them yet, and I shall not jump to conclusions.
We had hoped that we would have the final report by now, but the commission has told me that its consideration is proving more difficult that it had anticipated, and that it will be some time yet before its report is available. We must therefore be patient. Until we have the report, there is nothing that the Government can do. Once we have it, we can only act to implement—with or without modifications—such recommendations as the commission chooses to make. If the commission concludes that the balance of advantage is against change, the Secretary of State has no power to make any such change.
I shall certainly ensure that the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey, and his hon. Friends are conveyed to the commission for its consideration. I shall personally ensure that the commission receives a copy of the Official Report of the debate. Of course, their comments—strongly expressed —are in the direction of "option 3", if I may so characterise it. For the rest, I can only say that the Government are looking forward with interest to what the commission will say in the light of its second—and more fundamental—review of the future of Humberside county council, and the consequences for the future of the northern boundary of Lincolnshire.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Twelve midnight.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Correspondence
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will give the reason for the delay in replying to the letter to him from the chief constable of Staffordshire on 8 May concerning residency qualifications for applicants to the police force.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The chief constable's letter concerned a citizen of Nigeria who wishes to join the police. His residency qualifications and his later application for leave to remain in this country have been the subject of detailed inquiries. This was explained to the chief constable in an interim reply on 24 May. A substantive reply will be sent as soon as practicable.

  Begging, London
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the steps he is taking to protect the public from intimidatory begging on the streets of London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Decisions about the deployment of resources to tackle crime are an operational matter for the commissioner. I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that the police will arrest for begging where there is some element of threatening or intimidating behaviour.

  Irish Terrorism
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the level of co-operation between police forces in the United Kingdom and those in Belgium in the fight against Irish terrorism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  Police forces in the United Kingdom are co-operating fully with those in Belgium and will continue to do so.

  Homosexuals
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his Department has any plans to require police forces to monitor and record areas of violence against homosexuals where there is evidence of homophobic motives.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring forward proposals for police action to protect lesbians and gay men from violent attacks.
  638
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Decisions about police action against specific offences are an operational matter for chief officers of police, but they attach a high priority to tacking violent crime.

  Bomb Incidents
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has held discussions with the Metropolitan police following the recent bomb incidents in London.

  Mr. Waddington
  As I told the House in my statement on 26 June, I had a discussion with the commissioner that morning.

  Vagrancy Act
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many successful prosecutions were brought under the Vagrancy Act 1824 in 1989(a) in the Metropolitan police district and (b) in other parts of England and Wales.

  Mr. Waddington
  Information for 1989 will not be available until the autumn.

  Security Service
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the operation of the Security Service Act.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Security Service Act 1989, which came into force on 18 December last year, provides for effective oversight of the service.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the average cost of imprisoning a fine defaulter in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The average cost of imprisonment in 1988–89 was £288 per inmate per week. No separate records are held for different categories of offender.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fine defaulters were committed into custody in England and Wales during 1988 and 1989; what is the current daily population of fine defaulters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  Information on persons received into prison service establishments in default of payment of a fine is published anually in "Prison Statistics England and Wales"—table 7.3 of the volume for 1988, Cm. 825—copies of which are in the Library. The provisional receptions figure for 1989 is 17,700 and the average population was about 460.

  Psychiatric Hostels
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many psychiatric hostel places were available for offenders in England and Wales for the latest date available; what percentage were occupied; and if he will make a statement.
  639
  Mr. Waddingdon
  There are no places specifically designed for offenders in need of psychiatric support in the statutorily approved probation/bail hostels, but only those suffering from severe subnormality or psychopathic disorder are statutorily precluded from admission to these hostels. There are 212 bed spaces specifically available for discharged prisoners in need of psychiatric support within the Home Office voluntary after-care accommodation grants scheme (VACAGS). The latest available figure, which relates to 1989, for occupancy of these bedspaces is 72 per cent. I am aware that a number of other projects within VACAGS occasionally accept such residents, as do other special needs accommodation projects not funded by the Home Office.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average weekly cost for the latest available date of a psychiatric hostel place in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The Home Office gives a contribution to the total income received by accommodation projects within the voluntary after-care accommodation grants scheme. The average weekly cost of a psychiatric hostel place requires information on total costs and cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many category A, category B, and category C places were available in each prison region in England and Wales for the latest date available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The certified normal accommodation of category B and category C training prisons in each of the four regions in England and Wales on 31 March 1990 was as follows:

  Certified normal accommodation in

  Category B prisons

  Category C prisons

  North

  2,140

  3,228

  South-East

  2,687

  2,912

  South-West

  1,038

  1,517

  Midland

  565

  3,088

  Category A places are provided in some category B training prisons and some local prisons and remand centres. These places are upgraded as and when necessary for the secure custody of category A prisoners.

  Some 14,704 places are provided for male prisoners in local prisons and remand centres. These establishments hold prisoners identified as being within a variety of security categories and unsentenced prisoners who are unclassified for security purposes.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners currently under sentence or on remand in England and Wales are(a) mentally ill or (b) have a psychiatric history for the latest date available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The number of inmates with a psychiatric history is not recorded centrally. On 30 640
  September 1989, the latest date for which figures are available, 329 inmates—140 sentenced and 189 unsentenced—were reported by prison medical officers to be mentally disordered as defined by the Mental Health Act 1983. Of these, 264–90 sentenced and 174 unsentenced—were reported to be mentally ill.

  On 30 June 1979 prison medical officers considered that 557 inmates were detainable within the terms of the legislation then in force. On the census dates in recent years the number has fluctuated between 250 and 350.

  The Government encourage the diversion of mentally disordered offenders from the penal system whenever custody is not necessary in the public interest.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many psychiatric reports were prepared on remand prisoners in England and Wales for the latest year available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  A court requiring medical advice on a defendant's mental condition may remand that person to prison for a report. During the period 1 April 1988 to 31 March 1989 a total of 6,081 psychiatric reports to court, including 512 offered where not specifically requested were prepared by prison medical officers.

  The Government encourage the use of other means of obtaining such reports including bail or remand to hospital where custody is not necessary in the public interest.

  Children Leaving Home
  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set up a national record of children under 16 years of age who leave either their own or local authority homes.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend is currently examining different ways of establishing a national register of all vulnerable missing persons, including missing children. He hopes to announce his conclusion shortly.

  Natural History Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the consequences for forensic science of the changes at the natural history museum.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We do not anticipate that the organisational changes being made at the natural history museum will have significant consequences for forensic science.

  Mrs. Sarah Conlon
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to compensate Mrs. Sarah Conlon for the false imprisonment of her husband, Giuseppe, and her son Gerard;

  (2) how much he plans to pay Mrs. Sarah Conlon for the cost of the return of her husband's body to Belfast.

  Mr. Waddington
  I explained to the House on 14 June at column 454 that in the light of the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions the convictions of the Maguire family and their co-defendants are unsafe and unsatisfactory. The correct course would probably be for me to refer
  641
  the case to the Court of Appeal, but I did not think it was right to do so until all the submissions on that issue had been presented to the May inquiry and Sir John May had had an opportunity to respond to them. As soon as I receive Sir John May's report on the relevant evidence so far presented to his inquiry, I will consider referring the cases to the Court of Appeal under section 17(i)(a) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

  Should the late Mr. Giuseppe Conlon's conviction be set aside, I will consider any application which Mrs. Conlon may make for compensation in respect of her husband's conviction. The amount of any such payment would be determined by an independent assessor, who in reaching his decision would consider detailed submissions as to the matters to be taken into account.

  On the advice of the independent assessor, an interim payment of compensation has already been made to Mr. Gerard Conlon in respect of his wrongful conviction for offences arising out of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings. Further payment will be made on the advice of the independent assessor.

  Drug Rehabilitation Places
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residential and nonresidential drug rehabilitation places in both the statutory and voluntary sectors are available for offenders in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  There are no places specifically designated for drugs offenders in the statutorily approved probation/bail hostels, but there are 577 bed spaces specifically available for such discharged prisoners within the Home Office voluntary after-care accommodation grants scheme. I am aware that a number of other projects within the scheme occasionally accept such residents as do other special needs accommodation projects not funded by the Home Office. It is not possible to calculate the number of drugs offenders attending non-residential facilities.

  Prison Building
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to date of the prison building programme; what is the estimated cost of the remaining planned institutions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waddington
  The total capital cost of the 8 prisons already constructed is £223 million, at outturn prices. The costs of the remaining 16 prisons in the current prison building programme are estimated at £1,132 million, also at outturn prices, of which £336 million had been spent up to the end of March 1990.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Cambodia
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what allocations have been made from the £1 million pledged for 1990–91 for international agencies working in Cambodia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Following discussions with international agencies active in Cambodia, Britain will grant £500,000 to UNICEF for its programmes in health, nutrition, water 642
  and sanitation. This will enable further progress to be made in priority activities to which Britain recently contributed £250,000. A further £300,000 will be provided to the World Food Programme to purchase rice in support of UNICEF's well and pond digging programme. This is an essential component of a nutrition programme already benefiting 7,480 families. Malaria is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in Cambodia. I have therefore decided to provide £200,000 to the World Health Organisation for their new anti-malaria programme.

  I am sure that our contributions will make a significant impact on these key programmes of humanitarian assistance to the people of Cambodia. We shall monitor progress very closely.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the specified radius in nautical miles of low-flying avoidance around towns and villages;

  (2) what definition is used for major conurbations and built-up areas in the instructions to pilots concerning overflight of major conurbations and built-up areas in the United Kingdom low-flying system;

  (3) if simulated attacks on moving civilian road traffic are permitted in the United Kingdom low-flying system;

  (4) what are the regulations concerning simulated attacks on targets of opportunity in the United Kingdom low-flying system.

  Mr. Neubert
  The points raised are the subject of recommendations by the House of Commons Defence Committee whose report on low flying (HC 120) is currently being considered by the Government and to which a response will be made in the normal way.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list all the avoidance sites which have been disestablished in the tactical training areas since 1984;

  (2) if he will list all the avoidance sites which have been newly established in the tactical training areas since 1984.

  Mr. Neubert
  It is not our practice to release detailed information on flying restrictions in individual areas.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if all users of the United low-flying system are required to plan and brief an exact route for their sortie before take-off; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what is the maximum permitted lateral deviation from planned route for aircrew attempting to maintain visual meteorological conditions in poor weather at low level.

  Mr. Neubert
  Comprehensive planning is required for all sorties in the United Kingdom low-flying system. The precision with which the actual route is planned will vary with the type and role of aircraft and with the nature of the low-flying exercise which is to be undertaken. Aircrew will take account of the possibility of adverse weather in their planning but no maximum permitted lateral deviation is laid down.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which types of aircraft's noise levels produced by NATO allied air forces which are common users of the United
  643
  Kingdom's low-flying system, will be included in the forthcoming noise survey to be conducted by his Department.

  Mr. Neubert
  The noise measurement trial conducted at the Royal Aerospace West Freugh range last month covered the following common users of the United Kingdom low-flying system: F-111, Hawk, Harrier GR5, Jaguar, Tornado and Tucano aircraft.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the nature, purpose and title of the low-flying exercise to be held in the vicinity of Swanton Morley, Norfolk, between 25 June and 20 July; how many and what types of aircraft are due to take part; what is the minimum altitude authorised for(a) helicopters and (b) fixed-wing aircraft participating in the exercise; and what notification has been given to the public of this exercise.

  Mr. Neubert
  There are no plans to hold a low-flying exercise in the vicinity of Swanton Morley over the period in question.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date that part of the London/Thames valley avoidance area encompassing Braintree, Witham and Heybridge, Essex, was abolished; what was the reason for its abolition; if he will list the parliamentary constituencies over which low flying is newly permitted, or within which the area available for low flying is extended, as a result of this measure; and what instructions are now issued to military pilots concerning low flying over(a) Witham (b) Braintree and (c) Heybridge.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 July 1989 at column 1031.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the maximum number of aircraft permitted to operate at low level at any one time in the hilly areas of Wales; if this restriction applies to the whole of low-flying area 7; and if he will list any changes made to this maximum number since 1979.

  Mr. Neubert
  No more than 30 aircraft, excluding helicopters, are permitted to book into low flying area 7 at any one time during the period 0700 to 1800 local time Monday to Friday. No changes have been made to this figure since its introduction in 1987.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints were received about military low flying over the national eisteddfod at Glyn Llifon agricultural college, Caernarfon, between 28 May and 2 June.

  Mr. Neubert
  I am not aware of any such complaints.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has further to reduce the number and size of low-flying avoidance areas covering special rules airspace around civil airports; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Neubert
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 26 July 1989,Official Report, column 317.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the nature, purpose and title of the low-flying exercise held in the vicinity of the Llyn Brianne reservoir 644
  on 11, 12 and 13 June; how many and what types of aircraft took part; what was the minimum altitude authorised for (a) helicopters and (b) fixed-wing aircraft participating in the exercise; and what notification was given to the public of this exercise.

  Mr. Neubert
  Fighter evasion training involving one Hunter aircraft and two Lynx helicopters was conducted in the area of the Llyn Brianne reservoir over the period concerned within the normal minimum height constraints applicable in the United Kingdom low-flying system. No notification was given to the general public of this routine training activity.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low-flying sorties took place over the United Kingdom during this year's Exercise Central Enterprise.

  Mr. Neubert
  None.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on what date flow control for low-flying military aircraft in a southerly direction between the city of Hull and danger area D. G306 was first established;

  (2) on what date flow control was first established in the United Kingdom low-flying system in a south-westerly direction (a) between RAF Marham and the Stanford practical training area and (b) in the vicinity of Harlesdon, Norfolk;

  (3) on what date flow control was first established in the United Kingdom low flying system in a north-westerly direction in the vicinity of (a) Watton, Norfolk and (b) Diss, Norfolk;

  (4) on what date flow control was first established in the United Kingdom low-flying System in a northerly direction between (a) Brancaster and Blakeney Point, Norfolk and (b) the city of Northampton and Sywell airfield;

  (5) on what date flow control was first established in the United Kingdom low-flying System in a north-easterly direction between (a) RAF Cottesmore and RAF' Wittering, (b) King's Lynn and RAF Sculthorpe and (c) on the north side of the RAF Wattisham military air traffic zone;

  (6) on what date flow control was first established in the United Kingdom low-flying system in (a) a southerly direction in the vicinity of Cromer, Norfolk, and (b) a westerly direction between Peterborough and RAF Alconbury;

  (7) on what date the anti-clockwise flow control was first established around the town of Sculthorpe in the United Kingdom low-flying system;

  (8) on what date flow control was first established in the United Kingdom low-flying system (a) between Harworth and Carlton-in-Lindrick, Nottinghamshire, and (b) in the vicinity of Ackworth, west Yorkshire.

  Mr. Neubert
  Unidirectional traffic flows have been in use since before the introduction of the current low flying system in 1979 and I regret that the information requested could not be provided without disproportionate cost and effort.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are given to pilots concerning the minimum height and maximum speed to be flown over the Billing and Boothville suburbs of Northampton, when
  645
  flying through the channel in the United Kingdom low-flying system in a northerly direction between the city of Northampton and Sywell airfield.

  Mr. Neubert
  Aircraft flying in the area concerned are subject to the normal rules of the United Kingdom low flying system.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given within the options for change exercise to the mechanisms for returning research and development scientists and facilities to civilian manufacturing.

  Mr. Neubert
  The implications of options for change for the defence equipment programme, including the research programme, are being studied, but it is too early to say what their impact will be.

  Exercise Panoramic II
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many aircraft, and of which types, will participate in Exercise Panoramic II; and from which bases they will operate;

  (2) if he will make a statement on the nature and purpose of the forthcoming exercise entitled Panoramic II;

  (3) if he will make a statement on the measures taken to ensure the safety of civilian sea and air traffic during Exercise Panoramic II.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Panoramic II is a trial designed to investigate the performance of air-to-air missiles. The trial, which began on 2 July and will continue until 13 July, involves four Tornado F3, one Phantom, one Victor, one VC10, one Nimrod and one Canberra aircraft. All the aircraft are operating from RAF Leuchars, with the exception of the Nimrod, which is operating from RAF Kinloss.

  Missile firings are taking place within a special airspace reservation area north-west of Saxa Vord. The Nimrod carries out a search for shipping and ensures that the area is clear before any firing takes place. A coastal navigation warning has been issued by the Royal Navy hydrographer. All civilian air traffic routes through the area have been closed for the duration of the trial.

  Airborne Anti-armour weapon
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision on the advanced airborne anti-armour weapon SR(A)1238.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  We have decided not to proceed with the advanced airborne anti-armour weapon to SR(A) 1238 at this stage; further decisions will not be made until the way forward from the "Options for Change" exercise is clear. In the light of altered circumstances, we may wish to consider designs to less stringent criteria than had previously been required.

ENVIRONMENT

  Drinking Water
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the incidence and levels of(a) tetrachloroethylene, (b) trichloroethylene and (c) polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in drinking water; if the levels detected have in any case exceeded World Health Organisation guidelines; and if he will discuss with his European Community counterparts the establishment of maximum advisable concentrations in respect of each of these chemicals.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 set standards for tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene of 10 and 30 microgram/litre respectively as annual averages. These are based on tentative guideline values promulgated by the World Health Organisation. No specific standards for tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene are laid down in the EC drinking water directive.

  Comprehensive information about the current incidence and levels of tetrachloroethylene and trichloroethylene in drinking water is not, at present, held centrally. The drinking water inspectorate is aware of a few public supplies which exceed the standards for these substances. The water companies concerned have either taken the supplies out of service or have given undertakings under section 20 of the Water Act 1989 to introduce treatment by 1994 in order to reduce the levels. Because of the safety margins allowed, medical advice is that public health is not endangered by those supplies which are continuing in use.

  The Water Quality Regulations incorporate the standard of 0.2 microgram/litre for six specified polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) laid down in the EC directive. They also set a national standard, based on the WHO guideline value, of 0.01 microgram/litre as an annual average for benzpyrene, an individual PAH.

  At the request of my Department and the Welsh Office water undertakers carried out a comprehensive survey of their supplies in early 1989 to establish levels of PAH in drinking water. Of approximately 6,250 samples,44—0.7 per cent.—contained concentrations in excess of standards mentioned above. These results indicate that there is not a general problem with PAH in drinking water. Where a high concentration of PAH is confirmed water companies carry out remedial programmes comprising relining or replacing water mains or flushing.

  I see no need at present for any additional EC standards for these substances.

  River and Harbour Pollution
  Mr. Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest available figure for the average fine imposed by magistrates courts in the south-west of England for river and harbour pollution.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Information collected by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department shows that, for cases brought under sections 31 or 32 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 as the principal offence, the average fine imposed by magistrates courts in 1988 for water pollution offences in the south-west was £570.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the salary, expenses and other emoluments paid annually to the chairman of the London residuary body, and the estimated figures for 1991, following the reappointment announced on 26 June for the period to March 1993.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The chairman's current annual emoluments—salary and pension scheme contributions—are £63,530 and will rise to £64,165 from 1 January 1991. The total expenses paid to the chairman and LRB board members in 1988–89, the latest year for which information is available, was £6,430.

  Ventilation
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will ensure that an adequate number of fans are made available to hon. Members and staff working in those parts of the Palace where ventilation systems have been closed down for repair during the summer recess.

  Mr. Chope
  The Parliamentary Works Office has made arrangements for engineers control on extension 4747 to issue fans on request to those who need them.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the Governments of Iceland, Denmark, Norway and the Faroes regarding proposals to increase the volume of reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Dounreay; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend has received representations from the Environmental Ministers of Iceland, Denmark, Norway and the Faroe Islands about reprocessing and radioactive waste disposal at Dounreay. He has also discussed this subject with the Danish Environment Minister.

  Big Ben (Chime)
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the hour chime of Big Ben to be restored.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope early in August. The work to forge the new hammer arm has taken longer than expected.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the letter to him from Councillor Stewart Foster, of Leicester city council, dated 18 June, concerning student nurses and the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I have written to Councillor Foster today.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library the address and telephone number of each of the bodies responsible for hearing community charge appeals against decisions of charging authorities in London.
  648
  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: I have today placed copies of the information requested in the Library.

  Quarrying, Marnhull
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to refuse any application for quarrying in Marnhull, Sturminster Newton, Dorset.

  Mr. Moynihan
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: No. I cannot give such a general policy assurance. Any application coming before the Secretary of State for determination is considered on its merits.

WALES

  MIND
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what grant he has given to MIND in Wales for 1990–91; on what date MIND was notified of this grant; what was the grant in preceding years; and whether there is any change in the conditions for 1990–91 under which grant payment is offered.

  Mr. Grist
  Wales MIND applied on 4 June 1990 for a grant under section 64 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968. A decision will be notified shortly. Previous years' section 64 funding was as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  59,550

  1988–89

  57,863

  1989–90

  57,166

  In addition, £96,500 has been allocated to Wales MIND in the current year in respect of developments to facilitate implementation of the Welsh Office mental illness strategy on an all-Wales basis.

  The only change in condition in 1990–91, common to all section 64 funding, is the introduction of a requirement that grant-aid made in respect of a capital asset has to be repaid if the asset is disposed of.

  Registered Child Minders
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many registered child minders there are in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave on 22 May 1990, at column 123.

  NHS and Community Care Act
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he intends to circulate to people in Wales regarding the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act; and what budget he has allocated for this purpose.

  Mr. Grist
  The booklet for circulation in Wales will explain the main changes taking place in the national health service and reflect the particular circumstances in the Principality. It is being prepared in a bilingual version. We shall provide a budget sufficient for distribution of the booklet to all households throughout Wales.

  General Practitioners (Prescribing)
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines his Department has issued in the past 10 years in respect of(a) over-prescribing and (b) under-prescribing by general practitioners; and if he will place in the Library a copy of all such guidelines currently in force.

  Mr. Grist
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Nurseries and Playgroups
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary or State for Wales if he will list the number of(a) registered pre-school nurseries and(b) registered playgroups for each academic year from 1970–71 to 1988–89 in (i) Wales as a whole and (ii) each county.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The available information on the numbers of registered pre-school nurseries and registered playgroups is shown in the table. Data prior to 1975 are not readily available.

  Number of Registered Facilities at 31 March Clwyd

  Year

  Pre-school nurseries

  Play-groups

  1975

  6

  124

  1976

  7

  141

  1977

  5

  154

  1978

  5

  173

  1979

  6

  192

  1980

  5

  237

  1981

  6

  169

  1982

  7

  176

  1983

  8

  167

  1984

  8

  173

  1985

  12

  173

  1986

  12

  167

  1987

  15

  192

  1988

  22

  203

  1989

  29

  194

  Dyfed

  Year

  Pre-school nurseries

  Playgroups

  1975

  2

  86

  1976

  1

  105

  1977

  1

  109

  1978

  —

  115

  1979

  —

  121

  1980

  —

  129

  1981

  —

  136

  1982

  —

  141

  1983

  —

  154

  1984

  —

  158

  1985

  —

  156

  1986

  —

  155

  1987

  —

  169

  1988

  —

  197

  1989

  3

  198

  Gwent

  Year

  Pre-school nurseries

  Playgroups

  1975

  3

  82

  1976

  3

  83

  1977

  3

  96

  1978

  3

  98

  1979

  3

  97

  650

  Year

  Pre-school nurseries

  Playgroups

  1980

  3

  104

  1981

  1

  103

  1982

  —

  112

  1983

  —

  105

  1984

  —

  110

  1985

  —

  114

  1986

  —

  121

  1987

  —

  126

  1988

  —

  132

  1989

  —

  137

  Gwynedd

  Year

  Pre-school nurseries

  Play-groups

  1975

  —

  87

  1976

  —

  94

  1977

  —

  102

  1978

  —

  111

  1979

  —

  117

  1980

  —

  134

  1981

  2

  123

  1982

  3

  129

  1983

  3

  136

  1984

  3

  137

  1985

  4

  147

  1986

  4

  149

  1987

  4

  157

  1988

  6

  129

  1989

  9

  164

  Mid Glamorgan

  Year

  Pre-school nurseries

  Play-groups

  1975

  15

  85

  1976

  8

  81

  1977

  4

  96

  1978

  3

  103

  1979

  4

  100

  1980

  4

  90

  1981

  4

  92

  1982

  4

  110

  1983

  5

  113

  1984

  10

  104

  1985

  6

  117

  1986

  7

  121

  1987

  9

  121

  1988

  8

  127

  1989

  5

  137

  Powys

  Year

  Pre-school nurseries

  Playgroups

  1975

  1

  32

  1976

  1

  36

  1977

  1

  38

  1978

  1

  40

  1979

  1

  45

  1980

  1

  52

  1981

  1

  53

  1982

  —

  56

  1983

  —

  59

  1984

  —

  62

  1985

  —

  61

  1986

  5

  63

  1987

  6

  64

  1988

  5

  63

  1989

  4

  66

  651

  South Glamorgan

  Year

  Pre-school nurseries

  Playgroups

  1975

  18

  100

  1976

  20

  113

  1977

  19

  121

  1978

  17

  120

  1979

  18

  110

  1980

  16

  104

  1981

  13

  113

  1982

  12

  109

  1983

  13

  113

  1984

  14

  112

  1985

  15

  119

  1986

  16

  115

  1987

  17

  123

  1988

  19

  138

  1989

  21

  153

  West Glamorgan

  Year

  Pre-school nurseries

  Play-groups

  1975

  2

  46

  1976

  1

  43

  1977

  1

  43

  1978

  1

  40

  1979

  1

  39

  1980

  1

  45

  1981

  1

  38

  1982

  1

  44

  1983

  5

  44

  1984

  6

  46

  1985

  6

  48

  1986

  5

  53

  1987

  7

  47

  1988

  7

  51

  1989

  14

  54

  Wales

  Year

  Pre-school nurseries

  Play-groups

  1975

  47

  642

  1976

  41

  696

  1977

  34

  759

  1978

  30

  800

  1979

  33

  821

  1980

  30

  895

  1981

  28

  825

  1982

  27

  877

  1983

  34

  891

  1984

  41

  902

  1985

  43

  935

  1986

  49

  944

  1987

  58

  999

  1988

  67

  1,040

  1989

  85

  1,103

  Community Care
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure on core community care services in Wales for each year since 1979; and how much and what percentage of the total was in respect of(a) community health, (b) his departmenal and (c) local authority expenditure.

  Mr. Grist
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The information is not available in precisely the form requested.
  652

  Expenditure by district health authorities in Wales on community health services1 is shown at Table 1: Table 1

  Expenditure £ million

  21981–82

  44.1

  1982–83

  48.5

  1983–84

  51.5

  1984–85

  56.4

  1985–86

  61.5

  1986–87

  67.7

  1987–88

  84.7

  1988–89

  99.6

  1 Community health service costs consist of preventative health services (such as fluoridation, vaccination and immunisation, health education and health visiting), school medical and dental services, family planning services and primary district nursing services. Figures are extracted from "Key Statistical Indicators for National Health Service Management in Wales" published annually.

  2 Data for earlier years on a comparable basis are not available except at disproportionate costs.

  Expenditure by local authorities in Wales on residential and domiciliary care is as follows:

  Table 2

  Local authorities

  Expenditure £ million

  1979–80

  58.9

  1980–81

  70.5

  1981–82

  79.8

  1982–83

  87.8

  1983–84

  97.5

  1984–85

  103.7

  1985–86

  109.9

  1986–87

  117.7

  1987–88

  133.7

  1988–89

  150.0

  The expenditure shown in tables 1 and 2 was supplemented each year by direct Welsh Office funding under a number of arrangements, but details of all these amounts are not available except at disproportionate cost.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Court of Justice
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Prime Minister, what recent discussions she has had with the heads of other European Community Governments concerning the powers of the European Court of Justice; and if she will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not yet had any formal discussions on this issue with the heads of other European Community Governments.

  Environmental Co-operation
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will make a further statement on the United Kingdom's contribution to international co-operation on environ mental issues.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government work to protect the global environment through a wide range of international organisations including the European Community, the United Nations and the Organisation for Economic

  653
  Co-operation and Development. We are playing an active part in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and we have led the call for an international convention on climate change. On 25 May this year my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that provided others are prepared to take their full share, Britain is prepared to set itself the very demanding target of returning carbon dioxide emissions to their current levels by 2005.

  Last week the Government hosted on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme the second meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol which agreed important new measures to protect the ozone layer and to enable developing countries to play their part. It demonstrated the international co-operation we need to safeguard the global environment. We will continue to give support to UNEP's valuable work in this and other areas. We will also play a full and constructive role in preparations for the United Nations conference on environment and development which will be held in Brazil in 1992.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 5 July.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is hosting the NATO summit meeting. This evening she will be attending a dinner for NATO given by Her Majesty the Queen.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Elderly People
  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department is supporting the designation of a European Year of Elderly People; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  We intend to play a full part in the discussions on this and on other aspects of the Commission's communication. We shall do so on the basis that elderly people are as diverse as any other group in society and most lead active, independent lives.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to the European Commission communication on aging (COM(90)80 FINAL).

  Mr. Maude
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health on 3 July,Official Report, column 548.

  Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the CSCE conference on the human dimension at Copenhagen; and what has been the reaction of Her Majesty's Government towards the San Marino proposals for the Council of Europe to become the parliamentary dimension of the CSCE process.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We welcome the successful conclusion of the second meeting of the conference on the human dimension, held in Copenhagen from 5 to 29 June. The 654
  meeting agreed a concluding document which represents a historic advance in CSCE participants' human rights commitments. It enshrines specifically proposals which the United Kingdom, together with other western countries, put forward, laying down the conditions which should be fulfilled for elections to be considered free and fair, and enumerating the principles for a sound legal system. The document also extends existing CSCE undertakings on freedom of expression, of association and peaceful assembly, and of movement, and reaffirms the participating states' respect for the rights of minorities. The explicit and universal adherence to these principles which the Copenhagen concluding document represents will be of great benefit in sustaining the process of democratic reform in eastern Europe. Copies of the concluding document are being placed in the Library of the House.

  The Copenhagen meeting also discussed participating states' implementation of their CSCE human rights commitments and reviewed the mechanism established at the 1989 Vienna CSCE follow-up meeting allowing participating states to monitor each others' human rights performance.

  The United Kingdom and other CSCE member states will be considering the ways and means in which the Council of Europe can contribute to the human dimension of the CSCE process.

  Romanian Children (Adoption)
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on any action taken by the Romanian Government or any other agencies in that country to place a blockade or other hinderance upon the adoption of Romanian children by suitably qualified couples in the United Kingdom, including couples which have lodged suitable adoption papers; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We understand that final approval of adoption from overseas has been temporarily halted until the new Romanian Parliament decides which authority is to be responsible for the final approval. This decision should be taken soon. If necessary, we shall ask the Romanian authorities to allow adoptions for which Romanian and United Kingdom procedures have already been started, and which satisfy the stated requirements of both countries, to be completed and the child concerned released to the adoptive parents.

  Burma
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Burmese Government about the recent elections in that country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The State Law and Order Restoration Council's abuse of the human and political rights of the Burmese people is well documented and has been repeatedly condemned. The surprisingly free and fair way in which the actual polling was conducted on 27 May was, therefore, all the more welcome. The official results now confirm that the main opposition party, the National League for Democracy, has won an overwhelming victory.

  On 29 May, the British Government urged the SLORC to give effect to the clearly expressed wish of the people of

  655
  Burma and called for the early release of the imprisoned leaders of the democratic parties and for the unconditional lifting of martial law.

  On 6 June, the European Community called on the military regime to respect the results of the elections by handing over power to a Government chosen by the newly elected Parliament without delay and to release political leaders in detention immediately.

  The British Government again call on the military regime to respond to the clearly expressed wish of the Burmese people for change. Along with our EC partners, we are ready to co-operate with the new Government, once it is formed. Meanwhile, existing policy will continue until the regime takes concrete steps to end the military rule which the Burmese people have so decisively rejected by initiating a constructive dialogue with opposition leaders at an early date.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Civil Research and Development
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proportion of Britain's gross domestic product is devoted to civil research and development; and what information he has as to comparable figures for France and West Germany.

  Mr. Jackson
  A report published last year by the OECD showed that in 1985, the latest year for which figures are available 1.8 per cent. of the United Kingdom's GDP was attributable to estimated gross domestic expenditure on civil research and development. The corresponding figures for France and West Germany were 1.8 and 2–6 per cent. respectively.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to take further action to encourage schools to seek grant-maintained status.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The 1988 Act gives parents and governors the opportunity to seek grant-maintained status for their school. There has been a rapid expansion in the number of grant-maintained schools and a lot of interest among parents and governors. I anticipate that there will be many more applications for GM status.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to make all local education authority secondary schools grant maintained.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  It is for parents and governors to decide whether to seek grant-maintained status for their school. My right hon. Friend will consider every application on its merits.

  Financial Support, Bradford
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received regarding financial suppport for education in Bradford; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters on this issue and I recently received a deputation from Bradford which included the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer).
  656
  Bradford has done well out of the change from the grant-related expenditure assessment for education to the standard spending assessment—the education component of its SSA is £179 million and is substantially higher than the comparable GRE figure for 1989–90. This assessment should mean that the authority has a solid funding base for its education service in 1990–91.

  Bradford's annual capital guideline for 1990–91 was over £9 million. LEAs have been invited to submit their education capital expenditure plans for 1991–92 by 15 September. Bradford's needs will be considered syrnpathetically against an objective set of criteria, as will the needs of all other LEAs.

  School Psychological Service
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to reduce the waiting lists for the school psychological service for pupils in Preston.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The operation of the school psychological service is a matter for local education authorities. I understand that the Lancashire LEA has recently reorganised the service and is in the course of making a number of additional appointments. The authority is currently reviewing the process by which pupils are referred to the service.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will publish in respect of the academic years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 the number of grants made available for students to study for vocational qualifications at colleges in Scotland in respect of each course at each college.

  Mr. Jackson
  Information about the number of grants made available by local authorities in England and Wales for students to study for vocational qualifications at colleges in Scotland is not available. Information about the number of such grants made available by the Scottish Education Department is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Further Education
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has made any assessment of the effect of community charge capping on the provision of further education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has considered all the representations made to him by the capped authorities, including those about service delivery, together with all other information he considers relevant, and he is satisfied that the final caps he is proposing will permit them to maintain their services at a reasonable level.

  Local Management of Colleges
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list those local education authorities which have had their schemes for local management of colleges turned down by his Department.
  657
  Mr. Jackson
  My right hon. Friend has not turned down any schemes for the local management of colleges, though a number have been approved with modifications or conditions. The schemes for Barnet, Hereford and Worcester and Staffordshire have yet to be approved, though Hereford and Worcester and Staffordshire are operating schemes in advance of statutory approval.

  Management Information Systems
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made in the allocation of education support grant funding to local education authorities in England and Wales for the development of management information systems in further education colleges.

  Mr. Jackson
  Between 1985–86 and 1989–90 education support grant allocations to local education authorities in England for the development of computerised management information systems in further education colleges supported £12–5 million expenditure. Commitments for 1990–91, 1991–92 and 1992–93 support a further £21 million.

