Sitting of 12 March 1990

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

    United States Secretary for Transportation
    Mr. Colvin: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his meeting with the Secretary for Transportation of the United States of America.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): We met in Washington on 11 January. We discussed a variety of topics, including the prospects for liberalising services between the United Kingdom and United States of America and arrangements for new United States airline services to regional airports. Those discussions are now being carried forward.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any air service agreements with the United States will be based on reciprocity, particularly with regard to cabotage, and that they will be negotiated by Britain on a bilateral basis rather than in concert with our European partners? We have much more at stake than other EEC members. To negotiate with them might lead to the building up of a fortress Europe mentality, which would be very much to Britain's disadvantage in its relationship with the United States.
    Mr. Parkinson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that the package of measures that we agree between us is fair to both sides. The Commission has its work cut out to make progress on liberalisation within the Community and is certainly not ready to take on the duties of negotiating our bilateral international agreements. I therefore agree with my hon. Friend on both counts.
    Mr. Prescott: At that meeting, did the Secretary of State discuss with Mr. Skinner the information that came to light in the presidential investigation into the Lockerbie tragedy—that 80 per cent. of the American embassy people who were to fly on that plane cancelled on receipt of the warning about that crash? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is another good reason why he should reopen the inquiry into the Lockerbie tragedy, as it causes grave offence for him to co-operate with the American authorities while refusing to conduct such an inquiry in Britain?
    Mr. Parkinson: I did not discuss the information about the United States personnel, although I discussed with Mr. Skinner the implications of Lockerbie for aviation security. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the two Governments have been co-operating to promote international agreement on a range of matters. We are still investigating Lockerbie—the investigations by the police and the air accident investigation branch continue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has made it clear that there will be a fatal accident inquiry and he is already making those arrangements. There is no question of that terrible disaster not being fully investigated.

    Road Improvement
    Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much is being allocated in transport supplementary grant to local authorities in 1990–91 for road improvement programmes.
    The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Robert Atkins): Government grants of £233 million have been made available to local councils this year—a 15 per cent.

    3
    increase on last year—further proof, if it were needed, of the Government's real commitment to improving local roads.
    Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent news. Has his Department had time to consider the report by Sir John Wolfe-Barry and Partners, dated 24 May 1924, on the construction of a bridge between east and west Cowes? I wonder whether my hon. Friend would like to earn 66 standing ovations on the Isle of Wight, one for every year since that report, as well as a free holiday on the Isle of Wight, for joining east and west and announcing that he will fund the river bridge over the Medina.
    Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend may have been around when the article was published, but I most certainly was not. None the less, his point is not lost on me or on my Department. The case for the Medina bridge is strong. As my hon. Friend will understand, I cannot commit myself at the moment to announcing whether transport supplementary grant can be made available, but this is obviously a good candidate. Clearly, were I able to provide that grant, a free holiday would be an attraction, but not the most persuasive one.
    Mr. Fearn: Is the Minister aware that many bridges over disused railways are in a very bad state of repair? In the programme of moneys that he has in mind to allocate to the local authorities, are there any moneys for the repair of the bridges, as there is no doubt that they are in a dangerous state?
    Mr. Atkins: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made an adjustment this year to enable local authorities to ring-fence the resources that were previously available to them under the rate support grant and which are now available under our own grant, to enable them to repair their local bridges. The local authorities have told me that they require more money, and we are considering that at the moment, but the Department's programme of repair of its own bridges on trunk roads, motorways and so on, is progressing fast and satisfactorily.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware that those who have had to listen over the years to the endless arguments about the Winchester bypass recognised the dilemma in which the Secretary of State found himself, and that most people realised that he had no choice whatever but to reach the decision that he reached? The decision that the Secretary of State has taken to return the existing road to greenery will do a great deal to allay the understandable concern about the environment, and most reasonable people accept what the Government have decided to do.
    Mr. Atkins: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are grateful for my hon. Friend's judgment, bearing in mind his known interests in matters that are not always road based. I think that it is fair to say that a number of us involved in making the decision resent strongly the suggestion that, because that difficult decision was faced and taken, those at the Department of the Environment and at the Department of Transport are somehow less aware of the environmental considerations that are so important to many of us. My hon. Friend knows the area well and his support for the road on behalf of his constituents is greatly appreciated.

    London Assessment Studies
    Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses he has now received to the London assessment studies consultation; and what was their nature.
    Mr. Parkinson: Several thousand responses were received on the London assessment consultation and they are now being analysed.
    Miss Hoey: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the vast majority of responses that he received from local authorities, businesses and property developers oppose the road-building aspects of the road assessment studies and call for more money to be spent on public transport? Will he now listen to what people are saying and, in particular, to the thousands of people in my area who are trying to save Clapham common from devastation?
    Mr. Parkinson: Assessment of the representations is still going on and it would be unfair to suggest that we can summarise them in a word or two. Certainly, some of the major road-building proposals are very controversial but in other cases people accept the need for adjustments and improvements. I should also point out to the hon. Lady—I am glad that she underlined it her remarks—that the assessment studies contain quite a large number of public transport options and that the Government are already committed to the biggest ever investment programme for Network SouthEast and London Underground.
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend note that during the consultation period I received an unprecedented number of letters—some 1,500 individual letters—from constituents about proposals for the south circular road? The vast majority of my correspondents do not wish large-scale road development to take place; they seek minor improvements at junctions and traffic management schemes. They would also endorse the proposals that I know my right hon. Friend and his Department are to put forward to improve the public transport system—in particular, the extension of the Underground route to the south-east.
    Mr. Parkinson: On this occasion, as on others, my hon. Friend accurately assesses the mood of his constituents and represents it to the House. I thank him for his acknowledgement that a huge programme of investment to increase capacity on the Underground, to develop new lines and to extend and modernise existing lines is now under way and is being carried through.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Secretary of State agree that many of his public pronouncements have emphasised the importance of environmental factors when new roads are being built? Will he now reassess the decision—either of his Department or of the former Secretary of State for the Environment—not to put a road tunnel, as the inspector recommended, under Oxleas wood? Does he realise that the Government's failure to do that makes their claims to be green completely specious?
    Mr. Parkinson: It is a little wild of the hon. Gentleman to say that the Government's reputation depends on a single decision, with which he does not agree, which affects his constituents. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the

    5
    matter is being reconsidered and an inquiry is being reopened. We shall have to wait and see what recommendations are made.
    Mr. Tracey: In his deliberations, will my right hon. Friend be clear about the fact that the London boroughs, and in particular the inner London boroughs, now place a much higher priority on environmental protection than on road building? Will he do all that he can to divert passengers to public transport and will he replenish the investment on public transport, which fell so radically under the Greater London council?
    Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Government must not underestimate the contribution that public transport can make in London. If we consider the investment programme, which is approximately four times what which we inherited from the Labour-controlled GLC five years ago, and also the £1,200 million that is to be invested in Network SouthEast, it is clear that we act while others talk and moan. We are aware of the need to improve public transport. However, we also recognise that many millions of people in London expect to use their motor cars and we are trying to ensure that that opportunity is open to them.

    Marchioness
    Ms. Ruddock: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has yet received the report from the chief inspector of marine accidents about the Marchioness accident; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister for Aviation and Shipping (Mr. Patrick McLoughlin): The chief inspector of marine accidents will submit the final report on the Marchioness accident to my right hon. Friend when the parties specified in the marine accident regulations have had a chance to comment on his findings. That process of consultation began last week and may take up to two months.
    Ms. Ruddock: I thank the Minister for his reply. I wonder whether I may refer to the Secretary of State through him. Fifty-one people lost their lives in that tragic accident and there was tremendous trauma for their dependants and relatives. Will the Secretary of State listen to the request of the dependants and relatives that there should be a full public inquiry into the Marchioness disaster as there was into the Zeebrugge disaster? If the Minister cannot give the House that assurance today, will he at least assure us that the Government have not set their mind against such an inquiry?
    Mr. McLoughlin: It is open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to ask for a formal investigation at any stage. However, we are satisfied that the extremely thorough nature of the inquiry and report will be based on the evidence taken in the investigation. We do not want to postpone the publication of the report.
    Mr. Hanley: May I ask my hon. Friend for clarification of what he has just said? Is it true that if a full public inquiry is entered into, the publication of the report on that tragic accident will be delayed and the inspector's recommendations might also be delayed? We all want justice for those who were killed and for their families. However, to delay safety on the river any longer would be a disaster as well.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The marine accident investigation branch brought forward interim measures that were adopted very quickly after the accident. However, my hon. Friend is right. If a public inquiry were ordered, we should not be able to publish the report. I ask hon. Members to be patient and to wait for the publication of the report. When it is published, they will find that it is a useful and thorough document. That would be in everyone's interests.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: May I also press the Minister to be clear? Are the Government saying that they have not yet formally ruled out a public inquiry, because press reports state that they have? Will the Minister confirm the earliest date by which the report will be published? I understand that there may be two months' consultation, but what is the earliest date when the report will be published? Just as important, will he and his Department comment on the practice whereby there is the most reluctant payment of compensation to the victims and so far no payment whatever to the bereaved? Does the Minister's Department support that? If not, can he do something to change that system?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I shall try to answer the hon. Gentleman's three points. As I said in my initial answer, the consultation period with those who are specified in the regulations started last week. We hope to have the report published within seven weeks at the maximum. I confirm that, if something serious comes forward, it will still be open to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to set up a public inquiry.
    I should not like to comment on claims against insurance companies at the moment, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that, at the time of the disaster, we made a substantial contribution to the disaster fund.

    Goods Vehicles
    Mr. Gregory: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning mandatory reversing warning devices for all goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Atkins: Ministers received five letters on this subject in 1989, and one letter of complaint about noise nuisance from reversing alarms. We have received no representations in 1990. As my hon. Friend will be aware, mandatory fitting of alarms would require agreement from the EEC.
    Mr. Gregory: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Is he as concerned as I am about the number of accidents involving vehicles without reversing devices? Each year, 2,000 accidents are a direct result of pedestrians coming into contact with vehicles that have not been fitted with such bleepers. Is my hon. Friend particularly concerned about schoolchildren, as lorries without reversing alarms may enter school grounds?
    Mr. Atkins: Of course, I am worried about anything that may cause an accident or death. Therefore, I shall take action if I believe it to be necessary. The records demonstrate that, over the past 10 years, there have been about 50 fatal accidents involving vehicles without reversing alarms. That is a small proportion, but it is clearly too high.

    7
    My hon. Friend understands the situation pretty well. He will know that I must do my best to encourage drivers of vehicles to ensure that they take extra care as befits their standard of driving and the highway code and also that they take necessary care when making manoeuvres associated with reversing vehicles on streets.

    Transport, South-East Essex
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the current transport facilities in south-east Essex.
    The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Michael Portillo): A total of 13 schemes are planned for the upgrading of the A13 at an estimated cost of well over £200 million. I am expecting proposals from British Rail for a £300 million package of improvements on the Fenchurch Street line, including new rolling stock.
    Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that south-east Essex has the largest influx of population in the country and that the railway lines and the A13, which he mentioned, are some of the worst in the country? At present, commuters on the Fenchurch Street line—my secretary among them—take three hours to do the journey from Southend to London. Also, the A13 services Tilbury dock, Shell Haven, the Mobil depot, Dagenham Ford, some of the biggest gravel workings in the country, and all the rubbish that is dumped from London. It is a dual carriageway for much its length. Congestion is simply terrible. It is not good enough to wait until the late 1990s.
    Mr. Portillo: I know something about the frustration that is suffered by my hon. Friend's constituents, not least because she has written to me about it previously. She has been a great champion of her constituents' transport needs and anxieties. She will have heard me say that there is a package of £500 million investment for the road and the railway. That is a substantial figure. I hope that it will bring great relief. Taking the eastern region as a whole, we have added £1·9 billion in the recent White Paper on road spending. I am sure that that will go a long way towards helping her.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister recall that the Secretary of State for Transport denied that he was the strategic transport authority for the south-east? British Rail has also denied that that is its function. Who is looking after the strategic transport planning of the south-east? As the Government have walked away from the problem, is it any wonder that there is so much transport chaos, which the Minister, his colleagues and everybody in the south-east must know about? When will the Government take responsibility for looking after transport as a whole in the south-east?
    Mr. Portillo: We took over responsibility for part of the transport network from the Greater London council, of which the hon. Gentleman used to be chairman. Since then we have doubled the investment on London Underground, and over the next three years we shall double the investment again. That investment will then be four times higher than it was under the hon. Gentleman's chairmanship. We take responsibility for that part of the network. The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that there is an increase of £1·9 billion in spending on the
    8
    programme for building trunk roads, for which we are also responsible. He will have also have heard me say that there is major investment in Network SouthEast. That is being made possible by the greater efficiency of the railways, which again has come about under the Government.
    Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend accept my full endorsement of the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), not merely on the Fenchurch Street line, which is still the Cinderella of much of British Rail in London, but on the A13? It is now almost 15 years since the proposal was first made to take it over the marshes. We have not yet seen the first sign of work commencing. The A13 is a major trunk road from the ports to central London and round the M25. It is critically important that we give it higher proprity.
    Mr. Portillo: I agree with my hon. Friend that the A13 is of critical and strategic importance. He will know that the development of docklands has given an extra impetus to the need to get on with developing the A13. He will also know that I have a personal responsibility as chairman of the docklands transport steering group to make sure that the works are carried forward in a timely fashion. They are complex schemes, many of which have important implications, both for the environment and for residents. The necessary processes must be gone through.

    British Rail
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss matters of safety.
    Mr. Parkinson: There are regular meetings between myself and the chairman to discuss matters of mutual interest. Safety can be and is discussed whenever appropriate.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as a regular traveller through King's Cross, I share with other passengers great anxiety that, three months after the publication of the Hidden report, it still appears that British Rail is not sure how much it will cost to implement its recommendations? It has put only £200 million into its corporate plan for safety. According to all reports, it will cost much more than that to implement the recommendations of the report. Will he give the House and passengers a guarantee today that safety will be the priority of the Government and of British Rail and that he will make sure that British Rail receives enough money from the Government to implement the Hidden report?
    Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Lady is right to say that the Government attach top priority to safety. Part of the reason why it is not easy to cost in full the Hidden proposals is that the technology, for instance on automatic train protection, does not exist. We have authorised expenditure on three pilot schemes to develop the technology. Only when the technology is available will we know the overall cost. There is no question of trying to avoid the issue. All the recommendations have been accepted. Work on all of them is in hand but work on some of them, especially this one, will take longer. It is the main recommendation, the biggest and the most expensive.
    Mr. Simon Coombs: Is it correct that my right hon. Friend is considering the possibility of merging the railway inspectorate with the Health and Safety Executive? Does he except that many people——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the chairman of British Rail doing it?
    Mr. Coombs: Yes, indeed. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to discuss that important matter with the chairman of British Rail? Will he accept the good wishes of many hon. Members that he should continue to discuss that important matter?
    Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity. I reassure him that the discussions are in hand. We believe that it is a fundamental problem, that the Government own the railways and also have responsibility for safety. We do not own the oil industry or the other industries for which the Department has safety responsibilities. However, we own the railways. There is a case for transferring that responsibility to the HSE. That is what we are discussing.
    Mr. Prescott: Has the Secretary of State read the report issued today by the Central Transport Consultative Committee, which makes it absolutely clear that the resources necessary to meet the safety recommendations of the Hidden report cannot be financed from the present corporate plan? In his discussions with the chairman, will the Secretary of State consider how the corporate plan can be renegotiated so that moneys can be found to meet those safety commitments and return some of the £2 billion that the Government have pinched from support for the railways?
    Mr. Parkinson: I shall be discussing the report with the chairman of the CTCC. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are talking about a three-year programme. The chairman seems to be jumping the gun in saying that on the evidence of a couple of months he can predict what can happen in the next three years. He seems to have been listening to too many ill-informed speeches from the hon. Gentleman. British Rail will have the resources necessary to meet the capital programmes that we have devised. Those resources will come from what the hon. Gentleman calls "public money"—from grants, sales of assets belonging to the public, depreciation of assets belonging to the public and loans from the National Loans Fund at preferential rates—so let us have no more nonsense about the Government and the taxpayer not contributing.
    Mr. Hind: My right hon. Friend will be aware that he has the support of his hon. Friends for the present extensive investments in British Rail, but when he next speaks to the chairman of British Rail will he stress the need for speedy construction of new rail stock, because we in the north-west are receiving many complaints that trains are shorter than necessary and more overcrowded, that safety is affected and that services are being reduced due to the lack of new rolling stock? Will my right hon. Friend emphasise the importance of speeding up that programme?
    Mr. Parkinson: Yes, and I should advise my hon. Friend that the shortage does not arise from a shortage of money. It is because deliveries of new rolling stock are already 40 weeks late, which means that rolling stock that should have been replaced is still being used—[HON.
    10
    MEMBERS: "Because BREL was privatised."] No, the backlog was built up when British Rail Engineering Ltd was in the public sector. It has not got any worse—in fact it has slightly improved—since privatisation. We recognise the problem that my hon. Friend has identified, and Ht is being dealt with. The stock is on order and as soon as it is available it will replace the old stock which is causing so many problems.

    Traffic Examiners, Wales
    Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make it his policy that traffic examiners in Wales shall continue to operate under the direct supervision of his Department's traffic office in Cardiff.
    Mr. Atkins: No, Sir. Traffic examiners will continue to be managed by the Department's traffic area office in Cardiff until April 1991.
    Thereafter, responsibility for their management will pass to the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency.
    Mr. Michael: Does the Minister accept that the most efficient form of organisation is that which has the most direct line of communication and supervision? Does he agree that having a properly integrated operation, with the inspectors working directly to the office in Cardiff, would be the best way of achieving the best possible supervision and the most effective operation?
    Mr. Atkins: I am entirely satisfied that the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency and its staff will do their level best to ensure not only that the present high standard will be maintained, but that the even higher standard for which the hon. Gentleman is pressing will be achieved under our proposals.

    Air Fares
    Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to bring down air fares in Europe.
    Mr. McLoughlin: The Government are committed to removing the barriers to competition in air transport by liberalisation within the Community and bilaterally. This should lead to lower fares and increased consumer choice.
    Mr. Smith: What progress is being made? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is still cheaper to fly to New York than to many European destinations? Does he agree that if liberalisation of air transport is to be meaningful for air passengers it must be carried out in such a way as to ensure that there is real competition and that small airlines can survive?
    Mr. McLoughlin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about competition policy. It is vital that we ensure that there is room for all the smaller companies. Liberalisation will give those companies greater opportunities to take advantage of the market.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is it not monstrous that there should be such huge fare differences from Manchester and the London airports to other European cities approximately the same distance away? Does the Minister agree that this hurts the interests of Manchester airport, discrimin-

    11
    ates against northern passengers and chokes the skies over south-east England even more dangerously? What action are the Government taking?
    Mr. McLoughlin: A number of factors lead a person to decide where he should start his journey from. It is Government policy to encourage regional airports to take as much advantage as possible of a liberalised aviation market, and it is with that in prospect that we are trying to bring about a more liberal agreement between the Community and other areas. The Government certainly intend to see regional airports develop.

    Public Transport, London
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received any recent representations from the public on the standard of service to passengers using London public transport systems; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Portillo: Yes. The quality of service objectives that we have set for British Rail and London Transport, coupled with the much increased investment that we have approved, are designed to secure a significant improvement in service standards.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Although he does not have direct responsibility, will he again focus on the plight of the Metropolitan line from Harrow on the Hill to central London via Baker street? Does he recall using that line some years ago when he was a distinguished sixth former in that area and how good the service was then? Does he further agree that the daily scenario now of filthy, unswept, lurching, clapped-out old-fashioned, graffiti-swamped rolling stock, which sums up the coaches on the Metropolitan line service, despite its speed to Baker street, is an unacceptable concomitant to the daily psychological and physical pressures on my long-suffering commuter constituents? Will he discuss that urgently with his colleagues?
    Mr. Portillo: I am sorry to hear of the deterioration that has apparently occurred in the past few years and I shall naturally look into it. My hon. Friend will be aware that his constituents are about to benefit from the massive investment of £100 million in new rolling stock on the Chiltern line, which runs through his constituency. They will also be beneficiaries of the £1 billion to be invested in extending the Jubilee line to Waterloo, docklands and Stratford. I hope that his constituents will derive great benefit from all that.
    Ms. Ruddock: Does the Minister accept that public transport passengers in London are paying some of the highest fares in Europe for some of the worst services? Is he aware that in recent times on any one morning as many as 12 Underground stations are closed due to overcrowding, that two thirds of the timetabled bus services in the capital do not depart on time and that in January in an average week 26 Underground stations had to be closed due to lack of staff? The level of public complaints in London is clearly more than justified and the Minister should accept that.
    Mr. Portillo: I am not sure what the hon. Lady is proposing. She knows perfectly well that investment in London Underground has been doubled since we took it
    12
    over from the Greater London council, that we propose to double it again in the next three years, that we propose a major programme to upgrade all the existing Underground system and that we have committed ourselves to a £1 billion extension of the Jubilee line. The Labour Government could never even have dreamt of all the improvements which are under way now. The hon. Lady will see from the records that the Government have committed themselves not only to a record level of investment but to one which is as much as the Underground could physically manage.

    Coaches (Limiters)
    Mr. Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress achieved in fitting speed limiters to coaches.
    Mr. Atkins: The programme for fitting speed limiters to all coaches first used in 1974 or later will be completed by 31 March next year. Speed limiters should by now be fitted to most modern coaches.
    Mr. Squire: As my hon. Friend knows, I welcome this safety measure. Is he aware of reports suggesting that many coach operators have been slow to fit speed limiters, which will be a legal requirement from the end of this month for many coaches? Will he take this opportunity to repeat that from the Dispatch Box? Will he also look into the possibility of his Department advising various coach operators that they face legal penalties if they do not comply?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who has rightly often raised this matter. I have no evidence that the campaign of enforcement is being delayed. If he has evidence to that effect, I should be grateful to hear it. I am delighted to accept his offer to re-emphasise to those on both sides of the House who are interested the importance of speed limiters to coaches in that they can save lives and prevent unnecessary accidents.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Minister also considered the introduction of compulsory spray-suppressant mud flaps for coaches and lorries because of the great danger created to other motorists by the spray from heavy lorries on the on the motorways? Such spray is one of the greatest dangers on motorways at present.
    Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is right and that concern has been expressed to me on numerous occasions. We are having discussions with the European Community and, in those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman's views and the many suggestions from hon. Members on both sides of the House will be taken into account.

    Motorists' Organisations
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent meetings he has had with representatives of motorists' organisations; and what was discussed.
    Mr. Atkins: I have met the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club—and other road users' organisations—since the summer and have discussed matters of mutual interest with them. This afternoon I am going straight from here to meet the RAC again.
    Mr. Butler: Did those organisations discuss with my hon. Friend the fact that motorists pay far more into the Exchequer than is spent on them by the Department of Transport? Will he bear that in mind before he develops any policy to increase taxation on motorists?
    Mr. Atkins: I am sure that my hon. Friend, being a fair man, will be ready to applaud the substantially increased spending on public transport and roads among other things, within the Department of Transport budget and to recognise that as evidence of the Government's and the Department's commitment to the British driving public. There is, of course, always room for improvement and I shall be happy to try to oblige.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Clockwork Orange
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to discuss prosecutions arising from operation Clockwork Orange.
    The Attorney-General: (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I have had no such discussion with either director.
    Mr. Allen: If just a fraction of the allegations, accusations and rumours in respect of the Clockwork Orange operation are true, that is of great concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House.
    Does the Attorney-General feel that he has some constitutional, political or even moral responsibility to get to the bottom of this?
    The Attorney-General: No evidence suggesting that criminal activity took place has come to my attention—I would certainly have a constitutional role if that were the case. I notice that this matter was fully dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in his oral statement of 1 February when he said that if people did have evidence of conduct that they believed to be criminal, they should
    "produce it so that the matter can be investigated properly."
    He went on to contrast the profusion of allegations with what he described as:
    "an amazing unwillingness to produce evidence which can be tested and checked"—[Official Report, 1 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 454.]

    Director of Public Prosecutions
    Mr Skinner: To ask the Attorney-General what meetings he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement.
    The Attorney-General: I frequently meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss matters of departmental interest; our last meeting was on 26 February this year.
    Mr. Skinner: When the Attorney-General next meets the Director of Public Prosecutions, will he draw his attention to the House of Fraser report and ask him when the Al-Fayed brothers are to be brought before the British law courts? In view of the document that every Member of Parliament now has, surely those men should be treated with the same kind of justice as other people. Is he aware that millions of our electors are asking, "Why should we
    14
    pay the poll tax and observe the law of the land when the City crooks can get away with it?" Is there one law for the Al-Fayed brothers and for big busness men and another for the millions of people who have to pay the poll tax?
    The Attorney-General: There is no need for me to draw the attention of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the director of the Serious Fraud Office to the report on House of Fraser as they considered it for more than 18 months, having instigated a thorough police investigation. They instigated that investigation to secure the best chance of investigating matters with a view to prosecuting, if appropriate, to a successful conclusion. That was why they established the police investigation and why they asked the Secretary of State to withhold publication of the report.
    Of course I agree that the same law should apply to the Al-Fayed brothers as to everyone else. [Interruption.] It is perhaps naive, but if the hon. Gentleman asks a question I assume, in his favour, that he wants an answer rather than merely to interrupt the whole time. The same law should and does apply, but there is one very important distinction that I wish to make clear. Whereas it was open to the inspectors to take account of hearsay evidence if they thought that it was reliable—and of course it was open to them to reach the conclusion that they did—it would not have been open to a jury in a criminal case to convict upon evidence of the same character. The inspectors are entitled to take account of evidence covering a wider scope than that available in criminal proceedings in an English court.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, unsatisfactory though this whole matter is, taking action which is totally ineffectual and useless is worse than taking no action at all? He has made the point, which bears repeating, that what the inspectors saw to be completely clear and unarguable would not stand up in a court of law because it was based on hearsay evidence which would not have been admissible.
    The Attorney-General: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. Inquiries were pursued in every part of the world indicated by the inspectors' report, but the directors had to conclude, as they said in their joint statement issued on 1 March that there was insufficient evidence available for use in an English court in English criminal proceedings on any matter of substance raised in the inspectors' report to warrant the bringing of criminal proceedings. Exactly the same criterion has been applied in this case as has been applied in every other criminal case, and as was required under the code for prosecutors which has the approval of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Fraser: What was the offence for which there was prima facie evidence? Can the Attorney-General confirm whether, if section 151 of the Companies Act 1989 had been in force, the conduct described in the Harrods case and in the British Aerospace and British Leyland case would give rise to prima facie evidence for offences under that Act? Will he have a word with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to ensure that that section is brought into force as soon as possible?
    The Attorney-General: I will not deal with the effect of that section in this context, but I will draw the attention of the House—I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter—to the substantial extra precautions that can be taken in the light of that legislation. We have

    15
    substantially improved the means by which conduct can be monitored in connection with company activities and that is a matter which is supplemented by the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Bill currently before Parliament, which will make it easier for a court to issue a letter of request for evidence from overseas. Those provisions represent some tightening up in the available legislation, and I believe that that is desirable.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can my right hon. and learned Friend, with his comprehensive legal knowledge, say whether there might have been sufficient rather than insufficient evidence if the Government had been able earlier to implement section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which gave powers to obtain information from other countries, rather than implementing it last week, as he kindly explained in the letter that he sent to me?
    The Attorney-General: It might have been of some assistance—it is very difficult to tell. As I have just said, these matters will be easier under the Bill now before Parliament. However, a commission rogatoire was issued to one country, and investigations have been pursued in every part of the world in which the inspectors' report showed that such investigations would be desirable.

    Birmingham Six
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he last discussed the Birmingham Six case with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
    The Attorney-General: It was mentioned briefly on Thursday 30 November when considering parliamentary questions for answer on Monday 4 December.
    Mr. Mullin: Does the Attorney-General agree that however much new evidence comes forward in the case the judges will never in any circumstances own up to a mistake, so the only way out for everyone is for the Director of Public Prosecutions to go to the Court of Appeal and ask for the convictions to be quashed, as he did in the Guildford case, in such terms as to allow the judges absolutely no discretion? Before the Attorney-General replies, I remind him that when I suggested on previous occasions at Question Time that the people convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings were innocent he chose to poke fun at me. Will he now inject a note of humility into his reply?
    The Attorney-General: I reject with force what the hon. Gentleman has said about judges being unwilling or unable to admit to making mistakes when mistakes have been made.
    The decision on whether the case of the Birmingham Six is to be referred again to the Court of Appeal rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. The six were convicted after a trial by a jury and their case cannot be raised again, save by the Home Secretary referring the matter to the Court of Appeal, as has already happened once. My right hon. and learned Friend has said in written answers on more than one occasion that if matters are brought to his attention suggesting a need for serious investigation, they will receive it. He is already considering matters brought to his attention by a solicitor on behalf of some of the men, but in this country we do not set aside convictions by Executive action.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Latin America
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in supporting the teaching of English in Latin America.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): New English language teaching projects are about to be agreed in Peru and Colombia, and a further project is in prospect in Bolivia. These will be in addition to existing projects in Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay.
    Mr. Arnold: May I welcome the support that has been given to the Culturå Inglesa in those various countries and congratulate it on the excellent job that it does in teaching English? Bearing in mind that Latin Americans prefer to learn English rather than American, and that they are ready to pay for that teaching, can my right hon. Friend tell us what more may be done to help the teaching and infrastructure of English in those countries?
    Mrs. Chalker: I understand that the British Council has some self-financing programmes for teaching English anyway. There are, additionally, commercial courses teaching English in a number of South American countries, but we top up that undertaking with the sort of programmes that I have just mentioned which I believe will teach English well and show the people of those countries the benefits of knowing English and of being able to do business with Britain.
    Sir Dudley Smith: My right hon. Friend did not mention Chile. Will she bear in mind that advances in regressive countries deserve consideration, and that Chile has now advanced to democracy again?
    Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend will be aware that the income per head in Chile would rule out any aid programme. I believe that there are a number of totally self-financing commercial courses teaching English in Chile, and we should of course welcome more initiatives of that kind.

    Sri Lanka
    Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Minister for Overseas Development has to visit Sri Lanka.
    Mrs. Chalker: At present I have no plans to visit Sri Lanka.
    Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but is the Minister aware of the ongoing efforts of the President of Sri Lanka to try to reunite that country and to build up confidence in it? Against that background will she assure the House that she will do all that she can to encourage such confidence? Most especially, if requests are made for foreign aid or technical assistance, will she and her Department look favourably on them?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am glad that President Premadasa has managed to make an improvement in the south of the country, but there are still grave concerns about what is happening in Sri Lanka. We have an aid programme in that country. In 1988–89, our substantial aid expenditure

    17
    totalled £19·4 million, although it will probably be a little less in the current financial year. We recognise that there is a need to provide help, especially in the environmental area, but we must be careful about the use of technical co-operation officers in a country which still has much civilian strife.
    Mr. Jack: Pursuant to my right hon. Friend's previous reply about environmental policies, what benefit will there be for forestry in Sri Lanka?
    Mrs. Chalker: A forestry project is at an advanced state of preparation and includes the study of land use and conservation in the Victoria dam catchment area. There is also a major project, which we are helping through the aid and trade provision, on the Samanalawewa dam.
    Mr. Madden: What action is the Minister taking to gauge the extent of human and civil rights abuses in Sri Lanka? What representations has she made to the Government in that regard?
    Mrs. Chalker: Our high commissioner in Sri Lanka saw the President on 28 February. We constantly monitor what is happening. Britain, like other major donors, is looking for a distinct improvement in human rights. We were extremely concerned about the abduction and death of Richard d'Zoysa.

    Kenya
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was discussed during the visit to Kenya by the Minister for Overseas Development.
    Mrs. Chalker: I had constructive discussions with the Kenyan Vice-President and Ministers during my visit to Nairobi last week. I reiterated our support for Kenya's economic reform programme and our intention to maintain a substantial bilateral aid programme. We also discussed regional issues, especially the tragic civil wars in the Horn of Africa and the impending famine in Ethiopia.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Did my right hon. Friend find that the Ethiopian famine loomed large with the Kenyan people? What was the nature of her discussions with the Kenyan Government about that and what further action does she plan to take?
    Mrs. Chalker: The problems of the Horn of Africa loomed large in my discussions in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, as well as in Ethiopia. As a result of those discussions and the facts that we discovered, I am today announcing another £8·5 million of new emergency relief and food aid for Ethiopia.

    Vietnam
    Mr. Tom Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to restore development aid to Vietnam.
    Mrs. Chalker: The Government are considering the possibility of supporting British non-governmental organisation activities in Vietnam, especially to help the communities in the areas from which the boat people came.
    Mr. Clarke: Does the Minister accept that that sounds like a slight improvement in what was otherwise a scandalous position for the Government to take? Will she now respond positively to the pleas by the Save the Children Fund, Christian Aid and Oxfam to ensure that there is essential economic aid to deal with the appalling poverty in Vietnam? Will the Government use their influence to stop the international embargo which appeals to the Pentagon but to no one else?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman may remember that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I had a meeting with a number of non-governmental organisations on 14 November 1989. At that meeting we invited the NGOs to put forward a number of proposals which may help people coming from the area where the boat people came from. We have received the proposals only in the last week, but we shall be considering them urgently.
    Mr. Lester: Now that my hon. Friend has received those proposals, will she assure the House that they will be quickly targeted to those areas in north Vietnam, where it is expected that boat people will leave from next? I recognise that it is difficult to decide when to joint-fund those programmes, but urgency is vital. The quicker we can make the programmes work, the better for the boat people, for the people of Hong Kong and for the Vietnamese in south-east Asia.
    Mrs. Chalker: I will do so as quickly as possible, but as it has taken a number of months for the agencies to come up with their proposals, they must be considered properly. If they are viable, we shall put them into operation as soon as possible.
    Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Minister agree that the normalisation of relations with Vietnam is crucial both to the future of the boat people and to the stabilisation of the situation in Cambodia? Will she again give this further consideration and also consider exercising influence on the United States?
    Mrs. Chalker: Yes, of course we shall. We greatly welcome the withdrawal of Vietnamese combat units from Cambodia. All those things are steps in the right direction, but we are still waiting to see how the Vietnamese Government will respond. Until we have seen how they respond, it is difficult for me to give the hon. Gentleman the total commitment that he would like.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister not understand that an end to the economic isolation of Vietnam is esential before we can solve the problem of the boat people? It is not sufficient to leave it to the voluntary agencies to provide the kind of aid that Vietnam needs. Has she not read the International Monetary Fund report, which urges enormous aid to Vietnam? Why do we continue to follow the policy of the American Government in imposing a vicious, vindictive embargo on the kind of assistance that Vietnam ought to have?
    Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Lady is perhaps less aware than she might be of the outstanding arrears to the IMF. More than $100 million is owed to the IMF and $3·3 million to the Asian Development bank. Until a solution is worked out with the IMF, there will be no active lending programmes by any of the major donor countries, so in that respect we are no different from other donors. I am

    19
    very much aware of the needs of the people of Vietnam. We shall certainly start in the way that I outlined in November. A direct bilateral aid programme will not be possible until an economic recovery programme is agreed with the international financial institutions.

    Climatic Change
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies have been made by the Overseas Development Administration on additional development need occasioned by observed or likely climatic change.
    Mrs. Chalker: As well as preparing a paper for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on financial measures to help developing countries, the ODA has commissioned a study on options for reducing carbon dioxide emissions in developing countries, and has helped to finance a study on the phasing out of CFCs in India.
    Mr. Spearing: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can she tell us whether any of the studies have been commissioned from the Overseas Development Administration's natural resources institute, or whatever its modern name is, in Chatham? Does she agree that client-based research by that institute is unlikely to be so effective as basic research which it might otherwise conduct?
    Mrs. Chalker: Parts of the Deprtment are engaged in getting expert advice from within and without the Department for the papers being written for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We certainly have excellent advice coming from the Overseas
    20
    Development Administration's natural resources institute, but much of what we gain on forestry and on atmospheric emissions comes from other worthwhile but outside institutions.

    Vietnam
    Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Hanoi to discuss development aid with the Vietnamese Government.
    Mrs. Chalker: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Wareing: In view of the answers that the right hon. Lady has already given about Vietnam, is it not about time that she made arrangements to visit Hanoi? This country is already giving aid to some pretty rotten regimes so there is no excuse for following lamely in the footsteps of the United States of America on this. Does the Minister agree that if we took a real lead in giving unilateral aid to Vietnam we might have a stronger influence on that country in terms of bringing it forward in a more democratic spirit?
    Mrs. Chalker: I was answering in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I, too, have no immediate plans to visit Hanoi. I hope that progress can be made on the issues raised by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We are certainly pursuing our own plan with Vietnam and not following in anybody's footsteps.

Iraq (Prisoners)
3.34 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what action Her Majesty's Government are taking following the sentences imposed on Mr. Farzad Bazoft and Mrs. Daphne Parish by a court in Iraq.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): The whole House will join me in expressing dismay and horror at the unjustified sentences that Mr. Bazoft and Mrs. Parish received from the Iraqi revolutionary court on Saturday. The sentences are out of all proportion to any offence that may have been committed. In particular, we deplore the death sentence passed on Mr. Bazoft.
Before the trial opened last Thursday, we had made more than 50 separate representations to the Iraqi authorities making clear our concern for the well-being of Mrs. Parish and Mr. Bazoft. Our major concern at that stage was to try to secure a fair trial for Mrs. Parish and Mr. Bazoft.
In addition to that constant pressure on the Iraqi authorities, the Prime Minister wrote to President Saddam Hussain on 21 February, before the trial took place, to express her concern about the two cases. President Saddam Hussain replied to the Prime Minister on 28 February assuring her that the trial would indeed be a fair one. From the account that we have received, it is clear that no evidence was presented that would justify such harsh and disproportionate sentences.
Our immediate aim is to save the life of Mr. Bazoft and to secure a review of the sentence imposed on Mrs. Parish. As soon as the outcome of the trial was known on Saturday, the Prime Minister wrote again to President Saddam Hussain asking for both sentences to be reduced on humanitarian grounds. At the same time, we summoned the Iraqi ambassador and made clear to him the Government's reaction.
We have asked our friends and allies in the middle east and elsewhere to approach the Iraqi Government and support our call for clemency. The European Community has already taken action. The Irish, French and Italian ambassadors in Baghdad, on behalf of the Twelve, delivered a message to the Iraqi authorities urging them to reconsider the sentences.
In all this, we should not forget the plight of Mr. Ian Richter, another British prisoner serving an unjustifiably harsh sentence in a Baghdad prison.
Iraq has shown herself recently to be concerned about what she would call the misrepresentation of her policies abroad. She can be in no doubt about the damage that would be done to her standing in the world, let alone to her relations with the United Kingdom, if these unacceptable sentences were to be confirmed.
Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government will have the full support of Her Majesty's Opposition in taking action to secure the release of Mr. Bazoft and Mrs. Parish? Is he further aware that we regard the sentences as unacceptable, having been imposed following a secret trial and a staged confession?
We welcome the action so far taken by the Government and by the European Community, and we welcome also
22
the support of King Hussein of Jordan. We urge the Government to ask our European Community partners, individually as well as collectively, to make representations to the Iraqi Government. The French Government in particular should have a special status with Baghdad, following the help that it gave to Iraq in the Gulf war.
I note the right hon. Gentleman's comments about contact with middle eastern countries. Have the Government been in touch with the League of Arab States, for it would be very valuable if they would intercede—in particular, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, in view of their particularly close relationship with Iraq.
Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to the Iraqi Government that, even though we have had serious misgivings about basic aspects of Iraqi policy, Members on both sides of the House have been active in seeking to improve the United Kingdom's relationship with Iraq and would wish that improvement to continue? Will he make it equally clear that, if Mr. Bazoft were to be executed, that would inevitably have the most damaging impact on our bilateral relations, both diplomatically and in trade terms, and, in particular, in terms of financial credit? How many British business men, for example, would be ready to visit a country where they might be arrested on trumped-up spying charges and face the death penalty?
In this case there are serious implications for journalistic freedom and serious implications for human rights. In whatever further approaches the British Government make to the Iraqi Government on behalf of Mr. Bazoft and Mrs. Parish, will they make it clear that they speak on behalf of a completely united House of Commons?
Mr. Waldegrave: I greatly appreciate the tone in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has spoken. On occasions like this, the unity of the House is important, and in that regard I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
We have made a number of contacts in the middle east, both with multilateral organisations and with individual countries. I shall follow up one or two of the further suggestions that the right hon. Gentleman has just made. He is right to emphasise that Iraq ought to consider the utterly inevitable response, not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere, if it should persist in these sentences. Even if the Government or the Opposition or individual politicians wanted to suppress the reaction in the United Kingdom, it would be beyond their capacity to do so. The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that. Of course, we do not wish in any way to disguise our own horror.
As I said on Saturday, as events unfold we shall rule out nothing. We shall look at all the possibilities, but we hope that at this late hour the President of Iraq will respond to the appeal, not only of the Government but of the right hon. Gentleman, to look to the future of his country in relation to the rest of the world community. We hope that he will respond to the appeals for clemency.
Mr. Ian Gow: Was any representative of our embassy in Baghdad present at the trial? Has my right hon. Friend received a transcript of the proceedings? Does he have any evidence that this trial could be described as having been in any way a fair one?
Mr. Waldegrave: Our consul-general was present at the trial. We have not received a transcript, but we have

23
received his account. I would draw a distinction between a revolutionary court in Baghdad and the normal courts of Iraq, the latter of which follow procedures that would be relatively familiar to this House. A revolutionary court proceeds in a much more secretive way, and there is no formal appeal against its decisions. That is why we had to appeal to the President for clemency. In the terms of any proceedings that this House would recognise as a trial, we should not be happy to describe the proceedings of the revolutionary court as constituting a fair trial.
Sir Russell Johnston: I wonder whether, by any chance, the Minister heard a programme on the radio last night in which the press counsellor at the Iraqi embassy, whose name I do not remember, was interviewed. He said that he hoped that relations between Iraq and the United Kingdom would not be affected adversely "by this small matter". I thought that those words were quite chilling and indicated clearly that the gentleman concerned did not understand press freedom or human rights.
I welcome what the Minister has said, and I support what has been said by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Has any direct request been made to the Iraqi Government that the two persons concerned be repatriated to this country directly?
Mr. Waldegrave: Our first suggestion, all those weeks ago, was that repatriation would be by far the best and simplest way of dealing with the matter. Unfortunately, there was no response to that suggestion. I share the hon. Member's anxiety that people should talk about human rights in the terms used by the press counsellor whom he quoted. We must get it across to Iraq that, to this House, these are not small matters but major matters. We understand that Iraq has been through a terrible war and that there is still no formal peace. We understand the tensions and the pressures that exist in that country. None the less, Iraq must understand that we attach immense value to human rights and to the protection of our citizens and those travelling in our name.
Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. He has the full support of all right hon. and hon. Members on the Government side—indeed, I am pleased to see, in the House as a whole. I am grateful also that he included in his reply a reference to my constituent Mr. Ian Richter, who has served nearly four years' imprisonment in Baghdad for a crime that most of us feel was completely trumped up—something more to do with internal Iraqi politics than with justice. Will my right hon. Friend reconsider how we might react to Iraq if things should go sadly wrong in this case, particularly as, only recently, we have increased credit to Iraq? Perhaps now is the time to start getting tough. In the meantime, my right hon. Friend's diplomatic pressure is extremely welcome.
Mr. Waldegrave: I deliberately referred in my answer to the case of Mr. Ian Richter, which my hon. Friend has assiduously pursued on a constituency basis, and I pay tribute to him for that. All the remaining Iraqi co-defendants in Mr. Richter's trial have been released. We have long sought his release. We add our plea for him to our pleas for the others. My hon. Friend referred to one
24
relationship between Britain and Iraq. As I have said, we shall consider all the connections between our two countries as events unfold.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who have long been friends of the Arab world find the conduct of a court such as this and sentences such as these very disturbing and that we would all urge the President of Iraq, who has powers of clemency in such matters, to use those powers?
Mr. Waldegrave: I very much value the hon. Gentleman's intervention. People like him who know the Arab world well and who can by no stretch of the imagination be decribed as Zionist plotters may carry some weight in this matter, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making his point. An Iraqi information Minister said today that the pressure that was brought to bear by the international community in this case represented some form of intervention in Iraq's internal affairs. That is not so. We understand that it is perfectly in order for petitions for clemency to go to the President after a decision by the revolutionary court. That is what, I hope, the House joins us in pressing for.
Mr. Matthew Carrington: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way of finding a solution to this terrible problem is through diplomatic pressure? Does he agree that, however genuine may be the revulsion of some hon. Members towards the Iraqi regime, this is not the time to malign that regime? Now is the time to look to Iraq to understand the seriousness of the implications for its role in the international community if it proceeds with these sentences.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, just as I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). Today the House is trying to achieve a particular outcome—to save Mr. Bazoft's life and to get a reasonable sentence for Mrs. Parish. This is not the occasion for loose rhetoric, and the House is not indulging in it.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important day on Northern Ireland matters ahead of us. I shall call two more Members from each side, and then we must move on.
Mr. David Winnick: Should not the House be concerned with truth and honesty as well as with desperately trying to save the life of the person involved? Does not Iraq have one of the worst records in repression and in denial of human rights? Has the right hon. Gentleman noted, arising from the case of these two people, the way in which the British media have rightly spotlighted what has been happening in Iraq? If the worst came to the worst and this killing took place, would not British public opinion certainly expect from the Government stern action, undoubtedly including economic sanctions and, if necessary, the breaking off of diplomatic relations, just as we did, with every justification, with Iran and Syria?
Mr. Waldegrave: As I said, I hope that the House will not press me today to go into further details on any steps that may or may not have to be taken. As the hon. Gentleman said, rightly, if these sentences were carried out, immense revulsion would be felt in this country.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) and I were visiting Mr. Ian Richter in Baghdad prison when Mr. Bazoft was arrested? Is he also aware that one of my constituents, Mr. John Smith, was released from a life sentence in Iraq the previous year? Therefore, I speak with some authority when I support the Govenment in their diplomatic efforts to secure some clemency and the release of Mr. Bazoft. I put it to my right hon. Friend that the important relationships between Iraq and this country cannot always depend on individuals and, if they act as imposters and fools—as some do—they invite some retribution upon them. But, in these instances, no one in his right mind would say that any crimes or offences that these people had committed were worthy of execution. I join the House in calling for clemency for Mr. Bazoft.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for joining hon. Members on both sides of the House in their general call for clemency. That is a matter on which we should concentrate today.
Mr. Peter Hardy: I endorse the views expressed about human rights and the threat to journalistic freedom and note that the European Community has been involved. But will the Minister consider having early consultation with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, which has some responsibility for human rights, with a view to an approach by the 23 member states—and perhaps, significantly, the guest member states—to assist the case advanced by the Foreign Office?
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes another useful suggestion, and I shall certainly look into it.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Although I commend the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and have no illusions whatever about the poor standard of human rights in Iraq, may I caution my hon. Friend about in any way reducing our diplomatic representation in that country in the weeks ahead, bearing in mind how easy Britain seems to find it to break off diplomatic relations and how hard we find it to restore them? Is not Iraq just the kind of country where we need our skilled diplomats to protect Britain's business and commercial interests and also British individuals?
Mr. Waldegrave: My own preference would be to keep our ambassador there, working for the interests of those in this case and of other Britons. As I said, at this stage we cannot rule out any step, but certainly we need the ambassador there at present.

Points of Order
3.52 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I wish to raise a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker, about the ability of a Back-Bench Member to give the Library a book or unpublished or confidential material that may help other hon. Members.
The point of order arises out of the preparation of the Osborne report to the House of Bishops on homosexuality. I had some correspondence with Dr. Runcie, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in which I asked whether he would make the report public. He refused by letter on the ground that it is confidential. I subsequently obtained a copy of the Osborne report, and on Thursday I gave it to the Library and it was accepted by the Library. On Friday, I tabled an early-day motion simply noting that I had given a copy to the Library so that other hon. Members would know that it was there and could read it.
I was astonished to find in my post this morning a letter from David Menhennet, the Librarian—a man for whom I have the greatest admiration—saying that on examining the document he had locked it in a cabinet pending clarification of its status and that it was a rule that private Members could not place unpublished or confidential material in the Library and citing page 196 of the 21st edition of "Erskine May". this letter says:
"In my absence on Friday afternoon, the Deputy Librarian received a letter from the Secretary-General of the General Synod of the Church of England; and I have studied this letter carefully. It makes very clear that the Osborne Report is confidential to the House of Bishops and, at this stage at least, it is not for publication."
I have now been offered the report back.
I am disturbed because, as someone who uses the Library regularly and who has placed books in the Library before, I do not believe that it is in the invariable practice of the Library not to accept confidential information. I would recall your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the publication of the House of Fraser report, which came out over a year ago. The Observer published a two-page summary of that report, which was placed in the Library and made available even though it was clearly confidential and there was a court case concerning it. That summary was placed in the Library and hon. Members were allowed to go to the Library and see it.
The Library seems to be operating an arbitary policy and that cannot be right. Moreover, I seriously believe that for a library to refuse a book is little different from censoring that book or from burning it.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice of his point of order, so I have been able to look into the matter with some care. The hon. Gentleman has more or less answered his own question. As "Erskine May" makes it clear on page 196, private Members may not deposit papers in the Library, and the unpublished paper handed in by the hon. Gentleman was not considered appropriate for acceptance as a gift.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have not answered the question because perhaps you have not been told the answer. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) referred to The Observer publication which caused a row 12 months ago. A copy of

27
that document was placed in the Library and statements were made in the House to the effect that if any hon. Member wanted to look at the summary of the House of Fraser report which appeared in The Observer they could see a copy in the Library. Are the bishops and archbishops more important because there is a link between the Church of England and the House of Commons? Can they censure the document?
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that there is a considerable difference involved in that respect. As I understand it, this document has not been published. In effect, I suppose that it is stolen property. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Well, it was not considered appropriate for the document to be accepted by the Library.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Further to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If the hon. Member for Bolsover will place in the Library the minutes of last Friday's meeting of the National Union of Mineworkers which lasted five hours, would we be able to read what happened with regard to the Scargill inquiry?
Mr. Speaker: It would depend whether that was stolen property as well.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand this place, we are the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Well, I thought that we represented the people. Is it not fair that hon. Members, who may be asked questions on any issue, including what happens with regard to those layabouts in the Synod,
28
should be able to read any document that helps them to do their job properly? Why are we to be banned from reading documents which other people have? I agree with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). If we cannot read such documents, there is censorship, which I thought that the House was against.
Mr. Speaker: This document has not been published. that is the essential difference.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must make progress. I call Mrs. Clwyd.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I want to raise a point of order about the misuse of questions by the Minister for Overseas Development. She used question No. 65, which was specific and, was about Kenya, to make a statement about Ethiopia, from where she has just returned. We have only 10 minutes in Question Time every three weeks to discuss issues of great importance about overseas aid. Therefore, the Government should make a statement on the crisis in Ethiopia where thousands of people are dying every day from famine and war. We have had no statement from the Government on that important issue and I believe that it is the wish of the House that the Government should make a statement so that we can discover as soon as possible what action they intend to take about that crisis.
Mr. Speaker: Had I observed the hon. Lady rising earlier-I am afraid that I did not do so-I would have called her to put her question to the Minister. I do not know whether it was my fault; if it was, I apologise.

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the 17 motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered,
That the draft Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Working) (Amendment) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Civil Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (Scotland) Regulations 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Mines and Quarries (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Mercury Communications Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Lochaber Power Company (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Industrial and Freight Transport (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Glasgow Underground (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Forth Ports Authority (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Caledonian MacBrayne Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Telecommunications plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Railways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Gas plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft British Alcan Primary and Recycling Ltd. (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Northern Ireland (Terrorism)
3.58 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.
Right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in these debates in the past will notice that the order bears a somewhat different title from those of previous years. As in the past, this order continues in force for a further 12 months the temporary provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts of 1978 and 1987. Without this order, the provisions would expire on 21 March.
This year, however, the order will likewise continue in force for a further period certain parts of the prevention of terrorism Act as they apply to Northern Ireland. The main body of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 was the subject of a separate continuance order which the House debated last week, but, as some of the provisions are renewable as though they were part of the emergency provisions Acts, they are covered by the order.
I should like in a moment to say something about the level of terrorist activity against which today's debate is taking place, but, before doing so, it may help the House if I explain briefly what the provisions are that we are proposing to renew today and why we need them. In aiming, as we do, to create a just, peaceful and prosperous society in Northern Ireland, the chief aim of the Government's security policy is to end terrorism—from whichever side of the community it comes. Our first responsibility, therefore, is to ensure that the police and armed forces have the support and resources that they need to undertake their difficult and dangerous work on behalf of all people of Northern Ireland. That includes equipping them with the additional statutory powers that they require to deal effectively with the pestilence of terrorism in the Province by deterring and interdicting terrorist operations and, when terrorist crimes have been committed, by mounting in the courts successful prosecutions of terrorists.
Mr. Martin Flannery: I am a little confused. When the continuance of the prevention of terrorism Act was debated the other night, there was no indication that the measures would be welded together. Why is that—or is the right hon. Gentleman now telling us why?
Mr. Brooke: Obviously there is a degree of overlap between them. Certain specific aspects that relate to Northern Ireland have been dealt with. I shall refer to the record to see whether the hon. Gentleman is correct.
The Government also recognise that, to be fully successful, the actions of the police and Army against terrorism, and indeed the operation of the whole criminal justice system, need support from all sections of the community.
It is, therefore, the two emergency provisions Acts which between them provide those extra powers that the police and armed forces still need to stop and question arid to search for, and to seize, terrorist material. They create the category of proscribed organisations for Northern

31
Ireland, and also offences associated with terrorist activity. In addition, they provide the legal authority for the so-called Diplock courts, and establish a scheme for the regulation of the security guard industry in Northern Ireland. But, at the same time, the Acts also guarantee statutory rights for terrorist suspects to have someone informed of their arrest and whereabouts and to have access to legal advice
As for the Preyention of Terrorism Act, the order continues certain sections as they apply to Northern Ireland. Those include the provisions relating to terrorist funding and its investigation and also certain exclusively Northern Ireland provisions that allow the police and armed forces to impose restrictions during searches. They also set out arrangements relating to remission and sentencing of those convicted of scheduled offences, and to the licensing of explosives factories.
Those are the key provisions to which the order applies.
I now refer to the security background against which today's debate takes place. As the House will need no reminding, terrorism, both republican and loyalist, continues at a significant level, not only in Northern Ireland but in Great Britain and on the European mainland. Statistics indicate a welcome improvement in the security situation in Northern Ireland, but there is no consolation to be had in the loss of 62 lives last year or in the 800 or so injuries.
During 1989, nine members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary lost their lives in Northern Ireland, including the savage murder of Chief Superintendent Breen and Superintendent Buchanan in South Armagh, and of Superintendent Harris in Lisburn. Another senior police officer, Inspector Monteith, was murdered in Armagh earlier this year. There was also a bomb attack against the home of an assistant chief constable.
Fourteen members of the armed forces also died in 1989, including two members of the UDR. Three soldiers were killed in a massive bomb attack at Mayobridge in November and two more at the Derryard checkpoint in December in what must be one of the most vicious attacks of its kind during the period of the troubles.
The House will want to join me in paying an unreserved tribute to all members of the security forces, whether in the RUC or the RUC Reserve, the Regular Army or the Ulster Defence Regiment. They deserve the full support of all decent people for the firm stand that they have taken against terrorism and for the way in which they strive to bring peace and stability to Northern Ireland. Without their commitment, professionalism and courage, the levels of violence would have been immeasurably higher. Much of their work is unglamorous and routine, but they continue remorselessly to wear down terrorist organisations. There have been, for example, many important arrests and arms finds in recent months, and many terrorist attacks have been thwarted.
I commend the security forces for their speedy actions at Silverbridge only last month. I also pay tribute to the judiciary and the staff of the prison and court services who continue to do their duty in difficult circumstances. Incidents such as the planned breakout from the Crumlin road prison, which was disrupted only at an advanced stage, show that all of us concerned with defeating terrorism must remain on guard at all times.
32
Let me make it clear, unequivocally, that the eradication of terrorism, green or orange, remains the Government's top priority in Northern Ireland. There is no acceptable level of murder; we shall continue to work unreservedly for the defeat of terrorism with all the means at our disposal that are compatible with the letter and spirit of the rule of law. Let there be absolutely no doubt on this point: terrorism will never prevail. That is why the police and armed forces will continue to receive the full support of Her Majesty's Government for as long as it takes. We shall also continue to work actively for the political, economic and social progress in Northern Ireland that is necessary if their efforts are fully to succeed and lasting peace is to be won.
Mr. James Kilfedder: People in Northern Ireland will take comfort from what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Government's determination to root out terrorism. When he had been in office for three months, people were dumbfounded and demoralised by his statement that the IRA could not be beaten. That is why it is right that the Secretary of State should emphasise the point that he made. The present spate of tit-for-tat murders causes great anxiety to Protestants and Catholics alike in Northern Ireland. I roundly condemn those murders. Does he agree that the murders emphasise the need for all law-abiding people, including politicians and the Dublin Government, to give full and unequivocal support to the forces of law and order in order to destroy the evils of terrorism? There can be no trimmers in the fight between good and evil.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for the hon. Member's intervention. What I said three months after coming to office was that it was difficult to envisage the defeat of terrorism by military means and, by definition, by military means alone and that the armed forces needed to be supported in the way that I described a moment ago. I entirely endorse what he said about the tit-for-tat series of murders. The more voices that are raised in this cause, the better.
We shall also continue to maintain and improve security co-operation with the Irish Government under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. But if the efforts of the RUC and Army are to be fully effective, they must also command support across the community. I should, therefore, like to speak briefly about how they approach the duties that have been given to them under the law. None of us should underestimate how difficult their task is. It is hard and often dangerous work to police a divided society, but I have been impressed by the determination of both arms of the security forces to achieve the highest professional standards. They know that if the terrorist is to be isolated even further in the community, they must act, and be seen to act, fairly and impartially between the two communities, and to the highest professional standards. This is easy to say but a difficult target to reach. But I can assure the House that, together with the Chief Constable and the GOC, we shall continue to try to maintain and improve public confidence in the integrity and evenhandedness at all times of the security forces, as well as in their effectiveness.
It is against this background that we are considering the order today. Once again, I express our gratitude to Lord Colville for his report on the Acts. It is a short report this year because, as the House will know, he is now engaged

33
in a more substantial review of the legislation to consider what changes should be made to it when the current Acts expire in 1992. I have asked him to submit his report on that review by Easter. In due course we shall, thereafter, bring forward proposals. But many of the larger issues which he has traditionally considered in his annual report he will deal with instead in his other review.
So far as today's debate is concerned, Lord Colville's main recommendation is that all the powers currently in force should be continued for a further 12 months. The Government accept that recommendation, and the order will give effect to it. It remains our policy to drop as soon as possible any powers that are no longer justified by the exigencies of the situation, and right hon. and hon. Members will recall that, last year, three minor sections of the Acts were allowed to lapse and that it had been our intention, on Lord Colville's recommendation, to allow a further section to lapse this year. This was section 13 of the 1978 Act which provides a police power of arrest. For the reason given in Lord Colville's latest report, however, that provision must clearly be retained for the time being.
Lord Colville also returned again this year to the idea of video recording terrorist interviews by the police. As my predecessor said last year, there are substantial arguments against such a course, but we shall examine the proposal again carefully and fairly once we receive Lord Colville's recommendations following his further review.
The House knows that progress on security matters does not stand alone, as I said a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder). Government policy embraces other vital aspects of the situation in Northern Ireland, such as economic development and political progress. It is therefore right in a debate on security matters to remind the House of the important role that they play in undermining terrorism and improving the position of the ordinary citizen in Northern Ireland.
Local exercise of political power on an agreed basis could help to bring terrorism to an end. It would demonstrate that constitutional politics can bring results in the form of a widely acceptable accommodation between the two parts of the community in Northern Ireland—something which terrorism, from either side of the community, can never do. It would marginalise extremists on both sides of the community and provide a firm basis for tackling Northern Ireland's community divisions.
It is the Government's hope and view that the present climate of political realism offers more hope of constructive political dialogue than for some time. My speech in Bangor on 9 January attempted to summarise my reading of the situation, and pointed out that I believed that there was some common ground between the parties that would allow them to engage in political dialogue. Politicians on all sides in Northern Ireland and senior voices in the Irish Government have contributed to the general mood of cautious optimism.
At present, the situation is fragile and delicate—it would be foolish to pretend otherwise—but with good will, flexibility and imagination on all sides, I do not see why the possibilities should not begin to be translated into probabilities.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Does the Secretary of State like myself and my colleagues, regret the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dublin in the
34
past fortnight, where it has been established beyond all doubt that the Irish Republic now has a legal claim—in its terms—against the territory of Northern Ireland? Does the Secretary of State realise that that gives great comfort and solace to the IRA, which has been saying that for many years? Will he assure us that he will do what he can to ensure that articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution are amended as soon as possible?
Mr. Brooke: I have never thought that it was the most productive of courses for politicians to be in judgment upon judges and their judgments but, of course, I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman has said about the judgment given in the Supreme Court in Dublin last week. The hon. Gentleman and I have had the opportunity of discussing that and there is some variance between us on the exact interpretation of what occurred last week. However, I have no doubt that we shall continue to have further exchanges.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that the Unionist people were told by the Government that the Anglo-Irish Agreement had put beyond doubt the fact that the status of Northern Ireland was now recognised and that there would be no change in that status until the majority of the people of Northern Ireland agreed with it? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that when the Unionists pointed out as forcefully as they could that the Government had to sign two agreements to please the Government of southern Ireland, they were laughed at? However, the Supreme Court is now saying to the Secretary of State, "You should not be in Northern Ireland. Your Government are illegitimate. It is the bounden and legal duty of Dublin to get you out of Northern Ireland and to use the Anglo-Irish Agreement to get you out."
Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman may think that what happened in the Irish Supreme Court last week ended the right of my right hon. and hon. Friends to sit in government in Northern Ireland, but in practical and de facto terms, that is an unusual judgment. I acknowledge that since 1937 there has been on the statute book and in the Irish constitution the claim to which he and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) referred. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is an equal claim on the statute book of this land. There is no question, de facto, about who provides the Government of Northern Ireland. Furthermore, under article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the Government of the Republic of Ireland have confirmed that that status will change only by a vote of the majority in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the Secretary of State recognise that today people in Northern Ireland will expect from the Dispatch Box in the clearest, most unequivocal terms a statement from him showing that he repudiates that arrogant claim, whether de facto or otherwise, and intends to do something to remove it from the constitution of the Irish Republic?
Mr. Brooke: It is beyond the capacity of anybody who stands at this Dispatch Box to change the constitution of the Republic of Ireland. That does not fall within our powers. I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in re-acknowledging the present status of Northern Ireland and its place on the statute book of the United Kingdom.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State recall his predecessor's statement the day after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed on 15 November 1985 that article 1 confirmed that the Republic of Ireland accepted the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom? Following last week's judgment in Dublin, will the Secretary of State repeat word for word what his predecessor said in presenting the Anglo-Irish Agreement to the House?
Mr. Brooke: I confirm that the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom remains exactly as it was in 1937, subject to subsequent changes in our own statutes.
Mr. Maginnis: Oh.
Mr. Brooke: Before the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone gets agitated, I remind him that Acts passed since 1937 have confirmed that on our statute book. Article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement simply stated that the decision about the future status of Northern Ireland would be taken—this was endorsed by the Government of the Republic—by a majority of the people living in Northern Ireland. I can think of no readier acknowledgement by the Government of the Republic than that.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I am afraid that the Secretary of State does not grasp my point. I am talking not about the future status of Northern Ireland, nor about the attitude of the Dublin Government towards the future status of Northern Ireland, but about the present status of Northern Ireland, which in United Kingdom terms is exactly the same today as it was in 1985, subject to the introduction of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In 1985 the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor won the approval of the House against our opposition for the Anglo-Irish Agreement on the basis that the Dublin Government recognised the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Last week's judgment wholly rejects that presentation by his predecessor. The right hon. Gentleman can no longer repeat word for word what his predecessor said in presenting the agreement to the people of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentlaman knows that there is, in de jure terms, a claim from both jurisdictions. In practical terms Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, sustained by the statute book of the United Kingdom. In article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement we now have, in addition, an endorsement by the Government of the Republic that that status will change only on a majority vote in Northern Ireland. If that does not constitute a recognition of the continuing position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, I do not know what does.
Mr. Ian Gow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the wording of the Sunningdale agreement on the status of Northern Ireland was precisely and in every respect in accordance with the wording used in article 1? Therefore, my right hon. Friend is unintentionally misleading the House when he says that the Government of the Irish Republic acknowledged, for the first time, in article 1 of the 1985 agreement that the status of Northern Ireland could not be changed save with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Brooke: Were I, on the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), misleading the House, I would certainly apologise. My hon. Friend's question in no way militates against my observation since the questions addressed to me were in relation to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to which I replied that article 1 confirmed that it would be the majority view in Northern Ireland that would decide the matter.
Rev. Ian Paisley rose——
Mr. Barry Porter rose
Mr. Brooke: I have been generous in responding, and I must get on.
Terrorism continues at a high level and remains the dominant social problem in Northern Ireland. It is the Government's wish to create a better, more prosperous future in which the people of Northern Ireland can freely make decisions about their own future, without coercion and the threat of violence. Eradicating terrorism of all kinds will, therefore, remain the central theme of our policy as long as is necessary. To this end, the courts, the police and armed forces must continue to have at their disposal all the legal resources they need. I therefore unreservedly commend the order to the House.
4.21 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: At the outset, on behalf of my colleagues, I express our sympathy to all those who have lost relatives or seen their relatives injured in the past year as a result of the troubles. I also pass on our sympathy to the injured. I want to mention specifically those who have been savagely gunned down in the past week, Sergeant Thomas Alexander Jameson of the Ulster Defence Regiment, Mr. Sam Marshall and Mr. Eamon Quinn, who was savagely gunned down in front of his wife. They have our prayers and their relatives and families have our sympathies.
We should also like to pay tribute to the members of the security forces who, in their day-to-day conduct, are responsible for ensuring that life progresses normally for the majority of people in the Province. Upon them, more than upon politicians and policy makers, depends the people's acceptance of the rule of law. Their day-to-day contact with the community depends, more than anyone else's, upon the community's acceptance of their role—defending that community. We give an awesome authority to the ordinary squaddie and policeman on the beat.
Today we are debating the renewal of the emergency abnormal powers. As the Secretary of State has said, we are indebted to Lord Colville for his assistance and careful and meticulous examination of the workings of the emergency provisions legislation. Whether we accept his conclusions or not—often the Government do not, as illustrated today—we are grateful to him for taking us through the legal minefield of the different pieces of legislation with which we must deal. He makes his report against a background of continuing terrorism and counter-terrorism in Northern Ireland.
In the introduction to his report this year Lord Colville stated that it was a "short report" because he was embarking this month on his "enhanced review" of the Northern Ireland Emergency Provisions Act 1987. Nevertheless, within his review, he has given us much food for thought. The Labour party has already submitted its proposals to Lord Colville for his enhanced review. We

37
expect that, when his report is published, the Government will give us time to have a full discussion of it before they embark on any of their own proposals for dealing with and changing the Act.
Despite the fact that we regarded Lord Colville's terms of reference as rather narrow, the Labour party's evidence was based upon two principles—first, that no power should remain on the statute book unless the case for its present existence is clearly established, and, secondly, that there is a need to consider the operation of the Act and to take into account its interrelationship with the rest of the criminal law in Northern Ireland—both emergency and ordinary laws.
Nevertheless, despite Lord Colville's recommendations that the measure should stand, section 12—the provision for internment without trial—in our opinion is both repugnant and redundant. While it remains on the statute book it is a constant reminder of the greatest political error made by any Government in the handling of the present emergency and it is a constant reminder to one section of the community of what may eventually be used against them yet again. It must go.
In last year's review of the operation of the Act Lord Colville stated in paragraph 1.5:
"The battle for the hearts and minds should be the paramount preoccupation of those who exercise emergency powers."
That is the background against which we must judge the operation of the powers at the present time. Sadly, a number of events over the past year have raised the question of the competence of the way in which the law is administered and therefore of the future of the battle for hearts and minds. They include the McKerr judgment in the House of Lords last week, the Stevens inquiry, the role of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the primacy of policing in the campaign against terrorists.
In the McKerr case, the House of Lords ruled last week that the power of Northern Ireland coroners to compel persons to give evidence at an inquest into a death, where the person is suspected of causing the death, or has been charged with those likely to be charged with an offence relating to the death, is a rule which regulates the practice and procedure at an inquest and was validly made. That was an important decision based, as Lord Goff said, on procedural law and not on substantive law. It overturned a very closely reasoned and important judgment of the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland.
The House of Lords decision is now the law, but we must consider its effects. No member of the security forces can now be compelled or examined under oath at a coroner's inquest if he or she has been involved or is suspected of being involved in the killing of a terrorist, a suspected terrorist or an innocent person. The reasons for their decision and the actions that they took in the killings cannot be examined.
The brother of one of my constituents was killed at Loughall. The dead man was an innocent person; he happened to arrive on the scene with his brother—they were the Hughes brothers—who was gravely injured. Their legal representatives cannot interrogate members of the security forces about the circumstances leading to the death of Mr. Hughes as a result of the House of Lords' decision.
At the coroner's inquest into the shootings and killings of three men outside a bookmakers earlier this year, one of whom who was allegedly unarmed and was shot
38
unwarned, sitting in the front of the car, the people who killed him cannot be asked about their motives. That means that the security forces are being protected to the extent that they are no longer merely civilians in uniform.
We now have three standards at coroners' inquests. First, in Northern Ireland we have the limitations placed upon inquests now, and the fact that the police can vet jurors, which is a return to the old provisions of the special powers act with a vengeance. Secondly, there is the type of coroner's inquest that we had in Gibraltar, with all its limitations, behind which the Government seek to hide to prevent further inquiries into what happened there. Thirdly, there is the coroner's inquest that we have on this island, where no such inhibitions and restrictions exist upon people being questioned and asked to account for their actions under oath.
The decision in the House of Lords was a sad day for British justice. To argue that Northern Ireland coroners exercise their powers of inquisition in such a manner as to give protection to citizens who might otherwie be impelled to give evidence and so to be exposed to embarrassment in circumstances where they may be subject to criminal proceedings by invoking the privilege of self-incrimination is little consolation to the relatives of my constituents. There is also little consolation in the matter of embarrassment. As The Independent said in its leader comment the day after the decision,
"Experience teaches that when a judiciary construes the law so narrowly as to seem to be intent on saving functionaries of the state from the embarrassment of being questioned by citizens, it risks losing citizens' respect".
As a general proposition, that would be accepted as important in any society, but in a divided society such as Northern Ireland it is of the utmost importance. This is a decision that we shall live to regret. The opportunity to lay to rest the shoot-to-kill policy which the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland had given—a policy which the Government had continuously tried to cover up for reasons of state—has been lost because of the decision in the House of Lords.
The Independent drew attention to another issue:
"Perhaps their Lordships see the idea that law should have a policy as a strange and alien notion. Certainly they seem indifferent to the broad issue of policy in this case: whether the judiciary will effectively challenge the executive's reluctance to permit effective scrutiny of its conduct in matters which are of the gravest importance to both human rights and constitutional principle."
That is a question of supreme importance, and in the divided society of Northern Ireland, in which both sides are concerned about the role of the security forces and about the policy directions that they are given, it is an issue which must be resolved.
There is also the issue of the background to the Stevens inquiry. When Mr. Stevens was appointed to head the inquiry into possible security leaks in the security forces to members of loyalist paramilitary organisations, there was considerable hope that a man of such distinction as a policeman in this country would be able to root out what had long been part of folklore in Northern Ireland—the connection between the UDR and members of the paramilitary loyalist forces.
No one was suggesting that the connection applied to every member of the UDR, a body of brave and dedicated men and women who have suffered a great deal at the hands of terrorism, as we sadly witnessed again this week. They have taken over many of the roles from the Army in the fight against terrorism. The role of the UDR is itself a

39
matter of controversy, but no one must underestimate the courage that many of its members have shown when carrying out their role.
We understand that the Stevens inquiry is likely to be wound up at the end of this week, and I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. We also understand that the report will shortly be sent to the Chief Constable, which means that the circumstances of the murder of Mr. Sam Marshall will not be examined by Mr. Stevens, even though the original statement by the RUC that his bail arrangements were public knowledge were later withdrawn. Who told the paramilitaries?
Mr. Stevens will also not be able to inquire into the discovery of large quantities of intelligence documents in east Belfast last week in a house usually occupied by a member of the UDR who has gone missing. These matters are only peripheral to the problems of the allegations about unhappiness with the UDR high command, of the disagreements with the RUC, and of the resulting strange developments in which Mr. Terry Loughlin, the respected assistant editor of the Irish News, refused to co-operate further with the Stevens inquiry, following the story of the RUC inner circle, because of statements issued by the RUC press office before he had given his full witness statement to the Stevens inquiry.
Perhaps most important of all is the issue of the chief witness, Brian Nelson, who has been used by the Stevens inquiry. The statement last week in the case of Mr. Gordon Mahafy, the lead story on Northern Ireland BBC news, is of considerable importance. He was charged with the wrongful possession of documents relating to IRA and INLA suspects. Defence counsel said that Brian Nelson had been helping the Stevens inquiry with its inquiries and that he had been a Government agent for several years, having infiltrated the UDR as an agent provocateur. If that allegation is correct and if Mr. Nelson was acting as a double agent, working both for the UDA and for some branch of the security forces—perhaps the RUC—questions arise about his role as chief intelligence officer for the UDA. What operations, if any, were set up as a result of information that he supplied? Did he know of them? Did he partake in any of them? What information about any of them did he give to his handlers and what was their response to any such information? What credence can be placed upon his evidence if any of those cases come to court?
Finally, there is the allegation of Mr. Colin Hall—who is charged with making an RUC uniform available to the UFF—that he was struck by one of the members of the Stevens inquiry team, so the RUC is being investigated by the Stevens inquiry, which is now being investigated by the RUC.
The problems of the Stevens inquiry are highlighted by the story in The Guardian today, which states:
"A paramilitary fraud ring has been uncovered operating inside a large army base in Northern Ireland, creaming off nearly £500,000 from under the noses of the security forces."
Paramilitary loyalist groups, believed to belong to the Ulster Defence Association and its offshoot the Ulster Volunteer Force, are said to be involved.
I can understand why the Ministry of Defence wanted to cover up that information in the evidence that was sent to the Public Accounts Committee. However, it is not only a problem for the anti-racketerring unit of the RUC
40
because it means that, for years, paramilitaries have had access to buildings inside the camp at Ballykelly. They could obtain security information and details about IRA suspects and gain access to maps and plans of the buildings on the camp from the PSA office inside the fence. That is a serious matter, as it impinges on the nature of the Stevens inquiry. In addition, the UDR—which is recruited locally—has many facilities at Ballykelly.
I should be obliged if the Minister would tell us whether any papers on this matter have been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Are any past or present members of the security forces involved in these matters? Did they come under the scrutiny of the Stevens inquiry? Were any of the UDR members who were arrested or questioned by the Stevens inquiry team ever stationed at Ballykelly? Despite what the Under-Secretary said in Committee on the Bill to privatise the Property Services Agency—it is responsible for work on MOD establishments in Northern Ireland—will he and his right hon. Friend now insist that Northern Ireland be left outside the scope of that Bill, whether or not it relates to MOD establishments? Evidence was given to the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), supplemented by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), about how paramilitary frauds work. It is essential that no public work be used as a means to channel funds to paramilitary forces on either side.
There has been considerable controversy about the work of the UDR. I have already said that it is the role of the security forces on the street that will inspire confidence in this legislation. That will come about not through speeches in this place or the amount of support that we give them, but from their day-to-day contact with members of the public.
I fail to understand why it remains impossible for Ministers to give the precise numbers of UDR patrols accompanied by the RUC. Why cannot they be logged, statistics taken and figures published? It is a simple matter and we could then understand the scale of the problem that the RUC and the UDR face in carrying out the undertaking of the first Anglo-Irish Agreement that, wherever possible, Army and UDR patrols would be accompanied by a member of the RUC.
Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for about 16 minutes and has not once mentioned the Provisional IRA. Will he ever get round to that?
Mr. McNamara: I sometimes think that the hon. Gentleman gives too much credence to the Provisional IRA. I would rather spend our time looking at the workings of the Act and its relevance to the law-abiding people in Northern Ireland. If I may use the style of the Prime Minister, at the start of our speech we voiced our support for the security forces and saluted them for their bravery. I should have thought that in a democratic assembly it is not necessary to go into what paramilitary and terrorist organisations are doing. It is enough to say that we roundly condemn them. That was implicit in all that I said in my speech which looks at problems involving terrorists from both sides.
We were discussing one of the ways to try to defeat the paramilitaries, including the Provisional IRA, from both sides. One of the methods of doing that is to inspire confidence in the security forces. Another is to try to ensure that when possible the RUC will accompany other

41
members of the security forces on their patrols. That would demonstrate the primacy of the RUC in all policing matters in Northern Ireland, thereby cutting the ground from under the feet of those who seek to find excuses to support paramilitaries. This is a simple matter and can be done quite easily. The week before last the Minister of State was quick to tell me at Question Time that all Army and UDR patrols are tasked by the RUC. Therefore, he should be able to tell us the number of patrols that are tasked and whether the plain clothes patrol that killed three men outside a bookmakers in Belfast earlier this year was tasked by the RUC.
I have outlined the background against which we are discussing this legislation. It must be evident that we are dealing with an abnormal situation and need abnormal legislation. The question that we must answer is how we approach the legislation and the inference that can be drawn from the legislation that the House proposes. This is emergency abnormal legislation and it is right to discuss it, as we do, every year. We believe that the normal practice should be to assume jury trial as normal and Diplock courts as abnormal. For that reason it is important that there should be contracting in of scheduled offences rather than contracting out. We should look carefully again at some of the rules about the admissibility of evidence and confessions.
I should like to pursue some of the matters to which Lord Colville referred in his short report. The first matter is the use of force in murder cases, and the second is the use of closed-circuit television in detention centres. In 1989 Lord Colville gave his opinion on the matter of the use of lethal force in murder cases and a House of Lords Select Committee recommended action on this point. As the noble Lord says, White Paper Cm. 965 does not disclose whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to act on this proposal. This is not merely a matter for cases involving the security forces, although it is of the utmost importance to them.
The Opposition believe with Lord Colville that the use of excessive force for self defence in the prevention of crime should be capable of amounting to manslaughter. The introduction of this new category would help the security forces in their actions and would also help the perception of the general public about the role of the security forces and their accountability.
Perhaps more important and more immediate, and arising from the experiment announced by the Home Secretary for the taking of tape recordings of evidence in PTA cases, is the proposal by the noble Lord that all interrogations in Northern Ireland at Castlereagh and Armagh should not merely be monitored but that a video record should be kept of them. Despite what the Secretary of State said, that makes eminent sense. I regret that he did not accept the urgency of what Lord Colville said and has again postponed a decision, apparently until 1992.
The argument against tape recordings of terrorist interrogations used to be that it might reveal intelligence sources. That is an interesting argument and might hold some water if it were not for the fact that, once a terrorist has been interrogated, he will almost certainly be heavily debriefed by his friends and will have noted the source of the evidence that the security forces are using. Therefore, that argument does not stand. Even if it did, it would be possible for transcripts to be treated in the way that they are treated in Select Committees where a meeting has been held in secret. Application for a transcript could be made
42
to the Committee or to a judge in chambers for part of the transcript which, in the opinion of the judge, would reveal delicate intelligence sources to be expunged—provided that that was not fundamental to the bringing of a case against a suspect. By his experiments in two places, the Home Secretary has said that this matter can now be adequately dealt with.
I accept that Lord Colville does not address this matter precisely in his report. However, in paragraphs 5.1 to 5.6 he deals with the keeping of video tapes of interrogations. Originally closed circuit television was used to keep watch in such matters, because it enabled matters of a disciplinary nature against the police or complaints by defendants to be dealt with. The objection was that brutalisation might take place when somebody was not watching the monitoring screen, or it could be alleged that brutality took place and that the person monitoring the scene turned a Nelson's eye to the television screen.
In the current Colin Hall case allegations have been made that a member of the Stevens inquiry beat or struck Mr. Hall. That is being investigated by the RUC. That matter could have been immediately cleared up one way or the other by a video recording. If the Home Secretary is prepared to have an experiment about transcripts of interrogations, surely the same could be done with video recordings. There could be both a video recording and a tape recording and we would be better able to ensure that the evidence coming before the court was accurate and not obtained under duress. That would also protect the police from unfair accusations.
It is sad and lamentable that nearly 20 years after the introduction of this temporary legislation we are once again debating it. We shall vote against the order, not because we do not accept that Northern Ireland is an abnormal part of our society in terms of law and order and must have special measures, but because we think that the Government have not responded to the recommendations made by the Labour party and by Lord Colville to improve the situation. They do not seem to be properly seized of the fact that it is not legislation alone that improves the situation but the administration of legislation, and confidence in it and in the impartial administration of justice. Those aims are essential and we do not think that the Government have gone far enough in seeking to achieve them.
4.48 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: Unlike the Front-Bench spokesman for the Labour party, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and the Leader of the Opposition, I am concerned about the Irish Republican Army because the overwhelming number of killings and terrorist incidents are carried out by the so-called Provisional IRA. Statistics quoted by Unionists might be challenged, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North would not want to challenge the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), the leader of the SDLP. In addressing his party conference the hon. Member for Foyle made it clear that in the troubles 44 per cent. of victims had been killed by the IRA and 18 per cent. by other Republican paramilitaries, making 62 per cent. of all killings.
Twenty-seven per cent. of the victims were killed by loyalists, 10 per cent. by the British Army, 2 per cent. by the RUC, and only 0·28 per cent. by the UDR. I always

43
wonder why such attacks are made on the UDR, when it is responsible for only 0·28 per cent. of the total number of killings in Northern Ireland. I shall return to that point.
Between 1981 and 1988, the number of terrorist incidents for which republicans were responsible totalled 3,739, while the figure for loyalists was 278. If one compares the two figures, it is obvious that the overwhelming number of incidents and killings were the responsibility of the IRA. I condemn killings from both sides, but they must all be put into perspective.
Mr. Flannery: Having condemned tit-for-tat killings, it would be very sad if the argumentation in this House also became tit for tat. Of the three killings that have just occurred in Northern Ireland, two appeared to be the work of loyalist paramilitary terrorists, and the other was apparently the work of the IRA. I agree profoundly with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he says that our struggle is against all killings. I hope that it does not emerge from this debate that that sentiment is not so true as it sounds in a single sentence.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) will agree that I, as a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament, have a duty to speak for my constituents. The fear in Northern Ireland must first be measured by those responsible for the vast majority of killings. No right hon. or hon. Member condones any killing. No matter who uses the gun, such killings are to be condemned unequivocally. As the hon. Member for Hillsborough knows, that has always been my attitude. However, in view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, I felt that I had to put down a marker at the beginning of the debate.
I want to deal first with the circumstances which have brought about the present deterioration in law and order in Northern Ireland. What lies at the heart of it, why does that problem exist, and why does it continue? I believe that at the root of the problem is the territorial claim made by the Republic of Ireland that it is the legitimate ruler of Northern Ireland. When an IRA man takes the gun, he can say, "I am engaged in a legitimate cause," and he can say it even more now that the Lord Chief Justice of the Republic of Ireland has said that the British Government have no legitimacy and that the Dublin Government have a legitimate duty to do everything in their power to oust the illegitimate British Government and to establish their own jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland.
The House must recognise that until that Berlin wall—which was built not by Unionists or by Ulster Protestants but by the Dublin authorities—is dismantled, there will not be peace in Ireland. That is at the heart of the matter.
When the Anglo-Irish Agreement was reached, it was argued, particularly by members of the Government Front Bench, with great eloquence and force, that a change had taken place and that, for once, the Government of the Republic of Ireland had become convinced that Northern Ireland must remain a part of the United Kingdom. We were told that the agreement set out in article 1 that the status of Northern Ireland was as a part of the United Kingdom. We pointed out at the time and subsequently that there is no mention in article 1 of the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. The
44
words "United Kingdom" do not even appear in that document. However, there is a reference to the status of Northern Ireland.
In the Assembly Committee which was established in Stormont to deal with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, presided over by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), leader of the Ulster Unionists, the Labour Front Bench spokesman was asked whether he believed that the status of Northern Ireland would be changed by the agreement. He answered that of course it has been changed, because no other part of the United Kingdom holds a conference at which members of a foreign jurisdiction meet Government officials from the United Kingdom as equals and pledge to do everything to reach agreement and a consensus policy for a part of the United Kingdom's territory. That is what happened, so let no right hon. or hon. Member try to tell the House that the Anglo-Irish Agreement established the status of Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
In the McGimpsey case, on appeal the McGimpsey brothers argued that article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement amounted to an acknowledgement by the Republic that it was not entitled as of right to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland and that it therefore contravened articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. That was a good legal point to argue, but the highest court in the land made it perfectly clear that there was nothing contrary to articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, and that there was no recognition in the agreement that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom—and its legitimate status was denied.
Every right hon. and hon. Member should be aware that the court went on to deal with the legitimacy of the United Kingdom Government in Northern Ireland and with the duty of the Dublin Government to seek to establish constitutionally its jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland. The Anglo-Irish Agreement can be used by the Dublin Government to proceed along a road that will lead to its attaining the ends of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. Down through the history of Northern Ireland, the question of the Republic's jurisdiction has arisen time and again. When it was certain that Northern Ireland would not in any way be betrayed and that its future lay firmly in the hands of its own elected leaders, articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution were practically meaningless, but they are no longer meaningless now that the British Government have provided a platform and supplied the machinery for the South to achieve the objectives of articles 2 and 3 of its constitution. That is why the Unionist people are so stirred.
Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it seems that in the House of Commons there is no political will to give a total commitment to Northern Ireland? If we were debating Nicaragua or South Africa the Benches would be packed with Members displaying outrage, passion and indignation. But today we are debating the United Kingdom—our own country. The public do not understand why we are so passionate about remote countries but somehow cannot get to grips with the problems in our own nation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that sentiment?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree totally. It is what the Ulster Members have been saying all along. When the Stormont

45
Parliament was disbanded and the power-sharing Executive came into existence I was told by the then Prime Minister that the trouble was all over.
Mr. Flannery: Has the hon. Gentleman seen him here?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman's colleague has a stick with which to deal with him.
When the power-sharing Executive came into existence the then Prime Minister said that the trouble was all over, that at last there would be peace.
In a speech in this House I said that previous events in Northern Ireland had been a picnic by comparison with the killings that would follow. How right that prophecy turned out to be—and the killings will go on and on until the Government have the guts to deal with the situation.
I am surprised that today the Secretary of State did not say, "I am a defender of Her Majesty's territories, and I say that the Dublin Government have no authority over part of the United Kingdom and no right to claim that they have such authority." The British Government have the power to say to the southern Government, "You must come into the 20th century and stop claiming territorial rights over a part of our territory." If the people of Northern Ireland want, in an election, to express the desire to become a part of the united Ireland, let them do so. As a democrat, I should have to accept that. I do not want it, but I should have to accept it. However, I know that the people of Northern Ireland do not want such an arrangement.
The Government will not even repeat the referendum exercise. They will not say to the people, "Let us have another vote on this issue." The SDLP does not want a vote on it. Nobody wants to put the matter to the test. Why? If there is such a willingness on the part of the people of Northern Ireland to go south—and even among Unionists there are some who seem attracted by the magnetism of the Republic—let us have a referendum. The Secretary of State has the authority to call one immediately. Let the people of Northern Ireland give their decision. We in this House know only too well what the outcome would be. No betting shop would offer odds.
The Government cannot ignore what happened in the Supreme Court of the Irish Republic. The British Government must get to grips with article 1 of their agreement with the Government of the Republic. That agreement is not what it was sold to this Parliament and to the people of Ulster as being. It contains no guarantee about the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Maginnis: Perhaps I may draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the terms in which article I of the agreement was defined by senior counsel in the Supreme Court of the Republic. He said:
"Now, Mr. O'Flaherty"—
Mr. O'Flaherty was the senior counsel representing the McGimpseys—
"referred to Article I, my Lord, headed 'The Status of Northern Ireland'. When one reads that Article, one looks at the status of Northern Ireland, it's not defined at all. It is carefully not defined, my Lord, carefully not defined."
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman confirms exactly what I and, indeed, all Unionists have been saying. The finding of the Supreme Court comes as no surprise to any Unionist. In an article in The Times on Saturday, Conor
46
Cruise O'Brien said that the British Government would ignore that decision at their peril. If the British Government do ignore it, it will become an increasingly serious festering sore. I trust that the Secretary of State will have second thoughts. He has had second thoughts before, and I have congratulated him on that. I hope that, after this debate, he will realise that this is a matter that will not go away.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman has said that the Government sold the Anglo-Irish Agreement to Northern Ireland. Does he agree that we have not bought it, that we see it for the fraud that it is and have constantly rejected it?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should have said that the Government had sold the agreement to this House. They certainly did not deceive the people of Northern Ireland—the agreement has not been sold to them. Ministers may go to North Antrim as often as they like and tell people there how wonderful the agreement is. They may do their best to get poor souls to join the new Tory party of Northern Ireland which, we are told, will show the people what Toryism can do for Northern Ireland. When one sees the closed hospitals, the long unemployment queues and the degradation in the Province, one realises that no Northern Ireland person in his senses would vote for the Tory party. That will be made clear at the next election. I would welcome an election tomorrow. I should make it clear that I am talking about present-day Toryism, not Conservatism.
Mr. Barry Porter: What about Harland and Wolff?
Rev Ian Paisley: What was done for Harland and Wolff was what any Government would have done for the shipyard. The hon. Gentleman would have advocated similar action in his own area. However, I do not want to cross swords with the hon. Gentleman as I have other quarry to kill.
I come now to a matter which is causing great concern. I refer to the consistent conspiracy to blacken the Ulster Defence Regiment. We have seen this conspiracy evolve. The Stevens inquiry was not set up to deal with the leaking of information from the UDR to paramilitaries; it was set up to deal with the leaking of information from the RUC to paramilitaries. The Opposition spokesman did not mention that. But suddenly the whole inquiry changed. Documents that many of us had had for years—an Assembly colleague of mine produced page after page of photographs—were systematically leaked in the press.
Every morning one heard that a reporter from some paper had another document.
Rev William McCrea: Can my hon. Friend confirm that I made such a statement in the Assembly? Members of the RUC took me there and left me home but, to this day, have not asked me where I got the information.
Rev Ian Paisley: I can only say that those policemen must have been very lenient. When I mention in this House any matter on which the RUC seems to think I should not have information, a policeman comes to my door asking, "May we have the document to which you referred?" Indeed, on one occasion I had to appeal to a former