  Allocation of education support grant funding for local education authorities in Wales is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will give details of his Department's role on the question of quality assurance relating to management information systems development.

  Mr. Jackson
  With local education authorities, the Department is responsible for monitoring and evaluating the use of education support grants to support expenditure on computerised management information systems (CMIS) in further education colleges. This is achieved by means of annual progress reports from LEAs, national surveys of developments in colleges, the observations of Her Majesty's inspectorate and studies by consultants. The Department is also in contact with the major suppliers of CMIS software to discuss their products.

  School Reorganisation
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what guidance he gives to local education authorities as to under what sections of and schedules to the Education (No.2) Act 1986 they should conduct the selection procedure for the headships of schools which have been part of a major schools reorganisation programme;

  (2) what steps he has taken to satisfy himself under the terms of section 68 of the Education Act 1944 that Leeds education authority is acting reasonably in the way it has decided to conduct the appointment of headships as part of the city's reorganisation of schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department's Circular 7/87 provides general guidance on the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 relating to the appointment of head teachers. Where a local education authority is reorganising its schools by closing two or more of them and opening new schools in their place paragraph 23 of schedule 2 to the 1986 Act allows the local education authority, in consultation with the temporary governing 658
  bodies of the new schools, to appoint one of the head teachers of the schools which are closing to be the first head teacher for the new school, provided that a substantial number of the pupils at the discontinued schools, taken together, are expected to transfer to the new school. In these circumstances the authority is empowered to make the appointment in this manner as an alternative to the procedures usually applying to the appointment of head teachers. These are set out in section 37 of the Act and provide for the local education authority to advertise the post and hold a selection panel comprising persons appointed by the authority and no less a number of governors. It is my understanding that in carrying through its reorganisation of its schools the Leeds education authority has elected to adopt the paragraph 23(2) procedures.

  Bursaries
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will announce the postgraduate bursary rates payable in the academic year 1990–91.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I propose to set the main maintenance rates for bursaries offered under my Department's postgraduate awards scheme in the academic year 1990–91 as follows:

  £

  London

  2,775

  Elsewhere

  2,195

  Parental home

  1,655

  These represent increases above the current year's rates broadly in line with those for corresponding mandatory undergraduate awards. For the studentships in librarianship and information science administered by my Department, the rates for 1990–91 will be the same as those under the state studentship scheme run by the British Academy, which I announced in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) on Wednesday 4 July, Official Report, column 575.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Office Searches (EC Inspectors)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which the private offices of the chairman of British Airways were searched by European Community inspectors; what authority the inspectors had for entering the premises and studying documents; and which court authorised these searches.

  Mr. Ridley
  I am not responsible for the activities of the European Commission.

  Postal Monopolies
  Mr. Mudd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on what date he expects the publication by the European Commission of its proposed Green Paper on postal monopolies.

  Mr. Forth
  I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 2 July,Official Report, column 426.

  Copyright (Television Programmes)
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will place in the Library a copy of counsel's opinion asked for by him on the protection granted to television programme formats under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  No. It would not be appropriate to place in the Library a copy of counsel's advice to me.

  Cars
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the European Economic Community to make a decision on the arrangements for trade in cars, with particular reference to the import to the continent of British cars manufactured by Japanese-owned firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: Following the informal discussion among Community Ministers on 19 June, the Commission is to have talks with the Japanese authorities, and is expected to report back to Ministers in July. I should like to see a firm agreement reached as soon as possible. However, I believe that the Government's position that cars manufactured in the EC by Japanese-owned companies should continue to enjoy unlimited free circulation throughout the Community is unassailable and has now been accepted by other member states.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the implications for his policy on treating cars produced in the United Kingdom by Japanese-owned firms in the same way as other British-produced cars of the European Commission's recent declaration concerning imports of Japanese motor vehicles.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: Formal agreement has still to be reached among member states and with Japan on the future treatment of cars produced by Japanese-owned companies. I am insisting and I remain confident that all cars produced in Britain, including by Japanese-owned companies, will continue to enjoy unlimited free circulation throughout the Community after 1992.

  Import and Export Licences
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what form information on the granting of licences under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 is kept by his Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: Information relating to import and export licences is kept in paper form and is subject to the Official Secrets Act. Since January 1990 certain export licence information has been preserved on microfilm. Some information pertaining to import licensing is held on computer.

  Biological Weapons
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which section of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989 is concerned with biological weapons.
  660
  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: Biological weapons are controlled by entry ML7 of group 1 of part 2 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, as amended by the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1990.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, following the conversion in 1991 of the insurance services group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department to a Government company, it will be necessary for the new company to establish at least one year's commercial accounts before its full privatisation.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: No.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in identifying an eventual buyer, or buyers, for the insurance services group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: Decisions have not yet been taken about the proposed method of sale of the insurance services group. No decisions have been taken about possible buyers.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what method will be used to recruit a chief executive for the privatised insurance group of the ECGD.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: This will be a matter for the new owners of the privatised business.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had with the European Commission regarding the prospective bidders for the insurance services group of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and competition policy.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: Decisions have not yet been taken about the proposed method of sale of the insurance services group and no decisions have been taken about possible purchasers. The Government will, however, take into account the views of the European Commission in reaching decisions.

TRANSPORT

  Tourism
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to encourage regional airports to recognise the importance of a quality welcoming system for visitors.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Government are keen to see the maximum use of airports in all parts of the country but the facilities referred to by the hon. Member are a matter for the commercial judgment of individual airport managements.

  Private Aircraft
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many representations he has received in favour of introducing compulory third party liability insurance for private pilots.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Over the past year my Department has received five communications supporting the introduction of compulsory third party insurance for civil aviation, including private aircraft.
  661
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total value of damage sustained by third parties as a result of accidents involving private aircraft for each of the last three years.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has any plans to introduce compulsory third party liability insurance for private pilots.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  My right hon. Friend has received, in response to a request to the chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, initial advice from the authority on the issues which would have to be dealt with by a compulsory scheme, for which legislation would be needed, and he is now considering that advice.

  Taxi Licences
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the introduction of the single European Act will affect the number of taxi licences available to United Kingdom citizens(a) in respect of Hackney cabs and (b) in respect of private cabs.

  Mr. Freeman
  The European Commission has not yet formulated definite proposals relating to Hackney carriage and private hire vehicle licensing. Unless or until such time as the EC issues a directive, the domestic licensing laws of each member state will apply to applicants for licences.

  At present in Scotland, England—outside—London and Wales local authorities may not refuse a hackney carriage licence unless they are satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand for hackney carriage services in the area, but no numerical controls are allowed on private hire vehicles. In London there are no numerical controls on hackney carriage licences; private hire vehicles—minicabs—are not licensed. In Northern Ireland no numerical controls are allowed on either hackney carriages or private hire vehicles.

  Roads, Folkestone and Southampton
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects a continuous dual carriageway road to be operational between Folkestone and Southampton.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has no proposals for a continuous dual carriageway road between Folkestone and Southampton but with schemes completed or under construction and the further schemes announced in the Roads Report "Trunk Roads, England Into the 1990s", the M27—A27—A259 south coast trunk route is being progressively improved. It will be dual carriageway standard between Southampton and Polegate in East Sussex, and a mixture of dual and single carriageway between Polegate and Folkestone, depending on the variation in forecast traffic flows along the route.

  M20, Ashford
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what design work is taking place on the Lacton interchange on the M20 in Ashford to improve the junction's traffic flow and capacity.

  Mr. Atkins
  Kent county council, as highway authority for the junction roundabout, is undertaking preliminary 662
  design of possible options to improve the capacity and traffic flow at M20 junction 10. Subject to my Department being satisfied about the effects to traffic on the motorway and its connecting roads, the choice of any scheme to be promoted rests with the county council.

  Russell Scott School (Land Sale)
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to complete the sale of land at the side of the M67 and the former Russell Scott school in Denton; and when negotiations for sale started.

  Mr. Atkins
  Negotiations will open shortly. It is too soon to say when a sale might be completed.

  Passenger Coaches (Seat Belts)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about his policy on the fitting and wearing of seat belts in passenger coaches.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am strongly in favour of the fitting of good quality seat belts on all seats in coaches and of the belts being worn wherever provided. I am very glad that the Bus and Coach Council is now recommending that all new coaches should be fitted with seat belts. We are discussing further with them the fitting of belts on existing coaches.

  We are continuing to press for early agreement in the European Community to the mandatory fitment of seat belts on all seats in new coaches.

  Aviation
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 2 July,Official Report, columns 428–29, if he will make a statement outlining the nature and extent of the changes which will result from the commitment to establish a single market in aviation by the end of 1992.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The agreement reached by EC Transport Ministers on 18 June set the Community firmly on course to complete a single market in aviation by the end of 1992. As well as setting out a second stage of EC liberalisation, this agreement incorporates into EC law the earlier Ministerial commitment to the key ingredients of a single market: the abolition of bilateral capacity sharing and the introduction of the double disapproval system for the setting of fares by 1 January 1993, and the adoption of uniform licensing criteria by 1 July 1992. The United Kingdom has welcomed these commitments and will continue to take a leading role in negotiations on the completion of a liberal EC market in air transport.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will seek to establish why the French Government blocked the proposal last month by British Midland Airways for a cheaper business fare from London to Paris; and if he will initiate proceedings against the French Government.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The French Government initially maintained that the three-day business return fare of £149 proposed by British Midland for its London-Paris service was not reasonably related to the costs of the airline.

  Under the EC arrangements for fare approval, which provide criteria for the assessment of fares proposals and for consultations in cases of disagreement, the Department of Transport met the French authorities on 2 May in Paris.
  663
  At these consultations the French agreed to accept a fare structure on British Midland's Heathrow-Paris service which would include a new three-day business return of £165. This is higher than first proposed, but is still substantially lower than existing business class return fares on the route of around £240. I understand that British Midland was content with the result.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 2 July,Official Report, columns 428–29, if he will make a statement explaining the nature and extent of the greater freedom being made available to commercial airlines in consequence of the Transport Ministers Council of 18 June.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  I am particularly pleased that the EC Transport Council adopted a second package of measures which seals the commitment to the liberalisation of air transport in the European Community by the end of 1992, and provides for arrangements which will function in the interim.

  The new package builds on the first set of measures agreed in 1987. It contains arrangements for setting fares which introduce an element of double disapproval and simplify the existing zonal system. It further relaxes the limits on capacity sharing by progressively increasing the maximum share of capacity enjoyed by the airlines of any one state to 75 per cent. The package also eases access to the market by creating third and fourth freedom traffic rights between virtually all Community airports, relaxing restrictions on fifth freedom services within the Community, and progressively lowering the thresholds for multiple designation. The Council accepted the need to deal quickly with predatory practices; and agreed principles against which air cargo services should be further liberalised by March 1991. Ministers also reached agreement on a mandate for the opening of aviation negotiations for EFTA.

  Road Defects
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's current estimate of the cost of making good all defects in local authority adopted roads(a) in total and (b) by local authority; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of Transport does not have the detailed condition data that would be necessary to estimate the cost of rectifying all defects in roads that local authorities are responsible for maintaining. Central Government's contribution to local authority road maintenance is made as part of the annual revenue support grant settlement, and to structural maintenance of local authority bridges through the transport supplementary grant settlement. Local authorities are consulted through their representative bodies as part of the process of deciding on these levels of funding.

  Nuclear Fuel
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has received from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority regarding the transportation of spent fuel rods of highly enriched uranium to the United Kingdom from research reactors in Spain, the Netherlands and West Germany under contracts proposed between the authority and the relevant body in each country.
  664
  Mr. Atkins
  While we are aware that such contracts are being sought, to date no application relating specifically to the transport of this material has been received. All shipments of spent fuel are required to be carried in containers which have been approved and certified by my Department as complying fully with stringent national and international transport safety regulations.

  Lockerbie Disaster
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will meet the costs of legal representation for the relatives of victims of the Lockerbie disaster at the forthcoming Scottish fatal accident inquiry.

  Mr. Parkinson
  Yes. I am writing to the Secretary of the Lockerbie air disaster group of solicitors' firms to say that my Department will meet the reasonable costs incurred on behalf of the British relatives of the victims of the Lockerbie disaster by one team of legal representatives in carrying out the necessary work in preparing for and attending the inquiry.

  This offer of financial assistance reflects the exceptional nature of the disaster, a crime perpetrated by international terrorists which resulted in the destruction of a large passenger aircraft in British air space. There are therefore very special reasons for departing from the practice that relatives' costs are not met in fatal accident inquiries or inquests.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Personal Pension Plans
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether, pursuant to his reply to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing on 28 June,Official Report, column 350, he will now include the Consumers Association in those interested bodies who have been asked for their views on the existing regulations on the disclosure of information to members of occupational and personal pension schemes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Consumers Association has now been asked whether it wishes to make any comments.

  Pensioners (Investment Income)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the level of investment income, excluding savings, of pensioners with a weekly pension income of(a) less than £50, (b) £50 to £100, (c) £100 to £200, (d) £200 to £500 and (e) over £500; and if he will indicate the number of pensioners in each group.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest information from the 1987 family expenditure survey is set out in the table. The figures provided assume weekly pension income to consist of national insurance state retirement pension and supplementary benefit. There are no cases of people with this income in the levels of the top two bands specified in the question.
  665

  Retirement pension supplementary benefit1

  Percentage of pensioners in each group

  Average savings/investment income per week2

  £

  less than £50

  65

  13.85

  50 to 99.99

  35

  33.60

  100 to 199.99

  less than 1

  358.05

  200 to 499.99

  0

  nil

  500 and over

  0

  nil

  1 Pounds per week at 1987 prices

  2 It is not possible to separately identify savings income from investment income except at disproportionate cost. Savings are generally accepted to be bank and building society deposits whereas investment income includes (for example) premiums on stocks/shares.

  3 Only two cases were found within this group which do not represent an adequate sample size.

  Income Support
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he intends to implement the recommendation in commissioners' decision CIS/18/88, and amend the income support regulations to provide in the case of a pensioner moving from hospital to residential care, that income support commences immediately on discharge from hospital instead of on the following retirement pension pay day.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to implement the suggestion of the appeal tribunal mentioned in CIS/18/88. For those over pension age, income support is paid in advance from the first pay day on or after the date of claim. Similar arrangements apply when income support is reduced or ceases, so equity is preserved.

  Students
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he proposes to lay regulations concerning students' entitlement to benefits and to publish the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee on the draft regulations.

  Mr. Scott
  Draft regulations on students' entitlement to benefits were submitted to the Social Security Advisory Committee on 19 February. The committee subsequently reported its conclusions at the end of April. However, amendments to the Social Security Bill have since been carried in the House of Lords which would affect the Government's proposals. The Government will be asking the House to disagree with their Lordships' amendments when these are considered by the House of Commons.

  The Social Security Advisory Committee report will be formally published and presented to Parliament with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's formal response when the main set of regulations is laid in due course. However, in order better to inform the House in advance of their consideration of the Lords amendments, we have today made special arrangements to place in the Library proof copies of the report on the draft regulations together with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's initial comments on that report.

  Subject to further consideration of the Social Security Bill the Government intend to make two important changes to the draft regulations submitted to the Social Security Advisory Committee. First, the Government propose to introduce in all the income-related benefits a
  666
  £10 weekly disregard on income received from top-up loans so long as the recipient continues as a student. Secondly, we intend to consult the local authority association on a separate regulation which will extend the proposed defination of a disabled student to include student who are eligible for an award under the local education authorities disabled student allowance scheme by reason of deafness. Subject to the views of the local authority association, we intend to lay this regulation as soon as possible after the main set of regulations.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rathlin Island Trust
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has given any financial support to the Rathlin Island Trust; what representations he has received concerning the trust; and on what basis others are represented on the trust.

  Mr. Needham
  Financial support has been provided to the Rathlin Island Trust from a number of Government sources, as follows:

  i. The Department of the Environment has paid £8,000 in historic building grant towards the repair and maintenance of the manor house.

  ii. The Training and Employment Agency of the Department of Economic Development has paid £214,800 over the years 1987–88 to 1989–90 and are prepared to pay £64,000 in 1990–91 for ACE projects which include the refurbishment of the manor house, conversion of the tithe barn to create a dive centre and an environmental clean-up on the Island.

  iii. An offer of grant of almost £54,000 towards the cost of developing an activity centre at the manor house complex has been made by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, acting as agent for the International Fund for Ireland, under the tourism amenities scheme.

  iv. The trust has also applied to the Department of Economic Development for grant aid from the European regional development fund under the tourism operational programme. The application which relates to other proposed works associated with the manor house development is at present under consideration.

  In recent years several representations from the Rathlin Island Trust and others have been received by Ministers about provision of services on Rathlin island; no representations about the trust have been received. I am not aware of the way in which membership of the trust is gained.

  Protection of Birds
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those areas of special protection for birds as well as those Ramsar sites and areas with dual designation for the protection of birds.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  Lough Neagh and Lough Beg is a Ramsar site. We are working on further special protection.

  Radioactivity
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many areas of what size in Northern Ireland are still under food protection emergency prohibitions as a consequence of the Chernobyl incident; how many breeding sheep are still grazing on each such area; by how much radioactivity has decreased
  667
  in each such area by reference to (a) sheepmeat, (b) vegetation and (c) soil/peat; and when he now expects all restrictions on sheep to be removed.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: Testing of marketable lamb at slaughterhouses throughout Northern Ireland continues to show that lamb is safe. Restrictions on movement and slaughter of sheep in Northern Ireland apply in the following areas:

  Glenshane County Londonderry

  Belraugh County Londonderry

  Glenwherry County Antrim

  Acreage

  10,744

  2,247

  8,620

  Estimated number of breeding sheep

  11,300

  3,000

  7,000

  Monitoring of radioactivity levels in survey flocks has demonstrated no significant fall in radioactivity levels.

  The available research data from sampling of vegetation and soil/peat do not allow firm conclusions to be reached.

  It is not possible to predict how long restrictions will need to stay in force. They will be lifted as soon as it is possible to do so without compromising the safety of the food chain.

  Fair Employment
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the directors of the Inner City Trust in Londonderry.

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 3 July 1990]: The information requested is held by the Registrar of Friendly Societies at 64 Chichester street, Belfast and the registrar is required to make it available to the public, during office hours on payment of a fee.

  Emergency Provision Legislation
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons were detained under Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts in 1989; and how many of these persons were subsequently charged with(a) scheduled offences, (b) non-scheduled offences.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: Eighty seven people were arrested under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 and six were subsequently charged with scheduled offences.

  Female Prisoners
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average length of custodial sentence of female prisoners in Northern Ireland in 1989.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: Three hundred and twenty four days, excluding those committed to prison on default of payment of a fine.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the average period of custodial remand for female custodial remand prisoners in Northern Ireland in 1989.
  668
  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: The average length of time spent on custodial remand by female prisoners who were tried in 1989 and were in custody at the time of trial was 28 days.

  Energy Costs
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to the answers of 11 June,Official Report, column 30 and 21 May, Official Report, column 30, about energy consumption, what is the square footage of office space to which these figures relate.

  Mr. Cope
  [holding answer 25 June 1990]: The total area of the Government office estate in Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Office in London in 1988–89 was just over 2.9 million sq. ft.

EMPLOYMENT

  Job Interview Guarantee Scheme
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether, further to his reply of 11 June,Official Report, column 54, concerning the progress of job interview guarantee, he will give the latest figures for the participation of unemployed people for each of the various options available under job interview guarantee, and for the numbers of participants who have been placed in jobs, by each area.

  Mr. Eggar
  The employment service became an executive agency on 2 April 1990. Mr. Mike Fogden, the Employment Service agency's chief executive, will be replying in writing to the hon. Lady.

  Training
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what proportion of Government spending in the last financial year was devoted to training in each Group of Seven and European Community country; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information is not available in the form requested. Figures showing public expenditure on labour market programmes as a percentage of GDP and which separately identify labour market training for adults and young people, are published in "Labour Market Policies for the 1990s"—OECD 1990. This OECD publication also draws attention to the methodological difficulties in attempting to arrive at internationally comparable data, the principal one stemming from the different institutional arrangements in individual countries, and it advises caution in interpreting the figures.

  Tourism
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he expects his Department's review on tourism to be completed; and if he will consider publishing its full contents.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, (Mr. Bevan) on 28 November 1989, Official Report, column 212. There are no plans to publish the consultant's report that informed the review.
  669
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received from the London tourist board on his Department's review of tourism.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: None.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what representations he has received over modifications to the Development of Tourism Act 1969; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: I have received no such representations. Within the framework of the Act, the recent review of tourism has concentrated on refocusing the Government's support for tourism.

ENERGY

  Renewable Energy Projects
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will classify the number of renewable energy projects submitted to his Department for approval in the first tranche of renewable energy, according to which renewable technology and the total electrical capacity proposed for each category of renewables.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  By the beginning of 1990 sponsors of some 350 projects, totalling around 2 GW of nominal capacity, had informed the precursors to the public electricity suppliers of their interest in contracting for renewables within the initial non-fossil fuel obligation.

  This total included a certain amount of double-counting, since some projects were regarded by their sponsors as alternatives while others were competing projects from different sponsors. Other projects have not, in the event, been ready to contract within the initial order. Subject to those qualifications, the main categories of projects submitted were: landfill gas (80 projects, 110 MW nominal); waste incineration (60 projects, 800 MW nominal); and wind (130 projects, 500 MW nominal). Other projects submitted were for hydro, biogas, and tidal schemes.

  My right hon. Friend plans to make an order setting the initial level of the non-fossil fuel obligation in respect of renewables-sourced electricity generation in the late summer. Projects that are not ready to contract under that order will have the opportunity to do so under subsequent orders.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will update the information given in his answer of 3 November 1989,Official Report, column 374, to the hon. Member for Gordon, (Mr. Bruce) to give the annual load factor achieved by (a) the Central Electricity' Generating Board, and (b) the South of Scotland electricity board nuclear power stations for each month from April 1989 to March 1990, inclusive; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I have nothing further to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 11 June 1990,Official Report, column 7.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what effect the decision of Nuclear Electric to charge £199 million on costs associated with Sizewell B to revenue will have on the level of the non-fossil fuel levy.

  Mr. Wakeham
  None. The size of the levy depends largely on the price charged by Nuclear Electric in its contract with the 12 regional electricity companies. This is not affected by changes in Nuclear Electric's accounting policies.

HEALTH

  Kidney Disease
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number of renal units in England and Wales.

  Mr. Dorrell
  According to information provided by the European Dialysis and Transplant Association, there are currently 84 renal and kidney transplant units in England and Wales.

  Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list all the meetings involving his Department and Porton International Ltd., and the attendance at each;

  (2) if he will list the dates and attendance list of meetings between the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research and Porton International Ltd.

  Mr. Dorrell
  A list of the liaison meetings between officers of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research (CAMR), the public health laboratory service (PHLS) and Porton Products Ltd. (PP), a member of the Porton International group, is at table A; and a list of meetings of the CAMR committee, a sub-committee of the PHLS board including representatives from the Department of Health and PP, is at table B. In addition, there have been a number of other meetings between the Department and Porton International since 1983.

  Table A

  Liaison meetings between the centre for applied microbiology and research and Porton international/Porton products

  4 November 1985

  18 December 1985

  13 January 1986

  3 March 1986

  21 April 1986

  10 June 1986

  14 July 1986

  4 September 1986

  17 November 1986

  15 December 1986

  16 February 1987

  25 March 1987

  8 May 1987

  13 July 1987

  22 September 1987

  6 November 1987

  15 January 1988

  21 March 1988

  29 April 1988

  23 June 1988

  22 July 1988

  22 September 1988

  9 November 1988

  9 December 1988

  671

  23 January 1989

  27 February 1989

  12 May 1989

  4 September 1989

  16 October 1989

  29 November 1989

  17 January 1990

  21 March 1990

  23 April 1990

  5 June 1990

  Table B

  Meetings of the CAMR sub-committee of the public health laboratory service board

  29 April 1987

  9 July 1987

  9 September 1987

  12 November 1987

  4 February 1988

  12 May 1988

  28 July 1988

  3 November 1988

  1 February 1989

  10 May 1989

  3 August 1989

  2 November 1989

  31 January 1990

  16 May 1990

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether a valuation has been carried out of the cancer cell culture collection at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

  Mr. Dorrell
  No separate valuation has been carried out of the European collection of animal cell cultures.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the internal and external audit responsibilities are exercised at the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research; and who has the responsibility for carrying out these audits.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research is part of the public health laboratory service (PHLS). The external audit of the PHLS' annual accounts is the responsibility of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The advances and receipts of the PHLS also form part of the Department's appropriation account for the hospital and community health service, the family practitioner service and other services, England—class XIV, vote I. Internal audit arrangements are the responsibility of the PHLS board.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the agreement between his Department and Porton International Ltd involving the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research terminates.

  Mr. Dorrell
  There are no agreements between the Department and Porton International plc but there are various agreements between the public health laboratory service board and companies in the Porton International group concerning the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. The agreement concerning distributorship and marketing of certain products may be terminated on or after 13 October 1998.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the date on which the agreement was made between his Department and Porton International Ltd. giving that company exclusive rights over the commercial work of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.
  672
  Mr. Dorrell
  No such agreement exists. However, an agreement between the public health laboratory service board and Porton Products Ltd., a company in the Porton International group, concerning the distributorship and marketing of certain products of the Centre for Appliied Microbiology and Research was signed on 22 March 1985.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the patents and exclusive licences held by the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The public health laboratory board holds some 57 current licences and patents on behalf of the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research. Details are commercially sensitive.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether any(a) internal review or (b) value-for-money evaluation of the agreement between his Department and Porton International Ltd. involving the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research has been carried out.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The operation of the agreements between companies in the Porton International group and the public health laboratory service board, involving the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research, is kept under continuous review by the board.

  Operations
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of coronary artery bypass grafting operations carried out in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available in each of the 14 health regions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available in the precise form requested. The only figures on the number of coronary artery bypass grafts performed in 1979 are those for the United Kingdom collected annually by the Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons. According to the society's returns, the number of grafts carried out in 1979 was 3,538; in 1987, the latest year for which comprehensive figures are available, the number was 12,820. This represents a rise of 262 per cent. over the period.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of operations for chronic renal failure carried out in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available in each of the 14 health regions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  According to information from the United Kingdom transplant service the number of cadaveric kidney transplants carried out in the 14 regional health authorities in 1989 was as follows:

  Region

  Cadaveric kidney transplants

  Northern

  97

  Yorkshire

  104

  Trent

  131

  East Anglian

  60

  North West Thames

  93

  North East Thames

  165

  South East and South West Thames

  191

  Wessex

  90

  Oxford

  83

  South Western

  96

  West Midlands

  146

  Mersey

  61

  673

  Region

  Cadaveric kidney transplants

  North Western

  138

  Total

  1,455

  Regional figures are not available for 1979.

  Information on any other operations for chronic renal failure is not collected centrally.

  AIDS
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports he has received from the chief medical officer about the possible spread of HIV and AIDS via dentistry practice; whether any consideration has been given to the use, on one occasion only, of disposable drills; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Current evidence supports the view that there is little risk of transmitting infectious diseases, including HIV and AIDS, during dental treatment provided that recommended cross-infection control procedures are practised during the treatment of all patients. The chief dental officer of the Department of Health issued advice, explaining that infection with HIV was less easily transmitted than the hepatitis B virus and reminded practitioners of the recommendations of the expert group on hepatitis in dentistry—1979 HMSO—on the need for proper precautions. The chief dental officer reiterated his advice in May 1988. A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Most dental drills—burs—are made of carbon steel, tungsten carbide or diamond and are not suitable for single use. They can most conveniently be sterilised by saturated steam in an autoclave.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to ensure that persons with criminal convictions do not run residential homes for the elderly and disabled.

  Dame Jill Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he now intends to take to ensure that persons with a criminal record are not knowingly engaged in supervising and managing old persons' homes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Government have decided, with the agreement of the Association of Chief Police Officers, to make arrangements for registration authorities to be able to obtain from the police details of any conviction recorded against a potential owner or manager of a residential care or nursing home. The arrangements will be similar to those already operating for the protection of children. They will cover both local authority and registered homes; and will apply to small homes once those homes are brought under regulatory control. Our aim is to bring the scheme into operation by 1 April 1991.

  In addition, regulations will be made under the Registered Homes Act so that applicants for registration will be required by law to disclose any previous conviction. Where checks are made the individuals concerned will be notified if police records differ from the information supplied by them.

  Free Milk
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his reply of 16 May,Official Report, column 417, of those 90,000 registered to receive free milk for children under five, how many are (a) child minders, (b) playgroups and (c) day nurseries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not available in the format requested.

  Ward Closures, Camberwell
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the proposed closures of wards and beds by Camberwell health authority require his consent.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Under the terms of the Community Health Council Regulations 1985 a health authority proposing substantial development or variation in the health service is required to consult the community health council. If the community health council does not agree to proposals involvimg the closure of a health building it has the right to have the decision reviewed by the regional health authority. If the regional health authority supports the original decision, the matter can be referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. A health authority may implement a closure if it is satisfied that, in the interests of the health service, a decision has to be taken without allowing time for consultation. In any such case, however, the health authority is obliged to notify the community health council immediately of the decision taken and the reason why no consultation has taken place.

  Health Service Funding
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what prohibitions have been placed on health authorities from using non-recurring finance to support patient-related activities in the 1990–91 financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have issued no such prohibitions to health authorities.

  Pegina
  Mr. Rost
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list those members serving on the Committee on the Review of Medicines when the herbal medicine Pegina was reviewed who have expertise in the pharmacy of plant materials;

  (2) what reasons the Committee on the Review of Medicines gave to him for their decision not to renew the licence for the sale of the herbal medicine Pegina.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The advice given by the Committee on the Review of Medicines is based upon corporate decisions for which the Committee as a whole takes responsibility, there was a member with expertise in the pharmacology of plant materials at the relevant time. We are unable to provide details about the review of the herbal product "Pegina" since section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968 generally prohibits disclosure of information obtained by the licensing authority in pursuance of the Act.

  Advertising
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which advertising agency has been advising in respect of health service publicity; and what brief it was given.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The two advertising agencies appointed following advice from the Government's Independent Advisory Committee on Advertising and currently used by the Department are TBWA Advertising Ltd and Yellowhammer.

  TBWA Advertising Ltd advised on advertising campaigns to recruit nurses and to raise awareness of the need for blood and organ donors. Yellowhammer advises on the national campaign on the prevention of drug misuse.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what budget he has authorised to pay for the advertising, publication and distribution costs of the leaflets to be published by his Department to explain the Government's health service reforms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The cost of the production and distribution of "The NHS Reforms and You" booklet is estimated at £2.75 million; this works out at 10p per household, which is good value bearing in mind that the average family spends £35 per week on the NHS. This cost includes the distribution of the booklet to each household in England and nine ethnic minority language versions which are available on request. The languages are Bengali, Cantonese, Greek, Gujerati, Hindi, Polish, Punjabi, Turkish and Urdu.

  There are no plans to advertise the booklet.

  Health Authorities
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each new regional and district authority(a) the criteria for selection of the new membership, (b) details of the process used for selection, (c) the timetable used to implement this process and (d) the names of those who have accepted invitations to join the authorities.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for appointing non-executive members of regional health authorities. Regional health authorities are responsible for appointing non-executive members of district health authorities. The chief officer and the chief finance officer are ex-officio executive members on all RHAs and DHAs. The remaining executive members are appointed by the chairman, the non-executive members and the chief officer.

  The main criteria used in the selection process are the personal qualities and experience of the individuals concerned. All suggestions are welcomed and given consideration, from whatever source they originate. Regional health authorities are to be reconstituted from 26 July 1990 and district health authorities from 17 September 1990. No appointments have yet been made.

  Special Hospitals
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many special hospital places are currently available in England and Wales; how many are occupied; and if he will make a statement.
  676
  Mr. Dorrell
  There are some 1,750 places currently available at the three special hospitals—Broadmoor, Rampton and Ashworth—which cover England and Wales, of which 1,616 were occupied on 30 June 1990. A further 91 patients were away from hospital on trial leave. If the hon. Member requires more detailed information, I suggest that he writes to the chairman of the Special Hospitals Service Authority, Dr. David Edmond, who is responsible for the operational management of the special hospitals.

  Secure Units
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many regional secure unit places are currently available in England and Wales; how many are occupied; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  In June 1989, the most recent date for which information is available, there were 660 places in regional secure units, including interim facilities, in England. Occupancy figures are not held centrally. Health service provision in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Hypothermia
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many death certificates showed hypothermia as(a) the cause of death and (b) a contribution to the causes of death in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Number of deaths (a) with hypothermia as underlying cause of death and (b) with any mention of hypothermia on the death certificate, England and Wales, 1980–89

  Year

  Underlying cause1

  Mention

  1980

  261

  596

  1981

  276

  685

  1982

  326

  664

  1983

  221

  538

  1984

  266

  555

  1985

  440

  827

  1986

  437

  837

  1987

  269

  559

  1988

  194

  440

  21989

  166

  375

  1 Assigned to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 9th revision codes 778.3 and 991.6.

  2 Provisional.

  Note:

  For 1986 to 1989 neonatal deaths are included in the mentions but NOT in the underlying cause of death (neonatal deaths were not given an underlying cause of death from 1 January 1986 onwards).

  Ice Cream
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce specific measures to eliminate the health hazards posed by the sale of ice cream; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The reported incidence of food poisoning does not show that ice cream poses particular health problems. Ice cream, like any other food that may pose a health risk, will be subject to the new provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990. Among other things, the Act
  677
  provides for tighter controls when food is found to be unfit; for improved food law enforcement; for a system of registration of food traders and for the training of those who handle food commercially.

  A recently publicised survey has produced some evidence of bacterial contamination of ice cream at the point of sale. In 1989 the Department collaborated with the Ice Cream Alliance, the Ice Cream Federation and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers to produce a code of practice to address this problem. The Department will bring the contents of the code to the attention of all ice cream vendors.

  Births
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give a breakdown by district health authority of(a) the total number of births and (b) the total number of directly national health service employed midwives, excluding agency and student midwives, in each of the last six years for which figures are available;
  678
  (2) if he will give a breakdown by district health authority of the average numbers of births per directly employed national health service midwife, excluding agency and student midwives, in each of the last six years for which figures are available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  [holding answer 21 June 1990]: Details for 1988, the latest year available, are shown in the table and have been placed in the Library. Providing the information by district health authority for six years would incur disproportionate cost.

  Comparisons between different district health authorities need to be interpreted with caution, as they are not indicative of how well services are being provided. Health authorities will have regard to a number of different factors in setting staffing levels for their maternity services in addition to the expected number of births. These include the proportion of midwives to nurses, the size, number and layout of units and the pattern of community care, and the type of area.