47
Speaker for protection of my right, as a Member of Parliament, to produce documents whose contents I thought that the public needed to know.
There has been a conspiracy. The "Panorama" programme had one aim—to discredit the whole Ulster Defence Regiment. If members of the UDR are doing things that are wrong, they must be made amenable to the law. Members of British regiments—I refer to "British regiments" not because the UDR is not one but because it is a term that the House knows—on this side of the water have done dastardly deeds, but I have never heard any hon. Member say that a whole regiment should be disbanded, even though some of those deeds were gruesome indeed. Of course, such a regiment should not be disbanded. If a man goes wrong and is dealt with, his regiment should not suffer—others should not be guilty by association.
"Panorama" said that the UDR trained 40,000 Protestants to use a gun. When the UDR was first formed, 20 per cent. of its members were Roman Catholics. The programme did not say that since a fifth of the total membership at one time were Roman Catholics the Government also trained so many thousand Roman Catholics to use a gun. Where does it end? Those men were not trained to use a gun for unlawful purposes; they were members of the Army and were given their training as such. They were not trained as Protestants or as Roman Catholics; they were trained as members of a British regiment.
At the end of the programme, the commentator said that the UDR had been brought into existence to solve the problem but that now it was part of the problem. The gallant members of the UDR take their lives into their hands. On Sunday, I was at a UDR funeral. As I delivered a message in my capacity as leader of the Free Presbyterian church, I looked down and saw one of my members sitting with her three young children, and I thought about people saying, "Your husband was part of the problem." That man took his life into his hands on two counts—first, as a sergeant in the UDR and, secondly, in working for a builder who helped to carry out contracts for the security forces. Statements that that man is part of the problem are deeply resented by the people of Northern Ireland.
The situation has become intolerable, especially for those of us who have to pay the British Broadcasting Corporation and then have that programme shown on our screens. I put our views to Lord Barnett, a former Member. I have been told that a book has been produced containing more than 300 names and that every UDR man has a copy. But that book does not exist. I rang up Mr. Stevens and asked whether he had the book and whether he had seen the man who compiled the "Panorama" programme and taken the book from him. Mr. Stevens said that he could not answer me but had to put me on to the inquiry officer. He said that he was not putting me off and that I could state my case.
Five minutes later, the officer spoke to me and said that he had visited the man who made the programme and asked about the book. I asked whether the adviser had seized it, and he said no and asked whether I knew why. I said, "Of course I know why"—a parliamentarian never asks a question to which he does not know the answer, and it would be foolish to do so. I said that it was a bogus book
48
and the adviser said, "That is right—I have no authority to confiscate a book that is bogus." The book was waved before millions of people who watched that programme. We are told that every UDR man has a copy of that list of suspected IRA men and that it is given to other men to kill those suspects. The House must face up to this serious matter.
The Secretary of State knows that I am not one to defend him, but I do not believe that any responsible BBC producer should go to the Secretary of State, take nearly an hour of his time, go to the head of the UDR and take an hour of his time and then go straight to Dublin, play the programme to the foreign secretary of another country and ask him to have the last word on it. That is not fair to this country or to the UDR. The UDR does not deserve such treatment.
Until the House faces up to that matter, we shall not come to grips with it. Why does the IRA want to get rid of the UDR? It is because the UDR stands as a bastion against the IRA and all the citizens of Northern Ireland in the areas in which it operates. If members of the UDR did something that they should not have done, they should be dealt with like anyone else, but the whole regiment should not be maligned as it has been. Other matters have been raised which cause concern in the hearts of everyone. All of us want civil and religious liberty. We are all dedicated to that. The two matters that I have raised lie at the foundation of this debate.
5.16 pm
Mr. Ken Maginnis: Last year, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) began his speech by saying that we were debating the order in the shadow of the gunman. Sadly, we do so again this year. My party offers its sincere sympathy to the families of all the victims of the past week and year. There is nothing—whether membership of the UDR, the fact that a person's work takes him into security bases, the chance that causes one person to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, or even membership of an illegal organisation—that can justify murder. That, too, is the unequivocal position of the Ulster Unionist party. Hence we as legislators have a responsibility to those in whom we vest authority to protect our community from such terrorism and to ensure that we provide the means by which people can carry out their tasks within the law. That is our first priority. All other considerations must remain secondary.
Lord Colville recognises this and my party supports his recommendation that the emergency provisions powers must remain in place for the immediate future. I continue to be disappointed, not at the official Opposition's desire to see an early return to normality in Northern Ireland, but by the strange thesis that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North continues to promote to the effect that continuance of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 constitutes a suspension of human rights. The hon. Gentleman will surely agree with me that the greatest infringement of human rights is that perpetrated by the paramilitaries when, acting as judge, jury and executioner, they carry out assassinations in the most arbitrary manner. It is in the nature of our

49
society that even the basest of killers is entitled to his rights under the law, but that right must never be enhanced at the expense of the innocent victims or of our security forces.
Unlike the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who appears to concentrate almost exclusively on what he regards as the deficiencies of our security forces—deficiencies which I do not experience on the ground—I intend to deal with the victims of terrorism and with the innocent community trying to get on with their lives in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the television reporter, John Ware, and to the disgraceful one-sided and biased programme that he produced for "Panorama". When John Ware first came to the Province, he came to see me. He stated unequivocally and unashamedly that he was there to follow up the Stevens inquiry and to expose the UDR, in so far as he alleged it was involved in the leaking of information to paramilitary organisations. He had his mind made up. I gave him an hour of my time and he recorded three or four cassettes containing what I had had to tell him about the UDR. As right hon. and hon. Members know, I speak with some personal experience, having served with the regiment for 11 years. After all that, I was horrified by what he said as he turned round to leave my home. I said, "I hope that you will be objective in your treatment of what I have said, although obviously you can't carry all that you have recorded." His reply was, "Well, we'll try—but you're not going to like it." Those were John Ware's exact words and they can scarcely enhance his reputation as an objective journalist. But why should we criticise John Ware when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North concentrated almost entirely on diminishing the security forces? There was no objectivity in what he said and no acknowledgment of the plight of the people whom I represent or of those represented by the Ulster Democratic Unionist party.
I have used the terms "emergency powers" in referring to the order. Like many hon. Members, I suspect, I find it no easy task to differentiate that which falls within the compass of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 and that which comes within the scope of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978. Nor has the Police and Criminal Evidence Order (Northern Ireland) 1988 made it any easier for the layman to identify the relevant legislation. That is why the Ulster Unionists feel that it is time to rationalise the legislation. When Lord Colville brings forward his major report, the emergency provisions Act should be allowed to lapse and a number of its provisions should then be incorporated in the prevention of terrorism Act, which should then cease to be temporary.
In its document "Emergency Laws Now", which has been presented to Lord Colville for consideration, the Ulster Unionist party makes a number of recommendations which are worth mentioning at this stage. Part I of the emergency provisions Act 1978, as amended by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987—the provisions relating to scheduled offences, and the court, the mode of trial and the evidence in scheduled offence cases—should be inserted into the prevention of terrorism Act. The Lord Chancellor could be given a power, by order requiring parliamentary approval, to bring that part of the Act into operation for any defined area for a defined period. In addition, the Lord Chancellor could direct that that part should apply to a particular case. There is little
50
doubt that such a provision would be beneficial in cases such as that of the Birmingham Six because, irrespective of one's overall opinion of the matter, the view is widely held that, in the wake of such an atrocity, there must be less than an even chance of being able to find a completely impartial jury.
Part II of the emergency provisions Act 1978 and part II of the 1987 Act, dealing with arrest, search, detention and the conditions of detention, are largely supplementary to the powers in part III of the prevention of terrorism Act and could easily be integrated in that part.
The provision in part III of the 1978 Act which deals with proscription and public order matters could be consolidated with those in the prevention of terrorism Act. For the first time in years, we could then produce a uniform list of proscribed organisations. The public order provisions would surely be better included in existing public order legislation.
The length of time for which accused persons are held in custody before being brought to trial is often criticised, although it is more likely to arise from the unavailability of a particular defence counsel chosen by the accused than from undue delay in the court's timetable. But the power to make regulations governing the time limits for proceedings in scheduled offence cases should still be retained as a safeguard. The present classification of scheduled offences and their mode of trial—before a single judge—should also be retained. There is no evidence that the Diplock courts, as they are called, have caused problems—the pressure for change has had more to do with political propaganda than with justice. The allegations concerning the Birmingham Six and others bear that out because, as the House will recall, those cases were brought before a jury.
Again, it is merely political gesturing to call for three-judge courts, as it has yet to be proved that there is a need based on the furtherance of justice. Cases going to appeal—proportionally, there are few that do—go before three judges. The practical difficulty of providing three-judge courts for all Diplock cases would result in an unacceptable backlog in the court system. Even if it were desirable to increase the number of judges, we should still have to ask whether justice is better served by having our most experienced legal brains on the Bench or below the Bench. I think that there is a happy medium. As judges must he appointed from the ranks of senior counsel, it is perhaps better justice to ensure that the accused has a reasonable choice of good and experienced defence counsel.
When we debated the prevention of terrorism Act a few days ago, I was somewhat saddened by the fact that there was so little acknowledgment of the suffering of the community. Too much sympathy was expressed then, as it has been today, for those who perpetrate violence against the community. It is perhaps because the legislation that we are debating is designed to constrain those with evil intent that we tend to forget the victims and consider the legislation purely in terms of how it relates to the evil men in the community.
Is there real evidence that the emergency powers legislation is counter-productive, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has alleged, or that it is unnecessary in as much as it fails to accomplish what it sets out to achieve? I believe that without the emergency provisions legislation and the prevention of terrorism legislation we would be tying the hands of our security

51
forces. The legislation does not give and never has given our security forces a free reign, but without it they would not be able to deal with the problems that we face from international and local terrorism.
We constantly hear the number of people detained for questioning being compared with the number of people actually charged with terrorist offences. Indeed, that point was raised by an Opposition Member in the debate on terrorism a few days ago. I, too, am bothered that there is such a differential between the number questioned and the number charged—not because I believe that the wrong people are being detained for questioning, but because too many terrorists are beating the system.
In my constituency at the moment, a well-known terrorist who has been associated with the Provisional IRA for a long time can still organise murder and get away with it. He is known to have arranged the attack which was to have been made against my wife and myself on 11 January this year. Here I acknowledge the bravery and efficiency of the RUC, whose good work on that occasion frustrated the terrorists and probably saved my life and that of my wife. Sadly, a lorry driver—a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross)—who was murdered within half a mile of that incident on Thursday last—was not so fortunate. He was murdered at the behest of the same villain. I should be happy to ensure that the Secretary of State knows the name of the person to whom I am referring, but I have no doubt that he already knows the name of that arch-villain and conspirator in the murder of my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East.
Mr. Flannery: What the hon. Gentleman has just said must alarm us all deeply. He has said that he knows that that person is guilty. It would seem to be an ordinary thing in these extraordinary circumstances that if one knew that evidence should be put before the proper authorities who would take the proper steps. That surely should be done instead of simply saying that someone is guilty and leaving it at that. Instead of the name being given to the Secretary of State—I do not object to that—it should be given to the proper police authorities.
Mr. Maginnis: I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is so naive as to believe that the police and the community at large do not already know the identity of that person. Unfortunately, the problem over the past 20 years has been that it is not possible to deal with terrorists effectively and completely within the normal civil law. There is a great difficulty because witnesses are intimidated and fear pervades the community, especially the community in which that individual lives. No one is willing to come forward and give evidence because it would make the provider of that evidence the next target. We have faced that problem for so many years and the House has shown itself unable or unwilling to grapple with it.
I wish now to consider Executive detention, or internment as it is known. My party is disturbed that Lord Colville, for whom we have considerable regard, may be considering the ending of that provision. While we acknowledge that no Government have had the courage to implement such a measure, even on the most selective basis, we are convinced that it should remain an option.
52
We are convinced that Governments should continu-ally face this challenge: are they more concerned with the terrorists or with the victims of terrorism? It is morally wrong that a terrorist such as the man to whom I have referred should be able to continue to thumb his nose at the law of the land and to organise—and at times participate in—the continuation of the murders which so diminish our community. The greater good of the community should not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Where is the justice in that?
The Government have a responsibility to protect the hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Northern Ireland on both sides of the community against the few hundred active terrorists from both sides of the community. I make no distinction, nor do I wish to argue the rights or wrongs of any side. However, it is possible to do more to assist the security forces and to help those who, at terrible cost, have stood for so long and so steadfastly as a bastion between us and the terrorists. The introduction of identity cards is one of the simplest ways in which, without having to seek any derogation from a European body, we could make the task of our police a little easier.
Earlier, the hon. Member for Antrim, North referred to the Stevens inquiry and to the attack on the UDR. Having served for more than 11 years with that regiment and having commanded men within it, I can state that I never experienced a complaint against any man under my command, let alone a complaint that was upheld. Therefore, the derogatory terms that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North all too often employs were a personal insult to me as well as to the many good and honest men who have served the country well and truly over many years, many of whom—including many of my best friends—have lost their lives serving the community and standing between the terrorists and ordinary people.
We accepted that the Stevens inquiry was necessary, because we were told that that was the case, and we certainly wanted leaks to be cleared up, but we did not expect such dangerous naivety when 28 members of the regiment were swooped on early one Sunday morning and taken in for questioning—and that was after certain sound and sensible voices had persuaded the inquiry that it should not opt for almost 100. That was the original intention. To what extent was Stevens acting on sound information?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that there have been dreadful repercussions for those men, who had to be released almost immediately because they were completely innocent? They have had to leave their districts and their families. They have been attacked and intimidated. A cloud of darkness, which should not be put upon them, has been put on them by that action.
Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. The majority of those men were released almost immediately, after having had their homes surrounded and being taken off like common criminals. There is no excuse for endangering not just those men but their families. Many of them have had to move house. Right hon. and hon. Members know that one cannot do that at a profit. They are young men with families who need every last shilling. They have to move away from family support. If

53
their wives went out to work, the children could stay with aunts, uncles or grandparents, but that family support has been wiped out.
Irrespective of how efficient the Stevens inquiry turns out to be, and irrespective of its report, I shall always be left with a hitter taste in my mouth because innocent people have been victimised for the sake of political expediency. Some have been charged with the most ridiculous offences—such as having two extra rounds of ammunition for a personal protection weapon. If somebody came to my home, I could not guarantee that I would not have two extra rounds of ammunition for my personal protection weapon. There is no danger that those extra rounds, any more than the rounds that I legally possess, will fall into the hands of anyone who wishes to commit a crime against any member of the community. It is sad fact that one bungling by the Stevens team has meant that anything good which might emanate from the inquiry will be undermined or overshadowed by the repercussions of what happened on that Sunday morning.
Any legislation is only as good as the means of enforcing it. The continuing high rate of deaths and injuries is unacceptable to many hon. Members, but it is heartbreaking for those who have to endure it daily. Therefore, I urge hon. Members, especially those who wish to vote against the order, to examine their motives and to ask themselves what hope there is for democracy if we do not meet our obligations to the innocent members of the community. Nothing enshrined in the order should give offence to any right-thinking person, either here or on the streets of Northern Ireland. If, for some reason that I fail to understand, some hon. Members at present consider that they cannot vote for the order, I hope that in the interests of those who may still become the victims of terrorism they will not vote against it.
I look forward to the time when we have a single piece of legislation to deal with the problem of terrorism, and I commend such a course to Lord Colville. My colleagues in the Ulster Unionist party and I hope that all such legislation will soon become unnecessary. In the meantime, my party supports the order.
5.45 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: The reasoned argument of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and the more vibrant eloquence of his reverend friend the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) deserve a better congregation. So does the subject of the debate. It is a disgrace that our Benches should be so empty as we return to this grim subject.
Of course, I shall support the Government tonight, but it will be with a sense of growing frustration. We have now had to renew the order for nearly 20 years without seeing any daylight at the end of the tunnel. The statistics on death and wounded oscillate from year to year, rather like a malaria fever chart, but there is still no sign of any cure.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid the security forces a well-deserved tribute in which most hon. Members joined wholeheartedly. They have done and are still doing a fantastic job. But it looks as though they will continue to need to do it. My right hon. Friend was right to say that we are against terrorism in any form, either orange or green. It is the duty of hon. Members to uphold the law and it is my right hon. Friend's duty to enforce it. At the same time, given that hon. Members mould
54
opinion, we must make a distinction between different kinds of terrorism. I say that after careful thought. We must remember that the increase in loyalist terrorism is a reflection of the Government's failure to defeat the IRA. We must in our hearts, although not in law, make a distinction between those who fight to overthrow the Queen's Government and those who, though wrongly, take up arms to fight against those who are trying to overthrow that Government. We must have that point in mind when forming opinion, if not in the administration of the law.
The speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) shocked me more than I had expected. It was an attempt to indict the security forces, to drive a wedge between the UDR and the RUC, and to attack the security forces in every possible way. There was no attempt to balance his speech, which is understandable perhaps, bearing in mind present circumstances, by reference to the Libyan connection with the IRA, to mention only one matter. The hon. Gentleman's speech will have given comfort to the IRA and those who sympathise with it. It left me with the feeling that, if public opinion polls are right and there is to be a Labour Government, it will be a very sad day when the hon. Gentleman is Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. McNamara: My future position is not in my gift but in that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that one should not be anxious that the forces of law and order in Northern Ireland should be seen to uphold the law impartially on the occasions when members of either community fall from grace? I have already paid tribute to the heroism and gallantry of the armed forces, as the right hon. Gentleman would have heard in my speech. Is he saying that such matters should not be of concern to us all and be examined by the House and the elected representatives of the nation?
Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman is sufficiently experienced in politics to know that there are ways of saying things and ways of not saying them. I shall read his words carefully, but it was my impression that his words would bring comfort to the IRA more than they will enable the House to form an objective judgment on the matters that he discussed.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was reported some weeks ago as saying that we could not expect to win the war against the IRA by military means. I thought at the time that those words were not the happiest that he could have used, but I see his argument. Successive Governments, both Conservative and Labour, have sought political solutions. My God, we have tried hard enough. The dissolution of Stormont was a political step. It did not bring us much good. Sunningdale was a political step. It failed lamentably. The Prior assembly was, as some of us predicted, a complete failure. Now we have the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He ducked somewhat the questions put to him on the Dublin Supreme Court interpretation of the agreement. It leaves me with the feeling that we have bought a dud chip. We need some clarification. I do not see

55
how we can reconcile the judgment of the Supreme Court with the interpretation that we place on article 1 of the Agreement.
So far all our political initiatives over a long period have failed. Yet one which has been consistently suggested by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends and with some support from the Ulster Unionist party has always been brushed aside. It is the simple expedient that, instead of dealing with Ulster matters by Order in Council—which makes them virtually undiscussable—the House should treat legislation in much the same way as Scottish legislation by some Committees. I would leave it to my right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister to devise the best way of doing so.
Another political initiative would be a return to relatively ordinary local government in the Province. We are told that if that happened there would be discrimination on a great scale. I do not know if it has ever been tried. The Secretary of State would have sufficient powers to suspend a local authority if there were discrimination. Of course, there is no great danger here. Any such move would be seen as abandoning the attempt to return to devolved government. But every attempt to return to devolved government has proved a fiasco. How long can we continue attempting to do something that apparently cannot be done? Would my right hon. Friend be right to attempt it?
It is only if my right hon. Friend adopts the course of a return to ordinary local government that he will give the necessary signal to both communities that there is no question of this Government, or any Government that we would support, moving towards a union of the North and South. We would then say in a clear and categorical way that we stand for the union of the kingdom. That is not yet understood or appreciated. After the judment of the Supreme Court in Dublin, it is hard to believe.
My right hon. Friend is the fourth or fifth Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He has opted for an attempt to create devolved government. Let there be a time limit in his mind when this experiment should be abandoned. We really cannot go on like this.
5.54 pm
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I shall say only a few words about the order because several hon. Members wish to speak, not least Northern Irish Members. It will be a matter of regret to me, if the order is passed, that the principles of our system of justice will not be universal throughout the United Kingdom. Notwithstanding that regret, I shall vote for the order and I shall advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to do likewise. I shall give them that advice and vote in that way because I believe that the circumstances in Northern Ireland justify that course of action. I shall vote for the order with a sense of reservation and regret—reservation that universality is not possible, and regret that there appears to be no immediate prospect of its coming to pass.
It is right that we should have to renew these provisions every year. Every year it is incumbent on us to ask ourselves whether they are really necessary. When I ask myself that question at this juncture, I have little difficulty in answering in the affirmative. It is clear that normality, as we understand it on the mainland of the United
56
Kingdom, is still absent from Northern Ireland. None of us could have been other than affected by the moving way in which the Northern Ireland Members who have already spoken described their personal experiences and the sense of grief which they, and, of course, the communities that they represent, experience, sometimes almost daily. Perhaps that is what makes these powers, which in other circumstances might seem draconian, justified at this time.
I hope that the House will accept that we should not seek to maintain these powers for a moment longer than they appear to be justified. They represent a serious incursion into the rights that citizens of the United Kingdom should normally expect. We should tolerate them grudgingly. We should never embrace them enthusiastically. We should work to withdraw them at the earliest date possible. Nor should we assume that the system of justice which the powers embrace cannot be improved or changed.
I suggest to the Secretary of State that the powers that the order confers are at least worthy of reconsideration in four separate aspects. In doing that I am aware that I may be adopting a position which is contradictory to that of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis).
For example, internment is a procedure which, although rarely, indeed currently never, used, remains a source of great political inflammation. If we believe that the rule of law is gradually being imposed, albeit in difficult circumstances, to maintain the possibility of internment is to embrace a policy of desperation. Internment can never be a long-term solution. It is only of short-term value. It is our duty carefully to consider whether that procedure will in the long term most speedily bring about a solution to the problems in Northern Ireland, which the vast majority of people in the country, and, indeed, in the House, wish to be brought about.
I come now to what are called the Diplock courts. As one who has practised at the Bar for more than 20 years, I have come to realise that there is no such thing as judicial infallibility. In the Diplock courts, a single judge has to determine not only questions of law but sometimes difficult questions of credibility—who is to be believed and who is not be be believed. In that regard, I cannot but think that a court of three is much more likely to be able to reach an informed judgment than a court of one. I believe that there should now be some acceptance of the view that trial by jury should be the norm and that it should not be taken away unless causes of why that should be so can be shown.
I come to the topic of the periods of remand in custody with the benefit—if it may be so described—of the Scottish experience. For almost 100 years we have had the 110-day rule, which means that any trial against a person who has been remanded in custody must be commenced within 110 days of the remand. As I have said, that has operated in Scotland for about 100 years—and with great success. It has provided a protection for the accused, and has been a means of ensuring that prosecution is effected swiftly and efficiently. Although I understand that to suggest that it can be introduced simply by inserting a clause into some legislation would be facile, I urge the Government to give serious consideration to a form of such a rule that would reduce extended periods of remand in custody.
I turn finally to the video-taping of interviews. My professional experience, in which I have both prosecuted and defended people charged with serious crimes,

57
although never with crimes of terrorism, leads me to the view that often the only available peg on which a defence can hang something is to challenge the propriety of what took place in a closed room in the presence only of policemen, whose record is in their notebooks, which are frequently made up after the event. I have seen people acquitted who should never have been acquitted simply because the mere fact of a suspicion about the events that took place while they were in the exclusive custody of the police was enough to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. Therefore, such a contemporary record is as much for the protection of the police—and for the efficient carrying out of prosecutions—as it is for the protection of the accused person.
Working with the powers that the order contains and confirms, I believe that improvement is still possible. Indeed, it is desirable if confidence in the legal system of Northern Ireland is to be enhanced. Confidence in that system will be the best assistance towards a return to the life of normality which the Province previously enjoyed and which we, in the mainland, take for granted.
6.2 pm
Mr. Ian Gow: I welcome the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Every right hon. and hon. Member who sits on this side of the House will vote in favour of the order.
Reluctantly, I agree with the conclusion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) about the speech of the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). Everybody knows that the hon. Gentleman would wish to give no aid or comfort to those who believe in terror, but I reluctantly share my right hon. Friend's judgment that the hon. Gentleman's speech will give aid and comfort to the IRA. I shall have no hesitation in voting for the order.
I turn to an aspect of the debate that was outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said that the most important single factor in prolonging terrorism in Northern Ireland was uncertainty about Northern Ireland's constitutional future. I believe that to be the case. Everybody knows that the official policy of Her Majesty's Opposition is that there should be a united island of Ireland—united by consent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State claims to believe in the union, but I want to explain to him why it is perceived in Northern Ireland—and not in Northern Ireland alone—that there is some equivocation about his position and that of Her Majesty's Government.
The judgment in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland last week has done nothing to diminish the doubts that are felt about the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to the Union. On 5 November 1985 Her Majesty's Government entered into an agreement with the Government of the Irish Republic. The Irish Republic is the only country that lays claim to part of the territory of the United Kingdom. That claim is made in the most solemn form possible—in articles 2 and 3 of the written constitution of the Republic. Thus, by virtue of the agreement of 15 November 1985, Her Majesty's Government conferred a place of special privilege upon the only country with a constitution that lays claim to part of Her Majesty's dominions.
58
May I give an analogy? No analogy is perfect, and I do not claim that this one is. Let us suppose that Germany laid claim to the two French departements of Alsace and Lorraine. Let us suppose that among the German-speaking people of Alsace and Lorraine were some who wished to be severed from the French republic and joined with Germany. Let us suppose that, over the years, terrorists had come from Germany into Alsace and Lorraine, murdered French people living there, and then returned to Germany. Let us suppose further that the people of Alsace and Lorraine had believed that the German police were not always as enthusiastic as they might be in seeking to apprehend those who had come into France, murdered and returned to Germany. Would it be conceivable that in those circumstances the French Government would confer a place of special privilege upon Germany, giving Germany the right to put forward views and proposals about how those two French departements were to be governed? Would it not be even more inconceivable that such an arrangement would be made between France and Germany if the German constitution laid claim to two French departements?
For those who believe in the Union, the idea—and the Government's decision—to make a treaty with the Irish Republic when the Irish Republic was failing to withdraw articles 2 and 3 of its constitution was inconceivable to many Unionists. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows full well what happened. He knows that the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, saw that danger and asked the Irish negotiators, "Would you please remove articles 2 and 3 of your constitution?" My right hon. Friend then said, "If you, the Irish, were to do that, you would make it easier for me to sell this agreement to the Unionists." As my right hon. Friend knows, the Dail cannot alter the constitution; that can be done only by referendum. The Irish Government said, "We are willing to ask our people, by referendum, to remove articles 2 and 3, but upon one condition—that we should have a Minister resident in Belfast." That was too much, even for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
We are put in this further difficulty by last week's decision of the Supreme Court, but there is a way in which my right hon. Friend can get out of it. Would it be possible for Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to be every bit as unequivocal about the Union as Ministers who serve in the Scottish and Welsh Offices who adopt a different tone and language? My right hon. Friend and his predecessors have said again and again from the Treasury Bench and outside this place that Northern Ireland will remain part of Her Majesty's dominions unless and until a majority of its people decide otherwise.
That is not the language used by either the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is not what they say. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, shortly to leave the Welsh Office, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland speak at by-elections. Whenever we have a by-election in Wales or Scotland, the most natural thing in the world is for the Secretary of State to speak in support of the Conservative candidate. Mercifully that which we have failed to do in Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend and even other Ministers will shortly have to do. [Laughter".] My hon. Friends laugh. Certainly they will.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I have yet to see that.
Mr. Gow: Mercifully my right hon. and hon. Friends will be obliged to do that.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I have a simple question: how could a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland campaign for a Conservative candidate in East Belfast when the Conservative association there wants integration and the Secretary of State says that he is against it?
Mr. Gow: The Conservative associations in Northern Ireland are anticipating a forthcoming change in Government policy. [Laughter.] However surprising it may be to the right hon. Gentleman, many of Her Majesty's Ministers have been willing to come to Eastbourne to speak in my support, although I am in respectful disagreement with the present policies being pursued by Northern Ireland Ministers. It is mercifully possible for there to be a Conservative candidate at a by-election who does not agree with official Conservative policy on every matter. If anybody doubts the truth of that, I remind them that my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) were Conservative candidates at the general election. I do not wish to be diverted, so I shall return to my main theme.
The present Treasury Bench line is to say that Northern Ireland will remain part of Her Majesty's dominions unless and until a majority of its people decide otherwise. I want my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say, "I believe in the Union. I will do all in my power to maintain and strengthen it. I will continue to argue against all people who wish to diminish or dilute the Union." As a Scotsman speaking about Scotland, even I would say that if at the end of the day the people of Scotland over time and by a large, or even not-so-large, majority wished to sever themselves from this kingdom, the Queen could have no unwilling subjects. I beg my right hon. Friend to think about that aspect of the matter.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman carry the argument further? The people in Northern Ireland have not been given the right to decide a change in their status. Their status was changed under the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but they were given no opportunity through a referendum to say aye or no to that agreement.
Mr. Gow: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State believes that the status of the people of Northern Ireland was not changed by the agreement of 15 November 1985. I believe that their status was changed. Furthermore, I believe that we cannot govern successfully one part of the kingdom differently from the rest, save with the consent of a majority of the people who are to be governed differently. That consent to be governed differently is unobtainable from the people of Northern Ireland.
We can send a signal to friend and foe alike by following the recommendation made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion. It is nearly 11 years since Airey Neave was assassinated. With his death the policy which he had fashioned and to which he had secured the agreement of the shadow Cabinet died also. Airey Neave was shadow Secretary of State from 12 February 1975 to his assassination on 30 March 1979—for more than four years. As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) will confirm, he worked closely with the right hon. Gentleman. It was with his assent that the words that appeared in the 1979 Conservative manifesto appeared.
60
We have not attempted to govern Northern Ireland as closely as may be to the way in which the rest of the kingdom is governed. The longer we continue to govern it differently, the easier it will be perceived to be to prise Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom. There are differences among Unionists about whether we should have a devolved assembly, or what I call administrative devolution, which means conferring modest additional powers on the 26 district councils and establishing some sort of regional or county council. I say that although I have an increasing will to diminish the number of tiers of local government, but I let that pass.
We should follow the policy which Airey Neave fashioned after so much toil and study. We should give a much more ringing commitment to the Union. We most certainly should say to nationalists in Northern Ireland that we respect their position and shall protect it. We shall give them, provided that they are constitutional nationalists, precisely that equality of treatment under the law that we give to nationalists in Wales and Scotland. We shall protect all of their legitimate interests under a just law and do all in our power to eliminate such discrimination as there may be against those who hold nationalist convictions. However, it is deeply divisive to give to the Government of a foreign power, notably the Government of the only foreign power that lays claim to the territory of Northern Ireland, the task of representing nationalists in dealings with Her Majesty's Ministers. Nationalists should be represented by the four nationalist Members who have been elected, three of whom have taken their seats in this House. It is deeply divisive to say that the Irish Republic shall have the task of representing nationalists.
This debate has given the House, although too few hon. Members, an opportunity to look not only at the important issue of the emergency powers but at ways in which through political change and a change of political language we may be able to bring to the Province the peace, stability and reconciliation which all decent men are striving to attain.
6.19 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: As always, I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow). On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends and, I suspect, my hon. Friends who sit on the Conservative Benches, I am delighted to be able to express our appreciation of the hon. Gentleman's deep understanding of the problems with which we have to contend. I do not believe that it is disrespectful to add the following comment—would to God many other Members of this honourable House had the same depth of understanding.
In common with the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I well remember the determination of the late Airey Neave to introduce to Northern Ireland something which might not have given everyone all that they wanted but which would at least have been a beginning in a practical sense. He was determined to press on with that. I have previously quoted words spoken the day before he was murdered which left me in no doubt as to his determination to carry out what until that time had been the approved policy of the Conservative shadow Cabinet. It is a sad reflection that his successors who took over as the ministerial team in the Northern Ireland Office under the new Government were told bluntly, "Sorry—we cannot do that because of commitments entered into". For a variety of reasons that

61
is a sobering thought. I know that I carry the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) on this because he has seen the seamier side of politics and knows how improper influences can be brought to bear.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne provided us with some encouragement by reminding us that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to put forward proposals from his side of the table at the Anglo-Irish Conference. It is not a common occurrence, but presumably it can be done. The contracting parties, the Secretary of State and his co-chairman, Mr. Collins, are pledged to make determined efforts to reach agreement on any proposal put forward. The Secretary of State should oblige his hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, and all of us, by putting forward a reasonable proposal in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court, simply suggesting that Dublin Ministers set about removing the offending articles 2 and 3 from their constitution. Having done that, the Secretary of State could sit back and watch as Mr. Collins made determined efforts from his side of the table to reach agreement on that reasonable proposal. I am sure that we would not be disappointed.
Our failure as a nation to eradicate terrorism is due to our unwillingness to recognise terrorism as a long-term challenge. The present Foreign Secretary, when Home Secretary. said in March 1989 referring to the IRA:
"They are just professional killers … No political solution will cope with that. They just have to be extirpated."
Irish terrorism can claim to be the pioneer of murder for political ends. The present 20-year campaign is rather more sophisticated than its predecessors. I derive no pleasure from repeating the warning that I gave to the House in my maiden speech in 1971, when I explained that Northern Ireland was then seeing the first demonstration of urban guerrilla warfare in western Europe. That demonstration was followed by repeat performances in most western nations but, somehow or other, those nations developed the technique to snuff out their indigenous terror gangs—partly through single-minded determination on the part of the Governments concerned and partly through a courageous refusal to make concessions to the aims of terrorists. Unfortunately, the aims of terrorists are usually shared by others who would not stoop to use terrorism otherwise.
United Kingdom Governments have, unfortunately, all too often taken the opposite course. By steadily giving ground to terrorists and their rescue brigades—an important part of the conundrum—they have prolonged the agony and have helped to cause the deaths of no fewer than 2,800 citizens of Northern Ireland and members of the Army serving there. The tragedy is that the Government know the error of their ways because their own Foreign Secretary told them that no political solution could cope, and that the terrorists had to be extirpated. What pressure, what malign influence, holds the Government back from doing what at last one of their number knows to be their duty?
The key to success in the battle against terrorism is the denial of the expectation of victory. Even the most dedicated idealist will be reluctant to sacrifice his life for a lost cause. Republican hopes of success had all but faded by the late 1970s. Some Opposition Members will understand very well what I am talking about—the degree of stability established by the late 1970s. From 1979 and throughout the 1980s, however, a constant stream of flawed initiatives rekindled hopes in the breasts of
62
terrorists, as the right hon. Member for Pavilion reminded us. The fluid situation developed by such pot-stirring experiments encouraged terrorists on both sides to believe that there was something in it for them.
It is true that the IRA condemned the Anglo-Irish Agreement because it did not go far enough—it said that it was only a half-way house. We also said that, only it was the other way round. Though it was a half-way house, it provided a terrific boost to the IRA, particularly in the light of the words of Her Majesty's Government at the signing ceremony at Hillsborough in 1985. Those were terrible words:
"We entered into this agreement because we were not prepared to tolerate a situation of continuing violence."
On other occasions I have illustrated how those words were decoded—an Enigma device was not needed—in the brigade headquarters of the IRA. Those words could mean only one thing to the IRA, "Aha—here we have a Government who have reached the end of their tether; they have said that they are not prepared to tolerate continuing violence, so let us murder another 100 citizens and get it all instead of just a half-way house".
Again, the IRA was quick enough to spot that the Anglo-Irish Agreement side-stepped the de jure position of Northern Ireland. In the aftermath of the signing of the agreement we did our best, as did the hon. Member for Eastbourne, to enlighten fellow right hon. and hon. Members, but on that occasion they were blinded—I give them that excuse, although they have not made it—by glossy labels saying "Peace", "Stability" and "Reconciliation". Who in his right mind would want to vote against that? We knew, of course, that the words were not real.
Today the Secretary of State has said honestly that he is faced with two conflicting de jure claims. The draftsmen of the Anglo-Irish Agreement realised that all too well and cleverly side-stepped the issue. They invented article 1 of the agreement, which is said to respect the rights of the majority, after a fashion. The judgment of the Irish Supreme Court, however, demolished article 1 because it says that a claim to a united island of Ireland is what it calls a "constitutional imperative"—so imperative that every Dublin representative, be he a member of the Government, of the Dail or a member of the Dublin delegation attending the inter-parliamentary body which has just been established, is bound by it to achieve the reintegration of the national territory of the whole island not, this time, qualified by the words
"wish of a majority … in Northern Ireland."
It is an overriding demand and requirement, which binds him in honour to achieve that at all costs—regardless, but not necessarily in physical defiance, of the democratically-expressed wishes of the majority of people living in Northern Ireland.
Some 20 years ago, the United Kingdom started to export a type of terrorism to Europe. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) and other hon. Members have expressed the hope in the debate that the day will come when the powers that we are considering will no longer be required. To a certain extent, I share that hope, but I fear that international terrorism may continue to exist in one form or another for decades.
We have all watched with a degree of admiration the vast demonstrations in eastern Europe which have brought such dramatic changes and have had some

63
dramatic successes, but we should be fooling ourselves if we thought that it would stop there. Democracy will merely transfer power from one element to another in those eastern European countries. Admittedly, it will transfer power through some form of democratic process, although that might be imperfect to begin with, but in every eastern European country a tiny element of the population—perhaps 4 or 5 per cent.—will flatly refuse to accept the majority democratic rule. They will not have forgotten the lesson of how easy it is to exploit what has become known in eastern Europe as "people power".
The tendency to exploit grievances has been all too apparent in this country, even in the past week. I do not make the mistake, as some people do, of tarring the Labour party with the same brush—they probably regret as much as the rest of us the fact that a ruthless minority, determined to get their own way, to subvert democracy in the House and in this island, are exploiting certain grievances that we need not discuss today. Unfortunately, the House may still need to provide a model of how democracy can be defended in eastern European countries. We shall have to give an example of how a country can be "made safe for democracy." We need a standard, permanent, simple and unified code of security regulations, which I hope would be vetted and scrutinised by a rather better system than our annual debate in the House, as sometimes that annual debate is not particularly helpful.
6.32 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: It is almost 11 years since I was first elected to the House. During that time the nation has had many crises and there have been emergencies of many kinds. I think that other hon. Members who have lived through the experience of those emergencies know that usually there is a sense of urgency among hon. Members throughout the House.
I think that it was the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) who came in for the best part of a minute to tell us how few people were in the Chamber and then absented himself for the remainder of the debate. He said that there should be a passion and a feeling of indignation about the emergency that we are dealing with. Having been through the other emergencies, I do not feel the same sense of urgency, passion or indignation in the House today that there has been on other occasions and which there should be on this occasion.
Are the people of the Falklands more important to the House than the people of Northern Ireland? More people have died in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism than were killed during the Falklands crisis, and yet the House does not show the same urgency and does not accord to Northern Ireland the importance that it should.
Instead of meeting to consider emergency legislation, we just go through what has become a ritual. I think that this ritual is different in one respect from some of the others over the past 13 years, because of the absence of the late Harold McCusker. He contributed fully and passionately to the debates. As a representative of a border constituency, he knew only too well the destructive power of the Provisonal IRA, and he knew of the need for emergency measures to be taken against it. Knowing the
64
circumstances that surrounded him, he left a message to his constituents to be read to them after his death. I think we should listen to his words in the House and take warning from them:
"I shall carry to my grave with ignominy the sense of the injustice that I have done my constituents down the years—when, in their darkest hours, I exhorted them to put their trust in the British House of Commons which one day would honour its fundamental obligations to them to treat them as equal British citizens."
Mr. McCusker had been confident, as I was confident during my early years in politics, that our constituents could be content that the watchful eye and the strong arm of Britain would be looking over them. He and I felt secure in the knowledge that they would protect Northern Ireland against injustice and wrong.
In all my years in politics, the sense of impatience that I felt and my confidence that one day the British Government would come to put right all of those wrongs—both in the constitutional relationship and in the security relationship—have given way to a feeling of impotence. I do not see a desire to defeat terrorism in any of the actions of the Government. The emergency provisions legislation simply marks time. It is a reaction to terrorists, not a vigorous pursuit of terrorism.
Almost 3,000 people have been butchered in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism. Those killings have not discriminated against people because of religion, sex, or social strata. Because Northern Ireland is such a small community, everyone has felt the impact.
More than 30,000 people have been maimed or mutilated in Northern Ireland as a result of terrorism. Billions of pounds have been lost through subversion. However, all the advice we get is to be calm and cool headed—almost compliant—when we deal with these issues. Our security forces are left to operate against a wartime situation under peacetime conditions.
I join hon. Members who have criticised the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), for his contribution to the debate. Despite the kind words for the security forces—and there were some—the burden of the speech was critical of the security forces. Would that the hon. Gentleman had spent time criticising the Provisional IRA. Coming from someone with his background, that would have been helpful, and it might have had some influence on people who might support the Provisional IRA. Instead, the weight of his time and effort was spent putting down the security forces.
That does not just happen only here. Hon. Members have referred to the Stevens inquiry. Its whole emphasis has been directed away from its original purpose, which was to look into the divulging of certain information arising from a police station at Dunmurry, towards putting the spotlight on the UDR. That has a political purpose—to undermine the regiment. The "Panorama" programme played its full part; so, too, did John Ware, whose reputation I give nothing for, having had experience of him in the past. That was exactly the sort of programme that I would expect from that sort of person.
The UDR is in every way in the front line of the battle against terrorism in Northern Ireland. It is the chief target of the IRA, because its members know the terrorists and the terrain in which they operate. The Ulster Defence Regiment is owed a deep debt of gratitude by the people of Northern Ireland and of the United Kingdom. Its soldiers have acted with fortitude and courage. More than

65
220 of them—serving soldiers and former members—have been killed as a result of terrorism. Unlike other regiments in the British Army, members of the UDR do not face death only when on patrol or on operations. Because they live in the community they face death coming out of work, or leaving or going to recreational activities—even after they leave the regiment.
I want to issue a word of warning about any future change in this legislation. I know from having spoken to Lord Colville that considerable pressure—from the Labour party and from the SDLP and others in Northern Ireland—has been brought to bear on him to wipe off the statute book the part of the emergency legislation that deals with internment. It can be argued that it has not been used for many years, that this Government lack the political will to use it and that there is no likelihood that it will be used, so it is redundant. I opposed internment when it was introduced, and I have since been justified in my opposition, but I must say that it is a weapon that should be available to Government should they find that nothing else is working in the battle against terrorism. I have heard it argued that if internment became necessary we could legislate for it. That is nonsense: at the first whiff of a rumour that legislation needed to be passed in the House to introduce internment there would be a flight across the border and beyond. As soon as internment is removed from the legislation it will be removed for all time as an effective weapon in the battle against terrorism. On no account should the Government accept any recommendation that this vital element in their hold over the terrorists should be removed from the statute book.
The security situation does not affect merely the lives and limbs of those who live in Northern Ireland and of those who come to the Province as part of the security forces. It also affects the value of life there, not only socially and economically, but constitutionally. In my years in politics I have observed how much major decisions are influenced by circumstances rather than principles, especially by security circumstances. Was it not the Prime Minister who said, after signing the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that she simply could not allow the violence to continue? That was a clear signal that the security circumstances had prompted her political action. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is a product of violence. I ask the Government, when dealing with security and constitutional matters, to do what is right, not what is expedient.
6.45 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): This has been an interesting, good and wide-ranging debate. It has ranged over matters that lie outside the order and over matters that have come up since it was laid—including the House of Lords ruling on inquests, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Ireland. There has also been quite a lot of discussion—I do not complain about it—of matters that affect Lord Colville's long-term review and the long-term re-enactment of the legislation, which we shall have to deal with in primary legislation in due course. I shall try to deal with these issues as best I can, and I shall also have to refer to the order itself.
It is a matter of profound regret to us all that again we have to renew these powers, but it is essential that we do
66
so to fight terrorism and to try to minimise the loss of life and property and the suffering in Northern Ireland. which have continued for so long.
The debate has been held against the sombre background of the three apparently sectarian murders in less than a week since the order was put on the Order Paper. Nothing could better demonstrate why the police and Army need emergency powers to deal with such evils, but there have been plenty of other evil murders in the past year, too. It is because the Government are determined that terrorism—loyalist, republican or any other sort—should be fought and extirpated from Northern Ireland that we must renew these powers. Anyone who knows the realities of life in Northern Ireland knows just how necessary they have proved to be in the fight.
This is why I found the Labour party's decision to vote against the order regrettable. To some extent, I agree with the criticism voiced by various hon. Members of the tone of the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I do not accuse the hon. Gentleman of this, but his speech had some of the flavour of speeches made by those who say that there are only a few misguided individuals who are offended by the constitutional difficulties in the legislation, and that if only someone would explain matters to them and treat them nicely they would shut up and go away. It is not like that. We face a determined and sophisticated criminal conspiracy—it is longstanding and well organised—to impose the political will of the terrorists on the people of Northern Ireland by violence, terror or murder.
The ordinary law may be sufficient on its own to deal with individual criminals or small gangs of the sort with which we are familiar on this side of the water, but it does not provide the police and Army with the full statutory armament that they need if their work in protecting the whole community from the menace of terrorist gangsters is to succeed and the rule of law is to prevail. That is why the powers are necessary, and why it is necessary to have the powers to stop and search vehicles, to mount checkpoints and to stop and question people. These powers have led to the recovery of terrorists' equipment and they have also, as we saw last summer—especially during August—deterred their operations.
We all wish that we did not need these powers, but we do need them—and all the other powers in the order.
Much has been said about confidence. We all recognise the tremendous importance of everyone having confidence in the security forces, but it is not a one-sided affair. Everyone must have confidence that the security forces are fair and impartial and that anyone in the forces who acts outside the law will be made amenable to the law. There are people in all organisations—we know that there are some in the security forces—who occasionally break the law. They must be and should be made amenable to the law, and they are. If any Catholic or nationalist——
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend think that the remark of Gerry Collins, the Foreign Minister of the Republic, that the Ulster Defence Regiment as presently constituted has no role to play was helpful in building up confidence in the UDR among the minority community in the North?
Mr. Cope: My answer to that question will become clear in what I say later.

67
If any Catholic or any nationalist doubts the fairness and impartiality of the security forces in the way that they treat terrorism, they should examine the figures. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to the figures on terrorism given in the past by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). One can judge the effectiveness of the security forces from the number of arrests. That is not a novel point as it has been made many times. The effect of the security forces against loyalist terrorists is greater than their effectiveness against nationalist terrorists. That demonstrates their fairness and impartiality more strongly than anything that I could say. However, there is another side to confidence. Both Unionists and nationalists must be confident that the security forces can protect them from the terrorist gangsters of the Provisional Irish Republican Army and other paramilitary extremists and terrorists. The Government will not—I say this especially to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) who spoke for the Liberal Democrats—retain those powers any longer than they are needed. That is not our intention, but my goodness they are needed now, as the hon. and learned Gentleman recognised. Together with the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland and the General Officer Commanding, we will do our best to ensure that those powers are implemented sensitively and with the least inconvenience to the overwhelming innocent majority in Northern Ireland, from whichever community they come. Those powers are undoubtedly effective—although not 100 per cent.—and essential in helping us to deal with the problems of terrorism. The Diplock courts have enabled high standards of justice to be maintained in the Province. In his previous report, Lord Colville reminded us that the intimidation of jurors remains a big problem. That is one example of the special problems of Northern Ireland. The intimidation of witnesses is also of the greatest importance. The McGimpsey judgment by the Supreme Court of the Irish Republic was also mentioned and we have begun to examine that judgment carefully.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is binding on the Republic of Ireland. Under it, whatever the wording of the Irish constitution, or whatever was said in the recent judgment, the Irish are committed to the agreement, including article 1. The essential point remains that both Governments accept that the future of Northern Ireland will depend on the consent of the majority. Of course, it is true that the judgment confirms that the Irish constitution lays claim to Northern Ireland, just as the British constitution and law lay claim to judge Northern Ireland. International law also makes the same claim, because that is de facto the position and the Irish have agreed that that will continue to be the position unless there is a majority for change in the future.
I cannot match the rotundity of the phrases used by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), who is an expert in those matters. We hope and we believe that the Union will continue and I trust that that will reassure my hon. Friend. After all, we are a Unionist party as well as a Conservative party. There is no change in the position that article 1 records the formal acceptance by both Governments that the status of Northern Ireland will not be changed on the same basis.
Rev. William McCrea: Before the Minister leaves the point of reassuring the people of Northern Ireland, can he
68
tell me how, as the elected representative for Mid-Ulster, I can reassure my people about the safety of their lives? From the beginning of the year, my constituency has suffered more than any other constituency in the entire Province and the United Kingdom. My constituency is rampant with IRA terrorism. How can it be right that in a security debate, when we are discussing the lives of our people, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster cannot say a word? Yesterday we buried a constituent, who was a member of my congregation and of the UDR. What should I tell the widow and the three orphans who have been left without a father? How is it that the hon. Member for the constituency that has suffered more than any other in the Province cannot make a contribution to the debate? It is disgusting and says a great deal about what the people of Ulster and my constituents are suffering.
Mr. Cope: The management of debates is no longer in my hands, although it once was. I am glad that I could at least give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to make that point. However, I must rush on as I must finish at 7 pm.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred to the inquest judgment. It is not merely a question whether a policeman or a Government might be embarrassed by the giving of evidence. It is not embarrassment in the usual sense of the word. The policeman concerned had already been charged with and acquitted of murder. It is not the case that the inquest judgment applies only to security force members; it applies evenly across the board. In England and Wales no one can be compelled——
Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Could you help me and my constituents to understand something? There used to be a full day to debate these matters of life and death for the people of Northern Ireland under the emergency provisions. Why did the Government decide some days ago to reduce the debate to three hours and end the discussions at 7 o'clock? As I have already said, since the beginning of the year my constituents have been slaughtered and the stations in my constituency blown to bits, yet I am told today, as the elected representative of the people who are suffering more than any others, that this debate must stop at 7 o'clock and that I must remain silent. My constituents have been silenced by the IRA and now I am silenced by the House. I object to that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but it is not a matter for the Chair. The House decided by a resolution on 2 March that the debate would conclude at 7 o'clock. I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Cope: I shall have to resort to letters to answer some of the questions that have been raised during the debate, and I apologise for that. Since we have taken on our responsibilities, my right hon. Friend and I have spent much time visiting the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the UDR and prisons throughout the Province.
The UDR was subjected to an unbalanced attack by the "Panorama" programme. That has been referred to a great deal and I will not expand on it now. The UDR is a very fine and increasingly professional regiment. As is acknowledged on all sides, its members are exceptionally brave day in and day out, not only at their work in the

69
UDR but often at their work elsewhere and, of course, in their homes. The same applies to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to many people in the Province.
The main message that we should send to the terrorists tonight, as on other occasions, must be that their struggle is futile. They are not getting anywhere with all their violence. I say to terrorists on both sides that those who think that they can achieve their apparent political aims by terrorism are wrong. The past 20 years, among other things, have proved them wrong. The main reason for the struggle being futile is that neither the Government nor the House will give way to terrorism, not only in Northern Ireland but elsewhere. What we are——
It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to order [2 March]:
The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 130.

Division No. 112]

[7. pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Devlin, Tim

Alexander, Richard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Dover, Den

Allason, Rupert

Dunn, Bob

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Durant, Tony

Amess, David

Dykes, Hugh

Amos, Alan

Eggar, Tim

Arbuthnot, James

Emery, Sir Peter

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)

Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)

Evennett, David

Aspinwall, Jack

Fallon, Michael

Atkins, Robert

Favell, Tony

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Baldry, Tony

Fishburn, John Dudley

Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)

Fookes, Dame Janet

Batiste, Spencer

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Beggs, Roy

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Fox, Sir Marcus

Bevan, David Gilroy

Franks, Cecil

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Freeman, Roger

Boscawen, Hon Robert

French, Douglas

Boswell, Tim

Gale, Roger

Bottomley, Peter

Gardiner, George

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Gill, Christopher

Bowis, John

Glyn, Sir Alan

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Brazier, Julian

Goodlad, Alastair

Bright, Graham

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gow, Ian

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

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Buck, Sir Antony

Gregory, Conal

Burns, Simon

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Butler, Chris

Grist, Ian

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ground, Patrick

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

Hague, William

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hanley, Jeremy

Carrington, Matthew

Hannam, John

Cartwright, John

Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Chapman, Sydney

Harris, David

Chope, Christopher

Hawkins, Christopher

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hayes, Jerry

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Colvin, Michael

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hind, Kenneth

Cope, Rt Hon John

Hordern, Sir Peter

Couchman, James

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

Cran, James

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Day, Stephen

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

70

Hunter, Andrew

Roe, Mrs Marion

Irvine, Michael

Ross, William (Londonderry E)

Jack, Michael

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Janman, Tim

Rost, Peter

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Sackville, Hon Tom

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Key, Robert

Shersby, Michael

Kilfedder, James

Sims, Roger

Knapman, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lawrence, Ivan

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Speed, Keith

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Speller, Tony

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lightbown, David

Squire, Robin

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

McCrea, Rev William

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stern, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Maginnis, Ken

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Maples, John

Sumberg, David

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Summerson, Hugo

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

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

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Mills, Iain

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Miscampbell, Norman

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Mitchell, Sir David

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Moate, Roger

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Thurnham, Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Tracey, Richard

Moss, Malcolm

Trippier, David

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Twinn, Dr Ian

Mudd, David

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Neubert, Michael

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Nicholls, Patrick

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Wallace, James

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Waller, Gary

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Paice, James

Watts, John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Wheeler, Sir John

Patnick, Irvine

Widdecombe, Ann

Pawsey, James

Wiggin, Jerry

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wilkinson, John

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Porter, David (Waveney)

Winterton, Nicholas

Portillo, Michael

Wolfson, Mark

Price, Sir David

Wood, Timothy

Raffan, Keith

Yeo, Tim

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Redwood, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Mr. John M. Taylor and Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

NOES

Allen, Graham

Buchan, Norman

Anderson, Donald

Buckley, George J.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Caborn, Richard

Armstrong, Hilary

Callaghan, Jim

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Campbell-Savours, D. N.

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Beckett, Margaret

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clay, Bob

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

Clelland, David

Bermingham, Gerald

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bidwell, Sydney

Cohen, Harry

Blair, Tony

Corbett, Robin

Blunkett, David

Cousins, Jim

Boateng, Paul

Cox, Tom

Boyes, Roland

Cryer, Bob

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cummings, John

Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)

Cunningham, Dr John

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Dixon, Don

71

Dobson, Frank

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Doran, Frank

Martlew, Eric

Duffy, A. E. P.

Maxton, John

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Michael, Alun

Eadie, Alexander

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Eastham, Ken

Morgan, Rhodri

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Morley, Elliot

Fatchett, Derek

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

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

Mowlam, Marjorie

Fisher, Mark

Mullin, Chris

Flannery, Martin

Murphy, Paul

Flynn, Paul

O'Brien, William

Foster, Derek

Patchett, Terry

Foulkes, George

Pendry, Tom

Fraser, John

Pike, Peter L.

Galloway, George

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)

Primarolo, Dawn

George, Bruce

Quin, Ms Joyce

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Radice, Giles

Gordon, Mildred

Redmond, Martin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Reid, Dr John

Hardy, Peter

Richardson, Jo

Haynes, Frank

Robertson, George

Hinchliffe, David

Rogers, Allan

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

Ruddock, Joan

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Sheerman, Barry

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Short, Clare

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Skinner, Dennis

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Lamond, James

Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury)

Leadbitter, Ted

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

Leighton, Ron

Soley, Clive

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Spearing, Nigel

Livingstone, Ken

Stott, Roger

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Walley, Joan

Loyden, Eddie

Wareing, Robert N.

McAllion, John

Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)

McCartney, Ian

Williams, Rt Hon Alan

McFall, John

Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

McGrady, Eddie

Winnick, David

McKelvey, William

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McLeish, Henry

Worthington, Tony

McNamara, Kevin

McWilliam, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Madden, Max

Mrs. Llin Golding and Mr. Allen McKay.

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 26th February, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
7.14 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.
The draft order has two related purposes. The first is to authorise the expenditure of some £71·8 million in the 1989–90 spring supplementary estimates. That amount, when added to the £4,223 million previously approved by the House, brings the total estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to some £4,295 million for this financial year, within a public expenditure total of some £5·8 billion.
The second purpose is to authorise the vote-on-account of some £1,816 million for 1990–91. That amount will, as usual, enable the services of Northern Ireland Departments to continue until the 1990–91 main estimates for Northern Ireland are brought before the House later this year.
The estimates booklet and the "Statement of Sums Required on Account", which give full details of the sums sought under both headings, are, as usual, available from the Vote Office. The House will be aware that the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office, for law and order services, are not covered by the order that is before the House today.
I turn to the specific estimates before the House. I do not propose to refer to every vote where supplementary provision is being sought, but I shall draw attention to the main themes.
I start with the Department of Agriculture's vote 1, which provides for Northern Ireland expenditure on United Kingdom-wide support schemes. Some £2·4 million is sought mainly for increased payments under agricultural improvement schemes to meet higher than anticipated uptake and value of claims. Some £1 million is also required under the hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme as a result of an increase in the number of animals eligible, and to provide for the increased premium for hardy bred sheep announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 30 January. Those increases are, however, fully offset by lower than expected demand on capital grant schemes resulting in only a token increase of £1,000 in the vote, to some £36 million. That is in the nature of a bookkeeping exercise, but it is important nevertheless.
In the Department of Agriculture's vote 2, covering local support measures, some £1·8 million is required to meet increases in professional fees and compensation payments under the disease eradication programme. The sum of £0·6 million is required for laboratory modifications and scientific equipment. Those increases arise mainly from an upturn in the incidence of brucellosis and tuberculosis which has required more testing of animals. That enabled a serious outbreak of brucellosis in the pre-Christmas period to be contained. Regrettably, the incidence of tuberculosis has risen, despite determined efforts by the Department to contain the disease. Therefore, that area will continue to receive high priority. The sum of £200,000 is required for the woodlands grant scheme, to reflect a welcome increase in participation by the private sector in afforestation.

73
The increases is this vote are fully offset by reduced requirements under the Northern Ireland agricultural development programme. Expenditure under the programme has been less than expected, partly because of lower investment trends and partly because the conditions attaching to the scheme have been refined to achieve more effective targeting. The estimate includes also additional payments on behalf of the International Fund for Ireland in respect of the refurbishment of the marine research vessel Lough Foyle. These costs are recouped in full from the fund.
I now turn to the Department of Economic Development, which has supplementary estimates for three votes. In vote 2, net additional provision of £ 12·5 million is sought. Of this, £10·7 million is in the section of the vote relating to assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. The House will recall that, under the agreement with Bombardier for the sale of Shorts, the Government undertook to fund losses incurred by Shorts from 1 April 1989 until the completion of the sale on 4 October 1989. The additional funding now required will discharge the Government's obligations in this matter.
Hon. Members will wish to note that, since the estimates were printed and laid, it has become apparent that some £5·6 million of the 1989–90 provision previously sought under the capital heading for Shorts will, in fact, be used to cover expenditure on Harland and Wolff in 1989–90. This remains consistent with the ambit of the vote. To compensate for that, there will be consequential adjustments to the provision for Shorts in 1990–91.
Also in vote 2, I am glad to say, additional funding is provided for the Local Enterprise Development Unit—LEDU—Northern Ireland's small business agency. Hon. Members will know that in my previous job I had a good deal to do with small businesses. I am glad to acknowledge the tremendous importance of small firms to the Northern Ireland economy. We do our best to stimulate and improve their performance. Under this head, £4·2 million is sought to enable LEDU to continue its work of stimulating growth in the small-business sector in Northern Ireland. In particular, it will enable LEDU to develop its network of local enterprise agencies, which is experiencing an increased level of uptake. These agencies are extremely valuable. The provision will also help to promote more enterprise through increased provision of enterprise training.
Many businesses fail because it is difficult to have simultaneously all the skills that are required to run a small business successfully, particularly when launching out. The training will include training on topics such as financial management and marketing techniques designed to prepare participants for self-employment. It will also cover special initiatives, such as the Northern Ireland innovation programme—part of a Europe-wide initiative aimed at supporting innovatory projects which are technology-based and export-oriented. These increases are offset by reductions of some £2 million, due mainly to delays in implementing projects in the industrially relevant research and development sector.
A token supplementary estimate is sought for the Department of Economic Development under vote 3, where various increases in expenditure are offset by savings elsewhere within the vote. Hon. Members will note that, as part of the Government's plans to rationalise the training system in Northern Ireland, a single training organisation, to be known as the Training and
74
Employment Agency, will be established in April. We require £0·6 million as a contribution towards the costs of winding up the existing Northern Ireland Training Authority, which currently has responsibility for supporting, developing and promoting training in the private sector of Northern Ireland industry. This is another important area with which I had something to do previously, and whose value, therefore, I appreciate.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Is anything being done, by way of the grant towards training the disabled. to remove discrimination, especially in respect of deaf young people, and to change the community's attitude towards such people?
Mr. Cope: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question off the cuff. However, I shall ensure that, if possible, it is dealt with in the winding-up speech.
An additional £5·8 million is sought for the Department of Economic Development, under vote 5, mainly for financial assistance to the gas industry. Twelve gas undertakings have completed their closure programmes on target, and some 79,000 consumers have had their homes converted from gas to alternative fuels. The additional provision is required mainly for accelerated payments in connection with the rundown and closure costs of Belfast Gas.
The Department of the Environment, under vote 1, covering roads, transport and ports, requires a net additional provision of £3·5 million. Of this, £2·9 million relates to grants paid by the Department to bus companies for capital expenditure on the purchase of new buses.
A token supplementary estimate is required for the Department of the Environment, under vote 3, where various increases are being offset by savings elsewhere in the vote. The main increase is in respect of consultants' fees for design work on water and sewerage schemes associated with compliance with European Communities directives.
An additional £1·9 million is sought for the Department of the Environment, under vote 5, mainly for capital expenditure on office accommodation and office furniture. Of this, £1·6 million relates to the accommodation requirements of the operational strategy computerisation programme in the Department of Health and Social Services.
Turning to the Department of Education, a net increase of £9·9 million is sought, under vote 1. An additional £11·1 million is required for grants to education and library boards. Of this, £7 million is for pay awards and price increases and for the youth training programme. The amount required for capital grants is £4·1 million. An extra £1·8 million is for capital expenditure by voluntary schools, including the purchase of sites and properties for integrated schools.
The increases in this vote are offset by a reduction of £3·1 million, owing to the delay in settling the 1989 pay award for further education lecturers. These adjustments will bring vote 1 provision to over £760 million in the current year, within a total education budget of some £899 million.
Hon. Members will note that additional provision of some £1 million is made within this vote for expenditure in support of the Government's proposals for education reforms. This brings the additional resources that have been made available for this purpose to over £5 million in

75
1989–90. This will help to ensure that schools and teachers are prepared, and have the necessary facilities, to implement these important changes.
In the Department of Education, under vote 2, an additional £2·6 million is sought on a range of services. The main increase of £1·6 million is for grants to universities, and includes the 1989 lecturers' pay settlement, as well as capital expenditure on information technology, including an upgraded automated library system at Queen's university.
Finally, for health and personal social services, an extra £29 million is being sought in vote 1. Of this total, some £17·6 million is for the health and social services boards, mainly to meet the cost of pay settlements. It will also enable further progress to be made in the transition from institutional care to community care for those in long-stay accommodation. A further £4·7 million is required for family practitioner services to meet increased demand and higher costs. These additions bring vote 1 provision for the current year to £865 million, within a total health and social services budget of over £960 million.
The House will note that, included in the additional sums sought, £3·5 million is for initial work on the implementation of health service reforms in Northern Ireland. These are designed to give patients better health care, a greater choice of services and better value for money, which is very important.
I have sought to draw the attention of the House to the order's main provisions. I realise that Members from England and Wales no longer have an equivalent debate. This debate enables Members from Northern Ireland constituencies in particular to draw attention to individual points, to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will do his best to respond. I commend the order to the House.
7.30 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: The Minister of State went through the details of the order in his well-known fashion and we are all grateful to him for shedding more light on the bare figures. I regret that on this occasion he has not taken the opportunity to speak at some length about the overall economic prospects for the North of Ireland.
Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member obviously does not know that the term "North of Ireland" is distasteful and offensive to most people in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Marshall: On many previous occasions when I have used that term in the House and in the Province, it has not been treated in that fashion.
Mr. Taylor: That is nonsense.
Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to put his point of view later in the debate. I am not prepared in this debate, which is about the economy in the North of Ireland——
Mr. Taylor: Northern Ireland.
Mr. Marshall:—to continue the debate that took place between 4 pm and 7 pm. I am prepared to learn, as the
76
House knows, but there is a limit to the amount of knowledge that I am prepared to imbibe from the right hon. Gentleman.
This occasion enables us to have a comprehensive debate on the economy of the Province, but it is unfortunate that on this occasion the Minister of State did not see fit to outline the Government's view of the economic prospects for the Province in the coming years. It is fair to point out, as I have done previously, that the economy in the North of Ireland cannot be insulated from that of the remainder of the United Kingdom. Experience has shown repeatedly that when expansion has occurred in Britain, expansion in Northern Ireland has proceeded after a due period and has been at a much lower rate than in Britain, History is repeating itself. As a consequence of the economic downturn faced by the country as a whole, the Province is likely to experience a greater decline than the remainder of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Cope: I should like to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the latest figures for Northern Ireland manufacturing output, which show an increase to September 1989 of 9 per cent. compared with 3 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. In that respect, as in one or two others, the Northern Ireland economy is doing better than the economy of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Mr. Marshall: The Minister of State will be pleased to know that I shall address those specific points. We can all pick evidence from various parts of the economy to try to prove our points. The underlying evidence from statistics in the Province is that the economic indicators for the next few years are bleak, to say the least. Unless the Government are prepared to take further action to activate the economy and to take further economic initiatives the progress that we have seen over the past 12 months will amount to little in the long term.
Hon. Members, especially those from the North of Ireland, will recognise that poverty continues to be endemic in the Province. That has been exacerbated by the recent changes in the social security system. As in the remainder of the United Kingdom, one's opportunity of getting a grant from the social fund depends on where one lives and how much money is left in the pot. I repeat a plea that I have made many times: this is not the way that we should deal with poverty. It should not just be a matter of luck, of where one lives and of how early one applies for the grant from the pot. Poverty must be judged on the basis of need, not on geography and how much money is left in a fund. I urge Northern Ireland Ministers with responsibility in these matters to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Social Security to ensure that the people in the North of Ireland, and the rest of the people in the United Kingdom, have their applications judged on the basis of need, and not financial stringency, which is the method that operates in the social security system.
The Minister of State mentioned Shorts. On a previous occasion, I put a number of specific questions to him and I shall repeat two. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer them specifically or, if he cannot, at least pledge that he will write to me with the answers. The House would like to know why the Government retained ownership of the leasing companies when Shorts was privatised. What is the extent of the Government's financial liability as a

77
consequence of retaining those leasing companies? The Minister mentioned further assistance to Shorts and, almost as an afterthought, said that just over £5 million would be given to Harland and Wolff. Why is that £5 million required by Harland and Wolff?
I wish that the Minister had spoken at greater length about the enonomy of the Province, because 1992 and the single market are rapidly approaching. Taken together with the opening of the Channel tunnel, this will again highlight the problems and questions arising from the peripherality of the North of Ireland and the island of Ireland. I should like to know whether the Government will announce their present thinking on improved transport links between Northern Ireland and Britain and what, if any, discussions they have had with the Republic to improve transport links between the island of Ireland and mainland Britain. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give us an inkling of the Government's view of the transport problems facing the North of Ireland and the island of Ireland as a whole as a consequence of the single market and 1992 and the probable opening of the Channel tunnel a few years later. The non-economic problems of the Province were discussed at length in our previous debate——
Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman moves too far from the question of transport between the island of Ireland and Great Britain, may I ask him to press the Government to make every effort to maintain the pre-eminence of the port of Larne as the point of export for the whole island—in particular, by improving the quality of roads to Larne port?
Mr. Marshall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is a regular attender of these debates. He will know that 18 months or two years ago I made precisely that suggestion to the Government. If he consults the report of that debate, he will find that I pressed for the widening of the route between the port of Larne and Belfast. He will be pleased to hear that I support, and will continue to support, that aim. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Even though it is in the North.
Mr. Marshall: As my hon. Friend says, even though it is in the North.
One problem that we face in discussing the economy of the Province is the tendency to underplay the problems and a tendency for any criticism of the Government to be somewhat muted. I presume that that is a cross-party desire, based on the belief that unnecessary criticism is likely further to undermine confidence in the Province. But in spite of the economic index that the Minister cited, everyone in the House and the Province needs to be aware that the economic prospects are not especially good.
Last year, bankruptcies in the Province increased by 75 per cent., whereas in England and Wales they increased by just under 10 per cent. I realise that there are particular causes for that, with the high gearing ratio of many companies in the Province. Nevertheless, that high incidence of bankruptcy is not indicative of a strong underlying economy.
In addition, the National Westminster Bank is again predicting increases in unemployment. I know that Ministers will point out that unemployment fell
78
substantially in 1989. I applaud that fact, and I accept that the figures are correct; I do not suggest that that fall can be attributed solely to the juggling of statistics. Nevertheless, most non-partisan observers in the Province take the overall fall with a large pinch of salt and point out that the fall results in part from the fact that more people are leaving the Province for England, that there are more places on Government training schemes and that there have been further restrictions on eligibility for unemployment benefit.
The latest Coopers and Lybrand report states the case more succinctly, and with a non-partisanship that the House may accept:
"it would appear that some of the changes have been cosmetic, and aimed at reducing the unemployed total rather than securing lasting employment."
Meanwhile, manufacturing productivity in the Province continues to lag behind that in the rest of the United Kingdom; the Province achieved 80 per cent. of what was achieved in the remainder of the United Kingdom. More disturbing still is that in some cases productivity figures are only half the figure achieved by comparable employers in West Germany.
The construction industry is reporting a downturn in activity. If the figures are correct, they must place doubts over the continuation of economic growth in the Province.
In its latest annual report, the Northern Ireland Economic Council predicts difficulties for the economy arising from high rates of inflation, high interest rates and the balance of payments deficit facing the United Kingdom as a whole.
That is the economic background, and it leaves no room for complacency. It is against that background that we must ask how the Government react to the problem. To be fair, they do not do nothing, although they do not do a great deal. They tinker with the problem, because there is a vacuum at the heart of their economic policy for the North of Ireland. Specifically, they lack a coherent strategy for economic development in the Province. They tinker because their political dogma dictates a market approach, while their experience suggests the need for an interventionist approach. Their tinkering leads to uncertainty at the heart of their industrial development policy; it places question marks over their objectives and over the means by which they hope to achieve them. The latest annual report from the Northern Ireland Economic Council says at paragraph 2.14:
"Elements of both the market approach and the intervention model co-exist uneasily within the current framework of industrial development policy in Northern Ireland. The perceived thrust of recent government policy statements in respect of industrial development clearly favours an increasing reliance upon market based solutions to the Province's industrial problems. However, the agencies responsible for the conduct of industrial … policy, the IDB and LEDU, are equally clearly inclined to a scale of interventionism more in keeping with a planning approach to these problems. In the Council's view this anomalous situation breeds uncertainty as to both the objectives of industrial development policy in Northern Ireland and the means by which those objectives are to be achieved."
Again, that is the non-partisan view of an organization with no particular axe to grind, and it highlights the uncertainty that lies at the heart of the Government's economic policy in the Province.
We must conclude—reluctantly or otherwise—that the Government would prefer to apply their market philosophy to the Province but that they know that they cannot because of the particular and extensive nature of

79
Northern Ireland's problems, especially given its status on the periphery of the United Kingdom and the European Community, and, in many instances, because of the outdated industries and the specific problems arising from the troubles.
Government economic policy in the Province tends to fall between two stools—the fully-fledged market approach and a fully fledged interventionist approach. That, again, leads to tinkering and a half-hearted approach to the market model and to the interventionist model. That half-hearted approach is reflected in expenditure levels. If the Under-Secretary examines the figures, he will see that since 1982–83 there has been an annual average fall in real terms of about 3 per cent. in overall expenditure on development and industrial support. That is the real position, contrary to what the Government would have us believe.
What should the Government be trying to do? It is clear to most hon. Members—if not Ministers—that there is an urgent need to produce a proper strategic plan for economic development in Northern Ireland. A continuation of existing policies will not be sufficient to achieve a rate of growth that would allow the Northern Ireland economy to catch up with other regions in the United Kingdom. Specifically, a number of key issues must be addressed, including better training and skills forecasting, encouragement for more of the talented young people to stay in the Province, improving the quality and quantity of goods and services and further developing the local tourist and leisure industries.
The Opposition believe that those issues will not be addressed coherently if the Government maintain their hands-off approach to the economy in the Province. At a minimum, there must be greater co-ordination between existing plans. As we all know, there are already corporate plans for the Department of Economic Development, the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. However, they cannot individually be said to amount to an economic strategy. They do not claim to be pointing the way ahead or to be setting targets.
I recognise the limitations of the interventionist approach and I also recognise the political difficulties facing Northern Ireland Ministers if they want to pursue such an approach. However, the interventionist approach helps to focus attention on the major problems and possible growth areas in an overall co-ordinated fashion. In particular, such an approach would enable concentration to focus on those sectors of the economy with the best potential for development, including the health sector, education, miscellaneous services and the distribution service. Concentration on those areas and others could yield substantial dividends in terms of a more secure economic base for Northern Ireland.
Even within the present limitations of Government policy, some specific improvements could be made. For example, the IDB could be made more accountable for its expenditure. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that banner headlines such as the one that appeared in the Belfast Telegraph on 5 March promising that 500 new jobs would be created in the textile industry are no good if many of those jobs fail to materialise.
The suggestion made by the Northern Ireland Economic Council that the IDB should include in its
80
annual report an update on jobs created as a consequence of expenditure in previous years would be beneficial because it would provide at least a crude measure of the efficacy of the IDB in promoting job creating.
Mr. John D. Taylor: I fully support the hon. Gentleman's theme about the IDB. However, does he support the separate existence of LEDU? There are proposals that LEDU should be abolished and incorporated into the IDB. Many of us involved in business in Northern Ireland would resent that.
Mr. Marshall: Did the right hon. Gentleman say that he would resent that?
Mr. Taylor: Yes.
Mr. Marshall: In that case, the right hon. Gentleman may not like what I am about to say. He will recognise from what I have said about the existing plans for the Department of Economic Development, the IDB and LEDU that I was calling for much closer co-ordination of those plans. With the privatisation of Shorts and Harland and Wolff, there will be a need for a reorganisation of the Department of Economic Development as a consequence of that and other economic changes that have taken place in the North.
If we were to develop the kind of corporate interventionist model that I have suggested, I would urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to accept that there is a need for greater co-operation between the three bodies to which I have referred and a need perhaps for some amalgamation as well. Therefore, effort and financial expenditure could be directed to the potential growth areas in the economy of Northern Ireland. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) will not be happy with my suggestion, but at least it offers an opportunity for a coherent economic plan for the North of Ireland.
Mr. Taylor: Northern Ireland.
Mr. Marshall: The right hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree on the use of adjectives sooner or later.
During a previous debate, the Minister of State promised a White Paper on the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity and the effect that that privatisation would have on electricity tariffs in the North of Ireland. He promised that White Paper early in the new year and I believe that the year that he referred to was the beginning of 1990, not the beginning of 1991. When is that White Paper likely to see the light of day? When will the House and Northern Ireland Members have the opportunity to debate fully the privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity? I should like a specific response to that.
From visits to the Province and from reading the local newspapers, I note that the exploitation of lignite resources has received relatively little public attention in the past few months. Hon. Members would argue that the exploitation of lignite reserves in the Province represents a potentially significant addition to the Northern Ireland economy. What time scale do the Government have in mind for the commercial exploitation of lignite reserves? More specifically, will they give an assurance that, when privatised, Northern Ireland Electricity will not be permitted to delay plans for the exploitation of lignite?
To be frankly partisan, the only hope for the Northern Ireland economy, as for the remainder of the United

81
Kingdom, is the return of a Labour Government who are committed to creating the basis of economic prosperity, jobs for all and the elimination of poverty, not the further creation of poverty that the Government have caused through the allocation of financial resources on the basis of rationing rather than on the basis of need.
8 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: The people of Northern Ireland are generous-hearted and kind. They will not reject any party that wishes to stand in an election in Northern Ireland—the more the merrier. More lost deposits should benefit the Province in some way. We believe in democracy. We do not try to stop anybody standing in elections. If the Labour party wishes to put forward candidates in my consitutency of North Down, it is perfectly welcome to do so. I shall have no objection.
I make no apology for again stressing that senior citizens in the Province are being denied basic rights. That denial applies in every other part of the United Kingdom, but I am chiefly concerned with Northern Ireland, and my constituency of North Down in particular. The time has come for a Bill of Rights for the elderly. About 18 years ago, I argued for a Bill of Rights for the whole United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) is interested in that point. I was prepared to accept a Bill of Rights that was limited to Northern Ireland if need he. The elderly people of Northern Ireland certainly need a Bill of Rights to protect them. They should have the right to live out their lives in dignity and in reasonable comfort. That is not too much for an old person to ask.
Elderly people have the right to adequate care in the community. Surely that right should be bestowed upon them after a lifetime of service to their communities. They should have the right to a decent pension that takes account of the high cost of living in Northern Ireland. The cost of living in Northern Ireland is higher than that in the rest of the United Kingdom. Elderly people should have an immediate pension increase of £10 a week per person, although that would still not bring the amount up to that which is available to other retired people in the European Community.
If we judge a society by the way in which it looks after the elderly, the handicapped and the chronically sick, the Government fail the test. One simple step that would give great comfort to many elderly people throughout our country would be to introduce concessionary television licences. Most elderly people depend upon television as a means of entertainment and communication with the outside world. Television has become basic to their way of life. If they cannot provide completely free television, a caring Government should provide television licences at a concessionary rate.
Many elderly people in Northern Ireland feel particularly angry because, from next month, they must pay £71 to the BBC so that they can hear all sorts of nasty things said about the forces of law and order who protect them in their homes and in their community. They are angry that their money should be spent on such propaganda.
The Health Service has deteriorated in many respects as a result of budget cuts in Northern Ireland. We had a good Health Service—good local hospitals and major hospitals throughout the Province. Unfortunately, the Health Service has become worse. There is a waiting list for
82
operations. That means great anxiety not only for patients, many of whom rightly dread the prospect of an operation, but for relatives. Money is needed for our hospitals in Northern Ireland. The Government must take action to reverse the rundown in local hospitals such as Bangor hospital, in my constituency.
I shall give an example of how the Government approach social services in Northern Ireland. The Eastern health board, which one could regard as a minion of the Government, has introduced further cuts in home help services for the elderly. Those cuts are quite disgraceful. Elderly people in the area suffer discrimination, and many are denied proper home help services. I shall quote one example. It is not the worst case that has come my way, but it is one that I could readily put my hand on when I left home this morning.
An elderly constituent of mine who lives on her own and who has suffered the effects of a stroke and a heart attack had home help services for six hours a week. That dear old lady desperately wanted someone to assist with cleaning her home. Most elderly people are houseproud, and it is certainly bad for their morale when conditions in the home deteriorate. That elderly lady wanted a home help to clean her home, in addition to making her breakfast and her main meal of the day and doing a bit of laundry. She privately arranged with her home help that, instead of doing one bit of business, she would also clean the house.
The Eastern health board heard about it and immediately cut that lady's six hours' home help to three and a half hours a week. It said that she was not entitled to have a home help to clean the home. How callous can an organisation be to deny an elderly lady living on her own, and who is dependent on her home help, the services of a person to clean her home? That is the only case that I shall quote tonight, but there are many others.
A letter from the responsible Minister in the Department of Health states:
"In the North Down and Ards Unit of Management"—that is within the Eastern health board area—
"due to budget constraints, it is not generally possible to provide a cleaning service."
For this reason, this lady's hours were reduced to three and a half hours per week. Of course, that made my poor constituent heart broken. I thought that the Government believed in the policy of keeping elderly people in their homes for as long as possible. It is a callous, hard-hearted bureaucracy that denies home help to the elderly.
I have dealt with a case where only 15 minutes of home help was provided. I mentioned it on the last occasion when I spoke on the home help service about a month ago in the House. The home help would hardly have time to take her coat off, say good morning to the old lady and make her a cup of tea before she had to put on her coat and go away again. It is morally wrong to punish the elderly when the Government have to find means of making cuts in expenditure.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The hon. Gentleman and I share a belief in certain principles in connection with Northern Ireland. One is a Bill of Rights, which he mentioned, and another is devolved government. I agree with his point about the need to extend expenditure on social welfare. Does he share a fourth principle, expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) when he argued that interventionist policies, if not socialist policies, are appropriate for the

83
regeneration of the economy of Northern Ireland? That would enable the hon. Gentleman's remarks about social welfare and perhaps other principles to be put into practice.
Mr. Kilfedder: I do not wish to go off at a tangent. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have only to look at the history of Northern Ireland to see that it depended more than any other region of the United Kingdom on high public expenditure. That is why so many people's jobs depend on the Government. I am nervous about the way in which certain firms have been moved into the private sector. But I am afraid that I should go beyond the time that I promised to take and perhaps the terms of the order if I were to respond further to the hon. Gentleman's point.
I wish to refer to another section of the order. I congratulate the Minister with responsibility for the Department of Education on his recent announcement that £11·5 million is to be spent on the North Down and Ards further education college. The programme is to cover five years and to begin next year. Will the Minister consider bringing the programme forward by one year and accelerating the rate of the order so that we can achieve in four years what is planned for five years? Given the urgent need for innovative ideas in the related fields of education and training, particularly if Northern Ireland is to surmount the problems of being part of the European Community yet being a peripheral member of the single market, I urge the Secretary of State to explore, perhaps with the universities and certainly with the Industrial Development Board and the further education colleges in Northern Ireland, ways of improving employment training.
The keener competition that Ulster firms will face after 1992 means that we must achieve higher standards in Northern Ireland. Two factors follow. The infrastructure of roads, rail, ports and airports must be brought up to date and made highly efficient. The talents of our people must be harnessed with the aim of making our productivity the highest in Europe. That seems an almost impossible task if we start now, but it is vital if Northern Ireland is to play a full part within the EEC.
We must consider how to improve the output of people working in industry and commerce now. They are the people who will create future jobs for Northern Ireland and we must look to them for improvements in our prospects in the single European market. The second group of people whom we must train are those who are completing their final year of compulsory school education. Somehow they must be saved from joining the dole queues of the unskilled and semi-skilled.
The new training and employment agencies mentioned in the order for which provision of £70 million has been made will occupy a pivotal position in the strategy after 2 April when the order commences. It would completely defeat the aim if we were to follow the old-style approach. Years ago we had the employment and training committees. They were advisory only and had no executive power. They were useless. In the same way as the Department of Agriculture gives assistance to production, marketing and processing and is also responsible for technical education, something must be done for industry and commerce in the Province.
84
The new training and employment agency could be the machine to oil the pistons of change in training. The labour market services and other initiatives are costed at over £83 million. The job training, youth training and action for community employment programmes have become important to the unemployed. Many people aged between 25 and 35 have known no other kind of employment. If we are to make a real contribution to the future of Northern Ireland, we must make sure that our young people are highly trained.
The two intractable problems that remain are long-term unemployment and youth unemployment. Both are high in the Republic of Ireland. Outward migration of 40,000 a year helps to keep down the total number of unemployed people in the Republic. In Northern Ireland the number of people emigrating has increased from over 8,000 a year. Emigration is a tragedy because we must keep as many of our young people as possible in the Province. In both countries it is the young and short-term unemployed who emigrate. The proportion of long-term unemployed is rising. It is 8 per cent. higher today than it was six years ago. Long-term unemployment for the under-25s accounts for one third of all unemployed young people. We must fight for those young people. That is why I make an appeal to the Minister.
As the Minister responsible for the Department of the Environment is on the Front Bench, I shall briefly refer to pollution. I urge him to make sure that following recent international expressions of anxiety the dumping of sewage in the sea off the cost of North Down comes to an end now. Such pollution endangers the health of people, particularly young people, who use the coastal waters.
8.18 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: When taking part in these debates, we are always aware that regardless of the number of points that we raise or the mistakes that we discover, we cannot alter a single figure or word in the order. Therefore, one feels that one is speaking almost in a vacuum, remote from the real world. However, the Minister will hear what we say and, more importantly, Hansard will record our proceedings and others will be able to read them.
The scope of the order is wide and one could make a considerable number of observations about it, but in the interests of other right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate I shall compress my remarks into as short a time as possible.
On vote 1, Department of Agriculture, I appeal again to the Minister to set up a single section or a single department at a convenient level within the Department to co-ordinate all the road, river, public health and agricultural drainage. It is most distressing for householders, business men or farmers to be passed from one section or Department to another at, say, midnight, when their belongings are floating in anything from 2 inches to 4 feet of water, with each person who is contacted expressing great sympathy but apparently unable or unwilling to help until, on occasions, Members of Parliament have to intervene to try to get something done. Therefore, once again I ask the Minister to look seriously at that.
In relation to vote 4, Department of the Environment, in part II of the order, if a wrong planning decision has been made in the past, will the Minister ensure that that

85
wrong decision is not used to approve an even more outrageously bad decision in the future? It is incredible that, because of departmental direction, professional officers are forced to ignore common sense and good planning practice simply because a ridiculous decision has been approved in the past, for whatever reason. Will the Minister also consider appointing a specific senior officer capable of arriving at a planning decision when the planning section and the road section disagree about a planning application? It is ridiculous that where an applicant seeks advice before putting in an application, he or she becomes more and more confused as the inquiry proceeds. The planners may insist, for instance, that a replacement dwelling is rebuilt in more or less the position of the original, using the existing access or road, while the roads section may insist equally vehemently that the dwelling should be moved to a new position with a new access. In those circumstances, one is advised to tell one's constituents to apply, to be turned down and then to take their case to appeal so that the commissioner can make the decision. It is a good job that in certain areas the planning department is not privatised as I am sure that it would go into liquidation within a month.
Another problem is the planners' insistence, when giving permission to retired persons to build a retirement bungalow, that they should build the bungalow 100 metres or so from the road, thus creating a wilderness between the house and the road because the owner is not capable of mowing a quarter of an acre of grass once a week.
Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his point about building a retirement bungalow 100 yards from the road, will he also draw the Minister's attention to the fact that on farms a retirement bungalow often has to be built practically in the farmyard? If the one is bad, the other is surely worse. Surely some flexibility could be allowed so that we can get away from the idea of having a group of buildings clumped together so tightly that young and old are looking down each others throats all their days.
Mr. Forsythe: I agree with the use of the word "flexibility". I am sure that we could get a little fliexibility while, I hope, working within the planning laws.
With regard to vote 1, Department of Environment, and to section (g) dealing with railways, once again I should like to put on the record my own and my party's sympathy for the relatives of those who were tragically killed at the Slaght crossing. Our hearts go out to the children who were orphaned by the crash and to all those who have lost loved ones. As party spokesman on transport, in the past I have put on record my concern about such crossings and I hope to have the opportunity to do so again at the public inquiry. I most sincerely congratulate the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), on his prompt action in setting up the inquiry. I congratulate also the fire service, the ambulance service, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the hospitals, the nurses, the doctors and everyone who helped at the scene.
The inquiry must look at all aspects of that type of crossing, not just at that specific instance. I am concerned that we should do that because on 1 October last year—just five months before the accident at Slaght crossing—a gentleman was driving towards that crossing with his wife, sister and brother-in-law. Just before he reached the
86
crossing, he almost overtook a number of children on bicycles. As a result of that, the driver was then extremely careful to make sure that everything was correct. When he got to the crossing, he made sure that the warning lights were not flashing. He allowed the children in front of him to cross the crossing. He then proceeded to cross the railway lines as quickly as possible. As he reached the middle of the railway lines, one of his passengers screamed in his ear, "Quick, there's a train coming", or words to that effect. The car had just reached safety when an engine thundered past behind it, without any warning whatever.
I repeat that that incident was at the crossing where the later incident occurred. Because of the shock and because of the incline beyond the crossing on both sides, the driver had travelled about 30 yd further before he recovered himself enough to turn back to check the situation. As he approached the crossing for the second time, the warning lights started to flash—long after the engine had passed. Along with the other road-users at the scene, the driver waited for a long time, but the lights still continued to flash. Eventually, one of the other drivers got out of his car, walked to the railway line, looked up and down it, saw that nothing was coming and eventually went across, as did everyone else.
The gentleman concerned was willing to appear to give evidence. The incident was reported to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and a statement was taken. The facts are all on record. It is imperative that all such evidence should be brought before the public inquiry. That is why I should like the inquiry to be sufficiently wide to take in the operation of all such crossings. I should like the evidence of such events, if the RUC has records on them, to be gathered together and examined. Various questions must be asked so that the causes of the accident are revealed and, if necessary, changes made to such crossings before we have further tragedies. I know that the Minister agrees. Sadly, those who could tell us exactly what happened on that occasion are no longer with us. We owe it to them and their children to discover the truth.
I hope that more attention will be paid to the result of the inquiry than is apparently being paid to the Tully road closure inquiry. One of the points made by the inspector—he made only two—was that the roads division should complete the Killead bypass as soon as possible. Not only local representatives but the Department at its headquarters in Belfast led me to believe before the result of the inquiry was known that the bypass would be started as soon as possible, perhaps even during this financial year. I have been dismayed and alarmed since the report was published to be told by local councillors that the bypass is being further postponed. I have not been told that, but: if it is true, it is intolerable.
The one section of road near Aldergrove international airport which has the greatest volume of traffic, including heavy traffic, of all the roads in the area—the Minister gave me the figures—is not being improved, yet another section of the road which has less traffic is being improved even as we speak. That is incredible. If no work is started on the Killead bypass after all these years—it goes back to the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) was the Member for Antrim, South and was promised the bypass—it is a scandal. The Department is treating the residents of Killead village very badly. I hope that the Minister will ease my fears and tell me that what I have heard is not true and that the bypass is to be started in the near future.

87
I wish to make a few points about the number of employees and the sums being spent by the Department. Out of £156·5 million, which covers roads, lighting, parking and ferry services, transport, railways, ports and administration, and other expenditure, only £29 million will go on new construction, while £36 million will be used for maintenance. Public liability will continue to cost £6 million. That is a high figure and must point to something being wrong with the roads.
The number of industrial workers has fallen by 15 and costs £19 million while the number of administrative staff has increased by 134 and costs, with consultancy fees, £30 million. I can assure the Minister that if the overheads of my former business in the construction industry had been as high as that, I should have been out of business. I am sure that that cannot be to the advantage of the general public.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Some of the extra staff may be creating designs which go out to tender in the private sector, so those whom the hon. Gentleman does not praise as he might might be keeping his business in business.
Mr. Forsythe: I accept what the Minister has said and note his use of the word "might"
In the water and sewage section, the number of industrial workers has fallen by 29 and costs £17 million, whereas the number of administrative staff has fallen by only 20 and costs, with consultancy fees, £23·5 million. I am not suggesting that we should make people unemployed, but I am emphasising that out of a total of £93 million the administration costs are £23·5 million, or 25 per cent.
Grants to small and medium-sized firms are listed. I heard what the Minister said about being a supporter of small businesses. That is why I wonder why the small businesses total has been reduced by £268,000. I do not know whether the Minister welcomes that. What is the reason for it? I have received complaints from constituents who feel that unless one has a foreign-sounding name or comes from certain parts of the Province the chances of securing assistance are remote. I know that that does not apply to the Local Enterprise Development Unit, but to the Industrial Development Board.
Will the Minister explain why many people in Northern Ireland are worried about pollution in our rivers and lakes? The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) commented on that. I drew the Minister's attention to the problem of work being carried out on river beds by the drainage division of the Department. Fishermen have been complaining about that. Indeed, they have been complaining readily about many environmental problems and there is certainly support for their views. I understand that recently Ballymena borough council called for a public inquiry into the Fisheries Conservancy Board. Perhaps the Minister has some idea of the problem. I should be interested to know what the problems are.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is also tremendous anxiety about the depletion of salmon and Dollaghan in Lough Neagh, which is believed to have come about because of inactivity by bailiffs and the Fisheries Conservancy Board to the
88
extent that fishermen feel that the word "conservancy" should be dropped and it should simply be called the fisheries board?
Mr. Forsythe: My hon. Friend puts his case well. I am concerned that the borough council should go to the trouble to make such a proposal and it should be looked at.
I am also concerned about the past year's underspend of the social fund last year, which amounted to as much as 66 per cent. in certain areas. I agree with the hon. Member for North Down about the problems faced by pensioners and the handicapped and, in particular, the problems associated with the attendance allowance. When doctors examine applicants for that allowance, the applicants are often too proud to show that they need it. Pride will not allow them to say that they cannot do certain things and, sadly, it is their wives or their carers who have to bear the brunt of that. I know several who are in that postion. Those who administer the fund may believe that they are working to the guidelines, but perhaps they should be studied further.
The Government's aim is for better targeting of social services, but they have not hit the right target in Northern Ireland. I could discuss many other problems, but I know that many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude my remarks.
8.40 pm
Rev. William McCrea: I have already expressed my frustration and anger about the conclusion of the previous debate, which related to matters of life and death for my constituents. The time allotted to that subject was cut drastically and now we are to talk of more mundane things. It is interesting to note that the time allotted for the mundane things is more than that for the life and death issues faced by my constituents.
I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand my frustration. We are supposed to be discussing jobs and money for industry, but one of the first people murdered since December was an excellent business man, whom the Minister knew, Mr. Glover. He contributed so much to our community, yet the IRA decided that he should no longer live. Another business man was murdered in Castlederg, Mr. Alwin Kilpatrick. He was a gentleman of excellent sterling character, a Sunday school teacher, and a man who desired to give employment in the Castlederg area, which has been blighted with unemployment. However, the IRA decided that Alwin Kilpatrick was too valuable to the community. It acted as executioner after holding a back-room court somewhere in my constituency.
When we talk about the environment we should remember another young man, an employee of the Magherafelt district council, Mr. John Crawford. He was doing his ordinary day's work picking up paper as an employee of that district council. It was his job to tidy the environment, but because he was a part-time member of the UDR the IRA decided that he should no longer live and so it planted a bomb under his car. John will never walk again. His life has been spared, but his legs were blown off right to the end of his body. That is why I am so angry and frustrated.
When we discuss votes for business we should remember the value of the contribution made by Sidney McFarlane. He lost his legs, which were blown off because

89
the IRA decided he should no longer make any contribution to his community. The IRA decided that he should he lying in a coffin. His life has been spared, but he has lost his legs. He is another of my constituents who, since the beginning of this year, has been the subject of a terrorist attack.
What about the ordinary people of Sion Mills? I agree with what the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said about senior citizens. At the weekend I met two elderly people who said that in their day they did what they could for their country in their work. They gave all that they had, but now they have no roof over their heads, because, in common with many others, the IRA decided that the buildings of Sion Mills should be blasted to the ground. Those elderly people have been left without one stick of furniture, without one piece of bed clothing and, other than the clothes on their back, they have absolutely nothing.
We are supposed to discuss agriculture, but what about the farmer who was doing his day's work—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) may not find my speech attractive, but I am talking about the realities faced by my constituents.
Mr. Jim Marsha rose——
Rev. William McCrea: I am not talking about the hon. Gentleman, so I shall not give way.
Mr. Roger Stott: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned me, but I must tell him that I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) how I admired the hon. Gentleman's adroitness in getting his points across under the order we are discussing. I was not treating his speech as a laughing matter—it is a serious one.
Rev. William McCrea: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that and I accept his words in the spirit in which they were spoken.
If we are supposed to discuss agriculture, I must think of the farmer outside Cookstown who drove through a hail of 70 bullets, 40 of which went through the cab of the tractor. Thank God, his life was spared. I also think of another young director of a firm who the IRA decided should no longer live. He was a member of my party and a fellow member of the council on which I sit. The IRA put a bomb under his car.
Thomas Jameson was murdered coming home from his day's work—I buried him yesterday. He was a brave young man who worked, as his child said to me, from morning to night to try to give them the ordinary things of life. The IRA thought that he was a threat to its ideal of a united Ireland because he drove a cement lorry. He was such a threat because he happened to work for a firm which desires to create business and to give employment to our community. It has an excellent record.
Tommy Jameson was done to death. It sickens me—I care not who likes it or otherwise—that so-called mighty Provos can decide that such men must die. Thomas Jameson was an ordinary worker in our society and he is now six feet under. The IRA planned his death and its leader in that area of County Tyrone who planned his murder and saw that it was executed, Brian Arthers, struts around as though he was a chief administrator of justice.
90
He decides when my people of my constituency are going to die—he takes it out of the hands of God and puts it into his own.
Therefore, many problems face my constituents. It sickens me that members of Sinn Fein can condemn economic deprivation in our Province and, as elected representatives, we have to sit on councils with them, looking across the council chamber at them, and listening to them condemn the Government for the unemployment situation, and yet Sinn Fein supports an organisation which has blasted jobs out of existence and blasted young men out of employment. It has flattened businesses, blown up factories and lengthened the dole queue. The Minister should take the first step—the honourable step—and remove the mouthpiece of terrorism from the council chambers once and for all, so as not to give it the semblance of democracy because its members are not democrats. They are the mouthpiece of terrorism and they make no apology for that.
The hon. Member for North Down has already mentioned senior citizens who helped to build the nation, who gave their best and sacrificed much but got little in return. In their youth, with the sweat of their brow and for little money, they were willing to fight in world wars to defend the nation's freedom and to build the country that we, as the younger generation, have the privilege to live in. Those elderly people are being treated disgracefully in their old age.
Pensioners in Northern Ireland can have little pride in the benefits given to them. Northern Ireland has a higher cost of living than other parts of the United Kingdom. There are higher heating costs. The Government ought to give elderly people some comfort and help in the last days of their lives. They ought to give them not concessionary but free television licences. There ought also to be proper concessionary travel passes for elderly people throughout the Province.
What is called the home help service is despicable because it is not home help any more. The Government have to help elderly people. If they want them to stay in the community, they must provide the money to keep them there. It is not enough to come out with pious attitudes and statements of what they desire and then withdraw the money that allows that desire to be fulfilled. I support keeping elderly people in the community, if it is humanly possible, and it is right to give the appropriate money to allow that to be done. It is despicable to give an old-age pensioner 15 minutes of home help when the person doing the job can hardly get through the door to boil a kettle in that time, never mind make the tea, and then has to go.
Attendance and mobility allowances seem to be given a great deal of publicity. It is said, "Why don't you apply for this allowance?" but when people apply, the Government wonder how they can prevent them from getting the allowances.
I believe that a watchful eye must be kept on private nursing homes. I support such homes, but the Government must ensure that they give the elderly exactly what they are supposed to get—proper nursing care in the latter days of their lives.
Other matters are troubling my constituents, and I shall try to mention them briefly. I trust that the Minister will consider them. I do not expect an answer tonight on many of the subjects, but I expect an answer for my constituents.

91
One issue is the new history park at Gortin outside Omagh. The local council is spending £3 million on the development of that excellent pavilion. The greatest necessity for the region is to encourage tourists. Therefore, we need a proper infrastructure of roads, and I beg the Minister to give urgent consideration to proper roads leading to the new park at Gortin.
Another issue is the Omagh bypass. Phases 1, 2 and 3 are urgently required and I appeal to the Minister not to stop after phase 1 or to allow some 18 months' delay until the money is available for phase 2. Will he consider allowing the contractor to continue with phase 2 because it is so urgently needed for the county town of Omagh?
A ring sewer has been promised for the south of Omagh. It is urgently needed and has been talked about for years. It will go from Cranny Bridge to Dromore road. Housing development in the area has been restricted because there is not sufficient sewage capacity, so builders are permitted to build only seven houses in a development each year. That is pushing up the price of houses for people who desire to buy their own homes. I know that it is the Minister's and the Government's policy to encourage people to buy their own homes and to invest money in them. It is deplorable that prices are being inflated because of the lack of sewage provision in the area and because builders are not permitted to build the number of houses that they are willing to build. I have made representations and I am having discussions with the Northern Ireland Office on that subject.
We are disappointed about the removal of the regional Housing Executive office. There has been pressure to transfer the Housing Executive office to Londonderry and that is a death blow to jobs in the area. Will the Minister reconsider that decision and ask the Housing Executive to maintain the regional office in Omagh?
I also ask the Minister to consider helping the physically and mentally handicapped children of Fermanagh and Tyrone. We urgently need a centre for them in Omagh. The one in Stradreagh, Londonderry is not enough for the people of Fermanagh and Tyrone. I ask the Minister to consider the representations from the Western board for more money for this vital facility.
I ask the Minister also to consider the urgent need for a bypass for Cookstown. It should be brought out of the minor roads programme and put into the major works programme. I am told that £60,000 has been allocated for next financial year. If the work is done piecemeal, the traffic jams will merely move from one spot in the town to another. Why does not the Department grasp the nettle and solve the problem? Cookstown has the second highest unemployment in the Province and it is being strangled because the bypass that is essential to industrial development is being built piecemeal.
Only a few weeks ago an industrialist decided not to come to Cookstown because he found that it would be too costly. He found out about the build-up of traffic at the checkpoints in the town and discovered that, at one end of the town, the traffic had to wait for 20 minutes before moving on. To a business man, the money involved could mean survival or going under. I appeal to the Minister carefully to examine the Cookstown problem and allow
92
proper development of the bypass, which would rejuvenate the town. Employment and business are already leaving, and we need help.
Road surfaces in my constituency are generally not commendable, and some of them are deplorable. Many constituencies in the Province have major roadworks—they have dual carriageways and motorways—but not Mid-Ulster. We do not even have proper road surfaces, never mind the building of larger roads.
In rural planning policy we need urgent revision review and amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe): there are more refusals now than there have been for some time. Flexibility should be exercised towards those who want to live in the countryside, and those who must live there. I assure the Minister that he will have the support of the elected representatives of Ulster if he considers greater flexibility in rural planning; he will also have the support of the Northern Ireland electorate. Perhaps then he might decide to stand in one of our constituencies——
Mr. Peter Robinson: But then he would stand against me: he is a member of the East Belfast Tory association.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Although I am a member of the Stormont Castle workers branch of the East Belfast Conservative Association, if I were to stand I should find it difficult to choose between the constituency of the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and that of Londonderry, East.
As for the planning applications, it might make sense if Members representing the rural areas came together and spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham):
Rev. William McCrea: I am taking full advantage of the place to which I was elected to make representations to the relevant Minister tonight. I trust that he will answer accordingly and not pass the buck to someone else.
I also want to ask the Minister about Department of Economic Development allocations of grants. Is it the aim of the Industrial Development Board, when awarding grants to help with jobs, to award them to projects with or without IFI grants? It is believed that if one does not get an IFI grant one will not receive an IDB grant. There is pressure to apply for an International Fund of Ireland grant to obtain some of these grants. Is that Government policy? If so, have the Government abandoned their responsibilities to create jobs? I trust not, but I have been asked to have the matter clarified this evening.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House will be interested to hear the Minister tell us something about the news that broke today that there is some question about the Fruit of the Loom jobs that were to come to Londonderry, and about the viability of the firm in question. I trust that that can be put to rest; we all welcome jobs wherever they can be got in the Province——
Mr. Peter Bottomley rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. We cannot have an intervention in an intervention.
Rev. William McCrea: I give way to the Minister.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: This point was dealt with on the radio in Northern Ireland this morning. There was full knowledge of the news, which appears to be new news, but is not. I hope that there will not be a scare about the announcement by Fruit of the Loom. It cannot be possible that it is a requirement on an application for Local Enterprise Development Unit or Industrial Development Board assistance that people apply to the international fund. I hope that people with appropriate projects will apply to the international fund as that is useful. People should not think that they must be accepted by a non-governmental body to be acceptable to a Government body. Obviously, there are some things that LEDU and IDB would not deem acceptable.
Rev. William McCrea: I thank the Minister for that assurance, which will be considered carefully by those outside the House.
I will draw to the Minister's attention two other matters connected with the vote. The elected representatives in the Province are concerned, when they sit in their district councils and decide on the district rate and the rate burden, that after careful scrutiny of the books and after listening to the appeals to keep the district rates down, they find that the regional rate is dumped on top of the district rate with a massive incease in percentage. That happened last year. Will the Minister examine that matter carefully? I trust that when the regional rate is set it will not be an exorbitant burden on my constituency.
Will the Minister examine the area of Castlederg, which has suffered so much? It needs proper roads and proper hotels to bring in and accommodate tourists. It also urgently needs jobs because it is dying. Because of terrorist activity, it has suffered more than any other village in the Province in the 20 years of troubles. Will the Minister act as quickly as possible on the survey that has already been carried out? If he does, the district of Castlederg will be rejuvenated and life will be brought back to the people who have suffered so much.
In the surrounding area of Strabane appeals have been made for appropriate grants to bring several cottages up to a reasonable standard. The Housing Executive is not willing to provide sufficient grants. It is trying to force the tenants out of the cottages and into Strabane. Many people have resided in those cottages all their lives, and some of their parents resided there before them. They have reared their children in those cottages. They would prefer to stay there, instead of being forced out because they do not have the appropriate amenities. Will the Minister give earnest consideration to the need of that district of Castlederg?
9.3 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I was interested in what the Minister of State said in his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). He said that things were looking rosy in Northern Ireland in reports up to 30 September 1989 and he quoted a 9 per cent. increase in the economy to that time. Will the Minister in replying to the debate examine the reports from those same sources after 31 December 1989? As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Leicester, South, the indicators from all the sources that we take for granted as being the authority on the matter point to either a very low rate of increased industrial production or no increase at all. Some sectors are even
94
forecasting a fall. The Government's response might indicate a degree of complacency that would be totally unwarranted.
In the next couple of years up to and beyond 1992 it is incumbent on not only the Government but the public representatives, industrialists, workers, and everyone else in Northern Ireland to seek new and innovative ways of enhancing the prospect of increasing production and job creation within Northern Ireland. At the same time, we must make it attractive and easier for investment to be brought into Northern Ireland. We have a continuation year after year of safe and tried measures. I suggest that it is time for us to look at new schemes, new ideas and new models, not only in industrial development per se but in tourist promotion, the growth of which could be equal to the growth of industrial development in the 1990s and beyond.
The Northern Ireland tourist board has been laying low for the past couple of years under the guise of revamping its ideas or evolving a new strategy. We are still waiting, and I know that a document was issued, but nothing is happening. We may have missed the boat on the tourist potential for Northern Ireland's economy always because tourism should be a primary industry allied to the normal industrial base to which we usually refer when talking about economic development.
There is much talk about small industry and small business, but the small farmer, the small fisherman or the small self-employed builder are not placed in those categories. They are not treated with the same urgency and do not receive the same open-handedness from the public purse.
It is perhaps appropriate that in the order the Department of Agriculture is first on the list. I remind the Minister that on several occasions in the recent past I have reminded him of the great difficulties of small farmers whose real income is reducing year by year. Their profitability has virtually been wiped out in many of the sectors in which they operate, yet there does not seem to be genuine concern for what is, after all, Northern Ireland's base industry.
The small farmer needs to be given even a temporary hand. I refer especially to the hill cow subsidy. I do so with some parochialism because my constituency is hilly. The hill livestock compensatory allowance was recently increased. The increase was welcome but totally derisory when compared with the inflation of the past couple of years. That can be added to the farmer's troubles over milk quotas and the green pound values. Presumably such issues will be addressed in Brussels at the end of this month and at the beginning of April. However, what happens if the result of the negotiations is unsatisfactory? Is there a contingency plan? If there is not, many small farmers in Northern Ireland will go under and, as I have said, they form the rock base for our whole population, especially in the rural areas.
I shall stray slightly from agriculture because I want to deal with fishery matters, which are particularly important in my constituency. I am extremely disappointed that the Minister who will reply to the debate and his colleague who is in charge of health and social services and who sits in another place have not seen fit to alleviate the grave hardship that fishermen in my constituency and in other constituencies in Northern Ireland, especially in North Down and Strangford, have suffered since December. The Minister knows the arguments well because I have made

95
them to him verbally and in writing. It is pathetic that no real effort has been made to alleviate the problem. I understand that it would be primarily a DHSS programme, but I should like to think that when he is responding the Minister will lend his support to such a concept. He has not done so in the past.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem of unemployment benefits for fishermen is of national as well as provincial importance? Does he agree that we should press the Minister to make representations to his colleagues in the Department of Social Security?
Mr. McGrady: I welcome the intervention of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and support his interesting idea. Such an approach would have my full backing.
If I may be parochial for a moment, I ask the Minister to expedite after 20 years the minimal proposal that is now on his desk for improving the harbour facilities at Ardglass in County Down. He knows the arguments very well, and I should like to think that he will make a positive and immediate response. Promises have been made, broken, made again, and then broken again for 20 years. Very little has been done to increase the fishing fleet at Ardglass. The improvements sought would at least serve as a salve to soothe the hardship that fishermen have endured since last December.
I commend the Minister for establishing the interdepartmental committee on rural regeneration. Although these are early days, and too soon to seek from the Minister a response to that committee's output, I ask him to treat its recommendations as a matter of urgency and not let them go the way of all previous rural programmes in Northern Ireland over the past two decades. They paid lip service to regeneration but were pigeonholed and never implemented. I hope that under the chairmanship of a permanent secretary in the Northern Ireland Office the interdepartmental committee will produce results in the near future.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: The degree of seriousness with which the question of regeneration is taken can be assessed by the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and other Ministers met the rural action project team recently and announced that its work would continue to be funded. In addition to the interdepartmental committee headed by the permanent secretary to the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, direct contact is being maintained. Although I am not one for making commitments or giving assurances, I feel strongly about implementing an effective rural improvement programme so that people can stay in the countryside rather than feel that they must slide towards Belfast or slide out of Northern Ireland. Such a contribution would be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for that information, and I commend his course of action. I hope that he will always keep in mind the fact that rural regeneration depends entirely on a multi-disciplinary approach. It is not simply a matter of farming or of housing; it embraces a number of factors. I commend to
96
the Minister a small community project in my own constituency, the Seeconnell community project, which is almost a microcosm of the Minister's attempts—and a very successful one.
I turn to the Department of Economic Development and refer to answers that I received to my questions Nos. 159 and 160, which I cite because they caused me both despair and great annoyance. I asked how many visits to Northern Ireland were made over the last three fiscal years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 by firms seeking inward investment. The numbers were 190, 180 and 214 respectively, making a total of 584. I asked for an analysis of the number of firms who were invited to visit or who did visit my constituency, which qualifies for full grant aid and is therefore deemed by the Government to be a deprived area. Over those same three years, the numbers were four, four and four respectively—less than 3 per cent. of the total number of inward investment visits.
When one analyses the entire answer, one can plot certain areas—Mid-Ulster is one of them—in which, it seems, there is a scarcity of visits. If one were to plot those areas politically, one could come to the conclusion—though I should hate to do so—that there was a tendency not to bring investment to the areas of highest unemployment where the people have national leanings. If that is the case, I hope that it will be corrected. Certainly the statistics point clearly in that direction. I ask the Minister to look at the reply to which I have referred and to determine whether a change of direction by the Industrial Development Board is required.
Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us who have been involved in bringing to Northern Ireland people considering new investment and job creation find it offensive that such people are encouraged by the IDB to go to the very areas that the hon. Gentleman is promoting? This is done despite personal contact by other Members working on behalf of their constituents.
Mr. McGrady: I cannot answer for the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. That is one case, whereas I can quote five in which the course of events was in the opposite direction. That rather nullifies his remarks.
The statistics provided by the IDB to the Department support what I am saying. If I am wrong, those statistics are wrong; if the statistics are right, I am right. It is as simple as that. The figures are there for anyone who wants to look at them.
On the question of industrial development—specifically, the attraction of industry to Northern Ireland—I should like to refer to two matters that have always puzzled me. The first, which has been mentioned already, is the cost of energy. Why is the cost of electricity constantly being increased more than is necessary to make the industry viable? Is it simply a case of creating artificial profitability for the purposes of privatisation? If, as appears to be the case, that is what is being done, it is detrimental to the concept of a cheap production area—a concept that the IDB is trying to sell abroad.
The second point is one which, to my mind, has never received any attention: why has the bank rate in Northern Ireland always been 2 per cent. higher than normal lending rates in the rest of the United Kingdom, even though the minimum lending rate is fixed in London and the sources and destinations of Nothern Ireland bank deposits are in London? An artificially dear economic climate is being

97
created. Why is this allowed? Is it not a disincentive to investment? Would it not be cheaper to get finance elsewhere? It seems to me that this and the high cost of electricity are two self-imposed hurdles that we could do without.
Small farmers in my constituency are now being charged between £3,000 and £6,000 to be provided with an electricity connection to their premises. They just cannot afford such a charge. That means that they have to do without electricity, so they do not modernise and, therefore, cannot increase their income. It is a vicious circle. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, who is in charge of agriculture in the Province, will see whether it is possible to alleviate the problems of small farmers who do not have a mains electricity supply. It may be that Northern Ireland Electricity, with its very high overheads, has to make such charges, but the consumers certainly cannot afford to pay them. Thus small farmers find themselves in an impossible position.
The Minister did not mention housing, although I believe that the hon. Member for Leicester, South did. I am greatly concerned about this matter, and I obtained some figures yesterday. The Department says that the housing budget is better than it has ever been. The Housing Executive built 4,620 houses in 1981–82, but its target for 1990–91 is 1,000.
Mr. William Ross: We are all interested in housing. I should be grateful if the hon. Member would tell me under which heading in the order he finds housing. I looked, but it was not clear to me that it was mentioned anywhere. That worried me a great deal, and I hope to make that point later.
Mr. McGrady: I hope that the hon. Member will make that point and will support my comments. I was referring to its absence.
Mr. Stott: Vote 2 on page 8 provides
"For expenditure by the Department of the Environment on housing services, including certain grants in aid."
The hon. Member is therefore entitled to draw attention to housing problems under that heading.
Mr. McGrady: I am always grateful for assistance from any hon. Member. I thank the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) for reminding me of that vote.
The Housing Executive is responsible for administering grants. In 1985–86 they amounted to £60 million, but they had been reduced to £32 million in 1989–90—a reduction of 60 per cent. There has been an 80 per cent. reduction in house building and a 60 per cent. reduction in the amounts available for grants. I strongly believe that there is a death wish over the Housing Executive, a body that I have ardently supported since 1973. Whether that has come about because of departmental restrictions or whether it has come from within, the Housing Executive seems to be about to fail in its primary purpose. Although one can admire its innovation, the outreach scheme and all the grant schemes that it operates, the basic purpose of a public housing authority is to provide housing for people who cannot otherwise afford it. The house building programme for 1990–91 has been reduced to a paltry 1,000 houses—an inadequate response to increasing housing needs. Housing Executive statistics show that the number of people who are in urgent need of housing has increased since last year.
98
In referring to the Department of Health and Social Services, I shall be particularly parochial and refer to the on-going saga of the Downe hospitals in Downpatrick. It started when I began public life in 1961, believe it or not, and since then matters have been bandied about from pillar to post. The difficulty is that every time a conclusion is reached a new examination has to be carried out. We are suffering from paralysis by analysis. I ask the Minister to break the log-jam.
The case for the Downe replacements has been made. Two parts—the geriatric and the maternity sections—have been provided and the general surgical section remains to be provided. I should like the Minister to refer to his ministerial colleague, who cannot answer in the House, the on-going attempt to downgrade this group of hospitals so that someone with a financial knife can cut them off. I refer especially to the lack of urgency to provide ophthalmology services in the Downe unit of management and to fill the third permanent anaesthetist post, both of which have been promised for a considerable time, but only lip service has been paid to filling the need.
I also draw the Minister's attention to the St. Leonard's nursing home at Warrenpoint—a home for mentally and physically disabled people. Some of the residents have been there for 20 years; they are a family and they are happy there. The unit is well managed and economical and the patients are well cared for. I have been asking the Southern health and social services board and the Department to still the rumour, which is causing great distress, that patients who have had close associations with the nursing home for two decades are now threatened with dispersal. I was assured that no decision had been made. Yet I now discover that one of the most tragic cases in the history of Northern Ireland—I shall not refer to the person by name, but the case has been the subject of a television documentary—has been moved out this week after 20 years in that environment. That completely contradicts the information given to me by the Department and the board and it is a despicable and inhuman action to have taken in the circumstances. If the Minister wants further details, I shall be happy to supply them.
The Department of Health and Social Services has made great play of the lack of take-up of family credit in Northern Ireland. But, as I said in opening my remarks, Northern Ireland is made up largely of small farmers and proprietors of small firms—many of them self-employed. Because of the tax system, building labourers, for example, have to be self-employed because of the exemption certificate qualifications. I ask the Department to simplify the form issued and the responses and proofs that they require. Otherwise people will be deprived of their entitlement because of the bureaucracy surrounding their claim. I recommend a much simpler and more easily completed form and request for information.
9.32 pm
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) in criticising the way in which these orders are taken without our having the power to amend or debate them in any meaningful way. Now that there appears to be little prospect of a political settlement in Northern Ireland in the near future, will the Government face their

99
responsibilities by granting parliamentary democracy to the Province and legislating for Northern Ireland in the same way as for all other parts of the United Kingdom?
I refer first to vote 2 of the Department of Economic Development vote. On the development of tourism, I welcome the appointment of Mr. Paul Lavery as the Northern Ireland tourist board's new marketing director. He takes over at a time of real challenge to the industry in both parts of Ireland. The tourist board is extending its marketing offensive into Europe. I hope that it will get an excellent response and that we shall have many more European visitors to our lovely Province.
As one who, on occasions, likes to indulge in a little angling, I am concerned that in some parts of Northern Ireland charges to local anglers have increased substantially. Those increases could be due in part to rising costs but in large part they are what someone in authority feels that the market will stand. In effect, "the market" is the overseas visitor, who is exploited by unscrupulous operators who milk him for his interest in his sport. In many cases, local anglers just cannot afford the exorbitant charges for the right to fish in their own rivers. Without the contribution of local anglers, who pay for bailiffing and other local services, the angling scene would become a free-for-all from which no one would benefit. I hope that the tourist board will recognise that unacceptable state of affairs which is prevalent in our good angling waters. The activities of those so-called entrepreneurs who rely on state services to control poaching and pollution must be curtailed so that everyone, visitors and anglers alike, can benefit from our natural resources.
With regard to vote 3 and community projects, I am concerned about allegations that the Department of Economic Development is considering major cuts in the ACE—Action for Community Employment—programme, particularly when it is generally believed that more funds will be made available in the forthcoming Budget. The Minister should be aware that the purpose of that scheme was to provide meaningful employment for our long-term unemployed. I know from experience how much a year's community work can mean to those unfortunate people who, through no fault of their own, are unemployed.
There can be no justifiable reason why any cut in the employment programme should be considered. Managers in the various projects should be more than capable of working within their existing budgets, particularly under the leadership of Mr. Cecil Graham and his staff who have done so much to make the ACE concept so successful in Northern Ireland.
With regard to vote 5, I refer to the previous appropriation debate in which I expressed concern about a decision to grant a prospecting licence for the Cavehill area of Belfast. I am still concerned about that and my concern is shared by more than 10,000 people who have expressed horror at the fact that that beautiful landscape might be subjected to any form of interference through mining.
The Minister should be aware of what happened in the town of Cavencaw in the Omagh district of County Tyrone, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), where a prospecting licence was granted to Rio Tinto-Zinc. I am sure that the
100
hon. Member for Mid-Ulster will support me when I say that an area of outstanding natural beauty there has been pillaged and plundered in that prospecting operation.
Mr. John D. Taylor: And in the Boyne valley, too.
Mr. Walker: I will leave that issue to other hon. Members who may be more qualified to speak about it.
The people in the area to which I have referred will confirm that the prospecting operation is equivalent to an open-cast mine. Habitats in that area have been destroyed for ever and thousands of years of evolution have gone down the drain. Under those circumstances, is it any wonder that the people of north Belfast are concerned? They are very suspicious of the hole-in-the-corner method of granting the licence and the surreptitious way in which news of the granting has leaked out. It is now the duty of the Department of Economic Development to allay the fears of the public and I call on the Government to define specifically the area of the Cavehill and Belfast mountains that they are prepared to exclude from any fresh quarrying or mining operations.
With regard to vote 3 and the Department of the Environment, I want to bring to the notice of the Minister the problems caused by the disruption of the water supply in the Cavehill area. Many of my constituents in that area have had their water supplies severely restricted for long periods. The problem seems to have been caused by a housing development which was allowed to take place at a level which puts additional stress on the existing 20-year old water supply system which could not possibly cope with the requirements imposed on it. Attempts to remedy the situation with a new main resulted in poor infill compaction, causing innumerable breaks in the existing main and resulting in many instances of water cut-off. There is still noticeable continuous settlement in line with the newly laid main, and soil movement is causing distress to other underground services in the area. I am anxious that a proposed link with another main be undertaken as a matter of urgency to give an alternative supply to residents in the upper Cavehill area who have suffered greatly at much too frequent intervals through being denied a water supply.
The Government should give thought to four points in an attempt to save taxpayers' money. First, planners should liaise with the relevant services before granting development permission. Secondly, only experienced staff should supervise contracts. Thirdly, the retention period on pipe-laying contracts should be extended to at least five years. Fourthly, the roads service should ensure that there is a materials matching concept so that there will be no patchwork effect in the final reinstatement.
On the Department of Health and Social Services, vote 1, I am alarmed, as are many general practitioners in my constituency, about the criteria announced by the Department in the designation of deprived areas on a percentage basis. In certain deprived areas, financial allowances are available to GPs to facilitate improving services to people. The index used in the United Kingdom caters for 20 different criteria. The criterion that was used to formulate the Northern Ireland figure was based on the 1981 census, and it resulted in 14 per cent. deprivation in Northern Ireland, compared with 18 per cent. in England and 26 per cent. in Scotland. The figure for Wales was not available. I state categorically that there must be something seriously amiss in that calculation.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, under the new terms for Belfast, greater west Belfast and large sections of east Belfast are all outside the area of deprivation?
Mr. Walker: I was not aware of that. If that is the case, I hope that the Minister will take note of it and answer the accusation.
Everyone knows that deprivation in Northern Ireland is at an all time high. The 14 per cent. deprivation can never be justified. The DHSS findings which resulted in that figure should be published in full so that all interested parties can he given the opportunity to comment. I am particularly anxious that that be done as soon as possible, as I understand that GPs are being pressured to accept the figure, which could result in a serious financial shortfall for the sick and infirm who are in most need.
Mr. McGrady: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Jarman indices which determine such areas lack two indices which are applied in the rest of the United Kingdom? I refer to the under-fives and the unskilled. If those indices were applied to Northern Ireland, there would be a much higher deprivation figure.
Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am aware of the Jarman indices. That is why the Minister should be aware of my case. It underlines why the figure of 14 per cent. cannot be justified.
I am appalled by the Government's reticence about providing a magnetic resonance imaging facility in Northern Ireland. For the benefit of right hon. and hon. Members, that revolutionary scanning equipment is essential in diagnosing medical conditions beyond the reach of the out-dated X-ray machines currently used in many of our hospitals. Time and again, in response to public demand, medical personnel involved in hospital X-ray facilities have given considered advice to the DHSS on the necessity for such machines to be provided in the Province. The Government have persistently opposed their provision with the lamest of excuses. They say that they are waiting for a Medical Research Council report, but that is now obsolete in the light of clinical experience in Europe and America. They also say that the MRI facility is in its infancy—a strange statement when one considers that there are 27 such machines operating in the United Kingdom and one in Dublin. They were installed as long ago as 1980 and it is expected that a further 23 will be installed within the next 12 months.
Other excuses such as a lack of funds are equally unacceptable, given that the Minister refused charitable financial assistance when it was offered in 1988. Patients are adversely affected by the delay in diagnosis and the traumatic effects of being sent to Dublin or England for scanning. At present, more than 100 people per month are sent. The Government should be aware that 68 per cent. of the Eastern board's X-ray equipment, with a value of £5,639,880, is more than 10 years old.
Modern MRI equipment would give much less irradiation and would go a long way towards replacing the outdated machines. The approximate cost would be £1·4 million for a building and the instrumentation, with running costs of £150,000 per year, based on 240 patients per month. The costs and trauma of sending patients to England would be more than recouped through the installation of such a machine. Such discrimination in the
102
treatment of our citizens is to be deplored. I trust that the Government will take the necessary action to remedy that disgraceful state of affairs as a matter of extreme urgency.
Figures just released show a 30 per cent. drop in the number of people going for eye tests in Northern Ireland since the Government introduced a charge for them. The worrying factor in the figures is that the number of people aged over 60 who have had eye tests has fallen by two thirds, or more than 60 per cent. Naturally, the Minister challenged those figures. He said that there was a rush to have free eye tests before the charge was introduced and that the availability of ready-made glasses was also a factor. But the ready-made glasses could be detrimental to those who choose that method of acquiring spectacles. Eye tests can detect the early stages of illnesses such as glaucoma, hypertension, diabetes, cataracts and brain tumours. People have only one pair of eyes to last a lifetime and they deserve the best possible care. The Government should reconsider the imposition of the charge, particularly on elderly people caught in the poverty trap and therefore outside the existing criteria.
At the conference on developing services for old people, the Minister of Health said that he wanted to create a new culture which would provide a sensitive and responsive way of working for the needs of the elderly. He said that most elderly people wish to spend their remaining years in their own homes and that the right balance of care should be provided to help them to achieve that with dignity and independence. I agree with those sentiments, but in the prevailing circumstances in Northern Ireland they need to be backed with the necessary finance to bring them to fruition.
In my area I am constantly reminded that the resources are not likely to be available to give elderly people a reasonable home help service. In my constituency I have several elderly people who live alone and receive only half an hour of home help per day. That is not the right balance to enable them to live with dignity and independence.
The Minister should also consider the position of carers and their struggle to care for elderly relatives. He said that he was providing increased support. It could not be too soon. But for the efforts of completely unselfish, dedicated carers in our community, there would be a breakdown in the section of the Health Service responsible for the well-being of the elderly.
No matter how the Government juggle with the figures, it is completely unacceptable that 42 per cent. of patients in Northern Ireland have been waiting more than a year for operations. On those figures, the Government must accept the allegation that they are using the sick as political pawns in an attempt to set up the Health Service for privatisation. It is an irrefutable fact that people who cannot afford it are opting for private treatment rather than spending painful years on the waiting lists. It is an indictment of the Government that they should create conditions in which people are suffering for interminable lengths of time. Waiting lists must be reduced and it is the Government's responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary to achieve that objective.
Finally, I am disappointed at the Minister's refusal to meet a deputation on behalf of the Clanwillian homes and to discuss the refused planning application relating to No. 4 Blaris road, Lisburn. The Minister says that he cannot become involved in a specific planning application. Why not? I ask that because the planning directorate did not take many aspects of the proposal into account, including

103
planning considerations and the provisions for particular services in connection with the proposal. Furthermore, the Minister should be well aware that all political parties and Members of Parliament as well as Lisburn borough council are in favour of the application.
I advise the Minister that there is serious concern in the area about why he has chosen not to meet the deputation. So far as I am aware, there have been other instances in which the Minister has used his powers to overturn a decision by the planning directorate when he felt that there was justifiable reason to do so. I ask the Minister to meet the deputation and to listen to the various factors surrounding the application before an appeal is considered.
9.51 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I start by making a brief reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment to hear what I am saying, but I am sure that his hon. Friends will agree with my comments.
At the beginning of his remarks, the hon. Member concentrated on fundamental matters, with a rare combination of passion and reason. I hope that he will accept the reassurance from someone who represents a constituency on the other side of the Irish sea that we regard murder—whether it is murder in Northern Ireland, north Wales, northern England or the north of Scotland—as murder. From time to time it is a good thing for all of us in England, Wales and Scotland to be reminded by speeches such as that of the hon. Gentleman that murders are still continuing on a horrendous scale in Northern Ireland—in the name of politics. Of course, they have nothing to do with what we understand as politics, and everything to do with unreason, with fanaticism and with all that is unacceptable to a democratic society.
I should like to deal briefly with two points that have not been raised so far in the debate. The first relates to education. In a recent debate in the House I spoke about Northern Ireland's excellent education system. That bears repetition. The secondary education system in Northern Ireland is the envy of those of us in Wales who know of its achievements and quality. I hope that in the Northern Ireland appropriations relating to the funding of education there is sufficient money to ensure that the secondary sector does not go the way that it is showing signs of going in Wales, at least.
Rural education in Wales is now in a dreadful state. The comprehensive high schools, many of which have an excellent reputation of a great Celtic educational tradition acquired over many years, are facing financial privation. Teachers are demoralised and the schools are in a poor condition. That is appreciated by the pupils, as one can see if one looks at the graffiti and listens to how they talk about what is happening.
Northern Ireland suffers from the same rural problems as many parts of Wales, including my consituency of Montgomery. If we do not provide a quality education system so that pupils acquire the ability to start businesses in their constituencies and districts, they will leave.
Hon. Members have spoken about small businesses. The political situation in Northern Ireland may provide a
104
greater incentive to leave than there is to leave Wales. It is vital, therefore, that every incentive and inducement should be given to people to remain. What better inducement could there be than an education system in which headmasters are not struggling day after day to pay for the exercise books and pencils, as is happening in England and Wales?
Will the Minister assure the House that the sums provided for education are ample for all the changes deriving from the education reform order? Will he assure us that sufficient money is available fully to support the commitments made to integrated education where it develops? If, under the new legislation, many more schools qualify for support, may we have an assurance that the Government will provide the resources to honour the pledge made to integrated schools?
The Fair Employment Commission is at least showing signs of doing excellent work in Northern Ireland. Indeed, its aims and achievements have not been sufficiently publicised elsewhere. It would do the reputation of the Government and the United Kingdom good in Northern Ireland if its achievements could be itemised so that the House and Governments of other countries that look with interest at what is going on in Northern Ireland can see precisely the effort and financial backing put into the pursuit of equal opportunities of all kinds. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government have reviewed fully the resourcing of the commission and that he is happy that the allocation does not need to be increased in the light of the commission's ever-increasing responsibilities?
9.58 pm
Mr. William Ross: Reference was made earlier to the short period allowed for the previous debate. It is only right to put on record that the emergency provisions order is normally dealt with in one and a half hours. Had it not been for the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), we would have been limited to that period. Because of his efforts we had much longer. That debate and this one highlight again the problems experienced in Northern Ireland in trying to deal with unalterable wordings of measures in a limited time.
A few days ago the Under-Secretary had the privilege to stand on one of the prime blocks of land not only of Northern Ireland, but of the United Kingdom. He saw what can happen when a sea wall breaks. I hope that he took on board the implications and dangers that exist along the shores of Lough Foyle. If the Minister had looked to the north side of the mouth of the River Roe, just within his view would have been a bank, where there is no sea wall, which suffers grievously from sea damage year on year. The local environment would gain enormous protection if many large boulders were put down to stop the soft sandy soil washing away.
It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Capital Allowances Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)
Question again proposed.
Mr. Ross: Lough Foyle is one of the major areas of the British Isles for over-wintering wild fowl. The erosion of that coastline has been detrimental to the habits of wintering birds. I hope that the Minister will do something to protect that coastline. If the Department does not have the resources, perhaps the Minister will look for resources from the European Community. Conservation is the in-word nowadays and we should make every effort to protect not only the environment but high-quality farming land.
When the Minister visited Ballykelly he saw the break in the sea wall and he will appreciate that local farmers were not happy—no one can be happy when they suffer such as disaster.
There is a case for the Government seriously reconsidering how sea defences will be kept in shape in future. We hear a lot about global warming and God only knows what will happen in the next century—such warming could have a disastrous effect not only on Ballykelly, but elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
There is evidence to suggest that there are, periodically, storms of great violence that cause enormous damage to many people. Recently I asked the Prime Minister to consider setting up a disaster fund for the United Kingdom from which people could draw. I do not believe that the cost of such storms can be left to local disaster funds; nor should it be left to the individual to bear the cost of something that, if not uninsurable, is insurable only at an unreasonable cost.
Mr. John D. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is the Government's failure to make representations to the EC for assistance for farmers, fishermen and other people who suffer from storm damage? On many occasions the Community has assisted areas throughout the EC that have been damaged by storms. First of all, however, the national Government must make an application for assistance, but the Government had failed to do that in recent weeks to gain assistance for Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend is correct up to a point, because the Government have received two tranches of £220,000 and £440,000, which are infinitesimal sums in relation to the amount of damage caused—
Mr. Taylor: Nothing for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Ross: As far as I am aware, no money has gone to Northern Ireland, but I have already written to the permanent secretary expressing the hope that the Government will apply, if they have not already done so. We must remember that it is the individual who is at risk and who has suffered. The Government are not grabbing the money to restore a road or a bridge that has been washed away. On this occasion we are trying to help the individual and I hope that the Government will consider my request seriously, because the threat of storms will not go away. As our society becomes more dependent on machines, more highly sophisticated greater problems are created every time something goes wrong.
As for the Ballykelly incident, I am no engineer, but I have some experience of water. I hope that the
106
Government will consider the possibility of making permanent the present bank which they have put across the mouth of the Burnfoot river so that waves cannot break through the river banks in the future. Also I hope that they will consider raising the bank on the left-hand side of the Burnfoot to the same height as the other. I understand that the storm and flood overtopped the bank on one side, but not on the other, so I think that work needs to be done. I also hope that they will find a lot more pumps to pump the water away, because I do not like the idea of the soldiers paddling around in it any more than I like my constituents paddling around in i t, and I am sure that they are thoroughly fed up with the whole affair.
As I said, the Minister was standing on one of the prime blocks of land in the United Kingdom. It grows grass, which has to be cut, and, if The Guardian this morning is to be believed, someone is making an awful lot of money out of cutting remarkably little grass in the airfield at Ballykelly. I should be grateful if we could have an assurance that that is being thoroughly investigated. I hope that that leak has not harmed the investigation, because if that sort of fraud is going on it should be stopped as soon as possible because none of us is happy with it.
The Minister will probably know that a couple of my neighbours rent most of the airfield for silage and hay. They are not very happy because they feel that their names may be dragged into the matter, and they are just farmers trying to make an honest day's living. Somebody has been breaking the law and I hope that they are caught.
Having said that, and having got away with it by pure chance, I hope that the Government will seriously consider all the things that need to be done in Northern Ireland as well as stopping fraud and cutting grass on Ballykelly aerodrome.
I hope that the Government will question seriously the case that has undoubtedly been put to them that the fish laboratory at The Cutts, Coleraine should be moved. That would be wrong. The laboratory provides employment, and is close to the River Bush where, as the Minister knows, there is a large experimental undertaking, which is probably the most important study of salmon in Europe. I believe the station at The Cutts should remain and that the laboratory accommodation should be used to a greater extent. If people are to be moved, they should be moved back to Coleraine and not away from it, because it is the natural centre for that type of work.
I shall ask the Minister more questions on this subject, and I hope that he will follow them up and not sign the answers too readily before he has considered the implications of what lies behind the questions he is asked. He should ensure that he gets all the information because that might help his thinking.
I was glad that my hon. Friends mentioned angling earlier this evening.
Mr. Beggs: And poaching.
Mr. Ross: No, not poaching, just angling. I shall return to poaching, if my hon. Friend wishes me to, in a moment, but most of that is done by Donegal people off the north-west coast, in the salmon runs.
We also have a research vessel, the Lough Foyle, which is based in Belfast. That is not quite where I should like it to be, because I think that it should be in Coleraine.

107
In a recent answer the Minister told me that it cost £1,500 a day to run that vessel. They had managed to rent it out for 93 days last year and they got £93,000. That is not the way to make money, because one does not make money out of leasing a vessel if one loses £500 for every day that it is leased. It would be better if it were tied up on the dockside. I hope that if the vessel is leased again they will charge sufficient money to cover its running costs and will not depend on the International Fund for Ireland all the time. I hope that the Minister will carefully consider the answers to my questions before giving them to me.
An order on angling has been pending for some two years and I have made representations about it. It would be excellent if the Government reconsidered their earlier attitude and presented the measure to the House as a Bill. The anglers and I would be much happier if they did. This is a sensitive subject which needs in-depth discussion. It is not controversial in a party-political sense. The measure has been delayed for two years already; a little longer would not make much difference. If changes have been made as a result of earlier representations, we could possibly make further changes to the measure if it were brought in as a Bill.
The Minister knows the arguments about the Limavady bypass. I hope that he will not allow anyone to slow up work on it. It is a choke point for east-west traffic in the northern half of Northern Ireland, and it needs to be built—soon. The economic study must be finished and the road put into the five-year programme. We do not want that done in the fifth or sixth year; we want it done in the first or second, so that the work can go ahead.
I am still worried about the slow provision of proper hospital facilities in Coleraine. I have had excellent responses from the Minister of State about this, but I still want the work pushed on as rapidly as possible.
Finally, I turn to industrial development in Northern Ireland, and particularly the activities of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. Like all other Members who represent Northern Ireland, I have had long correspondence about various cases with LEDU, and sometimes I have been unhappy about the outcome. Some of my constituents have provided all the necessary reports and still wound up with no grant after spending several hundred pounds on accountants' fees——
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: More like several thousand.
Mr. Ross: I should not be surprised.
LEDU needs to be more careful when giving advice to people; it represents the lower end of the scale. We need to rethink what we are trying to do to help people who invent things in Northern Ireland. Sometimes they have ideas that could create jobs but no money with which to develop them. Patent costs are high, as are development costs. Inventors need proper advice to be able to get on with development at an early stage. They need advice on where to find the necessary expertise. It is not always available.
The Government should be prepared to find the money for this. They find money for people like De Lorean and all sorts or wonderful projects that cost millions and come to nothing. I should prefer a few thousand pounds to be lost on a local man's efforts, instead of losing millions on
108
a foreigner's efforts. Will the Minister provide development money for local people? It could be repayable if the project took off, but sometimes the money will be lost. According to the IDB report, local people can develop projects that create jobs for half the price that it would cost those from outside the Province.
I am horrified, looking at the Government's expenditure plans for 1992–93, to see that they intend to cut the public contribution to LEDU. I hope that LEDU will not depend too much on private sector funding; the private sector in Northern Ireland does not have enough high risk capital to provide the necessary money or to encourage small business men who are trying to create jobs.
10.14 pm
Mr. John D. Taylor: As has been pointed out, we cannot amend the motion. However, this debate gives Northern Ireland Members an opportunity to explain to the Government the problems being experienced in the Province. In all fairness, we live there and we represent the people, so we are more likely to be aware of the problems. It is wise and good to seize this opportunity to acquaint Northern Ireland Ministers with the issues.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) used the term, "the North of Ireland". That term is misunderstood in Northern Ireland and he would be unwise to continue to use it if he wishes to serve in Northern Ireland in some future Government. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) excellently acquitted himself when speaking about the tragedies in his constituency. He said that words could kill. One of the problems in Northern Ireland is that words are certainly misunderstood.
When a new Secretary of State is appointed to Northern Ireland, he is given a brainwashing session for 10 days and educated on what words to use or not to use. Only after those 10 days is he released to the public in Northern Ireland—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too soon."] Some may well think that that is too soon. One of the phrases that he is educated not to use is, "the North of Ireland". The correct term for the state is "Northern Ireland", and for the country is the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Even the Dublin Government now refer to the Province by its correct name of Northern Ireland. The term, "North of Ireland" is used only by the IRA and its fellow travellers. That is the general understanding within Northern Ireland. If the hon. Member for Leicester, South uses that term, he will be misunderstood in Northern Ireland. He should think before he repeats such an offensive term because otherwise he will be resented in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Peter Robinson: In the light of our previous debate, there is the additional danger that the use of such a term might lead some to think that we were making a claim to jurisdiction over Donegal.
Mr. Taylor: That is true. Indeed, it would be easier to assimilate Donegal today than it was in 1921 because half the population have had to leave in the past 70 years.
I shall deal briefly with some of the supplementary Estimates. It is interesting to note which items are dramatically reduced because savings have been made during the current year, and which items are considerably increased because costs have increased above estimates. I

109
shall deal first with the Department of Agriculture. There is a great concern in the Province about the increase in brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. The estimates show a considerable increase in expenditure in those two areas. Can the Government provide any evidence to show that the problem is now being brought under control?
Page 6 of the estimates shows savings in the European Community schemes—for example, the agricultural and horticultural development scheme and the farmland and conservation grants scheme. They are huge savings, and the reason given for them is that the initial interest in Northern Ireland is lower than had been envisaged. What measures are the Government taking to ensure that Northern Ireland participates fully in those European Community schemes? Now that the Government have stated publicly that they are not being taken up, what are they doing to ensure that Northern Ireland has its fair share?
Another matter of concern in Northern Ireland is that expenditure on planting grounds for woodland have declined. I should like to see the Government doing more to promote the new woodland schemes in Northern Ireland, as has been happening in Scotland.
Page 9 deals with the milk quota. As we know, the production of milk in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, is presently above quota. What is the present situation with the milk quota in the Province? How far are we above quota, and have Northern Ireland's milk producers been sufficiently warned and advised about the problems that will arise if surplus production continues? Certainly, it will impose a major financial burden on milk producers if the situation is not brought under control in the present production year.
There is a reference on page 10 to the marine research vessel. My hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) spoke about that. In the context of the International Fund for Ireland I should like to mention the training centre for fishermen. They applied for a training centre in the port of Portavogie, but the application was rejected and they were told that they could travel to the existing centre in north Donegal. No one who listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea could seriously suggest that fishermen from Portavogie should go for training in north Donegal. I could give many reasons why that would not be advisable. The Government should use their influence to try to ensure that a proper training centre for fishermen in Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie is considered. I hope that it will be set up in Portavogie.
Page 12 deals with the Department of Economic Development. Some hon. Members have already spoken about the Local Enterprise Development Unit and the Industrial Development Board. I am involved in business in Northern Ireland and I certainly appreciate, although I have never received any grant from it, the work of LEDU throughout the Province. It is important to continue to support small business men throughout Northern Ireland. One of the attractions of LEDU is the way in which it has promoted the small business man and encouraged community involvement through its area boards and offices. I was concerned to see recently a leading Member of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland, Dr. William Hastings, call for the abolition of LEDU. I hope that that will not be the policy of the Conservative party in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Peter Robinson: He is a member of the Minister's branch.
Mr. Taylor: That makes it even worse. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) confirms that Dr. William Hastings, who is a partisan and active politician in Northern Ireland, belongs to the same branch as the Minister who is to reply to the debate. I hope that when he is replying the Minister will say whether he intends to pursue the policy of Dr. William Hastings and abolish LEDU.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Taylor: No, the Minister will have a chance to reply at the end of the debate.
Mr. Bottomley: It is on a separate point.
Mr. Taylor: Very well.
Mr. Bottomley: I welcome the fact that in this instance the right hon. Gentleman is working on publicly available information and that there has not been a leak about members of the East Belfast Conservative Association.
Mr. Taylor: There are many leaks about who and what in Northern Ireland, but I am sure that we have a list of the three people who are members of the East Belfast Conservative Association.
I should like to turn to the economic development section on page 14 and speak about the importance of the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. Reorganisation is taking pace in the Northern Ireland tourist board, and it was said that it would now have a new commercial emphasis. One of the first things that happened was the transfer of a civil servant to become the chief executive of the board. Those of us who are involved in business are not too convinced that a civil servant will be the main promoter of a commercal enterprise.
I have looked through the Northern Ireland tourist board's first annual report since the changes. As the Member for Strangford, one thing that worries me is the total failure to mention, let alone recognise, the importance of caravan holidays in Northern Ireland. One third of caravans in Northern Ireland are based in the Ards peninsula. We must get away from the idea that developing tourism means pumping more money into hotel and licensed premises. The caravan tourist industry is important to Fermanagh on the north coast, the Ards peninsula, and South Down around the Mourne mountains. Hopefully, we could attract more caravanners from Scotland, and, with the completion of the Channel tunnel, the continent. I hope that the Northern Ireland tourist board will not continue to ignore the importance of the caravan tourist industry. Certainly the borough and district councils are doing their utmost to promote the development of more caravan sites in the Province.
Page 20 of the estimates refers to the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and to the £90,000 spent on further consultants' reports on the feasibility of privatising Northern Ireland electricity. I ask the Minister for an up-to-date report and for an indication of how much more money he intends to spend on consultants' reports before deciding whether or not to privatise the Northern Ireland Electricity Service.
Page 22 refers to the Department of the Environment, and once again the question of privatisation arises—in

111
respect of the aviation services. Northern Ireland Airports recently advertised for a new chief executive—the third in three years. That suggests that there must be some problems as to who actually manages Northern Ireland Airports—the chairman of the board or the chief executive.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The chairman is a Tory.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not say that. However, apparently the chairman of Northern Ireland Airports is a Tory, and that is unfortunate. Incidentally, at school he was a fag to one of the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.
The advertisements for a new NIA chief executive appeared in several publications. Some of them sell in Northern Ireland, such as the Belfast Telegraph and The Times,whereas others have very little circulation in Northern Ireland, such as Flight International and The Irish Times. It is interesting that the advertisement which appeared in the Northern Ireland press was different from that in the publications which do not sell well in the Province. The advertisement in the Northern Ireland publications simply advertised for a chief executive, whereas that appearing in the other publications also mentioned that Belfast international airport was to be privatised.
Can the Minister tell the House why different advertisements appeared in different publications? It is very strange that the public should be misled in that way. Also, what is the programme for the privatisation of Aldergrove airport?
Page 25 of the estimates refers to the royal harbour at Donaghadee in my own constituency, which is a contentious issue locally. As I said, the reference is to the "royal" harbour. There was an understanding that, as it is a royal harbour, no berthing charges would be made, but now there is a scheme to introduce them. I ask the Minister to re-examine that proposal to see whether that policy is consistent with Donaghadee's status as a royal harbour.
The hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. McGrady) referred to the fishing industry. In this context, I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Portavogie harbour, which was designed for about 60 fishing boats, now accommodates 85. In February this year two boats were damaged. They could not get into the harbour because it was chock-a-block. There is a great need for the Department to look into the capacity of that harbour and to proceed with an enlargement to accommodate the additional boats.
On page 26 there is a list of road schemes. Because of the shortage of time I am unable to go into them in detail, but I must ask the Department to look closely at some projects in my constituency. The question of the bypass for Comber has been with us for years. Comber is growing constantly and is chock-a-block with traffic early in the morning and at five o'clock in the evening. The bypass is required urgently and I ask that it be given greater priority.
The Minister will probably be able to give a very favourable reply to my inquiry about the Donaghadee road out of Newtownards. I hope that he can tell us that the scheme will start this year. The other two schemes to which I shall refer are in my constituency and in that of the
112
hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). The first relates to the Castlereagh road roundabout. There is serious difficulty in emerging from the Casaeldona estate on to the Knockbreda dual carriageway. We have been told that the difficulty cannot be overcome until the Castlereagh road roundabout has been improved. I hope that this, too, will be given priority. Then there is the Saintfield road-Knockbreda dual carriageway junction. Here, too, there is chaos in the early morning and in the late evening. I hope that the proposed scheme, which we have examined and which we welcome, will be given the priority that it deserves.
On page 34 one sees a great increase in expenditure. Many schemes are mentioned, but I draw the Minister's attention particularly to the Castle Court office block. Originally the cost was estimated at £7·5 million, but today the estimate is almost £16 million—an increase of more than 100 per cent. We deserve an explanation for that dramatic increase. It is unbelievable. I happen to be involved in a scheme in Royal Avenue near Castle Court, and in this regard I declare an interest. If my consultants came back and told me that the cost would be 100 per cent. more than they had originally said, I should not be standing here. There is something very wrong—unless, in the meantime, the scheme has been doubled in size. Clearly, we need an inquiry and an explanation for this dramatic increase.
Education is dealt with on page 40. I welcome the reference to the extension of Armagh Royal school, on whose board of governors I serve. In that case, the original estimate was £3,873,000, and the figure is now £3,883,000. That is very good estimating. I hope that the historic grant, which has been so slow in coming, will be given some attention and that the school will receive those funds as soon as possible.
On page 43 there is reference to expenditure on the two universities in Northern Ireland. These will now be the only universities in the United Kingdom whose students do not have to pay the poll tax. That being the case, we expect an increased number of students from Scotland, England and Wales. That will be good for university life in Northern Ireland. I hope that the youth of Great Britain who flee to Northern Ireland from the poll tax will find good facilities. I hope that the Government will provide more funds for expansion of the universities in Belfast and Coleraine.
Finally, I refer to the celebrations that we hope to have this year. I refer not to the tercentenary of the battle of the Boyne, though the present Government owe their existence to the victory at that battle, but to the bicentenary of Armagh observatory. I am glad that the observatory is mentioned. This is an important year for the observatory and I hope that the Government will be liberal in their support.
On page 10 of the draft order, we find that it will cost us £123,000 this year to maintain the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, which collapsed because of the imposition of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Consideration should be given to greater public use of the parliamentary buildings at Stormont. I know that there would be security problems in doing so, but there are security problems in the Palace of Westminster, too. There must be greater scope to hold functions and meetings at Stormont, to earn some money for the state and to give the Northern Ireland people the right of access to a building which is rightfully theirs.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Although the Stormont library is being increased and certain students are given access to it, Members of Parliament who are elected to serve the people of Northern Ireland do not have the right to use it. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they should have that right?
Mr. Taylor: That is news to me. I did not know that students were allowed to use the library. I am horrified to hear that news. I understood that we had a right to use its
114
facilities. I have done so in one way or another without realising that I was misbehaving. I hope that that matter will be investigated, because it sounds serious.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Three hon. Members have risen. I understand that the Front Bench spokesmen would like to reply to the debate at about 11·5 pm. I hope that we can include in the debate everyone who wants to speak.
10.36 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I should like to take up the comments of the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) about the use of the Stormont parliamentary buildings. I understand that the library can be used by former Ministers of either the power-sharing executive or the Stormont Parliament, by a number of researchers and by students. I see no satisfactory reason why Northern Ireland Members should not be able to use not only that facility but some of the others in parliamentary buildings for which taxpayers pay. I trust that the Minister will look into that matter which falls within either his remit or that of the Department of Finance and Personnel.
The right hon. Member for Strangford referred also to the road network in Castlereagh. My constituency joins Strangford at the Castlereagh roundabout. The road services section of the Department of Environment decided that it would be pleasant to have a 20 ft. high concrete flyover at that site. The local community disapproved of that proposal and fought it at the Belfast urban area plan hearing. I am glad to say that the fight was successful. I represented the local community at the hearing and we were delighted that it recommended that the flyover should not be constructed but that an "at grade" level improvement should be made. The Department has proposed that traffic lights should be installed at each of the roads that now enter the roundabout and that the roundabout should be removed.
A problem exists, of which the right hon. Member for Strangford will be aware. The Castledona estate is a congested area where, after much pleading with the Department, it was agreed that traffic lights were needed where the road met the dual carriageway. We have been told, however, that the necessary money is not immediately available in the budget for this financial year and it is doubtful whether it will be made available next year. A tragedy is likely to occur if that money is not made available in the next financial year. I ask the Under-Secretary who is to reply to the debate—it is his Department's spending to which we are referring—to move that further up his list of priorities to ensure that the expenditure for that work falls within the coming financial year.
I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who referred to the Fruit of the Loom proposal for Londonderry, that it would be a tragedy if the prospect of 500 jobs were lost, especially in an area where there is a clear need for more employment. It matters little to me—or, I suspect, to any other Unionist present tonight—whether those jobs go to those of nationalist or of Unionist persuasion. They are jobs for the Province, and I trust that the Minister responsible for that Department will do everything possible to ensure that they are secured for Northern Ireland.
In the same vein, a depressing article about the employment prospects in west Belfast appeared in this morning's edition of The Irish Times.It is clear that, as a part of the United Kingdom, west Belfast should enjoy the benefits of being a part of the United Kindom. Even though its elected representative may not come to the House and, therefore, does not plead the case for his
116
constituents, there is a clear need for more employment prospects for west Belfast. I trust that the Department will not chicken out and let the people of west Belfast down because it does not like their Member of Parliament. I suspect that, if that were the criterion, certain other constituencies might be treated none too favourably.
I trust that the Minister, who is now showing a special interest in Ulster Conservatism, will take a special look at the prospects for his party in west Belfast, and do something to encourage the people of that constituency to believe that the United Kingdom can provide job prospects in an area where there is a great deal of deprivation.
The Minister is a member of the East Belfast association of the Conservative party. I am sure that he will accept from me my concern about housing in my constituency, which he now wants to adopt. As the Minister responsible for the deplorable housing situation in east Belfast, he will know that the waiting list for that area alone demonstrates a housing need greater than the housing provision that is being made for Northern Ireland as a whole. There are more than 2,000 people on waiting lists looking for housing in east Belfast. Statistics that I have show that on the A priority and urgent needs lists alone, there are more than 500 people waiting for housing in east Belfast; that is as many houses as the Housing Executive will be building in the whole of Northern Ireland, if not more.
It is not just in relation to house building that the Government's policy of cuts has been affecting the people of Northern Ireland. We have people waiting to get essential repairs carried out. A survey of house conditions in 1987 showed that 8·4 per cent. of the housing stock in Northern Ireland was unfit, while 14·1 per cent. required substantial repair. The Housing Executive's own stock was also in need of repair. Around 60,000 of the executive's properties required improvement and upgrading. That is more than one third of the executive's stock, which has in any case been substantially reduced as a result of the house sales policy that the Government have pursued. Incidentally, I approve of that policy, but I do so because it should leave more public money available to put into the housing of the executive and to make money available to build more houses. The policy is not achieving either of those ends. We are finding that once the money from rents has gone towards the meagre house building programme, the executive has next to nothing left to maintain the properties that it holds.
I have no doubt that the Minister will play statistical ping-pong with us on this one. It is easier to juggle statistics than facts. As everyone knows in Northern Ireland, fewer houses are being built and the need for housing is increasing. The Minister is happy to hand the problem over to the private sector and to tell it to build the houses. He is oblivious to the fact that a large section of the community in Northern Ireland cannot afford to buy houses or pay the vastly increasing mortgage rates.
I am paying nearly twice as much on my mortgage as I paid two years ago. The terrible point is that the Government's policy towards rents in Northern Ireland means that rents have increased more than mortgages. The Department has a policy of increasing rents on a formula of inflation plus 5 per cent. By 1993 the average Housing Executive rent will be about £25 a week. That may not seem a lot of money by Great Britain standards, but houses cost three times as much elsewhere in Great Britain

117
as in Northern Ireland. There is much less disposable income for property after the higher prices have been paid for consumer goods in the Province. The Housing Executive's bid for funding has been cut by £13·7 million. We can imagine that the executive, in making its bid, took cognisance of the fact that the Minister's policy required it to cut back. It is cutting £13·7 million off an already pruned budget.
As chairman of the environment committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly I pressed the Government at the time to extend repair programmes to modern post-war housing in which the residents could not afford to carry out essential repairs. The executive has had to trim back its grants and to target those in greatest need. As a result, the importance of prevention is being overlooked and that is a false economy. If people cannot afford to have necessary repairs carried out, the condition of the houses will deteriorate. Therfore, the people will need alternative accommodation which the executive cannot afford to provide and we end up with all sorts of housing problems.
I plead with the Minister to deal with housing on the basis of need instead of in relation to the finance that he would like to provide for housing. The need for housing is increasing and that requires a substantial increase in finances into public sector housing in the Province, particularly when the Belfast urban area will allow the executive to consider new areas for house building for which I trust the Minister will provide sufficient funds.
I have a plea to make about the system of planning approvals in Northern Ireland. As an elected council representative, I become increasingly frustrated at the way in which planning applications are dealt with.
The right hon. Member for Strangford and I serve on the same district council. At our last council meeting, 25 per cent. of the planning applications that we were asked to consider were for buildings that had already been constructed. There is a now a policy of "build now, apply later". The Minister has done nothing to introduce a reasonable policy on ex post facto applications. People are thumbing their noses at the Minister. His planning department is a joke. People no longer need to go through the normal process of applying for planning permission, because they simply go ahead and build. They know that, by virtue of the fact that the building exists, the planning department will not have the guts to tell them that it would not have given permission in the first place and that enforcement action should be taken.
Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is serious that people can proceed to build without even having building control approval?
Mr. Robinson: Yes. There clearly needs to be a link between building control approval and planning permission so that both must be applied for, either at the same time or within a certain period.
During the life of the Northern Ireland Assembly, the environment committee put a proposal to the then responsible Minister that there should be a strict penalty for those who submit applications after buildings have already been constructed. We suggested that about 20 times the normal application fee should be applied to those persons. The Minister must do something when a quarter of the people who require planning permission apply when structures have already been erected. It is time for the
118
Minister to do something, rather than sitting, waiting and hoping that, perhaps, people will obey the law and act according to the regulations. Of course, they will not do so.
It is not just Joe Citizen—the ordinary wee guy who is building an extension on his garage—who is acting in that way. Major public companies such as Shorts are the main offenders in our area. That company has built fences around its property without submitting a planning application. It submitted a planning application only when local residents objected to the Berlin wall that it was building. In the knowledge that it required planning permission, it did the same on other sites in the Province. If that was not enough, it then put in an application to have three massive tanks constructed on its site on Alanbrooke road.
The council was naturally concerned that the chemicals that might be in the tanks might affect the local residents, and it asked for a site meeting. The council was given a date and time that was agreed by the security personnel at Shorts, but it was later cancelled by Shorts management, who would not allow councillors to go in. The management said that they would need the names and addresses of all the people involved before they would be allowed on to the premises.
In the past few days I have found out why Shorts did not want the councillors in. It was because the tanks were already constructed. The Minister should do something about that disgraceful situation. Large companies such as Shorts are breaching planning laws, and their bad example is being followed by many others.
I have had meetings with several groups in my constituency who look after the mentally and physically handicapped. They do a remarkable job. Because they have a special love for the handicapped, they devote almost the whole of their lives to looking after them. I have seen the effects on their lives. I know how much they have sacrificed. If they did not do so, there would be a significant charge upon the state. I see how little the Government do to give assistance and succour to those people, if only in terms of looking after a handicapped person for a matter of hours, days or even a weekend to allow their carers to have at least a break from their exertion.
I was speaking to a lady who has two handicapped children. She must carry one of them upstairs on her back. She does that every day, every week, every month, and every year. She cannot get anybody to take over that responsibility. Who, by way of neighbours and friends, is likely to take over that responsibility? I trust that the whole issue of respite care can be tackled by the Government.
Mr. Stott: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. Clearly, he speaks with a great deal of experience. When local government is working properly—I take it that in the Province it is not—in spite of the problems of i he past 10 years of Conservative Government, in the United Kingdom we have a system whereby people such as the hon. Gentleman described can get relief. They can go away on holiday and get a rest from what they do in their daily lives. The local social services committee in my constituency will provide social workers and other people from the department to give such people relief from the arduous tasks that they have to perform every day of their lives.
Mr. Robinson: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is encouraging that in some areas of the United Kingdom such assistance is given. In Northern Ireland, because of the restrictions on local government, local authorities have no responsibility in relation to the Department of Health and Social Services. Indeed, it would be ultra vices for local government to spend any money on such a respite care scheme. Therefore, it is left to charities. I know of only one charity that is making moves to do the work that the Government refuse thus far to do. There is a great need and I believe that most people in Northern Ireland have great sympathy with it. I trust that the Minister will encourage his colleague with the responsibility to take action to ensure some relief for those who have done so much for society. It is important that people who are handicapped, whether mentally or physically, are maintained as an integral part of society, rather than put into hospitals, homes or other types of organisational structure. I trust that the Minister will consider that issue.
10.56 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson). I draw the attention of the House to a remark in the commentary on public expenditure published in 1989:
"Take-up of disability benefits is difficult to measure, and there has been only limited information available about the numbers who might be eligible."
It is an indictment of the Department and the health boards that, despite a survey made some years ago, we still do not have accurate figures on those who need care because of their disability.
In that context, I should like to ask some questions about the vote on the Department of Health and Social Services. There is a growing waiting list in most hospitals except Musgrave park, where there has been a marked decline in the waiting list. That decline was brought about because the orthopaedic specialists got together, targeted areas of need and, using new computer techniques, reduced the waiting list drastically. In spite of that, the hospital could do with another specialist appointment to deal with rheumatoid arthritis in the orthopaedic department. If that one extra specialist were appointed, it would have a tremendous impact on the needs of people throughout Northern Ireland because it is a regional specialty. Are there any plans in the Department for the appointment of such a specialist?
Recently an ex gratia payment was made to the Haemophilia Society for those who have contracted HIV as a result of blood plasma transfusions. Will people in Northern Ireland who were so infected be recipients from the same grant, or will that be done through the Department's budget in Northern Ireland? If so, how many are involved? I understand that between 32 and 52 people in Great Britain were affected, not because they were haemophiliacs but because they went through the normal process of an operation and the blood transfusion that they received infected them. Nothing has been done for such people. Is there any record of the numbers of people so affected in Northern Ireland? Is the Department prepared to make an ex gratia payment that is equivalent to the £20,000 to help those people to meet their challenges and needs?
120
If agencies of the Government make mistakes, without blame being attached, I believe that there should at least be compensation for the victims.
There has recently been a court case about the restrictions of the social fund. I asked earlier about the use of the social fund in Northern Ireland. Has the Department in Northern Ireland taken account of the court order? Are people with genuine needs now receiving special payments outside the limited number that were granted according to the Department's guidelines? Is the money that has been set aside in vote 3 of the Department of Health and Social Services for
"the Belfast Social Security Centre and the paid order store at Lisahally as agent for the Department of Social Security"
coming from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund or from the general Great Britain allocation? We are always told that we are receiving more benefits than other areas.
Is the money in the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund used in the best interests of developing the Northern Ireland economy and for the training of Northern Ireland young people, or is it being returned to the Treasury because it is not being used for the purpose for which it was designated? In that context, I should like to ask about the discretionary grants from both the Departments of Education and of Health and Social Services that are aimed at helping young people to train. Is it a fact that we have restricted the number of people who are eligible for such grants in Northern Ireland when, if they lived in Great Britain, they would receive such grants, especially for training in physiotherapy, through the Department of Health offices at Blackpool and when, if they came from any other country, they would be entitled to similar grants? If they are eligible for training for a diploma in a university or college in Great Britain and the Northern Ireland Department says, "We have enough here—we don't want any more trained", are those young people being discriminated against, or is the Department finding other means of training them up to their capacity so that they may be useful servants, not only of the community in Northern Ireland, but of the nation as a whole and even further afield?
Finally—I have been pushing on because I realise the time—has the Minister been made aware of the concern about the working of the parliamentary commissioner? It is not so much that he is not doing his job properly, but the regulations under which he works are so restrictive that people are having their cases turned down—not because they do not have a case, but because the commissioner is not entitled to investigate it. If he is a commissioner who looks into maladministration, and if there is maladministration, is it not time that it should be investigated rather than the person concerned being told by the commissioner, "I'm sorry, I cannot look into your case"?
11.3 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: I thank the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) for finishing his speech quickly so as to allow me to make one or two comments. Obviously, I cannot make the type of speech that I had been planning. Because of the time restraints, I shall limit myself to two major points. First, I shall explain why I think that our debates on appropriation are important. Secondly, I shall elaborate on a point which I made earlier in an intervention.
The appropriation debates are important because they allow us to discuss bread and butter issues in Northern

121
Ireland. The material contained under the headings of the appropriation order are usually considered to be the stuff of politics that we deal with in the House day by day for the rest of the United Kingdom. The debates are less dramatic and arouse less emotion than those on the prevention of terrorism. They provide an opportunity to discuss issues affecting people's everyday lives and they should be given priority in our considerations. We should be allowed to develop economic and social policies which create the framework to solve some of the other problems in Northern Ireland.
The debates also allow us to discuss economic policy generally and to co-ordinate the various headings of the order. They are the nearest that we come to a Northern Ireland budget debate, separate from the general Budget provisions. Sometimes we get too bogged down in detail to discuss wider economic considerations.
In discussing economic policy we need to be aware that Northern Ireland is not an island, nor is the island of Ireland an island as wider issues of multi-national economies, such as Bombardier, European social and economic policies and the United Kingdom economy and budgetary position, are involved. They are relevant to our debates and to the policies which could begin to help create a different framework for Northern Ireland.
In an intervention I suggested that the social welfare policies discussed by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and others begin to be appropriate to Northern Ireland. The Government should take them on board, especially as all Northern Ireland Members, whatever their political complexion, are pressing for them. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) suggested economic interventionism. If interventionism produces bureaucratic problems, the answer to those problems is to seek devolution and a Bill of Rights. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that that is the constitutional answer and would provide the framework for these important developments.
The answers always seem to me to be democratic Socialist answers. Economic interventionism and social welfare are Socialist elements. The democratic side of Socialism attempts to get people together to control their destiny collectively.
11.8 pm
Mr. Roger Stott: We have had a diverse and interesting four-hour debate. Naturally, Northern'Ireland Members have spoken with feeling and a deep understanding of their constituencies about how the appropriation order impinges and should impinge on everyday life. I have listened with interest to practically all the speeches.
My speech will be relatively brief because it is important that the Minister has time to respond to the points made by the elected representatives of Northern Ireland. This is another piece of oratorical brilliance that will have to go on the cutting room floor.
I have two points to make briefly. The first relates to the section of the order dealing with the Department of the Environment and, particularly, the transportation provision. I know that the Minister recently had discussions in Dublin with the Republic's transport Ministers and I should be grateful if he would share his thinking with the House about how he sees cross-border co-operation to develop an integrated transport system.
122
In the past three years the Government have exhorted British industry and commerce to get into shape to meet the challenges of the internal market of 1992. My party has been critical of the way in which the Government have gone about that, but we agree with them that some strategic thinking is needed on that matter. If we are to take advantage of the huge internal market that will be created in 1992 we must remember that, geographically, Britain, and particularly the island of Ireland, will be on the periphery of Europe. It is, therefore, essential that our transport infrastructure is geared to facilitate the transportation of people, goods and materials to mainland Europe speedily and effectively.
After 1992 both parts of the island of Ireland will be in the internal market. Economic and trading borders will cease to exist and if the Republic and the North of Ireland are not to be marginalised, the integration of their transport systems is vital. The rapid transit freight facilities that will be provided by the Channel tunnel—if it is built—will be a major asset to the United Kingdom. If Britain is to be Ireland's landbridge to the continent decisions must be taken about the Euroroute to provide that link. To ensure that landbridge, the transportation links with the island of Ireland must be strengthened and improved. The rail line from Dublin to Belfast and on to Larne could play a vital role in the transportation of freight. I join the Minister and other hon. Members in their condemnation of terrorist attacks on that line. The paramilitaries should be told in the clearest terms that the Irish and British Governments and the people of Northern and southern Ireland are not intimidated by their actions.
Although I know that the Minister has no responsibility for British Rail, I hope that he has remonstrated with its board in the strongest possible terms about the inconvenience caused to the people of Northern Ireland by the withdrawal of the InterCity service between London and Stranraer. Instead of cutting services, we should be strengthening them.
I understand that British Rail is planning a rail freight terminal near Warrington in the north-west of England. If that is so, the British and Irish Governments should be looking to formulate a strategy to ensure that road, rail and ferry services are integrated so that freight from Dublin and Belfast, via Larne, Holyhead and Liverpool, can be transhipped to mainland Europe via the Channel tunnel speedily and effectively. I note that the Minister is smiling at that prospect and I hope that he and his Department are giving serious consideration to those problems. If the Minister and his counterparts in the South of Ireland fail to do so, Northern Ireland will be relegated to the periphery of economic activity after 1992.
The hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Mc(Grady) spoke about housing problems. Yet again, I put on record our appreciation of the work done by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Earlier this year I had a working dinner with members of that executive when we discussed many of the problems that it encounters. No doubt the Minister is aware that the executive's budget for this year has been cut by £13·7 million—the hon. Member for Belfast, East mentioned that-and that the new-build programme has been reduced from 1,300 starts to 1,000 starts.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East also outlined the problem of unfitness and disrepair in housing. I would add

123
the problem of homelessness because if the hon. Gentleman looks at the recent report by Shelter, he will realise that homelessness is a problem in Northern Ireland as well as in the United Kingdom. I fear that that problem will not be solved by the amount of money that the Government are putting into the budget for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
As the Minister only has a quarter of an hour to reply, I shall just mention briefly the question of rural housing. I mentioned it in Question Time last week, and I am sure that the Minister is aware of the real problem with rural housing in Northern Ireland. He must also be aware of the impositions placed upon the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and of the way in which the grant system applies to urban housing there but not to rural housing. If the Minister studied some of the recommendations made by Shelter for the organisation of the grant precedure and the redefinition of what people can get for housing improvements, some amelioration in rural housing in the Province would result.
I apologise to the House for the fact that I have taken only five minutes to reply to what has been said, but I think that the Minister ought to reply to the many significant points made by hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland.
11.10 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I am grateful to the 14 hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken for leaving me some time to respond to some of the themes in the debate. As the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said, it is not possible to answer all the questions in detail.
If the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) will allow me, perhaps I can write to him about some of the points that he raised. I shall try to ensure that letters to hon. Members in response to their questions are put in the Library so that they will be available to all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) effectively made points which received assent from hon. Members on both sides of the House. When I was west of the Bann yesterday I learned of some of the things said and done by those who have been most affected by the killings in his constituency. I do not want to give a running commentary on the hon. Gentleman's address—that would be totally improper of me—but the dignity and non-retaliation of many of the families of people who have been killed, and of those directly affected, and this applies as much to Belfast as it does to Mid-Ulster, is an inspiration to the rest of us. I am not suggesting that there is not a strong role for the security forces in anticipating and following up terrorist activity afterwards, but the families set an example that the rest of us should follow.
Occasionally, I feel that one of the tragedies is that Northern Ireland has some of the best politicians in the land—they are articulate and persuasive—but occasionally they are totally unable to agree with one another. That is not a criticism of them, but a description of fact. It is important to recognise that the faster we find effective ways—there are a number of them—of reducing the impact of terrorism, the sooner we shall be able to provide
124
the jobs and the justice that we come into politics to work for in our different ways, with our different insights and with our disagreements.
It is important to realise that there has been spending of some £6,000 million per year—between £3,000 and £4,000 per person—in Northern Ireland. It can be more effectively directed at people's needs if we can overcome or reduce the impact of terrorism. I say to those people who speak out publicly in Northern Ireland that those who manage to speak out against the terrorism that affects both sides of the community and everyone in Northern Ireland are setting an honourable example for the rest of us while the people behind the killers cause as much killing in their own community as they direct at those on the other side.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) asked about the possibility of helping those with disabilities to find employment and to take advantage of education. It is clearly much better to use money to help people work than to give them money solely on condition that they do nothing worth while. Many of the job training and other schemes are designed to do that. Much of the help for the disabled is designed to help people achieve something rather than sit back and do nothing. I will send the hon. Gentleman a more specific reply. If it is inadequate, he can take up the matter with me again.
It is not possible to undertake all the high priority road schemes at the same time. A deliberate decision was taken in Northern Ireland to spend more on housing and less on roads, because of the housing priorities. Tributes have been paid to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive for its remarkable achievements over the years. The money has been used well. It is still necessary for the Housing Executive to find the most efficient way of translating money into better homes, taking account of what the private sector does. I shall not produce the string of statistics foreseen by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), even though he is the Member of Parliament for the area in which my Conservative association is.
The Housing Executive has a gross budget of more than £500 million per year, so it should be possible to find more effective ways of carrying out its work each year. It is important that it should be answerable to the people in the districts. I pay tribute to the Housing Executive's determination to ensure that advice is available to people in both rural and urban areas. Shelter and other organisations have given a general welcome to the way in which the Housing Executive has extended the terms of some of the grants to recognise that owner-occupiers may sometimes live in homes as bad as any that they might otherwise have rented.
There is a determination to ensure that the rural improvement programme and the inter-departmental committee take an across-the-board approach to people's problems. It is no longer any good telling people that their problems do not match the way in which the authorities are organised; we must make sure that we are organised so as to match people's problems.
Mr. William Ross: Is the Minister prepared to put forward a scheme which, instead of offering repair money, replaces some of those poor rural homes?
Mr. Bottomley: We have not yet been able to agree on what the Housing Executive has put forward on this issue; it is under consideration. It is worth remembering that

125
many people want to avoid wholesale demolition of historic homes in the countryside. We want to find ways of maintaining our heritage, using replacement grants when that is sensible. I cannot promise that we have found the solution, but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly suggested, we must seek to move forward.
It is important to remember that the contribution of the private sector to housing has risen from 3,000 homes a year 10 years ago to 7,000 now. That enables the Housing Executive to reduce the number of new homes that it builds while spending more on rehabilitation. Tribute has been paid to some of the Housing Executive's imaginative schemes; the part-ownership schemes, for instance, are greatly appreciated by young people who would otherwise find it difficult to get a place on the ladder.
I shall leave questions about hospitals to my noble Friend in another place and to my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. I should not find it easy to give detailed responses in the remaining seven minutes.
Hon. Members on both sides have stressed the importance of recognising the carers and the need for respite care. The latter idea has been developed in the United Kingdom generally over the past 10 years. The Carers National Association and the Association of Carers, which have wisely joined forces, have done a great deal to help health authorities to provide the sort of help that is of real value, allowing people to remain in their homes for longer while lifting some of the burden from those who give themselves over for decades to the care of the handicapped and the elderly. Those who are rightly concerned with the care of children at least know that parents can usually sign off when their children are 16 or——
Mr. McNamara: Not mine.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman can speak from his family experiences, but I am trying to make this an impersonal debate, picking up the themes that affect many people in every constituency in Northern Ireland. I am sure that health authorities and social services—with the help of people in the community and with the help of professional staff such as doctors, nurses and others, not forgetting the voluntary groups—are doing their best to achieve a spectrum of care opportunities which allow people to do what they can without being broken by the experience.
Industrial development is too important a subject to leave to correspondence. Although some of the announcements do not come to fruition, the figures show that the Industrial Development Board is achieving an ever greater proportion of jobs referred to in the preliminary announcements. That is a tribute to its work. In the past few years, delivery of jobs has been at a higher ratio, leaving aside the Lear Fan business. The IDB is rightly to be congratulated on asking outsiders to examine its performance, and the results of that exercise will be built into its future work.
Questions were raised about LEDU. Experience in Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom have shown that small groups of jobs can make a dramatic difference to the earning opportunities of people in rural areas, and I think that there will be a greater concentration on that. I was delighted to note some of the diversifications in South Armagh, where with a little help people put together small businesses which provide employment not
126
only for the small-scale entrepreneur, but for others around him. I pay tribute to the interest that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has paid to that during the past eight years, in the same way as he has encouraged my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) as Minister with responsibility for the economy. It is a partnership to ensure that there is value for money as well as taking the opportunity to put on he public agenda the issues that individual Members of Parliament have discovered from their experiences or those of their constituents.
In the long run, flesh will be put on the development of the rural improvement programme, as well as that for the cities, through tourism. Some 45 million people in the United States know that they are Irish-Americans, Ulster-Scots and so on. About 8 per cent. of US citizens hold passports—unlike in Europe where about 60 per cent. of people hold passports—but that still amounts to some 20 million people and in the next few years we can look forward to more and more of them visiting Ireland. Indeed, I look forward to the Ulster-Canada year in 1991, when I hope that there will be many more tourists from Canada. I think that all those people are now beginning to believe that with their Irish connections they should visit Northern Ireland—and indeed the South—at least once during their lifetime, in the same way as people of Jewish origin visit Jerusalem or those of Islamic faith visit Mecca. If people claim to have a connection with Northern Ireland, they should stand at Navan Fort and look at the twin cathedrals of Armagh or go fishing in Fermanagh. Changes in the approach to tourism will increasingly make people realise what they can gain from visiting Northern Ireland. One of the tragedies of the necessary media attention to bombs, bullets and bigotry is that sometimes it squeezes out other things for which Northern Ireland would otherwise be known.
It is of benefit to the South, too, if terrorism can be extirpated and eliminated and if the conditions that people currently tolerated can be improved. That involves not only the security forces, but the attitudes of the people. They want to feel that jobs and justice are coming.
Perhaps I could finish by talking about links with the South. It is criminal in every sense for the railway line to be blown up. The railway crossing accident shows by mistake what the IRA is trying to do deliberately. The IRA relies on the emergency services, Northern Ireland Railways and the security forces to make sure that bombs placed on the line to Dublin do not explode and cause a crash. During the inquiry into the level crossing crash we may find that everything was not done perfectly. That is the reason for the inquiry and I hope that the information given in the debate will go to the inspector. If anyone has any information, he should put it forward. That is what we in the Department of the Environment will do.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Bottomley: It is difficult to give way when only 30 seconds remain of the debate, but I will do so.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister look at that crossing? Will he note that it has inclines on both approaches causing a loss of visibility to car drivers?
Mr. Bottomley: I will make sure that the inspector looks at all the issues.

127
This has been a useful debate and I hope that the appropriation receives the approval of the House.
It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 13th February, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

  NORTHERN IRELAND (LICENSING)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Licensing (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 18th January, be approved.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day

  Capital Allowances Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  11.31 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill consolidates certain enactments relating to capital allowances. The last such consolidation took place in 1968 and the additions and amendments to the law made by each subsequent Finance Act have made a new consolidation exercise necessary. The Bill is pure consolidation; no amendment to the present law is made. It represents a further stage in the continuing programme of consolidation of revenue legislation, and comes just two years after the consolidation of enactments relating to income tax and corporation tax.
  I am sure that the House will wish me to acknowledge once again our debt of gratitude to the draftsmen for their considerable achievements in producing the Bill. It has been passed in another place where, in the usual way, it was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation, which reported that the Bill, as amended by the Committee, is pure consolidation.
  11.32 pm
  Mr. John Fraser: When I saw the Bill and looked at the Irish business, I wished that the House had licensing hours. I shall simply assume that the landlord has called last orders and do no more than congratulate the draftsmen on their splendid work in consolidating these measures and on making life easier for layman and practitioner alike.
  11.33 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Hanley: If my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General is permitted to speak again, perhaps he will tell us whether he believes that the clause numbers in the Bill will remain the same until final publication. That would help many people who need the Bill for technical purposes. I should also be grateful if my right hon. and learned Friend would tell us whether there are to be any further amendments.
  11.34 pm
  The Solicitor General: By leave of the House, may I say that I would not expect any further amendments, but I hope that my hon. Friend will know the answer in about 45 seconds.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

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

      HOUSING
      That the draft Housing Corporation Advances (Increase of Limit) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 20th February, be approved.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
      Question agreed to.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That, at the next sitting of the House on which numbers for defence services or estimates are put down for consideration, Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) shall apply with the following modifications—

    (1) as if the words '(aa) supplementary votes on account for the comng financial year;' were inserted after line 22; and

    (2) as if the words `for the coming financial year' in lines 5 and 21 were omitted.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

    PETITIONS

      Human Embryo
      11.35 pm
      Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am very pleased to present formally petitions from the constituents of Norwich, North and from residents of Norwich and Norfolk. They concern the protection of the human embryo. The number of names on the two petitions totals 405. The petitions read:
      Wherefore your petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which, (a) forbids any procedure that involves the purchase or sale of human embryos, the discarding or freezing of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue, or as subjects of research or experiments, unless this is done solely for the benefit of the embryo concerned, and (b) forbids all forms of trans-species fertilisation.
      Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray, &c.
      To lie upon the Table.