SCOTLAND

  Ethnic Minorities
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will place in the Library current information on work commissioned and completed on ethnic minorities in Scotland, in the areas of employment, pay, population and unemployment;

  (2) if he will list work commissioned and completed on ethnic minorities in Scotland, in the areas of employment, pay, population and unemployment.

  Mr. Lang
  A firm of independent consultants has conducted a major survey, funded by the Scottish Office, of the circumstances and experiences of Scotland's principal ethnic minority groups to identify whether and to what extent these differ from those of the majority white

  (hectares)

  Location of scheme

  Area of planting

  Area of natural regeneration

  New planting

  Restocking

  Corrielair, Skye and Lochalsh

  257.9

  —

  25.5

  Mains of Mulben, Moray

  0.7

  2.8

  0.7

  The Crannach 4, Kincardine and Deeside

  34.8

  —

  —

  Glen Tannar Estate, Kincardine and Deeside

  —

  15.7

  —

  Finzean Estate, Kincardine and Deeside

  —

  15.0

  1.7

  Coulin, Ross and Cromarty

  51.0

  23.8

  —

  Lochluichart Estate 1, Ross and Cromarty

  274.8

  —

  —

  Lochluichart Estate 3, Ross and Cromarty

  275.0

  —

  —

  Lochluichart Estate 4, Ross and Cromarty

  222.8

  —

  —

  Bayfield Hill, Ross and Cromarty

  —

  42.0

  —

  Monar Estate, Ross and Cromarty

  8.9

  —

  —

  Ardessie Fisheries, Ross and Cromarty

  0.9

  —

  —

  Glencalvie, Sutherland

  34.2

  —

  —

  Rothiemurchus (Cambusmore), Badenoch and Strathspey

  —

  81.6

  —

  Lethan Bar (South), Inverness

  —

  8.0

  —

  Lethan Bar (North), Inverness

  —

  23.6

  —

  Redburn, Nairn

  —

  6.3

  —

  Rothiemurchus (Guislich), Badenoch and Strathspey

  17.2

  —

  —

  Ardochy, Inverness

  20.5

  36.5

  —

  Conaglen Estate, Lochaber

  44.0

  78.1

  —

  Kingairloch, Lochaber

  —

  10.4

  —

  Blackmount, Argyll and Bute

  46.8

  —

  —

  Cray, Perth and Kinross

  20.8

  —

  —

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total area in Scotland of all applications approved under the woodland grant scheme in each year since its introduction.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is given in the table.

  Period

  Total area covered by approved applications (hectares)

  21June 1988–31 March 1989

  19,761

  110,060

  1 April 1989–31 March 1990

  51,668

  118,827

  1 April 1990–31 May 1990

  9,350

  12,457

  1 Including proposed for new planting.

  Applications covering a further 48,521 hectares, including 20,911 hectares of new planting, were awaiting approval at 31 May 1990.

  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total area and number of applications
  680
  population. The report of the survey, which will be published later this year, will be used to inform policy and to enable monitoring of future changes in areas such as ethnicity, housing, employment, education, health and crime. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library in due course.

  Woodland Grant Scheme
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the location, area of planting and area of natural regeneration for each scheme that has been approved by the Forestry Commission under the native pinewood section of the woodland grant scheme since its introduction.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows.

  that the Forestry Commission has received for native Scots Pine since the availability of the broadleaved rate of grant for this species under the woodland grant scheme.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forestry Commission has received 35 applications for establishing native Scots pine under the woodland grant scheme since the introduction of the higher rates of grant in June 1988. These applications cover a total area of 6,582 hectares, including 2,942 hectares of new planting, 685 hectares of restocking and 122 hectares of natural regeneration.

  Radioactive Caesium
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by county, and by year for the last five years, the number of reported cases of radioactive caesium in people.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Low concentrations of caesium radionuclides are detectable in people generally as a result of atmospheric fallout and releases from nuclear installations.
  681
  Following the Chernobyl accident, the Scottish universities research and reactor centre was commissioned on behalf of the Scottish Development Department to undertake a study of the levels of radiocaesium in representative members of the population of Scotland. The results of the first phase of this study have been published in a report—"DOE Report No. DOE/RW/88.103, Measurement of radioactivity from Chernobyl in population groups in Scotland"—which is available in the Library.

  Scottish Airports
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans his Department has to encourage further investment in Scottish airports and flights, especially in relation to 1992.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Government's policy of liberalising air services has led to the expansion of direct air services between Scotland and Europe and will continue to encourage operators to provide improved services where demand exists. BAA plc, which owns and operates Scotland's major international airports, has invested and is continuing to invest in facilities to meet the increase in demand. This substantial investment is being funded from the company's own resources.

  The Scottish Office already provides support to Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd. in respect of its airports and to Loganair in respect of a lifeline air service to Tiree and Barra.

  Care and Repair Projects
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish(a) the identity of each care and repair project sponsored by his Department, (b) the total annual revenue budget for each year of such projects, (c) the amount of annual contributions to each of these projects made by (i) the Scottish Office and (ii) local authorities, (d) the identity of individuals or organisations appointed by his Department to evaluate the projects, (e) in each case the cost or estimated or tender costs of such evaluations, and (f) the basis on which the persons or organisations appointed to evaluate the projects were selected.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The care and repair initiative in Scotland is funded jointly by the Scottish Development Department and Shelter (Scotland) and is managed by Shelter (Scotland). Eight local schemes have been set up under the initiative. Their locations and starting dates are shown in the table:

  Location

  Starting date

  Skye and Lochalsh

  October 1987

  Aberdeen

  November 1987

  Renfrew

  November 1987

  East Lothian

  December 1987

  Falkirk

  January 1988

  Orkney

  February 1988

  Glasgow

  March 1988

  Clydesdale

  September 1988

  On the basis of information supplied to the Scottish Development Department by Shelter (Scotland) the total annual revenue budgets for the projects and for the national co-ordinator's office were as follows:
  682

  £

  1987–88

  83,400

  1988–89

  201,000

  1989–90

  220,400

  The Scottish Office's contribution to these budgets was as follows:

  1987–88 £

  1988–89 £

  1989–90 £

  Skye and Lochalsh

  4,000

  9,500

  14,000

  East Lothian

  5,000

  7,000

  13,500

  Aberdeen

  3,500

  8,500

  11,500

  Renfrew

  4,500

  8,000

  9,000

  Falkirk

  3,500

  8,500

  10,000

  Orkney

  2,000

  9,500

  10,500

  Glasgow

  Nil

  8,000

  8,500

  Clydesdale

  Nil

  4,000

  8,500

  National co-ordinator's office

  15,000

  27,500

  24,000

  Total

  37,500

  90,500

  109,500

  Details of the amounts contributed by individual local authorities are not held centrally by the Scottish Office.

  The current evaluation of the initiative has been sponsored jointly by the Scottish Development Department and Scottish Homes. The work is being carried out by the consultants Price Waterhouse, and is being supervised by an evaluation steering group chaired by Professor Duncan MacLennan of the centre for housing research at Glasgow university. The steering group is made up of representatives from the Scottish Development Department, Scottish Homes, Shelter (Scotland), Age Concern Scotland, COSLA and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. The steering group members were appointed by the care and repair initiative national advisory committee. The evaluation is being carried out at a cost of £101,976, funded equally by the Scottish Development Department and Scottish Homes, and the contract was awarded to Price Waterhouse following competitive tendering.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish in respect of the academic years 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 the number of grants made available for postgraduate vocational courses in respect of each course at each college in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Lang
  The information for academic years 1988–89 and 1989–90 is as follows:

  Scotland

  England

  Wales

  Northern Ireland

  Total

  1988–89

  2,382

  273

  14

  4

  2,673

  1989–90

  2,606

  293

  18

  2

  2,919

  The corresponding information for academic year 1990–91 is not yet available.

  School Meals
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation which lays down nutritional standards which the providers of school meals must attain; and if he will make a statement.
  683
  Mr. Lang
  No. It is for education authorities, which are responsible for the administration of the school meal service, to decide the content and standard of school meals.

  School Boards
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many school boards have been set up for primary schools; what percentage this is of the total; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many school boards have been set up for secondary schools; what percentage this is of the total; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The information is as follows:

  Primary

  Secondary

  Number of boards established

  1,869

  413

  Percentage of schools in each category with boards established

  80

  96

  The establishment of 2,282 school boards in Scotland clearly demonstrates the strength of public support for the Government's initiative, and illustrates the success of the policy of extending parental involvement in school education.

  Quarry Dust
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has given to district councils concerning dust control from quarries; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No advice has been given to district councils in respect of dust control from quarries. The responsibility for ensuring that dust control measures undertaken by the operator are adequate rests with Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate.

  Alcohol Abuse
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent advice he has given to education authorities concerning alcohol abuse among children; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Guidance on health education 10–14 is being prepared jointly by the Scottish Health Education Group (SHEG) and the Scottish Consultative Council on the Curriculum (SCCC) and will be issued to schools shortly. SHEG is also preparing videos and teaching packs about alcohol for school health education programmes. Schools from each education authority will take part in a conference on young people and alcohol in November, organised by the Department and sponsored by the Scotch Whisky Association. In addition, the Department has drawn the attention of education authorities to curricular material produced by Strathclyde health and aids project in education (SHAPE) which covers alcohol abuse among other subjects.

  Crime Statistics
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage increase or decrease in notifiable offences recorded by the police in the first 684
  quarter of 1990 over the same quarter in 1989, identifying (a) violence against the person, (b) sexual offences, (c) burglary, (d) robbery, (e) theft, (f) handling stolen goods, (g) fraud and forgery, (h) criminal damage and (i) other offences.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The table sets out the figures on the percentage changes in crime recorded by the police using the best available approximations in the Scottish classification of crimes and offences to the categories listed. The term "notifiable offences" is not used in Scotland. Quarterly figures are subject to considerable variation and for technical reasons are less accurate than annual figures. The Scottish Home and Health Department statistical bulletin "Recorded Crime in Scotland 1989", a copy of which is in the Library, provides annual figures for 1989 and earlier years.

  The number of crimes recorded by the police in the first quarters of Percentage of schools in each category 1989 and 1990 and the percentage change. (Provisional estimates) Scotland

  1st quarter 1989

  1st quarter 1990

  Percentage change

  Violence against the person

  11,486

  12,777

  +8

  Sexual offences

  1,012

  1,149

  +14

  Burglary

  23,693

  26,941

  +14

  Robbery

  1,118

  1,241

  +11

  Theft

  54,995

  61,356

  +12

  Handling stolen goods

  423

  529

  +25

  Fraud and forgery

  5,782

  5,755

  0

  Criminal damage

  18,963

  21,561

  +14

  Othr crimes

  7,321

  9,416

  +29

  All crimes and petty assault

  124,793

  140,395

  +13

  Notes:

  The categories listed have been derived from the categories of the Scottish classification of crimes and offences as follows:
  "Violence against the person": all non-sexual crimes of violence (group I of the standard classification) apart from robbery together with the crimes of reckless driving at common law, endangering railway passengers and endangering ship by breach of duty and the offence of petty assault. (Following changes to the definition of serious assault in January 1990 to improve comparability between police forces, it is necessary to include petty assault when comparisons are made over time).
  "Sexual offences": all crimes of indecency (group 2 of the standard classification) apart from indecent exposure, brothel keeping and prostitution.
  "Burglary": housebreaking.
  "Theft": opening lockfast places and clandestine removal in addition to theft per se.
  "Handling stolen goods": reset.
  "Fraud and forgery": fraud, forgery and uttering, bankruptcy and currency offences.
  "Criminal damage": fire raising, vandalism and other crimes of malicious and reckless conduct not involving violence against the person.
  "Other offences": other crimes in groups 1 to 5 of the standard classification not included above.

  Lothian and Borders Police
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now authorise the creation of another 50 police officers for the Lothian and Borders police force; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to him on 4 July 1990,Official Report, column 614.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult school boards concerning religious education; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  A draft circular on religious education and observance was issued for consultation in March this year. Comments have been received by or on behalf of parents and a number of school boards. Responses are now being studied with a view to issuing a circular of guidance later in the year.

  Nurses
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is his policy on the employment by Scottish health boards of(a) permanent nursing staff and (b) agency-based, temporary nursing staff; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will make a statement on his policy on the employment of temporary, agency-based nursing staff in acute hospital wards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The employment of nursing staff is a matter for health boards to arrange. There are circumstances where it is more economic for boards to engage temporary agency-based nursing staff rather than to appoint permanent staff, but this must be decided in the light of local circumstances. The number of agency-based nursing staff is monitored regularly and at the last count it constituted half of I per cent. of the qualified nursing work force in Scotland.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Dunnachie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children in Scotland are currently receiving nursery education in state schools; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The provisional number of pupils in education authority nursery schools and departments at September 1989 is 42,269.

  The extent and nature of pre-school education is a matter for education authorities.

  Environmental Programme
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement concerning the amount of grant aid being made available uner the special grants (environmental) programme in 1990–91 to voluntary bodies in Scotland working in the environmental field.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am pleased to announce that the grant aid totalling £201,000 has been offered to the following voluntary bodies in the financial year 1990–91, to assist them in carrying out environmental conservation, improvement or educational work in Scotland:

  Amount of Grant £

  Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland

  2,500

  Buchan Countryside Group

  2,500

  Central Scotland Countryside Trust

  12,000

  686

  Amount of Grant £

  Centre for Human Ecology

  4,000

  Community Service Volunteers

  7,500

  Council for Scottish Archaeology

  8,000

  Environment Centre

  6,000

  Highland Forum

  10,000

  John Muir Trust

  5,000

  Locus

  2,000

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  11,000

  Royal Zoological Society of Scotland

  4,000

  Scottish Community Woods Campaign

  6,000

  Scottish Conservation Projects

  30,000

  Scottish Ecological Consultants

  4,000

  Scottish Environmental Education Council

  12,000

  Scottish Field School of Archaeology

  1,500

  Scottish Fields Studies Association

  8,000

  Scottish Historic Buildings Trust

  11,000

  Scottish Rights of Way Society

  2,500

  Scottish Scenic Trust

  2,000

  Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link

  10,000

  Scottish Wildlife Trust

  25,000

  Strathclyde Building Preservation Trust

  3,500

  The Woodland Trust

  5,000

  Water of Leith Conservation Trust

  6,000

  A further £4,000 is being held in reserve to support suitable projects arising during the year.

  The aims and criteria of the scheme have been reviewed following its first three years of operation and the experience of the scheme has been generally very good. I am satisfied that the grants now offered will greatly assist the voluntary organisations to increase their level of activity and do much useful work.

  Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of loft insulation jobs completed so far in the current year and completed in the equivalent periods of 1987, 1988 and 1989; and what were the full-year figures for 1987, 1988 and 1989 for each region and Scotland as a whole.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 12 June 1990]: Figures for 1990 are not yet available. Information on the number of dwellings for which home insulation grants were given in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989 is given in the following table:

  Home insulation grants paid, Scotland

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Scotland

  18,099

  9674

  3,907

  Borders

  269

  210

  102

  Central

  4,404

  2,743

  930

  Dumfries and Galloway

  391

  158

  17

  Fife

  1,120

  659

  324

  Grampian

  1,326

  441

  95

  Highland

  902

  267

  34

  Lothian

  1,897

  744

  348

  Strathclyde

  5,927

  3,723

  1,813

  Tayside

  1,689

  588

  160

  Orkney Islands

  114

  83

  60

  Shetland Islands

  8

  14

  2

  Western Isles

  52

  44

  22

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  North Sea (Dumping)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if any information is available to his Department on the practical alternatives to the proposed dumping in the North sea of concentrated phenol contained in the waste products of paracetamol.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Ministry has required the company concerned to develop and implement a land-based means of disposal of its waste as soon as possible. A number of processes considered have proved impracticable, since the process chosen will need to treat all constituents of the waste, not just the phenol content (which is less than 0.8 per cent.). The company is now completing its evaluation of a possible process.

  Tests on the waste show that under the conditions of disposal it causes no harm to the marine environment. Since no alternative means of disposal yet exists the licence for sea disposal has been renewed for a further period.

  Tuberculosis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has plans to review his policy towards tuberculosis control; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The tuberculosis control policy is kept under constant review to ensure its continued effectiveness.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many badgers have been slaughtered due to tuberculosis on a county-by-county basis for each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The information requested is as follows:

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Avon

  103

  88

  37

  110

  129

  Cornwall

  302

  270

  117

  100

  176

  Devon

  43

  31

  91

  193

  180

  Dorset

  276

  27

  62

  77

  13

  Dyfed

  57

  41

  19

  27

  5

  Gloucestershire

  238

  260

  235

  242

  206

  Somerset

  6

  —

  65

  23

  —

  East and West Sussex

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wiltshire

  90

  65

  85

  6

  18

  Total

  1,119

  782

  711

  778

  727

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has and what research he has carried out into the possible transmission of bovine tuberculosis from cattle to cattle by nose contact; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  Largely because of the effectiveness of routine cattle testing, the transmission of bovine tuberculosis both within herds and between contiguous premises in Great Britain is rare. The possible origin of infection in all confirmed herd breakdowns is investigated. Movements on to farms and badger activity have been shown to be far more significant.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle have been slaughtered as a result of tuberculosis by county for each year since 1985.
  688
  Mr. Gummer
  The following table sets out for counties in England and Wales for the years 1986–89 the numbers of cattle slaughtered under the Tuberculosis (England and Wales) Order 1984. Counties not shown have no record of any slaughter. Information in the form requested is not available for 1985.

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19891

  Berkshire

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Buckinghamshire

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Hampshire

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Isle of Wight

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Surrey

  7

  —

  1

  —

  East Sussex

  3

  2

  —

  —

  West Sussex

  —

  —

  —

  23

  Bedfordshire

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Cambridgeshire

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Essex

  1

  —

  5

  —

  Hertfordshire

  2

  2

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire

  1

  1

  —

  6

  Norfolk

  3

  —

  —

  1

  Suffolk

  —

  1

  —

  4

  Cleveland

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Cumbria

  3

  1

  1

  1

  Durham

  3

  —

  —

  —

  Northumberland

  —

  3

  19

  1

  Yorkshire

  9

  6

  6

  4

  Humberside

  —

  —

  —

  7

  Cornwall

  101

  173

  118

  244

  Devon

  46

  159

  173

  88

  Dorset

  21

  33

  49

  33

  Gloucestershire

  50

  146

  76

  92

  Avon

  43

  17

  102

  95

  Somerset

  9

  43

  13

  7

  Wiltshire

  25

  22

  9

  102

  Cheshire

  2

  2

  5

  1

  Derbyshire

  —

  1

  3

  9

  Hereford and Worcester

  19

  2

  4

  25

  Lancashire

  10

  25

  19

  12

  Leicestershire

  3

  12

  9

  10

  Merseyside

  —

  5

  1

  —

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  —

  3

  —

  Shropshire

  1

  —

  15

  13

  Staffordshire

  5

  2

  15

  14

  Warwickshire

  5

  3

  2

  3

  Greater Manchester

  5

  7

  1

  1

  Powys

  11

  61

  4

  7

  Gwynedd

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  82

  68

  52

  51

  Clwyd

  —

  —

  —

  4

  South Glamorgan

  1

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Gwent

  —

  —

  1

  7

  Total

  475

  803

  715

  869

  1 Provisional.

  Swine Swill Farms
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the number of unlicensed swine swill farms in operation; what steps he is taking to identify such premises; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  It is not possible to estimate whether and to what extent any swill farms remain unlicensed, but there is no evidence to indicate that this is a significant problem.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent assessment he has made of the animal welfare implications of the operating and feeding practices of swine swill farms; and if he will make a statement.
  689
  Mr. Gummer
  Swine swill farms are visited quarterly by the state veterinary service under the requirements of the Waste Food Order 1973. Welfare is monitored at these visits as well as at any other visits. Any welfare problems found will be dealt with as necessary either by giving advice or by recommending prosecution action.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his estimates of the number of cattle infected with BSE, which have not shown symptoms of the disease, which have entered the food chain.

  Mr. Gummer
  No estimate has been made. The offals ban provides the necessary safeguards, should any cattle incubating the disease be slaughtered for human consumption.

  Brucellosis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle have been slaughtered in England and Wales as a result of brucellosis since 1985.

  Mr. Gummer
  A total of 8,474 cattle are recorded as having been slaughtered under the Brucellosis (England and Wales) Order 1981, as amended, since 1 January 1985.

  Pesticides
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what advice he has given to(a) local authorities, and (b) British Rail about the use of pesticides to prevent them leaching into water supplies; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Department of Environment has commissioned a study of non-agricultural uses of herbicides and the Advisory Committee on Pesticides is reviewing as a priority those herbicides found most frequently in water. Advice may be issued to local authorities and British Rail in the light of these initiatives.

  Caseous Lymphadentitis
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food further to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields,Official Report, 28 June, columns 338–39, if he will make inquiries as to why the goats imported from Germany subsequently found to have caseous lymphadentitis, had not been identified as having this disease during their post-import inspection; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Member to the Official Report of 21 June, column 653.

  Farm Animal Welfare Council
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the publications of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, giving the date of publication in each case.

  Mr. Gummer
  The list of FAWC publications is as follows:690

  Report on the Animal Welfare Implications of Harvesting of Deer Antlers in Velvet (January 1980)

  Advice to the Agriculture Ministers of Great Britain on the Need to Control Certain Mutilations on Farm Animals (July 1981)

  Report on the Welfare of Poultry at the Time of Slaughter (January 1982)

  Report on the Welfare of Livestock (Red Meat Animals) at the Time of Slaughter (June 1984)

  Report on the Welfare of Farmed Deer (February 1985)

  Report on the Welfare of Livestock when Slaughtered by Religious Methods (July 1985)

  Report on the Welfare of Livestock at Markets (May 1986)

  Egg Production Systems—an Assessment (September 1986)

  Regulations Working Group Interim Ststement (November 1986)

  Assessment of Pig Production Systems (March 1988)

  Advice to Agriculture Ministers on Transportation of Unfit Animals (April 1988)

  Report on Priorities in Animal Welfare Research and Development (May 1988)

  Report of Enforcement Working Group (February 1990)

  Advice to Ministers on the Handling and Transport of Poultry (February 1990)

  Food Labelling
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the discussions at the Council of Ministers meeting on 25–26 June on eggs and poultrymeat labelling rules; and whether any agreement was reached on the stamping of eggs.

  Mr. Gummer
  The Agriculture Council on 25–26 June adopted as A points (a) a regulation on marketing standards for eggs which will replace Council Regulation 2772/75 and (b) a regulation which will introduce marketing standards for poultrymeat. Both regulations include labelling requirements.

  The new regulation on marketing standards for eggs permits, but does not require, one or more of a specified range of marks to be stamped on grade A eggs subject, in some cases, to further provisions to be set out in Commission regulations.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the growth of manufacturing exports since 1985.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Over the period 1985 to 1989, the volume of manufactured exports rose by 31 per cent.; the fastest four-year growth rate since the comparable period ending in 1971.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the manufacturing output figures for each EC country for the most recent year for which figures are available, and in 1979.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Recent data on manufacturing output for the United Kingdom are published in the CSO's Economic Trends and for other EC countries in the OECD's Main Economic Indicators.
  691
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the manufacturing investment figures for the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  At 1985 prices, the estimates of manufacturing investment in 1988 and 1989, including leased assets, are £11,334 million and £12,054 million respectively Investment grew by an average 9 per cent. in the two years. This follows four years of growth averaging almost 8 per cent.

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest forecast for the share of gross domestic product to be taken by general Government expenditure.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The forecast for the ratio of general Government expenditure (excluding privatisation proceeds) to gross domestic product in 1990–91 published in the 1990 Financial Statement and Budget Report is 39 per cent.

  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his Department's estimate of total Government expenditure was for 1990–91(a) at the time of his Autumn Statement of 1989 and (b) at the time of his Budget; and what is the current estimate.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The projection of general government expenditure for 1990–91, set out in the 1989 Autumn Statement was £210.4 billion, and in the 1990 Financial Statement and Budget Report, £212.7 billion. A further estimate will be published in the 1990 Autumn Statement.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. James Lamond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met representatives of the retail prices index advisory committee; and what was discussed.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next expects to meet the retail prices index advisory committee to discuss the contents of the price index.

  Mr. Lilley
  It has never been the practice for the Minister responsible for the retail prices index to hold discussions with the advisory committee. The committee's recommendations are submitted as formal reports, which are subsequently presented to Parliament and published. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) that he had received such a report and will be announcing the Government's decision on the recommendations in due course.

  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the adequacy of the retail prices index as a guide to the cost of living.

  Mr. Lilley
  The retail prices index is not a cost of living index in the strict sense of measuring changes in the cost of maintaining a particular level of consumption: nor is it a measure of what people need to spend in order to live. Rather it measures the impact of price changes on the cost 692
  of a "basket" of goods and services as purchased by households in the United Kingdom and I am satisfied that, given that "basket", it is adequate for the purpose. However, the index is affected by short-term, factors which make it an unsatisfactory indicator of the underlying trend of inflation, and it may also be unsuitable for international comparisons as other countries' indices are constructed differently. In particular the RPI is unusual in including mortgage interest payments and the community charge. For some purposes it is therefore helpful to refer to derivatives of the RPI or to other indices.

  Interest Rates
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in relation to the impact of interest rates on Scottish economic performance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the impact of interest rates on Scottish economic performance; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations.

  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the current level of interest rates.

  Mr. Ryder
  Bank base rates are 15 per cent.

  Balance of Payments
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the deficit on the current account of the balance of payments for(a) the first quarter of 1990 and (b) the first quarter of 1989.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The answer is £4.7 billion and £4.2 billion, respectively.

  Mortgage Repayments
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the number of people six to 12 months in arrears on their mortgage repayments.

  Mr. Ryder
  The latest available figures show that at end 1989 there were approximately 58,000 mortgage loans six to 12 months in arrears.

  Top People's Pay
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he collects relating to top people's pay.

  Mr. Ryder
  The top salaries review body makes recommendations to the Government on the pay of top civil servants, senior military and the judiciary. I am also aware of the salaries of a variety of other senior public servants. No information is collected by Government on the pay of senior executives in private industry arid business.

  Inflation
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any plans to meet his Economic Community counterparts, to discuss a common method to determine the inflation rate of each member state.
  693
  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present. The practices followed in compiling consumer price indices vary between Community countries. The United Kingdom regularly joins in discussions with other members with a view to understanding the differences in methodology. When changes in the retail prices index have been proposed they have always been considered by the RPI advisory committee and due account taken then of practice elsewhere.

  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the current rate of inflation.

  Mr. Ryder
  The all-items RPI inflation rate was 9.7 per cent. in May. Underlying inflation, as measured by the RPI excluding mortgage interest payments and community charge, was 7.0 per cent.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase in the rate of income tax would be required in 1990–91 for the top one-fifteenth earners to raise an additional £3 billion.

  Mr. Lilley
  About 1 in 15 taxpayers will pay income tax at the higher rate in 1990–91. An increase of 10 percentage points in the higher rate of tax would increase the liability to income tax of this group by about £3 billion in a full year. This estimate takes no account of any behavioural effects that might result from such an increase.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress on the implementation of separate taxation for married couples.

  Mr. Lilley
  Independent taxation of husbands and wives was successfully introduced on 6 April this year.

  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated cost to the Treasury in a full year of making the married man's tax allowance transferable to non-working wives; and what is his policy as to the merits of making such a move.

  Mr. Lilley
  Under independent taxation, the married couple's allowance will go to the husband in the first instance. However, if he has insufficient income to use it in full himself any surplus can be transferred to his wife—whether or not she is at work—against her own income of any kind for her to use.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England; and whether the level of inflation was discussed.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend meets the Governor of the Bank of England on a regular basis.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss exchange rate policy.

  Mr. Major
  I meet the Governor of the Bank of England on a regular basis.

  European Currency
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his new proposals for a European currency.
  694
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for an alternative European currency unit to compete with the currencies of European Community member states; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 21 June at column 655.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received recently about his plan for the exchange of Common Market currency for European Economic Community national currencies; what further steps he proposes to take; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has received a number of representations. He will be discussing the ideas put forward in his speech to the German Industry Forum with his Community colleagues in the coming weeks.

  Company Cars
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about tax allowances for company cars.

  Mr. Lilley
  These allowances are regularly reviewed.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received concerning the increase in tax on tobacco in the current year's Budget; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  Nine letters were received from individuals or bodies representing health professionals who gave broad support for the tobacco taxation measures announced in the 1990 Budget. Four individuals wrote opposing the duty increases on cigarettes, cigars and hand-rolling tobacco.

  European Monetary Union
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for furthering European monetary union; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his new proposals for European monetary union.

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 21 June at column 655.

  Investment
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last met the Confederation of British Industry; and whether levels of investment were discussed.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor chaired the National Economic Development Council on 4 July, at which the CBI was represented. One of the topics discussed was United Kingdom investment, capacity and growth.
  695
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he forecasts the growth in total fixed investment in 1990 will be.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  My right hon. Friend's latest forecast for total fixed investment, published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report, projects a fall of 11 per cent. in 1990.

  Exchange Rate Mechanism
  Mr. Barry Porter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest plans are for taking the United Kingdom into the European exchange rate mechanism; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Major
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on 7 June at column 774.

  Credit Advertising
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to encourage the banks and building societies to adopt the recommendations contained in the Jack report on credit advertising.

  Mr. Ryder
  The banks and building societies have already set up a Committee under the independent chairmanship of Sir George Blunden, former Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, to oversee the preparation of the code of banking practice recommended in the Jack report. The intention is to have the main points of the code in place by early 1991, and the terms of reference of the committee make it clear that consumer and other interests will be fully consulted before the code is finalised. I understand the code will cover the issue of credit marketing as both the Jack committee and the Government have recommended. We shall look carefully at what they propose to see whether it is sufficient or whether any further action is necessary.

  Tax and National Insurance
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the average sums paid in income tax and in national insurance contributions in 1989; and the comparable figures for 1979.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information is as follows:

  Amount paid in income tax and national insurance contributions on average earnings

  Amount paid in income tax1 and NIC on average earnings2

  Percentage of average earnings2 paid in income tax earnings and NIC

  1978–79

  Single person

  29.25

  31.5

  Married man

  25.76

  27.8

  1989–903

  Single person

  80.31

  28.7

  Married man

  72.67

  26.0

  1 Assuming that the only allowances available against income tax are the single persons and married man's/married couple's allowances as appropriate.

  2 Average earnings are for full time adult males in all occupations. In 1978–79 they were £92.8 per week; in 1989–90 they are assumed to be £280.0 per week in line with the assumptions in paragraph

  696
  3.02 of the 1989 Autumn Statement.

  3 Figures are derived from the financial year average NIC Class 1 paid in 1989–90.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the tax concessions available for disabled people and their carers; and what is the annual cost to the Revenue.

  Mr. Major
  Various social security benefits for the disabled are exempt from income tax:

  Benefit

  Cost of Exemption (1989–90) £ million

  Invalidity benefit and severe disablement allowances

  390

  Industrial disablement benefits

  70

  Allowances to rehabilitees

  17

  Attendance allowance

  95

  Mobility allowance

  55

  War disablement benefit

  95

  1 Negligible.

  Two tax allowances are available in respect of disability: the blind person's allowance and the additional personal allowance for a husband with dependent children whose wife is totally incapacitated throughout the tax year. Each of these allowances costs up to £5 million a year.

  In addition, the following extra-statutory concessions give favourable treatment to payments to the disabled:

  A26 Sick benefits—Estimated cost: up to £100,000.

  A59 Home to work travel of severely disabled employees—No central data on which to base a reliable estimate.

  A62 Pensions to employees disabled at work—Estimated cost: up to £100,000.

  Further details are given in the Inland Revenue's booklet IR 1.

  Private Education allowances
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much tax revenue was forgone during the last financial year in respect of allowances for private education.

  Mr. Lilley
  If the hon. Member will write to me giving details of the particular allowances he has in mind I shall be happy to provide the relevant information.

  EC Trade
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the United Kingdom's deficit or surplus in(a) all trade and (b) trade to manufacturers with the European Community in each year since 1972.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The latest information is available on the Central Statistical Office database which may be accessed through the Library of the House.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total income to the Exchequer as a result of privatisation measures since May 1979.
  697
  Mr. Lilley
  The net proceeds from privatisation since 1979 to date amount to some £28 billion.

  Coinage
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations he undertakes with local government representatives when considering changes in the coinage; what estimate he has made of the consequential cost of converting coin-operated machines when the 5p coin is replaced; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ryder
  The decision to introduce the new 5p coin was taken after extensive research and consultation on Britain's coinage.

  In July 1987 a consultative pamphlet inviting comments on options for changes to the coinage, was issued to a wide range of organisations including local authorities. Sample coins have been made available to a large number of vending interests and local authorities in order to assist in the adjustment to the new coin.

  While there will undoubtedly be some transitional costs for owners of coin operated machines, they will benefit from the lower cost of handling lighter coins.

  Government Revenue
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum of central Government revenue for 1989–90; and what was the amount of central Government revenue used for that funding of local government services.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Total central Government receipts in 1989–90, on a national accounts basis, are estimated to have been £181.2 billion. On the same basis, central Government grants to local authorities, are estimated to have been £27.1 billion. Central Government grants to local authorities, within the planning total, are estimated to have been £23.5 billion.

  VAT
  Mr. Thornton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing for each country within the European Economic Community the rate of value added tax attaching to(a) food, (b) children's clothing, (c) new housing and(d) books and newspapers.

  Mr. Ryder
  The information available for each EC member state is set out in the tables:

  (a) Food in shops1

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  6

  Denmark

  22

  France

  25.5

  Germany

  7

  Greece

  6

  Ireland

  30

  Italy

  44, 9

  Luxembourg

  53, 6

  Netherlands

  6

  Portugal

  60, 8, 6

  Spain

  6

  United Kingdom

  70

  1 Excluding luxury foods.

  2 With certain exceptions, e.g. sweets, ice-cream, margarine which are standard-rated at 18.6 per cent.

  698
  3 Alcohol and soft drinks other than fruit juices are liable at 25 per cent. in all circumstances, as is all food and drink supplied through a vending machine.

  4 The lower rate applies to essential foodstuffs such as bread, pasta and fish.

  5 The lower rate applies to meat, meat products, bread and butter.

  6 The rate shown in brackets applies to the autonomous regions of the Madeira and Azores archipelagoes. The zero-rate applies to unprepared foodstuffs.

  7 With certain exceptions including ice-cream, chocolates and similar confectionery, alcoholic and soft drinks, potato crisps and similar products and pet foods.

  Food in restaurants

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  17

  Denmark

  22

  France

  18.6

  Germany

  14

  Greece

  1—

  Ireland

  10

  Italy

  29

  Luxembourg

  6

  Netherlands

  6

  Portugal

  38 (6)

  Spain

  46, 12

  United Kingdom

  15

  1 Information not available. Greece has set its VAT rates at 6 per cent., 18 per cent. and 36 per cent., but full details about the applicability of the rates are not yet available.