  Speech Therapy Services
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
  11.36 pm
  Mrs. Ray Michie: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the subject of speech therapy services. While I appreciate that the Under-Secretary of State for Health will only be able to answer primarily for England and Wales—and I would not have it otherwise, because Scotland is supposed to run its own Health Service—the generality pertains to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  The Minister may be aware that my interest in the provision of speech therapy services stems from my membership of the College of Speech Therapists, and I have the honour to be one of its vice-presidents. Prior to entering the House, I was a practising speech therapist, and managed the service for the Argyll and Clyde health board.
  The organisation of speech therapy services has evolved over the years. Prior to 1974 they were managed by local health and education authorities. After 1974, they came under the auspices of the National Health Service. That was a good move, because it provided an opportunity to develop a comprehensive and integrated service for both NHS patients and education departments. The latter was of prime importance to the thousands of children requiring help with their speech.
  Between 1974 and 1980, speech therapy managers developed the service in each health authority or health board. Some had greater success than others, depending on available resources. But the model was there for allowing the employment and deployment of speech therapy manpower offering a variety of expertise and specialisms to meet the large number of different communication problems. They ranged from learning difficulties and stammering to patients suffering from strokes, head injuries, cleft palates, and Parkinson's disease, to name but a few examples.
  The model also provided wide clinical opportunities for student training and the sharing of expensive equipment. Most important of all, it encouraged a team approach throughout an area, providing valuable support, in particular, to speech therapists who have to work on their own. Many still do so, particularly in rural areas.
  Unfortunately, since 1980, the profession has been caught up in a series of NHS reorganisations and restructurings that have done nothing for continuity. On the contrary, they have led once again to fragmentation of management and of provision. No sooner had people adapted to one restructuring and tried to manage with it than they found themselves being overtaken by yet another.
  I stress that this is a small profession. Even fully staffed, it will always be small in the context of the large numbers of people employed in the Health Service. It is therefore not sensible or cost-effective, nor is it an indication of good man or woman management, to allow the profession to be broken up into little bits and pieces at unit, sub-unit or locality level, each trying to do its own thing and still service the wide range of problems. It really is a very narrow and restricted outlook that leads to the belief that every service and profession in the National Health Service can or should be delivered in the same way.

  131
  The results of the most recent research—carried out by Enderby and Davies, and funded by the Department of Health—were published in the December 1989 issue of the "British Journal of Disorders of Communication." That research concerned, in the first place, the size of the speech and language impairment problem. The results indicated that in the United Kingdom there are 2·.3 million people with a speech and/or language disorder. Of those, 800,000 have a severe communication difficulty; in other words, they have difficulty in making themselves understood by anyone other than their immediate family. Then there are 1·5 million who have a moderate communication disorder—that is, a speech and/or language problem that is noticeable to the lay person.
  Enderby and Davies estimate that, under present patterns of speech therapy provision, 26 qualified speech therapists may be required per 100,000 of the population. This is four times as many therapists as are currently employed. There has certainly been growth in the numbers and service since 1972—most of it took place between 1974 and 1980—but the expansion has not kept pace with the need and with the realisation of what a comparatively young profession can do. The Minister will say that extra money has been put into the service, and that there has been an increase in the number of therapists. I appreciate that, but it does not meet the reality of the situation.
  Services have developed very patchily. For example, Government figures indicate a variation in provision from 22 speech therapists per 100,000 in Hampstead to two per 100,000 in Hereford—to say nothing of the Greater Glasgow health board area, where 18 speech therapy posts have been frozen or are unfilled because of financial constraints. The average figure is 5·9 therapists per 100,000 people: no improvement on the Quirk report, which, in 1972, almost 20 years ago—on figures based on hospitals alone—suggested that it was necessary to have six speech therapists per 100,000 of the population.
  Of course, recruitment and retention of staff are of fundamental importance. Success will depend to a large extent on the provision of decent salaries. The present salaries do not reflect the qualifications, knowledge, expertise and dedication of speech therapists. They remain significantly lower than those of other professionals requiring similar qualifications. I often wonder whether this is because 98 per cent. of the people in the profession are female. Of course, in so many occupations in this country females have traditionally been low paid. On 1 December 1989, a speech therapist wrote to me, stating:
  "I hope we achieve something for the young therapists—too late for me at the end of my career.
  I qualified in 1956 and after 33 years earn the princely sum—£10,974!! Good job I have a husband!!"
  What about all the therapists who cannot call on their husbands for help?
  It is vital to retain an open self-referral system. That does not mean writing a blank cheque. The system is already restricted by the number of therapists available and the size of the budget allocated. Sadly, there is still a great deal of ignorance, which is not confined to the general public but is evident also in the medical profession where, if it were left to people in the profession to refer, many patients would be missed or ignored. That will continue unless the therapist can continue accepting open referrals and retains the right to assess, treat and discharge
  132
  his or her patients. Too often those who think that they should refer patients to speech therapists say, "Oh, they will grow out of it", or, "Nothing can be done."
  I am deeply worried about a proposal to meet the need on the cheap by introducing a three-tier profession. It will not work and will mean a downgrading of the profession and the service available. I shall try to explain why. At present, there is a speech therapy helper or assistant grade, but it has never been successful on an extensive basis because there are not enough qualified therapists to supervise. An assistant tends to be allocated to a speech therapist who works at a number of different locations, such as schools and health centres, and if that therapist leaves the post and it is not filled the assistant is on her own and is unable to work because there is no direction or supervision. One could argue that he or she could be deployed elsewhere, but that is unlikely to happen if the management of the service has been fragmented. To introduce a second tier of therapists, half-trained for 18 months, is certainly not the answer. I know that schools and education authorities in particular have already said that they will not accept second best for their children.
  I wonder whether the Minister knows that increased secretarial help would go a considerable way towards freeing therapists to concentrate almost entirely on hands-on patient and client care. That option should be seriously considered before we travel down the dead-end road of a second tier. Whatever plans are afoot, I hope that the Minister will first consult and involve those responsible in the College of Speech Therapists. They are more than willing to help. With respect, all the civil servants in the world, excellent as they may be, cannot and should not be asked to come up with a solution, because they do not know what happens.
  I am aware that members of the college met the Minister of State on 28 February and that there are to be further meetings with Department of Health officials in April. The college officials are delighted that these meetings are taking place.
  The achievement of a better service must surely be treated as a separate exercise because the NHS reforms and the National Health Service and Community Care Bill, which is going through the House at the moment, do not give the answer. Speech therapy is part of the National Health Service, but which reform will increase the number of therapists? And precisely which reform will equalise the service to patients throughout the country or see to it that speech therapists are paid a salary that reflects their qualifications and expertise so that health authorities can attract and recruit women and men to the profession and retain them once they are there?
  Sometimes I think that little will be achieved until there is greater understanding of the problem among the general public. The profession has certainly tried to do something about that—for example, by its excellent "Speak Week" last week, which publicised the problems of communication handicapped people.
  There needs to be greater understanding by the Government and the health authorities, too, because there remains a great deal of ignorance. Ministers keep saying that the level of speech therapy service to be provided will, as now, be a matter for determination by the district health authorities, in the light of local circumstances and of their assessment of priorities and available resources. But too often health authorities and health boards tend to treat speech therapy as a Cinderella service that is of no great

  133
  importance because the inability to communicate is not a life-threatening disorder. Matters will not improve unless the Government demand of the health authorities that they face up to their responsibilities to the communication handicapped and provide a decent service.
  No one except those affected can fully appreciate the terrible sense of isolation—the deep psychological trauma—of those who have lost the ability to communicate. No one can understand the embarrassment and turning in on themselves and hurt—what has been described by many patients as an inner death—that patients suffer when they can no longer talk even to their own families. A speech and language problem is not visible to the world outside. Dysphasia is not supported by a zimmer; a stammer is not held in a sling; a laryngectomy is not in a plaster cast.
  I am grateful to the Minister for having listened. I dare to say that I am optimistic that he will have a greater understanding of the needs of the communication impaired and the speech therapy profession than any of his predecessors.
  11.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Roger Freeman): I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who is an expert in the field, having been a practising speech therapist, on initiating the debate. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the hon. Lady if my voice is not what it normally should be.
  This has been a valuable debate. Not only has it provided a valuable education for me—there is nothing like an Adjournment debate to focus one's attention and encourage one to learn what one can with the benefit of advice from officials—but it has given the Government the opportunity to put on record for the first time for a number of years the valuable contribution that speech therapists make. It is not a Cinderella service; it is an important service.
  I would not dissociate myself from the hon. Lady's estimate of the number of people with a communication problem. She said that the figure was 2·3 million, of whom perhaps 800,000 suffer some form of severe disability. That is the order of magnitude of the problem. That is very much greater than the estimate that was made 20 years ago by the Quirk committee. The service is important, and it is increasingly recognised by the Department of Health and by the NHS.
  I want briefly to refer to the expansion in the service over the past 10 years. The hon. Lady reminded the House that there has been an expansion. The record should show that expenditure on the speech therapy service in England has increased by more than 120 per cent. in real terms since 1979. That is a phenomenal increase. Between 1979 and 1988, the number of speech therapists employed in England increased by 80 per cent., and for Great Britain as a whole by 65 per cent. Those are impressive numbers, although I accept the thrust of the hon. Lady's argument that more needs to be done.
  Since 1979, speech therapists have benefited from an increase in pay of 20 per cent. in real terms. It is interesting to note that the profession has recently accepted a 9 per cent. pay settlement for the 18-month period from 1 April 1989 to 30 September 1990. I appreciate the hon. Lady's
  134
  comments about that increase in relation to other professions, but it includes the benefit of that 9 per cent. pay rise.
  I assure the hon. Lady that we are committed to a proper review of the grading structure for speech therapists towards the end of the year. We have brought that review forward at the request of the profession, and we are committed to it. I understand that, between 1989 and 1990, regional health authority plans in England suggest that the profession will be expanded by a further 5 per cent.
  So much for the past. The hon. Lady rightly said that a recent study by Enderby and Davies recommended the need for a fourfold expansion of the service. She poured a little cold water on the idea of a three-tier profession, and I can understand why she did so. However, it is important for the House to appreciate that demographic factors alone will make it very difficult for us to expand the service to the extent to which she referred, a fourfold increase.
  There are two things that we can and should do in relation to the expansion of the profession. First, to meet the hon. Lady's point about clerical assistance, there is a good case for expanding the number of assistants available to qualified speech therapists. There were only 40 assistants available at the most recent count, which I believe was in 1987. We can and should expand the use of assistants to relieve some of the relatively mundane and clerical tasks of the profession.
  Secondly, we should discuss further with the College of Speech Therapists the introduction of another grade, perhaps less qualified than the fully qualified speech therapist, to provide appropriate assistance for the qualified members of the profession. We must be flexible in our approach, because we must further expand the service, and, without looking at other ways of increasing numbers, we shall not succeed as we all wish.
  I now consider the main burden of the hon. Lady's comments, which concern the NHS reforms and the White Paper. The hon. Lady is concerned about the fragmentation of the profession. Those fears were repeated when representatives of the profession recently met my hon. Friend the Minister for Health. I do not share those concerns because we are placing on district health authorities the responsibility to plan for all aspects of the health care needs of all who live within the district boundary, and that includes the need for speech therapy.
  For the first time we have placed on health authorities a clear responsibility to plan. Incidentally, we have preserved the right to local access where NHS trusts might be established. Speech therapy, like many other services, can—and I am sure will—be designated as core, or necessary, services for a local community and therefore must be provided by NHS trusts.
  In most cases, when preparing a contract for speech therapy, a district health authority will be able to deal with speech therapists—the professional group to the district—as a whole. From consultations with occupational therapists, I am well aware of the fears about fragmentation. I made it plain in another debate that there is no reason for such fears. The professional group within the district can and should remain intact. It seems only sensible that contracts written by the purchasers of health care should respect that integration and cohesion necessary for planning, recruitment, morale and retention in the writing of contracts.

  135
  The hon. Lady referred to open referral. I assure her that we have no plans to change that. The figures show that 40 per cent. of referrals come from consultants or GPs, but the majority come from those working in the community such as health visitors, local education authorities or from individuals referring themselves for treatment. We have no plans to change that. Open referral is an important principle that should and will remain.
  We have no plans to cloud or affect the clinical autonomy of the profession and the professional group operating within a particular district health authority. It is important that that should be maintained. Very often, professional groups are concerned that there is nothing specifically in the White Paper, "Working for Patients", referring to them, so they fear that they are being neglected or forgotten. The White Paper was all about introducing a new structure for the organisation of health care. It
  136
  contained no reference to speech therapists, and the same is true for many other professional groups, but I can offer the hon. Lady two assurances.
  First, nothing in the White Paper would prejudice the provision of services by speech therapists. They are an important group, their services are needed and they will expand. Secondly, the hon. Lady laid great stress on consultation. I assure her that the Department will work closely with the College of Speech Therapists in planning the future expansion and provision of services.
  It is our intention to work in true partnership and co-operation with that most important professional body to achieve what the hon. Lady and the Government seek to achieve—the expansion of the service within available resources and within the constraints of the demographic trough and to provide the best quality of speech therapy services for the greatest number of people.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Teachers (Unfair Dismissal)
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure that teachers will be properly protected from unfair dismissal by boards of governors having regard to the additional new powers being conferred on such boards.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The employment of teachers in schools in Northern Ireland will continue to be subject to the normal contracts of employment and the protection afforded by employment legislation. Where a board of governors has the power to require a teacher to cease work at a school the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 lays down clear procedures which must be followed. These provide for the employing authority to give advice to the board of governors in each case and for

  Establishment

  Number of incidents recorded—convicted prisoners

  Number of incidents recorded—unconvicted prisoners

  Total

  Her Majesty's Prison Belfast

  9

  28

  37

  Her Majesty's Prison Magilligan

  3

  —

  3

  Her Majesty's Prison Maze

  3

  —

  3

  Her Majesty's Prison Maghaberry

  3

  2

  5

  Her Majesty's Young Offenders Centre Hydebank

  2

  1

  3

  Pre-School Education
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will review the availability and quality of pre-school education in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: Responsibility for services for pre-school children is shared between the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Education for Northern Ireland.

  As part of a broader review of health and social services boards' policy on child care, the social services inspectorate of the Department of Health and Social Services is currently undertaking an examination of the level of daycare provision available for young children. The results of this review will be available shortly. Day care facilities are required to be registered by the boards, and the quality of care provided in them is monitored by regular visits by social workers.

  The availability of nursery education for children under compulsory school age in nursery schools and nursery classes in primary schools is kept under review by the Department of Education, but in recent years limited
  2
  the teacher concerned to have an opportunity to make representations before a decision is taken, and a subsequent right of appeal.

  I shall be taking steps to ensure that forthcoming guidance to employing authorities in relation to local management of schools will stress the need for appropriate advice, support and training to be given to boards of governors in relation to their new powers in this area.

  The Department of Education (NI) will also, after consultation with interested parties, be making an order modifying present employment legislation relating to the employer-employee relationship in order to ensure that the powers of boards of governors are matched by corresponding obligations.

  Suicides
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many attempted suicides were recorded in Northern Ireland during 1989 at(a) prison establishments, (b) remand establishments and (c) young offenders centres; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  The precise information requested is not available as it is not possible always to distinguish between an attempted suicide and self-inflicted injury perpetrated for other reasons.

  The table records incidents of self-inflicted injury in Northern Ireland prison service establishments during 1989:

  resources for school building have made it necessary to give priority to provision for children of compulsory school age. The Department of Education monitors the quality of nursery education being provided through its inspectorate's programme of school inspections and visits.

ENERGY

  Natural Gas
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) at what pressure, in the pipeline used to distribute natural gas in the United Kingdom, the natural gas is contained in(a) the high pressure regional transmission line, (b) the national transmission line, (c) the medium pressure distribution line and (d) the low pressure distribution line;

  (2) how many kilometres of pipeline are used to distribute natural gas in the United Kingdom;

  (3) of the total number of kilometres of pipeline used to distribute natural gas in the United Kingdom, how many kilometres are (a) high pressure regional transmission line, (b) national transmission line, (c) medium pressure distribution line and (d) low pressure distribution line;
  3
  (4) what is the age of the pipeline used to distribute natural gas in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Wakeham
  These are matters for British Gas plc.

  Gas Meters
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give precise figures for the results of the sample study of 100 meters mentioned in the 1989 Office of Gas Supply annual report concerning the relative accuracy of synthetic diaphragm meters and leather diaphragm meters.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The study referred to was commissioned by the Office of Gas Supply. It is therefore a matter for Ofgas.

  Privatisation
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the activities his Department will carry out after the privatisation of the electricity industry and British Coal.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department will carry out such activities as are appropriate to the achievement of its objectives as stated in chapter 5 (energy) of "Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 1992–93" (Cm. 1005).

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Total expenditure on fees paid to outside organisations in relation to the privatisation of Amersham International, Britoil and Enterprise Oil could not be provided without incurring disproportionate cost. Fees paid to outside organisations in the case of the privatisation of British Gas and in the preparation for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales are:

  £ million

  British Gas

  ESI

  1985–86

  1·4

  —

  1986–87

  162·4

  —

  1987–88

  10·5

  0·8

  1988–89

  11·1

  5·5

  11989–90

  2·2

  16·0

  1 Estimated outturn.

  Estimated expenditure for 1990–91 will be published as part of the supply estimates later this month.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The staffing of my Department's press office, including the speech-writing unit, is currently 13. There are no vacancies and no decisions have been made to change the complement for 1990–91.
  4
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The estimated expenditure in 1989–90 is £615,000. This figure includes:

  (i) forecast expenditure by the Press Office.

  (ii) staff costs (salaries, accommodation and common services) for all permanent information service and support staff currently in post in the press office (including the speech-writing unit).

  The corresponding expenditure for previous years is as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  475,000

  1987–88

  460,000

  1986–87

  293,000

  Expenditure for the years prior to 1986–87 is not available on a comparable basis. Currently proposed expenditure for 1990–91 is £655,000.

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

  Mr. Wakeham
  The latest figures are given in the table. There is one vacancy at statistician level. Complements for 1990–91 are under review.

  Grade

  Staff numbers

  Statistician grades

  Chief statistician

  1

  Statistician

  5

  Assistant statistician

  2

  Sub-total

  8

  Economist grades

  Senior economic advisor

  3

  Senior principal economic advisor

  2

  Economic advisor

  9·5

  Senior economic assistant

  3

  Economic assistant

  1

  Sub-total

  18·5

  Administrative and senior open structure grades

  Grade 3

  1

  Grade 7

  1

  Senior executive officer

  5

  Higher executive officer

  7

  Executive officer

  11

  Administrative officer

  10

  Senior personal secretary

  1

  Personal secretary

  4

  Sub-total

  40

  TOTAL

  66·5

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c)

  £'000

  Television Advertising

  Newspaper Advertising

  Radio Advertising

  Other Promotional Material

  1989–902

  0

  895

  0

  1,066

  1988–89

  0

  2,378

  4

  1,313

  1987–88

  0

  1,513

  0

  959

  1986–87

  16,300

  11,830

  1,219

  1,125

  1985–86

  2,212

  1,589

  0

  1—

  1984–85

  1,302

  1,572

  27

  1—

  1983–84

  682

  1,770

  50

  1—

  1982–83

  292

  955

  0

  1—

  1981–82

  2,550

  530

  0

  1—

  1980–81

  1,500

  1,590

  0

  1—

  1979–80

  20

  1,280

  0

  1—

  Notes:

  1 Expenditure on Other Promotional Material prior to 1986–87 is not available on a comparable basis.

  2 Latest forecast.

  Detailed decisions on expenditure by media in 1990–91 have not yet been taken.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) on 13 March 1989,Official Report, column 20.

  The actual expenditure in 1988–89 and the estimated expenditure in the following two years is as follows:

  Financial year

  £

  1988–89

  27,496

  1989–90

  6,000

  1990–91

  12,000

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, columns 455–58, whether Dewe Rogerson submitted the lowest tender for the contract it obtained in February.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In appointing advisers, the Department considers all the relevant factors including price, experience, capability and value for money. The relative merits of candidates, on any of these factors, is commercially sensitive and it is the Government's established practice not to reveal information on performance of candidates in tender competitions.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, columns 455–58, how many companies were invited to tender for the contracts awarded to each of the advisers listed in his reply with the exception of the UKAEA,
  6
  newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information requested is as follows:

  Nuclear Services Group and Dewe Rogerson; what were the names of the unsuccessful tenderers; and whether the tender accepted was the lowest.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is my Department's policy to award contracts whenever possible by competitive tender, thus securing competitive rates for work. This procedure has been followed for the majority of the contracts awarded to the companies listed in my earlier reply. Details of individual cases are commercially confidential.

  Kleinwort Benson
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on how many occasions and for what purpose his Department has commissioned work from Kleinwort Benson since July 1988.

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the role of Messrs Kleinwort Benson in the planned privatisation of electricity; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has commissioned work from Kleinwort Benson on a continuing basis since its appointment as our financial adviser to the flotation of the electricity industry.

  Waste Heat
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has made an assessment of the waste heat generated by radio and television transmission stations; what investigations are taking place on how to enable the use of this waste heat; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Equipment for such purposes is available from equipment suppliers, and I understand that following discussions with my Energy Efficiency Office some four years ago the BBC now makes use of such waste heat where it is practical to do so and has initiated a plan to improve energy efficiency in all its operations.

  Oil Dumping
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what quantity of oil is dumped each year into the North sea from drilling; what assessment he has made of the environmental impact of such dumping; and if he has any plans to prohibit this practice.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The annual report published by the Department of Energy on "Development of the Oil and Gas Resources of the United Kingdom" lists the quantity of oil discharged with drill cuttings into the sea since 1981. In 1988 the amount, from 265 wells, was 19,480 tonnes (73·5 te/well). For 1989 the figure is in the region of 12,260 tonnes from 257 wells (47·7 te/well).

  The reduction from 1988 to 1989 is due to the requirement that, as from 1 January 1989, the maximum oil on cuttings permitted to be discharged to the sea was 150 grammes oil/kilogramme cuttings.

  All operators who wish to use oil-based drilling muds on production and development wells must undertake a programme of defined seabed surveys. The decision to restrict the level of oil on cuttings to 150 grammes/kilogramme was based on the results of these environmental surveys.

  Admissions 1985–89

  Year

  Science museum (South Kensington)

  National railway museum (York)

  National museum of photography, film and television (Bradford)

  1985

  2,738,900

  1,113,700

  549,900

  1986

  2,994,500

  932,900

  677,300

  1987

  3,116,300

  649,800

  702,700

  1988

  2,261,000

  565,600

  824,800

  1989

  1,121,100

  542,700

  736,400

  Figures for the years before charges were introduced are estimated attendances. I understand that admission charges were introduced at the national railway museum, York in April 1987 and at the science museum in October 1988. There are no admission charges to the national museum of photography, film and television, Bradford.

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

  Mr. Luce
  The Office of Arts and Libraries has no statistical divisions or posts.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts (1) what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91;
  8
  The North sea conference this week adopted the following provisions:

  (i) Each North Sea country will develop National plans by 1991 aimed at prohibiting the discharges of oil contaminated cuttings; these plans are to be presented to the Paris Commission in 1991.

  (ii) All discharges of oil contaminated cuttings from exploration and appraisal wells will be prohibited by 1994.

  (iii) The Paris Commission is to decide not later than 1992, based upon work to be carried out by the Commission, on a practical and achievable date for prohibiting the discharge of all oil contaminated cuttings.

THE ARTS

  Science Museum
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will give the attendance figures at(a) the South Kensington site, (b) the Bradford site and (c) the York site of the science museum for each of the last five years; and if he will indicate at what date charges were introduced at each site.

  Mr. Luce
  I am advised that the number of admissions at the science museum and the following outstations for the years 1985 to 1989 are as follows:

  (2) what was the total expenditure by his office on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Luce
  The Office of Arts and Libraries is serviced by the press office of the Cabinet Office. I therefore refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to his corresponding questions in respect of the Cabinet Office.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Luce
  None.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what were the figures for the spending by his office on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Luce
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to his corresponding question in respect of the Cabinet Office.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what were the total fees paid out by his office to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Luce
  The Office of Arts and Libraries was established in July 1983. No management consultants have been employed.

  Arts Council
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Minister for the Arts whether he will publish a list of all Arts Council clients that have a current deficit.

  Mr. Luce
  [holding answer 8 March 1990]: The Arts Council advises me that precise information cannot be provided until final end-year figures are available, as the financial position of arts organisations is constantly changing. In the latest survey, 43 of the Arts Council's 140 clients were projecting a deficit. Many of these were small, and most of the arts organisations concerned have put in hand action to remedy them.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Developing Countries (Debt)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has made representations to encourage British commercial banks to write down debts owed by developing countries in line with their increased provisions set aside to cover those debts.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has made no such representations. It is for commercial banks to decide whether to write down debts owed by developing countries, in line with their own commercial judgments.

  Invisible Trade
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual total United Kingdom trade surplus in invisibles in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Estimates are available as series AIMB on the Central Statistical Office databases which is accessible via the Library.

  Family Expenditure
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of how much in combination the increases in electricity, gas, water charges, mortgage repayments and the poll tax will cost in 1990–91 as against 1989–90, for a family on average earnings with two children.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  I regret that I am unable to provide this calculation.

  Contingency Reserve
  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current level of the contingency reserve.
  10
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The reserve for 1990–91 has been set at £3 billion, as announced in the 1989 Autumn Statement.

  Private Medical Insurance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the private medical insurance industry concerning the extension of the present tax reliefs on private medical insurance.

  Mr. Lilley
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has received a number of representations.

  Works of Art
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how works of art donated to the nation in lieu of Inland Revenue debts are accounted for in the budget for arts and libraries and the public expenditure planning system.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  When a work of art is accepted in lieu of tax, the Inland Revenue is reimbursed for the tax forgone. Both the Office of Arts and Libraries and the Department of the Environment have vote provision to make such payments: in 1989–90 this amounted to £1 million for each of them. This provision forms part of their respective public expenditure programmes.

  Also, as announced on 26 July 1985, this provision may be supplemented by access to the reserve for up to £10 million in any one year for large and important offers. When such offers are accepted, parliamentary approval for the extra provision is obtained by a supplementary estimate. This access to the reserve does not add to the planned total of public expenditure. No compensating reductions are sought from the Office of Arts and Libraries or the Department of the Environment when such access is granted.

  National Income
  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage, in the latest available year, of the national income of the United Kingdom was made up of wages and salaries.

  Mr. Major
  During 1988, the latest available year, wages and salaries made up 63·5 per cent. of national income.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Lilley
  The information the hon. Member requests is already available in the appropriation accounts for the departments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the relevant years. The relevant expenditure recorded in those accounts includes fees paid to outside organisations but those fees could not be identified separately except at disproportionate cost. Costs incurred by Her Majesty's Treasury in connection with the privatisation programme in 1989–90 and 1990–91 will be reported to Parliament in due course in the usual way.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish figures showing, for each region, total investment by companies in plant and machinery.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: The available data relate to capital expenditure in manufacturing industry. Figures for 1987, the latest available year, are given in the table:

  Net capital expenditure in manufacturing industry1 on plant and machinery in 1987 by standard region of the United Kingdom

  Region

  £ million

  North

  491

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  882

  East Midlands

  610

  East Anglia

  258

  South East

  1,964

  South West

  509

  West Midlands

  878

  North West

  956

  Wales

  523

  Scotland

  566

  Northern Ireland

  171

  1 Divisions 2 to 4, Standard Industrial Classification, revised 1980.

  Source: Annual Census of Production.

WALES

  Library Services
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many applications have been made by district councils in Wales, which are not library authorities, for an order under subsection (2) of clause 207 of the Local Government Act 1972, to operate library services.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  A total of 15 district councils in Wales, which were not then library authorities, made application under this provision in the period before its expiry on 1 April 1974.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he intends to amend section 207 of the Local Government Act 1972, in respect of the provision of library services in Wales.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has no present intention of doing so.

  Meibion Glyndŵr
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many letters he has received claiming to know the identity of Meibion Glyndŵr and claiming the £50,000 reward offered for such information; on what dates these letters were received; and what action he has taken.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I have received two letters claiming to know the identity of Meibion Glyndŵr during the past year. Both have been forwarded to the Home Office.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to secure a transcript of all the comments made in the conference held in Aberystwyth on Saturday 23 February on the need for a new Welsh language Act; and if he will make a statement in response to such an Act.
  12
  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has already received a report on the conference held in Aberystwyth on 23 February. Careful consideration is being given to the legislative proposals submitted by the Welsh Language Board.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many courses are currently offered in the Welsh language in(a) Gwynedd technical college, (b) Llandrillo tech and (c) the North East Wales institute of higher education; and if he will name the courses and the number of students currently on each one.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Course details and the number of students currently taking courses in the Welsh language are not readily available. Information is held only in respect of bilingual further education courses by vocational subject areas at the three institutions:

  (a) Gwynedd Technical College—Secretarial, Business and Commerce, Nursery Nursing, Catering, Home Economics, Community Care, Communication.

  (b) Llandrillo Technical College—Secretarial. Business and Commerce

  (c) North East Wales Institute of Higher Education—Business and Commerce, Nursery Nursing, Technician.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many courses in the Welsh language will be offered in(a) Clwyd college and (b) Gwynedd college following the implementation of programmes on tertiary education in both counties.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has not received any formal proposals affecting the organisation of secondary education in Clwyd and Gwynedd. If proposals are submitted and approved, the question of provision of Welsh language courses will be a matter for the respective authority.

  Bathing Water Pollution
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report the results of all the total coliforms samples at Kinmel bay during the 1989 bathing season, together with the dates on which the samples were taken.

  Mr. Grist
  The information is shown in the table:

  Date of Sample 1989

  Total Coliforms per 100 ml

  4 May

  50

  10 May

  100

  16 May

  830

  22 May

  3,200

  30 May

  1,760

  5 June

  1,800

  16 June

  90

  22 June

  14,200

  28 June

  4,610

  4 July

  1,010

  10 July

  5,600

  21 July

  19,700

  27 July

  930

  2 August

  4,700

  8 August

  1,070

  14 August

  350

  25 August

  3,670

  8 September

  3,120

  14 September

  2,160

  20 September

  11,300

  27 September

  1,600

  Roads
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will be inviting tenders for the construction of the second and third sections of the M4 missing link near Port Talbot.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 22 January 1990,Official Report, column 608.

  Telephone Exchanges
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many telephone exchanges were based in each district, borough and city council in Wales prior to the privatisation of British Telecom.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  The information is not available in the form requested. There were, however, 609 exchanges and two trunk exchanges in Wales prior to the privatisation of British Telecom.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  At 1 March 1990, the number of staff in post in the information officer grades in the Welsh Office was 12. At that date there were five vacancies. The proposed complement for 1990–91 remains 17.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Figures for expenditure by the Department's information division, including staff and press cutting service but excluding media advertising and promotion material, cannot readily be disaggregated for the years 1979–88.

  Figures for the succeeding years are:

  £

  1988–89

  469,000

  1989–90

  487,000

  The estimated budget for 1990–91 has yet to be settled.

  Statistical Divisions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; if he will differentiate between staff in 14
  statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if he will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiated between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Current staffing levels within my Department's economic and statistical services division are as follows:

  As at 1 January 1990

  Professional Posts

  Staff in Post

  Senior Economic Adviser (Grade 5)

  1·0

  Chief Statistician (Grade 5)

  1·0

  Senior Statistician (Grade 6)

  1·0

  Statistician (Grade 7)

  10·5

  Principal Research Officer (Grade 7)

  2·5

  Economic Adviser (Grade 7)

  1·0

  Statistical Computing Officer

  2·0

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  6·0

  Assistant Statistician

  2·0

  Total Professional Posts

  27·0

  Administrative Posts

  Grade 7

  1·0

  Higher Executive Officer

  3·0

  Executive Officer

  14·5

  Administrative Officer

  22·0

  Administrative Assistant

  5·0

  Personal Secretary

  2·0

  Total Administrative Staff

  47·5

  Grand Total

  74·5

  Since the introduction of delegated manpower budgeting, the formal complement is no longer the basis for staffing. The budget for 1990–91 is not yet determined.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  It is not the practice to comment on individual advisers' fees. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will report the total cost of water privatisation to Parliament, in due course, in the normal way.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the figures for spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  Figures for expenditure on newspaper advertising for the years 1979–80 to 1984–85 could not be split without disproportionate cost. The information is as follows:
  15

  Radio advertising

  Television advertising

  Newspaper advertising

  Other promotional material

  £

  £

  £

  1979–80

  Nil

  61,000

  24,200

  1980–81

  Nil

  62,000

  22,171

  1981–82

  Nil

  100,000

  43,773

  1982–83

  Nil

  99,000

  28,486

  1983–84

  Nil

  108,000

  34,234

  1984–85

  Nil

  66,300

  100,331

  1985–86

  Nil

  Nil

  30,825

  91,602

  1986–87

  Nil

  27,000

  49,254

  330,711

  1987–88

  Nil

  18,363

  38,612

  589,478

  1988–89

  Nil

  42,400

  37,190

  975,050

  1989–90

  Nil

  60,408

  239,996

  953,096

  Note: The total budget and media split for such expenditure in 1990–91 is not yet determined.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Walker
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Cancer
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what importance he places on the monitoring of the incidence of various forms of cancer in Wales, generally and by district, in relation to(a) identifying trends, (b) seeking to identify causes and (c) the search for prevention and cure.

  Mr. Grist
  Cancer registration data covering all forms of cancer in Wales are continually collected, kept under review and periodically published. The most recent report, published in 1988, is entitled "Cancer Registration in Wales 1974–1984". These activities form an important part of the Department's efforts to improve the public health of the Principality.

  Health Service Contracts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether the paper "Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts" published by the Department of Health applies to Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  "Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts" was issued to Health Service management in Wales on 6 March 1990 under cover of a letter from the director, NHS Wales. Subject to discussion with district health authorities and other health interests in Wales, the arrangements proposed in the guidance will apply in the Principality.

  Malpas Bypass
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest expected date for the start of work on the Malpas bypass.

  Mr. Wyn Roberts
  Start of work is planned in the financial year 1990–91 as announced in the Welsh Office commentary on the public expenditure White Paper published on 9 March.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) staff and (b) staff hours are deployed in his private office on hon. Members' immigration arbitration decisions.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Staff in my private office and that of my right hon. and learned Friend undertake a range of duties, including the consideration of hon. Members' representations to Ministers on individual immigration cases. No staff are employed solely to deal with such representations and no record is kept of the number of staff hours spent on such work.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to collect information on the number of representations his private office receives from hon. Members on arbitration on a decision of the chief immigration officer.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  No. This information is not readily available and its collection would serve little practical purpose. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his question on 2 March at column 349.

  Prisons (Emergency Procedures)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the policy of his Department in ensuring that all prison officers are fully trained to deal with an emergency within the prison in which they are working.

  Mr. Mellor
  The policy is that all prison officers should be made aware of what is expected of them in an emergency and be trained in the necessary skills. All new prison officers are required to attend a nine-week residential course and a range of in-service training is provided. During the past year the service has been engaged in a substantial programme to train staff in methods of dealing with major incidents of violent concerted indiscipline.

  Meibion Glyndŵr
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many letters he has received from people claiming to know the identity of Meibion Glyndŵr and inquiring about the £50,000 reward offered for such information; and what action has been taken consequent on such correspondence;
  17
  (2) whether the policy of offering a £50,000 reward by the North Wales police for information concerning Meibion Glyndŵr was approved by his Department prior to being instigated.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  There is no record of the Home Office having received any letters making such claims. If any were received, they would be passed directly to the police for investigation. The decision whether to offer a reward is an operational matter for the chief officer, which does not require the approval of the Home Office.

  BBC
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has made any official representations to the BBC regarding political bias in BBC local radio.

  Mr. Mellor
  No.

  Suspects' Rights
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to take account of the findings of the May inquiry before deciding on any changes to suspects' rights.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and learned Friend does not intend to hold up the review of the codes of practice made under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act

  Table A: Suicides at prison establishments 1980–1989 and attempted suicides 1989

  Establishment

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19891

  19892

  Acklington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (—)

  Albany

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Ashford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (1)

  Ashwell

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Askham Grange

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Aylesbury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Bedford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  (—)

  Birmingham

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  (24)

  Blundeston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Bristol

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (3)

  Brixton

  5

  3

  1

  4

  5

  2

  2

  3

  1

  1

  (21)

  Brockhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Camp Hill

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  (2)

  Campsfield House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Canterbury

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  2

  (7)

  Cardiff

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (5)

  Castington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Channings Wood

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (4)

  Chelmsford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (5)

  Coldingley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  (1)

  Cookham Wood

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Dartmoor

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (3)

  Deerholt

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Dorchester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (2)

  Drake Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Durham

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  3

  1

  2

  (15)

  Eastwood Park

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Erlestoke

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Everthorpe

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Exeter

  —

  1

  —

  —

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  (19)

  Featherstone

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Feltham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (9)

  Ford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Frankland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (4)

  Full Sutton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Garth

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (3)

  Gartree

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Glen Parva

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  (6)

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Grendon

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  (6)

  18
  1984, which is nearing completion, but when considering any proposals for changes to suspects' rights he will have regard to the possible merits of postponing decisions until after Sir John May's recommendations have been received.

  Suicides
  Sir Charles Irving
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many suicides and how many attempted suicides have taken place in penal establishments in each of the last 10 years; and how many of these were(a) remand prisoners, (b) female prisoners, (c) prisoners under 21 and (d) prisoners from ethnic minorities;

  (2) how many suicides and how many attempted suicides have taken place in each individual penal establishment in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Mellor
  Table A gives the numbers of inmates in each prison establishment in England and Wales who have died in each year since 1980 and have been found at an inquest to have committed suicide. Figures are also given for the number of incidents of self-injury in 1989 which were regarded as suicide attempts; only partial information is available for earlier years.

  Table B gives the number of suicides by unconvicted inmates, female inmates and inmates under the age of 21. No such breakdown can be given of figures for attempted suicides. Information on the ethnic origin of inmates who have committed suicide is not readily available.
  19

  Establishment

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  19891

  19892

  Guys Marsh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Haslar

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Hatfield

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Haverigg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Hewell Grange

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Highpoint

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (5)

  Hindley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (23)

  Holloway

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (12)

  Hull

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  (28)

  Kingston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Kirkham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Kirklevington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Lancaster

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (3)

  Latchmere House

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (7)

  Leeds

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  4

  2

  (64)

  Leicester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Lewes

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (7)

  Leyhill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Lincoln

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  1

  —

  (2)

  Lindholme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (6)

  Littlehey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  (11)

  Liverpool

  1

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (19)

  Long Lartin

  —

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  (4)

  Low Newton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (16)

  Maidstone

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (—)

  Manchester

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  2

  3

  —

  3

  (26)

  Mount

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  New Hall

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  North Sea Camp

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Northallerton

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Norwich

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  (12)

  Nottingham

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Onley

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Oxford

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Parkhurst

  —

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Pentonville

  1

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  2

  1

  —

  (4)

  Portland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Preston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  —

  1

  —

  (12)

  Pucklechurch

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (6)

  Ranby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Reading

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Risley

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  3

  4

  —

  (9)

  Rochester

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  (—)

  Rudgate

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Shepton Mallet

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (4)

  Shrewsbury

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (15)

  Spring Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Stafford

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  (6)

  Stoke Heath

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  (2)

  Styal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Sudbury

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Swaleside

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (4)

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  (6)

  Swinfen Hall

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Usk

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  The Verne

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (1)

  Thorn Cross

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Thorp Arch

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Wakefield

  1

  2

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1

  1

  —

  (2)

  Wandsworth

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  2

  —

  3

  1

  1

  (2)

  Wayland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  Wellingborough

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Werrington

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (—)

  Wetherby

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  (2)

  Winchester

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  (10)

  Wormwood Scrubs

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  (4)

  Wymott

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  (3)

  TOTAL

  21

  16

  17

  21

  23

  23

  17

  40

  30

  28

  —

  1 Figures in brackets are for attempted suicides.

  2 Inquests have yet to be held on seven inmates who died in 1989 and whose deaths are thought to have been suicides. These deaths occurred at Her Majesty's Prisons Brixton, Cardiff, Long Lartin, Manchester, Rochester and Swansea and at Her Majesty's Remand Centre Risley.

  20 21

  Table B: Suicides at prison establishments by unconvicted inmates, female inmates and inmates under the age of 21

  Suicides by remand inmates

  Suicides by female inmates

  Suicides by inmates under the age of 21

  1980

  12

  —

  2

  1981

  7

  —

  1

  1982

  8

  —

  4

  1983

  9

  —

  2

  1984

  12

  —

  2

  1985

  14

  —

  1

  1986

  12

  —

  3

  1987

  27

  1

  7

  1988

  19

  1

  7

  1 1989

  9

  —

  3

  1 Inquests have yet to be held on 7 other inmates who died in 1989 and whose deaths are thought to have been suicides. Of these, 4 were on remand, one was a female and 4 were under the age of 21.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he is proposing to reduce the number of hours that young remand prisoners are kept locked in cells.

  Mr. Mellor
  Governors are encouraged to provide the best regimes possible within the resources available to them. A seminar was held in June 1989 for most prisons and remand centres holding young unconvicted prisoners for the purpose of exchanging knowledge and experience in providing for the needs of such prisoners. This led to action plans being prepared for improving procedures and enhancing regimes, including provision for education classes, physical education and other facilities involving more time out of cell. These plans are now being implemented and the results of the seminar have been communicated to other establishments so that the shared experience may help generally in efforts to improve procedures and regimes.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will supply figures for the number of people currently held on remand in British prisons and the numbers of these who have to share cells with(a) one other person and (b) two or more people.

  Mr. Mellor
  On 31 January 1990 there were 9,760 males and 443 females held on remand in England and Wales, compared with 10,486 males and 477 females on 31 January 1989.

  The most recent readily available information on multiple occupancy of cells designed for one in local prisons and remand centres is given in the table, along with comparable figures for the previous year:

  12 February 1989

  11 February 1990

  Two in a Cell

  Males

  11,068

  10,476

  Females

  118

  80

  Three in a Cell

  Males

  5,007

  3,333

  Females

  0

  0

  These figures cover sentenced and convicted unsentenced prisoners as well as unconvicted prisoners; the information is not collected in a way that enables the number of unconvicted prisoners to be separately identified.
  22
  Responsibility for prisons in Scotland rests with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will supply figures for the number of people who are currently on remand in British prisons and who have applied for bail, who are having to share cells with(a) one other person and (b) two or more people.

  Mr. Mellor
  Figures for the number of people held on remand who have applied for bail are not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

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

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that, at the end of February 1990, the complement and strength figures by grade for he statistics branch of the Metropolitan police office were:

  Complement

  Strength

  Grade 7

  1

  1·0

  SEO

  1

  —

  HEO

  3

  3·0

  EO

  8

  8·0

  AO

  60

  52·5

  Support Grade Band 1

  1

  1·0

  Support Grade Band 2

  6

  6·0

  80

  71·5

  Only the grade 7 post is filled by a statistician, the remaining posts being filled by executive, administrative and support grades staff, who undertake a mixture of statistical and administrative duties. An additional grade 7 post filled by a statistician is located in the management support department. The complement of the branch will be reduced by three posts in 1990–91.

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

  Mr. Waddington
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Staff of Home Office Statistical Department

  In post

  Positions

  Positions

  1 March 1990

  1 March 1990

  1 April 1990

  Statistical Posts

  Grade 5

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  Grade 7

  18·0

  19·0

  19·0

  23

  In post

  Positions

  Positions

  1 March 1990

  1 March 1990

  1 April 1990

  Assistant/Senior Assistant Statistician

  6·5

  7·0

  7·0

  27·5

  29·0

  29·0

  Other Posts

  Grade 7

  2·0

  2·0

  2·0

  SEO

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  HEO

  14·0

  15·0

  15·0

  EO

  28·0

  28·0

  28·0

  AO

  59·0

  59·5

  62·0

  AA

  39·5

  38·0

  38·5

  Other Grades

  10·5

  10·5

  10·5

  154·0

  154·0

  157·0

  Total

  181·5

  183·0

  186·0

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Mr. Waddington
  Under the Director of Information there are 20 press officers with seven support staff. In addition within the public relations branch there are 16 publicity officers with six support staff. The same balance and complement is proposed for 1990–91.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of the Metropolitan police; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that, at the end of February 1990, 88 staff of all grades were employed within the directorate of public affairs of the Metropolitan police office against a complement of 89 posts. A final decision has yet to be taken about the complement of the directorate for 1990–91.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Waddington
  Figures for expenditure on newspaper and television advertising for the years from 1979–80 to 1983–84 were given in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) on 25 May 1985 at column 587 and those for 1984–85 were given in answer to another question from the hon. Member for Newham, North-West on 19 December 1985 at column 275.

  Figures for radio advertising and other promotional literature for the years from 1979–80 to 1984–85 were given
  24
  in answer to questions from the hon. Member on 19 November 1986 at columns 202–04 and the hon. Member was also given in those replies figures for expenditure on newspaper, television and radio advertising and other promotional literature for 1985–86. Expenditure figures for the years from 1986–87 to 1990–91 are as follows:

  Year

  Total advertising expenditure (all media)

  Production and distribution of other promotional material

  £ million

  £ million

  1986–87

  5·0

  1·4

  1987–88

  4·7

  2·1

  1988–89

  5·4

  2·8

  1989–90 (estimate)

  5·6

  3·5

  1990–91 (provisional)

  8·3

  4·5

  It would not be possible to provide more detailed information for these years except at disproportionate cost.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total fees paid out by the Metropolitan police to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I understand from the Commissioner that payments by the Metropolitan police to management and computer consultants in each financial year from 1984–85, estimated expenditure for 1989–90 and budget estimates for 1990–91 are as follows:

  £

  1984–85

  346,000

  1985–86

  433,000

  1986–87

  558,000

  1987–88

  702,000

  1988–89

  742,000

  11989–90

  981,000

  21990–91

  755,000

  1 Estimated.

  2 Budget estimate.

  Separate information on management consultants alone is not readily available and cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost. Information for the years prior to 1984–85 is not available.

  Breathalysers
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for a test for the BTE breathalyser device to be carried out by the organisation which validates the accuracy and reliability of similar machines used by the police and for the results to be published and distributed to all police authorities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have no knowledge of the BTE breathalyser device. If my hon. Friend is able to provide further details of the device, such as the name of the manufacturer, we will make inquiries.

  Asthmatic Prisoners
  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many recorded asthmatics were received into prison in the last year for which there are figures; and how many asthma attacks were reported in that year.

  Mr. Mellor
  This information is not recorded centrally. Perhaps my hon. Friend would write to me if he has an individual case in mind.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Foreign Students
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the number of foreign students who have entered British universities for each year since 1985.

  Mr. Jackson
  The numbers of full-time undergraduate and postgraduate overseas domiciled new entrants at British universities were as follows:

  Academic year beginning

  Number

  1985

  23,219

  1986

  24,809

  1987

  24,909

  1988

  26,856

  Source: Universities' Statistical Record.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will estimate the income to British universities from foreign students for the past five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  British universities' fee income from mainly non-EC overseas full-time students in 1988–89 is as follows:

  Academic Year

  £ million

  1983–84

  92·40

  1984–85

  104·45

  1985–86

  124·56

  1986–87

  142·16

  1987–88

  156·51

  11988–89

  171·20

  1Provisional

  Surplus School Places
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is his estimate of the cost of keeping surplus places in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools;

  (2) what is his estimate of the number of surplus places in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools; and if he will give his answer in tabular form by local education authority.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The premises-related costs at current prices of retaining a surplus primary and secondary place are estimated to be £140 and £230 a year respectively. There are additional but unquantified teaching costs, and opportunity costs arising from inefficient retention of buildings and land.
  26
  It is estimated that in January 1989 there were approximately 800,000 surplus primary school places and 860,000 surplus secondary school places in England. Information about the number of surplus places in individual local education authorities is not held centrally.

  Local Management of Schools
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will explain the arrangements which will allow the transitional funding arrangements for local management of schools to be extended beyond the normal four-year period.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We are looking sympathetically at LEA proposals to extend the transition period for individual schools which would otherwise face annual reductions of 1 per cent. or more in their total budgets because of high inherited staff costs.

  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of the general schools budget has been proposed by each education authority for which he has responsibility for distribution to individual schools for use under local management of schools; and what levels he has agreed to in the schemes which he has approved.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer my right hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) on 5 February 1990,Official Report, column 451. The total amount held back from distribution to schools by local education authorities is not subject to approval. However, there is an upper limit of 10 per cent. of the general schools budget on the amount that may be held back for spending on the majority of items over which local education authorities have discretion whether to retain central control.

  Special Educational Needs
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will update the table published in reply to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) of 16 November 1989,Official Report, columns 389–92, listing the number of children with statements of special educational needs and as a percentage of all pupils in maintained schools in England by local education authority; and if he will list the numbers and percentages of children with statements of special educational needs for the years 1984 and 1985.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The information requested for 1985 and 1989 is given in the following tables.

  Directly comparable figures for 1984 are not available. The Education Act 1981, which replaced the system of special educational treatment for pupils under the Education Act 1944 with the concept of special educational provision, did not come into effect until April 1983. The first collection of statistics on the number of pupils with statements of special educational needs was in January 1984 and consequently the numbers in this early transitional period are small compared to subsequent years.

  In January 1984 in England there were 14,563 pupils with statements of special educational needs and 124,312 pupils requiring special educational treatment attending maintained schools. These represent 0·2 and 1·7 per cent

  27
  of all pupils in maintained schools respectively. Many of the latter would subsequently have been made the subject of a statement.

  Number of children with statements in maintained schools January 1985

  Pupils with Statements

  As a percentage of all pupils in maintained schools

  Barking

  328

  1·4

  Barnet

  475

  1·2

  Bexley

  551

  1·6

  Brent

  0

  0·0

  Bromley

  617

  1·6

  Croydon

  710

  1·6

  Ealing

  443

  1·1

  Enfield

  651

  1·6

  Haringey

  399

  1·4

  Harrow

  425

  1·5

  Havering

  569

  1·5

  Hillingdon

  589

  1·7

  Hounslow

  11

  0·0

  Kingston upon Thames

  250

  1·4

  Merton

  128

  0·6

  Newham

  678

  1·8

  Redbridge

  548

  1·7

  Richmond upon Thames

  263

  1·6

  Sutton

  107

  0·5

  Waltham Forest

  689

  2·0

  Inner London

  6,731

  2·3

  Birmingham

  3,368

  1·9

  Coventry

  1,084

  2·1

  Dudley

  833

  1·7

  Sandwell

  1,087

  2·0

  Solihull

  78

  0·2

  Walsall

  755

  1·5

  Wolverhampton

  694

  1·5

  Knowsley

  254

  0·8

  Liverpool

  1,589

  1·9

  St. Helens

  527

  1·5

  Sefton

  491

  1·0

  Wirral

  1,048

  1·9

  Bolton

  587

  1·3

  Bury

  432

  1·5

  Manchester

  340

  0·5

  Oldham

  647

  1·6

  Rochdale

  567

  1·5

  Salford

  791

  2·0

  Stockport

  631

  1·4

  Tameside

  584

  1·5

  Trafford

  261

  0·8

  Wigan

  100

  0·2

  Barnsley

  412

  1·0

  Doncaster

  677

  1·3

  Rotherham

  782

  1·7

  Sheffield

  1,355

  1·6

  Bradford

  1,330

  1·5

  Calderdale

  300

  0·9

  Kirklees

  863

  1·3

  Leeds

  958

  0·8

  Wakefield

  907

  1·7

  Gateshead

  559

  1·7

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  812

  2·0

  North Tyneside

  535

  1·6

  South Tyneside

  420

  1·6

  Sunderland

  920

  1·7

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0·0

  Avon

  553

  0·4

  Bedfordshire

  1,385

  1·6

  Berkshire

  1,823

  1·7

  Buckinghamshire

  2,600

  2·6

  Cambridgeshire

  1,179

  1·2

  Cheshire

  3,046

  1·9

  Cleveland

  2,203

  2·1

  Cornwall

  873

  1·3

  Cumbria

  1,222

  1·6

  Derbyshire

  2,424

  1·6

  Devon

  2,266

  1·7

  Dorset

  1,332

  1·7

  28

  Pupils with Statements

  As a percentage of all pupils in maintained schools

  Durham

  1,375

  1·4

  East Sussex

  1,476

  1·8

  Essex

  3,882

  1·6

  Gloucestershire

  483

  0·6

  Hampshire

  4,152

  1·8

  Hereford and Worcester

  9

  0·0

  Hertfordshire

  3,120

  2·0

  Humberside

  2,289

  1·6

  Isle of Wight

  275

  1·6

  Kent

  4,020

  1·7

  Lancashire

  3,497

  1·6

  Leicestershire

  1,690

  1·2

  Lincolnshire

  1,706

  1·9

  Norfolk

  1,372

  1·3

  North Yorkshire

  1,283

  1·2

  Northamptonshire

  1,711

  1·8

  Northumberland

  753

  1·5

  Nottinghamshire

  2,342

  1·4

  Oxfordshire

  932

  1·2

  Shropshire

  733

  1·1

  Somerset

  1,160

  1·8

  Staffordshire

  2,471

  1·4

  Suffolk

  1,325

  1·4

  Surrey

  2,693

  2·0

  Warwickshire

  1,412

  1·8

  West Sussex

  1,234

  1·3

  Wiltshire

  1,538

  1·8

  England

  112,579

  1·5

  Number of pupils in maintained schools with statements and all pupils in maintained special schools January 1989

  Statemented pupils and special school pupils

  Statemented and special school pupils as a percentage of all pupils

  Barking

  272

  1·2

  Barnet

  525

  1·3

  Bexley

  564

  1·8

  Brent

  458

  1·4

  Bromley

  844

  2·4

  Croydon

  862

  2·1

  Ealing

  634

  1·7

  Enfield

  480

  1·3

  Haringey

  376

  1·5

  Harrow

  420

  1·6

  Havering

  486

  1·4

  Hillingdon

  453

  1·4

  Hounslow

  780

  2·5

  Kingston upon Thames

  334

  2·0

  Merton

  341

  1·6

  Newham

  672

  1·9

  Redbridge

  459

  1·5

  Richmond upon Thames

  284

  1·7

  Sutton

  405

  1·8

  Waltham Forest

  864

  2·8

  Inner London

  8,568

  3·1

  Birmingham

  3,670

  2·2

  Coventry

  1,078

  2·3

  Dudley

  794

  1·7

  Sandwell

  994

  2·0

  Solihull

  480

  1·5

  Walsall

  752

  1·6

  Wolverhampton

  761

  1·9

  Knowsley

  738

  2·7

  Liverpool

  1,842

  2·3

  St. Helens

  573

  1·9

  Sefton

  699

  1·5

  Wirral

  1,236

  2·4

  Bolton

  588

  1·3

  Bury

  605

  2·3

  Manchester

  1,931

  2·8

  Oldham

  813

  2·1

  29

  Statemented pupils and special school pupils

  Statemented and special school pupils as a percentage of all pupils

  Rochdale

  724

  2·1

  Salford

  811

  2·3

  Stockport

  828

  2·0

  Tameside

  662

  1·8

  Trafford

  672

  2·3

  Wigan

  895

  1·7

  Barnsley

  381

  1·1

  Doncaster

  854

  1·7

  Rotherham

  783

  1·8

  Sheffield

  1,430

  2·0

  Bradford

  1,278

  1·5

  Calderdale

  392

  1·2

  Kirklees

  1,183

  1·9

  Leeds

  2,525

  2·4

  Wakefield

  805

  1·6

  Gateshead

  524

  1·7

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  938

  2·4

  North Tyneside

  595

  1·9

  South Tyneside

  461

  1·9

  Sunderland

  835

  1·7

  Isles of Stilly

  0

  0·0

  Avon

  4,108

  3·2

  Bedfordshire

  1,518

  1·8

  Berkshire

  1,963

  1·9

  Buckinghamshire

  2,499

  2·7

  Cambridgeshire

  1,826

  1·9

  Cheshire

  3,509

  2·3

  Cleveland

  2,334

  2·3

  Cornwall

  1,552

  2·3

  Cumbria

  1,410

  1·9

  Derbyshire

  3,407

  2·4

  Devon

  3,378

  2·6

  Dorset

  1,729

  2·1

  Durham

  1,479

  1·6

  East Sussex

  1,472

  1·8

  Essex

  4,214

  1·9

  Gloucestershire

  1,394

  1·9

  Hampshire

  5,041

  2·4

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,455

  1·5

  Hertfordshire

  3,299

  2·2

  Humberside

  2,062

  1·5

  Isle of Wight

  375

  2·2

  Kent

  4,417

  2·0

  Lancashire

  4,458

  2·1

  Leicestershire

  1,998

  1·4

  Lincolnshire

  1,907

  2·3

  Norfolk

  2,035

  2·0

  North Yorkshire

  1,851

  1·9

  Northamptonshire

  1,679

  1·8

  Northumberland

  836

  1·7

  Nottinghamshire

  2,449

  1·6

  Oxfordshire

  940

  1·3

  Shropshire

  1,516

  2·5

  Somerset

  1,617

  2·6

  Staffordshire

  2,572

  1·6

  Suffolk

  2,088

  2·3

  Surrey

  2,980

  2·5

  Warwickshire

  1,674

  2·3

  West Sussex

  1,468

  1·6

  Wiltshire

  2,201

  2·8

  England

  142,922

  2·1

  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many appeals he has received in respect of the special education provision being made for children with special learning difficulties such as dyslexia; and what was the longest and shortest period of time taken in making a decision on these appeals.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  30
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he received the appeal in respect of the special educational provision being made for Lorne Felgate of Shoeburyness, Essex; and when he expects to make a decision.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend received the appeal on 22 May 1989. There has been an extended exchange of correspondence between the parents and the LEA involved and he expects to make a decision as soon as inquiries with those parties have been concluded.

  Single-sex Schools, London
  Mr. Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in respect of each of those local education authority maintained single-sex schools in London which have been closed since 1985 he will list (i) the gender of pupils, (ii) the physical capacity and (iii) the number of pupils on roll at the most recent convenient date before closure.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Information on the physical capacity of schools is not collected centrally. The maintained single-sex schools in inner London which have closed since 1985 and the number of pupils on roll before closure are as follows:

  Maintained schools in inner London which have closed since 1985

  Pupils on roll in January preceding closure date

  Boys

  Girls

  Boys' schools

  Lambeth, Henry Thornton1

  279

  0

  Wandsworth School1

  666

  0

  Wandsworth, Spencer Park1

  645

  0

  Wandsworth, Sir Walter St. Johns1

  430

  0

  Wandsworth, Clapham College

  44

  0

  Hammersmith, London Oratory RC2

  1,074

  94

  Wandsworth, John Griffiths RC Secondary

  304

  4

  Edward Rudolf Memorial Special School

  13

  0

  Heathermount School

  13

  0

  Shephall Manor School

  13

  0

  Nathaniel Heckford School

  22

  2

  Winceby House School

  20

  0

  Girls' schools

  Wandsworth, Ensham School1

  0

  679

  Wandsworth Garratt Green1

  0

  898

  Greenwich, Greenwich Park

  0

  93

  Wandsworth, Mayfield School1

  0

  780

  St. Veronica's RC Secondary

  0

  35

  Battersea, Notre Dame High School

  0

  398

  Wandsworth, Convent of the Holy Family

  0

  90

  Northcote Lodge

  0

  13

  1 Closed for the purposes of amalgamation.

  2 Became a grant-maintained school on 1 September 1989.

  LEAs (Invoice Settlement)
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has issued any notices to local education authorities about the settlement of invoices from suppliers.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  My right hon. Friend has not issued any notices to local education authorities about the settlement of invoices from suppliers.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The current number of staff in post and the total number of posts (including vacancies) is as follows:

  Staff in post

  Total posts (including vacancies)

  Grade 5 (Chief Information Officer)

  1

  1

  Grade 5 (Assistant Secretary)

  —

  1

  Principal Information Officer

  2

  2

  Senior Information Officer

  6

  6

  Information Officer

  10

  12

  Assistant Information Officer

  1

  1

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1

  1

  Graphics Officer

  5

  5

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  1

  Executive Officer

  2

  2

  Administrative Officer

  5

  5

  Administrative Assistant

  3

  3

  Personal Secretary

  1

  2

  Total

  38

  42

  No decision has yet been reached on what, if any, changes there should be to the staffing structure in 1990–91.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The expenditure figures for press and public relations by this Department for the financial years 1984–85 to 1989–90 are provided in the table. Figures for 1979 to 1983–84 are not available on a comparable basis. The 1989–90 figure is provisional. The 1990–91 estimate is not finalised.

  Year

  £000

  1984–85

  788·8

  1985–86

  1,026·3

  1986–87

  1,937·8

  1987–88

  2,313·6

  1988–89

  2,336·2

  1989–90

  2,719·8

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

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The current number of staff in post and the total number of posts, including vacancies, is as follows:32

  Staff in post

  Total posts (including vacancies)

  Statistical Posts

  Grade 3 (Director of Statistics)

  1

  1

  Grade 5 (Chief Statistician)

  2

  2

  Grade 7 (Statistician)

  8

  9

  Grade 7 (Principal Research Officer)

  1

  1

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  4

  4

  Assistant Statistician

  2

  3

  Administrative Posts

  Senior Executive Officer

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  11

  11

  Executive Officer

  14

  14

  Administrative Officer

  6

  9

  Administrative Assistant

  2

  2

  Personal Secretary

  3

  3

  Typist

  0·6

  0·6

  Total

  55·6

  60·6

  No decision has been reached on what, if any, changes there should be in the staffing structure in 1990–91.

  The difference between last year's figures and the figures shown in the table is due to the fact that during the year 61 posts from statistics branch in Darlington (mainly concerned with data processing functions) were transferred to information systems branch.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year: and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  In the privatisation of the National Seed Development Organisation and some of the assets of the Plant Breeding Institute, the fees and other sale expenses totalled about £600,000, as stated in the published appropriation account for class XII vote 13 for 1987–88. This is the only privatisation conducted by this Department in the period referred to.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The expenditure figures for advertising and other promotional materials by this Department for the financial years 1979–80 to 1988–89 are in the table. The 1989–90 figure is provisional. The 1990–91 estimate is not finalised.

  Year

  Publicity

  TV

  Radio

  Newspapers

  £K

  £K

  £K

  £K

  1979–80

  12·2

  —

  —

  91·6

  1980–81

  58·3

  —

  —

  8·9

  1981–82

  49·9

  —

  —

  86·9

  1982–83

  33·7

  —

  —

  6·0

  1983–84

  74·9

  —

  —

  9·6

  1984–85

  150·6

  —

  —

  18·5

  1985–86

  184·1

  —

  —

  14·8

  33

  Year

  Publicity

  TV

  Radio

  Newspapers

  £K

  £K

  £K

  £K

  1986–87

  533·0

  —

  —

  532·0

  1987–88

  1,459·0

  —

  —

  280·0

  1988–89

  1,156·6

  —

  40·0

  475·0

  1989–90

  2,346·0

  —

  11·8

  238·9

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 13 March 1989,Official Report, columns 13–14. The additional information now sought is as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  165,214

  1989–90

  1357,085

  1990–91

  2290,000

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  Examination Marking
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what instructions have been given by his Department to General Certificate of Education examination boards to cease to pay teachers, with retrospective effect to the 1989 examination, for marking A-level course work and project work; whether it is intended that such marking in future should be undertaken by teachers on an unpaid basis in directed time under their contract of employment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  None. Such arrangements are for the GCE examination boards to organise.

  Teachers
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of his proposals for licensed teachers and articled teachers.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend has announced his acceptance of 16 bids for support under the local education authority training grants scheme (LEATGS) for articled teacher schemes. The schemes will be run by partnerships involving both local education authorities and initial teacher training institutions. A total of some 600 places will be available for articled teachers this September.

  The bids received for funding of licensed teacher training under the new LEATGS national priority area reflect extensive interest in the scheme among LEAs. In advance of specific funding becoming available, 21 licensed teachers have already been appointed and a further 25 applications are under consideration.

  The Government are providing grant aid to support £5·3 million of expenditure by LEAs on the articled and licensed teacher schemes in financial year 1990–91. An announcement on the allocation to individual LEAs will be made shortly.

  Religious Education
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what measures he is taking to ensure that a larger proportion of religious education teachers are qualified to teach this subject.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Government support the in-service training of teachers in religious education under the local education authority training grants scheme. The total of expenditure supported in 1989–90 is £1·1 million. In 1990–91, training in religious education will be subsumed within the national priority area for the basic curriculum and collective worship.

  Teachers (Incentive Allowances)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of the level of incentive allowance which would require to be paid in addition to basic starting salary to enable a teacher to enter the housing market, by region, on the basis of the figures given in the answer to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) on 19 February,Official Report, column 518.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The ability of an individual on any given salary to enter the housing market will vary according to the size of mortgage he requires for the property of his choice, the lending rules of the source of his mortgage and the proportion of his income he is prepared to devote to this purpose.

  Institute of Food Research
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will reconsider his decision to close the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research.

  Mr. Jackson
  The decision to restructure the Institute of Food Research was taken by the Agricultural and Food Research Council, an independent body established by royal charter.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the purpose-built abattoir at the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research was built; how much it cost; and if such an abattoir will be rebuilt following the closure of the laboratory.

  Mr. Jackson
  The carcase and abattoir facilities at the Bristol laboratory of the Agricultural and Food Research Council's Institute of Food Research were constructed between 1966 and 1968 and fully equipped. The cost was in the region of £200,000. The future of the abattoir is under consideration.

  Agricultural and Food Research Council
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the decision was taken that the Agricultural and Food Research Council would henceforth concentrate on generic, rather than commodity, research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The funds received by the Agricultural and Food Research Council (AFRC) from the science budget are used to support basic and strategic research underpinning the needs of the United Kingdom farming
  35
  and food industries. Commissions for commodity research, placed with the council, are being reduced following the Government's policy decision to withdraw from near-market research. The council is adjusting its programme accordingly, but commodity research remains an important element of the AFRC programme.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Fiji
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom Government have been asked for any advice over the drafting of a new constitution for Fiji; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maude
  The Fiji authorities did at one time ask us to provide a constitutional expert to help with the drafting of a new constitution, which we agreed to do. This request was subsequently withdrawn.

  Romania
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has had on the human rights situation in Romania in the post-revolutionary period.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  There has been a great improvement in the human rights situation in Romania since the revolution. The provisional Government have expressed their willingness to honour fully their obligations under the CSCE. However, there is still cause for concern in a number of areas, such as the rights of minorities.

  South Africa
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the South African Government in respect of the further release of political prisoners.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have long urged the South African Government to release all political prisoners. President de Klerk is now committed to releasing prisoners convicted solely for political offences, and has said he is prepared to discuss with opposition groups demands for further releases. We hope those talks will begin as soon as possible.

  Israel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government about their wounding of Palestinians in the occupied territories of the Gaza strip on 26 February; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We frequently remind the Israelis of our view that, pending their withdrawal, they should administer the occupied territories in accordance with international law and their human rights obligations.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.
  36
  Mr. Maude
  The combined expenditure of the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on management consultants in financial years 1986–87 to 1988–89 and estimated expenditure for 1989–90 is as follows:

  Amount

  1986–87

  68,329

  1987–88

  257,272

  1988–89

  62,512

  1989–90

  182,444

  There is no specific budgetary provision for 1990–91. Present estimated expenditure in the diplomatic wing amounts to £12,400.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  The full complement of staff in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing's news department and the aid wing's press office is 18. There is, at present, one vacancy. There are no plans to alter the staffing complement.

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

  Mr. Maude
  The information is as follows:

  The Foreign Office Diplomatic Wing—Nil.

  For the Overseas Development Administration, the information is:

  Complement

  In Post

  Proposed for 1990–91

  1989–90

  Statistical Posts

  Chief Statisticians (G5)

  1

  1

  1

  Statisticians (G7)

  4

  4

  4

  Assistant/Senior Assistant

  3

  3

  3

  Administrative Posts

  Higher Executive Officer

  1

  1

  1

  Executive Officer

  2

  3

  2

  Administrative Officer

  5

  4

  5

  Personal Secretary

  1

  1

  1

  Total

  17

  17

  17

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.
  37
  Mr. Maude
  Total expenditure by the FCO on press and public relations from 1983–84 to 1988–89, the estimate for the current year and budget provision for 1990–91 are as follows:

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Payment to Central Office of Information for overseas information material and related activities

  17·4

  18·8

  18·3

  18·7

  19·2

  19·2

  21·5

  24·5

  Other information services

  0·9

  0·8

  0·9

  0·7

  0·9

  0·9

  1·0

  1·2

  Running costs of Diplomatic Wing Information/News Department

  1·8

  1·4

  1·9

  1·9

  2·0

  1·8

  1·9

  2·0

  Running costs of ODA Wing Information Department

  0·3

  0·3

  0·3

  0·2

  0·2

  0·3

  0·4

  0·5

  Costs of information staff at overseas posts

  12·4

  12·8

  13·6

  14·6

  17·6

  17·5

  19·2

  20·0

  Total

  32·8

  34·1

  35·0

  36·1

  39·9

  39·7

  44·0

  48·2

  Figures for the period before 1983–84 are not available on a comparable basis.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  No such fees have been paid for the period in question.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Maude
  FCO figures for expenditure on advertising and other promotional material from 1979–80 to 1988–89, estimates for 1989–90, and budget provision for 1990–91 are:

  FCO

  FCO

  (Dip Wing)

  (ODA Wing)

  1979–80

  100,226

  214,739

  1980–81

  116,532

  145,697

  1981–82

  162,988

  207,964

  1982–83

  229,711

  135,506

  1983–84

  205,247

  252,691

  1984–85

  149,932

  234,050

  1985–86

  160,535

  271,084

  1986–87

  335,754

  228,347

  1987–88

  195,000

  351,000

  1988–89

  289,184

  714,000

  11989–90

  329,115

  820,000

  11990–91

  735,000

  1,047,000

  1 Estimate.

  2 Provision.

  Increases in 1990–91 reflect additional expenditure by the diplomatic wing on publicity to promote the entitlement of certain British residents overseas to vote in British and EC elections. Additional expenditure by the ODA reflects a commitment by it to enhance public awareness of overseas development issues. It is not possible to break down these figures to identify the medium used.

  States (Acquisitions)
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on the acquisition by states of territory through war.

  Mr. Maude
  We support the principle stated in United Nations General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) (the friendly relations declaration) that no territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force is legal.

  Rockhopper Penguins
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the latest information available concerning the deaths of rockhopper penguins in the Falkland Islands.

  Mr. Maude
  I shall write to the hon. Member when I have obtained further information on the subject.

PRIME MINISTER

  European Community
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the question of the remaining restrictions placed on freedom of trade within the European Economic Community; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The next meeting of the European Council is the informal meeting in Dublin on 27 and 28 April, which will discuss eastern Europe and the unification of Germany.

  I will continue to emphasise the importance that we all attach to completing the single market by the end of 1992. It is important that the Community should not be distracted from this goal. I shall also continue to emphasise the importance of implementation of single market directives now that almost 60 per cent. of the programme is complete and we are on course for meeting the 1992 deadline.

  Telex Monitors
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Prime Minister when her office was first supplied with information by Telex Monitors; what the cost has been so far; and for what purposes the information is collected.
  39
  The Prime Minister
  My office has used the services of Telex Monitors on an occasional basis for a number of years. Details of the cost of the service during that period are not readily available; the cost in 1989–90 to date is £760. The service provides an accurate transcript of radio and television broadcasts for information purposes.

  West German Chancellor (Discussions)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Prime Minister when she next plans to meet the Chancellor of West Germany; and what she proposes to discuss with him.

  The Prime Minister
  I shall meet Chancellor Kohl for talks in London on 30 March to discuss matters of mutual interest, including the external aspects of German unification.

  NHS Review
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to her reply to the hon. Member for Newham, South of 5 March,Official Report, column 404, concerning funding for preparation for the implementation of the National Health Service review proposals, under what vote of the House of Commons ministerial authorisation of such expenditure has been made; and what are the planned principal heads of expenditure.

  The Prime Minister
  The expenditure referred to in my reply of 5 March to the hon. Member falls mainly on expenditure class XIV, vote 1 with a small amount of class XIV vote 3. Main areas in which this funding will be spent include costs of the first medical audit systems, the resource management initiative, strengthening of the finance and personnel functions in health authorities and the development of asset registers.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister if she has received the report from the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the breakdown of talks on Cyprus; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  The United Nations Secretary-General gave the Security Council a full report on these talks in informal consultations on 8 March.

  We strongly support his efforts to promote a settlement to the Cyprus dispute, within the framework of one state, two communities. In consultation with fellow council members, we are giving urgent and sympathetic consideration to his request for a reaffirmation of his Cyprus mandate.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of the Cabinet Office; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  Seven staff are presently employed on press and public relations activities in the Cabinet Office; there are no vacancies and no increase in complement for 1990–91 is proposed.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed,40
  and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of her office; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  Including support staff, eight people are presently employed in 10 Downing street on press and public relations activities. There are no vacancies at present. The proposed complement for 1990–91 is eight.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure by her office on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is her latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure by my office on press and public relations was not recorded separately before 1987–88. The total expenditure for each year since then and the budget for 1990–91 are as follows:

  £

  1987–88

  377,987

  1988–89

  419,326

  1989–90

  1361,520

  1990–91

  2480,695

  1 Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  The figure for 1990–91 includes notional superannuation costs, which are not included in the figures for earlier years.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total expenditure by the Cabinet Office on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is her latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  Expenditure on press and public relations by the Cabinet Office was:

  £

  1984–85

  247,495

  1985–86

  232,980

  1986–87

  224,813

  1987–88

  215,925

  1988–89

  201,837

  The latest estimate for 1989–90 is £205,650 and the budget for 1990–91 is £199,560. Similar information is not available for the years prior to 1984–85.

  Statistical Divisions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in her office; if she will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if she will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiated between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  There is no statistical division within my office; there are no statisticians in post or on the staff complement; and there are no plans for the creation of such posts.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed,
  41
  and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Cabinet Office; if she will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if she will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiated between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  Since 31 July 1989, when the Central Statistical Office became a separate department, the Cabinet Office has had no statistical divisions.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what were the figures for the spending by her office on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is her latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  My office has incurred no expenditure on advertising or promotional material, and there are no plans for any such expenditure in the remainder of this financial year or in 1990–91.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what were the figures for the spending by the Cabinet Office on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is her latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  The Cabinet Office has not incurred and does not expect to incur any expenditure on promotional advertising on television, radio or in newspapers in the years 1979 to 1991. Information on other promotional material is not available for the years 1979 to 1987. Expenditure on such material in 1987–88 was £19,306; in 1988–89, £9,500 and the estimate for 1989–90 is £15,000; the budget for 1990–91 is £4,000.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what were the total fees paid out by the Cabinet Office to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is her latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  The expenditure by the Cabinet Office (including from its creation on 1 October 1987, the Office of the Minister for the Civil Service) on management and computer consultancies in the financial years from 1983–84 is as follows:

  £

  1983–84

  152,000

  1984–85

  423,818

  1985–86

  329,334

  1986–87

  505,092

  1987–88

  417,778

  The figures for each year since then, which exclude the cost of computer consultancies, are as follows:

  £

  1988–89

  70,608

  1989–90

  151,500

  1990–91

  279,000

  42
  1Estimate.

  2Budget.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what were the total fees paid out by her office to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is her latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  There has been no expenditure by my office on fees to management consultants since 1979–80 and none is planned for the remainder of this financial year, nor for 1990–91.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by the Cabinet Office in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is her estimate for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  There has been no expenditure on fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by the Cabinet Office and no expenditure is planned for 1990–91.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Prime Minister what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by her office in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is her estimate for 1990–91.

  The Prime Minister
  There has been no expenditure by my office on fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation and none is planned for the remainder of 1989–90 or for 1990–91.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Company Accounts
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to amend the Companies Acts to direct all large companies to disclose exit values of their assets.

  Mr. Redwood
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to disclosure of net realisable values. I am not persuaded that the burdens that such a general requirement would impose on companies would be justified.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to amend the Companies Acts to place upon company auditors the same duties for reporting fraud which are conferred upon auditors auditing businesses covered by the Financial Services Act.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. The Financial Services Act does not impose a duty upon auditors to report suspected fraud It removes any obstacles there may be to an auditor reporting relevant matters to the regulatory authorities. This provision goes substantially beyond fraud and reflects the special features of the regulatory regime. In the case of companies in general, whether or not an auditor should report suspected fraud to management, the members of the company, or to third parties depends on the circumstances, as is explained in the newly published auditing guideline on the auditor's responsibility in relation to fraud, other irregularities and errors.
  43
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to require auditors of all large companies to examine the chairman's report.

  Mr. Redwood
  No. Auditing guidelines already recommend auditors to review financial information in the chairman's report where it is published as part of, or in conjunction with, the annual report.

  Accountancy Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce measures to increase the accountability to the public of accountancy bodies set up by royal charter.

  Mr. Redwood
  No.

  Sound Diffusion plc
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will be in a position to publish his inspectors' report into Sound Diffusion plc.

  Mr. Redwood
  I cannot say. The inspectors' report has not yet been submitted.

  Protection of Investors
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 586, what action he is taking to safeguard the interests of investors who placed moneys with companies owned or managed by Mr. Adrian Ward.

  Mr. Redwood
  This is a matter for the Securities and Investments Board.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many experiments were carried out on animals in respect of cosmetics testing in(a) 1989, (b) 1988, (c) 1987, (d) 1986, (e) 1985, (f) 1980 and (g) 1975; if he has any figures readily available giving a breakdown in respect of species of animals involved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The latest information is available in the Home Office report on the statistics of scientific procedures on living animals in Great Britain, 1988. Scientific procedures on animals to ensure the safety of cosmetics comprise only 0·5 per cent. of the total number of scientific procedures on animals.

  National Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff were employed within each of the designated categories at the National Engineering Laboratory in each of the last 10 years; and how many are budgeted to be employed at the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The number of staff employed at the National Engineering Laboratory for each of the last 10 years broken down by category is as follows:44

  As at 1 April

  Non Industrial Staff

  Industrial Staff

  Total Staff

  1980

  523·0

  267·0

  790·0

  1981

  495·0

  246·0

  741·0

  1982

  468·5

  237·5

  706·0

  1983

  456·5

  226·5

  683·0

  1984

  458·5

  193·0

  651·5

  1985

  461·0

  185·0

  646·0

  1986

  448·0

  186·0

  634·0

  1987

  463·0

  168·0

  631·0

  1988

  472·0

  156·0

  628·0

  1989

  431·0

  145·0

  576·0

  The budget for the current financial year (1989–90) makes provision for a total of 550 staff as at 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if a decision has been taken on the appointment for the new director of the National Engineering Laboratory; and if he will make a statement on the appointment.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The post of director of the National Engineering Laboratory will be replaced by that of a chief executive in preparation for the laboratory becoming a next steps agency. No decision has yet been taken on the appointment of a chief executive. The Secretary of State has no statement about the appointment at this time.

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Minister responsible for the National Engineering Laboratory last visited the establishment; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  As Minister for Industry I visited the National Engineering Laboratory on 15 February 1990. Neither the Secretary of State nor I have a statement to make about the National Engineering Laboratory at this time.

  Single European Market
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps have been and will be taken to ensure that inner cities benefit from the single European market of 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Inner-city firms, like all other companies in the United Kingdom, benefit from the "European Open for Business" campaign, and from help available through the enterprise initiative. In addition, city action teams (CATs) and inner-city task forces are sponsoring projects linked to preparations for the single European market. These include "Skills Upgrade for 1992", a Doncaster task force project which informs small inner-city firms about EC regulations, funding and contacts, and a Tyne and Wear CAT project, single market training for small and medium-sized businesses in Tyne and Wear, Durham and Northumberland.

  Inner-City Programmes
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which are the inner-city programmes his Department is carrying out; what non-Government organisations are taking part in such programmes; where each of these programmes is operating; and on what date each one was started.
  45
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The only programme carried out by my Department that is specifically targeted on inner cities is the inner-city task force initiative. A wide range of private and voluntary sector organisations, and local authorities, work with the task forces. A list of the dates on which the existing task forces were announced is as follows:

  Date

  Leeds (Chapeltown/Harehills)

  February 1986

  Manchester (Moss Side and Hulme)

  February 1986

  Bristol

  February 1986

  Middlesbrough

  February 1986

  North Kensington

  February 1986

  North Peckham

  February 1986

  Coventry (Folkshill and Hillfields)

  April 1987

  Doncaster1

  April 1987

  Hartlepool

  April 1987

  Nottingham

  April 1987

  Rochdale1

  April 1987

  Spitalfields

  April 1987

  East Birmingham

  June 1988

  Deptford

  March 1989

  Liverpool (Granby/Toxteth)

  March 1989

  Bradford

  March 1989

  Derby2

  February 1990

  Wirral2

  February 1990

  1 Task Forces to be closed in the autumn.

  1 Task Forces announced, but yet to be opened.

  Distribution of number of enterprises and persons employed in manufacturing industry, 1983

  Number of persons employed

  1 to 19

  20 to 99

  100 to 499

  500 and over

  Undisclosed (20 and over)

  Total

  United Kingdom

  Enterprises:

  Number (000s)

  76·2

  17·5

  5·9

  1·6

  ·7

  101·9

  Percentage

  74·8

  17·2

  5·8

  1·5

  0·7

  100

  Persons employed:

  Number (000s)

  553

  766

  1,279

  2,210

  297

  5,105

  Percentage

  10·8

  15·0

  25·1

  43·3

  5·8

  100

  West Germany

  Enterprises:

  Number (000s)

  189·2

  22·6

  9·8

  —

  221·5

  Percentage

  85·4

  10·2

  4·4

  —

  100

  Persons employed:

  Number (000s)

  925

  1,014

  5,641

  —

  7,581

  Percentage

  12–2

  13–4

  74–4

  —

  100

  The "OECD Employment Outlook", published in September 1985, provides a source of comparative data for the United Kingdom and Japan. Enterprises are defined in terms of company groups, so that the concentration of

  Distribution of persons employed by size of enterprise in manufacturing industry

  Number of persons employed

  1 to 29

  30 to 99

  100 to 499

  500 and over

  Percentage total

  United Kingdom

  20·3

  13·4

  66·3

  100

  Japan 19831

  27·8

  19·3

  19·6

  33·3

  100

  1 Wage earners and salaried employees only.

  In the early '70s only 17·5 per cent. of Japanese employees in manufacturing worked for companies employing more than 1,000 people. However this proportion is based on individual places of business and not company groups and is therefore not directly comparable with figures shown in the table relating to the OECD study.

  Company Sizes
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what are the comparable figures for the number of small, medium and large companies in the United Kingdom, Japan and West Germany.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 19 February 1990]: Although some information is published by the individual countries' statistical services there are few sources in which international data are compiled in a comparable form. The most reliable surveys available have been carried out by the Statistical Office of the European Communities (SOEC) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Both studies include businesses which are not incorporated as well as companies and define size in terms of number of people employed. The available comparative data relate to manufacturing industry only. Inclusion of the service sector would be likely to raise the proportions employed in smaller companies still further in each country.

  An SOEC report entitled "Structure and activity of industry: data by size of enterprises 1983" contains the following comparison between the United Kingdom and West Germany:

  industry cannot be directly compared with the SOEC report. The OECD study presents size distributions by employment numbers but not by numbers of enterprises, and the absolute numbers are not stated.

  Cot Mattresses (Chemical Hazard)
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps his Department has taken to alert cot manufacturers to the possible dangers to young babies from chemicals used in fire retardant mattresses and any link with cot death syndrome.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.
  47
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 9 March at column 901.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects the results of the scientific assessment of the relationship between chemicals used in fire retardant mattresses and cot death syndrome to be available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply. The group of independent experts has been asked by the chief medical officer to report as soon as possible.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Public Relations and Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the figures for(a) staff employed and (b) expenditure on (i) press and publicity and (ii) statistical work in his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  There are no Duchy of Lancaster staff employed in, nor has there been expenditure on, press and publicity or statistical work.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how much has been spent by his office on official hospitality in the financial years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 to date.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  There has been nil expenditure on official hospitality by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's office during the period in question.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Office Statistics
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council (1) what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of the Privy Council Office; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91;

  (2) what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Privy Council Office; if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if he will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiated between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1990–91;

  (3) what was the total expenditure by the Privy Council Office on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91;

  (4) what were the figures for the spending by the Privy Council Office on (a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91;
  48
  (5) what were the total fees paid out by the Privy Council Office to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Privy Council Office has no staff, current expenditure or projected budgets specifically allocated to press and public relations or statistical work, and no expenditure is currently being incurred, or is proposed, in respect of advertising or the services of management consultants. Annual expenditure in the region of £3,000 is incurred in respect of the publication of Gazette notices.

DEFENCE

  Footpath 43, Menwith with Darley
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he closed footpath 43 in the parish of Menwith with Darley; under what powers he acted; with which local authorities and bodies representing users of the footpath he consulted prior to acting; and what opportunity members of the public had to make representations.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Footpath 43 in the parish of Menwith with Darley was stopped up and reprovided in accordance with sections 16 and 17 of the Defence Act 1842 on 1 October 1985, after consultation with North Yorkshire county council. There is no provision in the Act for representations from members of the public.

  HMS Endurance
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how old is HMS Endurance; what plans there are for its replacement; and what is the latest year planned for ordering a replacement.

  Mr. Neubert
  The hull of HMS Endurance is now 33 years old. She was converted to an ice patrol ship in 1967–68 and accepted into the Royal Navy in 1968. Her 1986 refit extended her life until at least the mid-1990s. A decision on her replacement is therefore not urgent.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether HMS Endurance's services have been offered to the Natural Environment Research Council's programme for researching global warming.

  Mr. Neubert
  HMS Endurance contributes logistic support on an ad hoc basis to the programmes of the British Antarctic Survey, some of which are related to the Natural Environment Research Council's work on global climate change.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are any plans to include HMS Endurance's facilities in the meteorological study on global warming.

  Mr. Neubert
  HMS Endurance, like all Royal Navy vessels, carries equipment and personnel capable of performing meteorological observations. Results of these observations are sent to the Meteorological Office and the use of them contributes to the marine climatological database.

  Service Personnel (HIV Infection)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service men and women were identified as being HIV positive for each of the forces in 1989; what action was followed after diagnosis; whether any representations have subsequently been received concerning the military authorities' actions in these cases; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  It is not the practice to discuss individual medical cases. However, one member of the services was identified as HIV positive in 1989. There were no representations concerning this case.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on putting out to tender the maintenance and minor works services currently carried out by the Property Services Agency for the armed services in Northern Ireland following the privatisation of the Property Services Agency in 1992.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  From 1 April 1990, the MOD will be "untied" from the PSA. Untying gives the MOD a number of new responsibilities, including choosing who should supply its works services. From that date, the MOD will be mounting a number of competitions for design and project management for major new works. We will also be testing the market, in a variety of locations, for the provision of property management services covering minor new works and certain maintenance tasks.

  The first phases of market testing of property management cover sites in Great Britain; it is not currently planned to extend this early market testing to Northern Ireland.

  The Government are reviewing whether any aspects of the current arrangements for works services in Northern Ireland are unsuitable for execution by the private sector and, if necessary, alternative arrangements will be made.

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

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The staff complements by grade in Ministry of Defence statistical divisions as at 1 March 1990 are as follows:

  Grade

  Complement

  Current vacancies

  Grade 3

  —

  0

  Grade 41

  1·0

  0

  Grade 5—Chief Stat1

  2·0

  0

  Grade 61

  1·0

  0

  Grade 7—Admin

  —

  0

  Grade 7—Stat1

  25·0

  3·0

  PSO

  0

  0

  SSO

  0

  0

  SEO

  2·0

  0

  50

  Grade

  Complement

  Current vacancies

  HEO—Admin

  14·0

  0

  HEO—ADP

  6·0

  0

  HSO

  1·0

  0

  RO2

  0

  0

  SO

  0

  0

  EO—Admin

  30·0

  1·0

  EO—ADP

  17·0

  1·0

  AS/SAS1

  8·0

  3·0

  AO

  40·5

  5·0

  AA

  9·0

  0·5

  SPS

  0

  0

  PS

  3·0

  0

  Reprographic Operator

  0

  0

  SDP

  0

  0

  DP

  0

  0

  159·5

  13·5

  1 Statistical posts.

  It is not anticipated that there will be any significant changes in staffing complements for 1990–91.

  The differences between these figures and those provided for last year are largely accounted for by the transfer in January 1990 of a number of staff and their work to an area outside the defence statistical organisation. The staff and the work transferred were all administrative.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  There is a total of 221 posts on the strength of the defence public relations staffs. These include staff in single service command headquarters and in central staffs in the MOD. Latest available figures show there to be 212 staff in post and nine vacancies. The proposed complement for 1990–91 is 220.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The last year for which figures are available is 1982–83. Figures for the period 1982–83 to 1988–89 are as follows:

  £ million

  1982–83

  5·1

  1983–84

  6·3

  1984–85

  6·8

  1985–86

  6·7

  1986–87

  7·3

  1987–88

  7·0

  1988–89

  7·1

  Our estimated expenditure figure for 1989–90 is £7·8 million and for 1990–91 £8·4 million.

  Figures for 1979–80, 1980–81 and 1981–82 are not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate expense. The figures provided include staff costs and expenditure on films, exhibitions, publications and equipment.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Neubert
  The fees paid out by my Department to outside organisations in respect of privatisation relate solely to the sale of Royal Ordnance plc in April 1987. These fees amounted to £1·9 million and were for work carried out between 1 January 1985 and completion of the sale.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information is not held centrally. I shall write to the hon. Member.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Neubert
  Fees paid to management consultants engaged centrally by the Ministry of Defence for the years 1984 to 1989 are as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  1984–85

  0·604

  1985–86

  1·787

  1986–87

  6·203

  1987–88

  5·140

  1988–89

  3·109

  1989–90

  14·555

  1990–91

  25·625

  1 Estimated expenditure.

  2 Budget provision.

  Figures for earlier years cannot be produced without disproportionate effort.

  Personnel (West Germany)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom(a) military and (b) civilian personnel are employed, or stationed, in West Germany.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  A total of 64,294 service personnel and 1,817 MOD civilians are stationed in the Federal Republic of Germany (not including Berlin). The figure for service personnel covers all United Kingdom regular forces, male and female. Army personnel from BAOR on emergency tours in Northern Ireland are included in the figures, but personnel on short tours elsewhere are not.

  Homosexuality
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in each of the years 1987, 1988 and 1989, how many service men and women were administratively discharged from the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force as a result of their homosexuality or homosexual behaviour.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  [holding answer 6 March 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  Royal Navy

  Army

  Royal Air Force

  1987

  5

  57

  16

  1988

  2

  46

  15

  1989

  4

  32

  19

HEALTH

  Hospitals (Red Alerts)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many different types of red alert hospitals operate; and what each one represents.

  Mr. Freeman
  Red alert is a term used by some health authorities usually to indicate a situation where a hospital is able to accept only emergency admissions, for example, because of a flu epidemic. Whether to operate a red alert system and in what circumstances are matters for local determination.

  Immunisation
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has completed his study of the Peckham report on immunisation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. Many of the recommendations made in the Peckham report were appropriate for immunisation services at local level, and they have the support of the Department of Health. Other recommendations relate to the national level, and the Health Education Authority and the Department are launching a national publicity campaign this autumn, which will be supported by new materials on immunisation to be sent to GPs and nurses involved in immunisation.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the recommendations of the working party set up by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation in connection with advising on the immunisation schedule; and whether he proposes that the schedule should apply nationally and uniformly.

  Mr. Freeman
  The joint committee on vaccination and immunisation, having considered the recent progress in immunisation uptake and factors which could hinder further improvements, has recommended that an accelerated schedule of primary immunisations (at age two, three and four months) should be implemented consistently in all district health authorities. Full details of this new schedule have already been sent to district immunisation co-ordinators and will be sent shortly to all doctors and nurses involved in immunisation, together with the most recent advice from the JCVI.

  Child Record Cards
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide detailed information on the pilot study into parent-held child record cards.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A number of health authorities have been experimenting successfully with parent-held child health records. A working party of the British Paediatric Association has been reviewing these local arrangements and has designed an exemplar national record. The Department is to discuss with the BPA the promotion of the record and the arrangements for making it available to individual health authorities. We support the project since it is a good way of involving parents in the health care of their children.

  Nurses (Accommodation)
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he is giving to regional and district health authorities concerning the rates element of the board and lodging charges for residential accommodation for nurses; and if he will ensure that such charges are reduced to reflect the abolition of domestic rates when the collective community charge is implemented on 1 April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The level of lodging charges is a matter for the nursing and midwifery staffs negotiating council. I understand that the management side hopes to raise the issue at the meeting of the council on 13 March.

  Nursing Staff
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his reply of 7 February,Official Report, column 707, regarding computer modelling of the supply of nursing staff, whether he will publish the results of any work carried out as a result of the computer model being made available to the National Health Service in 1989.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Health authorities use the computer model as a management tool in the continuing process of nurse manpower planning, specifically with reference to the implementation of Project 2000, and this should be reflected in their nurse manpower policies. It is for health authorities to determine whether to publish their conclusions in this area.

  Statistical Divisions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including

  Number in post (1 March 1990)

  Number planned to be in post (1 March 1990)

  Number planned to be in post (1 October 1990)

  Statistical posts

  Grade 5 (Chief statistician)

  3·0

  3·0

  3·0

  Grade 6 (Statistician)

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 7 (Statistician)

  12·5

  12·5

  12·5

  Senior assistant statistician

  4·0

  5·0

  5·0

  Assistant statistician

  5·0

  4·0

  3·0

  Medical officer grades

  2·5

  2·5

  2·5

  Survey officer posts

  Grade 5 (Chief social survey officer 'A')

  1·0

  1·0

  1·0

  Grade 6 (Chief social survey officer 'B')

  4·0

  4·0

  4·0

  Grade 7 (Principal social survey officer)

  12·0

  12·0

  13·0

  54
  vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in his Department; if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administration posts; and if he will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiated between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested, showing the number of staff at 1 March 1990, is shown in the table. A small increase in staff is expected in 1990–91 but exact details have not yet been determined. These figures are not comparable with earlier figures due to changes in the statistics division caused by the formation of separate Departments of Health and Social Security in April 1989.

  DH Permanent Staff in Statistics Division (1 March 1990)

  Statistical

  Administrative

  Vacancies

  Grade 3

  1·0

  —

  —

  Grade 5

  5·0

  —

  —

  Grade 7

  25·5

  —

  1

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  6·5

  —

  —

  Assistant Statistician

  2·0

  —

  —

  Senior Executive Officer

  —

  8

  —

  Higher Executive Officer

  —

  23

  1

  Executive Officer

  —

  41

  4

  Administrative Officer

  —

  58

  4

  Administrative Assistant

  —

  13

  —

  Personal Secretary

  —

  5

  1

  Total

  40·0

  148

  11

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if he will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiated between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information is shown in the table. It covers all the staff employed in the statistical divisions of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys including the medical statistics and social survey divisions. It excludes staff employed in the finance, personnel and administration division and in the information technology division. Staff complements as such are no longer used since expenditure is controlled by financial rather than manpower limits. The planned staff figures for 1 October 1990 are therefore subject to change. The number of staff employed will increase over the next 12 months in the build-up to the 1991 census.
  55

  Number in post (1 March 1990)

  Number planned to be in post (1 March 1990)

  Number planned to be in post (1 October 1990)

  Senior social survey officer

  10·0

  11·0

  12·0

  Social survey officer

  4·5

  5·5

  9·0

  Assistant social survey officer

  10·0

  8·0

  10·0

  Administrative posts

  Grade 6

  3·0

  3·0

  4·0

  Grade 7

  12·0

  12·0

  12·0

  Senior executive officer

  23·5

  20·0

  20·0

  Higher executive officer

  59·5

  64·0

  78·0

  Executive officer

  111·0

  115·0

  138·0

  Administration officer and others

  446·5

  463·5

  554·0

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  The number of staff presently employed in the press and publicity section of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys in 1989–90 and planned for 1990–91 is eight and nine respectively. There are no vacancies. The figures include five staff who are employed on a temporary basis to work on publicity activities for the 1991 census and an additional temporary post for 1990–91.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91;

  (2) what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  My Department has no section that can be separately identified as public relations. Functions which are commonly associated with press and public relations are carried out by the Department's information division.

  The position on 1 March 1990 was:

  Staff presently employed 52

  Full complement of staff including vacant posts 57

  Twenty-six of the staff presently employed are information officers. Disussions on the proposed complement for 1990–91 are not yet complete. Estimated expenditure for manpower and running costs in 1989–90 is £898,000. The budget for 1990–91 has not yet been agreed. Figures for 1979–80 to 1988–89 are not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total expenditure by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures, in cash terms, include staff costs and expenditure on, or planned for, the census of population.
  56

  Expenditure (£000s) at cash prices

  Year

  Press and Public Relations

  1979–80

  125

  1980–81

  220

  1981–82

  250

  1982–83

  130

  1983–84

  145

  1984–85

  160

  1985–86

  165

  1986–87

  120

  1987–88

  145

  1988–89

  190

  1989–90

  300

  11990–91

  600

  1 Estimate.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the figures for the spending by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  The information requested is given in the table. The figures in cash terms include expenditure on, or planned for, the census of population.

  Expenditure (£000s) at cash prices

  Year

  (a) TV advertising (b) Radio advertising (c) Newspaper advertising

  (d) Other promotional material

  1979–80

  Nil

  90

  1980–81

  1180

  140

  1981–82

  1270

  170

  1982–83

  Nil

  90

  1983–84

  Nil

  100

  1984–85

  Nil

  125

  1985–86

  Nil

  125

  1986–87

  Nil

  80

  1987–88

  Nil

  100

  1988–89

  Nil

  105

  1989–90

  Nil

  180

  1990–91 estimate

  1530

  320

  1 Census of Population only.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on 16 November 1989 at columns 431–32 in respect of payments up to and including 1988–89. The estimated expenditure for 1989–90 is £4,870,500. No decision has yet been reached on the 1990–91 budget.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the total fees paid out by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Freeman
  Figures are available only from 1984–85 onwards. They are:

  £

  1984–85

  13,000

  1985–86

  71,000

  1986–87

  89,000

  1987–88

  359,000

  1988–89

  884,000

  11989–90

  830,000

  21990–91

  830,000

  1Estimate.

  2 Budget.

  The figures from 1987–88 onwards largely reflect the cost of employing consultants from a variety of firms to undertake strategic management and information technology studies and to assist with subsequent implementation, in areas where the necessary skills and expertise are not available within the office.

  Health Service Contracts
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will deposit copies of the "Working for Patients" implementation document on "Contracts for Health Services: Operating Contracts" in the Vote Office and similarly deposit all subsequent papers on publication.

  Mr. Freeman
  Yes. Copies have now been placed in the Vote Office.

  Self-governing Hospitals
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what funds have been provided to the Mersey regional health authority and the health authorities within its region for carrying out studies to enable hospitals to apply for self-governing status;

  (2) what has been the expenditure so far by his Department on projects designed to inform the implementation of the Government's proposals for the setting up of National Health Service hospital trusts; and what is his estimate of the likely expenditure on such projects during the next financial year.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Some work has been commissioned centrally to support the proposals for 58
  National Health Service trusts. The total cost of these projects was £181,600 in 1989–90. No resources have been allocated specifically to Mersey or other regions for spending on projects designed to inform the process of setting up NHS trusts. We have made no allocation for these purposes in respect of 1990–91.

  Central Ordnance Depot, Donnington
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what inquiries are being made into whether there is any link between the number of deaths from cancer in Shropshire and the fire at the central ordnance depot at Donnington in 1983.

  Mr. Freeman
  The Department is making no inquiries and in the light of the information on the materials released by the fire, none are considered necessary. Monitoring the health of a local population is a matter for the director of public health.

  Radioactive Implants
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce legislation to require that persons fitted with medicinal radioactive implants are registered and carry a card.

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no plans to introduce statutory registration for persons fitted with medicinal radioactive implants. However, those persons fitted with nuclear-powered cardiac pacemakers are required to carry a bracelet and identity card.

  Hepatitis B
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will give the latest figures for the number of people vaccinated against hepatitis B;

  (2) if he will give the take-up figures of hepatitis B vaccine among each of the high-risk groups identified by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation;

  (3) if he will list those areas in which general practitioners may claim item-of-service payments for administering the hepatitis B vaccine;

  (4) what guidance his Department has issued to general practitioners regarding vaccination against hepatitis B for the general public and high-risk groups;

  (5) what information he has regarding the link between hepatitis B and liver cancer;

  (6) what is his Department's estimate of the number of hepatitis B carriers in the population;

  (7) what statistics his Department collects on the incidence and treatment of hepatitis B among the general population and high-risk groups;

  (8) what steps his Department has taken to publicise the availability of hepatitis B vaccines to the general public and high-risk groups.

  Mr. Freeman
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The Department holds no figures for the number of people vaccinated against hepatitis B either in total or amongst the high-risk groups as identified by the joint committee on vaccination and immunisation (JCVI). However, over 800,000 doses of the vaccine were distributed in 1989. No item-of-service fees are payable for administering hepatitis B vaccine.
  59
  Guidance and recommendations to general practitioners regarding hepatitis B vaccine is contained in the JCVI's memorandum "Immunisation against Infectious Disease", a new edition of which will be issued to all doctors shortly.

  It is known that some sufferers of hepatitis B may go on to develop hepatocellular carcinoma. It is estimated that one in 500 of the general adult population may be carriers of hepatitis B surface antigenaemia.

  Acute viral hepatitis is a notifiable disease and the public health laboratory service continues to monitor its incidence. Reports of cases to the PHLS had declined to just over 600 in 1989.

  Useful information on hepatitis B is included in the Health Education Authority's (HEA) booklet "Guide to a

  Ranking of Local Authority Areas (Highest Twenty) for Myeloid Leukaemia United Kingdom, 1988

  Area

  Observed deaths

  Population

  Crude rate

  Expected deaths

  Ratio of observed to expected

  1 Epsom and Ewell CD

  9

  67,500

  13·33

  2·930

  3·07

  2 South Staffordshire CD

  10

  108,100

  9·25

  3·524

  2·84

  3 Warwick CD

  12

  116,400

  10·3

  4·576

  2·62

  4 East Kilbride CD

  7

  81,686

  8·56

  2·677

  2·61

  5 Neath CD

  7

  65,200

  10·73

  2·838

  2·47

  6 North East Derbyshire CD

  9

  96,700

  9·3

  3·780

  2·38

  7 Kincardine and Deeside CD

  4

  48,910

  8·17

  1·727

  2·32

  8 Dinefwr CD

  4

  38,900

  10·28

  1·731

  2·31

  9 Stratford Upon Avon CD

  10

  106,800

  9·36

  4£385

  2·28

  10 Tonbridge CD

  7

  75,700

  9·24

  3·088

  2·27

  11 Crawley CD

  7

  84,400

  8·29

  3·126

  2·24

  12 Leominster CD

  4

  39,300

  10·18

  1·816

  2·20

  13 Mid Suffolk CD

  7

  77,600

  9·02

  3·210

  2·18

  14 Vale of White Horse CD1

  9

  112,300

  8·01

  4·181

  2·15

  15 Preseli Pembrokeshire CD

  6

  71,000

  8·45

  2·852

  2·10

  16 Brighton CD

  14

  149,200

  9·38

  6·908

  2·03

  17 Harlow CD

  5

  72,000

  6·94

  2·457

  2·03

  18 Llanelli CD

  7

  74,100

  9·57

  3·461

  2·02

  19 Cherwell CD

  8

  122,400

  6·53

  4·080

  1·96

  20 Delyn CD

  5

  65,100

  7·68

  2·548

  1·96

  Crude Rate per 100,000 population.

  CD—county district.

  1 Harwell and Culham nuclear installations are situated within Vale of White Horse CD.

  Areas with fewer than four observed deaths have been excluded.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much is being provided in 1990–91 in the form of overseas aid to assist the countries of eastern Europe.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1990–91 we expect to seek parliamentary approval in main estimates for £13·5 million to cover expenditure on Poland and Hungary under the know-how fund, and on an agricultural project in Poland. This expenditure is additional to the official United Kingdom aid programme. Supplementary estimate provision for 1990–91 and later years may be sought when the public expenditure implications of other commitments, such as the establishment of know-how funds for other countries in eastern Europe, are clearer.

  Africa
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by how much aid to African states has increased since 1987.
  60
  Healthy Sex Life", and I understand that the HEA is currently reviewing this and other publications on sexually transmitted diseases.

  Myeloid Leukaemia
  Dr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will update the list of the 20 areas with the highest incidence of myeloid leukaemia contained in his answer to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) of 15 April 1986,Official Report, columns 371–72.

  Mr. Freeman
  [pursuant to his reply, 19 February 1990, c. 543]: The data requested are shown in the table, and have been updated to 1988:

  Mrs. Chalker
  Britain's bilateral aid to Africa rose from £305 million in 1987 to £422 million in 1988. In the same period our multilateral aid programme (for example, our contributions to the World bank, the European development fund and the various UN agencies) rose from £523 million to £659 million, with over half these funds being destined ultimately for Africa. Figures for 1989 are not yet available.

  Rehabilitation Courses
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much support the Government provided for community-based rehabilitation courses and programmes in the last year for which he has figures; and how the support was deployed.

  Mrs. Chalker
  A list of projects funded by ODA in 1989–90, which focus on the needs of disabled people, was provided in the answer that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) gave my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) on 6 December 1989 at columns 231–32. Many of these activities are community based or have a community-based component. In addition, nine overseas students studying on the diploma for teachers and planners of

  61
  community-based rehabilitation in developing countries at the Institute of Child Health in London have been financed this year from the overseas aid programme.

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of gross domestic product the United Kingdom currently spends on overseas aid.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The latest available figure for United Kingdom net official development assistance expressed as a percentage of gross national product is 0·32 per cent. in 1988.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to increase the share of gross national product spent on official development assistance to developing countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  As announced in Cm. 1002, the Government plan to increase the aid programme from £1,502 million in 1989–90 to £1,750 million in 1992–93. On the basis of the forecast for United Kingdom domestic inflation contained in the Autumn Statement published on 22 November 1989 this represents an increase of 4 per cent. in real terms. The Government accept in principle the United Nations 0·7 per cent. target for official development assistance as a proportion of gross national product but recognise that progress towards this target must depend on economic circumstances and other calls on resources.

  Kenya
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs whether the Minister for Overseas Development has recently visited Kenya.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I visited Kenya from 6 to 8 March.

  Brazil
  Mr. Moss
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs how many forestry projects have been agreed with he Government of Brazil.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) on 1 March at column 283.

  Tropical Forests
  Ms. Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will be proposing reforms to the tropical forestry action plan during the joint meeting between the European Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries on 19 to 24 March.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I called for the reform of the tropical forestry action plan when I addressed the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation general conference in November. Following that conference the FAO commissioned an independent review of TFAP. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs met the review team on 6 March.

  The meeting between the European Community (EC) and African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries on 19
  62
  to 24 March is a forum for representatives of the European and ACP Parliaments. Representatives of EC and ACP Governments meet on 28 and 29 March to discuss issues related to the Lome conventions. We have no plans to pursue reforms to the tropical forestry action plan at this meeting.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Government regarding aid to Vietnam.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) on 7 March.

  Nicaragua
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on aid to Nicaragua.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are considering the possibility of a small bilateral technical co-operation programme to Nicaragua. In doing so we are taking account of the discussions that my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr Garel-Jones) had with the President-elect during his visit to Managua last week.

  However, central America is not a priority area for United Kingdom bilateral aid. The main channel for United Kingdom assistance to Nicaragua will continue to be through our contribution to EC aid. We shall seek to ensure that EC aid to Nicaragua is maintained, and possibly increased, once Senora Chamorro's democratically elected Government take office.

  Tanzania
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the United Kingdom currently gives to Tanzania.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1988 (the latest year for which firm figures are available) the cost of our bilateral aid amounted to £33·4 million. During my visit to Tanzania earlier this month I increased our latest pledge of balance of payments support to £17·5 million, for spending by the end of financial year 1990–91. All our bilateral aid to Tanzania is on grant terms.

  In addition to our bilateral aid we contribute through multilateral agencies, including the EC. Tanzania has been allocated 169 million ecu (about £125 million) under Lome III for the period 1985–90, of which our share is around £20 million.

  Mr. Raison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Minister for Overseas Development holds regular discussions with the Government of Tanzania.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have just returned from a full and useful visit to Tanzania, during which I renewed the regular discussions which I and my predecessors have maintained with the Tanzanian Government.

  Ethiopia
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any further information on food aid distribution to famine areas of Ethiopia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The recent capture of the port of Massawa by the Eritrean People's Liberation Front is a serious setback to the relief effort and alternative means of delivering relief supplies to the hungry via the port of Assab are under urgent consideration by donors. The recent statement by the Government of Ethiopia that they will permit local Church organisations to open a relief corridor from the port of Assab into Tigray is a welcome step forward. It is vital that all parties to the conflict allow this relief operation to proceed without hindrance.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response his Department has made to the recent proposal for free passage of relief aid by the Tigray People's Liberation Front; and if he will raise this matter at his next meeting with the United Nations.

  Mrs. Chalker
  This proposal was made in response to a plan, agreed between the Ethiopian Government and a local Church group but rejected by the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front, for distribution of relief supplies within Tigray. The plan has since been abandoned as a result of the capture of the port of Massawa by the Eritrean People's Liberation Front and other means of getting food to the hungry are under urgent consideration by donors.

  I returned from Ethiopia yesterday. Following discussions there I am hopeful that arrangements made with the agreement of both the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front and the Government of Ethiopia will allow relief food supplies to cross into Wello and Tigray by what is known as the southern route and that the first convoy will leave this week. I have discussed arrangements in detail with the UN Secretary-General's special representative and other UN officials who are closely involved in Addis Ababa, as well as with the leaders of the joint relief partnership and President Mengistu and members of the Government of Ethiopia.

  South Africa
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to increase overseas aid to South Africa in the light of political developments.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I welcome the recent political developments in South Africa. We are currently reviewing our aid programme for black South Africans and I expect to make an announcement shortly.

  Technical Training and Education
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals for technical training and educational aid he has for Nigeria, Ghana, Sierra Leone and the Gambia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We will maintain our substantial programmes of training in Britain for each of the four countries. We are also funding projects in each country for technical training and education.

  Uganda
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what current development assistance Britain provides to Uganda; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1988, the latest year for which firm figures are available, we provided £28·6 million in bilateral aid to Uganda, in addition to our share of assistance from multilateral agencies. During my visit to Uganda last week, I announced that the £10 million balance of payments assistance pledged in 1989 in support of Uganda's economic recovery programme would be increased to £15 million. This brings our total commitments since 1986 to over £155 million, including £53 million in balance of payments support.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the consequences for Her Majesty's Government-funded elephant conservation schemes in Africa arising out of the decisions to allow the Hong Kong ivory stocks to be traded.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I do not expect the decision to have an effect on any of the conservation schemes funded by Her Majesty's Government.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Offices
  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people were refused(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans, listed separately, on the grounds that there were insufficient funds/priority too low, by his offices in Redcar, Eston, Middlesbrough, Stockton and Hartlepool, during the period April 1988 to March 1989, and during the period April 1989 to December 1989.

  Mr. Scott
  The information given in the table represents the number of processed applications which were refused on grounds of insufficient priority. The number of people refused or awarded payments from the social fund is not collected. Individuals can make more than one application during each accounting period.

  Social fund: refusals of applications on grounds of insufficient priority

  Budgeting Loans

  Crisis Loans

  Community Care grants

  April 1988—March 1989

  Redcar

  402

  2

  162

  Eston

  925

  4

  8

  Middlesbrough

  1,596

  4

  124

  Stockton

  885

  0

  17

  Hartlepool

  583

  0

  25

  April 1989—December 1989

  Redcar

  384

  1

  134

  Eston

  677

  0

  22

  Middlesbrough

  1,320

  1

  538

  Stockton

  1,218

  0

  306

  Hartlepool

  6·17

  1

  41

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was(a) the spending profile and (b) the

  65
  actual spend in respect of (i) community care grants and (ii) loans, listed separately, for each of his offices in Redcar, Eston, Middlesbrough, Stockton and Hartlepool, for the period April to December 1989, inclusive.

  Mr. Scott
  The information given in the table represents the spending profile set at the start of this financial year for each office specified. The profile is adjusted at the end of each month to take account of actual expenditure and can be adjusted at any time to take account of local circumstances. Information for actual spending is in the Library.

  Percentage community care grants

  Percentage loans

  Redcar

  April

  7·60

  7·60

  May

  7·80

  7·80

  June

  7·80

  7·80

  July

  8·30

  8·30

  August

  6·70

  6·70

  September

  7·00

  7·00

  October

  8·90

  8·90

  November

  12·50

  12·50

  December

  9·00

  9·00

  January

  6·60

  6·60

  February

  8·60

  8·60

  March

  9·20

  9·20

  Eston

  April

  8·30

  8·30

  May

  8·30

  8·30

  June

  8·30

  8·30

  July

  8·30

  8·30

  August

  8·30

  8·30

  September

  8·30

  8·30

  October

  8·30

  8·30

  November

  8·30

  8·30

  December

  7·75

  7·75

  January

  7·75

  7·75

  February

  8·80

  8·80

  March

  9·30

  9·30

  Middlesbrough

  April

  8·50

  8·50

  May

  8·50

  8·50

  June

  9·00

  9·00

  July

  8·50

  8·50

  August

  7·50

  7·50

  September

  8·00

  8·00

  October

  8·50

  8·50

  November

  9·00

  9·00

  December

  7·00

  7·00

  January

  7·50

  7·50

  February

  9·00

  9·00

  March

  9·00

  9·00

  Stockton

  April

  8·32

  8·32

  May

  8·32

  8·32

  June

  8·32

  8·32

  July

  8·32

  8·32

  August

  8·32

  8·32

  September

  8·21

  8·21

  October

  8·95

  8·95

  November

  8·96

  8·96

  December

  7·45

  7·45

  January

  7·82

  7·82

  February

  8·69

  8·69

  March

  8·32

  8·32

  Hartlepool

  April

  8·67

  8·58

  May

  8·33

  8·33

  June

  8·33

  8·33

  July

  8·33

  8·33

  August

  8·33

  8·33

  66

  Percentage community care grants

  Percentage loans

  September

  8·02

  8·02

  October

  8·88

  8·88

  November

  8·89

  8·89

  December

  7·75

  7·75

  January

  7·38

  7·38

  February

  8·62

  8·62

  March

  8·47

  8·56

  Community Charge
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's estimate of the cost in a full year in relation to the capital thresholds above which no community charge rebate is allowed of(a) doubling the threshold to £16,000 for a married couple, (b) abolishing the capital thresholds altogether and (c) abolishing the capital thresholds for pensioners only, so that, in the latter two cases, income is the only criterion for qualification for community charge rebate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information is not available to enable a precise answer to be given to my hon. Friend's question. It seems probable that doubling the upper capital limit for community charge benefit to £16,000 for a married couple would cost about £10 million. For answers to parts(b) and (c) I refer my hon. Friend to my replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on 22 February at column 896 and 2 March at column 367.

  Disability
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether his Department has commissioned any research about the care needs and care costs of disabled people aged over 65 years.

  Mr. Scott
  The Government commissioned the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) to carry out major surveys of disability in Great Britain between 1985 and 1988. Two of these covered disabled adults in private households and communal establishments, and they provide information about the extra costs of home services for people aged over 65 and the extra costs incurred by those with personal care disabilities. The six OPCS reports of the surveys' findings are in the Library. A follow-up study to the surveys in the family expenditure survey has been carried out to compare the actual spending of disabled and non-disabled people, and the results of that study will be published in the next few months. A number of studies of the care needs of people in residential care and nursing homes have been carried out by the social policy research unit at York university. The findings are published in "Public Support for Private Residential Care", a copy of which is in the Library.

  1. Volumes 1–6 of the "OPCS Surveys of Disability in Great Britain". London HMSO 1989—in particular volumes 2 and 4.

  2. Bradshaw J. R. and Gibbs I. "Public Support for Private Residential Care". Avebury Gower 1988.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a table showing a regional breakdown of the numbers of people claiming disability benefits as a percentage of all claimants and as a percentage of the general population.
  67
  Mr. Scott
  Attendance allowance, invalid care allowance and mobility allowance are administered centrally, and a regional breakdown of claimants is not available. The regional breakdown for severe disablement allowance, as at April 1988, is in the table:

  Region

  Number of claimants

  Percentage of all claimants

  Percentage of general population

  North

  18,200

  7

  0·59

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  25,200

  10

  0·51

  East Midlands

  17,100

  6

  0·43

  East Anglia

  7,500

  3

  0·37

  South East

  63,600

  24

  0·37

  South West

  21,900

  8

  0·47

  West Midlands

  20,600

  8

  0·40

  North West

  37,000

  14

  0·58

  Scotland

  32,400

  12

  0·64

  Wales

  19,800

  8

  0·69

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis),Official Report, 26 February, column 59, if he will provide a breakdown at 1990 prices of (a) the weekly benefit entitlement when not working of a single disabled person and (b) the net weekly income of a single disabled person with earnings of (i) £5, (ii) £10, (iii) £15, (iv) £20, (v) £30, (vi) £40 and (vii) £50 after housing costs, on the assumption of the introduction of the disability employment credit, planned for introduction in April 1992.

  Mr. Scott
  The detailed arrangements for the disability employment credit are under consideration. No decision has yet been taken on the thresholds for entitlement to the benefit.

  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the numbers of(a) single people receiving the severe disability premium as at 11 April 1988, 10 April 1989 and 9 October 1989 and (b) members of a couple receiving the severe disability premium as at 11 April 1988, 10 April 1989, and 9 October 1989.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information is not available in the form requested. However, the latest annual statistical inquiry shows that, at May 1988, 28,184 income support claims included the lower rate of the severe disability premium, paid to single people and to couples of whom one member qualifies for the premium, and 6,585 income support claims included the higher rate of this premium, paid where both members of a couple qualify.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the proposed disability employment credit will be available to those disabled people who are able to work but have savings in excess of £6,000.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the proposed disability employment credit will provide employment opportunities for those disabled people who are capable of working but are not able to work more than 24 hours per week.

  Mr. Scott
  The detailed arrangements for the disability employment credit are under consideration. No decisions have yet been taken on an hours limit or capital rule for the benefit.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the number, and annual cost in benefits, of elderly persons in private nursing homes registered with district health authorities, by metropolitan district and district in the north-west of England;

  (2) what is the number, and annual cost in benefits, of elderly persons in private residential homes, registered with appropriate local councils by metropolitan district and district in the north-west of England.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information in the form requested is not available.

  Mr. Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his best estimate of the number of people in private or voluntary residential or nursing home care who will be funded through preserved income support (i) when the new system of funding to be implemented under proposals in the National Health Service and Community Care Bill first comes into effect and (ii) in each of the subsequent 10 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information about expected numbers of income support claimants as well as expenditure is published in the public expenditure White Paper (Cm 1014). It has never been the practice to make separate forecasts about any individual group within the planning totals.

  Occupational Deafness
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he has any plans to increase the scope of occupations qualifying for disablement benefit for the industrial disease of occupational deafness, to include damage to the nerve endings in the inner ear caused by high pitched screeches due to worn machinery in the tin-plate industry.

  Mr. Scott
  No.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth's letter of 28 November 1989 about Mr. and Mrs. Griffin of Rugby.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My noble Friend Lord Henley has replied to my hon. Friend.

  Income Support
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, by region, how many 16 and 17-year-olds had made applications for income support on grounds of extreme hardship; how many had been granted at 10 November 1989, 8 December 1989, 5 January 1990 and 9 February 1990; and how many at the same dates had been granted income support on grounds of being within exempted categories, shown by category.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The cumulative totals of the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who had made an application for income support on the grounds of severe hardship and the number granted benefit on this basis at 10 November 1989, 8 December 1989, 5 January 1990 and 9 February 1990 are in table A.
  69
  Figures for the number of 16 and 17-year-olds granted income support on the grounds of being within exempted categories are collected on a monthly basis and are, therefore, not available for the particular dates requested.

  Table A

  Cumulative totals of applications for income support from 16 and 17-year-olds on the ground of severe hardship and of directions given to enable awards to be made

  Period ending

  London North

  London South

  Midlands

  North East

  North West

  Wales and South West

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  10 November 1989

  Applications received

  1,299

  1,251

  1,857

  3,870

  2,461

  1,337

  6,233

  18,308

  Directions given

  806

  797

  1,248

  2,580

  1,565

  846

  4,262

  12,104

  8 December 1989

  Applications received

  1,399

  1,339

  1,999

  4,118

  2,622

  1,426

  6,631

  19,534

  Directions given

  862

  853

  1,340

  2,745

  1,661

  898

  4,522

  12,881

  5 January 1990

  Applications received

  1,493

  1,411

  2,122

  4,359

  2,772

  1,519

  6,946

  20,622

  Directions given

  922

  895

  1,419

  2,903

  1,750

  960

  4,742

  13,591

  9 February 1990

  Applications received

  1,726

  1,616

  2,435

  5,000

  3,091

  1,746

  7,808

  23,422

  Directions given

  1,064

  1,037

  1,615

  3,346

  1,945

  1,116

  5,389

  15,512

  Notes:

  1. Based on 100 per cent. count of applications received.

  2. Information relates to the number of applications received rather than to the number of individual young people involved. Some individuals may have received more than one direction.

  Table B

  16 and 17 year olds awarded income support

  Regions

  London North

  London South

  Midlands

  North East

  North West

  Wales and South West

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  Month ending 31 October 1989

  Eligible at any time

  39

  43

  77

  88

  79

  72

  45

  433

  Eligible during CHB extension period

  35

  15

  50

  51

  38

  32

  64

  285

  Eligible outside CHB extension period

  11

  8

  30

  38

  30

  41

  24

  182

  Month ending 30 November 1989

  Eligible at any time

  31

  36

  63

  61

  53

  69

  37

  350

  Eligible during CHB extension period

  22

  18

  43

  38

  30

  38

  41

  230

  Eligible outside CHB extension period

  1

  13

  33

  39

  22

  34

  31

  173

  Month ending 31 December 1989

  Eligible at any time

  13

  23

  51

  58

  39

  45

  20

  249

  Eligible during CHB extension period

  12

  6

  37

  31

  32

  23

  43

  184

  Eligible outside CHB extension period

  3

  2

  29

  31

  20

  25

  23

  133

  Month ending 31 January 1990

  Eligible at any time

  33

  99

  72

  85

  48

  68

  45

  450

  Eligible during CHB extension period

  26

  31

  34

  27

  37

  15

  59

  229

  Eligible outside CHB extension period

  8

  9

  30

  38

  38

  45

  21

  1,898

  Community Care Grants
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many social security offices community care grants for shoes are deemed to be of low priority in cases which in other respects meet the criterion for community care grant of having a particular disability which causes excessive wear and tear.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that the information requested is not collected.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff,
  70
  Table B shows the number of awards, by category, for each of the months ended 31 October 1989, 30 November 1989, 31 December 1989 and 31 January 1990.

  including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Functions which are currentily associated with press and public relations are carried out by the Department's information division.

  The latest information is that 79 staff are in post. In addition, there are seven vacancies. Of the total 19 are information officer grades. Discussions on the proposed staffing for 1990–91 are not yet complete.

  The staffing figures for the current period are not comparable with previous years. Following reorganisation within the Department, information division acquired management responsibility for staff previously located in other divisions.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total expenditure by his Department
  71
  on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Functions commonly associated with press and public relations are carried out by the Department's information division.

  Information is not available in the form requested for the years 1979–80 and the following years to 1988–89.

  Expenditure for the DSS information division following separation from the Department of Health for 1989–90 is as follows:

  £ million

  Manpower

  1·157

  Running costs

  0·07

  Discussions on the proposed 1990–91 budgets for manpower and running costs for the information division are not complete.

  Staff in post

  Vacancies

  Grade

  Administrative

  Statistical

  Administrative

  Statistical

  3

  0·00

  0·33

  0·0

  0

  5

  0·00

  2·00

  0·0

  0

  6

  0·00

  0·00

  0·0

  0

  7

  0·00

  0·00

  0·0

  0

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  0·00

  2·00

  0·0

  0

  Assistant Statistician

  0·00

  4·00

  0·0

  0

  Senior Executive Officer

  0·00

  0·00

  0·0

  0

  Higher Executive Officer

  9·00

  0·00

  0·0

  0

  Executive Officer

  12·50

  0·00

  0·0

  0

  Administrative Officer

  34·50

  0·00

  2·5

  0

  Aministrative Assistant

  6·00

  0·00

  0·0

  0

  Senior Personal Secretary

  0·00

  0·00

  0·0

  0

  Personal Secretary

  2·33

  0·00

  0·0

  0

  Total

  64·33

  16·33

  2·5

  0

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  No such fees have been identified and no such expenditure is planned for 1990–91.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  For information from 1979–80 to 1988–89, I refer the hon. Member to replies given to him on 19 December 1986 at columns 793–94, on 14 January 1988 at column 402 and on 13 March 1989 at column 30.

  The total estimated outturn for publicity in 1989–90 is £16·3 million. Of this, £6·661 million has been committed for the purpose of advertising.

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

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Staff in post and vancacies in the Department's statistical branches at 1 March 1990 are shown in the table. These figures are not strictly comparable with those for previous years because of reorganisation of the Department's analytical services. Final decisions on budgets for 1990–91 have not yet been made.

  £ million

  Television

  3·974

  Press

  1·567

  Posters

  1·120

  Other material (promotion/information)

  9·639

  The estimate for the 1990–91 publicity budget is £14·89 million. Detailed decisions on media have not yet been made.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The estimated expenditure from 1984–85 onwards on fees and expenses for management consultants on social security matters is as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1984–85

  0·959

  1985–86

  1·722

  1986–87

  0·976

  1987–88

  1·082

  1988–89

  1·203

  1989–90

  2·942

  1990–91

  2·854

  73
  The figures are approximate since expenditure up to and including the 1988–89 financial year is from a joint health and social security budget. In some cases expenditure has been apportioned where consultants have been engaged on both health and social security matters. The figures include some computer consultancy where this cannot be separately identified. The information for years prior to 1984–85 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Fuel Payments
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on his policy on the treatment of cash in lieu of fuel payments as income in respect of housing benefits, following the recent tribunal decision in respect of an applicant in Bridgend.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the income-related benefits, the normal rule is for all forms of income to be taken into account. Regulations provide for certain types of income to be disregarded, in part or in full. Cash in lieu of concessionary fuel is not specified as disregardable income, and therefore is taken fully into account in the calculation of housing benefit and the other income-related benefits. Local authorities have no discretion in this matter. The decision made by a social security appeal tribunal in the Bridgend case is not binding on any other case, nor on the housing benefit scheme, since tribunals have no power to review local authorities' decisions.

  Arthur Andersen (Party)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give the number of his Department's staff invited to the Arthur Andersen Consulting roll-out party on 8 February 1990, their departments and grades; and how much of the cost will be met by his Department.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Andersen Consulting decided to hold this party in recognition of the successful achievements during the past seven years in developing, with the Department of Social Security (DSS), the operational strategy computer systems. It wanted to mark these achievements with a joint disco party for its staff and those DSS staff, especially those in middle and junior grades, who had for several years been working long hours and under great pressure in developing the systems. There was no cost to DSS.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, column 319 regarding advice to social fund officers on reviews of claims following the High Court judgment, what is the necessary advice on the question of reviews to which he referred.

  Mr. Scott
  We will shortly be issuing advice to social fund officers on their responsibilities for reviewing applications in accordance with the legislation and the directions. I shall send the hon. Member a copy.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 6 March,Official Report, column 584, if he will inform the hon. Member for Oldham, West when he makes the information available in machine-readable form to the Library.
  74
  Mr. Scott
  Yes.

  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will indicate, out of total loan payments made available under the social fund, the sum written off as irrecoverable or for any other reason, in 1988–89, and hence the extra outlay provided at the start of the 1989–90 financial year in order to maintain loan payments at the previous level; and if he will give his estimate for the same purpose in the current financial year.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 26 February 1990]: During 1988–89 loan repayments to the value of £53,000 were treated as impracticable to pursue. This did not affect the amount available for loans in 1989–90. The corresponding amount in 1989–90 for the period to the end of January 1990 was £735,000; this sum includes loans made in 1988–89.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what monetary amount has been deducted up to the end of January 1990 from income support in order to repay social fund loans(a) nationally, (b) regionally and (c) in each local Department of Social Security area.

  Mr. Scott
  [holding answer 7 March 1990]: Provisional information in relation to national and regional data in the period April 1989 to January 1990 is given in the table. The other information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Table:

  Regions

  £ million

  North East

  15·10

  North West

  13·87

  Midlands

  12·59

  London North

  9·11

  London South

  8·03

  Wales and South West

  8·41

  Scotland

  16·10

  National

  183·22

  1 Figures do not sum due to rounding.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Pesticides
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will discuss with the farming and agrochemical industries measures to reduce the use of pesticides in agricultural production and storage.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's policy is that the use of pesticides should be the minimum compatible with efficient food production. Government funding of related research and development amounts to some £18 million per annum and the results are published. A proposed code of practice containing advice on the safe use of pesticides on farms and holdings has been laid before Parliament.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he is taking to ensure that food consumers are safe from exposure to pesticides used in food production and storage.

  Mr. Maclean
  No pesticide may be used in this country until it has been approved by Ministers in six Government Departments including my Department and the Department of Health. No pesticide is approved for use unless Ministers are satisfied that it presents no risk to
  75
  consumers. The approvals process is backed up by statutory residue levels, which apply to both imported and home-grown produce, and by monitoring carried out by the working party on pesticide residues. The results of monitoring are published.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what representations he has made to the EC on the off-label clearance scheme;

  (2) what representations he has received about the outlawing of the off-label clearance scheme; and what effect this will have on small horticulture units in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Maclean
  Talks on EC proposals for pesticide approvals are continuing in the Council working group. The United Kingdom Government are very aware of the need to protect off-label approvals and are pressing for acceptable wording. The National Farmers Union is being kept informed.

  All submissions to Veterinary Investigation Centres in England and Wales 1985–89 (provisional)

  Veterinary investigation centre

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Aberystwyth

  4,925

  3,308

  3,586

  4,041

  3,868

  Bangor

  4,287

  4,024

  4,472

  4,975

  5,515

  Bristol

  14,293

  15,741

  15,770

  17,324

  17,863

  Cambridge

  7,450

  7,693

  8,258

  8,637

  9,740

  Cardiff

  1,598

  339

  —

  —

  —

  Carmarthen

  7,296

  7,828

  7,886

  7,488

  9,181

  Chester

  3,714

  818

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucester

  7,738

  3,599

  —

  —

  —

  Leeds

  7,020

  2,625

  —

  —

  —

  Lincoln

  4,283

  6,182

  8,239

  7,559

  8,232

  Newcastle

  7,070

  7,349

  9,002

  8,000

  13,966

  Northampton

  3,194

  1,266

  —

  —

  —

  Norwich

  6,668

  5,935

  5,265

  6,366

  6,918

  Penrith

  9,148

  9,407

  9,234

  11,165

  10,535

  Preston

  4,320

  8,562

  10,048

  11,166

  10,172

  Reading

  5,732

  5,868

  5,847

  5,774

  7,624

  Shrewsbury

  8,244

  9,380

  9,663

  7,520

  11,207

  Starcross

  9,678

  8,889

  9,051

  10,418

  12,862

  Sutton Bonington

  7,018

  7,143

  7,641

  8,667

  10,381

  Thirsk

  6,620

  6,583

  6,427

  9,576

  10,173

  Truro

  4,267

  4,203

  5,032

  6,421

  7,615

  Winchester

  6,240

  6,598

  6,334

  7,225

  7,297

  Worcester

  7,761

  8,282

  8,944

  7,607

  7,681

  Wye

  4,128

  3,652

  3,208

  3,739

  4,368

  1 Figures for 1989 are provisional.

  North Sea Dumping
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the companies to which his Department has granted permits to dump industrial liquid and flyash waste in the North sea.

  Mr. Curry
  The companies that currently hold licences under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 to dump liquid industrial waste and flyash in the North sea are as follows:

  National Power

  ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd.

  Cleanaway Ltd. (licence to dispose of waste from Tate and Lyle Sugars)

  Sterling Organics Ltd.

  Allied Colloids Ltd.

  Effluent Services Ltd. (three licences to dispose of waste from Orsynetics, Woolcombers Ltd. and Fine Organics Ltd.) Chlor Chem Ltd.

  Veterinary Investigation Service
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the work of the veterinary investigation service is undertaken for agricultural producers on a fee-paying basis; and what proportion fulfils public health functions.

  Mr. Curry
  The proportion of the work of the veterinary investigation service undertaken for agricultural producers on a fee-paying basis is 36·4 per cent.; that undertaken for public health functions is 25·2 per cent. and the remainder, 38·6 per cent. relates to statutory animal health programmes.

  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the annual cost of the veterinary investigation service; and what was the number of cases referred to each centre since 1985.

  Mr. Curry
  The running cost of the veterinary investigation service in the financial year 1988–89 was £5,256,226. The number of submissions to each veterinary investigation centre since 1985 is given in the table:

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) of 22 February,Official Report, columns 898–99, if he will specify the two wastes for which North sea dumping licences may have to be extended beyond the 1992 deadline for reasons of technical feasibility and the amounts involved.

  Mr. Curry
  We have announced that it is our intention that no liquid industrial wastes or flyash will be dumped at sea after the end of 1992. In two cases however it might not be technically feasible to meet this deadline. We will extend the licences for those last two wastes into 1993 only if absolutely necessary on technical grounds and for the shortest possible part of that year.

  The wastes concerned are:

  Sterling Organics—Aqueous residue from preparation of paracetamol; 42,000 tonnes per year.

  ICI—Acid ammonium sulphate residue effluent from acrylics production; 165,000 tonnes per year.

  77
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) of 22 February,Official Report, columns 898–99, if he will list the nine wastes covered by the 1987 North sea declaration that are still dumped; the quantities involved of each waste and, in each case, when it is anticipated that these disposals at sea will end.

  Mr. Curry
  All licences for the industrial wastes covered by the 1987 North sea declaration will be withdrawn as soon as alternative methods of disposal are available. The anticipated timetable for termination of sea disposal is as follows. Quantities of waste are expressed as an annual licensed tonnage. Where a licence is withdrawn within a year a correspondingly lower tonnage will be involved.

  Tonnage

  To be terminated by summer 1990:

  Orsynetics

  Salt solution manufacture of O tolyl biguanide exported for use in paint and soap manufacture

  3,000

  To be terminated within a year:

  Chlor Chem

  Acidic effluent from production of water treatment chemicals

  1,000

  Fine Organics

  Effluent from pharmaceutical production

  8,000

  Tate and Lyle Sugars

  Filtration sludge from sugar refining

  33,000

  Woolcombers

  Waste from washing wool

  900

  Allied Colloids

  Acid ammonium sulphate effluent from acrylics production

  15,000

  To be terminated by 1992:

  National Power

  Pulverised fuel ash

  550,000

  Sterling Organics

  Effluent from pharmaceutical manufacture

  33,000

  ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd.

  Acid ammonium sulphate effluent from acrylics production

  165,000

  For the last two wastes licences will be extended into 1993 only if absolutely necessary on technical grounds and for the shortest possible part of that year.

  Liquid Egg
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has commissioned into whether grade A hens' eggs derived from laying flocks naturally infected with salmonella enteritidis PT4, when broken out under hygienic conditions within 24 hours of being laid and frozen down immediately after being broken out, may cause the product so derived to be so heavily contaminated as to cause a liquid egg pasteurisation process to fail.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is very unusual for hens' eggs to be processed within 24 hours of being laid as most egg-processing plants take their raw materials from a wide 78
  area. The time taken to deliver eggs to a processing plant would enable any salmonella present to multiply and as I explained to my hon. Friend on 5 February only a moderate heat treatment can be applied to liquid egg during the pasteurisation process otherwise its functional properties are destroyed. For this reason, processing plants cannot accept raw product which is likely to be heavily contaminated with salmonella enteritidis PT4 and no specific research has therefore been commissioned in this area.

  Mayonnaise
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has commissioned into whether, in the course of preparation of home-made mayonnaise in a commercial kitchen, where other foods contaminated by salmonella enteritidis PT4 are present, it is possible to contaminate the mayonnaise during preparation or storage either directly or indirectly from those foods.

  Mr. Curry
  The contamination of one food by another is always a risk in any food preparation area, including a commercial kitchen. Appropriate safeguards should always be taken to prevent the entry of any contaminated foods into these areas particularly if cooked foods or foods which receive no cooking, such as mayonnaise, are being prepared.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the experimental farms involved in his Department's research into bovine spongiform encephalopathy; what control methods for the cattle will be imposed; and if he will make a statement as to how the research will be carried out.

  Mr. Curry
  The following experimental husbandry farms are involved collaboratively with the central veterinary laboratory in research into BSE:

  1. Studies of maternal transmission and its incidence

  Boxworth

  Gleadthorpe

  Drayton

  2. Studies to determine whether embryos derived from BSE-infected cows are infective for recipient dams and the progeny

  High Mowthorpe

  Redesdale

  The animals used in both experiments, as well as those on all Ministry farms, will be subject to the same strict procedures that apply throughout Great Britain where BSE occurs or is suspected. In addition, the brains of all experimental animals that die or are culled at the end of these experiments will be examined histologically for evidence of lesions of BSE. The research is being carried out in accordance with recognised scientific procedures using the best scientific expertise available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by month for the last four years to date and by county, the number of cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy that have been reported in the counties of Yorkshire and Humberside.

  Mr. Maclean
  BSE was made notifiable on 21 June 1988. Cases recorded before then are not therefore allocated by date of report but by other criteria, such as date of onset of clinical symptoms.
  79

  Date

  North Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  Humberside

  Total

  March 1986

  1

  1

  0

  0

  2

  June 1987

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  July 1987

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  August 1987

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  September 1987

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  October 1987

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  November 1987

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  December 1987

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  January 1988

  2

  0

  0

  0

  2

  February 1988

  2

  0

  1

  0

  3

  March 1988

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  April 1988

  3

  0

  0

  0

  3

  June 1988

  1

  0

  0

  1

  2

  July 1988

  10

  1

  1

  0

  12

  August 1988

  12

  1

  0

  2

  15

  September 1988

  15

  1

  4

  2

  22

  October 1988

  12

  2

  4

  2

  20

  November 1988

  16

  0

  1

  0

  17

  December 1988

  11

  1

  1

  3

  16

  January 1989

  14

  0

  0

  3

  17

  February 1989

  21

  1

  3

  2

  27

  March 1989

  21

  0

  0

  4

  25

  April 1989

  20

  0

  2

  0

  22

  May 1989

  15

  1

  4

  7

  27

  June 1989

  23

  3

  1

  3

  30

  July 1989

  24

  0

  1

  2

  27

  August 1989

  26

  1

  3

  3

  33

  September 1989

  30

  0

  3

  1

  34

  October 1989

  28

  3

  0

  3

  34

  November 1989

  26

  2

  4

  3

  35

  December 1989

  32

  3

  2

  3

  40

  January 1990

  35

  5

  8

  6

  54

  February 1990

  57

  3

  8

  9

  77

  March 1990

  7

  0

  1

  6

  14

  Total

  480

  29

  52

  65

  626

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list, by location and date, the number of cases of bovine spongiform encephalopathy diagnosed at slaughterhouses by his Department's health inspectors.

  Mr. Maclean
  Suspect cases of BSE occurring at slaughterhouses have, from 1989 onwards, been recorded on a quarterly basis for each region. Information for 1988 is available as a total for each region from 21 June, when BSE became notifiable, to the end of the year. It has been the Ministry's long-established practice not to disclose South East details of premises from which notifiable diseases have been reported.

  1988

  Region

  Number reported

  Number confirmed

  Eastern

  8

  8

  Midlands and Western

  7

  6

  Northern

  2

  1

  South East

  3

  3

  South West

  10

  7

  Wales

  3

  2

  North Scotland

  0

  0

  South Scotland

  0

  0

  1989

  Region

  Quarter

  Number reported

  Number confirmed

  Eastern

  1

  18

  12

  2

  14

  11

  3

  5

  5

  4

  14

  13

  Midlands and Western

  1

  1

  0

  80

  Region

  Quarter

  Number reported

  Number confirmed

  2

  0

  0

  3

  3

  2

  4

  0

  0

  Northern

  1

  2

  0

  2

  3

  2

  3

  2

  2

  4

  2

  2

  South East

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  South West

  1

  4

  3

  2

  8

  5

  3

  9

  6

  4

  6

  6

  Wales

  1

  1

  1

  2

  0

  0

  3

  1

  1

  4

  0

  0

  North Scotland

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  South Scotland

  1

  0

  0

  2

  1

  1

  3

  1

  1

  4

  0

  0

  Food Prices
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) pursuant to the answer of 26 February to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor),Official Report, column 69, if he will express the figure of 1 to 1·5 per cent. on food prices as an average amount in pounds added to each family's food bill;

  (2) pursuant to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southend, East, Official Report, 26 February, column 69, if he will estimate what the additional cost would be in weekly cash terms for the average family's food bill if the present monetary gap associated with the green pound were eliminated.

  Mr. Curry
  The average effect is estimated to be about 60p per week per household.

  Slaughtering (Infected Premises)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will commission research to determine why premises on which birds have been compulsorily slaughtered have subsequently become reinfected; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  To date there have been very few reports of reinfection on premises where birds have been compulsorily slaughtered and my Department does not plan at present to carry out the kind of research suggested. The assistance of my Department's veterinary investigation centres is available to veterinary practitioners should they wish to advise their clients on salmonella control in poultry or investigate possible causes of reinfection.

  Spent Hens
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what current compensation is paid to an egg producer by his Ministry for a spent hen over 72 weeks of age; and what level of compensation was payable at the inception of the Zoonoses Order 1989.

  Mr. Maclean
  The present rate of compensation paid for a laying bird over 72 weeks of age is 34p. The rate at 1 March 1989, when the Zoonoses Order 1989 came into force, was 18p per bird.

  Hens (Slaughter)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hens of all descriptions have been compulsorily slaughtered under the provisions of the Zoonoses Order 1989 and the Animal Health Act 1981.

  Mr. Maclean
  Up to 2 March 1990, a total of 1,126,547 birds have been compulsorily slaughtered under the Animal Health Act 1981 as applied by the Zoonoses Order 1989.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total value of payments to all contractors used to assist his Ministry in compulsorily slaughtering hens of all descriptions under the provisions of(a) the Zoonoses Order 1989 and (b) the Animal Health Act 1981.

  Mr. Maclean
  Up to 2 March 1990, £42,300 has been paid to contractors assisting in the compulsory slaughter of salmonella-infected flocks.
  82
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will reconsider the policy of compulsory slaughter of chickens in the light of levels of employment in meat processing plants.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government's measures to tackle salmonella are being kept under review.

  Salmonella
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if any of the broiler flocks identified by his Department in the joint public health laboratory service/SVS salmonella update for January as being infected with salmonella have been compulsorily slaughtered.

  Mr. Maclean
  No broiler flocks have been compulsorily slaughtered.

  Eggs
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food on what grounds he refuses to issue licences to farms which are subject to infected place notices under the Zoonoses Order 1989, to allow the sale of fresh. intact or frozen eggs to processors for pasteurisation.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 5 February,Official Report, column 499.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Curry
  The information required for the financial years 1979–80 to 1983–84 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The figures for subsequent years are as follows:

  £ million

  1984–85

  3·2

  1985–86

  3·5

  1986–87

  3·1

  1987–88

  0·6

  1988–89

  0·8

  1989–90

  1·1

  Figures for the years 1984–85 to 1986–87 refer to the total cost of press, public relations and paid publicity which could be separated to show expenditure on press and public relations only at disproportionate cost. Figures for 1987–88 to 1989–90 relate to press and public relations alone. The estimated budget for press and public relations for 1990–91 is £1·2 million.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Mr. Curry
  The number of staff and complement in the press branch of the information division and related posts in the region is 26 and 29. The complement of staff is expected to be the same in 1990–91.

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

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is as follows:

  Staff in post 1 March 1990

  Complement 1 March 1990

  Grade 5

  2·0

  2·0

  Grade 7

  11·0

  11·0

  Senior Assistant Statistician /Assistant Statistician

  9·0

  10·0

  Administrative support staff

  130·5

  134·5

  It is expected that the staffing complements for 1990–91 will be a few posts higher than at present.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Curry
  The Department has not paid any sums to outside organisations for this purpose in the period 1979–80 to date. We keep continually under review the contribution that the Department might make to the Government privatisation policy.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Curry
  Expenditure by my Department in the financial year 1982–83 and each subsequent year is as follows:

  TV

  Radio

  Press advertising

  Other promotional

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  1982–83

  Nil

  Nil

  3,000

  n/a

  1983–84

  Nil

  Nil

  27,000

  n/a

  1984–85

  Nil

  Nil

  26,000

  575,000

  1985–86

  Nil

  Nil

  29,000

  656,000

  1986–87

  Nil

  Nil

  54,000

  825,000

  1987–88

  Nil

  Nil

  12,000

  693,000

  1988–89

  Nil

  Nil

  380,000

  1,004,000

  1989–90

  Nil

  Nil

  116,000

  2,372,000

  n/a—Not available.

  Figures for promotional advertising prior to 1982–83 are not available as the information for those years includes recruitment and other types of advertising.
  84
  Information is not readily available to distinguish between expenditure on advertising in newspapers and that in the press generally. Separate figures for expenditure on other promotional material prior to 1984–85 are available only at disproportionate costs. The overall publicity budget for 1990–91 is estimated to be £2·4 million.

  Irish Sea
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the amount of heavy metal contamination of fish in the Irish sea; and what assessment he has made of its ecological and direct health dangers.

  Mr. Curry
  Data on the heavy metal content of fish in the Irish sea collected by my Department's scientists as part of their regular monitoring of coastal waters are contained in "Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report" Nos. 16 and 17 which are available in the Library of the House. The conclusions in this report indicate that heavy metal contamination of fish in the Irish sea poses no ecological dangers.

  The steering group on food surveillance produces regular reports on levels of contaminants in food, including fish, which are considered by the Department of Health's committee on toxicity of chemicals in food, consumer products and the environment. The results of these reports do not indicate that there is any risk to consumers as a result of eating fish.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of sewage and industrial dumping on the level of phytoplankton, and implications for the ecosystem in the Irish sea.

  Mr. Curry
  There is no industrial waste dumping in the Irish sea. The Department's assessment is that disposals of sewage sludge in Liverpool bay do not affect levels of phytoplankton and in turn therefore there are no implications for the ecosystem of the Irish sea.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his assessment of the effect of industrial radioactive and chemical pollution and waste disposal on the quantity and safety of fish caught in the Irish sea.

  Mr. Curry
  Data on radioactive discharges to the Irish sea and in seafood from the Irish sea which are collected and analysed by my Department's scientists are published on an annual basis in the "Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report" series, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  In addition, the concentrations of a range of non-radioactive contaminants in fish caught around our shores including the Irish sea, are routinely monitored by my Department's scientists. The results of this monitoring are assessed by the interdepartmental steering group on food surveillance.

  The data and assessments indicate that the levels of contamination monitored do not give any cause for concern from a human consumption standpoint and do not represent a significant risk to either marine life or its habitat.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the amount per year of radioactive waste placed on the Irish sea basin.
  85
  Mr. Curry
  Radioactive waste is not disposed of by placing it on the Irish sea basin. Details of the radioactivity contained in low-level liquid radioactive waste discharged under authorisation from nuclear facilities bordering the Irish sea are published annually in the Ministry's "Aquatic Environment Monitoring Report" series, copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  During 1988 the amount of radioactivity contained in discharges to the Irish sea was:

  TBq

  Tritium

  1,843

  Other beta activity

  192

  Alpha

  2·5

  Imported Mineral Waters
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the nitrate and sodium levels of imported mineral waters; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Ministry does not keep records of the composition of individual brands of imported natural mineral waters.

  However I have recently written to the Commission urging that in the interests of consumer information the chemical analysis of mineral water should be displayed on the bottle.

  Poultry
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the registration fee levied on all poultry laying flock keepers who are required to register has not yet been determined.

  Mr. Maclean
  The Poultry Flocks, Hatcheries and Processed Animal Protein (Fees) Order 1990 was laid before the House on 9 March.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the registration fee levied on all poultry flock keepers who are required to register will accrue to his Ministry.

  Mr. Maclean
  The registration of poultry laying flocks is being carried out by Agriculture Departments and so they will recover the associated costs.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why only larger flocks of poultry laying hens have to be registered.

  Mr. Maclean
  The resources for enforcing the salmonella legislation need to be concentrated particularly on flocks of 100 birds or more, which together supply over 98 per cent. of the eggs produced in this country. Flocks under this size are not required to be registered but the owners are subject to checks to ensure that they are meeting the salmonella testing requirements, which apply to all flocks from which eggs are sold for human consumption.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the Government will allocate any additional resources to enable local authorities to enforce the Poultry Laying Flocks (Testing and Registration Etc.) Order 1989.
  86
  Mr. Maclean
  The resources needed for this work will be taken into account in future decisions on local authority funding.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how successful the Poultry Laying Flocks (Testing and Registration Etc.) Order 1989 has been in providing a system of maintaining hens producing eggs for human consumption and in setting hygienic standards for handling and storage of eggs on farms.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is too early to judge the success of these new controls some of which came into effect last October, while the remainder become effective from 2 April 1990.

  Mountain Spring Water (Cyprus)
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the type and extent of bacteria found in Cypriot mountain spring water.

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not generally available. However, I understand that last year two brands of bottled water from Cyprus were removed from sale following action by port and environmental health officials on evidence of unsatisfactory microbiological purity.

  Benzene
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the validity of the statements by Mme Denise Pepin from the Institute of Hydrology in Clermont-Ferrand that benzene was only one group of trace elements filtered out from the mineral water and that of Dr. John Fawell, toxicologist at the water research centre in Buckinghamshire that it was not possible for the benzene to be naturally occurring; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I assume the question refers to Perrier water. I have asked my officials to write to the EC Commission raising this and other questions concerned with its exploitation and labelling.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Curry
  The total fees paid out by my Department to management consultants, excluding computer consultants, for 1984–85 to 1988–89, the estimated expenditure in 1989–90 and provision for 1990–91 are given in the table:

  £

  1984–85

  27,110

  1985–86

  174,724

  1986–87

  135,279

  1987–88

  44,015

  1988–89

  162,114

  11989–90

  143,175

  21990–91

  123,198

  1 Estimate.

  2 Provision.

  Information for earlier years is not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Lindane
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the answer of 6 March,Official Report, columns 559–60, what levels of lindane have been detected; and what level is regarded as posing a threat to marine life.

  Mr. Curry
  Scientists from my Department conducted a survey of the concentrations of lindane in the waters of the English Channel in November last year. The concentrations of lindane found were 0·13 to 0·65 ng/l. This compares with 1 to 4 ng/l reported by scientists from the Federal Republic of Germany for the North sea in 1986, when the highest concentrations were found in the German Bight. The safe level for marine life set by United Kingdom authorities is 10 ng/l and that set by the European Community is 20 ng/l.

  Institute of Food Research
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many projects are presently being undertaken at the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research; how many are to be transferred to either Reading or Norwich; and how many of these are related to food safety.

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 19 February 1990,Official Report, column 576.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the implications for food safety, in respect of microwaves, of the decision to close the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are no implications for food safety, in respect of microwaves, of this closure, as there are facilities elsewhere with the capability to carry out research in this area. This will be evident from the answer which I gave on 13 December 1989,Official Report, column 694.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what facilities will exist, following the closure of the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research, capable of monitoring the safety of novel food processes on a scale appropriate to industrial conditions.

  Mr. Maclean
  It is for the industry to establish the safety of any novel food process. The research associations and institutes of higher education have appropriate facilities in addition to those of industry.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many representations he has received(a) in favour of and (b) against the projected closure of the Bristol laboratory of the Institute of Food Research; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received many representations against the proposed closure of the Bristol laboratory. Most of them were essentially worried about the consequences for food safety R and D. I can assure the hon. Member that the closure will not affect the Government's continuing commitment to address and resolve food safety and hygiene issues of concern to taxpayers, consumers, producers and industry.
  88
  Indeed the Government are spending more money—£11·5 million in total—this year on R and D into food safety. Consolidation of the work of the Institute of Food Research at Norwich and Reading will allow greater emphasis to be placed on the basic and molecular sciences, especially in key areas such as food safety where major programmes will be further strengthened and expanded.

  Gold Sinny Wrasse
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is currently being undertaken by his Department into the use of the gold sinny wrasse as a substitute for pesticide use in fish farming.

  Mr. Lang
  I have been asked to reply.

  Control of sea lice infestation is mainly a problem for marine salmon farms all but a few of which, in the United Kingdom, are located in Scotland.

  The possible use of gold sinny wrasse to control sea lice is being investigated in trials by the Institute of Fishery Technology Research in Norway and in Scotland by the Sea Fish Industry Authority's sea farming unit in conjunction with the salmon farming industry.

  A full evaluation of the Sea Fish Industry Authority's initial trials is not expected until the end of the year. Preliminary results including those from small-scale field trials with wrasse taken from the wild suggest that numbers of sea lice on farmed salmon are reduced in enclosures shared by wrasse. The viability of this method for large-scale and long-term control of sea lice is uncertain as yet and more work will be needed before commercial viability can be assessed.

  Although the work is not being undertaken directly at the hands of Fisheries Departments, the results will be of considerable interest in relation to the investigation of other possible alternative controls on sea lice. DAFS scientists are co-ordinating a large-scale project, part funded by the European Communities research programme into possible development of a vaccine treatment. Other work is being undertaken with industry support, for example, the institute of aquaculture, university of Stirling has been commissioned by the Scottish Salmon Growers' Association to investigate alternative treatment methods. It is not possible to say when positive results or practical methods of treatment might emerge from these investigations.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Director of Public Prosecutions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the content of his most recent discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

  The Attorney-General
  I frequently meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss matters of departmental interest, but I do not publish the contents of our discussions.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what subjects were discussed.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what matters were discussed.
  89
  The Attorney-General
  I last met the Director of Public Prosecutions on Monday 26 February 1990 when we discussed matters of departmental interest.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a further statement about the operation of the Crown prosecution service.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service continues vigorously to pursue the objectives detailed in the DPP's annual report to Parliament presented on 28 July 1989.

  House of Fraser
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Attorney-General what advice he has received from the serious fraud squad following its inquiries into the implications of the issues raised in the House of Fraser report; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  I refer to the written answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) on 1 March.

  Statistical Divisions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions in the Lord Chancellor's Department; if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administrative posts; and if he will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiated between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1990–91.

  The Attorney-General
  The number of staff by grade presently employed in the statistics branch of the Lord Chancellor's Department, together with the full complement, are as follows. No changes in complement are proposed for 1990–91.

  Grade of staff

  In post March 1990

  Complement 1989–90

  Grade 7/Statistician

  1

  1

  Assistant/Senior Assistant Statistician

  1

  1

  Higher Executive Officer

  1

  1

  Executive Officer

  2

  2

  Administrative Officer

  4

  4

  Administrative Assistant

  3

  3

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of the Lord Chancellor's Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  The Attorney-General
  At present there are six permanent staff employed in the press office of the Lord Chancellor's Department and one on secondment for six months. There are no vacancies at present and no current plans to increase the complement.
  90
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General what was the total expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  The Attorney-General
  The estimated 1989–90 expenditure by the Lord Chancellor's Department on press and public relations is £35,000 excluding staff costs. The budget for 1990–91 is £45,000.

  Total expenditure excluding staff costs is:

  £

  1984–85

  5,180

  1985–86

  13,253

  1986–87

  23,282

  1987–88

  34,500

  1988–89

  34,159

  The amounts spent for the previous years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General what were the figures for the spending by the Lord Chancellor's Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  The Attorney-General
  The figures for the Lord Chancellor's Department, excluding staff costs, are as follows:

  1988–89 Actual

  1989–90 Forecast

  1990–91 Forecast

  £

  £

  £

  Television advertising

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Radio advertising

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Newspaper advertising

  15,000

  15,000

  16,000

  Other promotional material

  32,500

  35,000

  45,000

  The breakdown of the amounts spent on respective areas and the amounts spent for the previous years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost, but the total expenditure including staff costs was:

  £

  1984–85

  135,730

  1985–86

  176,613

  1986–87

  148,020

  1987–88

  137,001

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Attorney-General what were the total fees paid out by the Lord Chancellor's Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  The Attorney-General
  On the information available, the cost to the Lord Chancellor's Department of employing management consultants for each financial year from 1984–85 to date is as follows:
  91

  £

  1984–85

  Nil

  1985–86

  221,000

  1986–87

  473,837

  1987–88

  134,255

  1988–89

  205,882

  1989–90

  178,500

  1990–91

  1190,000

  1 forecast

  The figures exclude computer consultancy. Figures for 1979–80 to 1983–84 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Crown Court, Barrow-in-Furness
  Mr. Franks
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to improve facilities at the Crown court in Barrow-in-Furness.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown court at Barrow-in-Furness sits only some 33 days per year and uses the magistrates court's premises. The magistrates court building is the responsibility of the magistrates courts committee and any improvement to the facilities is primarily a matter for it. There is a proposal to replace this building in the next few years, and therefore, there are no plans to make improvements to the facilities.

  Bailiffs
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has as to the number of firms in (i) England, (ii) each English region and (iii) each district council area of Wales of certificated bailiffs; and how many operatives they employ.

  The Attorney-General
  The Lord Chancellor's Department is not responsible for the employment of certificated bailiffs and the information sought is not kept. Each county court is, however, required to exhibit a list of bailiffs who have been granted a certificate to levy distress for rent by a judge of that court.

ENVIRONMENT

  Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice is made available by the TCS privatisation unit on compliance with European Economic Community directives on procurement.

  Mr. Chope
  Guidance on compliance with these directives is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Crown Suppliers privatisation unit takes account of Treasury guidance when advising Departments about the implications of privatisation of the Crown Suppliers.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps have been taken to determine whether guarantees in relation to TCS work accord with EEC and GATT directives.

  Mr. Chope
  All Departments have been made aware by Her Majesty's Treasury of the requirements of the EC directives and GATT agreement on Government 92
  procurement. My Department will comply with those requirements in any agreement which it has or may enter into with the Crown Suppliers, involving undertakings about future business levels for a period.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the total value of contracts that the Crown Suppliers has won through tender competition for suppliers to the private sector.

  Mr. Chope
  Total sales by the Crown Suppliers to the private sector from April to December 1989 were to the value of £748,000, of which £118,000 was awarded through tenders.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he anticipates that the audit of the 1989 trading results of the Crown Suppliers will be complete; and who will undertake that audit.

  Mr. Chope
  The audit of the 1989 trading results of the Crown Suppliers will be undertaken by the National Audit Office. Completion of the audit is planned for May 1990.

  South Yorkshire Fire Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority over its financial situation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment carefully considered the representations made by the authority on his proposals for the 1990–91 local authority grant settlement before taking final decisions on the settlement. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, subsequently met a delegation from the authority to discuss its financial situation.

  Housing (London)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the number of housing association units for rent approved by the Housing Corporation within the London boroughs, under its block three (new) programme in each of the years 1985–86, 1987–88 and 1988–89, with figures to be apportioned between newly built and rehabilitated units and with hostel and shared housing bedspaces to be itemised separately;

  (2) what was the number of units for rent within the London boroughs completed by housing associations, where funding was through housing association grant dispensed by the Housing Corporation in each of the years 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89, with figures to be apportioned between newly built and rehabilitated units and with hostel and shared housing bedspaces to be itemised separately.

  Mr. Chope
  This information is not held by the Department but by the Housing Corporation. I have therefore asked the Housing Corporation to respond to the hon. Member direct.

  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what were the total numbers of housing association homes for rent completed by housing associations within the London boroughs, excluding units already owned by associations that received housing
  93
  association grant for major repairs, where the primary funding source was local authority housing association grant for each of the years 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89, with figures to be apportioned between newly built and rehabilitated units and with hostel and shared housing bedspaces to be itemised separately;

  (2) what were the total numbers of housing association units for rent within the London boroughs that were approved by his Department for housing association grant, block three, where the funding authority was a local authority not the Housing Corporation, for each of the years 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89, with figures to be apportioned between newly built and rehabilitated units with hostel and shared housing bedspaces to be itemised separately.

  Department of the Environment—Housing

  £ million, cash

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  estimated outturn

  Gross capital expenditure

  Central Government

  Housing Corporation

  Support to private sector

  Provision for rent by Housing Associations

  516

  514

  567

  590

  673

  634

  Housing Association low cost home ownership

  181

  197

  148

  161

  118

  184

  Housing Association Grant via local authorities

  Support to private sector

  Provision for rent

  130

  108

  117

  106

  146

  143

  Home ownership

  5

  3

  3

  17

  23

  20

  Other central government

  Support to private sector

  Home ownership

  7

  4

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Local authorities

  Public sector provision

  Renovation

  1,280

  1,312

  1,512

  1,731

  1,901

  2,425

  Provision for rent

  792

  704

  612

  625

  675

  605

  Support to private sector

  Renovation and clearance

  891

  608

  543

  560

  528

  500

  Provision for rent by Housing Associations

  13

  9

  19

  29

  -35

  -2

  Home ownership (including local authority sponsored Housing Association low cost home ownership)

  78

  58

  78

  83

  94

  104

  Public corporations:

  New Towns

  Public sector provision

  Renovation

  23

  9

  8

  6

  7

  6

  Provision for rent

  18

  7

  8

  6

  1

  0

  Support to private sector

  Home ownership

  40

  39

  23

  39

  38

  32

  Total public sector provision

  2,113

  2,033

  2,140

  2,368

  2,584

  3,036

  Total support to private sector

  1,860

  1,540

  1,500

  1,588

  1,587

  1,618

  Total renovation

  2,194

  1,929

  2,063

  2,296

  2,436

  2,931

  Total provision for rent

  1,468

  1,342

  1,323

  1,356

  1,460

  1,380

  Total home ownership

  310

  301

  255

  303

  275

  343

  Total Housing Corporation

  697

  711

  715

  752

  791

  818

  Total HAG via local authorities

  134

  110

  120

  122

  169

  163

  Total other central government

  7

  4

  3

  3

  2

  2

  Total local authorities

  3,053

  2,691

  2,764

  3,028

  3,163

  3,632

  Total New Towns

  81

  56

  40

  50

  46

  38

  TOTAL GROSS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

  3,973

  3,573

  3,641

  3,955

  4,171

  4,654

  Capital receipts:

  Housing Corporation

  -87

  -105

  -132

  -124

  -142

  -124

  Other central government

  -1

  -2

  -2

  -4

  -2

  -2

  Local authorities

  -1,628

  -1,617

  -1,899

  -2,248

  -3,219

  -3,300

  New Towns

  -88

  -64

  -98

  -143

  -226

  -216

  TOTAL CAPITAL RECEIPTS

  -1,804

  -1,787

  -2,131

  -2,519

  -3,589

  -3,642

  Net capital expenditure

  94
  Mr. Chope
  The detailed information requested is not available. Total numbers of housing association dwellings funded by English local authorities are published in table 2.26 of the quarterly HMSO publication "Housing and Construction Statistics Part 2", which is in the Library.

  Housing
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide in the Official Report figures consistent with tables 8.1 and 8.2 of Cm. 1008 for the years 1984–85 to 1989–90 but broken down on the same basis as table 9.1 of Cm. 609.

  Mr. Chope
  The figures are as follows:
  95

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  outturn

  estimated outturn

  Housing Corporation

  610

  606

  583

  628

  649

  694

  Housing Association Grant via local authorities

  134

  110

  120

  122

  169

  163

  Other central Government

  6

  3

  1

  -1

  1

  0

  Local authorities

  1,425

  1,074

  864

  780

  -56

  332

  New Towns

  -7

  -8

  -58

  -93

  -180

  -178

  TOTAL NET CAPITAL EXPENDITURE

  2,169

  1,786

  1,509

  1,436

  582

  1,012

  Current expenditure

  Central Government

  Subsidies to:

  Housing associations

  20

  25

  29

  36

  38

  55

  Local authorities

  342

  409

  534

  473

  472

  571

  Housing Corporation and central Government, current

  32

  35

  38

  44

  47

  53

  Local authorities

  Subsidies to revenue deficits on local authority housing for rent

  440

  451

  422

  477

  441

  468

  Other current

  144

  166

  187

  227

  192

  211

  Public corporations

  Subsidies to New Towns

  119

  90

  85

  83

  78

  71

  TOTAL CURRENT EXPENDITURE

  1,098

  1,176

  1,296

  1,340

  1,269

  1,429

  Housing Action Trusts—EFL

  TOTAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT—HOUSING

  3,267

  2,962

  2,806

  2,777

  1,852

  2,441

  The footnotes to table 9.1 of Cm 609 apply also to this table.

  Since the publication of Cm 1008 planned gross capital expenditure by the Housing Corporation in 1989–90 has been increased by £120 million. The effect is not shown in the tables.

  1990–91 Standard spending assessments

  £ million

  Education

  Personal Social services

  Highway maintenance

  All other services

  Capital financing

  Total

  Camden

  52·762

  33·809

  5·078

  47·006

  12·609

  151·265

  Greenwich

  82·257

  25·451

  7·356

  24·933

  13·023

  153·020

  Hackney

  91·828

  45·074

  5·287

  47·003

  16·297

  205·490

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  45·602

  32·215

  4·262

  37·717

  12·563

  132·360

  Islington

  64·211

  34·146

  4·222

  42·762

  12·831

  158·172

  Kensington and Chelsea

  29·783

  23·497

  4·112

  30·189

  11·000

  98·581

  Lambeth

  105·484

  57·262

  6·656

  53·122

  17·709

  240·232

  Lewisham

  86·010

  35·035

  6·662

  33·144

  13·434

  174·285

  Southwark

  85·168

  40·813

  6·653

  43·907

  16·653

  193·194

  Tower Hamlets

  91·292

  32·414

  4·612

  33·654

  17·613

  179·585

  Wandsworth

  84·149

  43·829

  6·714

  49·241

  18·782

  202·715

  Westminster

  44·456

  34·161

  8·241

  68·772

  16·578

  172·208

  Barking and Dagenham

  48·338

  14·943

  4·290

  15·574

  5·935

  89·080

  Barnet

  88·054

  23·237

  7·946

  28·904

  11·859

  160·000

  Bexley

  67·800

  13·412

  6·230

  16·860

  12·048

  116·350

  Brent

  108·138

  35·191

  7·149

  47·924

  16·380

  214·782

  Bromley

  79·378

  20·353

  9·558

  20·446

  11·879

  141·615

  Croydon

  102·781

  27·523

  10·111

  34·768

  14·957

  190·140

  Ealing

  100·586

  30·872

  8·367

  46·396

  16·323

  202·545

  Enfield

  88·524

  21·500

  7·407

  26·255

  15·982

  159·669

  Haringey

  79·308

  32·528

  4·957

  35·439

  14·640

  166·872

  Harrow

  65·387

  13·080

  5·612

  18·333

  13·338

  115·750

  Havering

  71·015

  13·710

  6·588

  14·861

  11·130

  117·305

  Hillingdon

  69·110

  16·047

  7·870

  17·600

  15·241

  125·868

  Hounslow

  68·774

  18·643

  5·571

  21·846

  10·112

  124·945

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  36·275

  10·989

  4·251

  12·707

  8·686

  72·908

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will tabulate the amounts of each of the components in the standard spending assessments of each London borough, together with the respective totals.

  Mr. Chope
  The amounts are listed in the table:
  97

  Education

  Personal Social services

  Highway maintenance

  All other services

  Capital financing

  Total

  Merton

  47·164

  15·345

  5·192

  17·366

  12·510

  97·577

  Newham

  98·510

  31·636

  6·008

  41·619

  17·571

  195·344

  Redbridge

  71·225

  17·082

  6·278

  23·379

  11·167

  129·131

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  35·997

  13·677

  4·724

  14·686

  6·956

  76·039

  Sutton

  47·633

  12·233

  5·525

  14·173

  8·681

  88·245

  Waltham Forest

  81·744

  27·274

  5·808

  30·898

  14·935

  160·660

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisions govern the eligibility of student nurses for community charge relief at the student rate; and what proportion of student nurses will pay at the student rate in 1990–91.

  Mr. Chope
  The eligibility criteria for the student relief are set out in the Personal Community Charge (Students) Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/443). They provide that students on undergraduate nursing courses and those undertaking Project 2000 training will be eligible for the student relief. No precise estimate can be made of the numbers involved. However I understand that, by 1 April 1990, Project 2000 schemes will be in operation at 13 of the 86 nursing schools in England. Over the next few years the scheme will be extended to cover all pre-registration nursing trainees receiving their training in schools of nursing.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, further to his written reply dated 14 February,Official Report, column 222, concerning the amount of poll tax payable in 1990–91 per adult for each region, and so on whether he will provide in each case an estimate of the number of adults, excluding ratepayers' spouses, who do not currently pay rates.

  Mr. Chope
  [holding answer 26 February 1990]: The available information is shown in the table. This is based on data taken from the family expenditure survey and shows the estimated number of adults in each region who are not the head of household or their spouse.

  Thousands

  Northern

  380

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  510

  North West

  760

  East Midlands

  430

  West Midlands

  630

  East Anglia

  230

  Greater London

  800

  Remainder of South East

  1,100

  South West

  530

  Total England

  5,400

  Numbers may not add due to rounding.

  Coucil Houses
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment how much local authorities spend on former council houses they no longer own; and when he anticipats local authorities being free of debt on these former assets.

  Mr. Chope
  Local authorities in England spent £110 million up to 31 March 1989 on reinstatement grants under part XVI of the Housing Act 1985. Information is 98
  not available on how much authorities pay in home improvement grants on former council houses. Authorities generally manage their debt on a collective basis and it is, therefore, impossible to attribute a specific amount of outstanding debt to specific former assets. Outstanding debt in authorities' housing revenue accounts, however, is taken into account in the assessment of housing subsidy.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average price of council houses sold during the period 1985 to the end of 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  The average discounted selling price for local authority and new town sales in England between January 1985 and December 1989 was £16,200.

  Housing Corporation
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the Housing Corporation has given the south-west housing associations permission to bring money forward from 1990–91 into the current financial year to pay urgent bills.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 30 January 1990,Official Report, column 175, that the capital resources available to the Housing Corporation in 1989–90 would be increased by £120 million, with a corresponding reduction in 1990–91, to reflect a greater speeding up of housing schemes by housing associations than had been forecast. This will enable the Housing Corporation to meet equitably the inescapable commitments of housing associations across all regions for the rest of the financial year.

  Residential Property (Greater London)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the percentage change in the price of residential properties in Greater London following the limiting of Miras to one per dwelling.

  Mr. Chope
  The rules giving mortgage interest tax relief were changed from 1 August 1988; changes in mix-adjusted house prices in Greater London from the third quarter of 1988 are as follows:

  Percentage change on previous quarter

  1988

  July-September

  7

  October-December

  7

  1989

  January-March

  -4

  April-June

  5

  July-September

  -1

  October-December

  -3

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment why, in table 3–11 of the United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory (DOE/RW 188.061), substantial low-level waste arisings are included with the figures for committed sources.

  Mr. Trippier
  I presume that the hon. Member refers to the table on page 3–11 which gives this information. These low-level waste arisings are those from the operation and decommissioning of plant currently in existence, under construction or required in future for currently approved programmes.

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff of the Property Services Agency were serving abroad on 1 February; in which countries they were stationed; and whether they will be given the opportunity to return to the United Kingdom before privatisation.
  100
  Mr. Chope
  At 1 February 1990 the numbers of civil servants in the Property Services Agency serving abroad were:

  Non-industrial

  Industrial

  Germany

  274

  5

  Cyprus

  53

  20

  Gibraltar

  49

  4

  Hong Kong

  12

  —

  Ascension

  6

  4

  Belize

  10

  12

  Bermuda

  1

  —

  Falkland Islands

  20

  —

  Canada

  2

  —

  United States of America

  1

  —

  428

  45

  Up to privatisation, staff serving abroad will be expected to serve out their tours in the normal way.
  101
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what number of Property Services Agency staff have been told that they cannot accept or apply for Civil Service posts outside the Property Services Agency.

  Mr. Chope
  None, but all staff are aware that their release will depend on whether they need to be replaced and if so when a suitable replacement can be found.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the number of consultants and contractors who failed the Property Services Agency's security clearance tests in 1987, 1988 and 1989.

  Mr. Chope
  It is not the practice to give detailed information about security vetting.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the staff of the Property Services Agency will lose their civil servant status following their transfer to the proposed Government-owned company.

  Mr. Chope
  Yes.

  Property Holdings
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what number of staff Property Holdings will have on 1 April, in the following groups:(a) P and T, (b) AEG and (c) support.

  Mr. Chope
  It is anticipated that at 1 April 1990 the non-industrial staff numbers in Property Holdings will be:

  Number

  P and T

  160

  AEG

  470

  Support

  40

  PSA and Crown Suppliers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has made any statement to the staff of the Property Services Agency or TCS about their future since he became Secretary of State.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend's speeches in the debates on the Second and Third Readings of the Property Services Agency and Crown Suppliers Bill included statements about the future prospects for the staff of TCS and the agency.

  Interdepartmental Dispatch Service
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will require new employees of the interdepartmental dispatch service to be security cleared following privatisation.

  Mr. Chope
  The existing requirements in relation to the security clearance of IDS staff engaged in the carriage of Government mail will continue after privatisation.

  Statistical Divisions
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, by grade, in the statistical divisions 102
  in his Department; if he will differentiate between staff in statistical posts and staff in administration posts; and if he will give the staffing complements by grade, and differentiated between statistical and administrative posts, proposed for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The numbers and grades of staff and complement in the statistical divisions' of DOE(C), at 1 March 1990 are as follows:

  Staff in post as at 1 March 1990

  Complement

  Chief Statistician

  5

  5

  Statistician

  17

  17

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  6

  6

  Assistant Statistician

  3

  3

  G7

  1

  2

  SEO

  4

  3

  HEO

  13·5

  13

  EO

  29

  29

  AO

  32

  36

  AA

  6·5

  13

  Secretary/Typist

  4

  4

  Total

  121

  131

  1 The statistical divisions, in DOE(C) comprise Housing data statistics, Construction Industry Statistics, Finance Local Authority Statistics, Iand and General Statistics and Environmental Protection Statistics.

  There are also statisticians employed throughout the Department in posts of a largely administrative nature; these numbered 11 at 1 March 1990. Complements for 1990–91 have not yet been finalised.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts, in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  On 1 March there were 44 staff employed in the information directorate of my Department (including PSA), against a complement of 47. The proposed complement for 1990–91 is 48.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Following is the information for water privatisation advisers:

  £ million

  1986–87

  1·1

  1987–88

  0·6

  1988–89

  5·1

  1989–901

  23·0

  1 Forecast outturn.

  Expenditure relating to the privatisation of the Crown Suppliers was £40,000 in 1988–89 and is estimated to be £280,000 for 1989–90.
  103
  No expenditure was incurred on privatisation advisers prior to 1986–87. Final decisions have not yet been made about costs to be incurred in 1990–91.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  Information relating to the financial years 1979–80 and 1984–85 inclusive is not readily available and cannot be obtained without disproportionate cost. Final decisions have not yet been made about costs to be incurred in 1990–91.

  Following is the information relating to the remaining financial years for my Department including PSA:

  £ million

  1985–86

  4·3

  1986–87

  5·0

  1987–88

  5·3

  1988–89

  8·4

  1989–901

  16·4

  1 Forecast outturn.

  Waste Imports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give(a) figures for (i) the amount of waste controlled by the transfrontier shipment regulations and (ii) the amount of waste not controlled by the transfrontier shipment regulations imported into the United Kingdom between 31 October 1988 and 30 October 1989 and (b) details of the wastes not controlled by the transfrontier shipment regulations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  A total of 36,789 tonnes of waste was imported into England and Wales under the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988, between 31 October 1988 and 30 October 1989. Information is not held centrally on the quantities or types of imported waste that are not controlled by the transfrontier regulations.

  Palace of Westminster (Hairdressing)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the provision in the Palace of Westminster of hairdressing facilities for hon. Ladies and female staff; and when he expects the facility to become available.

  Mr. Chope
  I am not aware of having received any request from the House authorities to consider converting accommodation for use as hairdressing facilities.

  Demolition
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, pursuant to his statement of 2 March,Official Report, columns 531–34, he will set out the options he is considering with regard to meeting the objectives of residential planning demolition restraint.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  As I indicated to the House on 2 March, I intend shortly to issue a consultation paper about 104
  whether the demolition of dwellinghouses should be brought within planning control. It will set out the issue and invite views on the scale of the problem nationwide. I expect the paper to seek comments on the following options:

  (a) designation of more conservation areas;

  (b) designation of local or special development areas;

  (c) a system of prior notification of demolition of residential property;

  (d) a code of practice for housebuilders;

  (e) further policy advice from my Department;

  (f) require planning permission to be obtained before demolishing any dwellinghouse.

  Maintenance
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when the cash-limited amount for minor maintenance work charged to class XX, vote 18, subhead G (maintenance and other operating costs) for 1989–90 was exhausted.

  Mr. Chope
  Funds are still available, but, in order to stay within the provision voted by Parliament, it is necessary to consider priorities with particular care during the rest of the financial year.

  Water Filters
  Mr. Kirkhope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what harmful bacteria have been identified as generally present in a carbon water filter.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Carbon filters absorb organic matter present in water and also promote the decomposition of chlorine. Therefore, a carbon filter can support the development of a wide range of bacteria by providing nutrients for growth and by protecting bacteria from the disinfectant action of chlorine.

  The following potentially harmful species of bacteria have been detected in carbon water filters:
  Pseudomonas Aeruginosa, Aeromonas Hydrophilla, Klebsiella.

  These species are all known to be opportunistic pathogens and as such as potentially harmful to the very young, the elderly and immuno-compromised patients.

  Kleinwort Benson
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on how many occasions and for what purpose his Department has commissioned work from Kleinwort Benson since July 1988.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I am not aware that my Department has placed any commission with Kleinwort Benson since July 1988.

  Fridge Bank
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will consider supporting a national fridge bank scheme as a way of reducing chlorofluorocarbons by removing old and unwanted fridges.

  Mr. Trippier
  We have commissioned a technical report by Coopers and Lybrand which deals with the problem of the existing stock of chlorofluorocarbons. We will consider whether any new initiatives are appropriate in the light of that report.

  Rating Reform
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those regulations governing the introduction of the community charge and the uniform business rate which have yet to be(a) laid before the House and (b) debated by the House.

  Mr. David Hunt
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The regulations still to be laid before the House are as follows:

  The Community Charge

  1. Amendments to the administration and enforcement regulations.

  2. Make up of the general fund.

  3. Arrangements for netting of RSG and redistributed NNDR payments to local authorities and NNDR contributions from local authorities.

  4. The form of the bills to be used when an authority is charge capped.

  5. Adjustments to rates recoverable or written off after 1 April 1990 relating to earlier years.

  6. Exemption of 18–19 year olds still at school.

  National Non-Domestic Rates

  7. Valuation of caravan sites, universities and polytechnics.

  8. Alteration of lists—appeals against rateable values and Valuation and Community Charge Tribunals procedures for NNDR.

  9. Savings from General Rate Act 1967 and related provisions.

  10. Repeals and Consequential amendments.

  11. Payment of interest on overpaid rates.

  12. Transitional arrangements: additional rules to deal with special cases.

  13. Rateable Values of Utilities: National Power plc and nuclear power stations. (Subject to an Affirmative Resolution).

  The last debate which covered affirmative regulations and regulations subject to negative resolutions that had been prayed against took place in the House on 20 December 1989. On 18 January 1990 the House approved the report giving effect to the 1990–91 grant settlement.

  Industrial Waste
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures his Department has taken to provide incentives for companies to reduce pollutant output and to penalise those who fail to comply with current regulations governing the output of industrial waste.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: Companies whose processes pollute the environment are expected to meet the full costs of the measures which the regulatory authorities require them to take in order to control the level of their emissions or discharges. Failure to comply is punishable by law, and offenders may face unlimited fines in the higher courts under provisions contained in the new Environmental Protection Bill.