  2 Excluding the supply of food in luxury premises including luxury hotels.

  3 Lower rates apply in the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira archipelagoes.

  4 The higher rate applies to services supplied in luxury hotels.

  (b) Children's clothing

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  19

  Denmark

  22

  France

  18.6

  Germany

  14

  Greece

  16

  Ireland

  0

  Italy

  19

  Luxembourg

  12

  Netherlands

  18.5

  Portugal

  117, 12

  Spain

  12

  United Kingdom

  0

  1 Lower rate applies in the autonomous regions of the Azores and Madeira archipelagoes.

  (c) New housing

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  17.0

  Denmark

  22.0

  France

  18.6

  Germany

  1—

  Greece

  2—

  Ireland

  10.0

  Italy

  34.0, 19.0

  Luxembourg

  1—

  Netherlands

  18.5

  Portugal

  1—

  Spain

  412.0

  United Kingdom

  0.0

  1 Exempt.

  2 Information not available.

  3 Certain "low-priced" housing 4 per cent., others 19 per cent.

  4 Or 6 per cent. if the first supply by a contractor of a residential dwelling.

  699

  (d) Books

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  6.0

  Denmark

  22.0

  France

  5.5

  Germany

  7.0

  Greece

  1—

  Ireland

  0.0

  Italy

  0.0

  Luxembourg

  6.0

  Netherlands

  6.0

  Portugal

  0.0

  Spain

  6.0

  United Kingdom

  0.0

  1 Information not available.

  Newspapers

  Country

  Rate per cent.

  Belgium

  0.0

  Denmark

  0.0

  France

  2.1

  Germany

  7.0

  Greece

  1—

  Ireland

  10.0

  Italy

  0.0

  Luxembourg

  6.0

  Netherlands

  6.0

  Portugal

  0.0

  Spain

  6.0

  United Kingdom

  0.0

  1 Information not available.

  Taxes and Benefits
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish in the Official Report up-to-date figures on the same basis as those provided to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, in his answer of 8 January, Official Report, columns 559–64, revising his figures to include an estimate of the effects of the 1990 Budget statement and the introduction of the community charge.

  Income tax, NICS and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings, 1988–89

  Multiples of average earnings

  0.50

  0.75

  1

  1.5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Single Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  19.51

  35.53

  51.55

  83.59

  129.33

  231.85

  334.37

  436.89

  641.93

  949.49

  1,974.69

  NICS

  11.53

  17.30

  23.07

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  VAT

  —

  9.52

  12.82

  19.98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  15.15

  18.96

  27.22

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  31.04

  77.50

  106.40

  158.24

  156.78

  259.30

  361.82

  464.34

  669.38

  976.94

  2,002.14

  Domestic rates

  —

  7.68

  9.35

  12.99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  15.2

  18.5

  20.1

  21.7

  25.2

  30.2

  32.6

  34.1

  35.8

  37.0

  38.5

  NICS

  9.0

  9.0

  9.0

  7.1

  5.4

  3.6

  2.7

  2.1

  1.5

  1.1

  0.5

  VAT

  —

  5.0

  5.0

  5.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7.9

  7.4

  7.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  24.2

  40.4

  41.5

  41.2

  30.6

  33.7

  35.3

  36.2

  37.3

  38.1

  39.1

  Domestic rates

  —

  4.0

  3.6

  3.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, no children Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  12.35

  28.37

  44.39

  76.43

  117.87

  220.39

  322.91

  425.43

  630.47

  938.03

  1,963.23

  NICS

  11.53

  17.30

  23.07

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  VAT

  —

  8.73

  12.32

  20.12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  16.82

  20.63

  28.89

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  23.88

  71.22

  100.41

  152.89

  145.32

  247.84

  350.36

  452.88

  657.92

  965.48

  1,990.68

  Domestic rates

  —

  7.52

  8.73

  11.37

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  700
  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 5 June 1990]: Figures for 1978–79 to 1987–88 were placed in the library of the House last year (as noted in the Official Report, 13 April 1989, column 624). The latest estimates for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 are given in the tables. I regret that it is not yet possible to produce satisfactory estimates of the effects of the introduction of the community charge and associated arrangements for transitional relief.

  Notes to Tables

  (1) Income tax payments are calculated on the assumption that the households receive no tax reliefs other than the standard allowances and only have income from employment. All earners, including wives, are assumed to pay class 1 NI contributions at the contracted in rate. The figures for NI contributions are financial year averages.

  (2) From 1990–91 husbands and wives will be taxed independently. Previously the tax liability of couples depended on their joint income. To permit comparisons with earlier years the table therefore shows income tax and national insurance contributions paid by a married couple in 1990–91 as a proportion of their joint income, assuming, as in the earlier years, that where both partners are earners, the husband and wife share the relevant multiple of earnings in the ratio 60:40.

  (3) In order to provide comparability with 1978–79, when support for children was given partly through child tax allowances, child benefit is treated as a negative income tax for the married couple with two children.

  (4) Average earnings are taken to be the average gross weekly earnings of all full-time males on adult rates with pay unaffected by absence. These were £256.30 per week in 1988–89, £280.00 per week in 1989–90, and estimated to be £303.80 per week in 1990–91, using the Government Actuary Department's assumption of 81 per cent. growth over 1989–90 as published in the 1989 Autumn Statement.

  (5) The estimate of indirect taxes are derived from the 1985 family expenditure survey, and are based on the illustrative assumption that 10 per cent. of disposable income is saved. There are wide variations in spending patterns between households with similar incomes and composition, and estimated payments of VAT, other indirect taxes and domestic rates are therefore approximate, even within the income range for which figures are shown. Outside this range the margin of error is even higher and reliable estimates cannot be made. Because of sampling variation, there can be substantial differences between the estimates obtained from family expenditure surveys for different years.

  701

  Multiples of average earnings

  0.50

  0.75

  1

  1.5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  9.6

  14.8

  17.3

  19.9

  23.0

  28.7

  31.5

  33.2

  35.1

  36.6

  38.3

  NICS

  9.0

  9.0

  9.0

  7.1

  5.4

  3.6

  2.7

  2.1

  1.5

  1.1

  0.5

  VAT

  —

  4.5

  4.8

  5.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.8

  8.1

  7.5

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  18.6

  37.1

  39.2

  39.7

  28.3

  32.2

  34.2

  35.3

  36.7

  37.7

  38.8

  Domestic rates

  —

  3.9

  3.4

  3.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, both working Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  0.00

  15.84

  31.86

  63.90

  97.83

  173.19

  260.33

  361.18

  566.22

  873.78

  1,898.98

  NICS

  7.95

  15.76

  21.02

  34.60

  45.90

  54.90

  54.90

  54.90

  54.90

  54.90

  54.90

  VAT

  —

  9.87

  13.82

  21.42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  19.54

  22.99

  29.65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7.95

  61.01

  89.69

  149.57

  143.73

  228.09

  315.23

  416.08

  621.12

  928.68

  1,953.88

  Domestic rates

  —

  9.29

  9.92

  11.14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  0.0

  8.2

  12.4

  16.6

  19.1

  22.5

  25.4

  28.2

  31.6

  34.1

  37.0

  NICS

  6.2

  8.2

  8.2

  9.0

  9.0

  7.1

  5.4

  4.3

  3.1

  2.1

  1.1

  VAT

  —

  5.1

  5.4

  5.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  10.2

  9.0

  7.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6.2

  31.7

  35.0

  38.9

  28.0

  29.7

  30.7

  32.5

  34.6

  36.2

  38.1

  Domestic rates

  —

  4.8

  3.9

  2.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, 2 children Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  -2.15

  13.87

  29.89

  61.93

  103.37

  205.89

  308.41

  409.93

  615.97

  923.53

  1,948.73

  NICS

  11.53

  17.30

  23.07

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  27.45

  VAT

  —

  8.69

  12.76

  21.59

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  16.67

  19.71

  26.33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9.38

  56.53

  85.43

  137.30

  130.82

  233.34

  335.86

  437.38

  643.42

  950.98

  1,976.18

  Domestic rates

  —

  7.42

  8.85

  11.96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  -1.7

  7.2

  11.7

  16.1

  20.2

  26.8

  30.1

  32.0

  34.3

  36.0

  38.0

  NICS

  9.0

  9.0

  9.0

  7.1

  5.4

  3.6

  2.7

  2.1

  1.5

  1.1

  0.5

  VAT

  —

  4.5

  5.0

  5.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.7

  7.7

  6.8

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7.3

  29.4

  33.4

  35.6

  25.5

  30.3

  32.8

  34.1

  35.9

  37.1

  38.6

  Domestic rates

  —

  3.9

  3.5

  3.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Income tax, NICS and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings, 1989–90

  Multiples of average earnings

  0.5

  0.75

  1

  1.5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Single Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  21.61

  39.11

  56.61

  91.61

  142.87

  254.87

  366.87

  478.87

  702.87

  1,038.87

  2,158.87

  NICS

  11.10

  17.40

  23.70

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  VAT

  —

  10.48

  14.08

  21.95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  15.56

  19.45

  27.95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  32.71

  82.55

  113.84

  169.25

  170.61

  282.61

  394.61

  506.61

  730.61

  1,066.61

  2,186.61

  Domestic rates

  —

  8.49

  10.33

  14.36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  20.05

  36.28

  52.51

  84.98

  132.53

  236.43

  340.32

  444.22

  652.01

  963.70

  2,002.66

  NICS

  10.30

  16.14

  21.99

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  VAT

  —

  9.72

  13.06

  20.36

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  14.43

  18.04

  25.93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  30.34

  76.58

  105.60

  157.00

  158.27

  262.16

  366.06

  469.95

  677.75

  989.43

  2,028.40

  Domestic rates

  —

  7.88

  9.58

  13.32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  15.4

  18.6

  20.2

  21.8

  25.5

  30.3

  32.8

  34.2

  35.9

  37.1

  38.6

  NICS

  7.9

  8.3

  8.5

  6.6

  5.0

  3.3

  2.5

  2.0

  1.4

  1.0

  0.5

  VAT

  —

  5.0

  5.0

  5.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7.4

  6.9

  6.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  23.4

  39.3

  40.7

  40.3

  30.5

  33.6

  35.2

  36.2

  37.3

  38.1

  39.0

  Domestic rates

  —

  4.0

  3.7

  3.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, no children Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  13.97

  31.47

  48.97

  83.97

  130.63

  242.63

  354.63

  466.63

  690.63

  1,026.63

  2,146.63

  702 703

  Multiples of average earnings

  0.5

  0.75

  1

  1.5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  NICS

  11.10

  17.40

  23.70

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  VAT

  —

  9.60

  13.52

  22.08

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  17.26

  21.17

  29.70

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  25.07

  75.73

  107.36

  163.49

  158.37

  270.37

  382.37

  494.37

  718.37

  1,054.37

  2,174.37

  Domestic rates

  —

  8.30

  9.64

  12.56

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  12.96

  29.19

  45.43

  77.89

  121.18

  225.07

  328.97

  432.87

  640.66

  952.35

  1,991.31

  NICS

  10.30

  16.14

  21.99

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  VAT

  —

  8.91

  12.54

  20.48

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  16.01

  19.64

  27.55

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  23.26

  70.25

  99.59

  151.66

  146.91

  250.81

  354.70

  458.60

  666.39

  978.08

  2,017.04

  Domestic rates

  —

  7.70

  8.94

  11.65

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  10.0

  15.0

  17.5

  20.0

  23.3

  28.9

  31.7

  33.3

  35.2

  36.7

  38.3

  NICS

  7.9

  8.3

  8.5

  6.6

  5.0

  3.3

  2.5

  2.0

  1.4

  1.0

  0.5

  VAT

  —

  4.6

  4.8

  5.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.2

  7.6

  7.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  17.9

  36.1

  38.3

  38.9

  28.3

  32.2

  34.1

  35.3

  36.7

  37.7

  38.8

  Domestic rates

  —

  4.0

  3.4

  3.0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, both working Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  0.58

  18.08

  35.58

  70.58

  109.21

  191.08

  286.28

  397.73

  621.73

  957.73

  2,077.73

  NICS

  9.59

  15.89

  22.19

  34.79

  46.40

  55.49

  55.49

  55.49

  55.49

  55.49

  55.49

  VAT

  —

  10.80

  15.06

  23.56

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  19.94

  23.42

  30.38

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  10.17

  64.71

  96.25

  159.31

  155.61

  246.57

  341.77

  453.22

  677.22

  1,013.22

  2,133.22

  Domestic rates

  —

  10.24

  10.92

  12.30

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Amounts 1988/89 prices

  Income tax

  0.54

  16.77

  33.01

  65.47

  101.31

  177.25

  265.57

  368.95

  576.74

  888.43

  1,927.39

  NICS

  8.90

  14.74

  20.58

  32.27

  43.04

  51.47

  51.47

  51.47

  51.47

  51.47

  51.47

  VAT

  —

  10.02

  13.97

  21.86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18.50

  21.73

  28.18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9.43

  60.03

  89.29

  147.78

  144.35

  228.73

  317.04

  420.43

  628.22

  939.91

  1,978.87

  Domestic rates

  —

  9.50

  10.13

  11.41

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  0.4

  8.6

  12.7

  16.8

  19.5

  22.7

  25.6

  28.4

  31.7

  34.2

  37.1

  NICS

  6.9

  7.6

  7.9

  8.3

  8.3

  6.6

  5.0

  4.0

  2.8

  2.0

  1.0

  VAT

  —

  5.1

  5.4

  5.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9.5

  8.4

  7.2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7.3

  30.8

  34.4

  37.9

  27.8

  29.4

  30.5

  32.4

  34.6

  36.2

  38.1

  Domestic rates

  —

  4.9

  3.9

  2.9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Married, 2 children Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  -0.53

  16.97

  34.47

  69.47

  116.13

  228.13

  340.13

  452.13

  676.13

  1,012.13

  2,132.13

  NICS

  11.10

  17.40

  23.70

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  27.74

  VAT

  —

  9.43

  13.87

  23.57

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  16.95

  20.08

  26.91

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  10.57

  60.75

  92.12

  147.69

  143.87

  255.87

  367.87

  479.87

  703.87

  1,039.87

  2,159.87

  Domestic rates

  —

  8.15

  9.72

  13.16

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  -0.49

  15.74

  31.98

  64.44

  107.73

  211.62

  315.52

  419.42

  627.21

  938.90

  1,977.86

  NICS

  10.30

  16.14

  21.99

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  25.73

  VAT

  —

  8.75

  12.87

  21.86

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  15.72

  18.63

  24.96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9.81

  56.35

  85.45

  137.00

  133.46

  237.36

  341.25

  445.15

  652.94

  964.63

  2,003.59

  Domestic rates

  —

  7.56

  9.02

  12.21

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  -0.4

  8.1

  12.3

  16.5

  20.7

  27.2

  30.4

  32.3

  34.5

  36.1

  38.1

  NICS

  7.9

  8.3

  8.5

  6.6

  5.0

  3.3

  2.5

  2.0

  1.4

  1.0

  0.5

  VAT

  —

  4.5

  5.0

  5.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.1

  7.2

  6.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7.6

  28.9

  32.9

  35.2

  25.7

  30.5

  32.8

  34.3

  35.9

  37.1

  38.6

  Domestic rates

  —

  3.9

  3.5

  3.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  704 705

  Income tax, NICS and indirect tax payments at multiples of average earnings, 1990–91

  Multiples of average earnings

  0.5

  0.75

  1

  1.5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Single Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  23.53

  42.52

  61.50

  99.48

  160.21

  281.73

  403.25

  524.77

  767.81

  1,132.37

  2,347.57

  NICS

  10.45

  17.29

  24.12

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  VAT

  —

  11.49

  15.39

  23.93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  17.04

  21.28

  30.54

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  33.98

  88.34

  122.29

  182.23

  188.49

  310.01

  431.53

  553.05

  796.09

  1,160.65

  2,375.85

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  20.41

  36.88

  53.34

  86.28

  138.95

  244.35

  349.74

  455.13

  665.92

  982.11

  2,036.05

  NICS

  9.06

  15.00

  20.92

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  VAT

  —

  9.97

  13.35

  20.75

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  14.78

  18.46

  26.49

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  29.47

  76.62

  106.06

  158.05

  163.48

  268.87

  374.27

  479.66

  690.45

  1,006.63

  2,060.58

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax

  15.5

  18.7

  20.2

  21.8

  26.4

  30.9

  33.2

  34.5

  36.1

  37.3

  38.6

  NICS

  6.9

  7.6

  7.9

  6.2

  4.7

  3.1

  2.3

  1.9

  1.3

  0.9

  0.5

  VAT

  —

  5.0

  5.1

  5.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  7.5

  7.0

  6.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  22.4

  38.8

  40.3

  40.0

  31.0

  34.0

  35.5

  36.4

  37.4

  38.2

  39.1

  Married, no children Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  15.26

  34.25

  53.23

  91.21

  146.98

  268.50

  390.02

  511.54

  754.58

  1,119.14

  2,334.34

  NICS

  10.45

  17.29

  24.12

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  VAT

  —

  10.60

  14.84

  24.14

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18.89

  23.14

  32.42

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  25.71

  81.03

  115.33

  176.05

  175.26

  296.78

  418.30

  539.82

  782.86

  1,147.42

  2,362.62

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  13.24

  29.71

  46.17

  79.11

  127.48

  232.87

  338.27

  443.66

  654.45

  970.63

  2,024.58

  NICS

  9.06

  15.00

  20.92

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  VAT

  —

  9.19

  12.87

  20.94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  16.38

  20.07

  28.12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  22.30

  70.28

  100.03

  152.69

  152.00

  257.40

  362.79

  468.19

  678.98

  995.16

  2,049.11

  Percentage of earnings

  Income Tax

  10.0

  15.0

  17.5

  20.0

  24.2

  29.5

  32.1

  33.7

  35.5

  36.8

  38.4

  NICS

  6.9

  7.6

  7.9

  6.2

  4.7

  3.1

  2.3

  1.9

  1.3

  0.9

  0.5

  VAT

  —

  4.7

  4.9

  5.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.3

  7.6

  7.1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  16.9

  35.6

  38.0

  38.6

  28.8

  32.6

  34.4

  35.5

  36.8

  37.8

  38.9

  Married, both working Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  0.81

  19.80

  38.79

  76.76

  114.74

  199.37

  307.20

  428.72

  671.76

  1,036.32

  2,251.52

  NICS

  7.23

  14.07

  20.90

  34.57

  46.93

  56.56

  56.56

  56.56

  56.56

  56.56

  56.56

  VAT

  —

  12.08

  16.68

  25.89

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  21.82

  25.61

  33.18

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  8.04

  67.77

  101.98

  170.40

  161.67

  255.93

  363.76

  485.28

  728.32

  1,092.88

  2,308.08

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  0.70

  17.17

  33.64

  66.58

  99.51

  172.92

  266.43

  371.83

  582.62

  898.80

  1,952.75

  NICS

  6.27

  12.20

  18.13

  29.98

  40.70

  49.05

  49.05

  49.05

  49.05

  49.05

  49.05

  VAT

  —

  10.48

  14.47

  22.45

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18.92

  22.21

  28.78

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  6.97

  58.78

  88.45

  147.79

  140.21

  221.97

  315.49

  420.88

  631.67

  947.85

  2,001.80

  Percentage of Earnings

  Income Tax

  0.5

  8.7

  12.8

  16.8

  18.9

  21.9

  25.3

  28.2

  31.6

  34.1

  37.1

  NICS

  4.8

  6.2

  6.9

  7.6

  7.7

  6.2

  4.7

  3.7

  2.7

  1.9

  0.9

  VAT

  —

  5.3

  5.5

  5.7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  9.6

  8.4

  7.3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  5.3

  29.7

  33.6

  37.4

  26.6

  28.1

  29.9

  31.9

  34.2

  36.0

  38.0

  Married, 2 children Amounts, £ per week

  Income Tax

  0.76

  19.75

  38.73

  76.71

  132.48

  254.00

  375.52

  497.04

  740.08

  1,104.64

  2,319.84

  NICS

  10.45

  17.29

  24.12

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  28.28

  VAT

  —

  10.38

  15.19

  25.72

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  18.41

  21.80

  29.23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  11.21

  65.83

  99.84

  159.94

  160.76

  282.28

  403.80

  525.32

  768.36

  1,132.92

  2,348.12

  Amounts 1988–89 prices

  Income Tax

  0.66

  17.13

  33.59

  66.53

  114.90

  220.29

  325.69

  431.08

  641.87

  958.06

  2,012.00

  NICS

  9.06

  15.00

  20.92

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  24.53

  VAT

  —

  9.00

  13.17

  22.31

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  15.97

  18.91

  25.35

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total Percentage of earnings

  9.72

  57.09

  86.59

  138.72

  139.43

  244.82

  350.22

  455.61

  666.40

  982.58

  2,036.53

  706 707

  Multiples of average earnings

  0.5

  0.75

  1

  1.5

  2

  3

  4

  5

  7

  10

  20

  Income Tax

  0.5

  8.7

  12.7

  16.8

  21.8

  27.9

  30.9

  32.7

  34 8

  36.4

  38.2

  NICS

  6.9

  7.6

  7.9

  6.2

  4.7

  3.1

  2.3

  1.9

  1.3

  0.9

  0.5

  VAT

  —

  4.6

  5.0

  5.6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Other indirect

  —

  8.1

  7.2

  6.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  7.4

  28.9

  32.9

  35.1

  25.5

  31.0

  33.2

  34.6

  36.1

  37.3

  38.6

  Hospital Trusts
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the capital raised on the market by the proposed hospital trusts will be counted in the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 2 July 1990]: NHS trusts will be classified as public corporations, and their borrowing from the market will be included in the public sector borrowing requirement.

  Household Expenditure
  Mr. Clay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing average household expenditure underlying the 1990 weights for the general retail prices index as in the April 1989 edition of the Employment Gazette.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 4 July 1990]: Following is the information:
  708

  Average household expenditure underlying the 1990 weights for the general RPI

  £ per week at January 1990 prices

  Food

  36.41

  Catering

  10.78

  Alcoholic drink

  17.91

  Tobacco

  7.87

  Housing

  42.98

  Fuel and light

  11.38

  Household goods

  16.38

  Household services

  9.08

  Clothing and footwear

  15.81

  Personal goods and services

  8.97

  Motoring expenditure

  30.16

  Fares and other travel costs

  4.85

  Leisure goods

  11.07

  Leisure services

  6.98

  All items

  230.65

  Source: Central Statistical Office

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

Employees and Union Membership
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they intend to take to ensure that employers comply with the Government's view that the right to belong to a union must be protected, as well as the right not to belong.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, the law provides that an employee shall be regarded as having been unfairly dismissed if the reason for the dismissal was that he was, or was not, a member of a trade union. An employee who believes he has been dismissed for such a reason can present a complaint to an industrial tribunal. The Government firmly believe that all individuals should have the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to belong to a trade union.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware that it is quite possible for an employer to provoke a dispute by unilaterally changing terms and conditions of employment, and then when a dispute arises he can dismiss all the employees and take on non-union labour? What kind of protection do union members have in such situations? Is the Minister aware that this happens occasionally and has happened recently, according to my information, at a firm called Chloride in Southampton? What protection do employees have in those circumstances?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I cannot comment on any particular case. However, if an employer changes an employee's terms and conditions against the will of the latter, it is open to the employee to sue through the courts for breach of contract. Alternatively, if the employee considers that the contract of employment has been repudiated, he may resign and make a complaint of constructive unfair dismissal to an industrial tribunal.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would it not be wiser to defer debating this subject until next Tuesday when it will arise in Clause 1 of the Employment Bill, which incidentally the noble Baroness is seeking to strike out?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, we shall enjoy a far fuller debate on Tuesday.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that there is now special provision for the kind of case which has been referred to and that the industrial tribunals provide an
2258
interim hearing, and an interim reinstatement if appropriate, at a much earlier stage than is the case with any other form of industrial tribunal hearings? I know that is so because I sat on a case where just such a judgment was reached only about two weeks ago.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, the whole House is enriched by the experiences of my noble friend in this matter.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, I hope to speak next Tuesday on the Employment Bill. Will the Minister give me an assurance that the Government's attitude will be that if a man wishes to join a trade union he will be allowed to do so?
Lord Strathclyde: Of course, my Lords.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, the position is no doubt as the Minister has stated, but do not actions of employers such as those the noble Baroness has mentioned make a mockery of the first sentence in the Employment Bill that we are to discuss next week; namely, that it is unlawful to refuse employment to a person who is or is not a member of a trade union'?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord that under existing legislation that was enacted by the previous Labour Government an employer is allowed to dismiss all those who have breached their contracts of employment through taking industrial action. Such an employer does not have to face claims of unfair dismissal from those who have been dismissed through taking such action. We are improving the situation under the terms of the new Bill.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, what is the Government's view on the protection that should be afforded to a worker who is being denied membership of a trade union by his employer'?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, that is precisely the kind of issue that we shall be able to discuss next week.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would it not be possible, in the view of the House, to pass to the next Question as we shall have certainly one day's and possibly two days' debate on all these questions? They cannot be dealt with on the basis of question and answer.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is this not a new doctrine that is being introduced —that because something is to be discussed next week noble Lords should not be able to ask questions about it? Are our debates not based on the fact that questions should be asked about legislation so that a more reasoned and proper debate can take place?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am more than happy to reply to questions from noble Lords in this House on any subject, but it is normally the case that questions constitute requests for information. I try to supply that information as ably as I can.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister for all the responses he has given. However, will he say, without attempting to pre-empt the debate that will take place next week, whether the Government have considered issuing guidance to employers on these issues?
Lord Strathclyde: No, my Lords. That is, after all, a matter to be decided between employers and employees.

Cervical Smear Tests
3.12 p.m.
The Baroness Fisher of Rednal The Baroness Fisher of Rednal asked Her Majesty's Government:
What increase in cervical cancer smear tests they expect to arise from the new GP contract.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hooper): My Lords, the number of cervical smear tests examined in Great Britain has increased by two-thirds to approximately 5 million over the past 10 years. We expect a similar rate of increase to continue in the short term. We also expect the GPs' new contract which came into force at the beginning of April to provide a powerful incentive to GPs to increase the number of women screened.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that many women's groups are concerned about the undue delay in receiving the results of the tests? The waiting period in some cases can be as long as two to three months. Obviously that causes great concern and anxiety to many women who are awaiting the results. Is the Minister further aware that there is a grave shortage of laboratory technicians which is therefore causing delay in receiving the results?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I fully realise that anxieties have been expressed in that regard. We have asked laboratories to report the results of routine cervical smears within a month. Some laboratories have reported increased difficulties due to GPs making extra efforts to boost coverage, but our information from health authorities shows that around 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of laboratories achieve that one month target. However, we shall, of course, keep the situation under review, as will the health authorities.
I should add that for cases diagnosed as urgent, as opposed to routine tests, the reporting time is normally much less than one month.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, is it possible to tell whether a case is urgent or not until the result of the screening is known? Is the noble Baroness aware that there is a good deal of concern when delays in receiving results from laboratories can be as much as several months?
Does the noble Baroness accept that in many areas where there is a high proportion of people from ethnic minorities it is unlikely that any doctor will
2260
carry out smear tests because it is unlikely that he will reach even the minimum target and therefore under the new contract he will receive no pay? Is that not a very strange way of encouraging doctors to increase smear tests?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's first question, I believe that there are certain at-risk categories which can be identified as urgent. Obviously in the routine call and recall system one would not know whether a case was urgent until the results were received. However, in those cases presumably the women concerned would not be suffering the same anxiety as somebody for whom a test has been recommended for specific reasons.
A great deal of work is being done to encourage women from ethnic minorities to accept their screening invitations. Money has been identified from the breast screening budget to fund four cancer screening development workers. Those workers will examine primarily the problems faced by districts with multi-ethnic populations and the acceptability of breast screening. There are other funded arrangements: for example, the Department of Health has funded the full cost of a video on screening produced by the London Chinese Health Resource Centre. A number of health authorities have developed or are developing screening literature in ethnic minority languages, including invitations to screening and explanatory leaflets. We hope that there will be considerable progress in that particular area.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Baroness said earlier that, quite rightly, this matter is under review. I am sure that that will be warmly welcomed in all parts of the House. Will that review take into account the possibility that there may be insufficient laboratory scientists coming from the universities to meet what will be required for this and other matters?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers specifically to the GP contract. It is very difficult to predict the impact of that contract because the returns for the first quarter since the contract has been in operation are not all in yet. However, we are keeping the situation under review.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say what happens in the case of women patients in practices with only male doctors? Are any provisions made for them to go to another GP or to a hospital for the service? As the noble Baroness will be aware, there are certain groups of women who do not wish to be dealt with by a male doctor.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, there are many possible responses to meet that particular problem. They include the possibility of tests being taken in hospital or arrangements being made with women doctors in other practices.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, does the Minister accept that considerable sensitivity is being expressed by women who are single—not least nuns and sisters, and also women in their early sixties and those caring for those who are mentally ill —about the pressure that is inevitably being brought to bear in certain practices in order to bring the figure for screening up to 80 per cent? Does the Minister therefore agree that the review of the arrangements might include consideration of a graded system of reward instead of that sudden jump from nil at 50 per cent., £760 at 79 per cent. and £2,260 at 80 per cent? Would not a grading be a fairer way of encouraging screening and lessening the pressure on some practices?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, we have recognised that women have the right to choose not to accept what s after all only an invitation to be screened. Also, a doctor may exercise his clinical judgment in deciding whether or not to invite a particular woman for screening. That was recognised in not requiring the 100 per cent. target. That is why the target was set at 80 per cent. We believe that the grading that is provided, that is to say the lower target payment between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent. to which the right everend Prelate referred, is helpful in that respect.

Welsh Valleys Initiative
3.20 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris Lord Morris of Castle Morris asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to continue the Welsh Valleys Initiative.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has made clear his full commitment to the programme for the valleys. Last Friday, 29th June, he issued a statement, a copy of which is in the Library, about the excellent progress made in the first two years. He intends to make a further statement in the autumn setting out his proposals for future activities within the programme, which has been extended until March 1993.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that reply. But can he further assist me by telling me what specific budgets have been assigned by the Welsh Office for the Welsh Valleys Initiative for the coming three years, and whether the number of civil servants specifically assigned to the Welsh Valleys Initiative is planned to rise or fall?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the budget, which was expected to reach £500 million for the first three years, is protected for those years. However, as I indicated in my original Answer, a further statement will be made in the autumn. At that time the spending levels will also be assessed. I believe that the same would apply in respect of the number of people involved.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we shall read the Secretary of State's report with great interest. However, is it not at the same time the case that since the valleys initiative was launched industrial and employment prospects in the valleys have declined? Is it not also the case that in the last 10 years 27,000 workers have lost their jobs in the valleys? Can the noble Viscount give an assurance on behalf of his right honourable friend that there will be a commitment of real resources to revive the valleys?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, since June 1988 there has been a fall in unemployment in the valleys of 11,500. That is a considerably larger percentage fall —5.3 per cent. —than that for Wales, which was 4.2 per cent., and for the United Kingdom as a whole of 3.1 per cent. That indicates the effectiveness of the programme.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the Minister give the figures for depopulation in that period?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I could not do so without notice. However, the noble Lord will be aware that the traditional industries of coal-mining and steelworking in that area have become yesterday's industries and obviously newer industries have to arrive.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, the existence of the initiative is at least an acknowledgement that the valley communities of South Wales face severe problems. Can the Minister tell the House what part of the £500 million to which he referred is new money which has been channelled to the initiative? Secondly, are we to conclude that at present the department has no specific objectives for the initiative to be achieved by 1993?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it is impossible to be precise about the level of additional money associated with this particular programme. However, the programme itself gives expenditure a new focus and is a vital factor in the significant increase in and direction of activity in a number of key areas. One ought to look to some of the achievements; for example, the 58 inward investment projects which have been secured involving capital investment of over £136 million —one every two weeks—leading to the creation or safeguarding of nearly 8,000 jobs.
Lord Wade of Chorlton: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the valleys initiative has done a great deal to broaden the base of industry throughout the whole of Wales, and particularly in the valleys, and has provided greater opportunities for growth in Wales than we have seen for a long time?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he said. The Welsh Development Agency, for instance, has provided 826,000 square feet of advance factory space during those two years, which is a great increase.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, would the noble Viscount care to reconsider his off-the-cuff comment that steel and coal are industries of yesteryear?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I was indicating that the number of pits that are being worked in South Wales has declined enormously. I apologise to the House if I gave the wrong impression.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that the House will have heard with interest the reply to my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies that it is difficult to say what additional resources have been devoted to this programme? Is he aware that the general opinion in Wales is that the so-called initiative consists of Mr. Peter Walker adding up the total cost of the schemes introduced by his predecessor, now the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, publishing the result and hoping to claim it as a great propaganda victory? Will he agree that it is a publicity gimick that has gone wrong?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, if the initiative obtains the publicity which the noble Lord attributed to it, I believe that that in itself is some achievement. But there is no doubt that there has been economic, housing and environmental benefit. Over 1,100 acres of derelict land have been cleared and there is the prospect of the virtual elimination of dereliction from the valleys by the end of the century. That must be an achievement.
Lord Gibson-Watt: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it does not matter which Secretary of State in this Administration produced the plan. The fact is that in South Wales there has never before been a venture such as this and most people in Wales recognise it for what it is?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for those comments.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that two years into the Welsh Valleys Initiative the level of unemployment in Merthyr and Rhymney, which are at the centre of the valleys, is still the highest in Wales? In the light of that fact will he congratulate the former Secretary of State for Wales on having in the Welsh Valleys Initiative written the finest work of fiction since the Mabinogion?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord's proposition.