  Chemical Waste
  Mrs. Rosie Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps his Department has taken to oblige the dumpers of chemical waste to prove its safety before dumping is permitted.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: Under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, chemical waste must be disposed of to suitably licensed, Iand-based facilities. In granting the licence, the waste disposal authority must be satisfied that the proposed activities will
  106
  not endanger public health or pollute water. Disposals of wastes at sea are licensed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food only where there are suitable land-based facilities, and where the materials involved will not have an adverse effect upon the marine environment.

  North Sea Dumping
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure that the ministerial declaration made at the second international North sea conference concerning the reduction of inputs of dangerous substances to rivers and estuaries is achieved; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  [pursuant to his reply, 7 March 1990, c.734.]: I represented the Government at the third North sea conference in The Hague on 7 and 8 March. This was a constructive conference, as a result of which the North sea will be a cleaner and more wholesome sea. The United Kingdom was able to make a positive contribution to the outcome. The main features of the final declaration were as follows.

  We confirmed our intention to end the dumping of industrial waste by the end of 1992, and to end dumping of sewage sludge by the end of 1998. We agreed on a strengthened approach to the reduction of nutrient inputs. In this, the decision that I announced before the conference to treat all sewage discharges made a significant contribution.

  Our agreement on a harmonised approach to the control of dangerous substances is a most important step forward. It addresses the most serious source of contamination of the North sea, namely rivers. The commitment to reduce still further the impact of certain substances, to both air and water, underlines the urgency of our approach to this central problem.

  We agreed to phase out and destroy all PCBs by 1999 at the latest. We made clear our fundamental objection to the long-term storage of PCBs, which is environmentally dangerous. Destruction is essential and I am particularly pleased that we pledged ourselves to provide sufficient destruction facilities for each country to destroy its own waste.

  Finally, I should like to single out the agreement on wildlife, a topic which previously has been neglected. The agreement provides for action to protect and conserve wildlife, especially dophins and porpoises, and habitats. It will serve as a platform on which to build more extensive and ambitious proposals in the years to come.

  The efforts of all signatories must now be directed towards the implementation of the final declaration. The United Kingdom will produce an implementation plan within three months.

  A copy of the final declaration is being deposited in the Library.

  Irish Sea
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if Her Majesty's Government have any plans to increase funding for monitoring radioactive sewage and chemical waste dumping into the Irish sea and research into the environmental implications.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  My Department undertakes a substantial programme of environmental monitoring and research covering the

  107
  Irish sea. We have no current plans to increase the resources committed to this work but the programme is kept under continuous review.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a comparative study of levels of radiation in the Irish sea and in other seas.

  Mr. Curry
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no plans to do so. Such a study has been carried out by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. The results were published in July last year as "The Radioactivity of the Sea", by M. I. Walker and K. S. B. Rose, AERE R 13365.

  Flood Prevention
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what changes have been made by the National Rivers Authority on finance available for flood prevention; and if he will list these areas by area.

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: I have been asked to reply.

  The flood defence expenditure of the National Rivers Authority is primarily funded by means of grants towards capital expenditure from my Department and the Welsh Office and by levies on local authorities. The table provides estimates for 1989–90 and 1990–91 by flood defence district:

  £'000

  Flood Defence Districts

  1989–90 Total

  1990–91 Total

  (Maintenance and capital)

  (Maintenance and capital)

  Northumbria

  2,028

  2,613

  North West

  15,212

  17,338

  Severn Trent

  16,588

  21,125

  South West

  5,972

  7,122

  Thames

  46,882

  50,255

  Yorkshire

  13,060

  14,081

  Anglian

  42,231

  46,742

  Southern

  17,207

  18,776

  Wessex

  9,370

  10,805

  Welsh

  9,164

  9,939

  Total

  177,714

  198,796

SCOTLAND

  Law Reform
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland by what means he will determine whether prospective members of the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board possess each of the required attributes prescribed in paragraph 4 of schedule 1 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; and whether prospective members will be required to sit an examination or other written test.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There will be no examination or written test for prospective members of the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board. The membership will be selected with regard to the areas of expertise or knowledge set out in paragraph 4 of schedule 1.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff will be employed in each of the 108
  first five years of operation by the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board in terms of paragraph 8 of schedule 12 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; and what is the estimate of the total remuneration to be paid to them including employers' national insurance contributions, taxation, pensions and allowances.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Such matters will be for the board to determine.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will ensure that there is always a certain minimum number of qualified solicitors on the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I do not propose any such permanent quotas, although I fully expect solicitors to be represented in the initial appointments.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what bodies he proposes to consult prior to making appointments to the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  At the least I expect to consult bodies representing the interests referred to in schedule 1, paragraph 4 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of the amount of funds the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board will be required to establish and maintain in terms of paragraph 16 of schedule 1 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This will be a matter for the board.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what revenue the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board will be entitled to receive and from what sources; what is the estimate of the annual revenue of the board at the end of each of the first five years of operation; and what is his estimate of the total expenditure of the board in each of the first five years of operation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to clause 14(2) and schedule 1, paragraph 11(2) (c) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill as regards sources of revenue. It is not yet possible to forecast the revenue and expenditure of the board.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he anticipates that the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board will be established.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Subject to proceedings on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, during 1991.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses he has received to the proposals for multi-disciplinary practices.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) on 26 February 1990.
  109
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many times and on what dates he has met representatives of the Law Society of Scotland with regard to part II of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; and if he has sought their detailed views with regard to clause 15(5) and clause 15(9) thereof;

  (2) when he last met with members of the Scottish Law Society to discuss legal reform; and on how many occasions since he has met with representatives of the Scottish Law Society.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South on 26 February 1990. I am aware of views expressed by the Law Society on the subsections referred to, notably that the powers there should be duties.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will confer upon the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board powers to suspend the business of any qualified conveyancer, prior to such person having been formally found guilty of professional misconduct.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Such a situation would not arise since the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill does not provide for a qualified conveyancer, as such, to offer conveyancing services.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make it his policy to publish prior to the commencement of the Committee stage of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill a code of conduct to govern the manner in which conveyancing practitioners conduct the provision of conveyancing services, and the matters referred to in paragraphs (b) to (e) inclusive of clause 15(9) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill;

  (2) when he first drafted a code of conduct to apply to persons other than solicitors permitted to carry out conveyancing services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  An annex showing what a code of conduct on conveyancing might provide for was published in my right hon. and learned Friend's consultation paper, "The Legal Profession in Scotland", in March 1989. There is room for further refinement of what the code should contain before any attempt is made to draft regulations—a process on which I do not propose to embark before the Bill is enacted.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the public will be entitled to inspect the register of confirmation practitioners to be set up in terms of clause 17(1) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, any conditions attached against the applicant's name in the register in terms of clause 17(5)(a) of said Bill.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are to be conferred upon the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board disciplinary powers analogous to those possessed by the Scottish solicitors disciplinary tribunal.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are many parallels between the disciplinary powers proposed for the board and those of the Scottish solicitors disciplinary tribunal.
  110
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there are to be conferred upon the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board powers to levy fines.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This question is under consideration.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with the Director General of Fair Trading on regulations referred to in clause 15(5) and clause 15(9) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill; and whether these and other regulations under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill will be available before the Bill passes through Committee stage in the House.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The making of regulations under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) (Bill) and consultation on their terms is dependent on the passage of the Bill.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what disciplinary powers are to be conferred upon the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board, other than suspension or revocation of registration.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to clause 18(3) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he will give to the Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board with regard to(a) educational qualifications and (b) practical training necessary before any person applying for registration as a qualified conveyancer has his application granted.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Responsibility for rules on these matters will be with the board, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. The board will be able to seek whatever guidance it requires.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated salary to be paid to(a) the chairman and (b) the members of the proposed Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board in its first year of operation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  These matters have not been decided.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated total annual cost from public funds of the proposed Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board to be set up in accordance with clause 14 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, for each of the first five years of its operation.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This will depend on how quickly the board becomes self-financing.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what response he received to the consultation paper, "The Legal Profession in Scotland", from the Society of Scottish Conservative Lawyers.
  111
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend received one response from the Society of Scottish Conservative Lawyers, dealing with solicitors' rights of audience before the Court of Session and the House of Lords.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what research he has initiated into the impact upon the provision of legal aid services in Scotland of the proposals contained in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill to allow non-solicitors to carry out conveyancing services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. The Scottish Home and Health Department has however commissioned a study of the geographical distribution and accessibility of solicitors' offices in Scotland. This work should provide the basis for a follow-up study after the proposals contained in the Bill have been implemented.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what research was carried out to assess how the fees charged by solicitors for conveyancing services varied as from region to region; and what research was carried out prior to the publication of the paper, "The Legal Profession in Scotland", with regard to the downward effect on the level of fees of the abolition of scale fees and permission to advertise;

  (2) what market research the Government carried out prior to publication of the paper, "The Legal Profession in Scotland" and what market research has been carried out as to the level of fees charged by solicitors in Scotland for conveyancing services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A research project is currently under way to compare fees charged for conveyancing before and after the abolition of scale fees in 1985. A further project nearing completion has examined the impact of advertising by solicitors on their fee-charging practices. Both projects use data drawn from a number of market areas of different sizes throughout Scotland.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps will be taken to ensure that solicitors undertaking work under the legal aid schemes compete on level terms with non-solicitors solely undertaking conveyancing and confirmation services.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Hardly any legal aid expenditure is on conveyancing and confirmation but I intend that clients should have the same access to legal advice and assistance for such matters whether they use a solicitor or an appropriate practitioner. The basis of remuneration will also be the same.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether premises have been identified to be used by the proposed Scottish Conveyancing and Confirmation Practitioners Board.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the public will be entitled to inspect the register of conveyancing practitioners referred to in clause 15 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Yes.
  112
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, under clause 19 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill, qualified conveyancers and other non-solicitors will be empowered to carry out conveyancing services and be entitled to carry out commercial conveyancing.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No

  Leukaemia
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what action he has taken following the publication of the Gardner report into leukaemia and pre-conceptual radiation at Sellafield;

  (2) what plans he has in the light of the Gardner report suggesting a direct link between parental exposure to radiation at nuclear installations and childhood leukaemia to establish further case control studies along the lines of Gardner in Scotland;

  (3) when the results of the case control study at Dounreay into possible leukaemia clusters will be published.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The results of the case control study at Dounreay are expected by the summer. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment is currently assessing the evidence relating to leukaemia incidence around all the other Scottish nuclear sites and Scotland as a whole.

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

  Mr. Rifkind
  The figures for the Scottish Office are:

  Staff in post at 1 March 1990

  Vacant Posts

  Proposed staff 1990–91

  Professional Grades:

  Grade 5

  2

  —

  2

  Grade 7

  16

  —

  16

  Asst/Senior Asst Statistician

  10

  3

  13

  Administrative Grades:

  Higher Executive Officer

  10

  —

  10

  Executive Officer

  23

  —

  23

  Administrative Officer

  46

  —

  46

  Administrative Assistant

  16

  3

  18

  Personal Secretary

  2

  —

  2

  Total

  125

  6

  130

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the latest figures for the number of staff presently employed, and the full complement of staff, including vacant posts in the press and public relations office of his Department; and what is the proposed complement for 1990–91.
  113
  Mr. Rifkind
  At 1 March 1990 the number of staff employed in the information officer grades in the Scottish information office was 31½. At that date there were no vacancies.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The running costs of the Scottish information office for each year from 1985–86 are as follows:

  £ million

  1985–86

  0·9

  1986–87

  1·0

  1987–88

  1·1

  1988–89

  1·2

  11989–90

  1·4

  21990–91

  1·6

  1 Estimated outturn.

  2 Plans.

  These figures exclude expenditure on information campaigns.

  Directly comparable figures for years prior to the introduction of new Scottish Office budgetary arrangements in 1985–86 are not available.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by his Department in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Rifkind
  No expenditure was incurred between the years 1979–80 and 1986–87 inclusive. Expenditure since then has been:

  £

  1987–88

  615,648

  1988–89

  2,314,775

  11989–90

  5,205,000

  1 Estimated outturn.

  The provision for 1990–91 will be contained in the supply estimates to be published on 20 March.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional materials in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The latest estimates of expenditure by the Scottish Office in the current financial year on television; radio; newspaper advertising; and printed and other material are £957,000, £73,000, £1,080,000 and £913,000 respectively. The corresponding figures for 1988–89 were £591,000, £36,000, £422,000 and £1,064,000 respectively.
  114
  Prior to 1988–89 an analysis of expenditure was not maintained in the form requested. Total expenditure on information publicity for 1979–80 and subsequent years to 1988–89 was:

  £

  1979–80

  263,000

  1980–81

  362,000

  1981–82

  393,000

  1982–83

  386,000

  1983–84

  360,000

  1984–85

  704,000

  1985–86

  677,000

  1986–87

  857,000

  1987–88

  1,094,000

  Proposed provision for expenditure by the Scottish Office on information campaigns in 1990–91 is £2·5 million. Detailed decisions on expenditure by media have not yet been taken. None of these figures includes the running costs of the Scottish information office.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the total fees paid out by his Department to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave him on 13 March 1989 at column 35. Additional information is as follows:

  £

  11988–89

  1,162,108

  21989–90

  289,276

  21990–91

  408,000

  1Out-turn.

  2 Estimated figure.

  Caledonian MacBrayne
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the names of the chairman and directors of Caledonian MacBrayne; what are their periods of office and their annual remuneration; and what were the organisations, voluntary associations and political parties from which they were recruited, selected or appointed to their posts.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The names of those who have accepted the Secretary of State's invitation to form the new board of Caledonian MacBrayne Limited, along with relevant initial periods of appointment, are shown in the table:

  (Chairman)

  A. J. Struthers

  3 years

  (Chief Executive)

  C. S. Paterson

  —

  W. G. Cochrane

  3 years

  A. Gilchrist

  2 years

  K. H. MacKenzie

  3 years

  G. MacLeod

  2 years

  D. Martin

  3 years

  Mrs. E. Sillars

  3 years

  The chairman will be paid £15,000 per annum and all board members will be paid £4,500 per annum. In considering appointments to the board, the Secretary of State took care to strike a balance between commercial expertise and first-hand knowledge both of the islands which the company's vessels serve and of the needs of the

  115
  company's customers. No one has been invited to join the board on the basis of links with any organisation, voluntary association or political party. All appointments were made on merit.

  New Towns
  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints he has received against Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council's administration of grants for the improvement or modernisation of private homes in Cumbernauld new town in each of the past three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No complaints have been received during the past three years.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints he has received against Cumbernauld and Kilsyth district council's administration of capital consents for the refurbishment of council houses in Cumbernauld new town in each of the past three years.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the past two financial years and in the current financial year to date, I have received one letter of complaint.

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the salaries paid annually to the chairman, vice-chairman and board members of Cumbernauld development corporation.

  Mr. Lang
  The levels of remuneration of the chairman, deputy chairman and members of Cumbernauld development corporation in the 1989–90 financial year are as follows:

  £

  Chairman

  17,172

  Deputy chairman

  7,804

  Members

  3,525

  Mr. Norman Hogg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if the salaries paid to the chairmen, deputy chairmen, and board members of new town development corporations are intended solely as payment for attendance at board meetings; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what are the duties and responsibilities of persons appointed to serve on the boards of new town development corporations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  Salaries paid to the chairman, deputy chairman and board members of new town development corporations are not intended solely as payment for attendance at board meetings.

  The task of a new town development corporation is to undertake the planning and development of the new town; to provide the wide range of facilities required, including housing, industrial and commercial development; and to co-ordinate action with the local authorities responsible for various services. Board members are appointed on a part-time basis under the provisions of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 and receive remuneration in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Their duties involve attendance at corporation meetings, which are normally held monthly, and such other tasks, for example
  116
  as chairman or member of internal committees or as representatives of the corporation in public as may from time to time be required. Most board members participate willingly in a range of such tasks.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the estimated cost to each local authority of providing alternative methods of sewage and waste disposal when the ban on dumping such waste at sea is enforced; if he will provide these funds to secure an immediate ban; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In Scotland, there are no licences in force for dumping of industrial waste at sea and none will be issued. The only current licences issued in Scotland are for dumping of sewage sludge at sea by local authorities. The announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 5 March 1990 that dumping of sewage sludge at sea is to be phased out by the end of 1998 affects two sewerage authorities, Strathclyde and Lothian. These authorities will now be required to find alternative land-based disposal routes and their preliminary assessments indicate that the capital cost of incineration as an alternative to sea disposal might be about £52 million in Strathclyde and about £12 million in Lothian. As new disposal facilities will take time to design, obtain planning permission, and construct, an immediate ban on sea disposal would not be practicable.

  Junior Hospital Doctors
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what currently are the hours of work of junior hospital doctors in each regional health authority area in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information on the hours actually worked by junior hospital doctors is not available centrally. The Scottish Home and Health Department asked health boards in January 1989 to review all junior doctors' rota commitments with a view to eliminating those which required doctors to be on duty more often than one night and one weekend in three. Reports on the outcome of this exercise are currently being evaluated.

  Geese
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many and what types of geese have been killed on Islay since April 1988.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of Greenland white-fronted and Barnacle geese reported as killed were six and 752 respectively. Figures for the 1989–90 season will not be available until after 31 May this year.

  Dementia
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of dementia in any form there were in(a) Scotland, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Greater Glasgow for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The information requested is not available.
  117
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people suffering from dementia were living in public institutions, for each year since 1979 in(a) Greater Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The number of people resident in mental handicap or mental illness hospitals and units on 31 December in each year with a diagnosis of dementia is as follows:

  Greater Glasgow

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1979

  824

  1,493

  4,197

  1980

  869

  1,588

  4,407

  1981

  882

  1,651

  4,554

  1982

  934

  1,710

  4,821

  1983

  989

  1,843

  5,112

  1984

  1,010

  1,873

  5,102

  1985

  1,019

  1,907

  5,481

  1986

  1,092

  2,030

  5,886

  1987

  1,113

  2,058

  5,972

  11988

  1,135

  2,027

  6,001

  11989

  1,135

  2,032

  6,050

  1Provisional.

  The number of mentally confused persons resident in local authority homes on 31 March in each year is as follows:

  Greater Glasgow

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  1980

  —

  445

  1,383

  1981

  —

  547

  1,573

  1982

  —

  615

  1,446

  1983

  433

  768

  1,582

  1984

  417

  813

  1,650

  1985

  393

  815

  1,760

  1986

  420

  907

  1,864

  1987

  509

  1,067

  2,136

  1988

  537

  1,110

  2,428

  1 The term "confused" in this context refers almost entirely to the elderly suffering from dementia, but could include some people with other conditions.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what studies his Department has carried out or sponsored about the problem of dementia in Scotland since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The chief scientist office of the Scottish Office has, since 1979, sponsored the following studies on dementia:
  An image analysing computer study of human cerebral cortex with special reference to parenthymatous senile dementia.
  An investigation into the effectiveness of a reality orientation programme in a psychogeriatric day hospital.
  A study of some problems associated with the evaluation of a psychogeriatric day hospital.
  Changes in the cell population of the cerebral cortex in old age and senile dementia investigated by automated image-analysis.
  A comparative community study of dementia in the elderly
  An evaluation of two approaches to the care of the elderly patient with dementia in a psychiatric hospital: a high stimulation environment compared to a traditional environment.
  A search for pre-clinical Alzheimer's Disease: a quantitive study of neurofibrillary tangle formation nerve cell loss and aluminium accumulation in an unselected necropsy population.
  118
  Workshop on Psychometric Assessment of Dementia.
  The electrophysiology of Dementia.
  Evaluation of Proton NMR Imaging as a diagnostic and localising instrument in pre-senile demential.
  The role of G proteins in dementia of the Alzheimer type.
  Diagnosis of dementia: A comparative study of electrophysiological and brain imaging.
  Brain Mapping in dementia and related brain diseases.

  Heart Disease
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients suffering from heart diseases were hospitalised in(a) Greater Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The table shows the number of patients in Greater Glasgow, Strathclyde and Scotland hospitalised through heart disease between 1975 and 1988:

  Year of discharge

  Heart Disease

  All conditions Scotland

  Greater Glasgow

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1975

  11,194

  18,284

  38,447

  544,972

  1976

  11,230

  19,063

  39,405

  578,001

  1977

  11,159

  19,382

  40,178

  576,833

  1978

  11,218

  19,309

  40,525

  574,803

  1979

  10,720

  18,895

  39,446

  568,555

  1980

  11,220

  20,299

  42,313

  583,192

  1981

  12,074

  21,788

  46,127

  618,038

  1982

  12,078

  21,623

  47,917

  565,598

  1983

  12,405

  22,629

  50,053

  636,081

  1984

  14,133

  24,657

  52,647

  654,715

  1985

  15,491

  26,092

  56,126

  669,7.59

  1986

  16,630

  28,018

  57,841

  677,901

  1987

  17,183

  28,501

  60,338

  695,956

  1988

  18,088

  29,994

  63,417

  720,350

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people died from heart diseases in(a) Greater Glasgow, (b) Strathclyde and (c) Scotland for each year since 1975.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The information requested is as follows:

  Deaths from Heart Disease1 1975–1988

  Year

  Greater Glasgow

  Strathclyde

  Scotland

  1975

  4,572

  10,071

  21,277

  1976

  4,820

  10,773

  22,053

  1977

  4,565

  10,332

  21,700

  1978

  4,863

  10,951

  22,601

  1979

  4,808

  11,010

  22,870

  1980

  4,510

  10,501

  21,768

  1981

  4,539

  10,583

  22,101

  1982

  4,592

  10,806

  22,377

  1983

  4,459

  10,363

  21,853

  1984

  4,361

  10,066

  21,342

  1985

  4,298

  10,267

  22,021

  1986

  4,229

  10,021

  21,105

  1987

  4,240

  9,951

  21,193

  1988

  4,127

  9,499

  20,704

  1 Rubrics 390–429 in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

  Note: 1975–1978 figures (ICD 8th Revision) are not strictly comparable to 1979–1988 figures (ICD 9th Revision) because of changes in the classifications.

  Factory Shortages, Strathclyde
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to solve the problem of factory shortages in Strathclyde.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The growth in economic activity in Scotland has inevitably led to increased demand for factory space. The Government recognise that the private sector cannot always meet this need. To this end they continue to make funds available to a range of bodies, including local authorities, new town development corporations and the Scottish Development Agency. Since April 1986, the agency alone has spent over £40 million under its factory building programme.

  In the current year the three Strathclyde new towns are expected to spend around £26 million on new factory construction and over £4 million on rehabilitation of existing units. An additional £5 million has been made available to local authorities specifically to help meet the demand for small factory units and industrial workshops, just over half of which went to Strathclyde.

  Eye and Dental Health
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is for each year since 1975, and in 1990 moneys, the National Health Service expenditure for the treatment of eye-related and dental diseases in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage people in Scotland to have regular(a) eye and (b) dental tests.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: The Government joined with the ophthalmic profession in a national eye awareness campaign to promote the benefits of eye care to the consumer. A series of newspaper and television advertisements ran from May to December 1989.

  Awareness of the need to visit a dentist is stimulated by on-going health board campaigns and initiatives promoted generally through the community dental service. Further encouragement to have regular dental checks will be provided by the new contract for general dental practitioners.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is, for each year since 1975, the amount of public funds provided for research on mental health in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 9 March 19901: Funding awarded by the Scottish Home and Health Department and the Scottish Education Department for research into mental handicap and illness is as follows:

  £

  1975

  —

  1976

  25,980

  1977

  59,711

  1978

  66,703

  1979

  61,563

  1980

  277,216

  1981

  53,769

  120

  £

  1982

  28,700

  1983

  103,937

  1984

  98,608

  1985

  209,160

  1986

  393,514

  1987

  105,260

  1988

  175,103

  1989

  267,730

  Community Care
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is, for each year since 1975, the total amount of public funds provided for community care or similar projects in Scotland, in 1990 moneys.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: I regret that the information is not available in the form requested. Community care extends over a wide range of different services and expenditure on it is not separately classified as such.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Rathbone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will review the availability and quality of pre-school education in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 March 1990]: It is for local authorities to decide on the extent and nature of pre-school education they provide. However, the number of children attending local authority nursery schools in Scotland has risen from 31,770 in 1979 to 40,855 in 1988, an increase of 28 per cent., while over the same period allowance for nursery education as part of overall provision for local authority current expenditure for education has increased from £13·5 million to £35·5 million. So far as the quality of education is concerned, I await the conclusions of the committee of inquiry into the educational experience of the under-fives chaired by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, and will consider carefully their relevance to Scotland.

TRANSPORT

  South Circular
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the progress of his consideration of proposals for the south circular road.

  Mr. Parkinson
  The several thousand responses received on the south circular assessment study are currently being collated and analysed. Decisions on the way forward will be announced as soon as possible.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement of the implications for transport policy should the Channel tunnel not be completed.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am confident that the Channel tunnel will be completed and see no point in speculating otherwise.
  121
  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much public money will be spent on the rail link with the Channel Tunnel and the provision of new rolling stock; and when he expects to make a journey through the tunnel on a train.

  Mr. Portillo
  British Rail is planning to spend over £ 1 billion on trains, station and maintenance facilities and track and signalling improvements, so that a full international passenger and freight service can begin on the day that the Channel tunnel opens. The holder of my office could expect to make a journey in June 1993.

  Road Accidents, Worcestershire
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fatal road accidents there were in the county of Worcestershire during 1989; and what was the comparable figure for(a) 1979 and (b)

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1988, the latest complete year for which figures are available, there were 72 fatal accidents in Hereford and Worcester. The comparable figures for 1979 and 1984 were 85 and 72 fatal accidents, respectively.

  Vehicle Excise Evasion
  Mr. David Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has as to the amount of revenue likely to be lost in 1989–90 as a result of vehicle excise evasion.

  Mr. Atkins
  A roadside survey carried out by the Department in June 1989 estimated the revenue loss through evasion of vehicle excise duty throughout Great Britain in 1989–90 was £103 million, or 3·5 per cent. of revenue due.

  Further details can be obtained from the transport statistics report "Vehicle Excise Duty Evasion in Great Britain in 1989·90" which is available in the House of Commons Library.

  Regional Airports
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of air passengers currently use regional airports.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  This information is collected by the Civil Aviation Authority. I understand that in the year ending October 1989, 33·8 per cent. of terminal passengers at United Kingdom airports used regional airports.

  London Assessment Studies
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received by 28 February on the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Atkins
  The many comments received by that date are currently being collated and analysed.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the results of the consultation process for the London assessment studies.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce the results of the consultation process for the London assessment studies.
  122
  Mr. Atkins
  As soon as possible.

  London Underground
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the future investment in London Underground.

  Mr. Portillo
  London Underground Limited plans to invest £1·7 billion over the next three years—more than double the level of investment over the last three years. Its plans include major projects such as the extension of the Jubilee line and the 85 new trains for the Central line. The plans also include a host of more modest investment proposals, all designed to make London's underground system safer, more reliable and less congested.

  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has to increase funding to allow increased capacity in London Underground stations.

  Mr. Portillo
  The grant to London Regional Transport will rise from £287 million this year to £672 million in 1992–93. This will, among other things, enable London Underground to invest over £200 million over the next three years in increasing the capacity of the most congested stations, including Victoria, Waterloo, King's Cross, Tottenham Court Road, Holborn and Angel. Schemes have been drawn up for 20 stations and more are in preparation.

  Transport Planning, London
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals the Government are putting forward to achieve better transport planning and co-ordination between the 32 London boroughs and the City of London.

  Mr. Atkins
  The discussion document, "Traffic in London", published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 14 December 1989, includes proposals for new traffic management guidance for London and a London traffic director, who could ensure the coherent development and operation of a priority "red route" network for London and the co-ordination of a London-wide parking strategy. The responses to public consultation on the proposals are being assessed.

  Railway Services (Midlands)
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of British Rail, he will discuss proposals for investment in railway passenger services in the midlands.

  Mr. Portillo
  Whenever my right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of BR, we discuss a wide range of issues.

  British Rail
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Parkinson
  I last met the chairman of British Rail on 13 February when we discussed a number of matters of mutual interest.
  123
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail, and what matters he plans to discuss.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail; and what matters he plans to discuss.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend next plans to meet the chairman of British Rail on 15 March to discuss a variety of matters.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend last met the chairman of British Rail on 13 February when they discussed a variety of railway issues.

  Dr. Woodcock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the percentage change in train miles per member of staff of BR since 1983.

  Mr. Portillo
  Train miles per member of BR staff totalled 2,123 in 1988–89, an increase of 26 per cent. since 1983.

  Air Transport Liberalisation
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made towards the liberalisation of European air routes.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In September 1989 the European Commission published its proposals for a second stage of air transport liberalisation. EC Transport Ministers discussed them formally for the first time in December 1989, reaching agreement in principle on a number of key areas. Discussions are taking place on the detail of the proposals, with a deadline for agreement of 30 June.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the second stage of the air transport liberalisation policy to be adopted.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Council of Ministers has decided that the second stage of liberalisation will be adopted by the end of June this year.

  Road Safety
  Dr. Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the recently announced £5·7 billion additional expenditure on roads has been earmarked for road safety measures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the recently announced £5·7 billion additional expenditure on roads has been earmarked for road safety measures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the recently announced £5·7 billion expenditure on roads has been earmarked for road safety measures; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  Safety is a central objective and integral part of the trunk road programme. It is not an optional 124
  extra whose costs can be separately identified. Details of the contribution of the programme to road safety are contained in section 6 of the report "Trunk Roads, England—Into the 1990s".

  Aviation Talks
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current position on the aviation bilateral discussions between the United Kingdom and the United States of America; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Parkinson
  We met in Washington on 11 January. We discussed a variety of topics. Prominent were the prospects for liberalising the United Kingdom-United States aviation market, and arrangements for new United States airline services to regional airports. These discussions are now being carried forward. Indeed, I have spoken to Mr. Skinner in the past week.

  Dial-a-Ride, London
  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give the funding figures for London dial-a-ride for 1985–86 and for 1991.

  Mr. Portillo
  Under the GLC, funding for the London dial-a-ride service in 1985–86 was £4·2 million. In 1990–91 the Government will provide £8·27 million. This is a real increase of 50 per cent., and underlines the Government's commitment to the success of the London dial-a-ride service.

  Commuters
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage commuters to travel by rail rather than by road.

  Mr. Portillo
  Each mode of transport should perform the role to which it is best suited as efficiently as possible. Rail offers the best means of moving large numbers of commuters into central London each day. A total of £1·2 billion is to be invested in Network SouthEast over the next three years to improve existing services and to cater for growth in demand. Over the same period, £1·7 billion is to be invested in London Underground to modernise the system, increase capacity and improve quality. The job of the Government is to balance the needs of each mode of transport and enable improvements to be made where they are necessary. It is for the commuter to choose how he or she wishes to travel to work.

  Rail Europe
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he or his officials last met representatives of Rail Europe; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Portillo
  Officials of my Department met proponents of this project last September and are due to do so again later this week.

  Immersion Suits
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received concerning the carriage of immersion suits as items of essential life-saving equipment on United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels; and if he will make a statement.
  125
  Mr. McLoughlin
  No recent representations about the carriage of immersion suits on fishing vessels have been received.

  British Rail Property (Trespass)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of British Rail incidents of trespass by hunts on British Rail property.

  Mr. Portillo
  No. These are matters for British Rail and the British Transport police.

  Roads Expenditure
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will match expenditure upon major trunk routes with that devoted to other roads in order to avoid the transfer of congestion from one to the other.

  Mr. Atkins
  Local highway authorities are responsible for expenditure on non-trunk roads. In 1990–91 the Government will be assisting with transport supplementary grant of £233 million, nearly 15 per cent. more than for the current year. But traffic growth is twice as fast on national roads as on local roads, and the most pressing problem is congestion on major trunk routes. Planned improvements to trunk roads will also help to relieve pressure on the local road network.

  Network SouthEast
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next meet the chairman of British Rail to discuss Network SouthEast.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend is next due to meet Sir Robert on 15 March. A variety of topics will be discussed.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss recent developments on British Rail's Network SouthEast services; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  My right hon. Friend has regular meetings with Sir Robert, at which a variety of matters are discussed.

  Traffic Congestion, London
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what analysis he, or any other body, has made concerning the factors determining or influencing major incidents of traffic congestion in central London.

  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of 11 December last (Official Report, column 487). The joint Metropolitan police traffic control systems unit working party is expected to report in the summer. It has been asked to consider whether it will be worth while to collect information about the causes of major incidents of traffic congestion in central London.

  London Roads
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is taking to make roads in London more environmentally appropriate.
  126
  Mr. Atkins
  The recent report, "Trunk Roads, England·Into the 1990s", detailed measures which this Government are taking to enhance the environment of trunk roads, including the allocation of extra resources for landscaping works and planting in urban schemes. A good example on an existing trunk road in London is to be found in my hon. Friend's constituency, where six miles of the A40 Western avenue is being landscaped and improved at a cost of over £640,000.

  Another initiative to be launched shortly is the "Eastgate Project", the object of which is to raise funds from City institutions, docklands businesses and others for environmental improvements along the corridor of the A 13 trunk road in Tower Hamlets. This largely privately funded project is designed to complement the borough council's own scheme of terrace refurbishments as well as the programme of road improvements to the A 13 itself.

  Road Construction
  Mr. Irvine
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes are included in his expanded road construction programme for the next three years.

  Mr. Atkins
  The national roads programme, announced recently in "Trunk Roads, England—Into the 1990s," includes 45 schemes under construction and over 500 in preparation.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of motorway have had their construction started since 1981; and how many miles have been started since.

  Mr. Atkins
  A total of 235 miles of new or widened motorway have been completed since April 1981. Seventy-one miles are currently under construction.

  A303
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport by what year he intends to have the whole of the A303 road from London to Exeter dual carriageway.

  Mr. Atkins
  Most of the route will have been improved to dual carriageway standard by the end of the decade. Further improvement schemes may be identified by the study into the needs of the A30/A303 route which was announced in May 1989.

  M1
  Mr. Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how long he expects the repairs on the M1 between junctions 8 and 9 to take to complete; when this section of the M1 was last subject to such major repairs; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  These works commenced on 5 March and are expected to last eight weeks. This particular section of the M1 was last subject to major repairs in 1974. The works are being carried out under a lane rental contract in order to minimise the period of operation.

  Air Congestion
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to relieve air congestion.
  127
  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for the provision of air traffic control services in the United Kingdom. The Government have approved a substantial increase in the authority's investment programme for air traffic control systems; the authority plans to spend some £600 million over the next 10 years. In addition, the authority has increased the recruitment of air traffic controllers from 80 in 1988 to 200 last year; this figure is planned to rise to 240 a year from 1991 onwards.

  Internationally, the Government have launched several initiatives to promote harmonisation and progressive integration of European air traffic control systems in order to increase airspace capacity.

  Mersey Tunnel
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the level of Mersey tunnel tolls; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  None.

  Road Casualties
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress he is making towards reducing road casualties by one third by the year 2000.

  Mr. Atkins
  A copy of the report "Road Casualty Reduction", which records progress for 1988–89, is in the Library. Improving road safety is one of our top priorities. We are working with local authorities, the police and all others involved to tackle the key problems identified in the road safety review and, above all, to encourage a sensible and responsible attitude among all road users.

  Toxic Cargoes (Loss at Sea)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has undertaken on the corrosive effects of seawater on metal containers applicable to the containment life of the container of lindane lost in the English Channel in 1989.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The lindane was contained in plastic-lined fibreboard drums which were then stowed in a standard freight container. There is ample information on the errosive effects of seawater on metals. In the case of plastic-lined fibreboard drums and other packaging materials international research under the aegis of the IMO is currently being undertaken and interim results are expected by the end of the year.

  Catalytic Converters
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the fitting of catalytic converters to new and existing cars.

  Mr. Atkins
  New cars could cost 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. more though this will depend on manufacturers' design solutions. For the vast majority of existing cars on the road, fitting a catalyst is not a practicable proposition. Their fuelling systems would not be sufficiently accurate and there would be problems in finding space for the catalyst under the bonnet or floor.

  Work to estimate the value of the environmental benefits from catalysts forms part of the Department of the Environment's 1990–91 research programme.

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

  Mr. Atkins
  The table gives data for the permanent staff in the directorate of statistics in the Department of Transport on 12 March 1990 and current complement. Statistical posts filled by members of the statistician group are shown at the top of the table. Two of the grade 7 statisticians work part time. There are also two members of the group in statistical posts elsewhere in the Department. The directorate also employs casual staff including currently three with statistical qualifications working in statistician group posts.

  The current bid for staffing in 1990–91 does not propose any change to the complement given in the table.

  Staff in post (12 March 1990)

  Current complement

  Statistician group

  Director of statistics (Grade 3)

  1

  1

  Chief statistician (Grade 5)

  4

  4

  Statistician (Grade 6)

  1

  1

  Statistician (Grade 7)

  121

  23

  (Senior) Assistant statistician

  3

  8

  Sub-total

  30

  37

  Other staff

  Principal scientific officer (Grade 7)

  1

  —

  Higher P and TO (PTOII)

  2

  2

  P and TO (PTOIII)

  1

  2

  Senior executive officer

  1

  —

  Higher executive officer

  11

  11

  Executive officer

  30

  31

  Graphics officer

  1

  1

  Administrative officer

  24

  25

  Administrative assistant

  3

  4

  (Senior) Personal secretary

  3

  5

  Sub-total

  77

  81

  GRAND TOTAL

  107

  118

  1 Including one Economic Adviser blocking a statistician post.

  Urban Transport Systems (EC)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what information he has regarding revenue subsidies provided for urban transport systems in EEC capital cities.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have no information of this nature: because different transport operators use different accounting techniques, there is no consistent basis on which to assess what subsidy is being paid and whether it is revenue or other subsidy.

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of London Regional Transport to discuss the reliability of the docklands light railway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 9 March 1990] The performance of the docklands light railway is a regular topic of discussion between the chairman of LRT, the chairman of the DLR and me.

EMPLOYMENT

  Employment Training
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment in respect of the last period for which figures are available how many people on employment training completed their anticipated course.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To end of September 1989, the latest date for which information is available, 33 per cent. of those who left employment training had completed their planned training. People leave employment training for a variety of reasons. These include entering jobs, self-employment and other training or further education.

  Social Charter
  Mr. Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether it is the Government's intention to provide an annual report on the implementation of the social charter.

  Mr. Eggar
  No. The United Kingdom Government were unable to support the proposal for a charter of fundamental social rights of workers at the European Council meeting in December 1989 in Strasbourg, and there is therefore no requirement for the Government to provide reports on the application of the charter in the United Kingdom.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he has any plans to abolish the wages councils.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 6 March,Official Report, column 543.

  Action Credit
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the five national sites being chosen for the launch of action credit as an employment service option for the long-term unemployed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Research into the viability of extending action credit to long-term unemployed people is being carried out in five employment service areas—Inner London West; West Kent and East Sussex; Renfrew, Dumbarton and Argyll; Lancashire North; and Coventry and Warwickshire.

  Benefit Claimants
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment at each appropriate quarterly date over the most recent three years, what was the flow of new quarterly attender claimants; and at the same dates, what was the stock of new quarterly attender claimants.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave her on 25 October 1989,Official Report, column 500.

  The figures for the last two quarters are as follows:

  Figures

  October 1989

  159,927

  January 1990

  144,090

  Fast Food Industry
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the average wage paid to young persons employed in the fast food industry; and what is the average number of hours worked by young persons in that industry.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available.

  Government Training Programmes
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on the numbers of people on Government training programmes in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) other European Community countries, (c) the United States of America and (d) Japan and on the costs of these programmes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Comparable statistics on the numbers of people on training schemes and the cost of such schemes are not available for the countries listed. The Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development has published estimates of public spending on labour market programmes in chapter 3 of the OECD "Employment Outlook," September 1988, and note A of the OECD "Employment Outlook", July 1989.

  Pesticides
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what arrangements exist to monitor those working in food-packaging premises for exposure to pesticides.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Food and Environment Protection Act 1985, the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 1988 and the general requirements of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 apply to exposure to pesticides in the food-packaging industry. Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive are responsible for enforcing this legislation at such premises.

  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make arrangements for the routine testing of farmers and farm workers for acetinecholine levels where they regularly use pesticides in the course of their work.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations apply to pesticides including those which contain anticholinesterase compounds.
  131
  Under the regulations employers of workers who are exposed to such compounds regularly during the course of their work are required to arrange routine health surveillance where appropriate.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed claimants since 9 October 1989 for each region and for Great Britain as a whole have been(a) issued with warning letters for not

  Actively Seeking Referrals and Disallowances, Refusal of Employment Referrals and Disqualifications Period 9 October 1989–26 January 1990

  Actively Seeking Employment

  Refusal of Employment

  Regions

  Claimants issued warning letters

  Claims referred to Adjudication Officer

  Allowed

  Disallowed

  Claims Referred to Adjudication Officer

  Not disqualified

  Disqualified

  Northern

  663

  99

  12

  32

  25

  5

  12

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  661

  98

  16

  30

  79

  10

  7

  East Midlands and Eastern

  823

  117

  39

  25

  146

  45

  41

  London and South East

  4,050

  661

  120

  125

  818

  77

  123

  South West

  634

  143

  20

  37

  62

  15

  10

  Wales

  892

  146

  22

  27

  76

  11

  18

  West Midlands

  908

  157

  44

  59

  137

  25

  19

  North West

  1,297

  141

  34

  42

  71

  14

  11

  Scotland

  1,469

  180

  47

  45

  50

  15

  5

  National

  11,397

  1,742

  354

  422

  1,464

  217

  246

  Mr. Denzil Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage, in the latest available year, of the working population of the United Kingdom was self-employed.

  Mr. Nicholls
  In September 1989, the latest date for which information is available, self-employed people represented 11·4 per cent. of the work force.

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  Expenditure on advertising and promotional material by the Department of Employment from 1979–80 to 1985–86 was as follows:

  £

  1979–80

  70,000

  1980–81

  320,000

  1981–82

  400,000

  1982–83

  360,000

  1983–84

  500,000

  1984–85

  320,000

  1985–86

  1,220,000

  Figures for television, radio and newspaper advertising and other promotional material are not available separately.

  The figures for 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 (latest estimate) are as follows:
  132
  actively seeking work, (b) had their claims referred to an adjudication officer for not actively seeking work, (c) had their claims (i) allowed or (ii) disallowed and (d) have been referred to an adjudication officer for refusing suitable employment; and how many of those in (d) have had their benefit disqualified.

  Mr. Eggar
  The table shows the statistical information for the period 9 October 1989 to 26 January 1990 on questions of "actively seeking employment" and "refusal of employment":

  Television

  Press/Radio

  Other promotional

  £ million

  £ million

  £ million

  1986–87

  9·3

  3·0

  4·1

  1987–88

  3·3

  0·8

  2·8

  1988–89

  2·1

  2·3

  1·3

  1989–90

  0·9

  0·9

  1·0

  The information on the Department's publicity budget for 1990–91 will be found in table 6.31 on page 29 of chapter VI of the public expenditure White Paper published in January 1990. Detailed decisions on expenditure by media group have not yet been taken.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the figures for the spending by the Training Agency on(a) television advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) newspaper advertising and (d) other promotional material in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  The information requested is given in the table:

  Television

  Radio

  Press

  Other

  Total

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Actual

  1979–80

  n/a

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  1980–81

  424,102

  4,127

  2,496,440

  2,588,540

  5,513,209

  1981–82

  —

  62,896

  1,814,935

  2,784,279

  4,662,110

  1982–83

  —

  89,654

  2,984,230

  3,222,031

  6,295,915

  1983–84

  1,479,748

  17,434

  764,409

  2,670,666

  4,932,257

  1984–85

  944,975

  3,477

  717,057

  4,473,283

  6,138,792

  1985–86

  9,676,257

  311,537

  1,867,286

  5,111,180

  16,966,260

  1986–87

  15,624,000

  258,631

  6,927,370

  12,124,000

  34,934,001

  1987–88

  17,321,000

  26,841

  6,950,159

  11,647,000

  35,945,000

  1988–89

  12,569,000

  n/a

  5,502,000

  12,449,000

  30,520,000

  133

  Television

  Radio

  Press

  Other

  Total

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  (£)

  Estimate

  1989–90

  8,610,000

  56,000

  6,164,000

  12,492,000

  27,322,000

  n/a—Not available.

  Detailed decisions on expenditure for 1990–91 as requested have not yet been taken.

  Public Relations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what was the total expenditure by his Department on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91;

  (2) what was the total expenditure by the Training Agency on press and public relations in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and the budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  (a) The information requested is given in the table:

  Year Actual

  Expenditure (£'000)

  1979–80

  n/a

  1980–81

  n/a

  1981–82

  n/a

  1982–83

  n/a

  1983–84

  n/a

  1984–85

  n/a

  1985–86

  n/a

  1986–87

  1·080

  1987–88

  1·014

  1988–89

  3·185

  Estimated

  1989–90

  3·331

  Figures for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are for DE information division only. Figures for TA are not available.

  Figures for 1988–89 and 1989–90 represent total expenditure separately incurred by DE information division and TA information services branch; the two merged in November 1989.

  (b) Expenditure levels for 1990–91 are in the process of being set.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the total sum paid out in fees to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by the Training Agency in 1979–80 and in each subsequent year; and what is his estimate for 1990–91.

  Mr. Eggar
  The only fees paid to outside organisations in the furtherance of privatisation by the Training Agency (and in respect of its training functions carried out by its predecessors the Training Commission and the Manpower Services Commission) have been those in respect of the privatisation of the Skills Training Agency (STA). These are:

  £'000

  1988–89

  132

  1989–90

  1287

  1 Estimated.

  134
  These figures are exclusive of expenses plus VAT. The supply estimate 1990–91 to be published on Budget clay will contain estimates for the privatisation of STA and the expenses involved in 1990–91.

  Management Consultants
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the total fees paid out by the Training Agency to management consultants in 1979–80 and in each following year; and what is his latest estimate for the current year and budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Expenditure by the Training Agency (and its predecessors, the Training Commission, and the Manpower Services Commission) on management consultancy for the years 1984–85 to 1988–89 was as follows:

  £ thousand

  1984–85

  128

  1985–86

  191

  1986–87

  403

  1987–88

  238

  1988–89

  215

  The estimated outturn for the current year, that is, 1989–90 is around £28,000. The budget for 1990–91 is £79,000. Information for the periods 1979–80 to 1983–84 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Offshore Working
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information he has on(a) the numbers of people on employment training working offshore on the United Kingdom continental shelf, (b) the percentage of such people offered full-time employment by offshore contractors and (c) the average length of time spent by such people offshore; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Skill Centres
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will take steps to ensure that Astra Training Services Limited will provide special facilities for the training of people with disabilities and learning difficulties throughout the 47 skill centres it has recently purchased.

  Mr. Eggar
  As a provider of Government-sponsored training programmes, Astra Training Services Limited will be required to promote equality of opportunity between all individuals in access to, treatment on and outcome from the training it offers.

  Disabled Workers
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether his Department has details of the hours worked by disabled people who, because of their disability, are unable to work full time but do work part time.

  Mr. Eggar
  I regret that information on the hours worked by registered people with disabilities is not
  135
  available. The study commissioned by my Department, of all people with disabilities in the labour market, will provide comprehensive information about their numbers and characteristics.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will make a statement on the reasons for the delay in publishing his internal reviews on employment services for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Eggar
  The preparation of the consultative document which will give the results of the review is almost complete. It will be published as soon as account can be taken in it of the results of the survey of people with disabilities in the labour market which my Department has commissioned. We currently anticipate that this will be during the course of June 1990.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if, pursuant to his answers of 30 November 1989,Official Report, columns 381–82, and 14 February, Official Report, column 152, he will make a statement on the publication of his Department's survey of the employment of economically active people with vocational handicaps.

  Mr. Eggar
  The fieldwork has been completed on the survey of people with disabilities in the labour market which my Department has commissioned. The results are expected to be available shortly.

  Sheltered Placements
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether the number of places under the sheltered placement scheme will continue to be increased, as stated in chapter 7 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1989–90 to 1991–92"; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many new places will be made available under the sheltered placement scheme during the 1990–91 financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Government have confirmed in chapter 6 of "The Government's Expenditure Plans 1990–91 to 136
  1992–93" (Cm 1006), published in January 1990, their commitment to the sheltered placement scheme. In 1990–91 the Government are making available to the sheltered employment programme an additional £4·2 million to the money available in the current financial year.

  I have decided to direct the additional funds available for next year towards meeting the costs incurred by sponsors rather than to increase the number of places on the programme.

  It is intended to increase the annual grant ceiling per place for voluntary bodies by 6 per cent. to £3,480 and the grant to local authorities by 5 per cent. to £2,730. There will, therefore, be no new SPS places available during 1990–91, but previous patterns of turnover indicate that some 1,000 existing places nationally are likely to become vacant to allow new entrants to join the programme.

  The employment service is notifying sponsors of these arrangements.

  "Action for Jobs"
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the expenditure on "Action for Jobs" printed material in 1988–89 was spent through the Central Office of Information.

  Mr. Eggar
  All the expenditure on "Action for Jobs" printed material in 1988–89 was spent through the Central Office of Information.

  Child Care
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make it his policy to make the provision of child care facilities one of the stringent criteria for an organisation to satisfy before securing approved training organisation status.

  Mr. Nicholls
  [holding answer 5 March 1990]: No. To make the provision of child care facilities a separate criterion from the existing criteria would not be appropriate. The criteria for approved status for training providers cover general themes, such as equal opportunities, rather than prescribing particular actions to implement them.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester
The Earl of Snowdon—Took the Oath.

Community Charge
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked her Majesty's Government:
What is the national average of the community charge of those local authorities that have so far declared the level of community charge they need to charge in order to carry out their functions on behalf of their residents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, charging authorities are not required to set the amounts of the personal community charges until 1st April. Over half of the 366 charging authorities in England have yet to provide the department with this information. The information is therefore inadequate to provide a national average.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am extremely grateful for that non-Answer? Is he also aware that responsible newspapers published graphs this morning showing a charge level of approximately £330 to £350? If one takes the difference between Labour authorities and Conservative authorities based on the national average, it is less than 50p a week. Does that not destroy Mr. Kenneth Baker's idea that the sole cause of the difference is due to high-spending, profligate Labour authorities when the overwhelming cause of the situation is lack of government funding?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, with regard to the noble Lord's first point concerning responsible newspapers, the news he brings to the House is encouraging, because the original figure was £370. I am no statistician, but it is entirely reasonable to say that we cannot judge these figures until they are all in.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, what does the noble Lord have to say about the Berkshire County Council and the Maidenhead and Windsor Borough Council, both of which are Tory controlled? In the Maidenhead and Windsor Borough Council the community charge is £449. That is far above the average, as the noble Lord will appreciate. Would he like to comment as to whether these Tory councils are profligate spenders?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I said last week to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, I shall be more than
1302
happy to answer a Question with regard to a specific council if he wishes to put a Question down on the Order Paper.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that in constituencies where the actual poll tax is higher than the Government's assumed poll tax, rebates and transitional relief will be worked out on the Government's assumptions and not on the actual figure? That will mean that thousands—perhaps millions—of people will pay more poll tax than the Government are pretending that they will.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, it would be entirely impractical to pay transitional relief unless we were able to base it on the figure that we suggested in the first place, which is based on standard spending.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is referring to transitional relief and to the safety net. Will he confirm that the London Borough of Wandsworth, which has been so praised in the Tory press, is obtaining £170 per poll tax payer from the safety net, whereas conspicuously poorer boroughs, such as Hackney, Brent, Camden and Islington, are contributing to the safety net?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Never! That cannot be true.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wishes to table a specific Question on a particular borough, I shall be more than happy to answer. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, is speaking from a sedentary position. The fact is that there are 366 authorities. I should love to be in a position to answer on behalf of each one of those authorities; however, I believe that is an impracticality.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, even if the Minister's department does not have the opportunity to do so, surely the Minister can read the papers. He can find out and brief himself properly.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, are my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government aware that there are many people who are deeply worried about how they will manage to pay the community charge—the poll tax? I say that because several people have mentioned it to me. I refer to old and young people. Are the Government aware of the position? I must admit that I rather wish I had had the courage to vote against it when it was first introduced.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, one of the difficulties concerning Lord Dean's Question is this. From the snapshot of the figures available—because that is all we have so far—the levels of the community charge raised, taking, to use his phrase, the reputable press into account, equate to an increase in domestic rates this year of 35 per cent. That is a very worrying fact.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, are we likely to have any further recantations from confessed sinners such as the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw,

1303
who declares that something must be done? Is there any likelihood that he will be recalled to the Cabinet in order to do something about it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am always very grateful for an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. It would be fair to say, however, that that is a matter which is above my station.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer the second part of the question of my noble friend Lord Dean? Is it the case that Conservative councils are fixing poll taxes at over 30 per cent. above the Government's estimate? If that is the case, does the noble Lord expect them to be rate-capped in the same way as is threatened to Labour councils?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as I have already said, it is important that we should wait to see the true statistical evidence rather than the suggested statistical evidence. It is the difference between the position of those who wish to speculate and that of the Government who wish to act on concrete evidence.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, as a result of the Government's experience of the implementation of the Act in Scotland and the reaction of people in England and Wales, would it not be sensible to call a halt and re-examine the entire situation so that the ultimate legislation will be acceptable to the British people as a whole and not merely to stalwarts of the Conservative Party?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the so-called reaction experienced during the past few days has not been entirely representative.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, given that the Minister has at least a point when he says that he would like to wait until all local authorities have set the poll tax rate, will he say now that all local authorities, be they Tory or Labour, whose rate is above that set by the Government are high spenders and irresponsible?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we must wait to see the result—and the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, gave me the benefit of the doubt—and judge the situation after 1st April.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister gave a figure of 25 per cent. Is he aware that whereas, some time ago, the Prime Minister said that the poll tax must provide for 25 per cent. of local authority spending, it must now provide for 37 per cent.? Who got the sums wrong?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I gave the figure of 35 per cent., to which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister referred, with regard to the effect on domestic rates this year. That was on the basis that the projected figure—and there is no certainty as yet in the figures—as gleaned from the reputable press, is the eventual outcome.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister answer the second part of my question? The Prime Minister said that the poll tax would be expected to cover 25 per cent. of local authority spending but, in fact, it must now cover 35 per cent. Who got the sums wrong?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, we could end up with a complicated and, I suspect, extremely lengthy mathematical discussion. It is a question of whether you make an assumption on the basic level of spending or add to that an increase in expenditure of 16 per cent. and then say that the sum suits you.
Noble Lords: Next Question! Eight minutes!
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the Minister uses the phrase "community charge" but the questioners referred to "poll tax". What is the difference?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, if 100 per cent. of local authority expenditure was paid for on an individual basis it would be fair to call that a poll tax. However, when the expenditure is one-quarter it is reasonable to call it a community charge.

Electric Vehicles
2.46 p.m.
Lord Ironside Lord Ironside asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the number of electric vehicles now registered for use on public highways in the United Kingdom for commercial and private purposes is increasing, and whether they are taking steps to encourage their wider use.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the number of electric vehicles licensed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland fell from 33,138 to 31,296 between December 1985 and December 1988; that is a 5·6 per cent drop.
With a view to exploring the potentialities of electric vehicles the Government have funded a considerable programme of research in the last decade. In addition, no excise duty is charged on electric vehicles or electricity used as fuel. The department continues to keep in close touch with electric vehicle research and developments worldwide.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for coming clean with that Answer, disappointing as it is. It shows that environmentally clean electric vehicles are still struggling hard to keep up with the sea of internal combustion engine vehicles now on our roads—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Ironside: In spite of the considerable government aid that has been given over the past 10 years, which is welcome, is my noble friend aware that tough clean air legislation is about to be enacted in the United States to force car makers to use cleaner fuels? Does he agree that the Government

1305
should have discussions with the electric vehicle industry in this country to ascertain how high-tech and high-powered new electric vehicles can be introduced on to our roads?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, a considerable amount of money was funded during the past decade, including more than £11 million by the DTI. United Kingdom companies are actively involved in the work overseas and officials are keeping in touch with developments.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, despite what the noble Viscount has said I do not believe that he has quoted fully the reply given by the Minister responsible for roads and traffic on 13th February. He said that a fair amount of research had been carried out by TRRL and the Departments of Transport and Trade and Industry and that no further funding would be given. Surely, it is an important matter that the Government should continue to fund, despite the present lack of attractiveness of electric vehicles. Should not the Government encourage research and be prepared to fund it?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, all options which might help to reduce vehicle emissions are being kept under review, although I agree that no direct assistance is being given to electric vehicles at present.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in reply to his noble friend the Minister said that the department was keeping in close touch with developments abroad. Can he say whether, statistically, what has happened here is mirrored by what is happening in other countries?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot, but I shall try to find out and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does the noble Viscount not agree that it would help in the development of electric vehicles if preferential treatment were given to such vehicles either by means of reduced VAT or the abolition or waiving of the special car tax on such vehicles?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, incentives such as free parking have a marginal effect on running costs and would not ease urban congestion. There will be an indirect incentive for electric vehicles because of the extra costs incurred in meeting more stringent vehicle emission standards for other types of vehicles.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I wish to declare an interest in that for the past 25 years I have worked for one of this country's major electric vehicle manufacturers, Materials Handling. Is my noble friend aware of the very great savings that can be achieved by the use of battery-electric equipment of this type? In America recently an analysis was made of an airline operation using battery-electric tow tractors. The costings were 70 per cent. lower than for internal combustion engine equipment. We have to remember that the battery is a major
1306
investment and that it is amortised over a four-year period. It is not like petrol; you do not fill up a tank. There is a consistent and determined level of pre-investment when the original battery-electric equipment is bought.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming back my noble friend after his serious accident. I was a little stymied by his last remarks. They were slightly too technical for me to take on board immediately. We welcome initiatives by individual companies. The greatest incentive must be the production of vehicles which are attractive and which the public are willing to buy.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, one of the great disappointments of the present age is that we have not discovered how to store electricity in a reasonably small space. Does the noble Viscount not agree that it would be worthwhile putting a major research effort into this matter? The widespread use of electric vehicles could make a major contribution towards cleaning up the atmosphere. However it cannot be done until we have solved the storage problem.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to what the noble Lord has said.

Nuclear Submarines: Inspections
2.52 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, at the request of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, I ask the Government the following Question:
Whether they will make a statement on cracking in the reactors of British nuclear submarines.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, I assume the noble Lord is referring to the recent discovery of a technical defect in one of the Royal Navy's nuclear-powered submarines, following which a programme of inspections of all such vessels has been set in hand as a prudent precautionary measure. These inspections are being carried out in close consultation with the department's independent technical and safety advisers.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he tell us the rate of progress on the checks being carried out? For example, can he say whether 10 per cent., 20 per cent. or 50 per cent. of the vessels have been checked? Can he further tell us whether any progress is being made on monitoring the possible effect on, and damage to, the health of the submariners and those who work ashore?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the programme of inspections will progress as soon as possible. As regards the

1307
possibility of any danger either to submariners or those ashore, I can again reassure the noble Lord that there has been no accident or injury to anyone.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether the Government are seriously considering ways of lessening the burden on the Polaris fleet during its last years? There are ways of doing that.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that question is rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House when the results of the inspection or tests are likely to be available; when they will be published; and to what extent?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I can reassure my noble and learned friend that the programme of inspections will be completed as soon as possible. As regards publication of the results, that will be a decision for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House that there will be a counterpart statement on the cracking of the pots in anti-nuclear lobbies?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I apologise; I did not get the gist of the noble Earl's question.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the technical fault which has been discovered is leading towards consideration of the necessary decommissioning of these nuclear submarines in the very near future? Can he tell the House what plans the Government have made for the decommissioning of the nuclear submarines and where it is to be done?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is a question of high hypothesis. It is total speculation. There is no truth in what the noble Lord has said. I believe he is trying to conjure up a host of nuclear nasties which do not exist.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I asked a perfectly simple question. The nuclear submarines will have to be decommissioned: that is not in any doubt. Can the Minister say what preparations the Government are making for the decommissioning, where it will take place and what it will cost?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is dwelling on too much hypothesis here. It is a mask for speculation. The situation described by the noble Lord does not exist.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, the Minister referred to being satisfied that no illness or damage had manifested itself in the health of the submariners or those ashore. Can the Minister take on board my question: what steps are being taken to monitor the situation? Monitoring is a positive review arrangement; it is not simply a matter of
1308
waiting for the manifestation of something being wrong and then having to chase it. The people who work on and around the submarines are entitled to be assured that the Government recognise that prevention is far better than cure.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the noble Lord is not quite right. The words I previously used were,
"no accident or injury to anyone".
As regards monitoring, I believe that the noble Lord is fully aware that independent advice to the Ministry of Defence is being provided by the Nuclear Powered Warship Safety Committee, which has at its heart all the points made by the noble Lord.

Dangerous Cargo: Losses at Sea
2.57 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether existing international agreements require the reporting to coastal countries concerned of the loss from ships at sea of dangerous cargo, including chemicals.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I can confirm that the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78) does require the ships of signatory states to report the loss of substances harmful to the marine environment, including chemicals, to the nearest coastal countries. It is also strongly recommended for other dangerous goods.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. As the ship which lost the potassium cyanide recently found on south coast beaches is registered in Qatar—a country which is not a party to the relevant convention—what is being done to encourage other countries to participate in international agreements to improve safety and to ensure that there are adequate warnings when dangerous chemicals are lost overboard?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government have already asked the Qatar authorities to investigate the incident. We have received assurances from them that they will do so. When the ship next visits the UK marine surveyors will board the vessel to ascertain whether the cargo is being loaded in accordance with our regulations. Meanwhile, inquiries are being made in this country to establish how the goods were stowed. The international maritime organisation is trying to obtain more signatures to the convention: at the moment there are 134. Unfortunately, there are one or two countries which have not yet signed. This incident was made even more difficult due to the fact that it occurred in international waters.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell the House whether there is any further news of the lindane containers which were lost in the English Channel nearly 12 months ago and about which very little, if anything, has been heard since?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords. I believe that the loss occurred in French territorial waters. But if the noble Lord cares to put down a Question on that subject I shall try to find the answer.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, reference has just been made to the loss of the lindane containers. When the House discussed this matter on 9th May 1989 I asked about the position of the International Maritime Organisation. I wonder whether the noble Viscount can repeat what he has said. Has the matter been raised with the IMO since then, and has pressure been brought to bear under the international convention?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, under the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, hazardous substances are categorised as being dangerous to humans, and under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, hazardous substances are categorised as being harmful to the marine environment. In the case of the former, reporting is strongly recommended by the IMO. With respect to the latter, reporting is a requirement under the MARPOL Convention. Some substances fall into both categories. The noble Lord asked about the IMO. I shall have to find out the position, but it is making the most strenuous efforts to solve all these problems.

Business
3 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the sentences imposed on Mr. Bazoft and Mrs. Parish by a court in Iraq.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that the Committee stage of the Education (Student Loans) Bill will be adjourned at about 7 p.m. for about an hour and that during this adjournment the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 will be taken.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
3.1 p.m.
The Paymaster General (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I wish to apologise to the House for not having put down the Motion earlier last week. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Education (Student Loans) Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—
Clause 1,
Schedules 1 and 2,
Clause 2, Clause 3,
Clause 4.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Railways Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
3.2 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. In doing so I know that the House will wish to take note with very great regret of the sad news of the death on Saturday of Lord Stewart of Fulham. Not only was he a former Secretary of State for Education and Science but he was also a good friend to the House. We shall miss him particularly in our debates on this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his kind remarks about Lord Stewart of Fulham. I am sure that all Members of the House will wish to be associated with them. Lord Stewart was a major figure in government. On the subject of education, which is our concern today, I believe that he took part in every debate on every education Bill that came before the House during his period here. He was a kindly man. We shall miss his good sense, his constructive and intelligent contributions and his ready wit. We shall certainly miss him this afternoon.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to say, first, that I know that my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead deeply regrets that he is unable to be here at the start of the Committee stage. He would like to have spoken in appreciation of his former very much respected colleague. I should also like to say that we shall miss him very much, and that this afternoon particularly we shall miss his wise contribution to education. He was a true professional in the field of education and understood the enormous importance of this question. We greatly regret that he will not be here for our debates.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I knew Lord Stewart for very many years. We sat on opposite sides of another place and of your Lordships' House. I admired his judgment and his honesty. I shall miss him.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, on behalf of the Cross Benches may I associate myself with those who have paid tribute to Lord Stewart? As a former member of the Foreign Office I pay a special tribute to him. When he came to the Foreign Office he was little known to anybody. In a short time he earned affection and respect. I travelled abroad with him many times. I never heard the British case more cogently presented to our opposite numbers abroad.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Loans for students]:
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, after ("may") insert ("subject to the provisions of subsection (5A) below").
The noble Baroness said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Rippon of Hexham I move Amendment No. 1 and speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28, which are linked to it. My noble friend greatly regrets that he is unable to be here at the start of our deliberations this afternoon.
As the Bill is presently drafted, there are three aspects to the setting up of the scheme. First, there is the running of the scheme itself. This is to be covered by the arrangements made by the Secretary of State under Clause 1(1). As matters stand, the arrangements will be made without parliamentary scrutiny.
Secondly, any amendments to the range of courses to be covered by the scheme, which would need to be made by an order to Schedule 1, would be subject to the negative resolution procedure. Indeed no order need be made if the Secretary of State is satisfied with the list of courses which are stated. Thirdly, the financial terms of loans, including their amount, the period of repayment, the rate of interest and the arrangements for deferment and cancellation, are all to be made by regulations under Schedule 2. These too are also to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The effect of the four amendments is to leave the structure in place for the development of the scheme in subsequent years but to introduce a requirement that any orders, regulations or arrangements made with respect to the first year of operation of the Act should receive approval under the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses of Parliament.
At Second Reading I referred to the considerable concern in the universities and in all parts of the House at what might generally be called the constitutional aspects of the scheme. It was quite clear at Second Reading and from re-reading the report of the debate in preparation for the discussion this afternoon that a great many noble Lords were concerned about the inadequacy of the information on the face of the Bill. To a large extent this was put right when my noble friend Lord Caithness circulated detailed information to everyone taking part. Nevertheless noble Lords wanted further information and in particular the opportunity to debate at a later stage what might be in the regulations. Indeed they were concerned—and my noble friend Lord Rippon will put this point himself—that the Government were legislating in general terms, leaving the particulars to be made by regulation, not written on the face of the Bill and not debatable. My noble friend raised this point when he introduced a short debate only a few weeks ago. He specifically referred to the Education (Student Loans) Bill as being one that concerned him on these constitutional points.
Those points were raised in another place and raised quite particularly by the honourable Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, Mr. Beith. I read the report of what he said and I also read in detail the
1312
reply given on that occasion by my honourable friend Mr. Jackson. I fully appreciate that the present legislation is based upon the 1962 Act, which introduced student grants, and that the form of the legislation is similar. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Caithness explained that point in considerable detail in his speech on Second Reading. However, it would be fair to say that on this particular occasion there is a difference.
The 1962 Act introduced a grant scheme and one which, not surprisingly, was extremely welcome to the universities and to the students. After all, who does not welcome a government saying that they will give more money to some particular cause? Although I was not in this Chamber on that occasion, nor indeed, I regret to say, did I follow in detail the legislation passing through this place, I can well understand that at that time the negative resolution procedure would have been acceptable and people would not have had the concerns which they have today.
We are today introducing a loans scheme. It is something which I entirely accept. I also accept the principles of the Bill. It is quite unrealistic to believe that we can achieve an expansion in the number of students which we all want to see without a loans scheme. Indeed, on re-reading the Second Reading debate I felt that most noble Lords who spoke accepted the need for some change in the present arrangements and recognised that no government of the future would be able to meet the very high costs which would follow if our present very generous arrangements were to be maintained.
In putting these amendments before the Committee it does not mean that I am in any sense against the principle of the Bill. However, they are amendments which would give an assurance, especially to those in universities who have been concerned about the legislation, and would also, I hope, answer points raised from all sides of this Chamber on Second Reading.
I very much hope that, when my noble friend winds up the debate, he will feel able to accept the amendments or, if he cannot accept them exactly as drafted—and I know only too well, having been in his position, that this is quite often the case—perhaps he will take them away and undertake to bring back other amendments which meet the points raised.
The amendments will not alter the principle of the Bill, which is one that I fully support. Moreover, they will not in any way prevent the implementation of the Bill. However, they will allow, for one year only, a debate to take place both here and in another place on an affirmative resolution on the regulations. Afterwards the matter would be dealt with by negative resolution. I very much hope that the amendments will be seen as meeting what I believe to be the justifiable concern which has been expressed by many people. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Having put my name to these amendments I rise to express my support for them. However, if the noble Earl would like to

1313
intervene and say that he accepts them in principle, I shall sit down at once. I am sorry to see that he remains seated. The noble Baroness spoke to these amendments in persuasive terms. They are quite limited: they are limited to the initial scheme, and the regulations setting it up are to be subject to affirmative resolution. However, all subsequent modifications are still to be subject to negative resolution.
The difference, as noble Lords know and as was pointed out on Second Reading, is that Parliament has a greater control over regulations when they are subject to affirmative resolution. That is more so in the other place than here because Members of this Chamber are at present largely subject to a self-denying ordinance which inhibits them from voting against a body of affirmative resolutions. That is not an absolute rule; it is a convention and it has in the past given way to convenience, notably on the Rhodesian sanctions order.
The amendments are in fact of fundamental constitutional moment because they concern the age-long tension about who has control of legislation: it is the Executive or is it Parliament? That question was resolved after a century and more of bitter conflict and the revolution of 1688. That was, in a famous phrase,
"the cause for which Hampden died in the field and Sidney on the scaffold"—
the cause of parliamentary control of legislation. That decision remained unquestioned for nearly two centuries. Then, after the 1914–18 war and even before that, a great deal of legislation was vouchsafed into the hands of the Executive because Parliament found it convenient to do so. But there crept in one anomaly which is present in this Bill too, in Clause 1(4). This is known as a Henry VIII clause because it reflects to some extent a power that Henry VIII secured from Parliament; namely a power himself, as the Executive, to amend Acts of Parliament.
The issue came into prominence again in the 1920s. The locus classicus as regards subordinate delegated legislation was the Donoughmore/Scott Report of 1932. It disapproved quite clearly in other than exceptional circumstances of the Henry VIII clause and sounded a note of warning generally about delegated legislation. It differentiated between normal delegated legislation and extraordinary delegated legislation, which it enumerated under four heads, two of which are relevant to our deliberations. One was the Henry VIII clause, to which I have referred, and another concerned situations where a very wide discretion to legislate was given to the Minister. That is surely present in the Bill which is now before the Committee. On Second Reading it was described as a "blank cheque" and a "pig in a poke". The noble Earl, Lord Russell, compared it to a company at the time of the South Sea Bubble which is supposed to have solicited money for a scheme to be declared later.
Therefore there can be no question that this is extraordinary delegated legislation and, being so, does it not follow inevitably that it should be subject to the closest parliamentary control—namely, the affirmative legislation procedure? The difference is
1314
a practical as well as a constitutional one. In the affirmative resolution procedure, the Minister lays the instrument before the House and explains and justifies it to the House. In the negative procedure he lays the instrument, which is then subject to be prayed against. The advantage of the former, affirmative, procedure is that the Minister explains what he is about and what is responsible for the instrument.
On Second Reading this point was referred to by a number of noble Lords, every one of whom—except for one—was in favour of the affirmative resolution procedure. The sole exception was the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who made the perfectly valid point that the negative resolution occupies less parliamentary time because it will come before Parliament only if it is specifically prayed against. However, the noble Baroness met that point. It is only the initial scheme which is subject to affirmative resolution and it is hardly conceivable that no noble Lord and no Member of the other place would fail to wish to discuss it. Therefore that point is met.
Of the two points which were made in the other place, one has been dealt with by the noble Baroness—namely, that this follows the 1962 Education Act. I only add that that is not a true analogy. The 1962 Act made grants mandatory, whereas they had previously been at the discretion of the local authorities. However, the local authorities had been operating such a scheme for many years and it was only the modifications and alterations which were therefore the subject of negative procedure. Here it is the initial scheme that the noble Baroness seeks to have subject to affirmative resolutions. All the subsequent alterations and modifications are exactly as they were in the 1962 Act—namely, subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The other argument put forward was that a proposal such as that of the noble Baroness might delay the institution of the scheme. But again that is not so. As soon as the Government have made up their mind, they can lay the scheme before Parliament and justify it. There is one type of affirmative resolution procedure whereby the regulations can come into effect at once but are defeasible unless approved by Parliament. Therefore all three arguments fail entirely, and I support the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Lord Airedale: I understand that we are to discuss my Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 together with this amendment. Perhaps therefore it is timely for me to speak now to my amendments. They simply take the whole scheme, the order, out of the negative procedure and put it into the affirmative procedure.
On 20th January we received an order about mushroom growing. It was an important matter which came under the affirmative procedure. We had an interesting debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and it was an interesting occasion. That was an affirmative order. However, one wonders how it comes about that with a highly controversial scheme of this kind, exciting tremendous interest outside as well as inside

1315
Parliament, the Government can contrive to try to slip it through on the negative procedure. They hope no doubt that it will not be discussed at all in Parliament. They rely only upon agitation from private Members trying to secure that the matter is discussed in Parliament.
I can well understand the Minister desiring that course. If I were in his shoes, anticipating flak from all sides of the House in the course of defending such a scheme, I should be poring over Erskine May into the small hours, trying to find reasons for putting it under the negative procedure. I wonder about this. When the people outside Parliament who are keenly interested in this matter find out for themselves that as it stands the scheme will not be discussed in Parliament at all and that that is the Government's wish and intention, I believe that they will feel that it injures the reputation of Parliament itself.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I have one specific point which I should be grateful if the noble Earl on the Front Bench would deal with when he comes to reply. It is my understanding of the scheme that it is proposed to withdraw the social security benefits to which students are at present entitled: unemployment, income support and housing benefit. That was clearly stated both by my noble friend on Second Reading and in paragraph 11 of the leaflet which he was good enough to circulate.
There is no reference at all to these benefits in the Bill. It is presumably therefore intended that the regulation-making power shall be exercised in order to withdraw the benefits. As the Committee know, I have had some by now rather remote experience of social security administration. Perhaps as a result of that it has always seemed to me that to withdraw existing social security benefits is a serious and important matter. Indeed, when I was in the department concerned I was always advised that, as it was rather crudely put, there were great dangers in taking a bone out of a dog's mouth.
I therefore wish to ask my noble friend whether the regulations, the treatment of which we are now discussing, include exercising a power to withdraw these substantial social security benefits. If they do, can the noble Earl tell me of any precedent for withdrawing not marginal social security arrangements but substantial social security benefits by the negative resolution procedure? It may well be the case that that is so. I do not instantly recall a precedent, but it would be helpful if when he replies my noble friend would deal with that matter. Perhaps he could say whether I am right in assuming that it is intended to abolish these social security rights by the regulations; and whether there are any precedents for major social security changes being made using only the negative procedure.
Lord Flowers: I wish to support this group of amendments and I shall briefly say why. There has been almost no opportunity for the universities—and I speak as a vice-chancellor—to discuss the details of the Government's proposed loans scheme. That discussion depends quite a lot upon the details. The Government did not release
1316
the details until just before Second Reading, and there has been very little time to discuss them since. Contrary to what was said on Second Reading, other schemes are possible which seem to meet the Government's requirements. I hope to speak to one of those schemes at the proper time on a later clause. However, if these amendments are carried, they would ensure that any scheme had to be discussed by Parliament. That seems to me to be highly desirable. I therefore support the amendments.
3.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I believe I can enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, at least a little on the subject of the social security regulations as I received a letter about them from the Clerk's Office earlier this morning. The statutory instrument has been tabled and it is at present before the joint committee. I am told that it will come to this House shortly after Easter. But having so far only heard the contents of the letter read quickly by my wife over the telephone, I cannot say whether it involves the affirmative or the negative procedure. That point is worth some attention. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said about taking a bone out of the dog's mouth. We might also reflect that there is a social security Bill before Parliament at present in which these changes could perfectly properly have been embodied.
More generally, I wish to support the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Airedale and also the much milder amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I felt a certain disappointment at seeing the noble Earl on the Government Front Bench remain seated. I felt also a certain surprise. He has here a mild amendment which he could easily accept. He has also a rather stronger amendment which, if I were in his position, I might fear to have accepted. That point is perhaps worth a certain amount of thought on the Government Front Bench.
The difference between the affirmative and the negative procedure is of less importance in this House than it is in another place. In this House, as yet, we are still able to put down a Prayer and to debate a negative instrument. However, in another place there are many more Prayers to debate negative instruments than can be heard. The power of prayer in another place is being very much diminished. Therefore, frequently things are tabled under the negative procedure and are prayed against but are not debated at all. As we have here a Bill in which a quite exceptional proportion of the detail is to be embodied in the regulations, it would be a misfortune, to put it no higher, if another place were to be denied the opportunity to give it scrutiny. It might even give the impression that the Government had something to hide.
I also wish to draw attention to Clause 1(4) which is the clause which gives the Minister power to alter the primary legislation by altering the contents of Schedule 1. This is the so-called Henry VIII clause. Some Henry VIII clauses are worse than others. I try to be a reasonable man, and I believe this is not a particularly heinous clause. In fact I have, at least

1317
privately, been given assurances on the way it is likely to be used. I am prepared to be reassured about that. On the other hand, I wish to ask the noble Earl whether he will give some thought to the recommendation of the Donoughmore Committee, to which I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Rippon of Hexham, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, draw attention in times past. The committee recommended that where such a clause is used, in effect giving the Minister power to change the law, there should be an explanatory memorandum, like the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. That explanatory memorandum should be put at the front of the Bill to explain why such a procedure was thought to be necessary in that particular case.
It would be perfectly possible for the Government to put such an assurance on the front of this Bill—there is room for a little more on the paper—stating only things which they have already said. That would, in terms of the precedents which this House is likely to leave behind it for use in future Parliaments, give a much more reassuring impression. We have to take into account the fact that we are setting precedents. What we do now may look perfectly all right in the context of the business that we know we are discussing and the intentions we know in some cases are behind it. However, a precedent outlives its context. Therefore if we leave a clause like that in the Bill without an explanation we shall be giving wider currency to the idea that the Secretary of State, by himself and without parliamentary consent, may make law. I would regard that as unfortunate. I wish therefore to ask the noble Earl whether he can give a certain amount of thought to accepting the Donoughmore proposal that such a memorandum should be put in the front of the Bill. I do not believe that would cost him anything, and we might find it distinctly helpful.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I do not know what experience the noble Earl has of another place because the whole of his speech argued the case for powers for another place to use. Those who have experience of another place over the years can tell the noble Earl that providing Parliament is alert, the difference between an affirmative and a negative resolution is infinitesimal. There is no difference at all between them. It depends upon the alertness of Parliament itself as to whether or not the negative power would be used. In order to avoid silly waste of parliamentary time, the negative procedure has many advantages. If the issue at stake is flippant and not of major importance, another place would not use its powers to obtain time to use the negative resolution procedure, which is the alternative. However, if the significance of what would be done is of the importance that the noble Earl has in mind, those in another place will see to it that their parliamentary time is allocated for the negative procedure. The fear that an affirmative resolution has a greater power of being discussed than the negative procedure depends 100 per cent. upon the decision and the alertness of Parliament itself.
Lord Molloy: I hope that when the noble Earl replies to the points that have been made by the
1318
noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, his reply will, right from the beginning of this Committee stage, have a serious effect on how this entire wretched Bill is to be conducted. The speeches that we have heard from the Members of the Committee that I have mentioned are the quintessence of the anxieties that are felt in Parliament and outside. Therefore the reply of the noble Earl must show whether it is the intention of the Government to commit themselves to normal parliamentary procedure or to find other methods of pushing this Bill through.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I, too, was disappointed that my noble friend did not rise when he was invited to do so by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. On Second Reading I mentioned that I thought that a selective use of the affirmative resolution procedure would be helpful. I said that because it was quite clear from the debate on Second Reading and from the discussion outside the House that there was still a lot that people wanted to discuss concerning the details involved in the setting up of the arrangements. However, that did not alter my view that to make everything always subject to affirmative resolution, as I believe the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, suggest, is quite unnecessary.
As I said on Second Reading, it seems to me that this Bill can only be a framework because changes will constantly have to be made as the scheme develops and figures will probably be altered year by year for many years ahead. I should have thought that that should not be done by affirmative resolution. It would take too much time. Therefore it seems an excellent idea that in the first year the affirmative resolution procedure should be adopted as my noble friend Lady Young has suggested.
I hope that my noble friend will pay attention to that suggestion. I have no idea what his point of view is, but I was disappointed that he did not respond promptly to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon.
Lord Glenamara: I shall not detain the Committee for more than two or three minutes. I am absolutely opposed to the principle embodied in the Bill. As a parliamentarian of about 40 years' standing, the Bill offends me. It is an affront to Parliament. At a time when democracy is breaking out all over Europe, in South Africa and central America, the Government have introduced this Bill into Parliament.
When I left Newcastle this morning I was seen off at the station by the president of the students union of Newcastle University. That is a very large university, one of the largest in the country. I do not believe that the Government realise the opposition to the Bill throughout the whole of the academic world and in families throughout the country. It will affect the budgets of students and of families all over the country. In addition, the Government are to withdraw other benefits this year. As I pointed out previously, on 1st April this year every student will be required to pay an average £70 for the community charge. It is a shocking affair.

1319
This Henry VIII provision, which says that the Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 to the Act, is alarming. It is worth while for the Members of the Committee to refresh their memories about the Schedule which gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the maximum amount of the loan, to make provisions as to the time and manner in which the payment of loans may be made and to make provision about deferment and cancellation. Worst of all is the question of interest. The Government persist in saying that the loans are interest free. Schedule 2 says:
"Loans shall bear interest at such rates as may from time to time be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
He has to have regard to the retail prices index, but he can change that without coming to Parliament. He can change the provision regarding interest without coming to this Chamber.
Why do the Government oppose the amendments? I have been a government business manager and a Chief Whip in the other House and I know a little about scheduling government business. All the amendments mean is a few more hours for debate in the whole parliamentary year. That is all that is at stake here. This provision, which adopts the negative rather than the positive resolution procedure, is one of the main reasons for objections to the Bill. Why does not the noble Earl stand up and accept the amendments now? It would not cost the Government anything except three or four hours in a parliamentary year.
I know also that any government put their main legislative programme in their first two years in office. Therefore the next two years, or the time from now until the next general election, will be very thin in terms of legislation. There will not be any shortage of parliamentary time. Why does the noble Earl object? Why does he not stand up now and accept the amendments? It is beyond my comprehension.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
3.45 p.m.
Lord Peston: I rise to speak on the amendment with some trepidation. I am not a constitutional expert. I have not had the privilege of serving in the other place and I have been in this Chamber for only three years. However, I am learning as I go along. I assume that for the moment the noble Earl has not accepted the amendment because, like me, he was waiting to hear the speeches and hoping to learn something.
I believed, and having listened to the speeches I still believe, that the amendments would make a difference. I shall proceed on that assumption unless the noble Earl can convince me that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is right in arguing that the amendments mean nothing. I believe that they make the difference which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, emphasised; namely that they impose a positive obligation on the Secretary of State to justify what he does. They do not prevent the Secretary of State from getting his own way. I
1320
do not believe that, on the whole, Secretaries of State ought not to get their own way but I believe that they ought to make their case.
The trouble arises because of the nature of the Bill. If the loan scheme had been specified on the face of the Bill we could have debated the loan scheme, we could have amended it and we could have left some aspects to be dealt with later by regulations. The objection—and the cause of the frustration and the puzzlement outside the Houses of Parliament among those in the academic world—is that this peculiar Bill prevents us from debating what we ought to debate.
My first point, therefore, is that we should not have the problem in the first place. We should have had a Bill which included a student loan scheme of some sort, if that is what the Government want. There is still time for the Government to take the Bill away and come back to us with a Bill which reforms student maintenance and which we and the other place can examine and debate properly. My first plea is not that the amendment should be accepted—that is well down my list—but for a proper Bill that corresponds to the subject that concerns us.
If we had had an appropriate Bill the Government themselves could have taken the opportunity to introduce some amendments. The Committee will notice that the Marshalled List contains no government amendments. I find that objectionable.
I regard the Secretary of State as an honourable man. He felt it appropriate to call a meeting of Peers last week to tell us more about his thinking on the matter. I welcomed that meeting. However, that material should instead have been brought forward for debate on the Floor of the Chamber. We have the bizarre state of affairs in which just before Second Reading, when it was apparent that many Peers were concerned at knowing very little about the Bill, we suddenly received a series of documents which told us about the Bill. Mine arrived about an hour before the debate. Last week we heard that there was more that the Secretary of State wanted to tell us, so he called a meeting. We went dutifully. We are grateful for that, but I believe that the Houses of Parliament are the places for such statements to be made and debated.
I do not believe that it is too late to make amends. It is not too late for the noble Earl, who on this occasion speaks on behalf of the Secretary of State, to say that he will tell us within this Chamber precisely what the Bill is about.
I shall support the noble Baroness if she divides the Committee and we do not have the good fortune of hearing the noble Earl tell us that he accepts the amendment. I hope that she will forgive me for saying that, although, as I said in my Second Reading speech, I believe strongly that we need to look again at systems of student maintenance, that does not mean that I care for the government loan scheme currently being introduced. There is an enormous gulf between those of us who believe that we have to look at systems of student maintenance as a preparation for a very considerable expansion of higher education which this country needs and those

1321
who support the loan scheme. This loan scheme is not what is required. Something quite different is needed. In supporting that approach, I am not for one moment supporting the loan scheme.
Perhaps I may make two or three other remarks. I should like the amendment to be accepted; even better, I should like the whole scheme to be abandoned or postponed and started again. Following the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on the social security aspects, I am concerned that, even if one way or another we have the opportunity to talk about it—I am not clear whether we shall have such an opportunity—we shall not do so in the context of an education maintenance or loan scheme system. It will be dealt with as a matter of social security. I do not deny that it is partly a matter of social security—that is true in the Government's mind as well as in ours—but it is clearly meant to be placed in the context of student support generally. Yet again, therefore, I am unhappy that a matter as important for students as this will not be dealt with as a student or education matter. It will be dealt with rather differently. Our principles and methods here are therefore wrong.
Perhaps I may make one other remark in response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I particularly object to private assurances. I am not in the least interested in private assurances. I regard the Secretary of State as an honourable man. I regard the noble Earl as an honourable man. I regard the noble Baroness as an honourable woman. But that is not the way that legislation is meant to proceed in a parliamentary democracy. Someone else might well sit on those Benches one day who is a good deal less honourable and a good deal more ruthless than they are. I should prefer that legislation protected us rather than private assurances.
In summary, my main view is that we deserve a proper Bill to debate. My second view is that this subsection, which I believe is significant, helps us a little. I shall certainly advise my noble friends to support the noble Baroness.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I may briefly tell my noble friend what his refusal to accept the amendments would do for me. It would persuade me of one of two things: either that the Government have made up their mind what they want to do, know how they will do it and will not tell Parliament; or. alternatively, that the Government do not know how they will achieve the purpose that they have in mind. In those circumstances I am bound to say that I should find it difficult to support my noble friend in rejecting what seem to me to be modest amendments.
The Earl of Caithness: We have before us two sets of amendments. One set, in the name of my noble friend Lady Young, has, as I have heard, an impressive array of support from all sides of the Chamber. I have to say that, if I were on the Back Benches, I should have supported my noble friend and, because I am on the Front Bench, my support is in no way diminished. We accept the principles that my noble friend Lady Young has put before the Committee. I have listened with care to the debate.
1322
That is why I did not rise to the bait of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I wished to hear what all noble Lords had to say.
Perhaps I may make it plain that we now intend that, when the loan scheme is introduced, the secondary legislation required to establish it should not be subject to the negative resolution, as the Bill at present provides, but to the affirmative procedure. Thereafter, when further secondary legislation is needed to revise or develop the scheme, the negative procedure would apply. That is what the amendments propose and that is the approach that we are happy to follow. Perhaps I may tell my noble friend, as she led me into this, that I hope that she will withdraw the amendment. Subject to being checked by parliamentary counsel, I can assure the Committee that the amendment, either in the same or slightly revised form, will be back before noble Lords at a later stage.
It follows that I do not accept the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as they would require affirmative resolution for every adjustment to the scheme over the years. The support for the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Young indicates that the mood of the Committee is that that would be excessively cumbersome. For instance, for an annual uprating of a loan, it would be exactly the same procedure as has been followed under the 1962 Act with good effect and without complaint.
Perhaps I may now deal with a couple of important points, the first of which was raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter who said that students would lose their social security benefits. As usual, my noble friend is right. However, on this occasion he is not entirely right because disabled students will not lose the benefits to which they are entitled. The benefits will be withdrawn as the loan scheme comes into operation. The loans will be brought into effect and there will then be the access funds about which I shall say more in due course. As I understand it, the amendments to social security for non-disabled students will not be dealt with under the Bill but under social security legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is the first member of the Opposition whom I have heard demanding government amendments. That was an interesting point. The meeting last week that he mentioned was one that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I thought would be advantageous to noble Lords who spoke on Second Reading. The meeting sought to concentrate on the alternatives. The scheme which the noble Lord wishes me to explain in detail will be covered in far more detail at this stage of the Bill. I hope that by the end of the debate noble Lords will be convinced that the scheme is ready to be up and running and will be successful.
I take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I shall study with particular care the point that he asked me to consider, but the changes to Schedule 1 will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny as they are in a schedule.
Perhaps I may recap. We accept the principles behind the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young. An amendment will be forthcoming at a later

1323
stage to put into effect exactly what I said. However, I regret to say that I cannot accept the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale.
Baroness Young: I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Caithness for accepting the principle of the amendments. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on his word that he will bring back, as I thought he almost certainly would want to do, correctly drafted amendments. We shall look forward to seeing the amendments at a later stage.
I am also grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who set out the constitutional point clearly. It is extremely helpful to have that on the record. I am grateful too for the support that the amendments have received from all parts of the Committee. I have never served in another place. I defer to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls who believes that there is not much difference between a negative and an affirmative resolution. I am told, however, by those who are at present in another place that there is a difference. I also believe that to be the case.
It is easy to say that anyone who is alert may raise matters on a negative resolution. That is true. We can all do things if we are present and alert and have a bit of luck. However, it is an assurance to know that that end can be achieved by affirmative resolution. I believe that I speak for all noble Lords and those outside the House when I say that we are grateful to my noble friend. I shall not at this stage attempt to say anything further. The debate has somewhat widened from my original remarks. It is important that my noble friend has accepted the principle. I am grateful to him and look forward to seeing the amendments redrafted at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: I think that this would be an appropriate moment in which to hear a Statement which is being held in another place. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Mr. Farzad Bazoft and Mrs. Daphne Parish
4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question being given in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State on the sentences imposed on Mr. Farzad Bazoft and Mrs. Daphne Parish by a court in Iraq. The Statement is as follows:
"The whole House will join me in expressing dismay and horror at the unjustified sentences which Mr. Bazoft and Mrs. Parish received from the Iraqi Revolutionary Court on Saturday. These
1324
sentences are out of all proportion to any offence which may have been committed. In particular, we deplore the death sentence passed on Mr Bazoft.
"Before the trial opened last Thursday, we had made over 50 separate representations to the Iraqi authorities making clear our concern for the wellbeing of Mrs. Parish and Mr. Bazoft. Our major concern at that stage was to try to secure a fair trial for Mrs. Parish and Mr. Bazoft.
"In addition to this constant pressure on the Iraqi authorities, the Prime Minister wrote to President Saddam Hussain on 21st February, before the trial took place, to express her concern about the two cases. President Saddam Hussain replied to the Prime Minister on 28th February assuring her that the trial would indeed be a fair one. From the account we have received, it is clear that no evidence was presented which would justify such harsh and disproportionate sentences.
"Our immediate aim is to save the life of Mr. Bazoft and to secure a review of the sentence imposed on Mrs. Parish. As soon as the outcome of the trial was known on Saturday, the Prime Minister wrote again to President Saddam Hussain asking for both sentences to be reduced on humanitarian grounds. At the same time we summoned the Iraqi ambassador and made clear to him the Government's reaction.
"We have asked our friends and allies in the Middle East and elsewhere to approach the Iraqi Government and support our call for clemency. The European Community has already taken action. The Irish, French and Italian ambassadors in Baghdad, on behalf of the Twelve, delivered a message to the Iraqi authorities urging them to reconsider the sentences.
"In all this, we should not forget the plight of Mr. Ian Richter, another British prisoner serving an unjustifiably harsh sentence in a Baghdad prison.
"Iraq has recently shown herself to be concerned about what she would call the misrepresentation of her policies abroad. She can be in no doubt about the damage which would be done to her standing in the world, let alone her relations with the UK, if these unacceptable sentences were to be confirmed."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.2 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement in response to the Private Notice Question asked in another place. We fully support the Prime Minister's plea to the President of Iraq, and the other diplomatic measures taken by the Government. We also thank those who have made representations to President Saddam Hussain, including King Hussein of Jordan as well as the Irish, French and Italian ambassadors acting for the Community, as the noble Lord just said, and other organisations.
We are deeply dismayed and shocked to understand that the Government of Iraq have rejected the pleas made to them, but I hope that the President may be persuaded to exercise his

1325
prerogative even at this stage and stay the execution of Mr. Bazoft. This is not the moment to go into detail as I do not wish to prejudice the position. I say only that the evidence against Mr. Bazoft and Mrs. Parish does not begin to justify the findings or the sentences of the Iraqi revolutionary court.
Does the Minister agree that the consequences of carrying out the sentence against Mr. Bazoft could cause grave and lasting damage to relations between Britain and Iraq? Can he say whether the Government have in mind any further steps, for example through the United Nations or indeed through the United States Administration? Is he aware that the Government have our total support in any effort made to avoid this tragedy taking place?
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, we also are most grateful to the Minister for making this Statement. It is very right and proper that this House should express its total abhorrence of what happened in Iraq over the weekend. I am grateful that the Minister explained so clearly what has been done by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Office and also our allies and friends in Europe.
It is a horrifying sentence that has been passed on this person. Innocent or not, he was invited there as a journalist by the Iraqi Government. He was carrying out his journalistic tasks. Yet he has been treated as though he were a horrendous spy, which a reading of the weekend newspaper will make clear to everybody is not the case. If the Iraqi Government wishes to be treated as a civilised member of the community of nations, it must take steps to commute that sentence.
I hope that the Government, without wishing to say at this stage what further steps could be taken, will make it quite clear to the Iraqi Government that if this sentence were to be carried out, Iraq would not only isolate itself from the opinion of people in this country and their ability to carry out diplomatic relations with a country that has behaved in such barbarian fashion, but also isolate itself from the rest of the community of nations.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am most grateful for the reception given by the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Tordoff, to the Statement. It shows that the House is united in its condemnation of what the Iraqis propose to do. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I do not wish to go into too much detail this afternoon. Our main, primary and perhaps sole consideration at the moment should be to do everything possible to work for the release of Mr. Bazoft and Mrs. Parish or for having another look at the sentences passed on them.
As I think both the noble Lords said, if in particular the death sentence were carried out, it could cause grave and lasting damage to our relations with Iraq. I also believe that it would cause grave and lasting damage to Iraq's relations with many other countries. That is why we have enlisted the support of the European Community and other friendly powers. Regarding the United Nations, the Secretary-General is personally concerned and is doing all he can to help.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister this question. What representations were made before and immediately after the arrest of these people and during the so-called trial? There was no democratic trial whatever but a totalitarian trial by military men who had to do what they were told. They were probably instructed to find those people guilty and no doubt to say what the sentences were.
In view of that, this whole matter becomes an appalling crime against humanity. It does not affect only the two people involved. Despite the endeavours of the Prime Minister, which frankly have revealed that the President of Iraq treats our Prime Minister with contempt—as also the Irish and other ambassadors—does he think that it would now be right for our Government to mount a worldwide campaign to ensure that such things can never happen again; to ensure that two people brought up in a democratic way of life should not have to suffer in this way when as journalists they are following the normal procedures of their profession?
This cannot be allowed to remain just a matter between Great Britain and Iraq. It is now a matter for world opinion to be garnered to defend the fundamental principles of democracy.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said, we have enlisted support from the world community and in particular, the European Community. The EC troika made that representation on behalf of the whole Community.
The noble Lord suggested that the trial was not a fair one. It is certainly true to say that the Iraqi revolutionary court does not provide for the same full consideration of a case that would be expected here in a British court. However, I do not think that I can add much to what I have already said. We shall consider all options as events unfold, but our prime objective at this moment must be to save the life of Mr. Bazoft and to have both sentences reduced.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I hope that the House will not object if I underline what my noble friend Lord Cledwyn said; namely, that the whole country will be united behind whatever steps the Government find themselves able to take and that the President of Iraq should understand that there is a united view in this country that to carry out this sentence would offend—and deeply offend—everyone in this country. We wish the Government well in their efforts.
Perhaps I may finally ask this. We do not press the Government to say much, but will he convey to the Prime Minister that she should bring Mr. Kinnock into her discussions about these matters so that whatever cannot be said publicly should at least be conveyed privately to the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that she would find that a help and not a hindrance.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, for the remarks that he has made. As I said earlier, it is

1327
not only the condemnation from all sides of this House and from the whole of the United Kingdom, but by others also which is important. I shall certainly relay the remarks of the noble Lord about the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister to my right honourable friend.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
4.10 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead Lord Jenkins of Hillhead moved Amendment No. 2:
Page I, line 5, after ("arrangements") insert ("to take effect from 1st September 1991").
The noble Lord said: The effect of the amendment is to give the Government a short, one year pause for breath in order to try to sort out some of the many uncertainties relating to the operation of the scheme. I do not believe that the existence of these uncertainties can be denied for a moment.
I shall give a few examples. First, the detailed allocation of the three access funds remains largely a mystery. Secondly, the chances of processing all the applications by September/October are slim to the point of non-existence. By any calculations, it will be an almost impossible burden on the inevitably hastily recruited staff of 130 in the Student Loans Company. That would seem manifestly inadequate to make these complicated assessments in a considerable rush. Thirdly, the social security consequences and provisions remain vague and undescribed.
It is very difficult to understand what the Government would lose by such a pause. It is very easy to see that a great deal would be gained. I am delighted that the noble Earl began well this afternoon by accepting an amendment. I hope very much that he will also accept this amendment. It is difficult to see what the Government would lose by doing so. There can be no possible public expenditure urgency because postponement of the scheme could mean no public expenditure burden; if anything, the reverse. The scheme does not begin to save public expenditure until well over the next horizon—almost certainly into the 21st century. There may be some force in the assumption that some loan scheme, or a scheme carrying special graduate obligation, is a necessary concomitant of a big and desirable expansion of student numbers. However, that is not an argument for making it overwhelmingly urgent in 1990 compared with 1991.
Nor can it be argued—as the Government in another place have been disposed to do—that a postponement would be unfair to the interests of students. That is certainly not the view of any whom I have encountered. It is not only the organised, perhaps overcommitted, opinion expressed through the National Union of Students, but the much less committed, less organised, bodies of students with whom I have come in contact who would much rather that the scheme were introduced a little later,
1328
if at all. It is a very castor-oil theory of government to believe that it is for the students' own good that we must have it in 1990 and not 1991.
The benefits to the Government of such a postponement would be great. In the first place, they could discuss the matter further and try to sort out some modus vivendi with the universities on whom an immense and yet still wholly vague burden will be placed by the need for certification. That comes on top of certification for the poll tax and all being done in a great and unnecessary rush.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, spoke with peculiar force and eloquence in the Second Reading debate about how the purpose of his life in this Chamber had been to try to prevent occurring an unbridgable breach between the Government, of which he is in most respects a committed supporter, and the academic community, in which he plays such a distinguished part—the academic community of all branches of political opinion and at all levels. I believe that he saw the Bill as a symbol of his failure, despite the most gallant efforts.
For the Government to accept the amendment, at least to stay their hand for a moment to avoid rushing deeper into confusion and unnecessary conflict, might give him and many other people a glint of hope of achieving some more sensible solution.
To my great regret I was unable to be present for the Second Reading debate until almost the end of it. Members of the Committee will understand that in my position, such as it is, in this Chamber, and with my responsibility to the University of Oxford, I would not have missed the debate had I not had a compelling and conflicting engagement. I was committed to give in Oxford the last of a series of six lectures to commemorate the centenary of the death of Cardinal Newman. They culminated a week later in an ecumenical service at which the Archbishop of Canterbury preached the sermon. It was a great commemoration. Compelling though the reasons for being in my place here were, I decided that I could not be present except for the vote. As a result, I read the debate with particular attention and read it as a whole. Perhaps for that reason it made an even bigger impact on me than if I had listened to it seriatim as it was delivered. Most powerful speeches were made in the debate, and some towards the end raised points that were entirely new. For instance, my noble friend Lord Addington, produced a very powerful argument suggesting that the University of Aberdeen—a 500 year-old university—might literally be killed through inadvertence because of two special reasons that he outlined as a result of this rather ill-thought out scheme.
However, I was struck in particular by the impact of the first 12 speeches in the opening three hours which followed the gallant opening—for such it was—by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. Only one of those 12 speeches could be regarded as supporting the Bill for the Government's scheme. It was the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I fell upon it avidly, having the greatest possible respect for the cool clarity of her intellect, of her knowledge of universities, and of her support for sensible causes

1329
in general. What did I find? I found that she announced that she was going to support the Bill. She then raised certain criticisms, and I then waited for the crushing argument that would give me the Government case.
I was reminded irreversibly, possibly because of my experience on that day or the day before I read the speech, of Cardinal Newman's argument at the end of his first discourse in Dublin which led to this notable book, The Idea of a University, when he had gone to Dublin to be founding rector of a Catholic university. Pope Pius IX had laid down that it should be a purely Catholic university, which Newman did not like very much. However, he had to accept it. He made no attempt to pretend that it was not awkward. Therefore, he fell back, with the richest possible imagery—I must say that his imagery was somewhat lusher than that of the noble Baroness—on papal authority. He said that it was the decision of the Holy See, that St. Peter had spoken. "It is he who has enjoined that which seems to us so unpromising". He then went into a prose poem—for such it was—of glorious oratory, asking for it to be accepted on the basis of the proven record of 1800 years of the papacy.
The noble Baroness said that she had been to see the Secretary of State because she said, "I wanted to satisfy myself before coming to this debate. I took the opportunity to discuss the position with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I at least assured myself that he has considered these matters closely". I believe that we all have a considerable respect for Mr. MacGregor, but even with the assistance of Mr. Robert Jackson it can hardly be claimed that he rivals the 1800 years of wisdom of the papacy in this or any other respect. However, that was what the noble Baroness seemed to be saying. And yet I thought that if anyone was going to present a wholly convincing case it would most certainly be the noble Baroness.
I hope that the Government will not feel that they must be rigid. One cannot say that one hopes that they will not push through this Bill in a particular form because it has no form. I hope that they will not push the Bill through without listening to the views of the House.
I suppose that this Government are not unique in that respect. There seems to be a fatal frenzy which seizes governments when their basis of support becomes ever narrower. I shall never forget my last months in the House of Commons. I particularly regret one act which was under the premiership of my noble friend Lord Callaghan of Cardiff. In the autumn of 1976, which was an autumn of collapsing sterling and rampant inflation, and the Government were not very strong in the country or in public opinion polls, they insisted on pushing through a measure for the nationalisation of the ports and of the aerospace industry. Looking back, that was extraordinary. I believe that I voted for it. Occasionally we are all guilty of voting for things which we should never dream of voting for if we were free, unfettered citizens.
Let this Government remember that, when they are beleaguered, saying, "We will batten down the hatches, listen to nobody and push ahead with the
1330
utmost dogmatism", is not the course either of wisdom or of statesmanship.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Nobody is more aware of the real meaning of parliamentary words than the noble Lord who has just moved this amendment. He is a past master. I believe that he and Mr. Crosland were perhaps the two most effective Back-Benchers in the other place for many years. The noble Lord spent time being poetical about Cardinal Newman, and then he took up part of his 12 minutes by giving my noble friend Lady Young a basin of broth; he ended by hitting her on the head with a spoon. However, the effect of this amendment would be to negate the decision which we made on Second Reading. It is a negation of the principle to which we agreed on Second Reading, which was the right time to do that.
I feel that this is another desperate effort, using means which are quite unconventional in many ways, to twist the procedures of Parliament, which are usually designed to arrive at the right sort of answer, so that we cannot deal with the matter. It is not without significance—and my noble friends in particular will have noticed this—that the noble Lord spoke for 12 minutes and said hardly anything about the merit of the amendment which he asks the Committee to accept. He made a most attractive speech, as he always does, but there was no argument to justify his amendment. He knows better than most Members of the Committee that if ever there is a need for a delay, the time to discuss it is after the Committee stage. Who knows what this Bill will be like after the Committee stage? That is the object of this stage.
The noble Lord on the Cross-Benches was very interesting when speaking to the last amendment. He said that he wanted to get on because he had a number of practical amendments and points of view which he wanted to put to the Committee. I do not know how many of those amendments will find favour and, if they find favour, what effect they will have upon the Bill.
I believe that we must beware of being beguiled by a past master, because that is what the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is. He has held high offices of state, he headed the Commission in Europe and has written books. If Members of the Committee have not read them, I advise them to do so. They are very well written, delightful and informative. However, on this occasion his speech is a complete and utter red herring designed to do no more than negate what we did on Second Reading. He said that for very good reasons he could not be here. We were here, we went through this matter, we arrived at a decision and the majority then should justify us saying that that is the end of the discussion on principle. We should now get down to the Committee stage and see what we can make of the Bill.
Baroness Seear: The noble Lord says that we went through this matter on Second Reading and voted against it. Most of the people who voted against it were not here when we discussed it.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Baroness is being unfair and she is usually very fair. She knows that what happened on that day was identical to what happens on almost any Second Reading day. We have to take for granted—I hope that it is true in most cases, although we all know that it is not true in every case—that people satisfy themselves as to what the issue is before voting. I do not believe that the Second Reading of this Bill was any different to other Second Readings over many years and under different governments.
Baroness Elles: Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for whom I have the greatest respect, I was very much reminded of Andrew Carnegie, who said that he was always being told by experts why he should not do something but quite ordinary people were sent to tell him to get on with it. I am here to tell my noble friend Lord Caithness to get on with the Bill.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, said that this matter would not make any difference to the Government. However, I am not concerned with the Government but with students. Students are now expecting to have loans. On Second Reading I raised the fact that many students have overdrafts with banks. As with loans, they will have to repay that money but will be charged considerable interest on the bank overdrafts. Therefore, it is in the direct interest of students that we get on with this loans Bill. On that ground alone—I am thinking of the benefit to students, not to the Government, this place or another place—we should get on with the scheme, especially as my noble friend has undertaken that there will be discussions and that information will be given as to how the access funds will be used, which are matters that concern everyone.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I support the spirit of the amendment. I was of course concerned to hear the arguments which have just been expressed, but I support the amendment because I wish to invite the Government to think again seriously about what many of us in the academic world see as major deficiencies in the Government's proposals in relation to the Bill.
In an ideal world, and in a country rich beyond the dreams of avarice, I am sure that the Committee would agree that education at all levels should be free to the consumer and that there should be, in particular, total equality of opportunity so that all those capable of benefiting from higher education would be enabled to attend an appropriate educational institution able to capitalise upon all of their talents, thus allowing them to contribute more effectively to the nation's future economic health than would have been the case without such education.
It follows that such opportunities should be freely available to rich and poor alike, without the fear of crippling financial hardship which can provide a powerful deterrent. Despite the recent well-publicised, no doubt well intentioned but in my view singularly ill-informed comments about the alleged failure of our British universities to
1332
contribute to the so-called enterprise culture, I am in no doubt that we need significantly to increase our university and polytechnic student population, especially in science and engineering, if the country is to expand its technical and science base to help keep pace with its many overseas competitors, many more of whose young people attend higher education institutions. But we do not live in an ideal world, nor in an immensely rich country, and hence, unlike many of my academic colleagues, I am not totally opposed to the principle of student loans for reasons which I hope to explain.
I believe that it is proper that those who will benefit from the privilege of higher education, with the probability that such education will increase their ultimate earning capacity, should properly be asked, like their parents, to bear a part of the cost of the expensive education which the country has agreed to provide. However, having accepted the principle, I am deeply concerned about the scheme originally outlined in the Government White Paper, which is now depicted in the Bill with such a broad brush that the Secretary of State will effectively be capable of modifying it in almost any manner he or she pleases.
My principal anxieties, and indeed my objections to what The Times last week properly called "An unloved scheme", are many. First, I believe that the scheme will be potentially most advantageous to the wealthier students while acting as a potential deterrent to the poorer. Secondly, if, as the Government intend, the scheme is to be introduced in the 1990–91 academic year, students will be faced with what, with a degree of licence, I may perhaps call not double but triple jeopardy.
First, there is the loan itself, which must of course ultimately be repaid; despite the safeguards relating to graduate income and flexibility in relation to the period of time over which repayment will have to be made, the burden will be more severe upon those graduates entering less well remunerated employment but that which is above the 85 per cent. cut-off point. School teachers after a four-year course will be among those who could suffer inequitably, and so too would graduate nurses, junior hospital doctors after a five or six-year medical course and even those young dentists, veterinary surgeons and architects after equally prolonged courses who choose to undergo specialised postgraduate training. They would find a graduate tax much easier to bear than a loan repayment.
The second form of jeopardy to which several Members of the Committee have already referred, which this year's students will face, will be the loss of housing benefit and income support. The decision to withdraw such benefits at this stage is unfortunate, to say the least. I have been informed by the Oxford University students' union that of the 4,000 Oxford students living out of college in private rented accommodation, most are paying weekly rents of between £35 and £40, while the element allowed in the present student maintenance grant is £14·80 weekly. If the right to housing benefit is withdrawn, a student could lose £560 a year in term time alone, and if income support is also lost it has been calculated that within one year some Oxford students

1333
could lose up to £1,600 in benefit; and that is likely at a time when the average student, with a full maintenance grant and the recommended parental contribution, is thought to be accumulating debts already amounting to some £400 per annum.
The third form of jeopardy is of course that all students will now be required to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge, adding yet another financial burden. Not only will that burden fall most heavily upon students on longer courses; it is likely to act as a serious deterrent to those wishing to read for a higher degree who may well be dissuaded from doing so by the knowledge that they have already accumulated a substantial debt during the undergraduate course.
It has of course been suggested that many of those problems will be met for those in special difficulty by the access fund, for which a sum of £5 million has been allocated. There are at present about 700,000 undergraduates in Britain. Even assessing 10 per cent. of those as likely to become worse off under the proposed scheme, there will be only £70 a year available for each student. In addition, the access fund will be administered separately by individual higher education institutions, thus multiplying administrative costs. The proposed access fund seems on the present estimate to be inadequate.
Of course the scheme's administrative costs will be high. I am no economist but I am informed that Dr. Nicholas Barr of the London School of Economics has calculated that by 2006, when the Government claim that the scheme will pay for itself, the administrative costs will be likely to total £150 million, if the cost of defaults and write-offs reach anything like—
Lord Elton: I wonder whether the noble Lord will forgive me. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls pointed out that this place has agreed in principle to go ahead with the Bill. My noble friend Lady Elles has pointed out that there is pressure to do so swiftly. The amendment is one which proposes the postponement of the decision that this place took at the last stage. The noble Lord appears to be addressing that decision, whereas what we should be addressing are Committee points. The noble Lord will forgive me if I say that the Committee wishes him to address himself to the amendment so that we can decide it quickly.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My reasons for supporting the amendment are that, while I wholly accept the need for some form of loan scheme for the reasons I have already given, I ask Her Majesty's Government to think again and to give serious consideration to the alternative proposals from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals about the possibility of repayment through some form of graduate tax. My whole purpose in supporting the amendment is to invite the Government to take time to reconsider the details of the Bill and to postpone it therefore for 12 months so that they can do so.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall resist the temptation to make a Second Reading speech because, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said, I could
1334
not reach the Second Reading debate until late in the evening although I listened to a good deal of it. We are discussing an amendment that would seek to postpone the Bill for a year. Many of the changed financial arrangements for students described by the noble Lord, Lord Walton—for instance, the community charge—will happen anyway. I sometimes wonder whether those who are so strongly opposed to the Bill recognise—this point was brought out on Second Reading—that something over 40 per cent. of parents do not meet the full parental contribution, partly because they feel unable to do so and partly because their student offspring are anxious not to be too beholden to their parents.
We will therefore have the position that students will find these additional costs falling upon them. An integral part of that must surely be that the Bill will provide a 25 per cent. increase in the resources available to the students, partly in the maintenance grant and partly by the top-up loan.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, seeks to persuade the Committee to recognise that all those other things will happen without recompense. He did not say anything with regard to increasing the grant. He simply said that the loan, which will be available if your Lordships pass the Bill and it reaches the statute book, will not be available to the students next October. It seems to me that once the students—and perhaps not least the students from Oxford University—recognise that that will happen, they will have a thing or two to say to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. The top-up loans are now an essential part of what will be the maintenance of students from October.
Like my noble friend Lady Elles I hope that the Government will stand very firm on this point. The principle of the Bill has been accepted in both Houses and it would be a great pity if it were not now to proceed, subject to amendments on detail that the Committee may wish to discuss. It cannot be put off for a year. Loans must be available for the generation of students who will be in university next October; otherwise they will suffer considerable hardship.
Lord Peston: We are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, for introducing the amendment. When he broke off initially in the way he did when reminiscing about rampant inflation and collapsing sterling, I thought he was talking of today, not 1976. The difference is that in 1976 my noble friend Lord Callaghan was determined to see that economic policy was adjusted in the interests of the nation and, indeed, eventually in the interests of sterling. I for one wait to hear similar statements coming from the Benches opposite.
Perhaps I may also make a point on procedure. I am sitting here slightly irritated. I thought that this was a serious Committee stage. We on this side intend to scrutinise what we can in any way we can. If the Government wish to play the games that are being suggested, I suggest that they put down a Bill and we will do it that way. If the Government choose to proceed by presenting regulations with no detail whatever, then I intend to proceed as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and others have done and expose that

1335
fact hour after hour, because that is all that is left to us. This is not the kind of Bill where one can say, having had a proper Bill put before us, "We accept it in principle". As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned at Second Reading, this is a Bill which says, "We will do something about student maintenance. You will discover what we do if you attend meetings that the Secretary of State calls, or read the newspapers, etc.".
I am not happy at the two interventions made so far, which suggest that we should limit what we say. I warn the Committee that I have no intention whatever of limiting what I wish to say. I intend to discuss student loans and student maintenance and have the Bill scrutinised one way or another. I feel I must say that.
Let me also say—and I had this slight argument with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, before—that I accept that we do not intend to destroy the Bill. However, every time I make a speech I do not intend to accept being told that I am destroying the Bill. That simply will not do. I am now playing according to the rules and it is my desire to produce a rational piece of legislation. If the Government claim that those of us who are seeking to produce a rational piece of legislation are destroying the Bill, that seems to say more for the Government than for our side. I simply say that because we have no alternative but to proceed in the way that many of us on this side are trying to proceed.
Briefly, the case for postponement is overwhelmingly that the Secretary of State has revealed that he does not know what he is doing. He has also very clearly revealed that he would like to get the legislation right. I have heard him say so on more than one occasion. He would like to get this change in student maintenance worked out properly. We agree with that. The reason we seek postponement is to help him get it right. I do not want to see—and I should have thought noble Lords opposite would agree—the Secretary of State making it up as he goes along, relying on the peculiar company which we have not yet debated making it up as it goes along, and then doing what happens every so often. Apropos the Education Reform Act 1988, the Secretary of State said, "Do not panic". Again during the course of the coming year we will be told, "Do not panic. We will somehow sort out the student loan position. Ministers will introduce regulations", and so on. We would rather it was done properly.
Perhaps I may add as my contribution to the debate a point which worries me greatly and which refers to the graduate tax. I came across the graduate tax 25 years ago. I used to lecture on it when I lectured on the economics of education. Its origin is not from this side of the Chamber; it is from economists who were very much of a free market variety and who were originally connected with the Institute of Economic Affairs. The graduate tax is prescisely the way of dealing with the problem that we thought the Government would feel was a good thing.
1336
That does not worry me. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, does not seem to like anybody who knows anything about a subject contributing to it, but I hope she will bear with me if I say that I spent 25 years on it. Having spent 25 years on it, I rather resent a casual letter from the Secretary of State to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, saying that he and his officials can now dismiss the whole 25 years of economics; that it does not make any sense; that it is unworkable, and so forth. A Secretary of State or a department who can associate themselves with a letter of that sort inspire no confidence in those of us who are worried about the problems we are supposed to be debating. That is why I believe that postponement and time to think further, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, suggests, is the way forward.
My final point is that if we are given a little more time, as I said in my Second Reading speech, I will contribute all I can to make what at the moment is an unworkable piece of legislation into a workable piece of legislation.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Elles: Before the noble Lord sits down—he mentioned my name—would he accept that we are a debating Chamber and on all sides we are entitled to approve one method or another? Just because a system was thought of 25 years ago does not impose any obligation on any of us to accept that particular system.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may say two things to the noble Baroness. I do not suggest for one moment that it should be accepted. I suggest it should be taken seriously. Equally, as I, in all humility, always take seriously that which someone who says "I am not an expert" says. I require as a slight quid pro quo that someone might also take seriously what I say.
Viscount Eccles: The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, have had very bad luck. If their amendment had come first there might have been some reason to approve it. The first amendment gave us the assurance that the Government's plan would be subject to the affirmative procedure. Therefore we will see what they propose to do and will have a chance to discuss it.
It is difficult to weigh the balance between the interests of the students. I was in Oxford all day on Saturday and it is nonsense to say that some of the students there are not very keen to take loans. I do not know what proportion of them have overdrafts from the bank, but I am told that it is fairly high. One then hears from the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, that they will soon have to pay the poll tax. These young people want more money. There is not a great deal of money in this Bill. I wish there was more, but still there is some money and therefore we are on the way—a little way, but on the way—to providing a little more money for higher education. If there is much else to be done perhaps there will be an opportunity to say so during the course of the debate.
Both noble Lords who put their names to this amendment are Liberals. I should like to tell them

1337
that one of the most famous Liberals of this century—John Maynard Keynes—was fond of telling his students that it is better to be roughly right than to be precisely wrong. In the Bill before us we can be only roughly right. I am sure that all Members who have had anything to do with education legislation know that 50 per cent. of a Bill on the statute book cannot be carried out. It must be altered, and so forth; and that is the nature of education. The reason is that every school and university is different, as is every pupil and student. One cannot generalise on a piece of paper for them all. However, a good Ministry and a good local authority will help to get it right and they will do so in respect of this Bill.
It is not fair to students to say that we can pick around this and that argument and that we will get it right. We must leave it to the Secretary of State. For instance, the noble Lord, Lord Peston, mentioned a graduate tax. He was at the meeting when the Secretary of State disposed of that suggestion. If he was not convinced by what the Minister said, he will not be convinced by anyone. Let us get on with the Bill. My noble friend Lady Elles was right and I support her.
Baroness David: I have added my name to the amendment together with those of Liberal Members. I should like to take up several of the points raised by the noble Viscount. I do not believe that students are longing for the Bill at all. We have received letters from many undergraduate students at polytechnics and universities and they show a good deal of hostility towards the Bill. It would be different if they were to receive more money as a result, but, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, many will be much worse off having lost housing benefit and income support during the long vacation.
We should take warning from previous Bills which the Government have rushed through in the same way. They brought the Bill forward before they had any scheme for paying out the money, and the banks withdrew. We have not yet heard any details about the student loans scheme. Many troubles have arisen as a result of the poll tax because the Bill was pushed through in a great hurry.
I led for the Opposition when the Education Reform Bill was debated in this House. On many occasions we warned that the Government were taking on more than they could cope with and we are now finding that to be so. The complicated scheme of assessment is causing real problems. That is why last Saturday, when speaking in Norfolk, the Secretary of State had to tell the teachers not to panic. He said that the situation would not be as bad as they feared because they would not have so many assessment tasks. However, there are already 40 assessments for the four subjects on which the working parties have reported.
There is a great deal to be said for delaying the Bill and having a little consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Flowers said that there was no consultation before the Bill was brought forward. It would be wise to allow those who will have to work the Bill and work with it to have a proper chance of expressing
1338
their views. That is what a delay of a year would make possible and I hope that Members of the Committee will support the amendment.
Baroness Young: Time is not on our side as regards the Bill. I listened with great care to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in moving the amendment. I was delighted by his speech, particularly his early remarks about myself. My only regret is that, when he was being so flattering, my dear father was not here to hear his comments. He would have been astonished.
However, the sting was in the tail. I point out to him that I did not repeat all the arguments in favour of the Bill because my noble friend Lord Caithness had done that so well and it required no repetition. Therefore, I shall again address myself to the amendment now before the Committee. As was said by my noble friend Lady Elles, it is right that at least 41 per cent. of students now have an unofficial loan scheme through the banks. It is also right, as was said by my noble friend Lord Jenkin, that they will need the extra money which is coming to them.
But it is a beguiling argument on the part of academics to say, "Put it off". I have lived for almost all my life in the academic world and I know that academics are clever people who are able to put a bad case extremely well. One needs to examine this case in particular. Delay, which is beloved of academics, will not produce the further information that is required. The deficiencies in the Bill alleged by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, must be debated in Committee.
As my noble friend Lord Nugent properly said on Second Reading, we need the Bill because of the Government's successful policy in increasing the number of students at universities. We wish to see that continue and the Bill is designed to meet it. Delay would only make the situation worse. Indeed, as costs escalate there is always the danger that a government may say that there must be a limit on the number of students—and nobody would want that—because the Government cannot meet the cost. It is a most serious issue.
My view about the graduate tax—which has never been stated although the Secretary of State came close to doing so the other afternoon—is that the Treasury would never agree to a hypothecated tax which it would see as the thin end of a wedge. On other occasions in this Chamber I have heard it asked: why not have a tax to support the National Health Service? I can hear someone asking: why not have a tax to support the arts or any good cause that you like? I do not believe that that is a runner, and we delude ourselves.
I raise the issue only because I was distressed to hear some of the remarks made about my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Much as I admire him, I have not elevated him to the status of the papacy or a saint. He was most helpful in holding the meeting last week. I regret some of the comments made about that meeting show that it was not regarded in the proper spirit. It provided an opportunity to discuss many serious technical points which arise in the Bill.

1339
At this stage the last thing we need is to delay. We need to proceed with the Committee stage and discuss the detail of the Bill. I hope that the Government will not support the amendment and that we can proceed as quickly as possible.
5 p.m.
Lord Beloff: There appears to be an inclination on the part of the Bill's few supporters in this Chamber to put forward factual points which are invalid. I do not wish to deal with the graduate tax, which will be the subject of the final amendment to the Bill. However, there is no question of hypothecation. A hypothecated tax is one directed to a particular form of expenditure. The universities propose an alternative form of contribution to the general income of the Treasury. Therefore, it is misleading and prejudicial to call it a hypothecated tax.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, persists in a view which is contradicted by Members who are much more intimately acquainted with the university scene: that students will be better off under the scheme than at present. There is no mathematical argument which has convinced anyone who is responsible for students and their welfare that that will be the case. On the contrary, they will be worse off than if the present system is continued for another year and an alternative and much better scheme is devised.
Thirdly, I am baffled by the position taken by my noble friend Lady Elles. I can only assume that she is one of the unfortunate people in north-west London whose letterbox has not been visited by the postman for some time. I have received innumerable letters from students; from vice-chancellors, including the vice-chancellor of my own university; from schoolteachers who are horrified at the idea that they may have to be referees and in some sense guarantors for 17 year-olds when three or four years later they have disappeared into university; and from schoolchildren approaching the question of what to do when they leave school. I have found no one among those correspondents who has anything whatever to say in favour of this Bill or of it coming into operation as soon as possible. I suspect that the noble Baroness may live on a desert island and imagine these things, because they are certainly quite untrue.
The reason for demanding postponement is partially because people feel that, quite apart from when the Bill should come into operation, this Committee has been given a timetable for the various stages of the legislation which is unusually and unnecessarily crowded. I know that we shall be told that this is a matter for the usual channels. But the usual channels are supposed to operate in order to give effect to the will of the House and not the other way round. The will on all sides of the House, as manifest at Second Reading debate, was that we wanted more time to think and to consider. There is no argument against that other than one which has certainly not yet been put before us.
I refer to a Romanian colleague who was sent over here to look at our parliamentary procedure. He
1340
visited the other place and he spent some time in your Lordships' Gallery. I asked him what he thought and he said, "Well, as I expected, you have Securitate too, but you call them Whips". Then he said: "Perhaps I should explain that there is a difference: in order to preserve the regime the Securitate bussed in workers; the Whips fly in drones".
Having settled that point—that is, that we are being made to go through the Bill at breakneck speed—one asks the question, why? I believe that the authority of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on matters of pubic finance is accepted on all sides of the Committee. He pointed out at Second Reading, and if he speaks this afternoon no doubt he will point it out again, that if one looks at this matter from the point of view of public expenditure, which perhaps rightly worries the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, or my noble friend Lord Eccles, there is no possible argument for haste since the benefits to the Treasury will not accrue until after the turn of the century.
It is very mysterious that a government should be so interested in the buoyancy of their revenues in the year 2003. I have one explanation which may have occurred to other Members of the Committee. It may be that the author of this Bill, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Higher Education, visualises himself progressing up the ministerial hierarchy so that in the year 2003 he will be Chancellor of the Exchequer. Then he can visualise a paragraph by one of those teenage scribblers on, for example, the Financial Times: "The buoyancy of revenues on the student loan scheme is such that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Robert Jackson, confidently expects to cut 10p off the standard rate of income tax in his forthcoming budget". One should not mock dreams. Seventy years ago I used to visualise newspaper headlines such as: "Beloff's double century clinches the fight for the Ashes". The difference between me and the Under-Secretary of State for Higher Education is that I grew up.
There is a great deal which the Government are asked to explain. If it is a good idea to have this Bill, why is it absolutely essential that it should be pushed through in a way which gives very little opportunity to discuss it, not merely because of the form of the Bill but also, as I have said, because of the unusual hurry?
We have not had much time between the successive stages of the legislation to work out amendments or to seek briefings from experts. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, I like taking advice from people who are reputed to know something about the subject under consideration. I should have liked more time to visit other universities to find out what other students might think or, even more important, what those who look after the students think of the scheme. We have been told that the Bill must be through by Easter, and I ask why. Until the Committee is given an explanation by my noble friend the Minister of the reasons for haste, I cannot see that anyone who wishes to get matters right can fail to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead.

1341
In this sense, my noble friend Lord Eccles is right, as is so often the case. We are in a very difficult situation. The system that we have had is clearly buckling under the strain of university expansion and because of other calls on the economy. But that is an argument for looking thoroughly at the whole question of financing students and including all of them. What about graduate and part-time students, whom we wish to encourage? If we had time there are a great many matters which a proper Bill dealing with student maintenance could encompass with the agreement of those involved in higher education.
It is because of the absence of any understanding on the part of the Government and this little peck at one corner of the subject matter—irrespective of its deleterious effects, which they have been told about from all sides of the Committee—that I very much hope that either the Government will accept the amendment or the Committee, through its vote, will insist that they do.
Earl Russell: I try to be a practical man. I have two questions which particularly concern me about any scheme of student support, and they are more important than whether I like the scheme or not. The first is, should the scheme put money in the pocket of the student at the time when it is due to be spent, and the second is, if it is a loan scheme, should the money be returned to the pocket—if that is the correct word—of the Consolidated Fund? It is the purpose of this amendment to show that the Bill is not yet ready to pass these tests. I do not think the scheme should come into force until it is. If that opposes the central principle of the Bill, I can only say that I am very sorry and rather surprised to hear it.
It is not a plea by the back door for an alternative scheme, but if it led to one I should not regret it. If we are to have this scheme and no other, than I should like to have it and no other when it is sufficiently worked out to be operative. The Price Waterhouse Report lays down the timetable under which the Government are operating. The report proposes a very tight schedule of activity, which is a guarded and a pointed phrase. It argues that it is essential, if the scheme is to be in force by September 1990, that the Bill should complete its passage by the end of March 1990.
I understand that the Bill was due for Third Reading on 19th March. That was already uncomfortably tight. Every line of the report assumes the participation of the banks. Inevitably, the withdrawal of their participation had led to a great deal of rethinking. We were given the fruits of some of that immediately before our Second Reading debate. I believe it to be new thinking and it certainly was not made available when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary wrote to give information to my honourable friend Mr. Hughes on 25th January. The leaflet states that some details are still subject to change and some remain to be settled. That would be fair enough with the scheme coming into effect in 1991, but under these proposals the money is supposed to be in the pockets of the students within five months. It is a little late to be settling details.
1342
There are three areas where I think the scheme is simply not yet capable of operating. The first is certification, where the procedure is still to be agreed. We have left agreement on certification too late for it now to be possible to certify students for September 1990. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, pointed out, there is a bottleneck in university registries in September, when A-level results come through, people accept or decline offers, and pieces of paper are being shuffled at very high speed. If the universities are to do the certification it would be essential that a preliminary documentation should be begun when interviews start at the beginning of the academic year. If the scheme had been worked out at the beginning of the academic year we could have done it. As it is, it is too late. There will be a delay on certification. A delay on certification will have a multiplier effect on delays on payment. I remind the Committee that the Secretary of State himself admits that the scheme for payment is yet to be decided.
There is room for further misgiving here because the staff of the Student Loans Company has now been reduced from the original 250 to 130. My honourable friend Mr. Hughes calculated, using the Price Waterhouse figures, that a staff of 250 could process 3,575 applications a day. It would accordingly take a staff of 130 seven and a half months to process applications. I am not particularly surprised that at that point my honourable friend was interrupted by the honourable Member for Brent, South. He must have thought that the Government were about to be compared with Brent Council.
Repayment is in even more confusion. The proposal for referees was first known to us barely two weeks ago. It is not clear from the leaflet exactly how it will work. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, clarified it slightly at Second Reading. He said:
"In addition, students will be asked on taking out the loan to nominate referees who will be able to provide their addresses if they seek to evade repayments".—[0ffictal Report, 27/2/90; col. 716.]
That needs more thought. This is part of the process, of which companies have complained this morning in relation to local government finance, of the privatisation of law enforcement. Personally, I should be extremely reluctant to sign such a certification as a referee on behalf of anybody. I will of course try to persuade anybody to pay his just and due debts but I am extremely reluctant to be used as a machinery for shopping him if he does not.
Nor do we have an explanation of how the money is to be recovered from people who go abroad. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has affirmed persistently that he will do it. He has given us no information on how. I remind the Committee that any aspiring postgraduate who wishes for an academic career is now automatically advised by his or her supervisor to go abroad on the ground that no jobs are available in this country. So we may expect that considerable numbers are likely to go abroad. We should not go ahead until we have some idea as to how the money will be recovered from them.
In the Independent last October, back in the days when Berlin still had a wall—and it makes the point

1343
that this scheme has not progressed since the days when Berlin did have a wall—a German academic wrote asking whether those who take out student loans will be required to take out exit visas. It was not a frivolous question. It deserves an answer. We are told also that those applying for the loan must supply their national insurance number. To keep track of people who move and change their names it will be necessary to use either the tax machinery or the national insurance machinery. But, if that machinery is to be used anyway, there is a case for thinking again about whether a scheme can be based on it.
I listened carefully and with respect to the arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. They sounded a powerful set of points. I am well aware that it is painfully easy to speak on behalf of people without being quite certain what they think. So before putting down this amendment I decided that, rather than assuming I knew what students thought, I should go and ask them. I went first to the officers of my college students' union. I have considerable respect for students' unions. The people there are very much the kind of people we are used to seeing at briefing meetings. They were quite clear. But just to be sure I took a spot check on my individual pupils. The only dissenters from the view that we should try to put forward this amendment were two people, both of them active members of the Conservative Party. Frankly, if the sample had been unanimous, I should not have believed it.
We ought to reflect on quite how much it affects one's outlook to be living on a very tight budget at very high interest rates. The top priority of most students is not to rely on support which may not in the end be there when they need it. That is why I support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As my noble friend the Paymaster General knows, I am able to keep my enthusiasm for the Bill within the limits of proper decorum. I have listened closely to this debate, which seems to have been concerned not so much with the main merits or otherwise of the Bill as with the quite difficult question of timing. I say with respect that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls that, were the Committee to adopt the amendment, that would negate—that was his word—the decision taken at Second Reading. The amendment itself provides that the Bill shall come into effect on 1st September 1991.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: At Second Reading we voted on the principle of when the scheme would start. This amendment would make it impossible for it to start at the time set out when we gave the Bill a Second Reading. That is a negation of the decision made at Second Reading.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend is quite wrong. At Second Reading we did not vote on when the scheme should start. We voted to give the Bill a Second Reading. My noble friend is misleading
1344
himself and perhaps some Members of the Committee when he says that. But I do not think that a particularly important point.
The decision which we are now asked to take is whether the scheme should come into operation on 1st September 1990 or on 1st September 1991. I am bound to say that I share the wonder of my noble friend Lord Beloff as to why the Government are in such a hurry to put this into effect. As he quoted my own earlier speech as having pointed out, there will be no relief to public funds in any event until we are well into the next century. There is also the fact to weigh—in this respect I agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff—that among those directly affected the scheme is very unpopular.
I too have received a mass of correspondence from, on the one hand, vice-chancellors of the greatest eminence, and on the other hand, students whose degree of literacy would appear to be limited. All are highly critical of this measure. I confess to having no enthusiasm for it. But, with respect to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that is not the issue we are concerned with on this amendment; we are concerned simply with the question of whether the implementation should start from 1st September 1990 or 1st September 1991.
As one who dislikes the material of the Bill, the question of whether the scheme is to come into effect this year or next does not seem to be of any great importance. However, what is relevant is the question of whether this Chamber will be able, within the limited time available, to do its constitutional duty on the Bill. I shall try not to weary Members of the Committee, but it has been said time and again that the Bill is a mere framework and that it is difficult to consider and discuss it without knowing a great deal more of what is actually intended.
I turn now to what my noble friend the Paymaster General said as regards the previous amendment. It is of very great significance in affecting the Committee's decision on the matter. As I understood my noble friend—and he will correct me when he replies to the debate if I am wrong—he said that before we parted with the Bill, if it continues on its present schedule, he would be providing a great deal more information as to what the Government are actually going to do, how they will do it and by what methods, covering, for example, the whole question of obtaining repayments, the limitations on post-graduate students and all those extremely important considerations. I appreciate that my noble friend cannot give that information this afternoon. To ask him to do so would be unreasonable. However a clear statement that we shall be given much fuller information while the Bill is passing through this Chamber would determine how I cast my vote should the matter come to a Division. If my noble friend is not able to confirm what I think he said—although I am not 100 per cent. certain about this—on the earlier amendment, I shall feel bound to vote for the amendment. If he can give a clear indication that while this Chamber is considering the Bill much fuller information will be provided to enable Members of this place to discuss, correct and, if

1345
necessary, amend, then I should feel that one must choose the lesser of the two evils when considering the two dates.
There is no doubting the fact that there is a great deal of force in what has been said; namely, that to leave the whole matter in a state of uncertainty for another 18 months or so will not make much sense. It will certainly not be terribly helpful to those students who will be going up to university either this autumn or next. It is also perhaps not very fair to those members of the university faculties who have great problems to face in dealing with the matter. A degree of certainty as to the date of implementation even of a rather bad measure is probably better than uncertainty on the subject.
As I said, I do not wish to weary Members of the Committee but my own vote will turn entirely on what my noble friend says as to the action which the Government propose to take to enable this Chamber to discharge its duties properly on a Bill of the greatest importance.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: I shall not take more than two minutes of the Committee's time in what I have to say. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is correct when he says that if we have more information it will influence opinions. However, I should like to report to the Committee the fact that, although I am no expert, I have a small connection with the University of Wales. It is a peculiar institution because it was founded initially on the small subscriptions of slate quarrymen in Wales and was built up literally without funds or foundations from a very small beginning. Because of that fact it has a very peculiar constitution. It is not merely made up of distinguished academics, although they play a substantial part in the constitution of the court of the University of Wales which is a very lively body. It also includes very well-known people in the public life of Wales; for example, businessmen who certainly are not particularly influenced by what students say and members of trade unions in their representative capacity in Wales. And trade unions play a significant part in that respect. There are many academics and representative of arts, culture and the libraries. Indeed, almost every facet of Wales is represented in the court. There are also some students involved, but only a handful—no more than half a dozen out of 150. They attend the meetings and debate matters, as we tend to in Wales, very passionately.
I should like to tell Members of the Committee, and I ask the Minister to take this into account, that in a recent discussion in a full court of the University of Wales, which comprises an average attendance of about 150 of the men and women I have described, drawn from every part of Welsh life, this scheme was rejected. I put my argument rather differently to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I want the Minister to take account of the fact that there is no opinion in favour of the scheme. I do not know whether he could win support for a different scheme—I hear different reports in this respect—but I should certainly be ready to support a scheme
1346
which could at least find some modicum of support among those who are to benefit, or so we are told, from it.
With respect to the noble Lord. Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I do not find that students are ill-informed about the matter. They are very well informed. Indeed, I learnt most of what I have had to say from them. Of course I would not take what they say without first checking the facts. I never took anything from a constituent without first checking up on the matter. But students know perfectly well what is involved in the scheme.
I have had experience of a similar situation. I well remember, when I introduced my first Budget so many years ago, the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury Sir William Armstrong, coming to me and saying, "Chancellor, please put it off for 12 months. You will get better opinions and be able to learn far more about it." In my impetuous youth—and I do not claim that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is either impetuous or youthful—I rushed ahead. I made a mistake. That was the corporation tax. I thought I had had a good idea; I was very proud of it. I wanted to see it on the statute book as quickly as possible, so I rushed it through. I was wrong.
I ask the Government—although I do not know why I should be interested in saving their bacon, except that I want to see good administration and some acquiescence in what is done—to think about these matters and to consider whether there might be something better. I do not join in the attacks on Mr. Robert Jackson. I do not think that I know him well enough to be able to attack him, much as I should like to do so if he is in fact responsible for what is proposed. I ask the Government to take a wide spectrum of opinion which has not so far been able to express itself, despite the White Paper and the consultations.
It would be preferable if the Government could come out at the end of another 12 months with a scheme which at least met with some consent from those who are supposed to benefit from it, whether they are due to do so or not, and with the support of a responsible and sober body like the court of the University of Wales. It does not command that support at present.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: We have had a good wide-ranging discussion, in some respects almost a Second Reading debate. I have listened with great care and attention to what Members of the Committee have said. Perhaps I may start with what I consider to be common ground. I believe that we are agreed on all sides of the Chamber on the importance of expanding higher education. But, as noble Lords have heard me say before, it is not possible for taxpayers and parents alone to support the living costs of an increasing number of students.
The loan introduces a new source of support: anticipation by students of a portion of the high income they can expect in later life as graduates. And, as the Committee knows, those who do not receive a direct financial benefit from higher

1347
education will be protected by the deferment provisions, which will allow repayments to be deferred if their income is low.
There is widespread agreement in the university world and outside that this additional source of support must be tapped. The question is how to secure the graduate contribution. Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady David, and other Members of the Committee intimated, the scheme that the Government propose has been long matured. The possibility of introducing a top-up loan was canvassed in the manifesto for the last general election. There was then a lengthy review, chaired by two successive Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State at the Department of Education and Science. That culminated in the White Paper of November 1988. We have heard the argument that the scheme is not ready and the details not yet available. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, did not surprise me when he said that it was ill thought out and there was confusion. I hope to refute that.
The Government have made it abundantly clear how the scheme will operate. The terms of the loan were set out in the White Paper, which explained which students would be eligible, the size of the loan and how it would relate to the grant, how it would be indexed to inflation and the repayment arrangements, including the crucial provision for deferment for low income. This information was set out again in the Notes on Clauses and again in the administrative outline published on 26th February. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, that a wide spectrum of opinion has been canvassed and taken into account.
The detailed administrative procedures are now being developed. I have seen this work in Glasgow. I went up there last week specifically so that I could inform the Committee about it. It is complex and challenging. I can report that excellent progress is being made with the preparatory work approved by Parliament. The company is on schedule to provide the extra resources for students this autumn, subject to Parliament's approval of the Bill.
Perhaps at this stage I could correct something that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said about the number of staff. Of course the number of staff at the beginning of a scheme like this will be lower than at the end. There has been no change. The numbers will be phased in because, as the noble Earl reminded us on the question of repayments, there will be no repayments until the loans have been up and running for a bit. Therefore we do not need the staff for that at an early stage. I assure him that the programme for recruitment of staff is well in hand for a full complement of about 250 people.
I was impressed by what I saw when I visited the company in Glasgow. The senior management tier is in place. I have spoken to the management director, the loans administration director, the finance director and the personnel manager. I was impressed by their commitment and enthusiasm as well as by their keen appreciation of the complex issues with which they are dealing.
1348
Work on the central computer system is well in hand. Acceptance testing is due to begin this week. New premises have been acquired, and I also toured that building. Fitting out of the building is well in hand and on schedule for staff to enter in the near future. So there is determined activity on all fronts. It is an impressive set-up. Subject to Parliament's approval of the Bill, the company clearly has the will and the means to deliver loans to students this autumn.
However, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was absolutely right to say that on one aspect of administrative detail we have not yet settled how application forms from individual students should be handled. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State had hoped that the academic institutions would be ready to play their part in this matter in the interests of their students. I have to say that we were surprised and disappointed when they said that they would play only any role imposed on them by legislation. As I have said before, if they wish to discuss the matter, my right honourable friend's door is open.
We are considering whether to bring forward an amendment to ensure that the higher education institutions will co-operate in passing on their students' applications to the central loans administration in Glasgow. The alternative is for students to apply direct. In either event we are determined to introduce as student-friendly a scheme as can be devised. I give the Committee an assurance that this matter will be determined very shortly and the outcome announced in both Houses. In other respects the Student Loans Company will handle transactions with individual borrowers. We have made it clear how it will handle payment of the loans, indexation, repayment and deferment.
I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, gave no example of what he considers to be missing or what cannot be discussed later today or at the next stages. In contrast, the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made some interesting points about the details of the scheme which are the subject of later amendments tonight. That is the right place at which to discuss them.
I have to say to the Committee that perhaps after a full discussion noble Lords can better decide whether the answers to the amendments put forward reach the satisfactory standard that they require and whether I am found wanting. I hope that that will appeal to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who will be keen to hear the full arguments. If I can give any further details as we go along, I shall be only too happy to give the Committee those details.
The loans scheme proposed by the White Paper was based on thorough and detailed consideration. Since taking office in July 1989 the Secretary of State has, as he has made clear, taken time to consider alternative proposals. He has decided that the loans scheme remains the best way of providing more resources to students from 1990–91 while reducing the burden on parents from 1991–92 and on the taxpayer in the medium term.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, again raised the question of the graduate tax. It is a tax

1349
which of all the countries in the world only Australia is operating. That country has been operating it for just over a year. All the other countries that operate some form of student contribution are doing what we propose to do, which is a mixture of a grant and a loan scheme.
As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will know, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has given careful consideration to whether a graduate tax scheme or something based on the national insurance contribution would be better. However, he has come down in favour of the proposals that we have as being the best scheme.
Far from being unready, we are keen to provide the loans as soon as possible, for one very good reason: not providing the loans this autumn would deny students access to increased resources. As my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding reminded the Committee, the maximum grant plus loan in 1990–91 represents a 25 per cent. increase on the grant alone in 1989–90.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl. I am sorry; I know that to do so is disconcerting. Is he saying that the Government could not technically simply raise the maintenance grant by the relevant amount, using the regulations of the 1962 Act? There need be no connection between giving students decent grants and the loans scheme. It seems to me to be rather threatening to suggest that either one agrees to the loans scheme or one does not receive the money.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord knows full well, the grant is being uprated this year. The loan on top is new money; it is in addition. That is what the students would not be able to have at their disposal. The amendment would take this facility away from students in 1990–91. I suspect that students would not thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, for that.
I have listened carefully to what my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady David, have said about students who may nevertheless find themselves in financial difficulty. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will also study very carefully what has been said today. I recognise that this is an important issue and one that we shall debate in its own right later on in the Committee stage. However, at this stage perhaps I may give the Committee the assurance that my right honourable friend will consider sympathetically what has been said and he may well wish to respond. I too wish to make note of what Members of the Committee have said.
I repeat that with Parliament's approval for the preparatory costs, preparations are well in hand for the scheme to start this autumn. There is no need to delay implementation artificially by a year. It would, for reasons which I have sought to explain, be undesirable to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, said that he hoped that the Government would not be rigid in pushing this Bill through. I give the Committee one example—the last amendment.
Lord Jenkins of Hillhead: I thank the noble Earl for his reply. However, except for the interesting description of his visit to Glasgow—I have no doubt to Hillhead, where the office is situated—I do not think that he provided us with much that was new in the way of argument or information. He based the greater part of his case on the fact that in his visit he found the Student Loans Company to be working well. I must say that ministerial visits can be useful for morale, but in his place I would hesitate, following a brief visit of this kind, to pronounce ministerially upon the efficiency of the unit being set up. I think that the noble Earl may be unwise to place too much weight upon that visit before we see how the company performs.
I shall detain the Committee for only a moment or so. The Government should not be too discouraged. Opinion has moved a good deal in favour of the suggestion that in order to finance university and polytechnic education one needs some contribution from students, whether it be through a student loans scheme or a graduate tax scheme. The Government should recognise that that is an advance.
However, it is not necessary to reject the amendment and what lies behind it. We are not asking, as was suggested, for delay for the sake of delay. This is an extraordinarily tight schedule in which a Bill that has practically no detail with it is not yet on the statute book in mid-March, yet the scheme is to be in full operation in September. That is a quite exceptional timetable for any statute, even for one which has great detail within it. We are not asking for delay for the sake of delay but, in addition to what I have already mentioned, there is the exceptional situation of total criticism of the scheme itself among nearly all interested and informed opinion. It would be wiser for the Government to undertake some further discussions to see whether, having moved opinion on the substance of the measure, they can change it from being regarded as a rather partisan little measure to one which commands wider support. However, I have sufficient faith in the amendment to ask the Committee to divide upon it.
5.40 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 137.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Bottomley, L.

Adrian, L.

Bradford, Bp.

Airedale, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Aldington, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Ardwick, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Attlee, E.

Butterfield, L.

Aylestone, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Barnett, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Beloff, L.

Birk, B.

Carter, L.

Blackstone, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Blyth, L.

Cobbold, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Dainton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

David, B.

1351

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McCarthy, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Ennals, L.

Mais, L.

Falkland, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mayhew, L.

Fitt, L.

Meston, L.

Flowers, L.

Mills, V.

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Galpern, L.

Milverton, L.

Gibson, L.

Monkswell, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Mulley, L.

Glenamara, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Northfield, L.

Ogmore, L.

Grey, E.

Peston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Phillips, B.

Hampton, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Rochester, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Hughes, L.

Russell, E.

Hunt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Seear, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Seebohm, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Serota, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Shackleton, L.

Jacques, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Jay, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jeger, B.

Stedman, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Kearton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Underhill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Walston, L.

Listowel, E.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Warnock, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Longford, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

De La Warr, E.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Allerton, L.

Downshire, M.

Annaly, L.

Dudley, E.

Arran, E.

Eccles, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Balfour, E.

Elles, B.

Barber, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bauer, L.

Elton, L.

Belstead, L.

Erroll, E.

Bessborough, E.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Blatch, B.

Ferrers, E.

Boardman, L.

Forbes, L.

Borthwick, L.

Forte, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brookes, L.

Gainford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Byron, L.

Goold, L.

Caithness, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Haddington, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Haig, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Hailsham of Saint

Carnock, L.

Marylebone, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carrington, L.

Hemphill, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Henley, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Hesketh, L.

Colwyn, L.

Hives, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Holderness, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hood, V.

Davidson, V. [Teller.)

Hooper, B.

1352

Ingrow, L.

Reay, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Remnant, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Renton, L.

Joseph, L.

Renwick, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Kimball, L.

Rockley, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Rollo, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Liverpool, E.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Long, V.

Selkirk, E.

Lyell, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Shannon, E.

Manton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Marsh, L.

Slim, V.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Somers, L.

Merrivale, L.

Stockton, E.

Mersey, V.

Strange, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Mottistone, L.

Strathcona and Mount

Mountevans, L.

Royal, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Munster, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Swansea, L.

Nelson, E.

Swinfen, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Terrington, L.

Newall, L.

Teviot, L.

Norfolk, D.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Tranmire, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Trumpington, B.

Orkney, E.

Ullswater, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Peel, E.

Vestey, L.

Pender, L.

Westbury, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wigram, L.

Prior, L.

Wise, L.

Pym, L.

Wynford, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.49 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 6, after ("students") insert ("whether full-time or part-time").
The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment to include part-time students within the scope of the Bill. My main concern over the Bill is that I do not see how it will contribute to the expansion of higher education. That is of course not its avowed purpose. Nowhere is such an aim mentioned. However, it must surely be seen in the broader context of ministerial speeches about doubling the numbers of students in higher education over a determined period and the widespread agreement of virtually all informed opinion that we shall remain an undereducated and underskilled country unless such an expansion takes place at a fairly rapid rate.
I am reinforced in my concern by the projected figures given in reply to a Question for Written Answer from Mr. Andrew Smith in another place on 24th July 1989 (at col. 442 of the Commons Hansard). The number of loan accounts is frozen at 427,000—which is barely more than the number of students drawing grant today—from the year 2000 to the year 2027 when the projection will end.
When the Secretary of State kindly came to address some of us at a meeting which has already been referred to by a number of Members of the Committee, I raised that point. I was told that the projections were illustrative and that it was impossible to forecast the situation so far ahead.
However, the fact remains that if the savings are to exceed the outgoings of the loan scheme in the early part of the next century as the Government plan there will have to be a ceiling on student numbers unless the break-even point is deferred indefinitely.
Both on those grounds and for demographic reasons I am led to the conclusion that virtually the whole expansion will depend on mature students entering by non-traditional routes. In particular it will depend on part-timers, who are at present excluded from the Bill.
Between 1981 and 1987 the number of mature students starting higher education courses, excluding the Open University, rose by 34 per cent. That is encouraging so far as it goes. The salient factor about those students is that two-thirds of them were part time. That clearly is the growth area which we have to stimulate.
At this point the noble Earl may be tempted to ask why, if that is happening anyway, it needs any stimulus. That would amount to dangerous complacency. We shall require a steady and constant increase in mature students to counteract the steep decline in the numbers of the 18 to 24 year-old age group which will take place between now and the end of the century. Even if the age participation rate rises so as more or less to maintain the current numbers of that group, we shall still be left with little or no improvement on the status quo unless the mature part-time student expansion continues apace.
It must be remembered that very few discretionary grants are available for mature part-time students. That means that assistance is almost totally barred. Some mature students are able to finance themselves. Others no doubt receive some help from their firms or professional bodies, but many do not.
It is interesting to note from Open University statistics that there has been a large increase in recent years in the proportion of its students who are unemployed or housewives. Surely those are just the people we want to draw back into education. Think also of the fund of unused talent which must exist among the million mothers in the single-parent category, 700,000 of whom are receiving benefit. Many of them long for further education and training to enable them to become independent. However, I am willing to bet, although I do not have figures, that because of their circumstances their participation in higher education is proportionately lower than that of the rest of the population. If the participation of such people is not made easier the part-time movement will reach a plateau and we shall remain almost as far from the high peaks of participation to which we aspire as we were when we started.
When the Secretary of State came to talk to us the other day I got the impression that he was not against the inclusion of part-timers in the Bill on principle but on grounds of cost. Obviously there will be some additional cost, but we have to make up our minds what we are aiming at and how we are going to get there. In my view it is perfectly legitimate to aim for a larger student population at a lower per capita cost. However, that will still require an overall increase in the education budget. It cannot be done at nil cost.
In the case of part-time students it is most unlikely that there will be the 80 per cent., 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. take-up that the Government have calculated for full-time students. Mature people, by definition, are more likely to have resources of their own. My guess is that the take-up will be considerably lower. However, we must not rule out those who do not have such resources. It would be unfair to them and would be shortsighted in terms of the national economy.
I may be asked why, having spoken against the government scheme at Second Reading, I seek to make it available more widely. The answer is simple. I hope that we shall be able to improve the mechanism of the Bill in Committee. However that may be, we shall clearly have a scheme of one sort or another. It seems to me to give quite the wrong signal to exclude by definition many of those on whom we shall depend for the increase in student numbers which we all seek.
At Second Reading I was encouraged by the number of speakers who drew attention to the importance of part-time students. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Carnegy, Lady Cox and Lady David—. I do not think that I take any of their names in vain—all expressed concern on that subject, as did the noble Lord, Lord Annan. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, whose amendment also addresses the problem and has been grouped with this amendment, also spoke on the subject. Today I am fortunate in having the support also of the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, and, I hope, of other noble Lords on the Cross-Benches.
I very much hope that the message of this debate to the Government will be that this Chamber is determined to secure on the face of the Bill some form of statutory entitlement for part-time students. I beg to move.
Lord Butterfield: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to support the amendment. I have been drawn into the debate very much by concern on the one side about individual student finance and on the other by the country's need for increased participation in education, higher education in particular.
I first became interested in the potential that exists in our community for part-time students when, following in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Dainton—who is sitting in front of me—I became vice-chancellor of the University of Nottingham. In Nottingham in the 19th century there were very strong mechanics' institutes. That is also true of many university towns in the North. Through the middle of the 19th century those institutes provided all manner of people with an opportunity to extend their range of interest and knowledge. I believe passionately that we shall be held to account by historians if we do not succeed in increasing the proportion of our young people who move into higher education. Equally, I believe that those who may have been drawn into motherhood early in life or into employment soon after leaving school should be given an opportunity to pursue educational interests later in their lives. Therefore I have no

1355
hesitation in rising to speak in support of the amendment.
What is proposed may be seen by the Government to be expensive. However, it is one way in which we can give mothers of small children the possibility of continuing with their education once their children are a little older. People who have taken the wrong track but find that they have a passionate interest in a subject may return to education and increase the pleasure and fruitfulness of their intellectual lives.
6 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I rise to support the amendment strongly, particularly in the interests of older women who have not had great educational advantages or have not taken advantage of them in the past. Many women, while they are at home with small children, can embark on periods of part-time study and get themselves to the point at which, when they are free to come back into the labour market, they are well on the road to, if not completely arrived at, the level of qualification which will enable them to take a job at a higher level. They are the people whom we badly need in the labour market, capable of doing the more demanding and skilled jobs.
I should also argue the case strongly on economic grounds if the Government would take anything other than a short-term view of the cost of providing that part-time education.
When those women—it is not only a matter of women, but it is to them that I particularly wish to speak—get back into the labour market, they will start to pay tax quickly. If the Government can look at that over a 10-year period rather than over a 12-month period, they will find that they can recoup the money invested in those additional opportunities very satisfactorily.
However, women will need some support. If a married woman wishes to undertake part-time study, even if she is out of the house for only a relatively small number of hours a week she must make additional provision. There are costs. Although I have no experience of the difficulties of getting money out of husbands, I can well imagine that to ask husbands to pay the extra costs involved in a woman taking courses of that kind if she has no grant or support to enable her to do so is to ask something which many women would not want to do and at which some women would find that they were not successful. It is a worthwhile investment and I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Baroness Blackstone: Since neither the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, nor the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, mentioned it, perhaps I should mention that Amendments Nos. 3 and 8 are grouped together. I want to speak to both of them.
Perhaps I should begin by declaring an interest as the Master of Birkbeck College which I believe I can claim is the leading university institution for the education of part-time degree students in this country.
1356
I should like to support the amendment that has been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock. It is vital that we establish the principle that part-time students should be included in the Bill and should be able to benefit from student loans. That is not to say that I support the principle of student loans and the way in which the Bill is being implemented, but if we are to have a student loans scheme it seems entirely wrong that part-time students should be excluded. There are a number of reasons for that.
Let me begin by saying something about the question of access and about trying to increase the overall number of students in higher education in this country. We have heard several times the Government making a commitment to doubling the numbers. I very much welcome what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said about that on Second Reading. However, if we are to double the number of students in higher education, we cannot simply rely on increasing the number of 18 year-olds. We must bring back mature students in much larger numbers than we have done in the past.
Many mature students cannot study full time. They have family and work commitments which mean that they must fit in their degree-level courses with their jobs. The very fact that they are willing to do that, that they are willing to turn up in the evenings and that they are willing to sit in libraries at the weekend indicates just how committed and dedicated they are to both improving their own qualifications and making a better contribution, so far as concerns their employment, by having greater skills. Surely we should value those students rather than treat them on all occasions as second-raters. They are not. I can assure the Committee of that from my day-to-day contact with students at Birkbeck College.
Some 67 per cent. of part-time students are over 25. We have had a large increase in the number of part-time students in recent years, but if we want that increase to continue we must do something to help them. At present part-time students have no help whatsoever with respect to maintenance and they must pay their fees. That must deter some potential part-time students. It seems to me to be quite incomprehensible that we should discriminate against them yet again in another piece of legislation.
The question of costs has been raised. We were told by the Secretary of State when we met him last week that he had nothing against the inclusion of part-time students, but that there was a problem of whether the Treasury would agree to that. Part-time students are already much cheaper than full-time students simply because they receive no maintenance grants and because they contribute to the cost of their tuition. Surely we should look at the costs from that point of view. If we can increase the number of part-time students, we shall in the end save on the costs of higher education.
Individual part-time students must bear many additional costs as a result of taking on a course, and there is also the fact that they pay fees out of their own income after tax. First, they must buy books and equipment. Everyone in the Chamber knows there has been a great increase in book prices. By

1357
definition, part-time students have much less time to go to libraries and to fight for the small number of textbooks that may be available in a particular subject. They are therefore more dependent on having to buy their books so that they can fit in their study at home and at weekends when libraries are often closed. We know that in any case there has been a large cut in library expenditure in higher education, which means that libraries are less adequate than they used to be. That is another factor affecting part-time students and their study.
They often have to bear considerable travel costs to reach their evening or day release courses and those can be expensive in cities such as London. If they are studying a subject where field trips are involved, as in such subjects as geology or geography, or a foreign language where they may need to visit a European country, they will have to bear the costs of those educational activities. If they are students at the Open University, where summer courses are an integral part of their study, they must give up their annual leave and must again pay to go on such courses. There are also the extra costs of having to eat out between lectures or before lectures start in the evening.
While loans are not the ideal solution to the problems of part-time students, they could at least help them. Not all part-time students will take up loans, but many would use them to ease the financial burdens they face. It is a matter of great sadness to me that those most motivated and committed students should be excluded. We exclude them at our peril. We shall lose potential students because of that. Some existing students might drop out because of the cost of their courses. I could give many such examples at Birkbeck College where students have not been able to complete their studies because of their financial difficulties.
Above all, if the amendment is not accepted the Government will have signalled that yet again part-time students are at the bottom of the pile so far as concerns government support. The acceptance of either of the amendments would help to reverse the shabby way in which they have been treated in the past. It is not acceptable simply to say that they may be included later. They should be a top priority now on the grounds of equity, of access and of encouragement to people who are committed to improving themselves and to working to improve the quality of graduates in this country. I support the amendment.
Lord Addington: I should like to support both the amendments. The part-time student is regarded as something of a misplaced beast in universities. Everyone is glad to have part-time students there, but they are not sure what they are. They do not receive the full support that they should have. Anyone who takes on a course of part-time education—I assume that about a third of it is course work—takes on a commitment over and above those hours for the simple reason that he has to get himself to and from the establishment to attend certain lectures at certain times. Even when special evening classes are arranged these people will have to sacrifice a certain amount of time which may mean
1358
that they are not able to work. Therefore they will need some form of funding to replace that which they are losing.
We can then discuss what it costs to buy what is necessary for a student. One important item is books. I personally could talk for hours on that point. I assume that any library of whatever university, no matter how well equipped, will not have available a copy of the particular book that one wants and one will have to buy it. Moreover any student such as I was will have to read it two or three times in order to get anything from it.
One has to ensure that students are properly funded to enable them to get through the courses that they have to do in increasing numbers. At the moment there are saints—people who have the commitment and the drive to get through the courses on a part-time basis. It requires dislocation of the normal type of economic life—that is to say, work—over a long period of time. If one is studying part time, one cannot complete the work in the same period. Therefore I suggest that any extra funding, even this loan scheme, will be very gratefully received by them.
Lord Dainton: I want to make two brief points which relate to my own direct experience of the part-time student. To be personal for a moment, I had an elder brother who went through that process in the late 1920s. I know the degree of hardship involved in studying while one is employed. But that is not the major point. In connection with operating a charity, of which I am chairman, I have had a good deal of contact with the students at Birkbeck College about whom the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, spoke. I want to assure the House and the Government that in my long experience within higher educational life I have never come across any other persons so deeply committed to the process of education, not just for themselves but also for what they can subsequently give to the community. On those grounds alone I believe that it is worth while to support the two amendments.
The other point that I should like to make concerns women in higher education. Many years ago I remember hearing an address by Gunnar Myrdal which moved me considerably. Quite simply she said: if you educate a man, you educate an individual; if you educate a woman, you educate a family. In that statement she was expressing the simple fact that the effect on the next generation of educating a woman is far more potent than of educating a male parent.
So there are the two grounds on which I believe that these amendments should be strongly supported. The first relates to quality and commitment. The second is the fact that for very little money expended one achieves a result for the state which is far more beneficial than would be obtained from a full-time student. That is not in any way to derogate the role of the full-time student, who is much younger. On the whole, however, this country has neglected its part-time students and is paying a heavy price for it. This is now an opportunity to redress that situation and for the Government to get an extremely good bargain if they

1359
will consider applying this Bill pro rata as suggested in these two amendments to the part-time and mature students.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to declare an interest as a member of the governing body of the Open University which, despite the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about the admirable record of Birkbeck College, still has two-thirds of the undergraduate part-time students. There is no question but that some financial help would be of enormous benefit to Open University undergraduates.
In the case of the Open University the situation is a little different from that of the students of Birkbeck and other colleges, when we remember that it represents two-thirds of part-time undergraduates at the moment. There is no travel to college involved because one works at home. Morever, three-quarters of Open University undergraduates are in employment so that studying is done when home from work for three-quarters of the people and at home (not home from work) for the rest. As the noble Baroness said, there are summer school expenses. That costs a lot.
People who take a degree at the Open University, which may take five years, seven years, or even longer, spend several thousand pounds out of their own pockets to do so. So there is no question—a loan scheme would help. However, I am not sure—I have not in fact spoken to the Open University about this matter in the past week—whether just grafting Open University students on to this Bill is necessarily the best way. This is a maintenance grant and therefore any help would have to be a proportion of the maintenance expended because of what one was doing as a part-time student. That seems to me to be awkward.
In the Open University the problem in the main is fees and not maintenance. Of course some people have increased maintenance costs because they are studying, but in the main it is a matter of fees. Also I do not know what will be the implications for the scheme. I hope that my noble friend will tell us. How many part-time students are there in relation to full-time students? What is the extent to which the scheme would be enlarged and the extent to which it is possible in the case of part-time students? It seems to me that that is tricky.
I am extremely glad that the amendment was moved. At this stage I hope that it is an exploratory one. It has produced a very powerful little debate about the importance of encouraging part-time students. If it is possible through the medium of this Bill at some point to extend the scheme to part-time students, no one will be more delighted than I. But at this point, unless there is some very convincing argument that it is the most relevant way to help part-time students and unless my noble friend can convince me that this is a valid way to help them, that it is possible and reasonable in so far as concerns public expenditure at the outset and so on, I doubt whether it is right simply to graft this amendment on to the Bill. Nevertheless, that does not mean that
1360
it is not vital for us all to realise the importance of encouraging a greatly increased number of part-time students in this country.
Viscount Eccles: Unless we bring part-time students into the Bill, we shall simply show that we do not know the way that the world is going. More and more people, especially women, have two jobs: one full-time and one half-time. But some people have only one job, which is half-time. Why is that? It is simply the result of technology. The advance in technology means that one must use modern equipment right round the clock; otherwise, one makes no profit. To make a profit one has to operate a shift system and thus create a great many more part-time jobs.
Technology does something else. It provides us with small machines which we can use in the kitchen or some small room at the back of the house. There will be a great deal more working at home than there has been in the past. That is a very good thing. It will increase the production of everyone. It ill becomes us to disparage part-time working. What are we? We are all part-timers.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: The Minister is not.
Viscount Eccles: I beg the Minister's pardon. He works all the time, but he gets better pay. For well over a century Parliament has started at half-past two in the afternoon. It did so in order that Members should have the morning in which to gain experience—that was very important—and some money on which to live. When I entered the other place I was paid £400 a year. I could not live on that so I earned some money in the mornings. It was a very good, balanced life. I believe that such a balanced life will come back in our society as a result of advances in knowledge.
Of course, all that depends on how much it will cost and I should like to hear about that from the noble Earl. I do not think that he can possibly give us accurate figures. I do not believe that anybody knows either how many part-time students there are or what it would be necessary to give them to help them. However, if I had a certain amount of money to spend on all kinds of higher education, I would say that part-time education for mature people was at least as good a way of spending £1 million in higher education.
That is what is wrong with us today. We never consider education as a whole from nursery school right through to part-time education for old age pensioners such as myself. It is a great mistake. If we did, we should find various links in the chain that were weaker than others for historic reasons. I give as an example the 16 to 19 year-old group. We ought to put these matters right. Under the Bill we ought to give part-timers something. My approach to the amendment depends on my noble friend telling me the cost and showing that this would be so enormous that we ought not to consider the proposal. I wait to hear what he has to say.
Lord Glenamara: I shall take only a few minutes of the Committee's time. Some time ago the

1361
Government announced their aim of a massive increase in the number of students in higher education. On this side of the Chamber we support and applaud that aim. However, it seems that these huge numbers can come from only two sources. The first is working class homes. If one looks at the figures one will see that those numbers have hardly increased since the 1960s. The second is part-time students. I agree very much with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
Perhaps I may digress for a moment. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has shown, based on his own experience how the cost of higher education can be reduced, enabling first year first degree students to be financed without recourse to such a scheme. Most of our first degree courses could be undertaken quite easily in two years, as at the University of Buckingham. There is no reason why arts courses should take three years, no earthly reason why universities should close down for 12 weeks every summer. If industrial plant were used as inefficiently and as little as educational plant, it would be regarded as a tremendous scandal. A great upheaval is required. But that is the way to use resources in education much more efficiently.
The second source from which government could gain massive increases is part-time students. I believe that there will be many more. But it is a very big problem. Of all students in higher education, 37 per cent. are part-time. There are 358,000 of them. In the main they are older students. Three-quarters of them are over 25. That means that in many cases they have family responsibilities. There is a problem especially for women. In the past 15 years the number of women part-time students has increased by over 400 per cent. Women are concerned with running a home, bringing up children and so on. I believe that we ought to do a great deal more to encourage them.
It is utterly illogical that the Government should bring forward such a Bill without mention of part-time students. They are tremendously important now, as I have shown. They will become much more important in the future, as the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, has stated. I hope that the Government will consider this point.
Three weeks or a month ago the famous Mr. Robert Jackson interviewed a delegation of, I think, Open University ex-students, or a body of that kind, and turned down any further help for part-time students. That is very sad and very short-sighted. If Mr. Jackson wishes to achieve the Government's aim of a huge increase in the number of university and polytechnic students, that increase will have to come largely from part-time students. I hope that the Government will consider the matter. If they do not accept the amendment perhaps they will put something into the Bill at a later stage that will provide help for part-time students.
Lord Beloff: Perhaps I may make a small point in relation to what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, said about Open University students. There is the problem that we are dealing with a Bill about student maintenance. However, I should have thought that attendance at a summer school involves costs largely
1362
of maintenance. If a contribution under the heading of maintenance can be made towards the cost of attending one of these summer schools, that would give some relief to the students concerned and some indication of a genuine interest in part-time studies.
Baroness Elles: I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that I did not hear her speech which introduced the amendment. I was outside the Chamber. I apologise for that.
I should like to make one brief point on part-time students. We have been considering part-time students as a lump. There are many kinds of part-time students. In the area that I had the honour to represent in the European Parliament, the Thames Valley, I saw the number of part-time students increasing monthly if not yearly. Small and big companies were recognising the value of training their young employees in skilled work.
As Members of the Committee have said, the training is not for one period of their lives; it is a continuing process. Many part-time students at polytechnics in that area were fully employed and their companies were contributing to the technical college fees. One increased its student membership from 7,000 to 9,000 in the three years while I was dealing with the problem. It was a tremendous increase. That will be occurring throughout the country and I am sure that we all support it.
As regards opportunities for women, I have always been the strongest supporter of the Open University. If one had to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx for something, it is that. The opportunity for women, while looking after their families at home to study through the Open University has been a tremendous benefit to more than 50 per cent. of the students of the Open University. I believe that over 50 per cent. of the students are women.
One has to bear in mind that there are different categories of part-time students. They cannot be regarded in the same way. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Caithness is able to say that the Government will undertake to consider helping those part-time students who may be in financial difficulties with regard to maintenance although not necessarily including that in a regulation now.
Baroness Blackstone: Perhaps I may follow on from what the noble Baroness has just said. I should hate the Committee to have the impression that most part-time students are paid for by their employer. They are not. While some part-time students are undertaking short courses that are specifically training courses from which their employers—companies, public sector bodies, or whatever it may be—believe they will benefit, we are talking this evening about part-time students doing undergraduate degree level courses. Most of them are not supported by their employers and have to cover all their costs themselves.
Lord Carr of Hadley: I should like briefly to add my voice to those Members of the Committee who stress the importance of part-time education. I am convinced that if one looks ahead a few decades we

1363
shall not manage to meet this country's need for a much larger number of men and women of all ages in higher education unless we take positive action further to increase the quota of part-time students.
I wish to make a strong appeal to the noble Earl who will reply to the debate not to shut the door on the issue. This is an enabling Bill: so enabling that that in itself is a cause of dismay to many Members of the Committee. If it is such a wide enabling Bill I feel that it would be a great disaster if we put it to bed without the power in it to enable the Government to help part-time students even if they could not do so immediately. To need further primary legislation to be able to help part-time students seems to me to be ridiculous in a Bill which is, to such a large measure, enabling. I hope that the Government will pay much attention to that point and hesitate hard and long before they close the door to including something in this Bill although it may not be that which is proposed in these amendments. However, I ask them to consider including something in this Bill which will give part-time students help which, for economic and social reasons, will urgently be required.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness David: I add my support to the many voices which have spoken in favour of helping part-time students. As the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said, the Bill is to provide for the making of loans to students towards their maintenance in higher education. The noble Lord suggested one way round this and I am quite sure that if the noble Earl is feeling kindly he will be able to think of some way in which part-time students could be helped.
In this Chamber we are rather university orientated but we must remember that the vast number of part-time students are at polytechnics or colleges of higher education. One point which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, omitted to make about the Open University is that in the 20 years since it started there have been 933,000 applicants for undergraduate studies but the resources available have enabled the registration of only 422,000, which is less than half. Therefore, there is a vast pool of untapped talent there which could be of help. I very much hope that we shall have some response and that if these amendments are not accepted as they are a gesture will be made towards part-time students.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to Members of the Committee for linking Amendment No. 3 with Amendment No. 8, which is rather more specific in that it seeks to make available loans to part-time students on a proportionate basis; but, as Members of the Committee have realised, the principle of the two amendments is the same.
As it stands the Bill provides for students in higher education generally to have access to loans. There is no need to amend it to bring part-time students into the scope of the loan scheme. Therefore, that meets the major concern of the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. To my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley I say that primary legislation is not needed to bring in part-time students. The door is already open.
1364
Having thought about this long and hard, the Government made clear in their White Paper that part-time students will be excluded. The Bill empowers the Secretary of State to set eligibility conditions. One condition which my right honourable friend intends to make when the scheme is introduced is that the loan will be available only to full-time students. The exclusion of part-time students is to be effected by regulations. As I said, those regulations will be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure for their first use. That was agreed in principle by the Committee earlier this afternoon. If it were decided subsequently to extend the loan scheme to part-time students new regulations would have to be made subject to parliamentary approval. However, there would be no need for primary legislation.
In passing, I should say that that illustrates the advantage of the structure of the Bill. It enables the eligibility conditions and other features of the scheme to be modified without waiting for primary legislation.
The present system of mandatory awards caters for full-time study and the Government's intention is that the loans should also do that. As Members of the Committee will know, there has been a rapid growth in part-time study since 1979. Until 1988 in universities there has been a 48 per cent. increase in student numbers, at the Open University there has been a 23 per cent. increase and at polytechnics and colleges a 38 per cent. increase. The total number of part-time students in higher education in 1988 was 368,000.
The key point, which I am sure the Committee will take on board, is that those increases have taken place while part-time students have been outside the scope of mandatory awards. Support for part-time education is available in the form of discretionary awards by local education authorities. Some part-time students are also supported by their employers. Many support themselves. The essence of part-time study is that it can be combined with employment.
I should like to remind the Committee that part-time students will also continue to be eligible for benefits for the same reason; that is, that part-time students do not exclude themselves from the labour market. Of course I agree with all Members of the Committee who have said that we wish to increase the number of both part-time and full-time students. However, our first priority is to introduce extra support for full-time students. There may be a case for increasing the support available to part-time students. On the other hand, the increase in numbers suggests that the present arrangements are not inhibiting that form of study. If it is decided that loans should be offered to part-time students, the Bill as it stands will allow that. However, I must repeat that that is not the priority for this autumn.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, made many good points but I believe that the gist of what she said was that the funding of part-time students is a separate issue of which loans are but a part. I give an assurance to the Committee that my right honourable friend will continue to monitor the situation with very great care to see whether the scheme can be expanded in the future.

1365
I now turn to a point made by my noble friend Lord Eccles; that is, the question of cost. He is right to say that it is difficult for me to give exact figures. However, on the basis that a part-time student received £300 per annum, the increase in public expenditure would be something in the order of £70 to £80 million per annum, depending on take up.
Notwithstanding what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, says, I must put it to to the Committee—I think it is worth stressing—that of course it is the job of this Chamber to reform a Bill but I wonder whether it is the job of this Chamber to bring in a completely new scheme involving public expenditure once it has been through another place. I shall leave that to Members of the Committee to decide.
When the noble Lord, Lord Dainton, said that this was a good idea, I thought that he made many good points. However, I ask him who he thinks will pay for it. It is worth bearing in mind that if I am right—and I stand to be corrected—about 50 per cent. of taxpayers earn under £11,500 which is the starting point for any repayment of loans. Therefore, it is those who have the potential of high earnings in the future who will be receiving the benefit of tax paid by those at the lower end of the tax scale.
I conclude by saying that on no account are we disparaging part-time students. All Members of the Committee realise their value and the contribution which they have to make. At this stage we believe that it is right that priority should be given to full-time students, but our mind is open for the future.
Lord Peston: Before the noble Earl sits down, will he clarify parts of his answer? The first part of his answer did not seem to be connected with money at all but he was simply arguing that part-time students were not a priority. In answering his noble friend Lord Eccles, he switched to referring to what he called a lot of money. I must say that £70 or £80 million is not what I would call a lot of money for such a desirable objective, especially as the noble Baroness is entirely right in saying that this scheme will be self-financing very quickly. Can we be told which argument the Government most rely on? Is it that this is not a priority, or do they not want to spend the money?
The Earl of Caithness: It is both. I thought that it was absolutely right to give the argument of the question of priorities but I was asked a specific question by my noble friend Lord Eccles and I thought it right to answer it.
Baroness Blackstone: Given what has been said in this Committee about the value of part-time students, their commitment, motivation and anxiety to improve themselves, can the Minister give us further enlightenment as to why they should be given lower priority than full-time students? That is not fair.
The Earl of Caithness: I tried to answer the bulk of what the noble Baroness said. It is not a question of our giving part-time students no priority at all. However, they are already treated differently under
1366
the 1962 Act. That is why I took the noble Baroness up on her point and said that the point to which she was referring was really the funding of part-time students, which was rather greater than the element of the loan which we are now discussing. Having gone out to consultation and having made it clear that we thought the first priority was for full-time students, I then went on to stress that the door is not closed for the future.
Baroness Seear: The Minister did not answer the points I made about women at home who are not being paid for by anyone. He said that many part-time students are paid for by their employers. Women at home are not paid for by anyone. They or their husbands have to meet all the expenses that they inevitably incur. They are the very people who could, for example, be trained to be teachers. That is the job that they are likely to take up. We have the greatest difficulty in getting teachers. Even with what they are paid when they start teaching, teachers will start repaying quickly what they have been given as part-time students. Do we or do we not want more teachers? Where shall we get them unless we tap the big reserves of women who wish to get back into the labour market? To ignore them could not be more economically short-sighted or educationally foolish.
The Earl of Caithness: As I said at the beginning, the noble Baroness makes some important points. I am sorry if I did not answer her as she would have wished. The emphasis at the moment is on getting the scheme for full-time students up and running, but I have at no stage closed the door for the future. In the Bill as it stands, merely by regulation—that shows the Bill's flexibility—we could extend the scheme to part-time students. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need more full and part-time students. That is what the Government want as much as she does.
Lord Renton: Having listened carefully to the whole debate it seems to me that the two amendments that we are discussing do not alter the terms of the Bill or prevent the Government from doing what my noble friend has said that they intend to do. The Bill refers to "eligible students" and defines them as those,
"who are attending courses of higher education".
Part-time students, to whom reference has been made, will be doing just that, and so the expression "eligible students" could include whole-time or part-time students. To amend the Bill to amplify that definition adds nothing.
Lord Kilmarnock: I have been encouraged by the general tone of the debate. There has been support for the amendment, or for the spirit of it, from all sides of the Committee. Several Members of the Committee made the point that the expansion of higher education for mature part-time students will be crucial to the achievement of that expansion of higher education as a whole to which we all aspire. That point was made from all sides. It was made by the noble Lords, Lord Glenamara, and Lord Carr of Hadley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.

1367
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, wondered whether it was appropriate to introduce a measure into the Bill for Open University students and other part-time students. Both she and the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said how important it could be for summer schools, which are an essential part of Open University studies.
On the question of whether the Bill is the appropriate one, there is of course no other Bill before us, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carr. Now that we are discussing student support, it would be absurd to require new primary legislation, even supposing that the time could be found for it, merely to legislate for part-timers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, made the valid point that a number of part-time students are supported on various courses by their employers. I acknowledged that point in my speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, correctly pointed out that by no means all students are paid for in that way. We need also to address the problems of individual students.
I had hoped that the Minister would give me more encouragement than he did. I had hoped that he would say he would look at the proposal or perhaps meet those of us who had spoken in the debate. I believe that over a dozen Members of the Committee have spoken in favour of the idea. I had hoped that he would offer to meet us and discuss conceivable ways ahead. He might have suggested some kind of phased introduction: that he would introduce it in the first place for first degree courses, teacher training courses, or something of that nature. I am afraid that he did not give us any such encouragement. I am willing to sit down if he would like to make such a proposal, because no such proposal has come from him.
The Minister mentioned the fact that there are 367,000 part-time students and that that figure represents a considerable increase, mainly through the polytechnics, which has taken place outside the scope of mandatory awards. He also said that part-time study can be combined with employment, which of course is true. In his speech I detected no sign of urgency to increase that number to perhaps double (700,000). I do not see how that increase will take place without some kind of mandatory assistance. His speech lacked a sense of urgency in stimulating the growth of those numbers.
The Minister said that the Government's mind was not entirely closed and that it would be possible to introduce the proposal by regulation, but he did not show any disposition to proceed in that way soon. In fact he referred on a number of occasions to the top priority being given to full-time students. We agree on that point, but, as I said in my opening speech, there is no way in which we shall increase the numbers in higher education without an increase in part-time students as the principal means of achieving that aim. Arithmetically there is no other way to do it. With much regret, I have no alternative—I had hoped not to—but to divide the Committee. The Minister mentioned the figures (£70 million to £80 million) to which the noble Lord,
1368
Lord Peston, referred. That is considerably less than I had expected. If that is a realistic assessment of what it might cost to bring those people into the main stream of higher education I should have thought that it was cheap. As the Minister has not given me any encouragement, I have no option but to ask for the opinion of the Committee.
6.47 p.m.
On Question, whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 110.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Adrian, L.