ECU: Rate of Exchange
3.27 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the hard ecu, as recently proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have a fixed or variable rate of exchange with the pound sterling.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the
2264
Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear in his recent proposal, both sterling and the hard ecu would be in the ERM and subject to the disciplines of that mechanism.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we welcome the initiative taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in contributing a further dimension to the interesting debate on the future of monetary policy in the European Community. But does the noble Earl agree that there is uncertainty about the long-term objective of this proposition? Does he accept that the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England have given the impression that ultimately this could lead to the creation of a single currency, whereas the Prime Minister in answer to Questions in another place gave the impression that in her view the ecu would remain a parallel currency? If it were to remain a parallel currency, would it not simply be a thirteenth currency within the European Community?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's welcome for what I said. It is true to say that if the system does not evolve into a single currency it will remain a parallel currency.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, to revert to the Question on the Order Paper, is it not the case that the value of the hard ecu will be determined by reference to the highest valued currency? At present will that not mean the deutschmark, which today stands at 2–95 to the pound? Does the Minister agree that the impact upon the United Kingdom of entry into the exchange rate mechanism will largely depend upon whether the United Kingdom chooses to be in the broad band or the narrow band in terms of convergence? Will he please clarify the matter so that the House and the country are not put into too much doubt as a result of the quite obvious divisions of urgency and emphasis between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, the lower band of the exchange rate mechanism is 2.25 per cent. There could be some fluctuations. It is a matter that is about to be discussed in the inter-governmental conference. It is a matter on which further work needs to be done before the inter-governmental conference. Your Lordships' views are most welcome.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord said that there are two possible and directly opposed interpretations of the policies put forward —one by No. 11 and the other by No. 10. Is it not extremely damaging to our reputation in the Community that we put forward two policies which cannot be reconciled, as the noble Lord has said?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no, it is not two policies; it is one policy. There is the proposal to put forward a hard ecu which could evolve into a single currency if that was what we wished at the time. That decision does not have to be taken now. The great strength of the British proposal is that it is evolutionary.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that if the ecu rate is fixed it will tend to become the international rate of exchange, whereas if it is variable great confusion is bound to arise between the ecu and international currencies? What is the Government's position on this matter?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord is not quite aware of the implications of the ERM, in which any currency can trade within a narrow band at present.
Lord Jay: My Lords, in fairness to the present Government, should it not be acknowledged that the Chancellor's hard ecu is probably the least damaging of all these crazy schemes?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it has certainly been accepted as a matter for very serious consideration with our European partners.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the practicalities of carrying a hard ecu, a soft ecu and sterling, and the practicalities of drawing up separate price lists?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there would not be a soft ecu because one would have a hard ecu and the national currencies, as at present. The hard ecu would be in line with the strongest of the European currencies. We believe that it offers good opportunities for tourists and business to begin with. But it may then evolve in its own way as people desire.
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, I should like to echo (or should I say ecu?) the welcome given by my noble friend Lord Ezra to the hard ecu scheme. I believe that it represents a serious attempt by government to get back into the mainstream of the debate. It also contains a great deal of good technical work. However, I have great difficulty in following the Government's logic.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Cobbold: My Lords, do the Government seriously believe that the full benefits of the single market, which they so fervently support, can be achieved with 12 separate, individual currencies, with 12 separate interest rate differentials, and —if one allows for the union between the Belgian and Luxembourg franc —with 11 balances of payments? It seems to me to be an impossibility.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's welcome for our proposal. I was not aware that he still had difficulty on this matter. I knew that he had difficulty with the previous proposition. If the noble Lord reads the proposal very carefully I am sure that he too will come to such a conclusion.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend encourage the Oxford University Press, or some other appropriate body, to issue a concise dictionary of technical terms in current use by Eurospeak in translatable English?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I understand my noble and learned friend's concern on the matter. If he is concerned and confused, what hope is there for the remainder of us?

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to know that the committee stage of the Environmental Protection Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 and the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990 will be taken.
Summer Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may also be for the convenience of the House to know that, progress of business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Thursday, 26th July and return on Monday, 8th October. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, 26th July.

Environmental Protection Bill
3.35 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee. —(Lord Hesketh.)
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly at this moment to explain why it is not my intention to move three amendments that are on the Marshalled List. I am advised that this is the right moment to make the intervention. If I were to intervene when the amendments were called I should be out of order in giving an explanation and then not moving them. Since there is a Motion before your Lordships' House, I am allowed to speak now.
I refer to Amendments Nos. 376C, 376D and 377CA. I put them on the Marshalled List two days ago. I allowed them to remain there because I thought it proper that noble Lords should see their import. However, since it was agreed at an earlier stage of the Committee that I would have the opportunity to discuss with the Minister another group of amendments relating to freedom of information, and since they fall within that category, I hope that the matter can be determined by discussion before Report stage. Therefore it is not my intention to move those amendments today.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 376A:
Before Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
("Amendment of hazardous substances legislation
. Schedule (amendments of hazardous substances legislation) to this Act (which contains miscellaneous amendments to the legislation relating to hazardous substances) shall have effect.")
The noble Lord said: I propose to speak also to Amendments Nos. 379B, 390A and 402A. Government Amendments Nos. 376A and 379B are to rectify shortcomings in the legislation controlling the location of hazardous substances in England, Wales and Scotland. They will enable this important new control system, which is not yet in force, to be introduced on a much more satisfactory basis than would be possible under existing provisions. The new clause to be inserted before Clause 133 gives effect to a new two-part schedule. Part I amends the hazardous substances legislation applying to England and Wales. Part II similarly amends the equivalent legislation applying to Scotland. The repeals to be added to Schedule 14 are linked to these amendments.
The legislation concerns the storage and use of substances which could present major hazards to people in the surrounding area. Hazardous substances consent will be required where named substances are present at or above specified amounts. There are transitional provisions designed to give existing users of hazardous substances an entitlement to a deemed consent in respect of their existing operations. The intention was that these deemed consents would relate to the situation in the 12-month period preceding the introduction of the new controls.
After considering representations from industry, we have concluded that the standard conditions which would attach to all these deemed consents under the existing legislation are effectively unworkable. They would mean that a substance would have to be kept and used in the same place and manner as it was immediately before the new controls came into force. This would contradict the objective of basing deemed consents on activity in the whole of the 12 months prior to the commencement date. Indeed, a substance used regularly during these 12 months may not even be present immediately before the commencment date. Therefore, paragraph 4 of Part I of the new schedule deletes the two offending conditions and enables revised conditions to be prescribed in regulations.
This is the most crucial defect. But there are other shortcomings in the legislation which we should like to remedy. These concern the position of statutory undertakers, arrangements for charging fees for applications, and technical points relating to conditions and compensation. Similar amendments are made in Part II to the equivalent Scottish provisions. Our consequential Amendment No. 402A has been replaced by Amendment No. 403A.I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: I regret to say that I am not fully up to date with town and country planning legislation. After looking at pages 10 and 11 of the Marshalled List can my noble friend say which Act inserted Sections 56B to 56G in the Town and
2268
Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972? When one is carrying out research into the Government's plans it helps to know where legislation comes from.
Lord Hesketh: On this rare occasion I must write to my noble friend to give him a concise and accurate answer.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 376B:
Before Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
("Public registers of land which may be contaminated

—(1) For the purposes of the registers to be maintained under this section, the Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) specify contaminative uses of land;

(b) prescribe the form of the registers and the particulars to be included in them; and

(c) make such other provision as appears to him to be appropriate in connection with the maintenance of the registers.

(2) It shall be the duty of a local authority, as respects land in its area subject to contamination, to maintain, in accordance with the regulations, a register in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars.

(3) The duty imposed by subsection (2) above on a local authority is a duty to compile and maintain the register from the information available to the authority from time to time.

(4)A local authority shall secure that the register is open to inspection at its principal office by members of the public free of charge at all reasonable hours and shall afford to members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register.

(5) Regulations under subsection (1)(c) above may prescribe the measures to be taken by local authorities for informing persons whose land is the subject of entries in a register about the entries or for enabling them to inform themselves about them.

(6) In this section —

"contaminative use" means any use of land which may cause it to be contaminated with noxious substances;
"land subject to contamination" means land which is being or has been put to a contaminative use;
"local authority" means —

(a) in Greater London. a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London;

in England and Wales outside Greater London. a district council;

in Scotland, a planning authority; and

the Council of the Isles of Scilly: and

"substance" means any natural or artificial substance, whether in solid or liquid form or in the form of a gas or vapour.").
The noble Lord said: The new clause deals with the serious and difficult problems of contaminated land. Contamination of land can come in a wide range of forms indicative of this country's long industrial history. It cannot be the subject of a single definition but, where it is found to exist, there is a need to make working assessments of the hazards that may be involved and to consider suitable remedial and protective action at specific sites, particularly when changes of land use are proposed.
Such action needs to be based upon the best possible information and knowledge. We provide technical guidance for dealing with contamination. But an essential element in any policies must be to consider ways of gathering information and to see how this might most usefully be supplied for public use. This has been a vexed question for some time. Any attempt to compile information can begin to

2269
involve the compiler in making judgments on the condition of land which might affect its value. This difficulty of blight on prospective sale or development requires careful consideration. Information needs to be available to landowners and to regulating authorities where there are genuine problems concerning safety and environmental hazard. But we have to find a basis for alerting those concerned to the need for further assessment so that the dangers are properly understood and remedied or fears about contamination are refuted on valid grounds.
As a result of our own pilot studies and several pilot registers by local authorities we have concluded that suitable registers can be compiled from desk studies of historic land-uses from which the potential for contamination might be inferred and further investigated where necessary, but without placing onerous responsibilities of judgment on those compiling the registers.
Consequently we have decided to introduce a statutory responsibility upon local authorities to compile and maintain registers of potentially contaminating land uses. We consider that the most appropriate level of local government for doing this is the district council in England and Wales; that is the level at which local environmental monitoring is undertaken and at which local planning decisions are taken. In doing so we are acting in accord with a recently published report by the Association of District Councils which recommended that district councils should have powers to survey and register contaminated land. As regards Scotland, we see planning authorities as the equivalent level.
The particular land uses to be plotted and the form of the register will be specified in subsequent regulations on which there will be the fullest possible consultation. We shall be publishing the report of the Cheshire study later this month to show the kind of methods that are likely to be needed. Some further research and studies might be required to verify the full range of land-uses involved and to produce profiles of suspected contaminants. But we intend to work closely with the local authority associations in deciding on the form and content of the proposed registers.
An important feature of the proposed system will be public accessibility of the registers. We shall also need to consider how far, and in what way, owners of sites on the registers should be specifically informed. The proposed new clause makes provision for free access by members of the public and also provides for regulations to set out measures for informing those whose land is directly affected.
This may sound an extremely onerous set of tasks for local authorities. In fact, it has been our experience from the various studies and pilot local authority exercises that such registers can be set up and maintained with minimal demands on resources, using those staff already engaged in such activities for planning or environmental purposes. So I commend the clause to the House. I beg to move
3.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: As a result of the publicity it is no surprise that the Government have recognised the fact that there is a major problem as regards contaminated land in this country. It is sad that the recognition of that contamination has not been matched by an adequate response. The Minister in charge of the Bill on Third Reading in another place gave a commitment that the Government would table the amendments now before us. However, he gave a commitment to stronger amendments. The present amendments are unsatisfactory in a number of ways.
The Minister in another place said that the registers would provide a way of alerting interested parties to the potential for contamination so that where necessary site surveys could be undertaken. In introducing the amendment today the noble Lord did not deal with the problem of alerting interested parties. In response to the problem of blight he merely said that it deserves careful consideration. That is no answer to the problem.
The Minister in another place referred to the need for site surveys. However, the amendment contains no such provision; there is no funding for site surveys. I do not dispute that the correct level of responsibility for registers of contaminated land is the district council. However, if the district councils are to be responsible for registers of contaminated land there must be some consistency of definition but not a single definition, as the noble Lord said. There must be a consistent definition across the country, otherwise those responsible for dealing with contaminated land will not know what to do.
There is no provision for site surveys; there is no provision for adequate verification; and, above all, there is no funding for the clean-up cost. It is not the cost of maintaining the registers that is the problem, as the Minister suggested, but it is the clean-up cost. That provision is missing from the amendment. We have not been able to deal with the matter in a future amendment and shall return to it at a later stage.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 376C and 376D not moved.]
Clause 133 [Deposits of substances and articles in the sea, etc.]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 376E:
Page 133, line 20, at end insert:
("(1A) Before section 5, the following section shall be inserted—
"Restriction on issue of licences for depositing or incineration at sea.
4.—(1) This Part shall have effect subject to the requirements of this section.

(2)No licence for depositing at sea, or incineration at sea, shall be granted under this Part where in the opinion of the licensing authority such a licence would be for the deposit or incineration of anything which it would, having regard to environmental considerations, be more desirable to dispose of on land.

(3)The Ministers shall for the purposes of this section make, and from time to time modify, regulations specifying those types of waste which appears to them to be desirable to dispose of on land, having regard to environmental considerations" ").

The noble Lord said: It is for the convenience of the Committee that I speak also to Amendment No. 377 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Again, the Government have woken up to the issue of the disposal of waste at sea. At the North Sea Conference in March 1990 the Government made welcome statements about their long-term intentions in dealing with the major problem. I remind Members of the Committee that the Government stated that we would cease to dump sewage sludge at sea by 1998; we would end the dumping at sea of liquid industrial waste by 1992; and that we would phase out marine incineration of UK waste by the end of 1990.
It is one thing to recognise the problem and I congratulate the Government for doing so. However, what is not clear is the action that they propose to take in the interval between now and the deadlines that they have set, in particular the deadline for the dumping of sewage sludge at sea. If we are to meet the deadline of 1998 there must be a progressive decline in the incidence of dumping at sea. If we are serious about the deadline we must prepare now for the substantial investment which will be involved in developing other means for disposing of sewage sludge. At present we dispose of 10 million tonnes of sewage sludge per year. The equivalent dealt with by land disposal would require 10 incinerators costing possibly £200 million capital with continuing running costs of £50 million per year. Where will those incinerators be sited? How will they receive planning permission? Will it be the responsibility of individual water and sewage authorities to find locations or will the Government help?
What sort of programme do the Government have to ensure that there is progressive movement towards eliminating sewage sludge dumping at sea by 1998? We suggest to the Committee through this amendment that there should be a predisposition in favour of land-based disposal at sea from today's date rather than from 1998. We suggest that unless there is that predisposition in favour of land-based disposal, the Government will not achieve their deadlines.
We do not propose to divide the Committee on this amendment. However, as a result of tabling it we wish to hear the Government's detailed and urgent proposals to achieve the deadlines which they set themselves at the North Sea Conference in March of this year. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and speak also to my Amendment No. 377. This amendment would effectively require the pre-treatment of substances before they are dumped at sea, which would thus minimise their damaging effect upon the environment. I suggest that the Government should give very serious consideration to all the issues raised here as there is little point in trying to clean the beaches if various obnoxious substances are being washed on to them.
Lord Campbell of Croy: The Committee will recall that I have tabled Questions and taken part in
2272
debates over the past two years on the subject of dumping at sea. I was glad to congratulate the Government when they were able to announce at the time of the conference that they were making a great step forward. Whether they can go as far as this amendment and whether it is practical to do so I shall be interested to hear.
I should like to point out that there seems to be a misprint in subsection (3). Surely the word "it" should appear before the word "appears", or else "appears" should not have a "s" on the end.
I should like to mention incineration at sea. I am glad to see that the word "at" is in the amendment because incineration at sea does not necessarily mean that anything goes into the sea. In most good incinerations the residue, which is quite small, can be brought back to land and disposed of entirely safely.
Expert environmentalists have stated that incineration at sea is very often the best and most effective way of dealing with some wastes because if there is incineration on land, the people living in the area may not be subject to any danger but they may be subject to some very bad smells. Provided that what is going into the atmosphere is not polluting it, carrying out that process 100 miles away from land may be the better course.
I have only one question for my noble friend. Today we have started to deal with Part VIII of the Bill and I note that the words "member state" appear. That is in Clause 132. I have looked at the definition. There are many definitions for each clause but I cannot see to what "member state" refers; whether it is automatically a member state of the EC or some other organisation. That does not seem to be mentioned. I do not expect an answer straight away but at some time during the debate on Part VIII today it would be helpful to be told why "member state" appears on its own without any indication of the organisation to which it refers.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington): The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, are already covered appropriately by the FEPA licensing system, which requires the licensing authority to have regard to the need to protect the marine environment and to the practical availability of alternative ways of dealing with the substances to be disposed of.
Those provisions fulfil our obligations under the relevant international treaties—the London Dumping Convention and the Oslo Convention —and have been proved to be effective in practice. The number of licences issued for dumping at sea has been drastically reduced over the years because suitable land-based alternative means of disposal have been developed.
Furthermore the Government have been able earlier this year to set termination dates for the sea dumping of liquid industrial waste, flyash, sewage sludge and marine incineration because of the considerable efforts which have been put into the development of safe alternative disposal methods.

2273
In answer to the query of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about the deadline of 1998, water companies are drawing up programmes to be ready by the end of 1990. Planning requirements will take time; for example, as regards the location of incinerators. Amounts of sludge dumped will be reduced before 1998 as and when environmentally sound land-based alternatives can be put in place. Our achievements in respect of finding safe alternative disposal methods were endorsed by the North Sea Conference in March of this year and at last month's meeting of the Oslo Commission. Other countries made a point of congratulating the UK on those achievements.
As regards the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the Government see two problems with it. First, by referring to the reduction of polluting effects it implies that a licence might be given where harm might be caused to the marine environment. I should like to make it quite clear that we will not permit the dumping of waste at sea if there is a risk of this causing pollution. We would not wish to water down chat position by agreeing to issue a licence if best available technology not entailing excessive cost (BATNEEC) had been used because pollution might still be caused.
Secondly, the amendment implies that BATNEEC can be generally used on the types of waste licensed. The Government are terminating licences for industrial wastes, sewage sludge and incineration at sea. The main category of dumping which we expect to continue to licence will be spoil dredged from harbours and navigation channels. There is no treatment which could practically be applied to the huge quantities of spoil which must be removed to keep open our ports.
The Government consider BATNEEC to be a powerful tool in the control of waste disposal. However in the particular context of dumping at sea it is not practicable to require it and it would weaken rather than strengthen our control system. I would therefore hope that both noble Lords will withdraw their amendments.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy that my noble friend Lord Hesketh is in charge of this Bill and I should hate to interfere with him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I know that the noble Baroness achieved a friendly response with that last remark, However, government is a seamless robe. Whoever is the spokesman on the Front Bench is responsible for answering for the Government and the noble Lord raised an important constitutional point which should not be ignored. If an answer is required, as I believe it is, it should come from whichever Minister is standing at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I said that I expected an answer at some time during today's Committee stage because it was rather a fast ball. However, it is a rather important point.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may reply not only to my noble friend but also to the rather terse remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. The phrase "member state" is not defined
2274
in Clause 132 as it is defined elsewhere. I believe that it is defined in the European Communities Act 1972. Clause 132 has already been discussed since Clauses 130 and 132 were tacked on to the debate on Part II.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I thank my noble friend for producing that answer so quickly, particularly as she is dealing only with a specific section of the Bill. It makes clear what I guessed might be the case, "member state" refers to EC membership, and other member states of the EC. However, that is not stated in the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful that my terse intervention, in the sense that I prefer to use the word, gave the Minister the chance to reply to the question immediately.
The reply given to the substantive amendment before us was interesting. The Minister congratulates the Government on having received the congratulations of other members of the North Sea Conference. I suspect that those congratulations come from other members not because of anything outstanding that we were doing, but because we were so terrible before that any improvement we make is a matter for congratulation. After all, we are the only country to be dumping waste into the North Sea on a significant scale, and it is only the pressure which led to our commitments at the North Sea Conference which led to these improvements. It does not mean that we are doing well; it means that we are not doing as badly as we were before.
Some of the answers given by the Minister deserve careful consideration. I shall certainly not pursue the amendment; but I do not think the Minister paid any attention to the issue of the cost of the incinerators that will be required. There will have to be substantial investment in addition to the planning preparation to which she referred. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 377 to 377CA not moved.] Clause 133 agreed to.
4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) moved Amendment No. 377D:
After Clause 133, insert the following new clause:
("Public registers relating to deposits in the sea and incineration at sea
In Part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, for section 14 (registers of licences) there shall be substituted the following section —
"Duty of licensing authority to keep public registers of information
14. —(1) It shall be the duty of each licensing authority, as respects licences for which it is the licensing authority, to maintain, in accordance with regulations, a register containing prescribed particulars of or relating to —

(a) applications for licences made to that authority;

(b) the licences issued by that authority;

(c) variations of licences effected by that authority;

(d) revocations of licences effected by that authority;

(e) convictions for any offences under section 9 above;

2275

(f) information obtained or furnished in pursuance of section 8(3), (4) or (5) above; and

(g) such other matters relating to operations for which licences are needed under this Part of this Act as may be prescribed.

(2) No information shall be included in any register which, in the opinion of either of the Ministers, is such that its disclosure on the register—

(a) would be contrary to the interests of national security, or

(b) would prejudice to an unreasonable degree some person's commercial interests.

(3) Information excluded from a register by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above shall be treated as ceasing to prejudice a person's commercial interests at the expiry of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the Minister made his decision under that subsection; but, on the application of any person to whom it relates, the Minister shall decide whether the information should be included or continue to be excluded from the register.

(4) Where information of any description is excluded from a register by virtue of subsection (2)(b) above, a statement shall be entered in the register indicating the existence of information of that description.

(5) It shall be the duty of each licensing authority —

(a) to secure that the register maintained by the authority under this section is available, at all reasonable times, for inspection by the public free of charge; and

(b) to afford to member of the public facilities for obtaining copies of entries, on payment of reasonable charges.

(6) Registers under this section may be kept in any form.

(7) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations.

(8) Either of the Ministers may exercise any power to make regulations under this section and any such power shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." ").

The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 377D, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 383BA, 398A and 402ZA. Amendment No. 377D is a technical amendment. Its purpose is to keep the provisions for public registers of information on the dumping of waste at sea, already in existence under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, in line with similar provisions for registers contained in Part I of the Bill. I apologise to your Lordships for its late arrival.
Amendments Nos. 383BA, 398A and 402ZA are consequential amendments following the introduction of the new clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 378 not moved.]
Clause 134 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 379 not moved.]
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 379A:
After Clause 134, insert the following new clause:
("Dog Registration
. —(1) For the purpose of protecting the environment, the Secretary of State shall by order, in accordance with subsections (5) and (6) below, make provision for a scheme for the registration, identification and control of dogs.
(2) In making an order the Secretary of State shall provide, inter alia, for the scheme to be administered by local authorities, and for the fixing of registration fees, including such variations as may be prescribed, to be paid by the owners, or keepers of dogs to the relevant authorities.
An owner or keeper of a dog who fails to register it or to ensure that it can be identified in accordance with regulations made under a scheme in accordance with this section shall be
2276
guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.
(4) In performing their duties under this section, local authorities may enter such agreements with any person as may in their opinion facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.
(5) The Secretary of State shall not later than 12 months from the passing of this Act lay an order under this section before Parliament for approval in accordance with subsection (6) below.
(6) Any order made under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and no order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(7) In this section "local authority", means in England and Wales a District Council, a London Borough Council or the Common Council, and in Scotland means a District or Island Council.").
The noble Lord said: I should like to thank all noble Lords and the usual channels for ensuring that the debate on this amendment takes place at a reasonable hour of the day instead of the usual time of one o'clock in the morning.
I am sure that no Member of the Committee will be misled by the media which suggest that this amendment is a great constitutional or party matter. It is not. It deals with the method of controlling our dogs. As for being a party matter, a similar amendment was defeated in another place by only 12 votes. Moreover, the Government are very anxious about the problem. Accordingly, last week they issued a consultative paper describing their preferred method. I say "preferred" because my honourable friend Mr. Heathcote-Amory indicated on Sunday that if the Committee decides that this amendment is a better way forward, then the Government will accept the Committee's decision.
Once again it is open to your Lordships to decide, without any political pressure, which way to vote. Should the Committee approve the amendment, it would be up to the Commons to give it its blessing. If it did so, there would be a period of one year before the Secretary of State would have to lay before Parliament an affirmative order giving precise details of the dog scheme. I purposely say "dog scheme" because although registration is an essential part of it, it is only a means to an end. That end is sound dog management.
During the year the Secretary of State will have to discuss the details of the scheme with all interested parties. However, I would be more than usually naive if I thought that the Chamber would let me get away without saying how some of the detailed problems concerning dogs could be tackled if the amendment were accepted.
The scheme could, and almost certainly would, provide compulsory third party insurance. The Government scheme does not do so. There would be opportunities for the private sector to operate the scheme by agreement with the local authority. It could provide for reduced fees for deserving cases; for instance, a reduction could be given for neutered or spayed dogs, guide dogs for the blind and indeed block registration for groups of dogs. Perhaps I may refer to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mancroft on this matter. I hope I can put his mind at rest on this point by saying that I shall certainly

2277
not oppose his amendment to my amendment if he chooses to move it.
The Government scheme does not tackle those problems, particularly neutering. The proposed scheme would remind the purchaser of the puppy that dogs cost money; that they take time, effort and care to keep. The Government scheme does not do that. The scheme will only create one new offence —that of failing to register. The Government scheme suggests creating many new offences, including having a dog out of control or persistently at large. I wonder how many of your Lordships' dogs —I think particularly of my terrier or somebody else's hound —might fall foul of that offence. As a field sportsman I am anxious about that Government proposal.
Because all dogs would have to be registered it would be possible to identify the dog with the owner. It is not the dog that is at fault; it is always the owner. If a dog, particularly a dangerous one, was not registered, that fact would be easily obtained from the central registration computer. The owner then has two or three courses open to him. If he takes the risk of going out in the street with the dog, there is a good chance that he will be apprehended by a dog warden for having an unregistered dog. He would then be guilty of the offence of not registering. I shall be more than happy to explain in more detail later if I am cross-examined.
The Government believe that our registration scheme could not be enforced. I totally disagree. Other countries have very successful schemes. Are the Government suggesting that we in this country are more undisciplined, unruly and fail to obey the law than, say, Australia, America or Sweden? If that is what the Government say, it is a bad admission. In any case, I do not believe that that is the case.
The Association of District Councils is happy to work this scheme, but not the Government's scheme. The association is happy to do so because neither the association, local councils, your Lordships nor the poll tax payer will have to finance it. The scheme will be adequately self-financing through the registration fee. Therefore, there will be enough money to police the scheme. The Government scheme, —they want dog wardens and dogs wearing collars—will rely on local authority funding. With all the burdens that local authorities have to shoulder today —care in the community, new litter regulations in Part IV of the Bill, and so on —what chance will they have to fund the Government scheme, particularly if they are poll tax capped? If the Committee accept this amendment there will be no need for the Government scheme. I suggest that we might find a suitable place in Part IV of the Bill for the pamphlet.
There is one other important point. Noble Lords are often accused of tabling amendments that cost money. The scheme in my amendment does not cost money. It actually saves the Government money. Therefore, for once we cannot be accused of introducing an amendment that costs money.
The Daily Telegraph—a paper that cannot in any way be described as Left-wing—last week published a survey in which 91 per cent. of the people interviewed (one-third were dog owners) supported my amendment and, in particular, dog registration. I repeat, 91 per cent. We put down 350,000 unwanted stray dogs each year. We allow unwanted and uncontrolled dogs to bite our children and our policemen, to abort and kill my sheep, and to foul the pavements. As a dog owner, and indeed a dog lover as my ancestors have always been before me, as a farmer and shepherd involved with animals all my life, and as a member of this Chamber, I hope that the Committee will support the amendment. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 379A, Amendment No. 379AA:
After Clause 134, line 8, after ("variations") insert ("or exemptions").
The noble Lord said: It has been mooted that my amendment to my noble friend's amendment may be in some way a wrecking amendment. I suggest that it is no such thing. I support, as I believe many noble Lords do, the principles behind my noble friend's amendment and, indeed, the Government's proposals in their pamphlet The Control of Dogs The principle on which I believe we now all agree is that in this country there is a problem in two specific areas of dog ownership. First, the enormous numbers of strays, as my noble friend pointed out and, secondly, large and rather unpleasant dogs biting small and almost as unpleasant children.
Everyone in this country agrees that those are not the good aspects of dogs. Therefore, much as we dislike the idea of more controls, rules and regulations we must face the fact that they must apply eventually to dog ownership. I do not want to debate the merits of my noble friend's amendment or the proposals put forward by the Government. However, I do want to show to the Committee that if it decides that my noble friend's amendment is the right route there is one problem; that is, there are no exemptions from payment. One of the principles we have established during the course of this Bill is that those who pollute pay to repair the pollution, so to speak. Taking that concept a little further, it seems to me unfair that those owners who have responsibly looked after and controlled their dogs for many years should have to pay for policing dogs whose owners have not done so.
Obviously the millions of dog owners in this country would all stand up and say that they are good owners and should not pay. Therefore, in my amendment I suggest not that certain groups should not register—I believe that all should register—but that certain selected groups should not have to pay. The most obvious of those come under the loose heading of working dogs. By that I mean police drug and bomb sniffer dogs, sheepdogs and, obviously, guide dogs for the blind. There is also the important area, often forgotten, of those places where large groups of dogs are kept together. The most obvious are training establishments where guide dogs for the blind are trained and 50 or 100 dogs are kept in one

2279
place. Such places spend much time raising money to buy the dogs and it is extremely expensive to train them. It would be unfair to put a further toll on those establishments when the dogs are being kept for the purpose of training them; which is why we are introducing a registration scheme in the first place.
My amendment establishes only the principle of exemption from paying. That is all. The detail would be decided in the affirmative order which the Secretary of State brings forward during the course of the next year. That is when a decision would be made about these groups and individual dog owners. The joy of my noble friend's amendment is its simplicity and we can perhaps assume that simple things work the best, but it is very much blanket coverage over an enormous area. My amendment would give us the ability to raise a corner of the blanket and provide an escape route whereby those who we feel should be excepted can be, but without in any way destroying the principle of registration. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: I support —
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I should like
Lord Stanley of Alderley: The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, has her name down to the amendment.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: I want to speak against both of the amendments. I should like to say a word in favour of dogs and dog owners and against both the amendments, of which that spoken to by my noble friend Lord Mancroft is marginally less offensive.
Dogs are the friends of man. No one doubts the necessity for legislation on dogs. They must be prevented from straying; they must be protected from abandonment or cruelty; they must be discouraged from defecating in inappropriate places; and they must also be kept under proper control. However, I speak partly from my own experience. Dogs are companions to the lonely, the old, the frail and, I am sorry to say, also those who could not pay my noble friend's proposed registration fee which I understand could be as high as £25. It is all very well to say that the amendment costs no money but a more preposterously untrue statement has rarely been made in this Chamber.
The scheme will not cost the Government a penny. It will not cost the local authority much, but it will cost the individual dog owner a high amount. I do not know how much, nor did my noble friend or my other noble friends who proposed the amendment to the amendment tell us what scale of costs it would involve. My guess is that £25 per year would not be a large mis-statement of fact. I should like to hear what the Government Front Bench think about it.
To stop the old, the lonely and poor from owning dogs is preposterously cruel to human beings. Would it be kind to dogs? We hear that 350,000 dogs are put down every year. I believe that if the amendment were passed, 700,000 dogs might well be put down
2280
every year. More dogs would be abandoned, or left to stray because it would be precisely those who either could not or did not wish to pay the registration fee who would abandon dogs and leave them to stray. There would be no means in the hands of the Government of enforcing the legislation because, by definition, the dogs would never have been registered at all. This is a preposterous piece of proposed legislation.
I speak a word from personal experience. When my wife died, I was left with her little dog. I cannot tell noble Lords what that little dog meant to me. Of course I was able to pay the then dog licence fee without the smallest difficulty. I have no doubt that I could scrape together £25 a year to keep my present dog who has taken her place. But there are plenty of people who could not. This proposal is ill thought out, and I hope that the Committee will not pass it.
Baroness Nicol: I support Amendment No. 379A, together with the amendment to it proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has told us of the Government's latest consultation paper. I welcome much of what has been proposed in that paper, particularly with regard to the tightening of legislation already on the statute books. However, there is still no satisfactory way of enforcing measures to deal with the serious problems associated with dogs. The amendment proposes a scheme that will help to solve the problem. It will not solve it completely, but it will help.
Only a comprehensive national dog registration scheme can form the soundest way of ensuring the proper control and welfare of dogs in our society. When we consider the issue before us, several factors must be taken into account. First, there is the need to identify a dog with its owner. We heard the horrific figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and I understand from the Battersea Dogs Home that, of the large number of dogs put down by them every year, many are not strays, they are simply dogs who have become separated from their owners. There is no way of identifying them because dogs will stray a long way from home. Only by this registration—
Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Baroness's excellent speech, but surely dogs ought to wear collars with the name and address of their owners stamped upon them. There is a method of tattooing dogs with an identification mark. These actions are desirable, and it does not necessarily support the amendment to ignore them.
Baroness Nicol: I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will feel differently when we have reached the end of the debate because there are many more points to make. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, told us that registration would be a self-financing scheme. That is a great attraction. It would not call on government funds, the local authorities would administer the scheme, and they believe that it is practicable. Many have written to us to say so.
The Government have indicated that they wish to transfer responsibility for strays from the police

2281
and the county councils to the district councils. I welcome that measure. A registration scheme would provide funds for up to 1,000 dog wardens. The noble and learned Lord is anxious about the level of the possible registration fee, and I shall come to that in a moment. These wardens would not only be responsible for the enforcement of by-laws, the scheme's policemen, if you like, but they would also be the scheme's teachers. The development of a comprehensive network of dog wardens would do more than anything else to promote responsible dog ownership. That in turn will do more to prevent the neglect and cruelty that leads to straying or dangerous dogs. It will lead to a reduction in the incidence of dog fouling.
The Government have said on other occasions that the dog licensing system in Northern Ireland —part of the Dogs Order 1983 —does little to contribute to dog control. They say that it appears to have had no significant impact on the number of strays. However, the director of the environmental health service of Belfast City Council, Mr. Brian Hanna, has said on many occasions that there has been a real reduction in the number of strays and a consequent reduction in the number of dogs destroyed. That view is shared by the Ulster Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary also supports the licensing system, saying that there have been fewer accidents in the Province since the measure was introduced. There are other reasons why a registration scheme is necessary. Introducing the need to register would reduce the impulse purchasing of puppies, especially at Christmas. Registration would provide a national database on dogs which could be used to encourage spaying, worming and vaccination. In the event of an outbreak of rabies —more likely with the advent of the Channel Tunnel and the increasing incidence of rabies in Europe —registration would be vital. The Minister —having been a Member of the Kennel Club ℄will be interested to know that the scheme would help to ensure the reliable registration of pedigree dogs.
The Joint Advisory Committee On Pets In Society, known as JACOPIS, which represents a wide range of organisations involved with dogs —dog wardens, local authorities, vets, environmental health officers, welfare groups and pet food manufacturers —all support dog registration and have jointly produced a scheme which meets all the Government's worries on the grounds of costs, practicality and purchase. It must be stressed that it is not a panacea, but it would assist greatly in the problems relating to dogs. The Minister's officials have been supplied with details of the scheme, and we look forward to hearing his comments in due course.
The self-financing scheme requires dogs to be registered at a cost of £15 initially and £10 annually thereafter. This would generate about £50 million in the first year of operation, assuming that half Britain's dog population were registered. That in turn would provide the capital injection needed to ensure the success of the scheme in future years, relying, as it would, on reduced income as more
2282
owners renewed their registration at the lower fee rate. Once capital expenditure had taken place in the first year of the scheme's operation —on, for example, computer terminals, equipment for kennel wardens, and training staff—the recurrent proportion of the registration fee spent on administration would be about 20 per cent. of the total income raised.
The noble and learned Lord was concerned about people who could not afford to pay for dogs. The amendment which we have put forward already allows the Secretary of State to make variations in the scheme. That aspect has been strengthened by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. There is no reason at all why the Secretary of State should not include relief for those who are unable to pay the fee or, for example, in the case of guide dogs for the blind or other such cases.
Questions have been raised in the past about the technology used to record information about a dog and its owner. Wood Green Animal Shelters—a member of JACOPIS —is an organisation which currently operates the voluntary National Pet Register that is held on a computer system designed and programmed for 80 million entries. We estimate that there are about 7 million dogs in the country at present. Even if all of them were to be registered, that computer system could easily take the extra work. The system provides for 1,000 remote terminals and 100 telephone lines. It is a system which is accessible 24 hours a day and 365 days a year. The scheme proposed by JACOPIS would fund between 600 and 1,000 wardens which would be sufficient to make a substantial impact on the enforcement problem.
The Government cannot wash their hands of the problems associated with dogs. They cannot expect local authorities to foot the bill from their already over-stretched resources, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said so eloquently. Hundreds of thousands of dogs are destroyed annually. The majority of owners love and value the ownership and good service of dogs. Every year these potential friends and allies of man are rejected, starved, maltreated or literally thrown into the ditch by those who have too thoughtlessly acquired them. Some owners acquire their dogs without the means or the intention of developing the mutual care and trust that dogs can and do give, if properly treated and trained. If people want them and value them, they will willingly pay a modest registration fee.
I urge noble Lords to support the amendment. It is eminently sensible, cost-effective and practicable. The Government must be persuaded that registration is needed, for it underpins the measures, many of which are welcome and necessary, which were outlined last week. Ultimately, it is registration which will make those measures work for the good of dog owners and non-owners alike.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: I strongly support the amendment. Initially I was very open-minded on the matter. However, I have been approached by both sides and I now come down very firmly on the side of those who wish to have a dog registration scheme.

2283
I should like to point out first that the dogs we normally think of are pets. Of course, we all know the arguments about people wanting dogs: that they can be man's best friend, and so on. It is only natural that people should want dogs. Nevertheless, it costs a person between £150 and £200 a year to keep a dog. Therefore, if they cannot supply the sum of £15, or whatever it may be, for the registration fee, then they probably should not have a dog. I believe, as does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that older people should probably be among those who would be exempt from paying this fee.
One only has to read the reports from the RSPCA to realise how many pets are totally neglected. Many of them end up as skin and bone and have to be rescued. In fact, only last week in Wimbledon, one saw officers of the RSPCA inspecting the parked cars and breaking the windows of some of them because dogs had been left inside. There was even a baby left in a car last year. I understand that it only takes half an hour in the heat of an enclosed car to cause the death of a dog. That is all I have to say about pets, but I must take the matter a little further. We must also consider the position of the guide dog and other such dogs which should be exempt from the fee.
However, there is now a much more sinister angle on dogs. Criminals are now training Rottweilers to counter the police dogs. They are trained to help the criminal carry out his crime. There are also many long dogs all over the country which are used on a large scale for deer hunting. These gangs roam throughout the countryside running down deer at all hours of the day and night. The owners of these dogs are virtually free from prosecution because no one can catch them. Even if they are caught, there is an extensive exchange system in operation. If someone is caught with a greyhound, the dog changes hands the next day so that there is no way of ascertaining to whom it belongs. The only way to deal with the situation is by introducing some form of registration.
I was very interested —and I do not think I have heard this mentioned —in the small capsule which can be inserted underneath the scruff of the neck of a dog which becomes a permanent means of identification. It does away with the need for the collar which, in any event, is never used. Indeed, how many dogs have collars? In my view, very few of them. However, once the little chip is put into the neck of the dog that is the end of the matter.
I live very close to the Cleveland dog pound where many dogs are put down every day. I have heard that as many as 1,000 dogs are destroyed every day. It is true that if the registration scheme came into being that number would increase to perhaps 5,000 per day. However, once the situation had settled down one would hope that the number of destructions would drop dramatically. Indeed, this has actually happened in other countries where the scheme has been introduced.
I asked my young son who is a computer expert about the number of computers needed to run such a scheme to cover —and I think I am right in this
2284
figure—about 15 million dogs. He said that any ordinary medium-sized computer could run it with the greatest of ease; it was no great problem and no enormous computer would be required.
The Government's scheme mentions the dangerous breeds of dogs. However, it is very difficult to ascertain which breeds are dangerous. Are we to muzzle all dangerous dogs? In my view, that in itself would be cruelty. Moreover, what is a dangerous breed? Is it a dog which is part Rottweiler and Alsatian, one which is two parts Rottweiler and one part Alsatian or one which is one part terrier and two parts Rottweiler? Where does one draw the line as regards a dangerous breed? I know that we may not have any postmen in the Chamber, but those who have spoken to them will be aware that very often the terrier is probably the worst offender in this respect. Therefore, presumably, they would also be muzzled under the Government's scheme.
I believe that the system of registration is working well in Ireland. It is very much supported by the NFU, the RSPCA and various other groups. I very much hope that either the amendment will be carried in its present form or that another of similar effect will be accepted.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I deeply regret that this matter has been brought before the Committee in these circumstances. It does not really belong to this monumental Environmental Protection Bill on which we are now on the seventh day of the Committee stage. If this was the Second Reading of a Bill for the care and control of dogs, I think that we could all feel relaxed and go into considerable detail on the complexities of the proposal for a registration scheme, the need for it, its cost and other matters which are relevant to any support or objection to such a scheme.
However, the constraints of time on the Committee stage of a Bill of this kind at this late date, and after the late hour we reached last night. is not fair either to those who are interested in the matter or to those who are waiting to deal with other matters which are more relevant to the content of the Bill before us. I regret the pretentious form of words of introduction to this proposed new clause. They have been contrived to make it relevant to the Bill rather than to express the main purpose of the amendment: the protection of the environment. That is the purpose behind the new clause.
We all know —do we not? —that there are environmental problems related to dogs in society. However, to propose the establishment of a registration scheme of such dimensions, together with the instructions to the Secretary of State about them, seems to me to be out of proportion to the relationship between the dog problem and our environmental problems generally.
Nevertheless, I am bound to say that this occasion arises, like others similar to it, from the failure of the Government to give a reasonably favourable response to proposals which have come from many quarters, and especially from the animal protection societies, about the future administration of the control and care of the dog population. That results

2285
in deadlock. I hope that the Minister will say something this afternoon to resolve that deadlock. The registration scheme is put at the forefront of the proposals for change in the minds of many of the reformers in respect of the dog control laws and the powers of local authorities, the police and so forth. It was said in another place that registration is a prerequisite for all other dog reforms. It is not. It will, or may, accompany other dog reforms, but it is not a prerequisite and so it does not justify being put at the forefront of the debate on dog problems.
I regret also the way in which the campaign for the dog registration scheme in the media and by certain of the animal societies has created an atmosphere of hostility towards dogs. I underline the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who spoke about the importance of dogs in human affairs. Perhaps I may modestly say that I produced the first comprehensive report on dogs in society. I was then chairman of the Joint Advisory Committee for Pets in Society. I took a great deal of evidence and had a great deal fo help in producing that report from everyone concerned, including the local authorities and the police.
The debate is about the most popular animal companion in Britain. It is about the consolation and comfort of 3 million pensioners. Out of our 7.25 million dogs there is no doubt that well over a third are in the homes of lonely people. We must take that fact into account. It is deplorable that to achieve reforms for the better care and control of dogs we have had to generate a feeling of hostility, when every bite of a child's arm, every attack and everything else connected with dangerous dogs appear on the front pages of newspapers, which creates the ethos that dogs are a menace to society.
I blame all governments since I produced my report in 1974. All have been indifferent to the importance of the matter, or, what is more likely perhaps, they believe that it is so politically sensitive that to touch it is to ask for trouble. We all know that over the years successive governments have regarded some questions as being outwith the scope of government legislation and they have been left to the Private Member's Bill procedure. This is one of them. Abortion was another. We have had plenty of examples of all those moral issues —marriage, divorce and so on. But it is that divide between issues that deserve government attention and those which are to be left to the hazards and frustrations of the Private Member's Bill procedure which leads to the problem that now exists with this matter.
The Government have not introduced a dog Bill. They have produced new proposals. They hurried them along in order to get them out. The proposals have an important bearing on this afternoon's discussion. That is something to which I shall come to in a moment. I shall not deal in detail with the proposed registration scheme. In my report I recommended the continuation of the licensing arrangements and an increase in the licence fee. That was followed by an interdepartmental committee of the various departments connected with the issue which made recommendations similar to mine; but nothing was done. We tried to get something done,
2286
but nothing was done. The Government said that the dog licence fee was dynamite. That was the clue as to why they did not wish to touch the matter.
We are discussing a registration scheme which, so it is said, is to be self-supporting. It will cost dog owners much more than was ever contemplated in my scheme, even allowing for inflation. We apparently feel that we can send such a proposal on its way.
There has been a scheme along the lines of mine operating in Northern Ireland for some time. Again, we asked the Government to let us have the Northern Ireland scheme in Britain. They said that circumstances in Northern Ireland were exceptional. All the dogs wander about in packs because bombs go off and houses are blown up. Some are Protestants and some are Catholics. They say that the situation is very different there. However, they have a registration scheme there, they have a licence and they have dog wardens. We have many local authority dog wardens in England. Many schemes have been improvised in the absence of any change in the law.
I want to devote myself for a few minutes to the likely consequences of what we may do this afternoon for the progress of future discussions and reforms of the dog problem. That is important. Whether the amendment is passed or defeated today, it will begin to close doors on future progress on animal care and control. Is that what we want? I shall explain why. The Government are backing this horse both ways. They appear to resist but are willing to lie down and let it go over them if this place so desires. That is not the spirit in which a government should come here to deal with such a proposition. Yet the Minister in a television interview on Sunday gave the impression that, if Parliament wants the scheme and if this place passes the new clause, it will not be resisted when it goes back to the other place. He implied, "We shall take it, and we shall try to do something with it". That is not the spirit. If there were a little more spirit behind the proposal, business could have been done, but it was not so.
If the Committee passes this new clause this afternoon it will give the Government one year's respite from further agitation and campaigning on the subject. They will like that because the new clause provides that the Secretary of State will have 12 months in which to produce a scheme and lay it before both Houses of Parliament. The Committee should then notice that what the Secretary of State produces and lays before Parliament at the end of his 12 months in purdah is the requirement that it be implemented by statutory instrument. Have you ever heard anything so preposterous in your life? A set of proposals of this kind, involves money, obligatory registration, enforced payment of a licence, levy, tax or fee, whatever one likes to call it and further proceedings and heavy fines if one fails to register or refuses to pay. Such people will join the poll tax defaulters' queue and flood the courts. The idea is preposterous.
I leave that point aside now because we have not yet reached that stage. But if we pass the amendment this afternoon we shall have transferred the debate to Whitehall. It has a job to do under the new clause.

2287
It will get on with it, and in the meantime the campaign for registration will cease. The press will lose interest in dogs—except the bad ones —because the reform will be under the consideration of the Secretary of State for the Environment. If there is to be silence on the registration scheme for up to a year, the Government will presumably have a smoother run for a Bill based on the proposals in the pamphlet. If we are to have a Bill in the next Session to implement those proposals the clause will to some extent undoubtedly forestall ideas that would otherwise be left over to be considered in connection with a registration scheme. Indeed, it would give the Government an opportunity of getting these reforms in place while the registration scheme is being cooked up by the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Passing this amendment today will postpone further progress on this matter as part of the dog problem for up to 12 months. But it may do more damage than that if it is rejected. This is the dilemma. If it is rejected this afternoon, there is a shut-down. It is a setback. It is a dismissal of the registration scheme as a prerequisite, or perhaps any part whatever, of dog control. Therefore, either way there is likely to be impeded progress with the work now going on and under discussion between the animal societies and Ministers to get something going more rapidly and more comprehensively than we have so far.
Let us take the timetable just a little further. Twelve months from the passing of this Bill will take us to October 1991. October 1991 will see the beginning of the last and shortened Session of this Parliament, because the general election must be held by June 1992. Therefore, this report and laying before Parliament and the grandiose scheme for registration, etc., may come at a time when Parliament has already gone into a state of election jitters and when there will be no time to pursue the matter this side of the general election. Therefore, if you pass this new clause this afternoon you defer further progress on registration until after the general election.
Suppose a Labour Government come in. I said "suppose". They are committed to sweeping away the poll tax and reinstating the rating system, or something of that kind. They are going to be up to their necks in the problems of the poll tax when they come in, and I think they will have little time to devote to a dog registration scheme with all its little troubles and fees.
This led me to make overtures to the supporters of this clause to withdraw it after a reasonable time for discussion. Why withdraw it? The reason —this is where the timetable comes in again —is that allowing for the time between now and the Report stage means that we have between now and October, because the Report stage and the Third Reading will now come in the overspill. It seems to me that we have these weeks in between to establish relations with Ministers to see whether the expressed wishes of so many Members of both Houses, and the desires of many people outside, can come a little closer to their own thinking. Can something be done to bring
2288
in a little more comprehension and a little more purpose, and a less piecemeal approach to dog reform?
I advise that this new clause should be withdrawn to allow those discussions to take place. But the sponsors of the new clause say that they are under such pressure that they cannot withdraw it and that it must go on. I cannot help that. I am sorry if that is the position. I inquired this morning of the Clerk of the House whether it was possible for me to move this afternoon that the debate on this amendment be postponed. He said that he had never heard of that. Well, fancy —all these years in your Lordships' House and nobody has thought of a useful little device like that. He could not recall such a case. He said that they would probably say, "Postpone to when?" I said, "Well, that is easy. It shall be postponed until the Report stage of this Bill. We then come back to see whether we have any suitable product of the discussions that have taken place in the meantime".
But are we then going to be restrained from exercising a commonsense approach to this situation by imaginary difficulties in postponing the debate, or adjourning the debate, or the possible intransigence of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite, for whom I have the greatest respect but who I do not believe have understood fully and measured fully the political and procedural consequences of what we are asked to do this afternoon? If we pass this amendment it will be at least three years before we see any comprehensive scheme of reform for the care and control of animals. I think that that would be a great shame.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: The real trouble with dogs in this country is that we are an urban population. We are about 85 per cent. urban, and of course the problem is that so many dog owners, especially in our big cities, do not understand dogs. The noble Lord who has just sat down said that this amendment should not come up in a Bill about the environment. I do not agree with him at all. After all, the fouling in our big cities touches on the environment. That is not the dogs' fault; it is the human beings' fault.
I have trained dogs. I have had dogs all my life, and so have my family. My ancestors had dogs. One ancester of mine had a favourite dog and he arranged a wonderful funeral for it. He had 60 dogs —or it may have been 50 —come to the funeral dressed appropriately. That is quite true. That was the sixth Viscount and second Earl.
I support this amendment. As has been mentioned, we have had it tried out in Northern Ireland. I agree that it has not paid the expenses. I understand that it has paid for about half the expenses of the wardens and organisers. However, I understand that the Government do not really want this amendment because they think that it will lose money, and of course it may lose money. You would have to have a large organisation running it and then you would have to have the wardens. It would probably lose money, but personally I think that if the charge was £10 a dog it would certainly pay for half of the scheme.

2289
Of course, old-age pensioners are another matter. I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned that. Dogs give 3 million old people tremendous pleasure. That is a great point in favour of the clause —that the pensioners should not be charged. They should have the scheme free for their dogs. I think that the dogs ought to have discs rather than be tattooed.
The other question that the press is now rather playing up is the matter of dangerous dogs. Human beings are dangerous, and much more dangerous than dogs. We have heard about alsatians, Staffordshire and pit bull terriers and all these other dogs, but they are not dangerous if they have the right owner. To a great extent dogs take after their owners in their behaviour. I do not mean that they get drunk or anything of that kind! I have trained many dogs for all kinds of purposes, especially sheepdogs and shooting dogs (of which some people may not approve) and dogs like alsatians and bull terriers. My daughter's two babies were always guarded by alsatians; yet those dogs come under the class of dangerous dogs. It is the person who makes them dangerous.
I know of many bad-tempered men. However one tries to persuade them not to be bad tempered, they cannot help it because it is in their nature. One can take bad temper out of the nature of a dog but not the nature of a man. I do not want to hold up the Committee. I support the clause, which would have a tremendous advantage. Dog wardens would be able to prevent fouling in our cities, which in our big cities is not at all
desirable.
5 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby questioned the relevance of the Bill to the environment. There is one aspect of the environment to which the amendments are highly relevant, and that is the working environment of many thousands of people, who, because of their occupations, have to approach houses which are strange to them and where very often there are dogs that find them even stranger. I am talking about postmen, meter readers, policemen and milkmen. Last year 8,000 cases of savaging of postmen by dogs were reported.
In so far as the amendments are directed at increasing the sense of responsibility of dog owners, surely one can expect that, as a consequence, there will be more care in training and controlling dogs and a greater possibility of identifying miscreant dogs. Very often it is not possible to identify the owner and bring home the consequences of the action of his or her dog. I hope that noble Lords will bear that aspect in mind in reaching a conclusion.
I am most sympathetic to the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. There is no monopoly of affection for dogs in any part of the House. There is no monopoly of concern that people who need dogs to comfort them should have that opportunity. If I were not satisfied that the amendment and the amendments to the amendment could not produce the possibility of old people
2290
keeping their pets, I would vote against it. I believe that the amendments will make that situation possible.
The Earl of Balfour: I declare an interest, being the proud owner of a large black standard poodle. As the proposed new clause is worded, anybody who arranges for another person to look after his dog while he is away from home is liable to pay a double registration fee because the clause speaks of the, "owner or keeper of a dog". Accordingly, the first of my amendments proposes to leave out the words "or keeper".
The clause commences with the words,
"For the purpose of protecting the environment".
Thereafter it has nothing to do with the environment. As the clause is worded, the owner of a registered dog could take —perhaps on a lead —the mangiest, flea-ridden creature, rotten with worms, for walks around a fishing harbour and over the rocks where children love to play. It is only by the insertion of the words "his dog" at the end of subsection (4), as proposed in Amendment No. 379AD, that there can be any co-operation between the local authority and responsible dog owners. Otherwise, I wonder what kinds of persons the local authorities will dream up in order to facilitate the registration and identification of dogs.
In regard to identification, are dogs to be branded or to have metal tags put in their ears, as is the case with horses and cattle in some countries? Dogs scratch themselves and I do not want to see my animal with a bloody ear. My dog was tattooed when he was a puppy, but due to his thick black coat I now cannot read a single letter.
From a general point of view the proposed clause is far more draconian than the old licensing laws because there is no distinction between the different classes of dog. I wholeheartedly support the amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. The old dog licence was not required until the dog was six months old. It excluded certain working dogs —for example, sheepdogs. The clause appears to be a catch-all and makes no distinction between a chihuahua and a great dane, a dog for the blind and a sheepdog, a highly skilled hound or gundog and the mongrel that is pushed out of the house when the family go off to work, or the pet belonging to an old age pensioner and a police dog. If the police dog belongs to a particular force, his keeper will also require a registration certificate.
The new clause falls down in that it makes no distinction between the responsible and irresponsible owner.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I should like to say that we have no Whip on the Labour Benches. I am not giving a lead. We are not even on a leash. Members on this side of the Committee are free to listen to the arguments and come to their own conclusion as to whether the main new clause or the amendments are to their satisfaction.
Lord Tordoff: I think that the noble Lord may have misunderstood the situation when he stated that

2291
there is no Whip, because I understand the Labour Party has a new Chief Whip in this House, and I should like to congratulate him.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: We will take that as read. The debate has demonstrated that there are arguments and views that are passionately held on all sides of the Committee. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, rose to his feet, his first words were:
"I want to speak in favour of dogs and dog owners".
I too should like to speak in favour of dogs and dog owners. There is nothing in the registration scheme which is anti-dogs or dog owners. "You pays your money and you takes your choice".
If people want to pick holes in the registration scheme, they are entitled to do so and they are probably right. There is no way out of this national problem which cannot be negatived by looking at it in detail. I have listened to the various arguments. The Bill presents us with an opportunity which some people see fit to use. We can either use and support that opportunity or we can reject it. If you reject it, what do you do then? You wait until the next opportunity when someone else comes along and you say that this is not the right time. There is a mood in the country. Something positive and big must be done. That may be right or wrong. I do not envy the Government, who must be seen to take the mood of the country, whether it is right or wrong, and to legislate or assist in the legislation.
The new clause is in order and it is perfectly proper for it to be debated. I hope that the Committee will support the principles and the details as far as they are able to be included in the scheme. It is not perfect. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, introduces a whole raft of possibilities affecting the ultimate shape of the legislation, but the Committee must decide on the principle; namely, whether we want a dog registration scheme.
Some of the statistics are horrendous. I shall not go over them. The Committee has been well served by those who are passionate advocates or passionate opponents of a scheme. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and to my noble friend Lady Nicol, for their speeches. My noble friend said that the registration scheme was sensible, cost-effective and practical. There may be reasons why people reject it. I live in Enfield where there are rottweilers and children have been savaged by dogs. We all have our own ideas and experience of how dogs should be controlled. None of us can be positive and dogmatic about what is right or wrong. We must have a feel about the matter.
Some emotive language has been used. It has been said that the registration scheme might be detrimental to the lonely, the old, the frail and the poor. Those words ring hollow. That is not the intended effect. However, if those people are disadvantaged by the scheme, it is capable of looking after them, thanks to the exemptions clause.
The lobby encompasses the RSPCA, the ADC, the NFU, the AMA and many others. All have experience and expertise in these matters and allow
2292
owe responsibility to their members. When a range of bodies across such a spectrum says that a registration scheme is the answer, the Committee would do well to take note.
The Earl of Selkirk: The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has put the case extremely well. The purpose of the measure is to treat a dog not as a toy but as a privilege. In other words, the status of the dog in this country should be raised.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, finds the Bill so undesirable. There is a simple course open to him: he can table an amendment at the next stage of the Bill. He criticised the structure of the Bill and said that the proposal was in the wrong place. I have recently been involved in the Scottish legal services Bill which is about as mixed a measure as you could possibly find. We got through that somehow, for good or bad. I have often said in this place that I wished Bills were better drafted. The noble Lord always agrees with me on that point.
The question of price was raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. People have to pay for many things in this world. For example, our great toy today is television. I am told that 97 per cent. of people have a television in their home. The noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, will correct me if I am wrong, but the number is very high. The RAC says that about 80 per cent. of people have the use of a car. I do not know how they do it, but they do. Perhaps some of them steal cars; I do not know. Many people in this place own guns and they must pay a gun tax.
That argument is not in itself an objection to the course that my noble friend Lord Stanley has in mind. Everything costs a price. We should force the Government to take action. As my noble friend said, it is urgently desired in this country. I believe that the RSPCA desires such action. We should accept the amendment to show that we want something to be
done.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: I wish to intervene briefly to follow my noble friend Lord Murray and to reply in some measure to my noble friend Lord Houghton. I do not understand how he can say that the measure does not fit into an environmental Bill. Last week we spent some time on an amendment dealing with the state of the streets. The state of the streets was attributed to dogs. As I recall, we could not do anything about the dogs which perpetrated the mess; it had to be the person involved who was charged.
If the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, lived in the borough where I live, he would be delighted because, when Cruft's comes and all the owners bring out their dogs, it is practically impossible to walk round the streets. There are thousands of dogs. This is definitely an environmental matter in every sense of the word and it fits well into the Bill.
I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. We have heard a great deal about the poor and old-age pensioners. Quite a number of people in this place are old-age pensioners. Perhaps the

2293
noble Earl cannot afford the £20. I shall be happy to help him with it so that he can keep his dog. I did not notice so much talk about old-age pensioners, the poor, the lonely and the frail when we debated the community charge. If the Government are willing to let these people off paying the community charge, I am sure that they will not object to paying a simple sum to keep a dog. That is not an argument for the registration scheme. As we have heard, people pay their television licence fees and other such fees. Anyone who cares for his dog will be only too delighted to have it registered. We are after those dogs.
I am a little shocked that my noble friend Lord Houghton did not think that the media should report the horrific attacks on children by those dogs. What a strange atmosphere we sometimes find in this place! Some people compare animals with human beings. There is no animal living that can be put on the same scale as a human being. The noble Lord said that human beings are unpleasant. What does he suggest? Perhaps we should round up some of those human beings, register them and make sure that they are held under control.
We in this country are schizophrenic about dogs. We are supposed to be great dog lovers, yet we have all those unfortunate dogs. If you talk to any vet —I have one in the family —they do not like having to destroy those dogs which are bought on a whim and turned out. A registration scheme will stop that kind of thing In reply to my noble friend Lord Houghton, I should say that we all know that it is the oldest device in the world: if you want to get something done, you fit it into a Bill that is about to come before this place. For heaven's sake, let us get something on the statute book. That is all we want. I plead with the Committee to support the amendment.
Lord Gibson-Watt: We all have a different view on this subject. I should like to say briefly why I have some doubts about the necessity of bringing in legislation.
As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, there is no doubt that this matter at present engages much national interest and national anxiety. It is doing so for three reasons; first, because of dangerous dogs; secondly, because of fouling; and thirdly because of strays. I doubt whether registration in itself, even if it is a prerequisite as some have said, will solve the problem. A registration scheme as large as this would be extremely difficult to administer. People often move house with their dogs and therefore the computer record would become out of date very quickly.
Such a scheme would also increase bureaucracy. This new body of people would cost a considerable amount of money. The London School of Economics carried out a survey for the RSPCA. It found that the scheme itself might cost £20 million and that a proper warden scheme might cost another £25 million. Those are considerable amounts of money. Who will pay? Whatever we may say, the baddies will get away with it. The people who will pay are those who keep decent homes and decent training kennels. I fail to see why they should sustain all the
2294
costs of the scheme. The Minister has already said that the Government are not prepared to find the money for it.
Reference has been made to the success of licensing in Northern Ireland, but one-third of dog owners there have not taken out dog licences. Vehicle excise evasion here amounts to £113 million. Television licence evasion amounts to more than £1.5 million. Evasion is easy and a scheme of this kind would be difficult to carry through and to administer.
Reference has also been made to exemptions. We are told that guide dogs would be exempt. Sheep dogs —I wonder. My noble friend Lord Stanley told us that he was once a shepherd. I too was a shepherd once. Why should they receive special treatment? What about packs of hounds? What about the man who lives only a mile away from me who keeps 25 dogs in clean kennels and sells them as sporting dogs —spaniels and retrievers? What about him? Is he to pay £25 multiplied by 25? That would not be very fair. What about old age pensioners? After all, the lady of the house, at 60 rather than 65, will register the dog. I urge my noble friends to think carefully about what is not an easy matter. To do something for the sake of doing something is not necessarily right.
The Government have produced what I consider to be a good consultative paper. I urge them to do just one thing. They should give local authorities right of entry to unlicensed dog breeding centres—what we call puppy farms. Those are a disgrace. Local authorities cannot easily get into them at the present time. That loophole should be closed. I ask the Committee to hesitate before supporting the amendment.
Lord Molloy: What is remarkable about the debate so far is that some Members of the Committee who love dogs are completely opposed to any form of registration and others who also love dogs fervently believe in registration. Arguments have been exchanged with good humour.
The problem has been brought upon us because the Government have quite blatantly done away with the dog licence. They have done so despite the fact that 8,000 people are bitten every year, 10,000 head of livestock are killed or maimed and thousands of strays cause hundreds of thousands of accidents. Something must be put in place of the dog licence. This proposal has been supported not only by Members on both sides of the Committee but also by many national organisations. They have done so for a variety of reasons. The National Farmers Union supports the principle of registration. Many dog owners support registration, as do postmen and many other groups who suffer because dogs are not properly controlled.
In another place the Minister agreed that more had to be done to resolve dog problems. He was quite correct. However, the general public wants action on dogs creating health hazards, on stray dogs, on dangerous dogs and on bad owners. The Minister cannot say on one occasion that something must be

2295
done and then, when something is proposed to do what he wants done, say that he opposes it. That is absurd.
I listened carefully to the moving speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. It did not completely destroy the argument for registration but it put on the agenda a point that must be seriously considered. The noble and learned Lord referred to old people living alone —but one can be rich and lonely or poor and lonely. If the amendment is accepted I hope that the noble and learned Lord's point will be taken fully into consideration.
I shall vote for the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and so ably supported by my noble friend, Lady Nicol. I shall do so not because I agree with everything that they said and not because I agree with everything that has been said during the debate. I shall do so because now is the time to deal with the problems relating to dogs. We are genuinely a dog and horse loving nation. It is because of our great love for animals that we have these important debates. However, the time has come for us to create an official link between the dog and his owner. Registration will do that. I am firmly of the opinion that that is precisely what the public requires.
Lord Boardman: I have a special and perhaps unique interest to declare, in that I was once bound over, and remain bound over, for keeping a dog in unsafe custody. I had a most lovable terrier, one of which my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham would approve, which happened to bite the relief postman. Having said that, I entirely support the intention of the amendment —it is right —but I cannot support the amendment in its present form. I share the reservations expressed by my noble friend Lord Gibson-Watt. I shall not weary the Committee by repeating them. The amendment is not perfect in achieving the objectives which are set for it. The questions proposed in the Green Paper are valid. I hope that the Government will press ahead, gather responses to those questions and in the light of those responses bring in such further measures as should be appropriate.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: I wish to praise the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, for bringing this point before the Committee. He put everything across superbly well, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. I do not wish to speak for any length of time at all, but I should point out that I have had the good fortune to speak to Dame Janet Fookes from another place, as well as to other people who are professionally involved with dogs and to representatives of societies concerned with the care of dogs.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, like many of the good Members of this Chamber, is old. I know a lot of good old people who keep goldfish and cats as pets rather than dogs. We hope that registration will be introduced. Old people who keep dogs will also have to pay a fee. However, that should be a much reduced sum. Those are all details which will have to be worked out later, after registration is introduced.
2296
One thing that should be mentioned is the fact that in 1992 we shall enter the Common Market proper. All of the countries in the EC have a dog tax or a registration scheme of sorts. Owners of dogs within those countries pay a sum of between £5 and £15. Some EC countries have legislation which requires dogs to wear tags.
We should reflect on the idea of a microchip or a tattoo in the dog's ear as opposed to a tag. I talked to a vet the other day who was a little worried that such a measure may become law. On the question of tattooing dogs, he said he would need a microscope if he were to tattoo a chihuahua's ear and a Churchillian nerve to tattoo a Rottweiler's ear.
Farmers are going through a rough period and have been for some years. That position is likely to continue for some years to come. Farmers across the water are sometimes not very helpful to us in this regard. Let us not try to undercut farmers any further. Last year 400 hippies invaded the area where I live in Devonshire. Some of my neighbouring farmers had their sheep attacked by the dogs of the hippies. Those dogs were unregistered and completely uncared for. They killed 56 sheep in two months. That is, after all, a dog's instinct. They killed a £300 ram which had been bought two weeks previously. The farmer who owned the ram had not had a chance to insure it. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley, made a brilliant point as regards insurance. Insurance is an absolute must.
Further, our materialistic society now indulges in puppy breeding. I could show the Committee a photograph of little puppies in a dumping pit which were bred for sale. The Kennel Club says that such pedigree dogs are already registered. However, these dogs are bred specifically for shows. We should consider registration as a means of avoiding this disgusting practice of breeding dogs for money rather than through a sense of love for the animal concerned.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and other Members of the Committee have said that we in this country love our dogs. If that is the case, we shall not mind paying to register them. Children who are bitten by dogs are often bitten because they have teased the dog. Some children think it is fun to tease dogs. When they tease dogs some of them get bitten. Some children have been badly injured and others have died. We obviously feel terribly sorry for the families of those children. We must consider this Bill carefully and accept this amendment.
5.35 p.m.
Baroness Strange: I should like to say a few words in favour of this amendment, and particularly of the amendment of my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I speak in favour of those amendments on behalf of the dogs themselves. Everyone who has spoken has done so from a human point of view. Dogs cannot speak for themselves. It is not fair that we are all registered at birth, while dogs are not. Dogs are important and we all love them. Therefore it is only fair that dogs should be registered. However, we should make exceptions so that the old, the lonely and those who cannot afford to register their dogs should not have to pay a registration fee. A fee

2297
should also not have to be paid for working dogs, as in the case of my friend Shogun, the police dog, who was in the Chamber earlier this afternoon before the Committee sat. I support the amendment.
Earl Attlee: I apologise for not having been present at the beginning of the discussion on the amendment. Unfortunately my wife is in the Cambridge military hospital in Aldershot. I had to visit her and then drive to the Chamber from there. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, to inform him that I would support his amendment. However, as I was nor present at the beginning of the discussion on the amendment, I may inadvertently repeat some of the arguments which have already been made.
Speaking personally, I cannot see any reason why Rottweilers and pit bull terriers are allowed into this country. They are vicious animals and they serve no useful purpose. A terrible case was reported in the newspapers the other day of a police constable who was attacked by a Rottweiler. He had not done anything to the dog but he had to strangle it to get free. Even when the dog was dead, its jaws remained clamped tight on the policeman's hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, mentioned the former dog licence. He said that we should have something in its place. I should have thought the obvious thing for the Government to have done rather than having abolished the licence —I believe that it cost seven shillings and six pence —was to have increased it to a reasonable sum of money at current prices.
I am in favour of a microchip implanted in the ear. That seems to be logical and an easy thing to undertake.
I read some statistics somewhere —I suppose statistics are always suspect —which asserted that more people were attacked by Alsatians than by Rottweilers and pit bull terriers. That is not surprisiig when one considers how many thousands of Alsatians there are in this country compared with the comparatively small number of Rottweilers and pit bull terriers. I support this amendment.
The Earl of Buchan: I wish to address the Committee on behalf of a group of friends who cannot address your Lordships themselves in any circumstances. However, if the Committee listens carefully from a westerly direction, their voices can be heard. They should be listened to carefully because they are calling for help. I refer to the inhabitants of the dogs' home at Battersea.
There are at present 500 dogs in the cages at the Battersea Dogs Home. Anything that can be done to reduce that appalling total must be done. Dog registration is a blindingly obvious solution to the problem. Therefore I was very much taken aback by the intemperate remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He may rest assured that should his dog by any mischance stray and end up in Battersea Dogs Home, it will be at least as well treated as any other common dog.
The preferred solution of the people who run Battersea Dogs Home is the implant that has been referred to by a number of speakers. This simple,
2298
glass-encased, minute device is placed in a dog's ear. The process is painless. The number is registered on a central computer and the microchip can be read by a hand-held scanner. The scanner can remain in the possession of a vet or be held in a police station or on any other convenient premises.
Battersea Dogs Home has just completed one year's successful trial of this device. Some 4,000 of the devices have been implanted. The dogs' home is entirely happy with the device and recommends it to other charities that are concerned with the care of dogs. The technology involved is well tried and comes from America, where over 1 million animals have received this implant. I should add that a carp can also receive such an implant. The device is capable of being placed in fishes. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
The Earl of Radnor: I hope that I may be able to make my point within one minute. It has been suggested by the Government and by noble Lords today that the June 1990 consultative document offers an alternative to registration. I cannot see that. There are already plenty of laws in place to deal with dogs and dog handling. Perhaps they are not as comprehensive as they should be, but we are dealing not with the laws to control dogs but with the enforcement of those laws. Before there can be enforcement I believe that there must be registration. Otherwise one can make more and more laws about Rottweilers or any other breed which Members of the Committee might care to mention, but, without registration and the ability to enforce those laws, the whole thing becomes a waste of time. Therefore I am in complete agreement with my noble friend and shall vote for the amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: I make no apology for the fact that I shall take some time to set out the Government's response to the amendment and what they propose to do of their own accord. The Government have a responsibility to explain this so that no one can say that we did not make it absolutely clear why we believe that the amendment will not achieve what it sets out to do.
I have been closely connected with the subject of dogs ever since I first came to the Front Bench in your Lordships' House. The first amendment that I lost was in the 1988 Bill on this very subject. I was somewhat surprised last autumn when the Bill was about to begin its passage through Parliament and I asked whether there was any possibility that dogs could in some way become attached to it to be confidently assured that that was in no way possible. I had a feeling that I should be in this position on this very day.
The basis of the Government's objection to the idea of a national registration scheme is a simple one—we do not believe that it would work. Not only would it not work, but in failing to do so it would cost a considerable amount of money that would better be spent in dealing directly with the problems of fouling, straying and dog attacks, which have so eloquently been described by Members of the Committee this afternoon. It is direct measures that

2299
are the answer and it is direct measures that the Government propose.
Some noble Lords have already referred to the consultation paper The Control of Dogs which was issued jointly by the Home Office, the Scottish and Welsh Offices and my own department last week. It sets out for discussion a number of proposals both on the control of dangerous dogs and, more importantly, on dog control generally.
Extensive coverage by the media has given particular prominence recently to the increase in reported attacks by dangerous dogs. Those attacks have involved dogs from a wide variety of breeds, although it is attacks by a small number of breeds that have attracted attention, notably the Rottweiler, the Pit Bull Terrier and others that I shall not name. The Government have already supported measures to strengthen and update existing legislation on dangerous dogs. They gave support to the measures contained in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989, introduced in another place, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is now seeking views on further powers for the police, local authorities and the courts.
First, last week's consultation paper suggests that we should create a new offence of allowing a dog to be dangerously out of control. This would be easier to enforce than the existing offence set out in the 1847 Act which is unclear. Secondly, the paper suggests that the powers that a court already has to order a dog to be kept under proper control should be made more flexible. That might include a power for the court to require a dog to be kept on a lead or muzzled in advance of a court hearing.
Secondly, the paper seeks views on the very difficult issue of whether particular controls should be extended to specific breeds of dog. There have been calls to ban the ownership of specific breeds which are widely seen as dangerous or to impose particular controls, such as a muzzling requirement, on such breeds. Although we await with interest the response from consultees on this issue, the paper points out that there would be serious problems in deciding upon the list of breeds that should be included. There would also be technical difficulties in identifying the breed of any individual dog, and particularly cross-breeds, in order to make any such controls effective.
Although media attention has focused on the problem of attacks by dangerous dogs, most people's everyday experience is that the greater damage to the quality of the local environment is caused by those owners who allow their dogs to stray and to foul public areas indiscriminately. Those problems were addressed in the Action on Dogs consultation papers which my department and the Scottish Office issued last summer.
The Action on Dogs papers proposed to transfer from the police to local authorities the duty to deal with strays and to clarify the power of local authorities to enforce the existing requirement for dogs to wear a collar and identification tag when in public. The papers also suggested that there should be a specific power for local authorities to charge
2300
owners seeking to collect their dogs from detention a sum, probably of about £20, over and above the costs of kennelling the dog.
On the problem of dog fouling, the two consultation papers drew attention to the proposal, now incorporated in Part IV of the Bill, that the Secretary of State should have powers to include dog faeces within the duty on local authorities to keep their land clear of litter and refuse. In order to ensure that local authorities have the right tools to back up that new duty, the papers also sought comments on the operation of the present dog control by-laws in England and Wales and invited comments on the scope for by-laws in dealing with dog control problems in Scotland. The responses received are being carefully considered by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who plans to make an announcement of his conclusions shortly.
The proposals in the Action on Dogs papers were generally welcomed, but we were interested in a number of suggestions on how the proposals, on straying and identification in particular, might be strengthened. We have been discussing those ideas with the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society, which includes among others representatives from the RSPCA, the NFU, the Association of District Councils and the British Veterinary Association.
The Control of Dogs consultation paper which was issued last week discusses two ideas in particular: first, that there should be a specific offence of allowing a dog persistently to stray, and, secondly, that there should be a fixed penalty scheme for the enforcement of the collar and tag provisions. Both of those ideas form part of the package of dog control measures in force in Northern Ireland for the past six years. Members of the Committee have argued that the Northern Irish example, including compulsory dog licensing, is one that we should follow in the rest of the United Kingdom. Officials from my department have visited the Province to discuss with all the interested parties the strengths and weaknesses of the scheme.
It is abundantly clear that its strengths cannot derive from the system of licensing itself since it is estimated that little more than one-third of the dogs in the Province are licensed, despite the low level of the £5 licence fee and considerable enforcement efforts. The scheme also gives the lie to the argument that registration would reduce the number of stray dogs which have to be destroyed. The number of strays being put down in the Province has increased, not decreased, since the introduction of licensing six years ago.
However, the scheme illustrates that direct measures —for example, enforcement of identification requirements —can be effective. This is particularly true in the case of the reduction in the number of livestock worrying incidents in the Province. The reduction results from the fact that the 1984 order brought Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom in giving farmers the right to shoot dogs that were worrying livestock or looked likely to do so.
It is the best elements of the Northern Irish scheme that we wish to look at more closely. It is not

2301
currently, in the rest of the United Kingdom, an offence to allow one's dog to stray. It is possible for owners, to allow their dogs persistently to stray, with no penalty other than the effort of collecting it from the police or local authority and paying reasonable kennelling costs. Owners do of course risk the threat that the dog may be destroyed if it is not collected within seven days.
The Action on Dogs paper suggested that in addition there should be a specific power for local authorities to charge owners an additional sum. Respondents to the paper suggested that, as an additional incentive to owners to exert proper control over their animals, it should be made an offence to allow a dog to stray, as it is in Northern Ireland. We have to be careful, of course, not to increase the disincentives to collect a dog from detention, which would be counterproductive. But the idea seems worth exploring further, and we shall be interested to see the response.
On the question of identification of dogs, we remain convinced that the most effective way of identifying a dog with its owner is effective enforcement of the existing requirement for dogs to wear a collar and identification tag. An identification tag is easy for any passer-by to read —the quickest way to ensure that a stray is reunited with its owner. Unlike a microchip implant or tattoo, it does not require any elaborate scanning equipment or reference to a central register. Any dog not wearing its tag can be rounded up as a stray. The idea that a fixed penalty scheme might operate in enforcing the requirement (as is also currently the case in Northern Ireland) is one that we think worthy of further exploration.
Those are the measures that the Government have in mind. What part would a national registration scheme have to play? Support for a national registration scheme is cross-party —as the list of movers of this amendment illustrate. Noble Lords have reminded us of how many bodies and individuals in the animal welfare field are in favour of dog registration. But with all due respect to the wide range of support expressed, in the Government's view the arguments in favour of registration do not stand up to closer examination.
One of the key arguments put forward has been that only with a national registration scheme can a link be made between dog and owner for the purposes of enforcing existing or proposed dog control provisions. In an ideal world, filled with ideal dog owners, that might be true. But in an ideal world, there would be no problems caused by dogs in the first place. Our problem is with the far from ideal owner: the irresponsible owner who allows his dog to foul public places, stray and even attack passers.by.
In our view it is wholly unrealistic to argue that that group of owners will comply with a registration requirement. It will be yet another of the many dog control provisions that such owners evade or ignore. The example of the Northern Ireland licensing scheme is not encouraging, with little more than a third of dogs licensed. If a registration scheme does not get at the irresponsible owners who cause all
2302
the problems, then the argument that registration provides the link between dog and owner is a weak one.
Registration for that scheme costs £5 less than that proposed in the new scheme. "Ah," say the supporters of registration, "but all that is needed to ensure a high level of compliance is to put a high level of effort into enforcement". But surely we have to consider whether the effort would justify the end.
Enforcement of a registration requirement, by its very nature, would be expensive and labour intensive and would detract from the effort that could be put into what should be the key tasks of the dog warden. Which is better: for the dog warden to concentrate his or her efforts on dealing with strays and dog fouling or to pursue non-payment of the registration fee?
Noble Lords have argued that enforcement of dog control measures is only possible in the first place if the legal ownership of the dog can be established by registration. In the first place, it is far from clear that the identification of the owner is the solution to the problem. The key problem is that owners do not exert proper control over their dogs. Whether or not the dog had been registered would, we believe, be immaterial.
It is also notable that identification of the owners of the dogs concerned has not been in practice a problem in any of the recently reported cases of attacks. Yet registration is the only solution to the problem of dangerous dogs which has so far been put forward by the RSPCA. The absence of any more constructive proposals from them on this key issue seems to us a glaring omission.
Nonetheless, the supporters of registration cite cases where someone out with a dog has been approached about an offence and has responded by saying that the dog is not his but belongs to his mother-in-law, next door neighbour, teenage son or whoever, and that he cannot therefore be prosecuted for the offence. The fact is, however, that the legal ownership of the animal is increasingly irrelevant so far as enforcement is concerned. Recent legislation on attacks by dangerous dogs is framed in terms of the person having custody of the dog at the time of the incident. The same would be true of the proposals on which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is currently consulting.
The various by-laws for the control of dog fouling, requiring dogs to be kept on leads or banned from certain areas also relate not to the legal owner of the dog, but to the person in charge of the dog at the time. So the argument that the dog is not yours is no way of evading responsibility.
A second line of argument which has been put forward is that registration would deal with the problem of the resources needed by local authorities to provide dog control services. It has also been argued that that would meet the principle that the polluter should pay. On the latter point, as I hope I have illustrated, however, it is not the polluter who would pay, but the responsible owner who would pay for the problems caused by the irresponsible owner.
If a registration scheme is seen as a means of raising revenue for dog control services, I have to

2303
say that it must be one of the most inefficient means of doing so that one could devise. Research carried out for the RSPCA by the London School of Economics suggests that at least half the registration fee would be spent on the bureaucracy needed to deal with registrations, renewals, changes of address and deletions—at an annual cost of just over £20 million. Only when that had been paid for would there be funds available to finance the work of dog wardens on the streets.
The finances of the scheme would be even more uneconomic if, as we believe would be the case, there was a high level of evasion. It seems from the same research carried out for the RSPCA that the annual registration fee of £7, which has been cited, assumes a high level of compliance, not to mention a higher first year fee of around £23. To expect 100 per cent. compliance would be wholly unrealistic in the light of the Northern Irish experience and of the old dog licence. At a 40 per cent. level of compliance, which is much closer to the Northern Irish experience, we should be talking about a first year fee of £37 followed by an annual fee of £13 if costs were to be covered. It would seem inevitable that some burden would fall, despite the intention of the scheme, on the local authority. The exemptions for which there will no doubt be pressure—for example, for guide dogs, dogs owned by pensioners and others on a low income—would reduce the tax base still further.
It is these inefficiences that lead to the obvious conclusion that the most simple and efficient way to finance a dog control service locally is through the community charge. More than 200 authorities already have dog warden schemes financed in this way. The proposal that they should be able to make a supplementary charge for the collection of strays might provide some additional income. We are not talking about a service which costs an immense sum. The LSE report concludes that it costs about £30,000 a year to employ a dog warden (together with associated kennelling costs). It also concludes that one dog warden is needed per 100,000 population. That means that even in the major cities, the cost of the service is no more than £150,000 a year, which is a very small figure by comparison with other local environmental services.
Finally, I must turn to Amendments Nos. 379AA and 379AD proposed by my noble friends Lord Mancroft and Lord Balfour. As I said, by their association with the central amendment, the Government could not support them. However I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Any registration scheme would need to provide for certain generally agreed exemptions —guide dogs for the blind, dogs for the deaf and dogs owned by pensioners and others on low incomes. These exemptions would add to the complexity of the scheme and reduce the tax base.
There would also be strong arguments for exempting some categories of working dogs—for example, police and service dogs, foxhounds, gundogs and greyhounds—from the registration requirement; but there would be no practical argument for excluding working or sporting dogs in
2304
general from a registration requirement —sheepdogs, gundogs, packs of hounds and so on —even though those dogs for obvious safety reasons are kept exempt from the collar and tag requirement when they are at work. Any such exemption would present considerable enforcement difficulties. When is a border collie a working dog and when is it a pet? The fact of the matter is that the Government's objections to the scheme are based not on hostility but on an understanding that it will not remove the problems.
I do not want to delay the Committee in what has already been an extremely lengthy debate and I finish with three conclusions. We do not believe that registration will address the irresponsible dog owner who is the problem. Always in this debate I have used the RSPCA figures. I shall use one given by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol: if one assumes a 50 per cent. take up it means that of every 1 million dogs 500,000 would still be unregistered.
Secondly, the Government are doing something about this problem. Three departments of state have produced a consultation document dedicated to finding a solution. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, does not consider that the right solution has been presented before the Committee today, but it is a problem that needs a more complex answer than I suspect these amendments provide.
Finally, it is important that the Committee should fully understand when deciding on the amendment that the costs will be very high. One must consider the level of evasion. On housing estates all over Britain where I have canvassed, there is the ability to say, "It's not my dog. It's my Mum's dog and she is exempt." We believe that the £25 licence fee quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is at the low end of what will become a heavy tax on those who are responsible dog owners and have done no wrong.
6 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: I must congratulate the Minister on his splendid speech. To conclude by saying that three great departments of state have produced a consultation document sums the matter up.
We have an immense problem. The solution will cost money. However, the concern shown from all sides of the Chamber indicates the size of the problem. I shall not repeat the arguments that have been put. Perhaps I may say this to the two senior noble Lords have spoken —the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. In this country we have a puppy trade. Puppies are sold at Christmas; they are treated with great kindness and over-indulged for a week and are then turned loose on the streets. That is the core of the matter that leads to 1,000 dogs a day having to be destroyed. It is an enormous problem. Of course the solution will cost money. But if we care about the dogs in this country, then we have to be prepared to spend some money.
The noble Lord, Lord Gibson-Watt, will understand this point. The great problem at the moment is that the Government will not pay for the measures needed to control dogs. Many measures

2305
are available. Some of them have worked well in other countries. However, what we have said in moving the amendment is that the core of the matter is registration. If one does not have registration, none of the other measures can work. I do not believe that Northern Ireland is necessarily a good example of everything. But its scheme has been a good example. It has improved the conditions there.
The Minister used the argument that the registration fee is only £5 in Northern Ireland. I believe that that is the wrong argument. If the registration fee were higher, it would deter many more people from keeping dogs for trivial reasons. If one has a dog, one should keep it because it is useful, because one loves dogs, or because a dog gives some return for affection and care. It should not be a trivial matter lasting for a day or two.
The Government abolished dog licences some years ago, and put nothing in their place. At the moment the Government argue that they are consulting; and that other measures will work. The Minister put forward some good arguments. It is up to the Committee to decide whether the core of his argument —that registration is not necessary —is right. If noble Lords believe what he says, of course they will vote against the amendment.
However the weight of evidence is quite clear. Without registration, one does not start with a chance. Many noble Lords have spoken of the various schemes for identifying dogs. There is no doubt that with the advance of science dogs could be identified, and their owners with them. The argument that, "It belongs to my Mum," would not work because the possibility for identification would be available.
On the argument of an increase in the slaughtering of dogs, that is true because more dogs would be found. We hope that eventually a far greater sense of responsibility will descend on those people in this country who own dogs or who wish to own dogs. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is backed by bodies which are professionally interested because of their trade, and by bodies such as the RSPCA which are interested in the welfare of dogs.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that, in the light of experience, the argument that this is not the right time to put the proposal forward is weak. We have a chance to give a clear lead to the Government which have no policy, despite issuing consultation documents. The core of this policy on which they can build is registration. I urge noble Lords to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: If I interpret the feelings of the Committee correctly, members would like to conclude the matter. If my procedure is right, I am more than happy to accept the amendment to my amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Mancroft. I understand that my noble friend Lord Balfour is happy not to move his amendments, and, should noble Lords approve this amendment, he will move his amendments at Report stage.
2306
I shall say only two things. First, I believe that if the Committee is in doubt, it should send the issue back to the Commons. They voted very narrowly on it. It will be their decision in the end.
Despite the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, the amendment tackles the problem of our cruelty to our dogs. That is why I support it. It also deals with the other problems of dogs' cruelty to us. It will not cost the taxpayer or poll tax payer any money. It is a comprehensive scheme for which the Secretary of State can work out all the minor details that Members of the Committee have raised. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, Amendment No. 379AA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 379A, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 379AB to 379AD not moved.]
6.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 379A) as amended by Amendment No. 379AA, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 155; Not-Contents, 83.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Gisborough, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Gladwyn, L.

Airedale, L.

Glasgow, E.

Alport, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ardwick, L.

Graham of Edmonton. L.

Attlee, E.

Grey, E.

Aylestone, L.

Halsbury, E.

Barnett, L.

Hampton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Blackstone, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hayter, L.

Bottomley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Bridges, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Hooson, L.

Buchan, E.

Howie of Troon, L.

Burton, L.

Hughes, L.

Byron, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Caccia, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove,

Jacques, L.

L.

Jay, L.

Carter, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Cockfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Lawrence, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Leatherland, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lewis of Newnham, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Listowel, E.

Craigavon, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe,

Dacre of Glanton, L.

B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lyell, L.

Diamond, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Donegall, M.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Ellenborough, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Ennals, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Falkland, V.

McNair, L.

Foot, L.

Mais, L.

Gainford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Gallacher, L.

Mayhew, L.

Galpern, L.

Merrivale, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mersey, V.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Meston, L.

Seear, B.

Molloy, L.

Selkirk, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Serota, B.

Monkswell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Shannon, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Moyne, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Mulley, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Munster, E.

[Teller.]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Stedman, B.

Nelson, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Newall, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Nicol, B. [Teller.]

Strange, B.

Norrie, L.

Suffield, L.

Ogmore, L.

Swansea, L.

Oram, L.

Swinfen, L.

Peston, L.

Teviot, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Phillips, B.

Thurlow, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tordoff, L.

Quinton, L.

Tryon, L.

Radnor, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Raglan, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Walpole, L.

Rea, L.

Westbury, L.

Richard, L.

Wharton, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

White, B.

Rochester, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Rugby, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham,

Russell, E.

E.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Winstanley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wynford, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Ampthill, L.

Holderness, L.

Arran, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Hooper, B.

Auckland, L.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Joseph, L.

Belstead, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Bessborough, E.

Layton, L.

Blatch, B.

Long, V.

Blyth, L.

Luke, L.

Boardman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Bolton, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Caithness, E.

Nathan, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Northesk, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Orkney, E.

Carnarvon, E.

Pender, L.

Carnock, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pym, L.

Coleraine, L.

Reay, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Renton, L.

Crook, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rodney, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Romney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Downshire, M.

Sherfield, L.

Eccles, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior,

Elliot of Harwood, B.

L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne,

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

E.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sudeley, L.

Goold, L.

Swinton, E.

Grantchester, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hailsham of Saint

Trumpington, B.

Marylebone, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hanson, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Henley, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Hesketh, L.

Wise, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 379B:
Before Schedule 12, insert the following new schedule:
("Amendments of Hazardous Substances Legislation

England and Wales
1. The Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 shall be amended as provided in this Part of this Schedule.
2.—(1) Section 2 (appropriate Minister to be hazardous substances authority for land used or to be used by statutory undertakers) shall be omitted.
(2) In section 7(3), for the words from "means" to "with" in the third place it occurs there shall be substituted the words "means consultations with the Health and Safety Executive and with".
(3) In section 10(2), for the words from the beginning to "3" there shall be substituted the words "A hazardous substances authority".
(4) In section 28(1)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words following the word "consent" there shall be substituted the words "made to that authority;

(aa) to applications under section 17(1) made to that authority;"; and

(b) after paragraph (d), there shall be inserted the following words—

"; and every such register shall also contain such information as may be prescribed as to the manner in which applications for hazardous substances consent have been dealt with."
(5) In section 29, in subsection (3) and (4), for the words "appropriate body" there shall be substituted the words "Health and Safety Executive".
(6) In section 38(5) for the words "1 to 3" there shall be substituted "1, 3".
(7) In section 39(1), in the definition of "hazardous substances authority", for the word "to", in the second place it occurs, there shall be inserted the word "and".
3. In section 7(1)(a) (applications for consent), after the word "applications" there shall be inserted the words "under this Act".
4. In section 11 (deemed hazardous substances consent in transitional cases)—

in subsection (2) for the words "immediately before the relevant date" there shall be substituted the words "while it was so present"; and

(b)in subsection (7), in paragraph (a), at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "to the condition that" and, for paragraphs (b) and (c), there shall be substituted the words ". and

(b) to such other conditions (if any) as are prescribed for the purposes of this section and are applicable in the case of that consent."

5. In section 12 (deemed consent: government authorisation), at the end there shall be added the following subsection —
"(6) A government department or the Secretary of State shall, as respects any hazardous substances consent deemed to be granted by virtue of directions under this section, send to the hazardous substances authority concerned any such information as appears to be required by them for the purposes of a register under section 28."
6. In section 13 (applications for hazardous substances consent in place of subsisting consent subject to conditions), subsection (7) shall be omitted.
7. In section 22 (validity of decisions as to applications), in subsection (4), for the words "1971 Act" there shall be substituted the words "principal Act".
8. In section 25(1)(c) (provisions of principal Act capable of application to hazardous substances contravention notices). after "184," there shall be inserted "186,".
9. Before section 27 there shall be inserted the following section
"Fees for consent applications.
26A.—(l) Provision may be made by regulations for the pay vent of a fee of the prescribed amount to a hazardous substances authority in respect of an application for, or for the continuation of, hazardous substances consent.
(2)Regulations under this section may provide for the payment to the Secretary of State of a fee of the prescribed amount in respect of any application which is, by virtue of regulations under section 25, deemed to have been made for hazardous substances consent.
(3)Regulations under this section may provide —

(a) for the transfer of prescribed fees received by a hazardous substances authority in respect of any application which is referred to the Secretary of State under section 20;

(b) for the remission or refunding of a prescribed fee (in whole or in part) in prescribed circumstances or in pursuance of a direction given by the Secretary of State:

and the regulations may make different provision for different areas or for different cases or descriptions of cases."
10. In section 303(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1090 (meaning of "Planning Acts" for purposes of fees chargeable under that section), at the end there shall be inserted the words "or the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 19902').

PART II

  SCOTLAND
  11.—(1) The Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 shall be amended as provided in this paragraph.
  (2) Section 56B (appropriate Minister to be planning authority in respect of hazardous substances in relation to land used or to be used by statutory undertakers) shall he omitted.
  (3) In section 56D(I)(a) (applications for consent), after the word "applications" there shall be inserted the words "under this Act".
  (4) In section 56D(5) for the words from "means" to "with" in the third place it occurs there shall be substituted the words "means consultations with the Health and Safety Executive and with".
  (5) After section 56D there shall be inserted the following sectior —
  "Fees.
  56DA. —(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for fees of the prescribed amount in respect of applications for, or for the continuation of, hazardous substances consent

  (a) made to an urban development corporation under section 56A(2) above to be paid to the corporation:

  (b) referred to him under section 32 above as having effect by virtue of section 56F below to be paid to him;

  (c) deemed to have been made to him under section 85(7) below by virtue of regulations made under section 97B(10) below to be paid to him.

  (2) Regulations made under this section may provide for—

  (a) the transfer to the Secretary of State of any fee received by a planning authority in respect of an application referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (1) above;

  (b) the remission or refunding of a prescribed fee (in whole Dr in part) in prescribed circumstances or in pursuance of a direction given by him;

  and the regulations may make different provision for different areas or for different cases or descriptions of cases.".
  (6) In section 56E(5) for the words "a planning authority other than the appropriate Minister" there shall be substituted the word "they".
  (7) In section 56G (deemed consent: government author sation), at the end there shall be added the following subsection —
  "(5) A government department or the Secretary of State shall, as respects any hazardous substances consent deemed to be granted by virtue of directions under this section, send
  2310
  to the planning authority concerned any such information as appears to be required by them for the purposes of a register under section 56N."
  (8) In section 56H (applications for hazardous substances consent in place of subsisting consent subject to conditions) subsection (5) shall be omitted.
  (9) In section 56N(1)—

  (a) in paragraph (a), for the words following the word "consent" there shall be substituted the words "made to that authority:

  (aa) to applications under section 56K(2) above made to that authority;" and

  (b)after paragraph (d), there shall be inserted the following words—

  ", and every such register shall also contain such information as may he prescribed as to the manner in which applications for hazardous substances consent have been dealt with."
  (10) In section 560, in subsections (2) and (3), for the words "appropriate body" there shall be substituted the words "Health and Safety Executive"
  (11) In section 97B(10)(c) (hazardous substances contravention notices), after "89A" there shall be inserted "and 166".
  12. —(1) Section 38 of the Housing and Planning Act 1986 (transitional provisions) shall be amended as provided in this paragraph.
  (2)In subsection (4), for the words "immediately before the commencement date" there shall be substituted the words "while it was so present".
  (3) In subsection (9)—

  (a) for the words "subject to the conditions that —(a)" there shall be substituted the words "subject to —

  (a) the condition that";

  (b) for paragraphs (b) and (c) there shall be substituted—

  "(b) such other conditions (if any) as are prescribed, by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, for the purposes of this section and are applicable in the case of that consent".

  13. In section 87 of the Local Government. Planning and Land Act 1980 (fees for planning applications etc.). at the end there shall be inserted the following subsection —
  "(9) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the reference in that subsection to an application for any consent includes. in relation to a planning authority in Scotland, an application under section 56K(a) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972 for the continuation of hazardous substances consent.".")
  Schedule 12 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 379C not moved.]
  Clause 135 [Burning of straw and stubble etc.]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 380:
  Page 134, line 42, at end insert ("and such exemptions may only be granted when it appears to the Minister, and following consultation with the appropriate national bodies, that no other practicable disposal method is available.").
  The noble Lord said: We now move to Clause 135 dealing with straw and stubble burning. It is one of the better-drafted clauses in the Bill and I express my general support for it. However, the Bill contains one relatively minor defect as regards the provision for exemptions. Under certain circumstances there must be exemptions from prohibitions or restrictions under the clause. However, its provisions go so far in providing for representation for those who suffer hardship, for the modified banning of straw and stubble burning and for delays in the implementation

  2311
  of the provisions which are necessary, that we believe that there should be a further set of restrictions on the possibility of exemptions.
  In Amendment No. 380 I propose that exemptions should be granted only:
  "when it appears to the Minister, and following consultation with the appropriate national bodies, that no other practicable disposal method is available".
  I am sure that the Minister will say that that is how she will be considering exemptions. If she can assure me that that is in the mind of the Government and that my amendment is unnecessary to that extent, I shall be happy to withdraw it. However, we should be clear on that point. I beg to move.
  Baroness Trumpington: I know that this amendment is one that concerns the National Society for Clean Air, and an identical amendment was proposed in Committee in another place. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and this Committee that when we receive applications for exemptions to the ban, where there is evidence of genuine need, we shall take steps to ensure that everyone with an interest is made aware of the position. We have it in mind to issue a press release. This will give organisations such as the National Society for Clean Air and any others an opportunity to make representations, and their views will be considered when Ministers decide whether to grant exemptions. The noble Lord will, I hope, recognise that there will be a degree of urgency, but there will be no secrets in our decision-making.
  I can also assure the noble Lord that it is our firm intention only to allow exemptions where there is no practicable alternative method of disposal. Our guiding principle will always be the practicability of alternatives, not their costs.
  Having given those assurances, which I hope are what the noble Lord was expecting from me, perhaps he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am satisfied with that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 380A:
  Page 135, line 12, at end insert:
  ("(e) to establish a licensing system for the burning of crop residues on agricultural land and to make provision for the administration of such a system including inspection, penalties for the infringement of the conditions of any licence or the burning of crop residues without a licence and for levying a fee sufficient to cover the cost of issuing such a licence.—).
  The noble Lord said: At the beginning of this Session I withdrew a Bill to control straw and stubble burning. I said that I withdrew it because I thought that the Government had shot my fox. Now that I have seen Clause 135, I realise that I was wrong; they have missed.
  As it stands, the clause proves that the Ministry of Agriculture does not have the foggiest idea how to tackle the problem. As at present drafted the clause is in the vaguest possible terms. Some time ago the Government announced that they would ban
  2312
  straw and stubble burning after 1992. If they do that, it will make a nonsense of all the arguments which my noble friend the Leader of the House advanced against the Bills which I introduced in 1982 and 1983.
  By the time I introducd my second Bill, which incidentally would have taken effect at the beginning of 1989 and would have prevented the conflagration of that autumn, I had realised that a blanket provision against burning was not desirable from the point of view of arable farming or the environment.
  The burning of crop residues is an ancient practice. For example, it is mentioned in the Old Testament. To give a pledge that it would be prohibited by 1992 is either a classic example of political opportunism or sheer ministerial ignorance. As it stands the clause gives no indication of the way in which the Ministry will implement its proposals. That will be left to regulations.
  When I inroduced my Bills in those two years, I carried out quite a lot of research. I reached the conclusion that the only way to control straw and stubble burning which would be effective and fair to the arable farmer and the community generally was by a licensing system. Therefore, this amendment is designed to concentrate the minds of the Minister and her advisers on the only practical solution to the problem and to give the present Minister or her successor the legislative power to introduce a comprehensive and well thought out licensing scheme.
  From past experience I fear that I know what the Minister is likely to say in her reply. As she suggested the other day, I believe that I can read her lips. She will talk about grave administrative difficulties and the evils of bureaucracy. She will claim that the scheme will cost huge sums of public money, although my amendment proposes that the cost of issuing the licences will be borne by the arable industry. She will draw attention to the new code of practice issued by the NFU in conjunction with the Government, which makes insignificant changes to the code of practice which failed to control burning last year.
  I remind the Committee that the National Farmers Union is now strongly in favour of a licensing scheme. The Minister will claim that the amendment is unnecessary because the clause is drafted widely enough to allow her to do whatever she wants. My understanding is that that is not so.
  Perhaps I may give my advice to the Minister. She should tear up her brief and put it in the large wastepaper basket under the table. She should then accept this amendment, which is both benevolent and realistic. I beg to move.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: I understand that the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Alport is grouped with this amendment.
  Today is rather an extraordinary day. For about four or five years I spent my time trying to strangle my noble friend Lord Alport and he spent his time trying to strangle me. Today, I agree with him entirely and I believe that he agrees with the point that I am making, which is very similar to the

  2313
  point that he makes. Perhaps I may say that it is a particular pleasure for me, because on one occasion I behaved fairly close to the knuckle, to be able to link forces again with my noble friend.
  It will not come as a surprise that I am extremely doubtful about the wisdom of a blanket staw-burning ban. My reasons for doubt centre on the fact that alternative methods of disposal and the resultant change in farming practice, apart from being enormously expensive to the farmer, could be more harmful to the environment than burning. Therefore, my amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State should take into account the environmental effects when applying the ban.
  What could some of those environmental effects be? First, we shall use far more fossil fuels because of the extra cultivations. It is estimated that we shall use 4 million litres of diesel extract per year. Secondly, because straw burning aids weed control, more chemicals will have to be used to control those weeds. Thirdly, ploughing releases nitrogen into the soil. As it will be virtually impossible on very heavy soils such as those on which I farm to plant an autumn crop because of the ploughing, that leaching will continue throughout the winter. That is the most dangerous time for nitrogen leaching. Perhaps the importance of nitrates in our water is now of no account. If on the other hand it is, the quicker a crop is established, the less is the leaching of nitrates and straw and stubble burning invokes instantaneous growth.
  I realise and entirely sympathise with those who suffer from smuts and dirty washing. I support any measure, such as that proposed by my noble friend Lord Alport, to minimise the very obvious nuisance. Regarding the release of CO2 or nitrogen oxide into the atmosphere, the amount released is exactly the same whether the straw is burnt or allowed to decompose.
  I know that I shall not convince the Committee, but I hope that the Minister will say that there will be environmental problems if straw burning is banned; that those problems cannot be accurately assessed, and that any proposed regulation will bear in mind the possible environmental harm that may be caused by such a ban.
  Nature is very unpredictable. I want the Minister to have ample scope to alter the regulations should nature turn fickle.
  6.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Balfour: One of the problems that I face in Scotland is that sometimes, perhaps after a wet harvest, if I have not managed to bale the straw —particularly wheat straw —it is utterly useless and I must burn it. I agree that care needs to be taken and I always plough right round the field. Thirty years ago I may have called in a threshing mill to obtain the best wheat straw, which then went into the potato pits or was used for thatching. I use practically all the barley straw for bedding and feeding. However, until some use is found for wheat straw —perhaps for making chipboard or plaster board —I do not know what to do with it and have to burn it. I often do not burn until well into October.
  The Earl of Radnor: Perhaps I may comment on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Alport. Since he first brought the issue of straw burning before the Chamber many noble Lords. including myself, have been converted to his view, previously having had views in exactly the opposite direction. However, I hope that the Minister will resist any suggestion of licensing in place of regulations. Although I am against regulations generally, this must be a case in which they are an absolute necessity.
  I may have been happier if my noble friend Lord Alport, instead of putting all the answers into the mouth of the Minister, had been a little more constructive and had explained how he saw the system of licensing working. As far as I can see it would be virtually impossible. I hope that the amendment will be resisted.
  Baroness Trumpington: I hope that my noble friend Lord Alport will forgive me if I say that he claims to know before I speak what I will say. In part I am not surprised. I have been writing letters to him since the 1st December 1989 on what I might say should this moment arise.
  I well understand my noble friend's attachment to the concept of a licensing system under which individual farmers would be licensed to burn their crop residues, subject to stringent conditions. This was an option to which we gave very careful consideration when reviewing our policy following the disastrous situation that arose last year. We concluded, however, that it would not really provide an adequate response to the problems. It would, in fact, have little, if any, impact on the level of smoke pollution and the enormous public nuisance created by straw burning.
  It would also entail major new bureaucratic procedures to grant individual licences. Some have suggested that we could restrict the licences to certain categories of farmland, or to farmers who have never been the subject of complaints about their burning practices. The first would obviously be discriminatory, and the second simply would not work. The only basis for refusal to grant a licence would be where breaches of conditions had been proven in a court of law. That would have no regard to those cases where problems giving rise to public complaint had occurred but where there was no obvious breach of the conditions. It is a sad fact that many burns conducted in accordance with the by-laws still give rise to major public nuisance.
  That is why the Government concluded that the practice of straw burning, regardless of its merits as a husbandry practice, has to be brought to an end. But we have catered for exemptions to allow a degree of flexibility to deal with particular practical problems. And we are giving farmers three full seasons in which to adjust. That seems to us to be the right and fair way to approach this problem. Many in this Chamber (and in another place) agree entirely with this approach. I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment, which I must resist.
  I come now to Amendment No. 381. My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley is concerned about

  2315
  the extra diesel used in ploughing in straw and stubble and the risks of increased nitrate leaching. I want to assure him that we took the decision to propose a prohibition of the practice of burning in full knowledge of these concerns. Nonetheless, we judged that these disadvantages are not so great when weighed against the very serious disadvantages of permitting straw burning to continue.
  Regarding the point that additional diesel will be needed, it should be remembered that under the present arrangements, farmers who burn are required to plough field headlands, create firebreaks and incorporate the ash into the soil. So there is already fuel usage for these operations. It is accepted that, to the extent that the preparation of the land for a following crop will require a more thorough form of cultivation, more diesel will be used. But this will certainly not cause the kind of public nuisance that is associated with burning. The extra consumption of diesel fuel, taken in the widest context, is fairly insignificant and likely to have an infinitesimal effect on the environment.
  My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley mentioned the question of nitrate leaching. There is no simple answer. On the one hand, ploughing, rather than shallow cultivation, might enhance nitrate leaching; on the other hand, straw incorporated would immobilise nitrate in the soil. So there are gains and offsets. Again I would say to my noble friend that we have to balance the pluses and minuses. We could not, therefore, regard the considerations which he has mentioned as justifying widespread exemptions to the proposed ban. However, as I have explained, we have provided in the clause the flexibility to grant exemptions where there is no practical alternative to burning.
  I would only add that when considering the question of exemptions, it has struck me that farmers with land bordering on the M.25 and M.11 have been obliged for some years to come to terms with the restriction on burning and have managed very well.
  I hope that my noble friend will withdraw that amendment, since I must resist its inclusion in the Bill.
  I turn to the last of the three amendments. I understand the motivation of my noble friend in moving the amendment, which would ensure debate on the regulations in both Houses.
  Lord Alport: I intend to move that amendment separately.
  Baroness Trumpington: I suddenly realised that my noble friend had not spoken to the amendment, but it was included in my groupings.
  Lord Alport: I am a little confused with regard to the Government's policy. The NFU code for farmers, which is used to assist the Government, states,
  "As you plan your farm operations for 1990, bear in mind that the government intends to ban straw burning after 1992".
  If I understand the Minister correctly, the Government do not intend to ban straw burning completely. There will be exceptions. When the
  2316
  moment comes for them to decide on those exceptions, they will be the same kind of exceptions, to all intents and purposes, as exist under the code. If I am wrong about that and the Government do intend to ban it completely, I shall be interested to see what happens when the time comes.
  We have had a long and gruelling debate about dogs, and I do not feel entitled to ask the Committee to continue with this amendment because I have another amendment to move. However, perhaps I may be allowed to say that, in reply to what my noble friend Lord Stanley said, I am glad that after some period of disagreement on this subject we have now, on the whole, reached common agreement. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 381:
  Page 135, line 12, at end insert:
  ("(3A) Before making any regulations under this section to prohibit or restrict the burning of crop residues on agricultural land, and in exercising such powers to make exemptions from any prohibition or restriction as may be provided in any regulations, the appropriate Minister shall have regard to the implications that any alternative methods of disposing of crop residues may have for the environment, including pollution and the use of natural resources.")
  The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may reply to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I shall write to her between now and Report stage because I am not clear in my own mind on one point. Should nature change its mind and be particularly unpleasant in five or six years' time so that the best way forward is to burn rather than what we have been doing, will the Minister then be empowered to say, "Yes, that particular field may be burnt"? I do not know whether my noble friend wishes to reply now; but, if not, I am more than happy to wait until Report stage.
  [Amendment No. 381 not moved.]
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Alport Lord Alport moved Amendment No. 381AZA:
  Page 135, line 17, at end insert:
  ("( ) Regulations under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to ensure that when the appropriate Minister eventually decides that it is right to introduce a suitable scheme —I am following the wording of the clause which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said was so well drafted but which seems to be peculiarly worded —for the solution of this problem that, constitutionally, he should seek Parliament's approval.
  Clause 135 is drawn so widely and clumsily —in my opinion, at any rate —that the Minister can produce regulations which may seriously damage the legitimate interests of arable farming, particularly in heavy land where incorporation is undesirable. The Minister may introduce regulations which will have the effect of greatly reducing the production of arable crops and that will affect food supplies at a time when, according to United Nations and United States experts, grain production is now insufficient

  2317
  to meet demand. That will result in higher prices, which have already risen by 40 per cent. in the past few years. Reserves have been seriously depleted. The so-called grain mountain has become a molehill. In turn, this could affect this country's exports. The Minister's regulations could destroy the livelihoods of individual farmers and damage the environment by forcing farmers to adopt practices which are environmentally unfriendly.
  When the Executive assumes extensive and ill-defined powers to issue regulations Ministers have a constitutional duty to submit them for parliamentary approval, and Parliament has an equal duty to ensure that they do so. This week, in the Court of Appeal, the Lord Justices criticised,
  "The unprecedented and unsupervised powers which Parliament had delegated to the Secretary of State for Social Security".
  Lord Justice Purchas said,
  "It may be in this case, in the execution of the legislative process, that Homer nodded with the result that wholly exceptional and, it might be thought by some, objectionable powers without any Parliamentary fetter or supervision … were achieved by the Secretary of State".
  When Clause 135 was considered in another place the House of Commons, perhaps like Homer, seems to have nodded; but there is no reason why we should do so now, even at this late hour.
  As it stands the clause gives the Minister power to issue regulations arbitrarily and recklessly without consultation with the industry, the local authorities and environmental interests, or by making it subject to any proper parliamentary supervision. I consider that that is not good enough. In the case before the Appeal Court to which I have referred, the Lord Justice said:
  "No previous Act had given such wholesale unregulated and unsupervised powers to the Secretary of State".
  Here is another example of the progressive erosion of the constitutional responsibilities of Parliament by a powerfully entrenched Executive.
  I hope that the Government will consider this amendment and that it will be accepted, because it is time that we realised that legislation by regulation has to be carefully controlled. That has been the point of view of Parliaments over a long period of time. I beg to move.
  Baroness Trumpington: I must once again apologise for jumping the gun, but I now finally come to the last of the three amendments on this subject. We have accepted that industry needs some time to adjust to new cultivation techniques and to invest in the necessary equipment. We believe it right to allow the farmers three seasons to do so. We hope that advances in technology will be encouraged by notice of the ban. For example, I have challenged the agricultural machinery section of the industry to find machinery which will cope with stubble in heavy land.
  However, turning back to the amendment, I can understand the motivation of my noble friend in moving this amendment which would ensure a debate in both Houses on regulations introducing the prohibition and any exemptions; but there will be such opportunity under the negative procedures
  2318
  if noble Lords do not like the measures that we introduce. I must point out that the use of the affirmative procedure is normally restricted to secondary legislation which alters the effect of primary legislation or which affects government finance. Neither of those considerations applies to regulations to be made under this clause.
  I hope that explanation satisfies my noble friend, but I can assure the Committee that I have others if it does not.
  Lord Alport: I am grateful to my noble friend for her explanation, and I do know that there is always the negative procedure. The whole point is that the affirmative procedure makes it essential that the Government bring their proposals before Parliament; the negative procedure rests with the initiative of Members of either House to bring the resolution forward.
  However, I do not want to pursue this matter further. I have dealt with this subject for two years and this may well be my last effort. I hope that the Government are successful but I am willing to take a bet with my noble friend —a small bet —that in two years' time, in 1992, my noble friend or her successor will come before this Chamber and say, "We are very sorry but we have not been able to find a satisfactory way of controlling straw stubble burning. Either we must continue to rely on the code, which has not worked, or introduce a nice little system such as my noble friend the late Lord Alport introduced some years ago". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 135 agreed to.
  Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 381ZA:
  After Clause 135, insert the following new clause:
  ("Licensing of medicinal products: environmental considerations
  In section 19 of the Medicines Act 1968 (factors relevant to determination of application for licence) there shall be inserted after subsection (1)(c)—
  "(d) the need to safeguard the environment;"").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with trying to tidy up legislation on controls of various types. It is probably the direct result of certain kinds of legislation in the past not being tuned in to environmental problems.
  The two Acts with which it is particularly concerned are the Medicines Act 1968 and Part III of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, and the difference between the two. The use of certain types of chemical, for instance, in veterinary medicine, is not restricted in certain fields in the same way as in others, due to the overlapping of the two Acts which cover them.
  The particular case involved is the preparation nuran. If it is used on land as a medical preparation dealing, for instance, with fowl or chicken batteries, it is controlled under the environmental legislation because it is a toxic red list chemical.
  If it is used in a fish farm, it is used as a veterinary preparation and it is not controlled because it comes under the Medicines Act 1968. This confusion has left me reasonably muddled, and the amendment seeks to correct the problem. I beg to move.
  Baroness Trumpington: This amendment addresses an important aspect of the assessment which all medicinal products must undergo before they are licensed. It is particularly important for veterinary medicinal products, which, because of their nature and the circumstances of their use, are most likely to have an impact on the environment. It has therefore been standard practice in the Veterinary Products Committee for many years to consider the environmental aspects and impact.
  The Act requires us to take account of the impact which a medicine may have on the health of animals generally. That allows us to take account of environmental considerations. I accept that the Medicines Act could be more explicit. The Government therefore welcomed a Commission proposal to add an explicit requirement to look at the,
  "potential risks the medicinal product might pose to the environment",
  to the provisions of Directive 81/851, which is the Community Directive on Veterinary Medicines Licensing Procedures. The Council adopted on 25th June, a common position accepting this proposal. The proposal has still to undergo the co-operation procedure, and so will not become law for some months. However, I have no doubt that this particular clause will survive.
  The Government will therefore need during the next 12 months to consider how to incorporate this Community provision, which we support and which has the same aim as the noble Lord's amendment, into UK law. At the same time we shall be considering how to implement other provisions in the proposed directive. In these circumstances, I think it would be premature for me to prejudge that consideration. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord will allow me time to consider this matter further.
  Lord Addington: That is one of the most encouraging answers I have received from the Dispatch Box. It is evident that the problem has been recognised and is being dealt with. I take it that the fact that such a potentially dangerous chemical could find its way into any type of natural ecosystem has been fully recognised. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 381ZB not moved.]
  Clause 136 [Financial assistance for environmental purposes]:
  [Amendment No. 381A not moved.]
  Clause 136 agreed to.
  Clauses 137 and 138 agreed to.
  Clause 139 [Power to give effect to Community and other international obligations etc.]:
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 382:
  Page 137, line 23, at end insert:
  ("(4) This section, in its application to Northern Ireland, has effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say —

  (a) in its application in relation to Part VI and sections 13, 131, and 132, the reference to Her Majesty's Government
  2320
  in the United Kingdom includes a reference to Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland; and

  (b) in its application in relation to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, the reference to the Secretary of State shall be construed as a reference to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the reference to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall be construed as a reference to Her Majesty's Government in Northern Ireland;
  and regulations under it made by that Department shall be a statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 and shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.").

  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the interpretation of Clause 139 in respect of Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
  Clause 139, as amended, agreed to
  Clauses 140 to 143 agreed to
  Clause 144 [Regulations, orders and directions]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): There is a mistake under Clause 144 in the marshalling. Amendment No. 382ZB comes first.
  [Amendment No. 382ZB not moved.]
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 382ZA:
  Page 139, leave out line 26 and insert ("69(7), 120(2), 121(3) or 128(2) above or section 147(3) below").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Clause 144, as amended, agreed to
  Clause 145 agreed to.
  Schedule 13 [Consequential and Minor Amendments of Enactments]:
  The Earl of Balfour The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 382A:
  Page 198, leave out line 1.
  The noble Earl said: Section 3 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 will be repealed under Part II of Schedule 14 to the Bill. That can be seen on page 204. Section 3, the prohibition of unlicensed disposal of waste, is fairly well covered by Clause 32 of the Bill. I feel that to leave the first line on page 198 is unnecessary. This is a probing amendment to some extent. I beg to move.
  Lord Reay: My noble friend has again demonstrated his eagle-eyed attention to detail even in these obscure recesses of the Bill. In this case, however, I am afraid that he has been a trifle too enthusiastic. We deal here with a quite significant provision by the standards of consequential and minor amendments. This change to the Transport Act will have serious consequences for anyone who commits a pollution offence involving waste. If they operate a goods vehicle, they will risk losing their goods vehicle operator's licence. This is directed especially at fly-tippers. The list of offences therefore covers the main fly-tipping offences likely to be committed by lorry drivers or operators.
  My noble friend has spotted that one of these offences under Section 3 will be repealed by the present Bill. This is true, but it does not mean that

  2321
  we do not need to include it here. The licensing authority, in deciding whether a person should hold a goods vehicle licence, will take account of past offences. These would include offences committed before the Bill became law. It is also possible that Schedule 13 will be brought into force before the replacement of Section 3 by Clause 32 of the Bill. Until then fly-tipping offences will continue to be prosecuted under the 1974 Act. That is why we need Section 3 in the list of relevant offences in this paragraph. I hope that my noble friend will be persuaded by this to withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Balfour: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Reay for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendment No. 382B:
  Page: 98, line 30, at end insert:
  ("Sale of electricity: Scotland
  11A. In section 170A(3) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (restriction on sale of electricity by local authority) after the word "prescribed," there shall be inserted the words "or in cases where it is produced from waste,".").
  The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 382B, I should like to speak to the other Scottish amendments to Schedule 13, Amendments Nos. 383 and 383ZA. The Government are committed to encouraging both recycling and energy efficiency. These twin goals can be realised by producing more energy from waste—a field which recent developments in technology have now opened up. This amendment will clarify the law by removing from the existing Scottish legislation a possible obstacle to local authorities exploring fully this option.
  Amendment No. 383 makes a purely drafting change to Section 56(6) of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, which applies only to Scotland. The change is consequential on the repeal of Section 30 of the 1974 Act in Schedule 14 of this Bill. Amendment No. 383ZA achieves the same effect for Scotland as Amendment No. 219D, which amended Clause 49 achieved for England and Wales; that is, it makes clear that local authorities have a duty to dispose of the refuse deposited at their civic amenity sites. I beg to move.
  7 p.m.
  The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne moved Amendments Nos. 383 and 383ZA:
  Page 199, line 42, at end insert:
  ("Exclusion of Part 11 of Control of Pollution Act 1974 for radioactive substances: Scotland
  14A For subsection (6) of section 56 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 (interpretation of Part II) there shall be substituted the following subsection —
  "(6) Except as provided by regulations made under this subsection, nothing in this Part of this Act applies to radioactive waste within the meaning of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960; but regulations may —

  (a) provide for prescribed provisions of this Part of this Act to have effect with such modifications as the Secretary of
  2322
  State considers appropriate for the purposes of dealing with such radioactive waste;

  (b) make such modifications of the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 and any other Act as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with regulations made under paragraph (a) above.".").

  Page 200, line 4, at end insert:
  ("(1A) In subsection (1) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and to dispose of refuse so deposited".").
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 383A and 383B:
  Page 200, line 30, leave out ("Section 14") and insert ("(1) Sections 14 and 15").
  Page 200, line 31, leave out from ("amended") to end of line 41 and insert ("as follows.
  (2) In section 14, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection —
  "(2A) Subject to the following provisions of this section and to sections 15 and 16 of this Act, a highway or roads authority may also make an order under subsection (1) or issue a notice under subsection (2) above where the authority is satisfied or (as the case may be) where it appears to the authority that traffic on the highway or road should be restricted or prohibited for the purpose of enabling the duty imposed by subsection (1)(a) or (2) of section 86 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (litter clearing and cleaning) to be discharged."
  (3) In section 15(8), after paragraph (b), there shall be inserted the following paragraph —
  "(c) if issued under subsection (2A) of that section, for more than five days from the date of the notice:".").
  The noble Lord said: These are both drafting amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 383BA:
  Page 200, line 45, at end insert:
  ("Registers of deposits etc. at sea: Northern Ireland Assembly control of regulations
  In section 25(3) of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, after paragraph (a)(ii) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph —
  "(iii) in section 14(8), for the words from "and any such power" onwards there shall be substituted the words "and any such regulations shall be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954; and").
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 383C:
  Page 201, line 17, at end insert:
  ("Exclusion of Water Act 1989 controls of exercise of trade effluent functions in case of prescribed processes

  (1) Section 74 of the Water Act 1989 (control by Secretary of State of exercise of trade effluent functions in certain cases) shall be amended as follows.

  (2) In subsection (1), after the word "shall" there shall be inserted the words "subject to subsection (3), below".

  (3) After subsection (2), there shall be inserted the following subsections—
  "(3) The provisions of Schedule 9 shall not apply in relation to any trade effluent produced or to be produced in any process which is a prescribed process designated for central control as from the date which is the determination date for that process.

  (4) The "determination date" for a prescribed process is —

  (a) in the case of a process for which an authorisation is granted, the date on which the enforcing authority grants it, whether in pursuance of the application or, on an appeal, of a direction to grant it;

  2323

  (b) in the case of a process for which an authorisation is refused, the date of the refusal or, on an appeal, of the affirmation of the refusal.

  (5) In this section, "authorisation", "enforcing authority" and "prescribed process" have the meaning given in section 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the references to designation for central control and an appeal are references respectively to designation under section 4 and an appeal under section 15 of that Act.".").

  The noble Lord said: This amendment disapplies Schedule 9 to the Water Act 1989 to processes prescribed for integrated pollution control under Part I of the Bill. Schedule 9 is not appropriate to such processes, as the conditions of the operation of the process would already have been considered by HMIP in setting the conditions of the authorisation. I beg to move.
  Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to
  Schedule 14 [Repeals]:
  [Amendment No. 384 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 385:
  Page 204, line 6, leave out ('Section 100").
  The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Balfour: It is always a great pleasure to see the Minister's name in front of mine on the Marshalled List. Equally, I should like to extend my thanks to my noble friend Lord Hesketh for the helpful meeting I had with him and for his answers to my many questions about the Bill.
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 386 and 387:
  Page 204, line 20, at end insert ("sub-paragraphs (1) to (9) and sub-paragraph (11)")
  Page 204, line 22, at end insert:

  ("1990 c.

  Environmental Protection Act 1990

  In section 33(3)(b), the words following "below".")

  The noble Lord said: These are both minor technical amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am totally puzzled by Amendment No. 387. First, it tries to take out in the repeal section a paragraph which is in the Bill; in other words, rather than deleting it from the Bill, it repeals something which has not yet been enacted. Secondly, it refers to:
  "In section 33(3)(b), the words following 'below' ".
  I should point out that in that section there are no "words following 'below'". Therefore, in two respects, I find the amendment incomprehensible.
  Lord Reay: I do not know whether I can enlighten the noble Lord on this issue. However, I can tell him that Amendment No 387 is consequential on an earlier amendment to Clause 33. That amendment added the holder of a waste disposal licence under the 1974 Act to the persons to whom waste may be transferred under the duty of care. This is only a transitional provision to enable the duty of care to be brought into force in advance of replacement of
  2324
  the 1974 Act's licensing provisions by Part II of the Bill. This amendment provides for the repeal of that transitional provision at a later date.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not sure whether that explanation is very satisfactory. The Government are moving an amendment to the Bill and then amending their own amendment by way of a later amendment. I should have thought that this ought to be brought forward on Report rather than at this stage. In order to avoid a certain impropriety in this respect, I suggest that the Government would be well advised not to move Amendment No. 387 and to bring it back, if they think fit, at some time when it is comprehensible.
  Lord Reay: I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Lord's proposal. I must insist that the amendment be proceeded with.
  [Amendment No. 387ZA not moved.]
  Lord Reay Lord Reay moved Amendments Nos. 387A to 389:

  Page 205, line 25, at end insert:

  ("1990 c. 8.

  Town and Country Planning Act 1990

  In Schedule 17, paragraph 1.").

  Page 205, line 37, at end insert:

  ("1986 c. ii.

  Berkshire Act 1986

  Section 13.

  1987 c. xi.

  Exeter City Council Act 1987.

  Section 24.").

  Page 205, line 39, at end insert:

  ("1990 c. vii.

  London Local Authorities Act 1990.

  Section 43.")

  The noble Lord said: These are purely technical amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 390 to 390A:
  Page 206, line 20, in column 3 at end insert ("In Schedule 1, paragraphs 9 and 11.").
  Page 206, line 25, column 3, at end insert:
  ("In section 46(2), the words "and (2)".")
  Page 206, line 38, at end insert:
  ("Part Enactments relating to hazardous substances

  Chapter

  Short title

  Extent of repeal

  1972 c. 52.

  Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972.

  In section 56(A)(1), the words "and to Section 56B.below". Section 56B.

  In section 56E(2)(e) and 56K(5)(b), the words "or Health and Safety Commission".

  In section 56F(1),the words "and (3)".
  Section 56F(3).Section 56H(5).

  In section 56J(5), the words from "other" to "applies".

  In section 56M(3), the words "Subject to subsection (4)
  below," Section 56M(4).

  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: At this stage I must call Amendment No. 402ZA. This amendment was printed on page 23 of the Marshalled List in error.
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 402ZA:
  Page 206, line 43, column 3, at end insert ("Schedule 4.").
  Schedule 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 146 agreed to.
  Clause 147 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 391:
  Page 140, line 11, at end insert:
  ("section 93; section 99 in so far as it relates to paragraphs 7, 13, 14 and 15 of Schedule 5;").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 392, 393, 394, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401 and 402. These amendments are designed to rationalise the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 392 to 394:
  Page 140, line 16, leave out ("(and Schedule 12)").
  Page 140, leave out line 23 and insert:
  ("section 145(1) in so far as it relates to paragraphs 3, 4 and 15 of Schedule 13;
  section 145(2) in so far as it relates to Part III of Schedule 14 and, in Part VIII of that Schedule, the repeal of section 100 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974;
  section 145(4);").
  Page 140, leave out lines 25 to 28.
  Lord Nathan Lord Nathan moved Amendment No. 395:
  Page 140, line 29, at end insert ("on the first anniversary of the day on which it is passed or").
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment can be stated shortly: it is to put a date by which the provisions of the Bill, in so far as they are not brought into force under Clause 147(2), shall be brought into force. The amendment provides that the Bill shall come into force:
  "on the first anniversary of the day on which it is passed",
  or an earlier date on which it or part of it is brought into force by order. It is always unsatisfactory that there should be an open end to the date upon which an Act is to be brought into force. We have had seven arduous days of debate on the Bill in Committee, and no doubt there will be further arduous sessions on Report and perhaps subsequently. It therefore seems reasonable to say that there should be a date by which it will be brought into force in its entirety.
  It may be said, and if so, there must be good reasons allied to the argument, that the first anniversary is too short a period. If that were so, I would not object to it being the second anniversary.
  What is objectionable is the type of experience which we had in relation to the Control of Pollution Act 1974 where Part II did not come into force for 10 years. Even then, the whole of Part II has not come into force. It is wrong that government should be at liberty to bring into force, or not, an Act which has been passed through both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, some provision along the lines of Amendments Nos. 395 and 396, to which I have referred, are appropriate. I beg to move.
  Lord Hesketh: I was under the impression that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was to be taken with Amendment No. 395.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg the Minister's pardon. Amendment No. 396A is indeed grouped with Amendments Nos. 395 and 396, which, incidentally, we support. A situation where part of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 has still not come into force is clearly unsatisfactory. What is proposed is not a change in the timetable but that there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to give a timetable within two weeks of the date upon which the Act is passed.
  We cannot require the Secretary of State to make an accurate assessment, but we ask him to make an estimate. That would be enormously helpful to many people, not least the local authorities, which will have to implement the many parts of the Bill, especially those dealing with waste on land. I hope that the Minister will feel that the provision does not in any way fetter the freedom of the Government or the Secretary of State but provides a useful service for the benefit of those who will have to implement the Bill when it becomes an Act.
  Lord Hesketh: We believe that setting a general date on the face of the Bill for all the many provisions would not be the best answer. For example, it could lead to less consultation on proposals under the Bill. We certainly intend to consult on regulations to be made under the Bill. But if our implementation programme were to be delayed next year and those amendments were included on the face of the Bill, we could be faced with a choice between meeting an obligation on the face of the Act to implement the Act within a year or bringing forward inadequately prepared secondary legislation without any public consultation.
  There can be no doubt of our intention to consult widely. For example, we have already consulted on the duty of care proposals under Part II. We have said that we intend to allow two months for consultation on regulations to be made under Part I, and that has been welcomed. We shall also be consulting on guidance issued under that part of the Bill and on diverse regulations and orders contained in statutory instruments elsewhere in the Bill. I should hate to see the prospects for consultation jeopardised, even inadvertently. I do not think that it is the intention of the amendments but that could be their practical effect.
  We have sympathy with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. We do not see a need for an amendment to the Bill to achieve what
  2328
  he wants, but I can assure him that I am willing to publish our proposals for implementing the Bill once it is enacted. I hope that, given that assurance, the noble Lord will feel that we have gone some way towards satisfactorily answering what he requires.
  Lord Nathan: I recognise the point made by the Minister that consultation is extremely desirable, but surely there is a limit of time within which it must take place. It would not be bad for governments to be under some pressure to hasten the process forward. As I said earlier, if the period of a year (the first anniversary) is thought to be inappropriate for the reason that he has mentioned, or otherwise, then let us have the second anniversary. To leave it completely open-ended, in view of the experience we have had with environmental legislation closely allied to this, is unsatisfactory. I therefore feel that I must reserve the position for a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 396 and 396A not moved.]
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 397 and 398:
  Page 140, leave out line 32 and insert:
  ("(4) Only the following provisions of this Act (together with this section) extend to Northern Ireland,").
  Page 140, leave out line 37 and insert:
  ("Part VI in so far as it relates to importation and, without that restriction, section 117(2) in so far as it relates to the continental shelf:
  section 130 in so far as it relates to importation;").
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 398A:
  Page 140, line 40, at end insert:
  ("section (Public registers relating to deposits in the sea and incineration at sea);")
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendments Nos. 399 to 402:
  Page 141. line 1, leave out ("(and Schedule 12)").
  Page 141, line 2, at end insert:
  ("section 139 in so far as it relates to Part VI and sections 130, 131 and 132 in so far as they extend to Northern Ireland and in so far as it relates to the Radioactive Substances Act 1960;").
  Page 141, leave out lines 5 to 7.
  Page 141, line 8, leave out ("section 145 above") and insert ("this Act").
  Clause 147, as amended, agreed to.
  In the Title:
  [Amendment No. 403 not moved.]
  Lord Hesketh Lord Hesketh moved Amendment No. 403A:
  Line 25, after ("substances;") insert ("to amend the law relating to the control of hazardous substances on, over or under land:").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I should like to take the opportunity to thank all noble Lords who have assisted in the lengthy scrutiny of the Bill. Three of I the sessions went on far too late at night. I am

  2329
  grateful to all my noble friends and others who collaborated in a scrutiny of the Bill which I hope the Committee feel was not a waste of time. Certain, perhaps minor, improvements have been achieved. We shall be seeking many further improvements in the Bill as it proceeds. I am grateful for the consideration given by all noble Lords, including the Government Front Bench, and for the work that has been done on the Bill.
  Lord Hesketh: I should like to take the opportunity on behalf of the Government to thank all noble Lords and in particular the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Addington, who have sat through a lengthy period of time, and, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, three excessively late nights. From these Benches we are grateful for the good humour that has been maintained throughout the Bill's passage which has made it a pleasure for us to be here.
  Title, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Companies (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
7.20 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 8th June be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee.] —(Viscount Ullswater.)
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for moving the Motion, but I am afraid that I have to tell him that if your Lordships were to accept the Motion it would be without effect. A simple calculation of the date on which the order was made, and a look at the regulations under Section 708(2) of the Companies Act 1985, under which the order was made, will show that the order was made on 7th June 1990 and that within 28 days it had to be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
Staling with 7th June, if you add 27 days to the 7th June you come to 34. Unless the Government have inadvertantly changed the calendar there are 30 days in June. Therefore 4th July —that is, yesterday —was the last day on which this resolution could have been taken to give legitimacy to the order about which the noble Viscount is talking. The order itself is unexceptional, but I am afraid that we cannot accept: the Motion that the noble Viscount has put.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was good enough to tell me earlier that he believed, on advice, that the regulations were out of time. I am advised that this is indeed the case. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to this and for agreeing to the procedure that we have followed; namely, that I should move the Motion in my name formally so that the noble Lord could point out that the regulations were out of time.
This is the result of a simple miscalculation of the date by which the regulations had to be approved.
2330
In the circumstances there is nothing I can do today except withdraw the Motion in my name. I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that the order was not brought before this House in sufficient time for it to be considered before it expired. A new order has been made today which takes effect tomorrow. Your Lordships will be invited to consider this in due course. I beg to withdraw the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the House decides on whether the noble Viscount can withdraw his Motion, could he give the House an assurance that DTI Ministers in future will get their act together? There have been so many nonsenses coming out from DTI Ministers. A simple miscalculation like this is not good enough. Will the noble Viscount give us an assurance that the Department of Trade and Industry, from the Secretary of State downward, will get its act together and make sure that your Lordships' time is not wasted?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have made an apology to the House, and I shall of course pass on the remarks of the noble Lord to the department.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990
7.24 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 8th June be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords. I beg to move that the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1990, which was laid before the House on 8th June, be approved. This is one of two Statutory Instruments designed to amend the Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme. As you may recall, the scheme itself was introduced in February of last year. You may therefore wonder why it is necessary to amend it so early in its life. The principal need for change arises from the EC farm structures package which was agreed by the Council of Ministers in December last year. At the same time, we are taking the opportunity to make some other changes which have been required by the European Commission, and also some which seem advisable in the light of experience.
The Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme consists of two parts. Farmers can receive grant for investments in an approved programme called an improvement plan. Alternatively, they may elect to claim grant on individual investments under the non-plan side of the scheme. The most significant of the changes being made affect the system of improvement plans, and are embodied in the Farm and Conservation Grant (Amendment) Regulations 1990. That instrument is subject to the negative resolution procedure, and will not therefore be considered by your Lordships. The instrument before us today makes certain changes to the non-plan part of the scheme.
The first of these changes relates to what we call the "time and income test" of eligibility for grant on traditional buildings. This test must be met by the person running the business. In the past this person has had to spend at least half his or her time working on the agricultural part of of the farm business, and derive at least half his or her income from that source. The modified test allows time and income relating to certain non-agricultural activities (such as tourism and craft) to be taken into account for the purposes of the test. This will obviously benefit farmers who have diversified their on-farm activities.
Another change stems from the fact that the European Commission has required us to reduce the 30 per cent. grant rate for the replacement of heated glasshouses outside the less favoured areas in order to comply with the strict letter of EC legislation. Like other member states we are of course required to implement Community obligations. However, in view of the storm damage suffered by the glasshouse sector earlier this year, and realising the considerable difficulties facing those involved, we have decided to allow growers to benefit from the higher grant rate for as long as possible. The reduced rate of 25 per cent. will therefore not apply to claims received before 1st January 1991.
There are two further changes which are set out in the instrument. The first of these is purely to clarify the existing position regarding certain horticultural grants. The scheme offers grant for durable structures clad with plastic (or "polytunnels") and for heating systems in such structures. There has been some suggestion that mushroom houses clad with black plastic could thus qualify for grant. That is not the purpose of grant aid in this area, where a firm policy decision was taken to target aid at the glasshouse sector. The instrument therefore clarifies that aid for durable structures is confined to those being used as an alternative to glasshouses, and clad with transclucent plastic.
The final change relates to grant for traditional field boundaries. As part of this grant, aid is available for fencing to protect hedges until they are established. Earth banks serving as field boundaries are however also liable to damage until they have been consolidated by vegetation. The instrument therefore extends the grant to include protective fencing for banks as well as for hedges. Any of your Lordships familiar with the landscape in Devon and Cornwall will know that this will be particularly welcome in that part of the country. This change also applies to fencing protecting raised floodbanks in Scotland.
Your Lordships will have gathered that the instrument before us does not embody fundamental changes to the scheme. Indeed, it would be inappropriate to make such changes when the scheme has been running for only a relatively short period. However, the modified time and income test of eligibility, and the extension of grant for protective fencing, should enable more farmers to take advantage of the scheme which, I believe, with its emphasis on anti-pollution measures and enhancement of the environment, will continue to
2332
reflect the proper priorities for financial aid. I therefore commend the instrument to your Lordships.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 8th June be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, we thank the noble Baroness for explaining the scheme. I say at the outset that we welcome the changes in the eligibility criteria and the target income requirements, as they should enable more farmers to qualify for grant aid. The changes with regard to pig grants affect only those with improvement plans, and seem likely to affect only a small minority of pig farmers. The majority of items that qualify for grant aid are likely to be of interest to pig farmers and can be operated as non-plan items.
The restrictions on beef production grants that are necessitated by changes to Community legislation may adversely affect some of the more intensively stocked livestock farms.
As the noble Baroness stated, the reduction in the rate of grant for glasshouses, was necessitated by changes in Community laws. We are particularly grateful that the 30 per cent. rate will continue until the end of 1990 as a result of the heavy storm damage in the earlier part of this year. We consider, however, that the rate should be set at the maximum, which is 26.5 per cent., instead of 25 per cent. It is undoubtedly true that horticulture in this country is suffering from intense competition from other Community states.
We welcome the extension of grant aid to fencing for field banks and flood banks, which will be of environmental advantage in Devon and Cornwall where such banks, on which trees and bushes grow, are often used as field boundaries.
We are somewhat disappointed that the Government did not accede to other requests made by the National Farmers' Union, for example, and in particular to installation grants for new entrants into farming and the extension of grant aid to other items that would greatly assist in the control of pollution.
In the United Kingdom new entrants are eligible only for a 25 per cent. enhancement of capital grants. Under Community legislation, installation grants could also be made available and would be particularly valuable to new entrants. We regard that matter as very important because agriculture is currently in a state of transition.
Grant aid is available for effluent disposal facilities but not for items such as roofing over yards, which would help to separate clean and dirty water and therefore enhance the efficiency of such facilities.
Having made those few points, I repeat that we support the order.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. I should like to answer the point he made in regard to glasshouses. I have been very sympathetic to the glasshouse people in view of the damage that they have suffered.

2333
I am informed that 26.5 per cent. would be inconsistent with other rates and would be very costly to administer.
If the noble Lord wishes me to give details of the changes that are being made to the pig restrictions, he only to nod his head and I shall write to him.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eight o'clock.

  BURMA: ELECTION RESULT
  BURMA: ELECTION RESULT
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES
  CHURCH SCHOOL CLOSURES
  ENCLOSED LAND: DEFINITION
  ENCLOSED LAND: DEFINITION
  BIG BEN
  BIG BEN