Listowel, E.

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Longford, E.

Beloff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Blackstone, B.

McCarthy, L.

Blyth, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Bottomley, L.

Monkswell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Nicol, B.

Butterfield, L.

Northfield, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ogmore, L.

Peston, L.

Carter, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dainton, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Rochester, L.

David, B.

Ross of Newport, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Ennals, L.

Seear, B.

Falkland, V.

Serota, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shackleton, L.

Fitt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Gallacher, L.

Slim, V.

Galpern, L.

Stedman, B.

Glenamara, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Strabolgi, L.

Tordoff, L.

Grey, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grimond, L.

Underhill, L.

Halsbury, E.

Walston, L.

Hampton, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Warnock, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Whaddon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kearton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Kilmarnock, L. [Teller.]

Young of Dartington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Arran, E.

Brookes, L.

Balfour, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Barber, L.

Caithness, E.

Bauer, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belstead, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Bessborough, E.

Carnock, L.

Blatch, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Borthwick, L.

Coleraine, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Colwyn, L.

1369

Craigmyle, L.

Mills, V.

Crickhowell, L.

Milverton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Mottistone, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Downshire, M.

Munster, E.

Eccles, V.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Elles, B.

Nelson, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Erroll, E.

Newall, L.

Ferrers, E.

Norrie, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Onslow, E.

Goold, L.

Orkney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Haig, E.

Peel, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Pender, L.

Prior, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Henley, L.

Reay, L.

Hesketh, L.

Renton, L.

Hives, L.

Rollo, L.

Holderness, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Selkirk, E.

Hooper, B.

Shannon, E.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Strange, B.

Ingrow, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Joseph, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Killearn, L.

Swansea, L.

Kimball, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tranmire, L.

Lawrence, L.

Trumpington, B.

Liverpool, E.

Ullswater, V.

Long, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lye11, L.

Wigram, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Wise, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Manton, L.

Wynford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Young, B.

Mersey, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 6, after ("receive") insert ("top-up").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. It seeks to probe the Government's intentions. Are loans really top-up loans? Will they remain top-up loans? The White Paper was entitled Top-up Loans for Students. The leaflet prepared by the DES and distributed last month in a belated effort to give a little information was called Top-up Loans for Students—The Government's Proposals. The document produced the day before Second Reading in this House—in my case it did not reach me until the day of Second Reading—was headed Top-up Loans—Rules and Procedures. However, the Bill before us makes no mention of top-up loans at all.
The first sentence of the February leaflet reads:
"The Government intends to offer a loan facility to students to top up their maintenance grants from autumn 1990".
The rules and procedures document outlines the administrative procedures for the operation of the student loans scheme and adds, predictably,
"Some details are still subject to change, and some remain to be settled".
Is this really a sensible way to legislate when the promoters of the Bill do not know how the Bill will be made to work? We know from what the Secretary of State said to us in the meeting—I still think that it is unusual for the Secretary of State to call a meeting between Second Reading and Committee stage to try to explain more about the Bill—that the costings of the Student Loans Company have not been completed.
The word "top-up" implies an optional extra. I suppose in some ways it is, as the student can decide whether to apply or not. When the loan rises to half the sum that the student can obtain for his higher education course, it can hardly then be an optional extra. Will it still be called a "top-up loan"? "Optional" perhaps it will be, yes, but "extra", no, particularly when one thinks of the loss of benefits.
We should like some enlightenment from the Minister as to why the phrase was used and is being used and whether it will continue to be used. What exactly is its meaning? One suspects that it is a con to try to make the education world think that the change that the Secretary of State is planning is less revolutionary than it really is. There is no sign of the Government returning the real value of the money to what it was in 1979, even with the loan added in. We know that the value of the grant has gone down by 23 per cent. since 1979. If one considers that, plus the loan, what the students will receive is very much less in real terms than they did 11 or 12 years ago.
We want a little explanation of "top-up". I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: This is a small but significant amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady David, is not concerned merely that the reference should square with the title on the White Paper Top-up Loans for Students; she wishes to ensure that this remains a top-up loan by nature as well as by name.
If I understand the noble Baroness correctly, the loan should be described in this fashion in the legislation so as to ensure that it remains supplementary to some alternative provision. It may also imply that, for those students who receive the mandatory grant, the loan should never exceed the grant. In other words, the loan should not develop beyond the point at which it provides half the public support available to students.
I can give some assurances on this last point. It is not our intention to move beyond a fifty-fifty division between loan and grant. That is the point at which the scheme reaches full maturity. Moreover, the trend in other countries with considerable experience of loans, such as Sweden and West Germany, appears to be towards such a balance. However, "steady state" will not be achieved for some years; probably not until early next century. A decision to stabilise at that point will be a matter for the government then in power to settle.
It would of course be wrong to describe the loan as a top-up loan for those students who will be able to receive it but do not receive the mandatory award; those who receive discretionary awards, for example,

1371
and those who finance themselves. We have deliberately decided that the loans will be more widely available than the mandatory award.
The noble Baroness was right to say that the top-up loan is an optional extra. She was also right to say that in some circumstances it is an inaccurate definition. I must agree with her about that.
I was a little perturbed by the noble Baroness's comments on the meeting attended by my right honourable friend. The welcome given to the meeting by the noble Baroness and her noble friend Lord Peston was not what I had hoped for. My right honourable friend was trying to be helpful and I was surprised by what they said.
I hope that my comments have clarified the position with regard to the use of the phrase "top-up loan" used in the literature which accompanies the Bill.
Lord Peston: I wish to clear up a misunderstanding. The noble Earl has referred yet again to the famous meeting with the Secretary of State. I welcomed the meeting and thought that it was useful. I did not wish to be discourteous to the Minister or to his right honourable friend. However, I believe that such discussions should take place in another way and that was my only point. As the noble Earl is aware, I attended the meeting and listened carefully. I learnt a lot from doing so and therefore I welcomed the meeting. I had no desire to be discourteous or to discourage the Minister's right honourable friend from calling another meeting to tell us more. I made what I still believe to be a valid constitutional point: that the place for such a discussion is across the Floor of the Chamber. I had no desire to do other than to make that constitutional point.
I was a little puzzled by the noble Earl's answer about top-up loans. We shall not divide on the amendment because it was tabled as a probing amendment in order to discover more about the scheme. The Bill describes itself as being:
"An Act to provide for the making to students in higher education of loans towards their maintenance".
I am a little lost, as is my noble friend Lady David. We are not clear whether the Government are saying that it is a top-up loan or that it is not. The earlier tenor of the debate was that they believe in maintenance awards, and the noble Earl has not backed down from that. However, for reasons with which we may disagree, they believe that the maintenance awards should be topped up by a loan. We want the noble Earl's reassurance that that remains the Government's view whatever the wording in the Bill, where the words "top-up loans" do not appear. It is a probing amendment tabled to ascertain whether the Government remain committed to the idea of maintenance awards for students topped up by loans. Is that the Government's position, whether or not they accept our amendment?
The Earl of Caithness: I had hoped that I had clarified the matter and I apologise for not making myself clear. Perhaps I did not go to the right
1372
university; agricultural college did not provide the training for a debate of this nature. At the moment it is a top-up loan because it is in addition to the grant; an increase in resources; a new increase of money coming in next year. However, when the loan takes a larger share, up to 50 per cent., I agree with the noble Baroness that it cannot then be classed as a top-up, as one would now describe it. For those who do not receive mandatory awards it is new money and not necessarily a top-up loan. However, as regards presentation it is top-up at present.
Baroness David: We are a little clearer, and I take it that my amendment is not acceptable. However, I do not believe that the noble Earl said that in so many words. It is odd that the Government have persisted in referring to top-up loans in all the recent literature; that is, the February leaflet and the rules and procedures document which we received the day before Second Reading. For that reason we were a little mystified and decided to table this simple amendment in order to clear the air. I believe that it has and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to break for dinner. I suggest that the Committee should not return to the Bill before five minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1990
7.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is one of a series of routine financial orders for Northern Ireland which come before the House each year.
The draft order has two purposes. The first is to authorise the expenditure of some £71·8 million in the 1989–90 spring supplementary estimates. Your Lordships may wish to refer to the 1989–90 Northern Ireland Spring Supplementary Estimates booklet, which gives full details of the sums sought and which is available in the Printed Paper Office. The £71·8 million is additional to the £4,223 million previously approved by the House and brings the total Estimates provision for Northern Ireland departmental services to some £4,295 million for this financial year, within a public expenditure total of some £5·8 billion.
The second purpose of the order is to authorise the Vote-on-Account of some £1,816 million for 1990–91. As the House will be aware, this amount is required to enable the services of Northern Ireland departments to continue until the 1990–91 Main

1373
Estimates for Northern Ireland are brought before the House later this year. The Statement of Sums Required on Account, which gives details of this expenditure, is also available in the Printed Paper Office.
I shall start with the Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Agriculture's Vote 1 which provides for Northern Ireland expenditure on United Kingdom-wide support schemes. Some £2·4 million is sought mainly for increased payments under agricultural improvement schemes to meet higher than anticipated uptake and value of claims. In addition, £1 million is required under the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance Scheme. These increases are, however, fully offset by lower than expected demand on capital grant schemes resulting in a token increase of £1,000 in the Vote.
In the Department of Agriculture's Vote 2, covering local support measures, some £1·8 million is required to meet increases in professional fees and compensation payments under the disease eradication programme. In addition, £0·6 million is required for laboratory modifications and scientific equipment and £0·2 million is required for the Woodlands Grant Scheme to reflect a welcome increase in participation by the private sector in afforestation. These increases are fully offset by reduced requirements under the Northern Ireland Agricultural Development Programme.
I now turn to the Department of Economic Development, which has Supplementary Estimates for three Votes. In Vote 2 net additional provision of £12.5 million is sought. Of that £10.7 million is in the section of the Vote relating to assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries which inter alia provides for expenditures connected with privatisation. The House will recall that under the agreement with Bombardier for the sale of Shorts, the Government undertook to fund losses incurred by Shorts from 1st April 1989 until the completion of the sale on 4th October 1989. The additional funding now required will discharge the Government's obligations in this area.
Your Lordships will wish to note that since the Estimates were printed and laid it has become apparent that some £5.6 million of the 1989–90 provision previously sought for Shorts will in fact be used to cover expenditure on Harland and Wolff in the same year. This remains consistent with the ambit of the Vote. There will be consequential adjustments to provision for Shorts in 1990–91.
In the same Vote an additional £4.2 million is required for the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU), Northern Ireland's small business agency. This will enable LEDU to continue its important work of stimulating growth in the small business sector in Northern Ireland. These increases are offset by reductions of some £2 million elsewhere in the Vote.
A token Supplementary Estimate is sought for the Department of Economic Development's Vote 3, where various increases in expenditure are offset by savings elsewhere within the Vote. As part of the Government's plans to rationalise the training system in Northern Ireland, a single training
1374
organisation, the Training and Employment Agency, will be established in April and £0.6 million is required towards the costs of winding up the existing Northern Ireland Training Authority.
An additional £5.8 million is sought for the Department of Economic Development's Vote 5, mainly for financial assistance to the gas industry. This includes accelerated payments in connection with the rundown and closure costs of Belfast Gas. The Department of the Environment's Vote 1, which covers roads, transport and ports, requires a net additional provision of £3.5 million: £2.9 million of this relates to grants paid by the department to bus companies for capital expenditure on the purchase of new buses.
A token Supplementary Estimate is required for the Department of the Environment's Vote 3. The main increase is in respect of consultants' fees for design work on water and sewerage schemes associated with compliance with EC directives. An additional £1.9 million is sought for that department's Vote 5, mainly for capital expenditure on public sector office accommodation and office furniture. Of this, £1.6 million relates to the accommodation requirements of the operational strategy computerisation programme in the Department of Health and Social Services.
Turning to the Department of Education, a net increase of £9·9 million is sought for Vote 1 and £11·1 million is required for grants to education and library boards. Of this £7 million is for pay awards and price increases and for the youth training programme and £4·1 million is required for capital grants. An extra £1·8 million is for capital expenditure by voluntary schools, including the purchase of sites and properties for integrated schools. Your Lordships will note that some £1 million is for expenditure in support of the Government's proposals for education reforms, bringing the additional resources made available for this purpose to over £5 million in 1989–90. In the Department of Education's Vote 2, an additional £2·6 million is sought on a range of services. The main increase of £1·6 million is for grants to universities and includes the 1989 lecturers' pay settlement and capital expenditure on information technology.
Finally, for health and personal social services, an extra £29 million is being sought in Vote 1. Of this total, some £17·6 million is for the health and social services boards, largely to meet the cost of pay settlements. It will also allow further progress to be made in the transition from institutional to community care for those in long-stay accommodation. A further £4·7 million is required for family practitioner services to meet increased demand and higher costs. These additions bring Vote 1 provision for the current year to £865 million, within a total health and social services budget of over £960 million.
Your Lordships will note that included in the additional sums sought, £3·5 million is for initial work on the implementation of health service reforms in Northern Ireland. These are designed to give patients better health care, a greater choice of services and better value for money.
I appreciate that I have listed a range of figures dealing with a large number of services conducted by Northern Ireland departments for the benefit of the whole population of the Province. I hope that noble Lords will have found helpful this summary of the main components of the Spring Supplementary Estimates. I therefore commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th February be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having given the House a fair summary of the contents of the order. I propose to confine my comments to a few items which are related to the Votes of the Department of Economic Development, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Department of Finance and Personnel, respectively. It is appropriate that I start with the economy. The strengthening of the Northern Ireland economy continues to be a major priority of the Government. There is nothing between the political parties on the importance of that objective. We know that unemployment remains exceptionally high. It is at an average of about 16 per cent. of the working population compared with an average of about 6 per cent. on the mainland. We know that the growth of output is still disappointing.
There is a tendency in some quarters to think of a regional support budget as some kind of philanthropy, but those of us who come from the present disadvantaged regions know that regional grants and incentives are essential if those regions are to rebuild their shattered and depressed economies. Nevertheless, I accept that we have constantly to look closely at the operation of regional aid policies to see whether they are capable of being improved. If experience shows that there are difficulties which are not being resolved, they should not be skated over out of loyalty to a concept.
Against that background the Northern Ireland Economic Council published on 22nd February last a valuable but worrying report on the Industrial Development Board, selective financial assistance and economic development policy. We are greatly indebted to the Norther Ireland Economic Council for that contribution. If noble Lords look at the summary of the primary recommendations on pages 84 to 86 of the report, I believe that they will find reasons for concern.
I shall give the House three examples: first, of the 23,000 jobs which were promised by the IDP and LEDU between 1982–83 and 1987–88 only 9,263 were actually created. Even if we take out the failure of the Lear Fan project the gap between what was promised and what has been achieved at the end of five years is still disturbing. I assumed that the economic council's report had been delivered to the department at the end of last year. Therefore, it is a little surprising that in the speech of the Minister for the economy on 9th January last there is a total absence of awareness of the gap between promise
1376
and reality. The Minister promised that up to 12,000 new jobs would be promoted in 1990 by the recipients of grants from the IDP and LEDU. So the job gap is worry number one.
Secondly, two-thirds of the total number of new jobs created during the five-year period in question were in the electrical engineering, clothing and textile industries, which are the more traditional industries of Northern Ireland. The grants paid out by the two organisations were usually of a capital nature. So why is it that the industrial base has not been broadened and diversified to a much greater degree? Has there been an over-reliance on grants of a capital nature? Has too little attention been paid to the training of a more skilled labour force? Has too little attention been paid to research and development? I note that research and development grants account for less than 7 per cent. of the total grant expenditure in 1988–89. The failure to achieve a more diversified industrial base and greater investment in research and development is worry number two.
Thirdly, the Northern Ireland Economic Council calls for an overall development framework, setting out objectives with respect to job creation and performance indicators for specific sectors of the economy to be achieved over a given number of years. Without such a framework, without goals, targets and a timetable by which to assess progress, how can one measure what is being achieved? Without such a framework, will one bring about the scale of change which is required? The absence of such a framework is worry number three.
I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to tell the House how the Government are likely to respond to this report. Do they intend to continue to rely on job promotion rather than on jobs which are created? Will a positive effort be made to diversify the industrial base, to invest in research and training and to take a more rounded view of the economy? I wonder whether I can draw the Minister out on these serious matters.
I should now like to turn to the noble Lord's department, the Department of Health and Social Services. This department is, as one would expect, the highest spending of all the Northern Ireland departments. Here again I want to base my comments on another report, the 36th report of the Public Accounts Committee, relating inter alia to the Department of Health and Social Services and the health boards and also to the department's response to that report. The report identifies a need for improved management information. We want a systematic collection and analysis of statistics in order to monitor day-to-day operations, and we want it for planning the service.
I note that the department comes in for some criticism for having failed to issue guidelines on an occasion on which they should have been issued. Again it is the subject of some criticism for having failed to develop performance indicators. I have no wish to undermine the position of the health boards; on the other hand, I do not want to underestimate what the proper role of the Department of Health and Social Services should be in relation to the health boards. Of course the relationship is one of principal and agent, which involves a parcel of rights

1377
and duties. That relationship is very easy to state in abstract terms. But one is prompted to ask whether the department should be making more vigorous use of its powers as a principal to set standards and to monitor. Is the Minister giving consideration to strengthening the management structure at departmental level? I wonder whether I can draw the noble Lord on this issue.
Perhaps I may now turn to the speech delivered by the noble Lord on 2nd February in which he announced the Government's proposals for the reform of the health service in Northern Ireland—a speech, incidentally, which contained no reference to the need to assess the quality of therapy. The noble Lord claimed that the proposals would match resources with services and would ensure success for hospitals and units. We have had an echo of that speech from the noble Lord his evening. I say with deep respect that the assertion contained in the speech of 2nd February is at best an expression of hope.
Arising out of the speech I should like to touch very briefly on three issues. First, the Minister said that the funds would be distributed to the health boards in accordance with the size and health characteristics of the population. Is it envisaged that the distribution will be any different from the present distribution? If it will differ, will the noble Lord kindly give particulars?
Secondly, the noble Lord said that the health boards would develop contractual relations with their hospitals, with their units, with GP fund holders and with the private sector. To work out a reliable and viable contract for pricing medical services is an exceedingly complex process requiring accountancy skills of a high order. To put a price on a treatment involves an apportionment of salaries of doctors, nurses, paramedical staff and ancillary staff, and of theatre costs, pathology costs, lighting, heating and cleaning costs, hotel expenses, ambulance costs and no doubt other items of expenditure. On these Benches we have a deep anxiety that the Government are overlooking the fact that the NHS does not have a sufficient supply of top accountants to undertake the complicated pricing which will be required at hospital and unit level. My anxiety is in no way allayed by the reply given to question 4364 recorded in the report of the Public Accounts Committee to which I referred. In the result we fear that we shall have a cut-price service and a second-rate treatment.
Has the department considered whether the NHS in Northern Ireland has an adequacy of accounting staff fitted for the tasks? Even if the Government have convinced themselves that the new model will work miracles in hospitals, we would urge the department not to seek to implement the model in Northern Ireland until it has been tested in one or two health districts and the results show that there is no reduction in the quality of service. The Government should not bequeath to the people of Northern Ireland a dreadful legacy founded on rhetoric when at long last they are discharged from office.
My last point concerns an item of expenditure by the Department of Finance and Personnel. It is
1378
the sum of £536,000 granted towards community relations. It is not clear to me why this item appears where it does in the vote to the Department of Finance and Personnel. Neither is it clear to me how it is related to the total expenditure above £3 million or £4 million which I understand from a recent speech of the education Minister is being spent on community relations. I should like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the efforts of the education Minister in this field and in regard to the education reform order. The credit for achieving the recent initiatives in community relations must go in particular to the education Minister. I am glad to acknowledge his contribution.
I welcome the Minister's action in setting up the community relations unit which is administered by civil servants in Stormont and for setting up the independent Community Relations Council to encourage co-operation between the communities. The Minister was right to describe the setting up of the council as a significant milestone on the long, hard road to bringing the two communities together. I should also say that I welcome the promise of funding for the new charity, Ultach, which was set up last September to co-ordinate the work of the various bodies interested in promoting the Irish language. Of course, in that area we also need co-operation between the two governments.
The Broadcasting Bill is at present before the other place and I understand that a broadcasting Bill is being considered, or soon will be considered, in the Dail. I believe that there is considerable scope for co-operation between broadcasters north and south of the Border in order to provide a totality of television and radio services for the island. It seems to me that that is an item which could possibly be placed on the agenda of the inter-governmental conference.
I have taken up more than my allotted time with my remarks and I await with great interest the response of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to the few questions which I addressed to him and to those which other Members of your Lordships' House will put forward.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for introducing the appropriation order with his account of various crucial items of government expenditure, presenting us with, as he rightly described it, a whole range of figures. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his characteristically meticulous analysis of the issues about which he wished to hear more from the Minister. Like him, I should like to hear in the noble Lord's reply a slightly more broad-ranging account of his expectations of the performance of the economy in the coming year. It is upon this that so much will depend. It will be interesting to know whether he expects the gap between promise and achievement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, drew attention, to be closed or whether it is to remain in much the same rather disappointing order that it stands today.
In that connection I should also like to know what progress the noble Lord feels has been made in the

1379
approach towards equality of employment, irrespective of religion, which was the subject of earlier debates in your Lordships' House in regard to Northern Ireland. In my view there is in Northern Ireland an extremely wide-ranging and what should be an extremely effective anti-discrimination law. However, how is it working and what is the appreciation of the results? Is it just holding matters as they were, or is there any evidence that it is making progress? It is that and the community relations picture to which the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred which is really crucial to the future of the Province.
Within that area there is one particular aspect about which I should like to hear from the Minister. I refer to integrated education. It seems to me that integrated education is one of the most important constructive steps that has been taken in the Province. It is a crucial issue which can have enormous consequences and which has been greeted, according to my information, with considerable optimism by a variety of educational establishments.
As I understand it, there are today 10 integrated maintained-status schools which receive 85 per cent. capital funding, three unsupported integrated schools and two which are due to open in September. The absolutely crucial issue in this respect is whether government funding will be sufficient to cover the commitments made in the education reform order. According to my information, a number of state schools wish to find out more about becoming integrated schools. That is surely an interest which we would want to encourage and support. There are also a number of smaller projects in the pipeline.
However, a number of funding bodies—not governmental funding bodies—in the United Kingdom and in Northern Ireland are withdrawing funds, or are thinking of doing so, because they think that the Government are committed to supporting that movement. Can the Minister tell us whether this is the case and whether the Government are prepared to produce the resources which are essential if the integrated education movement is to go forward? It would be extremely unfortunate if the unintegrated schools thought that their funds were being diminished because of support for integrated schools. Therefore what we need to hear from the Government is not merely that they are committed, as they indicated, to supporting integrated education, but also that this will not in any sense be at the expense of other educational establishments.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred in his remarks to the Broadcasting Bill. It is indeed extremely relevant. When I was at the BBC in the late 1970s and took a particular interest in the broadcasts in Northern Ireland, I found that at that time almost the only educational material which was not written from a particular position and which was available in schools was that which was provided by the BBC's education service. Therefore it seems to me to be extremely important that the educational activity of the broadcasting authorities should remain a central part of their duties in the new Broadcasting Bill. It is most certainly a matter which I and my noble friends will raise. Therefore my first
1380
question to the Minister is whether he can tell us what progress is being made on that front and how it is being handled financially.
The second point, about which I have spoken to the Minister, sounds a little wide of what we are discussing but nonetheless it is crucial to the prosperity of industry in Northern Ireland. It arises from the second report of the Defence Committee in another place about a payment to Harland and Wolff. It is a most extraordinary and complicated story with which I do not propose to bewilder your Lordships at this hour of night. I shall simply point out that paragraph 32 of the report says:
"While the outcome of this bizarre fiscal gavotte has been that the defence budget is shielded from the effects of the settlement, we cannot as a Committee of the House of Commons pronounce ourselves as content that the Treasury have sought and obtained parliamentary authority for MoD to make a payment to Harland and Wolff plc, who pass on the funds to the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development, who surrender it to the Exchequer, whence a matching amount is found in the next financial year as 'a claim on the Reserve' ".
It is an absolutely astonishing story. In conclusion, the committee said:
"The evidence before us suggests that a subterfuge has been attempted upon Parliament".
It is quite a serious state of affairs and I should very much like to hear the Minister's comments on the matter.
Finally, there is a relatively small question upon which I simply require information. One way in which you can measure the prosperity, the progress or otherwise of the economy in Ulster is by the rate of emigration. Does the Minister have any figures in this respect and, if so, how do they compare with the rate of emigration from the Republic? Moreover, what are the forecasts for the coming year? I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us something about that. I thank him for his introduction and look forward to hearing his reply.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, once again I reiterate how grateful we are to my noble friend for presenting in such a succinct way the appropriation order before us this evening. I have a note saying that this is quite like old times. However it is not. My noble friend is far briefer than I ever managed to be in the whole of my career. On the other hand, he will know that this is a double-edged sword, because we look at the clock. We are not necessarily up against a time limit, but with that in mind I shall restrict my remarks.
I have not had the opportunity which we very often used to have in debates of this nature of entering into collusion with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. We used to agree that I would not cover points on the agricultural front which he might wish to raise. However, with that risk in mind, I wish to ask the Minister whether he can give me some help, if not tonight then perhaps he will let me know at his leisure or that of the Department of Agriculture and in an appropriate form.
The Minister and your Lordships will know the magic letters of the alphabet, "BSE". I am told that they stand for something in the nature of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, mad cow disease. It has

1381
an unfortunate effect upon the bovine population of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and I understand that there are one or two cases in the Republic. It also has an unfortunate effect upon the beef trade within the European Community. Would my noble friend be able to inquire how many cases of the malady have been notified in Northern Ireland in approximately the last 12 months? If he could obtain that information I should be grateful. Further, does he or the Department of Agriculture have any good news as to how the disease is being contained and whether any potential spread is being controlled?
When we consider any animal disease or the health of animals in the agricultural industry in the Province, I am sure that my noble friend and your Lordships will accept, as would the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that there is a need for every individual farmer to notify his local district veterinary office. That office can then take the necessary steps to attempt to find the reason for the diseases at the best diagnostic laboratory certainly in the British Isles and I suspect on the Continent of Europe. I refer to the Veterinary—Research Laboratory at Stormont—part of the Department of Agriculture—which never ceased to amaze me during my career in that department.
If we wish to notify every farmer in Northern Ireland we must never forget the far-flung areas such as County Fermanagh and County Tyrone. I am sure that the remarks made by the Minister and by your Lordships this evening will be noted in the impartial reporter, the Fermanagh Herald, that excellent newspaper in the West, the Tyrone Constitution, and I seem to remember the Tyrone Democrat in another connection in East Tyrone dealing with veterinary problems.
I was entirely stunned by the figures announced by my noble friend when he opened his dissertation concerning the low take-up by the agricultural industry of capital grants. I wonder what has happened since my time in the Department of Agriculture, which was always marked by the slogan in every newspaper, "Act fast while grants last". Can my noble friend give me an indication—perhaps not tonight—of the reason for the lack of take-up of capital grants? I do not doubt that there will be a suitable reason.
My second major question deals with the computerisation of bovines within Northern Ireland. I am sure that my noble friend and your Lordships will be aware that in regard to veterinary matters in Northern Ireland each district was to have a computerised record of every bovine animal in the area. This was, first, to assist in tracing animal diseases such as tuberculosis and brucellosis. It would make it far easier to track down any reactors or breakdowns in the tests. Further, the computerised records will go a great way towards reducing the enormous paperwork necessary in Northern Ireland.
One example pointed out to me was that in Dungannon movement permits were required for each beast. If it left the home farm and went to market the farmer might decide that the price offered was not satisfactory, he might move on to another market, then a third and fourth market and then gradually go home. For each stage of the journey a
1382
separate movement order was required. I hope that the computerisation of bovines will go some way towards alleviating the enormous amount of paperwork. I was aware that the district veterinary office at Newtownards was up and running in regard to this aspect.
My third question concerns fisheries. I understand that the poor weather has had quite an effect upon the fishing fleet in Scotland. I believe that it has also affected the fishing industry at Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel. Can my noble friend give me brief information or instructions on the reason for that this evening? It might be the poor weather, but there could also be problems of reduced quotas for the pelagic or submersal catches taken by the industry.
I thank my noble friend the Minister and look forward to any answers that he can give tonight. However, I understand that it may be necessary for him to get in touch with me in writing.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I too wish to thank the Minister for the way in which he has introduced the Appropriation Order. I thank him also for his kind letter inviting prior notice of any points which noble Lords might wish to raise in the debate. Regrettably, however, the letter did not reach me until Saturday morning and there was no opportunity for me to reply. As I pointed out to the predecessor of the noble Lord on the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, degrading though it may seem, I do not live in the Palace of Westminster. The delay was incurred through the letter having to be forwarded to my home address, for which I apologise.
The additional 1 per cent. of milk quota is extremely welcome. However, I wish that there were some way in which it was possible for farmers to be notified further in advance so that they could carry out business planning. Inconvenient though it may be, if a product in a factory is in surplus the production line can be stopped for two or three weeks. If there is an unexpected demand, double shifts can be worked. Unfortunately that is not possible with a dairy herd. We can regulate it to a certain extent by the amount of concentrates we feed but genetically if a herd is geared to high production it will run into health and fertility problems if the herd is run too short of concentrate rations during the winter.
If it were possible for the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Great Britain as well as the people in charge of the common agricultural policy in Europe to give us more advance warning of what is likely to happen, it would save a great deal of trouble and be extremely welcome.
On the subject of beef, it is true that beef farmers throughout the entire United Kingdom have had a fairly rough time over the past six months. However the Minister will probably be aware that we in Northern Ireland are even more disadvantaged because of the proximity of the Republic of Ireland. It is worth while for the meat plant owners to buy cattle in the South, bring them up across the border to the North, collect the monetary compensation and then have the beef processed in the North. That
sara
1383
tends to cause a glut in what is already a depressed market. Therefore beef farmers in Northern Ireland have suffered badly this winter. I am told that an average of £70 per head has been lost by most of the finishers.
I could say with hindsight that had we only joined the EMS when the pound was strong by comparison with the Deutschmark and inflation was low this problem would not have arisen, but the way things are at the moment devaluation of the green pound is a matter of urgency. However, that will not recompense those who have already suffered. Therefore, I join with the Ulster Farmers Union in recommending that there should be a headage premium, retrospective to perhaps 1st December 1989.
Those involved in agriculture in Northern Ireland have not been unique in suffering severe storm damage in recent months. I am not sure what plans, if any, are in train for compensation for those who have suffered in Wales, but I know that in the Ballykelly area of County Londonderry hundreds of acres have been under three feet of salt water. Many of those hundreds of acres had been planted with winter cereals which have been lost completely. That was due to the fact that the sea defences for which Her Majesty's Government are responsible were inadequate to cope with an exceptionally high tide coupled with an adverse wind. I sincerely hope that some compensation will be payable to the farmers in question.
I now turn to the Department of the Environment. Pollution continues to be a current topic. However, when all is said and done, I am afraid it transpires that much more has been said than has been done. Unfortunately the River Lagan, which flows through Belfast, is still filthy. Sewage and domestic and industrial waste are still being pumped into it despite all that has been said and all that has been promised. Lough Neagh is increasingly used as a source of public water supply but the water in that lough is not fit to drink. It may be treated with chlorine and it may be subjected to other processes, but with its enrichment of phosphates, nitrates and other elements it is not a healthy source of drinking water. The problem is that the Department of the Environment is responsible for much of the pollution but it is also responsible for monitoring pollution. Therefore it is hardly surprising that the department is reluctant to prosecute itself. I therefore respectfully suggest that the answer is to have a completely independent authority to monitor pollution of watercourses, the sea, lakes and the environment generally.
I now turn to the Department of Education. Many of the changes that have been announced are welcome. We welcome particularly the encouragement to integrated education that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Integrated education is getting off the ground now. The pace of progress is accelerating. That is greatly to be welcomed. However, looking at the general field of education, the changes that have been announced are putting a considerable strain on schools. I am told that many more resources are
1384
required for the retraining of teachers and for the re-equipping of schools. I am told that there is a shortage of books and that morale among teachers is low. Her Majesty's Government may not have anticipated the resources that would be required to bring about the changes which, on the whole, are welcome.
I now turn to the Department of Health and of Social Security. I wish to offer special thanks to the Minister for his personal interest in the Northern Ireland hospice movement and for the way in which he has responded to the representations made to him about that. That is greatly appreciated. We know that the Minister has taken a particular interest in the hospice movement. However, on a more controversial note, I must ask what the outcome will be of the alleged scandal at the Kincora boys' school. That scandal is only "alleged" because no one knows the truth about it. That is the problem. I respectfully suggest that unless there is a full public inquiry into the matter, a broad spectrum of public opinion will perceive that there continues to be a cover-up on the issue. What about the documents produced by Mr. Colin Wallace? Are they authentic? We do not know the answer to that question, but we need to know. I am afraid that is something that cannot be swept under the carpet.
Finally, I have a point to make as regards the department responsible for finance and personnel. This point may not be relevant, but I hope your Lordships will forgive me for mentioning it. I wish to say how grateful I am to Her Majesty's Government for the facilities they provided for the recent first sitting of the British/Irish inter-parliamentary body. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, attended that occasion, as did the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. I hope they agree with me that the mood was good. Contentious issues were not dodged, but all present made a conscious effort to avoid being contentious.
I am hopeful as regards the future of this body. The Northern Ireland Office may have had little to do with the event, but I still wish to pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government for having made it possible. I regret that the Unionists did not see fit to participate despite the fact that in a document that they submitted to the Secretary of State two years ago they advocated such a body. I sincerely hope they will change their minds but, for all that, I am glad that the event took place and I look forward to further progress in the future.
8 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, when discussing an appropriation order of such magnitude, I sometimes feel totally inadequate as regards giving it the attention it deserves. This House to some extent must be in the same position. I received a letter about the order from the Minister, as I an certain the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, did. We are discussing an appropriation estimate of £1,816 million. That is a figure of nearly £2 billion. The expenditure has to be discussed within one hour or one and a half hours. I do not think it is right that such an amount of money should be considered in those circumstances.

1385
In another place there is a different situation. There are 16 Members of Parliament who live in Northern Ireland and who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. As I know from experience, if one lives in a particular constituency in Northern Ireland and one has a Northern Ireland electorate, one is much more aware of the everyday happenings there and of the events that can be linked to one or other of the parts of this order.
Tonight we have heard two noble Lords dwell specifically on agriculture, but there are many more issues that could have been discussed had we been more aware of the subject. I understand that the elected Members of Parliament at the other end of the building will probably be discussing the order at this time of the day. I repeat that totally inadequate provision has been made for consideration of such colossal expenditure—almost £2 billion—for an area as small as, and with the population of, Northern Ireland. If we were discussing Wales or Scotland the elected Members in another part of the building would co-operate with many Members of your Lordships' House to allow a more reasoned and understanding approach to the issues involved in expenditure of this size.
I now turn to representations that have been made to me as someone who formerly represented a constitutency in Northern Ireland and who is still known in the Province. I have advised the Minister's office of the issues. Peter Stott Martin House in County Antrim cares for a number of patients who suffer from multiple sclerosis. Evidently the inmates of the home are well looked after by well-trained staff. They are happy in the home, which has aids—enabling them, for instance, to climb stairs—which are necessary for people suffering from such a serious disablement. It appears that, without any consultation of the people who support it, the home is to be closed and the patients relocated to the Dalriada Hospital in Ballycastle. I understand that concern is being voiced by the staff and also by the patients who have found that the home has served them well in the past in their serious disablement.
The Minister will be aware that a deputation from Northern Ireland attended this House early last month. They were protesting against the relocation of services from the Moyle Hospital in Lame to another part of County Antrim. It may be said by the department that the services are being relocated because that will be cheaper in the long run. However, the needs of the people who use the facilities have to be taken into account. I understand that the medical staff and people in the surrounding area are protesting vigorously at the department's intention to relocate the acute services at the Moyle Hospital without giving any consideration to the representations that have been made.
Those are two of the issues that I wanted to bring to the Minister's attention tonight. I have also had a number of letters on a further subject, possibly because I was myself a victim at one time. It appears that there is a very long waiting list in Northern Ireland for coronary bypass operations. I was very lucky: I felt the pain one day and I had the operation the next day. However, people have been designated
1386
to have the operation and have been put on to the end of a very long waiting list. I can understand how that can affect their whole outlook on life.
There is a similar situation regarding cataract operations. I have spoken to the eye specialists at the Royal Victoria Hospital, which is renowed throughout the United Kingdom for its specialist eye services. There is a tremendous waiting list of people needing cataract operations. I do not suppose that the Minister will have tonight the figures concerning the number of people on the waiting lists, but I ask him to write to me. More importantly, I ask whether he can take steps to see whether the waiting list could be reduced and the operations expedited. That would be in the interests of all those people who are living in fear either of coronary problems or of going blind. I am sure that he will also look into the other cases that I mentioned.
I feel that those few words are inadequate because I am certain that in the context of this colossal figure of nearly £2 billion there are many more questions which could be asked and should be asked in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is absolutely right. He will see from my letter—which he had in his hand—that I regard any question as fair game. I appreciate that this very wide-ranging debate could have been even more wide-ranging. Nevertheless I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken for their concern in putting those points which they regard as important.
Last week I was privileged to receive a visit from my noble friend Lord Long. At one point during his discussion with local people the point was made that Northern Ireland could not progress in any sense of the word without increased economic activity. The Government were praised for what they had done in recent months. I have to confess that, rather like my son's school report, it was tempered by the words "could do better". Therefore, I was particularly interested that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, voiced their concerns in that area. I suspect that for many of your Lordships such concerns were subliminal.
As in the rest of the United Kingdom, the improvement owes much to the Government's determination to create a business environment in which enterprise can flourish. The success of Northern Ireland's manufacturing industry in achieving a 9 per cent. increase in output in the year to December 1989, which we might compare with a 3 per cent. increase for the United Kingdom as a whole, shows that industry can rise to the challenge of increasingly competitive markets. However, we cannot afford to be complacent, with unemployment remaining stubbornly high. I agree with the noble Lord who said that. The fact that the number of unemployed has fallen by 25,000 over 1 he last three years and by 9,000 last year alone shows the resolve with which the problem is being tackled. As the House will know, further figures will be announced later this week. I confidently expect that they will show a continuation of that trend.

1387
Nonetheless it is vital to the long-term future of the Northern Ireland economy that not only should jobs be created but they should be jobs with a future in industries which can compete in world markets. To that end the Government are concentrating their efforts on strengthening the Northern Ireland economy through measures which will encourage enterprise and thus promote the long-term regeneration of industry to the point where government assistance ceases to be necessary. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that that looks like being a long way off.
In that context the successful return to the private sector of Harland and Wolff and Shorts is particularly encouraging and has confirmed the Government's resolve to carry through an equally successful privatisation of Northern Ireland Electricity.
On the investment front, the recent announcement that Fruit of the Loom, a major USA company, is to establish a factory in Londonderry with the potential for 500 jobs is good news, more so when it follows hard on the heels of another major investment for Londonderry—the £65 million Foyle Street development project with a potential of some 1,100 jobs. There have been other notable major international investments attracted to Northern Ireland also in the recent past—Montupe from France, Di-wheel Electronics from South Korea, Bali from Hong Kong and Harris Laboratories from the USA. They demonstrate the attractiveness of Northern Ireland and the growing confidence of the international business community that the Province is a place for profitable investment opportunities.
Looking further ahead, the 1990s will be a period of rapid change. The European market will be opened up by the removal of legal barriers in 1992 and of physical barriers a year later, with the opening of the Channel Tunnel. That will be a challenge to Northern Ireland industry as Continental European firms will gain easier access to the United Kingdom market, but it will also be an opportunity to sell Northern Ireland products to over 320 million people in the world's largest consumer market. The Government will do all they can to create a climate in which the spirit of enterprise can thrive. It is for the Northern Ireland business community to meet the challenge and to seize the opportunity.
I am sure that the House will join with me in wishing them every success in that venture.
The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, suggested that the health of the economy could be measured by the Northern Ireland emigration figures. I can advise him that figures have varied considerably over the years reflecting economic circumstances. I would not go quite as far as his words might suggest. In the early 1970s, migration was running at some 24,000 a year. It fell to some 5,300 a year in 1978 and peaked again in the early 1980s. The latest figure is 8,700 in 1987–88.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who gave me advance warning that he would comment on the Northern Ireland Economic Council report on industrial development. As the
1388
report acknowledges, the Industrial Development Board operates against the most difficult background in Northern Ireland. I dare say that few other such agencies in the British Isles envy its task and it is important to keep that perspective in mind when looking at the findings of that particularly useful report.
The development board had itself recognised the need some time ago to develop wider and better indicators of performance than job promotions or promises alone. For that reason it decided to invite the council to look at the matter in more detail and co-operated fully in providing it with information. The outcome has been valuable and, at a time when the DED and IDB are focusing on future strategies, I am sure that we shall find that they will reflect much of the council's thinking. However, it is unfortunate that the media have tended to concentrate on the figure of 41 per cent. job creations from those promised. That is a misleading figure, including as it does the closure of Lear Fan which had a major disturbing effect on the final figure, yet the offer to the company was signed only two weeks after the IDB came into existence. Otherwise, the figure would have been 48 per cent. In addition, a recent update of the NIEC figures show that, for the year 1987–88, 67 per cent. of the jobs promised were in place by September 1989. In any circumstances, that is a most creditable performance, but particularly so in Northern Ireland.
I agree that it is also important that grant payments are kept in line with job creations. The figures contained in the report show that the Industrial Development Board had obtained good value for money. Excluding the distortions that I mentioned earlier caused by Lear Fan, the industrial development board paid only 43 per cent. of assistance offered to create 48 per cent. of the jobs originally promised. The tight conditions applied in all cases ensured that the IDB paid only for what was achieved on the ground by the companies concerned. The IDB will continue to liaise closely with the council on how these findings can be used as a foundation for the future.
The noble Lord touched on the need for training. It goes without saying that the Government attach great importance to assisting employees to gain the relevant skills that they need in a modern economy. As I said in my opening speech, a Training and Employment Agency will be established at the beginning of April. The principal task of that agency will be to implement those training and employment functions which are currently the responsibility of the Department of Economic Development. The agency will have approximately 1,700 staff and resources of £165 million, which the noble Lord will accept is hardly chicken-feed. That is clear evidence of the Government's commitment to help to assure a well-trained, skilled work force in the Province.
The Industrial Development Board will publish a new strategy within the next few months to cover the early years of the 1990s. Obviously, that is fundamental and takes into account various views expressed and reports published by bodies with an interest in the economic and industrial health of Northern Ireland. One clear message coming out of

1389
the review is that there is a need to place even more emphasis on increasing the competitiveness of Northern Ireland industry and to develop methods of achieving that, particularly against the background of the completion of the single European market. The Government have always encouraged research and development work by companies in Northern Ireland and the Industrial Development Board's future strategy will continue that emphasis.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the Government are wholly committed to promoting equality of opportunity and to eliminating discrimination on the grounds of religious belief, political opinion, sex and against married people in general. As a major component in that commitment, the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989, which came into force on 1st January, aims at ensuring that both communities enjoy fair participation in employment. It is a little unfair to cross-question me this soon on the operation of that Act, but I shall bear the noble Lord's comments in mind and we may perhaps return to the subject at a more appropriate time.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the 36th report of the Public Accounts Committee in another place, particularly regarding the need for improved information and performance indicators. The Department of Health and Social Services has accepted the PAC's conclusions lock, stock and barrel. The department is directing considerable resources towards information technology projects designed to bring about significant improvements in management and financial information and to enable the dissemination of information regarding good practice.
The noble Lord also asked about the size and health characteristics of the population of Northern Ireland and about possible changes in the distribution of resources. In essence, the new regime of funding will mean that boards are funded based on the needs of their own populations rather than on what I would describe as the ad hoc accretion of services provided by them.
The noble Lord referred to the new arrangements for contracting and the availability of skilled staff. The health service in Northern Ireland has an extra year in which to develop contracting. It will be introduced in April 1992. There is therefore time to acquire and develop the necessary skills. Health boards and their staff already have a groundwork of experience in contracting, but I accept that training for staff will be an important component of the near future. Northern Ireland is learning from demonstration projects in the Great Britain health authorities. Furthermore, boards will develop a small number of shadow contracts in 1991–1992.
Improving community relations is one of the Government's highest priorities. That is reflected in the range of programmes developed over the last two years. Towards the end of 1987 the Government decided that community relations should be given a higher profile and a new central community relations unit was established to ensure that at the centre of the decision-making process in government community relations issues received full consideration. The increase in resources has been from £0·7 million to
1390
around £4 million in 1990–91, which has enabled a major expansion of cross-community contact programmes—the creation of a district council programme to support community relations in their areas, the establishment of a Northern Ireland community relations council (about which we know) and the development of a major cultural traditions programme including support for the Irish language. I shall pass on to my honourable friend the Minister with special responsibility for education the comments that have been made.
There are two small matters to which brief reference was made. Nonetheless I believe that they are important. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the report of the Defence Select Committee of another place deals with defence estimates and their handling by the Ministry of Defence. Therefore, while it would not be appropriate for me to comment at this moment, there is no connection between this matter and expenditure on the Northern Ireland Vote. However, the Ministry of Defence has taken note of the report which, as the noble Lord said, has given it something upon which to cogitate. I am advised that it will not be cogitating very much longer.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, mentioned, I suppose inevitably, the Kincora Boys' Home. I remind him that there have already been two very thorough investigations by Sir George Terry and His Honour Judge Hughes respectively. The Government have repeatedly stated that if Mr. Wallace has evidence to back up his allegations, he should make that evidence available. That would be the time to consider whether a further inquiry is either sensible or desirable. At the moment quite clearly it is not.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me for interrupting but is it not true to say that a right honourable Member in another place has a letter from Mr. Colin Wallace? Has that letter been authenticated either through fingerprints or other forensic means?
Lord Skelmersdale: It has not to my knowledge, but I repeat the point that this matter has been explored twice very thoroughly. Therefore, there would need to be real evidence. I cannot say at the moment whether that letter provides such evidence.
Not surprisingly, both the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, and my noble friend Lord Lyell referred extensively to agriculture. So far as concerns bovine spongiform encephalopathy, I can advise the House that there have been 40 confirmed cases of BSE, as it is known, in Northern Ireland to date, compared with over 10,000 in Great Britain. At present six animals are under restriction in Northern Ireland as suspect BSE cases. The Republic of Ireland has confirmed 18 cases of BSE.
We have implemented legislation to make BSE a notifiable disease. Suspect animals are slaughtered and all carcasses are destroyed. The feeding of ruminant protein—the most likely source of BSE—to ruminants is prohibited. My own department has paralleled the recently announced Great Britain legal ban on the use of specified bovine

1391
offals for human consumption. The Department of Agriculture has also raised the rate of compensation for affected animals from 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. of market value in line with the increased GB levels announced by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture on 13th February.
We acknowledge the adverse effects on Northern Ireland trade of West German restrictions on exports of United Kingdom beef since November 1989. The EC Standing Veterinary Committee, on the advice of the Scientific Veterinary Committee, accepted that there was no public health risk in meat with specified offals removed derived from cattle in countries in which BSE occurs. Subsequent to that decision, the Germans have reduced their certification demands which now require that bone-in meat does not originate from animals affected by BSE or their progeny. The United Kingdom is considering its response to the German conditions for bone-in beef.
Perhaps I may write to my noble friend Lord Lyell about the computerisation of divisional veterinary offices. Briefly, I have been in contact with share fishermen through the good offices of their Member of Parliament but I have to say that, despite recent very heavy and adverse weather conditions, it is not appropriate to compensate them from the agricultural Vote.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, the Government believe that integrated education has a great part to play in overcoming community divisions in Northern Ireland but that will happen only where parents wish it. The Government also continue to recognise and respect the wishes of parents who want to retain the present position with regard to school provision. We had a very long and somewhat intractable debate on that subject the other day. I shall look at the noble Lord's comments and elsewhere in the debate to see whether there is anything of use I can add to assist him. The same will apply to the comments on education made by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath.
I should like to refer briefly to green pound devaluation. The noble Lord may not know that a green pound devaluation is being considered as part of the 1990–91 EC price fixing proposals. The Commission has proposed a devaluation of one-third of the real monetary gap that exists at the time that the price fixing is agreed. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be negotiating for the best possible deal in the price fixing round. Any devaluation agreed would have the effect of raising support prices for the producer.
The noble Lord will also have seen the reports of my honourable friend the Minister with special responsibility for agriculture as a result of the flooding at Ballykelly. Once the breach on the Banfoot river has been repaired and the water removed, the department's county agriculture staff will give free advice on the restoration of land. I am advised that it is too early to cost remedial works expenditure on the necessary repairs to the flood banks for the river. The cost in respect of valuable
1392
embankment areas is estimated to be in the region of £140,000 and expenditure will be carried out by the Department of Agriculture. However, the Government do not normally compensate for insurable losses. The Department of Agriculture is not liable for damage resulting from the accidental failure of an embankment or flood bank. The question of negligence does not therefore arise.
I appreciate that this has been a very rapid gallop over many of the points adduced by your Lordships on this appropriation debate. The House has had to look at several very different areas of expenditure on this order, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, but I am afraid that that is the nature of the Supplementary Estimates. Many of your Lordships probably believe that in this House we are privileged in that this is the only government expenditure that we can examine at all. I am sure that those noble Lords with an interest in Northern Ireland affairs appreciate these opportunities to discuss significant changes in public expenditure in the region. I trust that the House will be content to approve the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Education (Student Loans) Bill
8.29 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
Earl Haig Earl Haig moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 6, after ("maintenance") insert ("but not their tuition").
The noble Earl said: This amendment explains more clearly the purpose of loans. At present the wording of the first paragraph is incomplete. It is not explicit. It should mention both aspects—maintenance and tuition—within each of which there are problems over funding. On the tuition side the Government have something about which they can feel proud. An undertaking was rated at £750 per student in 1984. Extra moneys available from universities have been added. The problem of university funding was highlighted by the Oxford appeal.
Financial difficulties also affect art schools. In London there have been closures and amalgamations. In Edinburgh, due to cuts, students are being asked to find their own materials. This is particularly expensive in the craft departments. On the credit side, students are learning to economise and to save on materials. However, this makes experimentation difficult because mistakes and breakages—for example, in the stained glass department—are expensive. Students have to pay for the gas used in their kilns and sand blasters. At the end of the year they are faced with heavy bills for materials.
It is an expense which comes under the heading of maintenance although rightly it should come under the heading "tuition". Under the proposed scheme there will be a heavy welfare debit when on top of materials there will be the cost of food, lodging, poll tax and clothing. To art students, the

1393
loan scheme is unpopular. It is vital to phrase the wording of the Bill in as attractive a way as possible to make students feel that they will be on solid ground. The Bill aims to increase the numbers of students in particular from lower income families who will be able to play their part in the years ahead. It is all the more important to word it properly in order to attract students. Perhaps I may use an analogy about fishing. If one wishes to catch a fish one puts as attractive a fly at the end of one's line as possible.
At present the Bill is seen as a disincentive to students who hope to embark on lower paid careers in arts, teaching, nursing, the Church, social work and, in the short term, in medicine. For them, we must be clear about the bottom line which includes tuition as well as maintenance. Tuition is an expensive undertaking. It must be spelt out in the Bill as part of a good selling exercise. Otherwise we are bad communicators. I beg to move.
Lord Peston: I rise briefly to support the amendment of the noble Earl. His eye has caught a point that some of us missed. It is worth underlining it.
The Bill says in its introductory statement:
"An Act to provide … loans towards their maintenance".
There is no doubt that that is what it states. The noble Earl may well say that when the Bill states "towards their maintenance" it means towards their maintenance and nothing else. If it means that, the point of the noble Earl, Lord Haig, is well taken and will be met by the Bill. I hope that is what it means and that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will be able to say that is exactly what it means. He will then have satisfied the noble Earl, Lord Haig, and those of us on this side of the Chamber.
Lord Renton: I agree with the noble Lord that the word "maintenance" used by itself implies that it does not cover tuition fees, and so on. I do not have a copy of the White Paper with me. Can my noble friend tell us how tuition fees will be paid for by those who do not have the means to pay them? Will they be paid for by grants, as frequently happens at present; or in what way?
Lord Adrian: Perhaps I may ask the Minister whether there is any planned intention to change the method of payment for tuition fees from that in place at the moment. In effect, is there any difficulty in accepting the amendment which implies that at least for the present there is no intention to change? To refuse the amendment might suggest that there was such an intention.
The Earl of Caithness: As the noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out to my noble friend Lord Haig, the amendment is unnecessary. That is due to the Bill's first substantive sentence in Clause 1(1) which would empower the Secretary of State to make arrangements only,
"for enabling eligible students to receive loans towards their maintenance".
I can confirm to my noble friend that there are no powers in the Bill for the Secretary of State to make
1394
loans towards student's tuition costs. I noted exactly what my noble friend Lord Renton—who is the expert on drafting in this Chamber—said: that the concerns of my noble friend Lord Haig are already met in the wording of the Bill as it stands.
However, I do not rest my case at that. I understand the concerns that lie behind my noble friend's amendment. I wish also to respond to those directly. I can say to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, that the Government have no plans to change the arrangements whereby, in the case of students in receipt of a mandatory award, standard tuition fees are met from public funds as part of that award. Payment is made direct to the institution attended by the student. That element of the award is not means tested. The fees element is payable whether or not the student's parents are assessed on income grounds to make a contribution to the grant for living costs.
When the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, rose, I thought that he was going to argue against my noble friend's amendment because I know that it is part of the vice-chancellor's scheme that tuition fees could be catered for under a graduate tax principle. Let me just confirm again to my noble friend Lord Haig that I absolutely take his point, but I believe that it is already well catered for in the wording of the Bill.
Earl Haig: I thank the Minister for his undertakings and explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 13, after ("State") insert—
("(aa) are commencing their courses on or after the academic year 1990–91").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment raises a simple issue. It is whether it is right to alter the conditions of study for existing students who started with an expectation of being able to complete their courses with grants rather than that half-way through their courses they would be asked to shift into a partly loan supported maintenance system.
The Government argued at Second Reading that students who started their course in October did so in the knowledge of the forthcoming student loans scheme. That would not be true of students who started their course a year earlier; in other words, third year students in October 1990. In any case, there is no evidence for the claim that students starting their courses last October were fully aware of the implications of the student loans proposal. More significantly, the proposal has yet to receive parliamentary approval and a student would be wholly entitled to think that the matter was still under discussion and that the principle might not be adopted.
For the Government to endorse any other assumption is to demonstrate very clearly their view of parliamentary sovereignty. Even if a student had accepted the likelihood of the Government getting the Bill through, there is nothing in the Bill which spells out to an existing student the level of the loan

1395
which he or she will receive, or any of the detail about how it will be paid. The Government confirmed at Second Reading the figures contained within the White Paper. But those figures could still be changed and in any case are likely to be changed very substantially in future years.
There are also practical arguments for phasing the scheme over a three-year period. First, existing students are more than likely to have incurred debts through having to supplement their grant. We know that many of them do so. The Bill proposes that second and third year students should effectively incur a new form of debt to set alongside those incurred from the beginning of their studies at the start of their first year. It would surely be better to enable students joining the scheme to do so with a clean sheet and to let them make their own decisions on spending arrangements within the known constraints of the loans which they are to be given.
The Government argue that loans at a nil rate of interest are advantageous to students who are otherwise forced to borrow commercially. In fact, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that, the grant having been reduced by 21 per cent. in real terms since 1979—and indeed the Government have confirmed those figures—the financial difficulties of students are now being used against them in order to justify loans.
Imposing loans on students who have had to struggle financially during their first and second years—or, in the case of those students on longer courses, third and fourth years—will multiply those difficulties. Students in rented accommodation are dependent on housing benefit, which they will lose together with any income support which may have been claimed during the summer vacation. That will be the price for receiving a loan part of the way into their period at university or polytechnic. Therefore, students faced with a real cut in their income in their second or third years will question very seriously why the new scheme could not have been introduced gradually from October 1990 starting only with new students.
In addition, surely it would be better to bring in the changes gradually so that any of the administrative difficulties can be ironed out with one cohort of students rather than three years all being pushed into the scheme at once. In a discussion on Amendment No. 2 we heard about the benefits of delaying rather than rushing through this legislation to try to start all students on the scheme in 1990. I know that the views of higher education institutions will be very much in favour of starting on a more gradual basis.
When we discussed that amendment earlier this afternoon, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that academics always wanted to delay things. Speaking as an academic, in this case I am not in any sense asking for a delay and I am not concerned about delay. I am concerned about order and efficiency. I foresee administrative chaos this summer if this amendment is not accepted and if we are going to ask higher education institutions to process not only new students but all existing
1396
students, all in the course of two or three months over this summer.
The prime reason for moving this amendment is that the Bill retrospectively changes the conditions of study in our universities for approximately two-thirds of all our undergraduate students. Surely that is an undesirable precedent. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: When my noble friend comes to reply to this amendment I believe that it would be very helpful if he could set out in some detail just what will be the figures. When I read this amendment on the Marshalled List I could see the point which the noble Baroness was making. At first glance it appears that somebody will be disadvantaged. Therefore, I wish to be sure that my own understanding of the position is correct.
I may not be right but I should have thought that it was unlikely that students coming up next October do not know about student loans, because there has been quite a lot of talk about the subject in the newspapers and in the media generally for some considerable time and undoubtedly it will continue to be debated over the next summer term.
However, the point I particularly wish to make is that, as I understand the scheme, next October—and that is why I want to be quite clear—the grant will be increased (and there are three levels) and at the same time in the autumn of 1990 students overall will receive an increase in the amount of money available; that is, the £125 million. Of course, they will be eligible for a loan.
Therefore, my understanding is that in October students will be returned approximately in real terms to the position in 1979. In that sense, to delay an introduction of this scheme could put students coming up next October at a disadvantage vis à vis everybody else. I believe that it is quite difficult fully to understand all the figures. I hope that I have got this right. If so, it seems to me that it is to the advantage of students to be in the scheme next October, and that is what we want to see.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: I support this amendment. The real issue here is that students who have entered on an undergraduate course prior to October 1990 will have done so through a system under which they have been funded by grants and not by loans. Therefore, they may have made their assessments of going into education on different grounds.
Effectively, we are changing the terms under which students are entering upon their educational studies. Students going back one year may well have just been aware, when they entered their courses, of a proposal similar to that at present before us. Any student going back further than that—that is, any student in his third, fourth or fifth year, because there are undergraduates on courses of that length—will not have known of or considered this loan scheme when he started his course.
I believe that there is a strong case for allowing students to finish their courses under the same terms as they entered into them. It simply is not fair to expect them to have this decision forced upon them

1397
as opposed to letting them finish their courses under the terms on which they started them. I believe that this is a principle of basic fairness which we should address.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: There seems to me to be something in favour of this amendment in respect of current students. Students who have embarked upon their courses at universities or other institutions of higher education started on a certain basis, no doubt believing, rightly or wrongly, that that basis would continue during the normal term of their studies.
Therefore, unless they are prepared willingly to agree to change to the new position, it would seem reasonable that they should be entitled to hold to the position at which they started as students. That may seem to my noble friend to be unduly favourable to them. On the other hand, there is much to be said for saying that if people have undertaken obligations on a certain basis, they really should be allowed to complete their studies on that basis if they so wish. If they are prepared to waive that, that is another matter.
Earl Haig: I support the amendment which is designed to make sure that arrangements and agreements made with current students are adhered to and that provisions made for their support are not changed while in midsteam. Unless previous commitments are adhered to, there could be grave problems of financial adjustment for students from low income families who will be unable to make ends meet and will thus have grounds for resentment. We should not impose new regulations upon students who were already enrolled and who were unaware of the scope of the new regulations. Their positions would be safeguarded by exemption from the provisions of the Bill and the regulations.
Lord Adrian: I am much in agreement with what has been said already. However, I have one further concern; that is, that if students who are currently at the universities or polytechnics are not to come under the operation of the loan scheme, as I understand it, they will lose their social security benefits whenever that is promulgated, laid on the table or put forward under whatever mechanism is to be used.
Therefore, I believe that, if students in course are not to become eligible for loans, they should continue to be eligible for social security benefits, because, if they are not, they will be quite seriously disadvantaged.
Lord Renton: It is always wrong, as the noble Baroness said, for us to legislate in retrospect if we can possibly avoid it. It is especially wrong in financial matters, and it may be harsh on students who, for example, have done two years of a three-year course and who are just coming up to their final year, which is the most anxious of the three years. For them to find that the financial foundation of their studies is to be changed in a way that some of them may find less agreeable is something that we should avoid. I shall be interested
1398
to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about the amendment. I too, for the reasons given by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others, have some sympathy with the amendment.
Earl Russell: I am in full agreement with what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton. I do not believe that I am straining things by saying that we have here an argument of implied contract, which is something about which universities are careful when dealing with their students. When new courses and new degree regulations are introduced, it is pretty well invariably on the understanding that these apply only to those who will be admitted in the future and not to those who are already admitted. It is a principle which was accepted by the Government in a case about which they felt strongly—the abolition of academic tenure. That measure was to apply only to appointments made or contracts signed after 20th November 1987. That was a good. equitable principle. I was glad to see it there; I should like to see it here.
There is also some force in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about the risk of administrative chaos. The Committee knows that I am somewhat concerned about September 1990. It will be difficult to get the processing done in time. A reduction of one-third in the burden of work to be done in the first year could be helpful. It could even possibly just make the difference between a scheme which may just creep through and work and one that will not.
Now that we have passed Second Reading, if it works I shall be relieved. If the Minister were to accept the amendment, I hope that he will also give thought to the point about the social security regulations made by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. That instrument, which I have now discovered is by the negative procedure, has not yet been published. I hope that it is not too late to introduce consequential revisions into it. I support the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: The intention of the amendment is to make loans available only for students starting their courses in the academic year 1990–91 and thereafter. It is the Government's intention that loans should be available to all eligible students in the autumn of 1991, not just new entrants in that year. Of course, it is up to the students whether they take the loan or not. The reason is the one that I gave earlier this afternoon: the loan offers students more resources and we want all students to have access to the addition as soon as possible. My noble friend Lord Renton has misunderstood the scheme.
The uprating of the grant that we have already announced will be available in the forthcoming academic year is 5 per cent; but, as my noble friend Lady Young said, with the loan added—it is a genuine top-up loan—the total public support available to students will be increased by 25 per cent. compared with this year's grant. We think it fair that all students should have access to that loan. I have to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who said that that was unfair. The grant

1399
is being uprated. In addition there is the loan scheme available with new money which will top up the resources available to students by 25 per cent. That is an excellent opportunity for students who wish to make use of it.
If the loan were denied to students already part way through their course, we should consider what other public support would be available to them. One alternative is that they should receive a grant equal in value to the grant and loan combined. The Government rule out that proposal on two grounds. One is equity and one is cost. It would not be equitable to have two parallel systems of support running together, with individual students allocated to one or the other according to the accident of the date of their entry into higher education. Providing the additional resources as grant rather than loan to all but first-year students—that is, to some 60 per cent. of the student body—would delay the point at which repayments would start to offset the cost to the taxpayer of supporting students' living costs. From the Benches opposite we have heard complaints about the cost of introducing the scheme as if its generosity were a fault. I am therefore surprised that Members opposite now want substantially to delay the date at which the scheme offers relief to taxpayers.
I was also interested in the argument about the complexities and extra administrative cost of the Government's proposal. If one envisages two parallel schemes of student support—the old one alongside the new—that is a more inequitable system than the one the Government propose. If there is to be, as in the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, administrative chaos, there is far more likely to be administrative chaos with two schemes than with the one scheme proposed by the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Adrian, raised the important question of social security and access funds and I have no doubt we shall come on to that in more detail later. I take on board what the noble Lord said. His concern to get that point right is shared by the Government.
My noble friend Lady Young picked up the argument that some students presently in higher education would not have chosen to start their courses if they had known that the loan scheme would be in place next year. The applications for places tell a different story, as my noble friend knows. The Government's proposals for loans have not had a disincentive effect. Applications for autumn 1990 stand at 6 per cent. higher than applications at the same point a year ago. Those applications have been made in the knowledge that the Government intend to supplement the grant with the loan and access funds. I am not at all surprised that the applications are higher than last year. Next year student resources will increase. The grant will be uprated and with the loan in addition students will have access to 25 per cent. more than this year. All eligible students should be able to make use of the loan facility if they wish and take advantage of the additional resources that it provides.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Before my noble friend completes his argument, will he consider the point that I ventured to put forward that, if as he suggests the changeover is to the advantage of current students, they should be given the option of whether to go on to it or to remain on their present basis?
The Earl of Caithness: That leads me back to the argument that that suggestion would involve two schemes and a great deal more administrative complexity. My noble friend will wish students to be clear as to where they stand. The grant will be uprated in the forthcoming year. The loan scheme is in addition to it. One can see that the students are not put off and that they are enrolling in increased numbers for next year.
Lord Renton: I wanted to hear what my noble friend's explanation would be. Having heard it, I must withdraw my suggestion that for those students starting their third year the scheme would be disadvantageous. It would not on the facts given by my noble friend.
Earl Russell: The Minister never ceases to surprise me. He discussed the option, if the amendment were accepted, of paying to those affected a sum in grant that would be equivalent to the loan. He said that he ruled that out on the grounds of cost. I do not understand that, because the sum concerned is equal in both cases. The cost to the Treasury would be the same. All that would happen is that the Government would save the costs of administration. How that could amount to a net extra cost is more than I can understand.
I was also a little surprised by the noble Earl's insistence that we could not have two systems running together, because that is precisely the principle which in the case of academic tenure the Government accepted. I do not see the difference.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: It is a great compliment from the noble Earl that I keep him on his toes by surprising him. I did not say that one could not have two systems. I said—and I stick by it—that to have two systems was more complex and administratively more costly.
Baroness Blackstone: Does the Minister not agree that we will have two systems any way under the Government's proposals? We will continue to have a mixture of grants and loans. Local authorities will continue to spend quite a lot of time and effort dishing out grants.
To return to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, I think that it was an extremely pertinent and relevant question. If students will be so much better off under the Government's proposals, why not give them a choice and let them decide whether they wish to continue with the existing scheme with the grant uprated and remaining on social security and housing benefits, or opt for a loan? I can assure the Committee that the vast majority of students, given that choice, would prefer not to take on the additional debt of a

1401
student loan but to stay with the existing schemes. It is absolute nonsense to say that this will lead to additional administrative costs because two schemes already exist and will continue to exist.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before my noble friend replies, does he agree with me that what the noble Baroness is suggesting—and also, rather more surprisingly, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter—that some people might be on benefit and some people might not be, that the change in the arrangements with regard to better housing benefit and so on will apply to some students and not to others, seems extraordinary. I would not have thought it was tenable.
The Earl of Caithness: My noble friend Lady Carnegy makes an extremely good point. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, however, that the loan is optional. To have two schemes side by side would add to the complexities and the costs.
Lord Peston: I am sorry to join in the debate, but we must get the economics and finances right. The fact is that we are starting from a base on which the Government have cut the real value of the grant by around one-quarter. That is the key initial fact. During the lifetime of this Government the real value of the grant has fallen by one-quarter. The correct base line, therefore, is to put the grant back by that quarter. That is the key base line.
The Government cannot claim that what they are now offering is something extra. It is not extra. It is remedying a defect from the past. The extra starts at that base line and there is no suggestion that the Government will provide anything above that base line. The noble Earl's argument therefore is quite simply wrong. That is the first point to bear in mind when debating this issue.
To add insult to injury, what essentially one is saying to the students who are already at university is that they ought to have gone there assuming that the Government were going to cut their grant even more in real terms, and now they are not going to cut it, are they not being kind? That is absurd. In other words, having done damage to students, the Government are then asking the students to thank them for removing some of the damage.
We should at least get the logic of the argument right and decide where we are starting from. Given that, it seems to me that the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Blackstone is entirely correct. We are behaving rather badly towards students who are already at university—unless we take a very cynical view that they expect the Government to behave badly and therefore the Government are not behaving badly. I cannot believe that the noble Earl wishes to proceed on that basis. The least he can do is to offer to think about the points raised.
I am sorry to say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was too easily convinced by his noble friend. The fact remains that a third year student at present is entitled to ask "Why can I not have a decent grant in the first place, because that is how I was admitted to university?" That is the question that has not been remotely answered by the Minister. I hope he
1402
will not now play the card which we have heard about, the so-called "new money". In the world of economics and finance there is no "new money"; there is only "money". That is what one discusses. The idea that there is some part of it which can be called "new" is simply a term of art which the Treasury, for reasons which are beyond me, uses. When I was in the Treasury there was no concept of "new money" and I am amazed that the Treasury has been taken in by the idea of "new money". All that we are concerned about is "money".
Baroness Seear: I do not wish to prolong the debate, but surely the position is quite straightforward—that these students came in under the expectation of certain conditions; a grant plus social security benefits. To put it bluntly, the noble Earl has not answered the accusation of bad faith. If he wants to keep faith with the contract which, formally or informally, was entered into, he needs to say to the students who are already at university that next year or until they finish their course they will have in real terms the grant that the Government offered them; it will not be increased by 5 per cent.; it will be at least 8 per cent. to 9 per cent. by the time we reach next year. They thought they were being offered 9 per cent. plus the maintenance of their social security benefits when they went to university. The noble Earl shakes his head, but that is what they understood they would receive.
The morality of the situation is wrong. Not only are we encouraging the young to get into debt in order to complete their education, but we are also saying that their lords and masters do not mind breaking a deal. I do not know what kind of youngsters one expects to produce if that is the standard which is set for them.
With new students one can make completely different contracts. But I see no difficulty in having those two sets of arrangements for students who entered under quite different conditions. Perhaps the noble Earl will answer that breach of faith accusation.
The Earl of Caithness: I do not think there is a breach of faith at all. I contest that because I contest the very basis on which the noble Baroness makes her assumptions. If a student qualifies for a grant—because a grant is means tested as the noble Baroness will be aware—there is no guarantee with regard to uprating. It is uprated annually by a varying amount. The noble Earl is highly critical of this Government. But I would draw his attention to the White Paper. He will find on page 6, Chart 4, which indicates that ever since 1962, when my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the real value of the grant has been decreasing year by year. That is the beginning of the problem facing us in higher education.
There has been a reduction in the real terms value of the grant; there has been an increase for the need for parental contribution; and parents have not been able to make up that shortfall. All governments have faced exactly the same problem. Therefore we are in a new position and we wish to encourage more students to enter higher education. If we achieve

1403
that by getting back a contribution from the students we are providing new money—and it is new money, whatever the noble Earl may say. It is new money which, on top of an uprating of the grant this year, will be equivalent to a 25 per cent. increase.
The loan will be paid back in due course if certain criteria are fulfilled for the graduate. It eases the burden on the taxpayer and on the parents. As a majority of Members of the Committee now agree, it is right that students should contribute something. This year, with the uprating of the grant and the loan, we are able to increase the resources available to students by 25 per cent. That should be available to all students whether in their first, second, third, fourth or fifth year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will my noble friend answer my question? If the changeover in respect of a current student is to his advantage that should be apparent to him. Why should he not be given the option either to continue on the basis on which he became a student or to accept the, as my noble friend argues, more agreeable alternative? What is the objection to giving him the option and therefore not appearing to be going back on the basis on which he became a student?
The Earl of Caithness: While such a person was a student one would be running two parallel schemes which would add to the cost and the complexity of the operations.
Baroness Blackstone: I am disappointed with the Minister's reply in answer to concern on all sides of the Committee about the problems for existing students. The amendment deals with the guarantee given to existing students at the beginning of their courses that they would receive a grant subject to means teasting and other regulations associated with the grant. Now we are saying, "You will no longer receive a grant; instead you will receive a loan"—
The Earl of Caithness: No, with respect, they will continue to receive a grant which this year will be uprated by 5 per cent.
Baroness Blackstone: I take back my comments. Yes, they will still receive a grant; but it will be a grant plus a loan rather than a grant uprated by a more significant amount taking into account inflation and other costs.
A further point has been forgotten in the debate on the amendment. It is not the case that all students will be better off as a result of the new combination of grants and loans. Some students will lose their social security and housing benefits. Students who claimed both benefits because they were in need will be worse off, even with the 25 per cent. increase in the form of an uprated grant and a loan.
Many existing students have housing obligations. They live in rented houses or flats and have told their landlords or landladies that they hope to rent the accommodation until they complete their courses. They may now be in a situation in which they will be unable to do so.
1404
A serious issue of principle is involved. I do not believe that such changes should be introduced retrospectively. It is impractical to do so because of the increasing demands that will be made on higher education institutions, which must certify three times more students if we accept the amendment. In view of both those factors and the concern shown on all sides of the Committee I must ask that we divide—
The Earl of Caithness: Before the noble Baroness takes a final decision I wish to take up an important point which was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. I am sorry if I did not deal with the matter fully. The Government are concerned about students who are now in areas of high-cost housing and are in receipt of housing benefit. It is of concern to the Government to get the provision right. Currently it is being dealt with by the access funds, of which there are three, of £5 million.
I wish to reassure Members of the Committee that I shall listen to their comments on that matter and discuss them with my right honourable friend to make sure that we get it right. We are sympathetic and realise that some students in high-cost housing areas are in that position. We wish to make sure that the matter is properly sorted out and in forthcoming debates I shall be listening to Members' comments about that.
Baroness Blackstone: There are going to be very many demands on the access funds, which are not very large sums of money. I am doubtful whether they will cover all the claims that will be made on them. The issue of principle still remains and on that basis I ask the Committee to divide.
9.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 47.

DIVISION NO. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

McCarthy, L.

Adrian, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Airedale, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Ogmore, L.

Barnett, L.

Peston, L.

Beloff, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Blackstone, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Ross of Newport, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Russell, E.

Buckmaster, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Butterfield, L.

Seear, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

David, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Tordoff, L.

Haig, E.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkwood, L.

1405

Arran, E.

Hives, L.

Balfour, E.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Bathurst, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blatch, B.

Lothian, M.

Borthwick, L.

Lyell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Mills, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Peel, E.

Colwyn, L.

Reay, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Redesdale, L.

Downshire, M.

Renton, L.

Eccles, V.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Elton, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Ferrers, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Goold, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hemphill, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Wynford, L.

Hesketh, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.21 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.]
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall when designating institutions under subsection (2)(a) above and when prescribing conditions under subsection (2)(b) above secure that students traning as health care practitioners shall be treated not less favourably than other categories of student.").
The noble Earl said: Under Clause 1(2)(a) students at publicly funded institutions will be eligible for loans. Of those students at private insititutions, by inference some will be eligible and some will not. We do not yet know who the list will consist of. The purpose of the amendment is to secure that prospective health care practitioners will be among the sheep rather than the goats.
The particular concern that prompts the amendment centres on the British School of Osteopathy. Many Members of the Committee will have consulted osteopaths and will know the good work that they do. The BSO, founded in 1917, is an entirely private educational institution in central London, with charitable status and with no endowments. It runs a four-year full-time degree course, recently validated by the CNAA, which includes full clinical training. The current number of students on the degree course is 365, of whom quite a proportion are mature students.
It would be most undesirable if those training in this valuable field were put at a disadvantage compared with other students if a loan scheme came into force. It would be bound seriously to affect recruitment and the supply of good osteopaths would decline. The same is true of chiropractors, who do a similar job. The Anglo-European College of Chiropractic is another private college offering degree level training to aspiring health care practitioners. If these students are discriminated
1406
against, we can be sure that significantly fewer professionals will be available to deal with problems in our spines, muscles and joints in the future.
The Minister said at Second Reading (at col. 603 of the Official Report) that the list of designated courses at private establishments was now being settled. Can he now give us an idea of the kinds of course that will be designated, and in particular can he assure the Committee that those in the categories I have spoken of will be included? I beg to move.
Lord Colwyn: I support the amendment. As we have heard from the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin, students studying courses that are supplementary to medicine are playing an ever increasing role in the maintenance of our health today. It is important that this role is recognised and clarified in this clause of the Bill.
Earl Bathurst: I must declare an interest as one undergoing a course on chiropractic. I hope that nothing in the Bill will prevent future practitioners of this branch of medicine being attracted to it. The same applies to osteopathy, which is another valuable branch of medicine. I hope that the Minister will consider the amendment most carefully to ensure that the Bill does not disadvantage future chiropractors—I think that is the right way to describe them—or osteopaths. I support the noble Earl.
Lord Peston: I should like to say a few words on the matter. We are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley, to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, and to the noble Earl, Lord Bathhurst, for raising a matter which we all seek to raise for the sake of clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, put his finger on the key issue, which is not simply osteopathy or chiropractic but generally professions ancillary to medicine. What we know—and I think that this is an entirely correct development—is that these people are moving on from diploma level to the degree level. That is wholly to be welcomed. Many People are doing this and they are doing it via the CNAA, which is a helpful body in this regard. I do not believe that the Government would remotely wish to have any of those developments held back. It would be a great pity if the loans scheme could not accommodate such people.
I hope that the Committee will not be too shocked at what I am about to say. If the schools which undertake this training are regarded as being in the private sector, I hope that the Government do not regard this as a bad thing and that they are willing at least to show a certain tolerance towards private enterprise in the higher levels of education on occasion.
Obviously the matter was raised to enable the noble Earl to clarify the situation or, if he is unable to do so, to come back to us at some time in the future to tell us what the position will be generally of these professions which are broadly ancillary to medicine.
Lord Addington: I should like to support the amendment for the simple reason that people are studying to a degree level in a subject which is deemed to be useful and beneficial to society as a whole. Therefore, it would seem only just that they should receive as much support as anyone else who is undertaking a similar course. There are grounds for a certain amount of equity in the matter and I think that we should give these people that support.
Lord Butterfield: Is the Minister prepared to indicate whether he has made any inquiries of the Royal College of Nursing and members of the nursing and allied professions who are intending to make theirs a graduate profession in the coming century? It could involve quite large numbers of people proceeding to some kind of degree in nursing. I think that it should also be regarded as a form of training which is valuable to the community. I should just like the Minister to indicate whether he has had the opportunity to talk to the nurses about the matter. I am thinking of the steps taken to bring into being the Briggs report of about 10 years ago.
The Earl of Caithness: I hope that I shall be able to settle all the concerns expressed by Members of the Committee in regard to this important amendment. I know full well the important part that osteopaths and chiropractors have played in keeping me in this Chamber in some sort of sensible shape.
Perhaps I may deal first with the point made by my noble friend Lord Colwyn about the wider basis. Many medical students take an intercalated science degree in the midst of their medical studies. The mandatory award is not automatically available for the science degree: it depends on the structure of the course. However, I am happy to reassure my noble friend that the loan will be available in every case. Medical students without the mandatory award for the science degree will therefore find the loan especially helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, asked about nurses. I think that he was referring to those taking part in Project 2000, as it is known. As he will know, the courses are supported by a bursary from the Department of Health and do not receive student support from the education system. The bursaries will be paid at a higher rate than student grants. It is for that reason that people following this training will not be eligible for the student loan.
I turn now to a point raised by the noble Earl when he moved the amendment. He referred to the other professions supplementary to medicine. I hope that the position is straightforward. The present support arrangements will continue. Where this takes the form of a mandatory award, the student loan will be available on top.
As regards osteopaths, the list of courses at private institutions is at the moment being settled. I can assure the noble Earl and the Committee that it will not be less extensive than the list covered for mandatory awards and that loans will be available more widely. I shall try to give more details to the noble Earl. I know he is concerned about these matters, as are others who have spoken. I shall obtain this information as soon as we have gone further with the finalisation of the list.
9.30 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I am grateful to the Minister, but before he sits down perhaps I may say that I did not quite catch the last point. Was it that if students qualify, as they will, for mandatory awards in the private sector they will be eligible for loans? Is it as simple as that?
The Earl of Caithness: If they qualify for mandatory awards they will certainly obtain the loan. It is more extensive than just pure mandatory awards, so other people may benefit as well.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: I think I understood that. Obviously I shall not press the amendment. It was merely a probing amendment in order to obtain information. I shall carefully read what the noble Earl said. I am grateful for the clarification and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 not moved.]
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("(2A) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (2) above as to eligibility, the Secretary of State shall by regulations made under Schedule 2 below secure that no person who has one or more dependants during a period of not less than five years at any time after the date for the commencement of repayments, and who does not in one of those years receive a personal disposable income above the level of any threshold for repayments applicable by virtue of regulations under paragraph 1(1)(i) of that Schedule, shall continue to be liable for outstanding repayments or interest after the end of that period.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are grouped together. Their principal aim is first to deal with the potential disincentive that students with dependants may face in taking up a course of higher education. Secondly, they are to deal with the disincentive that graduates on low incomes with dependants may face when deciding whether to enter more highly paid employment later.
The concern is that graduates who have dependants with low or non-existent incomes will face having to repay much higher amounts by virtue of the effect of increasing the sum of the loan to be repaid according to inflation than people who would have higher incomes and would be able to repay much sooner.
Amendment No. 12 suggests that for people on incomes below the 85 per cent. threshold of national average income their liability to repay the loan should be ended after five years. Amendment No. 13 takes a slightly different approach. It suggests that students with dependants on low incomes should not have to repay any interest on their outstanding loans if they have spent five years below the earnings threshold. They will instead pay only the original sum loaned.
During the Committee stage in another place assurances were given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary that various allowances in the mandatory award scheme for dependants would continue to be uprated to students with dependants. However, while this is welcome, it does not deal with the potential disincentive that arises out of the

1409
operation of the proposed scheme to students with dependants when they graduate. People who have child care responsibilities are more likely to be women than men. If access to higher education, particularly for women, is to be encouraged we must ensure that they are not put off by the fact that they will have to repay loans at a much higher level than others if they come back into full-time or more highly paid work after looking after young children.
Currently there are some 7,000 students in receipt of dependants' allowances. However, many students are likely to have children soon after the completion of their courses. Why should they not? It is almost certainly the case that the number of students and graduates falling into this category within two or three years of graduation is much larger.
Perhaps I may illustrate my concern. A woman graduate who decides to become a teacher may have two children within two, three or four years of graduation. As a result she then works part time for the next 10 to 15 years and earns below the threshold. She then wishes to return to full-time teaching—something which I am sure we all hope she would do since we desperately need the services of experienced women teachers in the context both of the current and the likely future shortages of teachers. She then finds that she faces a whacking great loan repayment the moment she passes the threshold. Is this really the way we wish to treat women who have decided to work part time in order to be able to spend more time with their children and who then wish to return full time to the labour force into socially valuable but not terribly highly paid work?
Many women nurses with families—an increasing number of nurses will be graduates—may come into the same category. I hope that in the interests of those with family responsibilities that they take seriously we shall accept Amendment No. 12 and release those with dependants who have remained below the earnings threshold after five years from the obligation to repay. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I wish to support the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on Amendment No. 12. I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 13. I well remember a debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, on 21st June last on the need to enable married women to rejoin the labour force should they wish to do so. During the past few minutes I have looked again at that debate, which was a good one. The Chamber seems to me to have been in general agreement on two propositions. The first was that this was properly an area where we should not interfere with freedom of choice. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, speaking for the Government, said that he regarded the Government's role as an enabling one. The second point that the whole Chamber seemed to be in agreement on was that it was very much in our national economic interest to make it easier for those married women who wished to rejoin the labour force to do so.
Those were powerful points. The question I wish to raise here is whether the Bill as it stands at the moment will assist in achieving those points. The effect of the scheme is that, when a woman takes out
1410
a loan and then marries and stays at home to look after children, as is her right if she wishes to do so, her debt will continue to accumulate. That means that when she considers the possibility of returning to work, with possibly fairly considerable additional expenses of child care to enable her to do so, a much increased poverty trap arises. The effect of that is to create a considerable incentive for the married woman to postpone returning to work until the age of 50, when the loan will be cancelled. Therefore there is an incentive to postpone entering the labour force perhaps for 10 years or five years or for however long it may be.
That deprives the economy of the woman's services for that period of time. That itself is a loss, but there is the further point that there are a great many employers who are not sufficiently appreciative of the merits of employees above the age of 50 and who are perhaps rather reluctant to give them appointments at all. I am sure every Member of the Committee regrets that fact. Therefore the net effect of this proposal, as the Bill has it, is to create a poverty trap which may keep married women permanently out of the labour force. I cannot see that that can possibly be in the country's interest.
We should also consider a possible Treasury view of this amendment. It is something that has to be faced with any amendment passed in this Chamber sooner or later. I think it is much better that we should consider the argument ourselves. When we propose any change involving a net public expenditure, we should consider whether it is likely to lead to further public expenditure or to an ultimate saving and possibly even to an ultimate net saving. We all know that if someone enters the labour force and takes a highly qualified job, perhaps as a teacher, he will pay taxes and national insurance and make a considerable contribution to the revenue from which the Exchequer will in the end benefit. We desperately need more people to enter teaching.
I can see the Exchequer's interest in recovering its loans. That is a perfectly valid point and one which I do not wish to ignore. However, if in the course of its determination to recover its loans, it ultimately has the effect of keeping women out of the labour force and deprives itself of its income tax, national insurance and possibly even of a considerable expenditure in VAT, the Treasury would be cutting off its nose to spite its face. In the long run not only would the amendment have a liberating effect on married women, which is badly needed, and reinvigorate the professions, which is badly needed. I believe it would also effect a net saving to public funds.
The Earl of Caithness: The amendments are intended to protect graduates who are believed not to be provided for adequately under the standard arrangements proposed. In both cases—Amendments Nos. 12 and 13—their liability for repayment or repayment at zero real interest would be disapplied.
The basis for the Government's opposition to the amendments is that there is no strong case for such special provision. The proposed arrangements offer

1411
sufficient protection, and do so without unnecessarily complicating the administration of the scheme. However, if in the light of experience it is found appropriate to make special provision for particular groups, that can be achieved through regulations. That highlights the value of the structure of the Bill. Enshrining special arrangements for particular groups in the primary legislation would be an inappropriate approach.
Perhaps I may deal with the amendments in detail. I turn first to Amendment No. 12 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I found the wording of the amendment rather strange in that the special advantage of cancellation of any outstanding loan is awarded after the five-year period when the need for such a concession would be greatest. That seems to me like locking the door after the horse has bolted.
The amendment raises the issue of cancellation of liability. It was not the Government's intention that cancellation should be used as a mechanism to specify groups exempted from the standard provisions. Cancelling a loan effectively means that the graduate is being given a non-means-tested grant. Such a provision may operate as a perverse incentive: people may deliberately seek to fulfil the criteria necessary to escape repayments. Cancellation also has a cost: additional administrative arrangements are needed and part of the stream of repayments is lost. Members of the Committee who have followed our debates closely are aware that repayments will be of the order of £400 a year—£8 a week—and will not be required on incomes under about £11,500 a year in current terms. I suggest to the noble Baroness that that is not a whacking great amount. There is no reason why graduates in those circumstances should not be able to manage repayments on that scale whether or not they have families. It is for that reason that I found it difficult to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that that would create a poverty trap for the wife in the circumstances he suggested to the Committee.
Amendment No. 13 brings into focus two of the terms of the scheme: what income should be taken into account in assessing their entitlement to deferment and the indexation of the loan. Let me comment first on the assessment of income. The Government's intention is that when deferment is claimed on low-income grounds it is gross income that should be taken into account. There will be no allowances such as are made in the tax system for individual commitments. The reason for that is in the tax system: since such commitments as mortgage interest are allowed for under income tax, allowing for them again in the student loans system would result in a double subsidy. There is no reason why a graduate with a mortgage, for example, should have a subsidy for it under the student loans scheme when a non-graduate with a mortgage could not.
Indexation is to apply throughout the life of a loan. The reason is straightforward: it ensures that the sum repaid is the same in real terms as the sum borrowed. Without indexation the graduate has an incentive to avoid repaying by one means or another for as long as possible, while inflation erodes the
1412
value of the debt. We believe that we should not provide incentives to avoid repaying. Nor is it right that graduates with families should enjoy their loan without indexation and so receive a second subsidy from the taxpayer. As I said a moment ago, reliefs for individual circumstances are properly provided through the general income tax system and should not be duplicated by parallel subsidies targeted on graduates only.
Let me sum up. Repayments will be modest and will not be received from those on low income. There is no basis for reasoning that the graduates in those circumstances singled out in the amendments will be unable to manage their repayments. However, if experience proves that special loan terms are needed for those or other groups, it will be possible to provide them through new regulations. It would be wrong to write special terms into the Bill at this stage without any evidence that they are needed or are the right solution for the difficulties which it is supposed that those groups will face. I repeat assurances already given. The effect of the loan scheme will be monitored carefully and, if adjustments are found to be needed, the structure of the Bill provides special flexibility to enable them to be introduced.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I thank the Minister for his clarification. I am not sure whether I followed all the details about the offsetting of income tax, but perhaps I may read carefully what he said and come back on Report. Nor am I sure that I understood why repayments would necessarily be so modest if someone were to return to full-time employment after some years, by which time I should have thought he would have incurred quite high interest repayments. However, I am grateful to the Minister for telling us that there will be careful monitoring and that special provisions will be made for those groups which, on the evidence of that monitoring, appear to require additional help. On the basis of that promise, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall by conditions prescribed by regulations subsection (2)(b) above or by regulations under Schedule 2 below secure that no terms of any scheme of loans made under this Act shall operate to reduce the proportion of women students below the proportion of such students attending courses to which Schedule I applied at the date of Royal Assent.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment concerns explicitly women's participation in higher education. Some of the points have already been raised under the previous two amendments and I shall not cover that ground again.
If we look at the Government's White Paper, we see some information to the effect that, happily, despite the great discrimination against women in our society, the fraction of women in higher education has risen. That is a good thing. Sadly, in lower socio-economic groups the fraction has not

1413
risen so drastically and women within those groups are not doing as well as we should like.
Those of us with direct experience of higher education can see. simply as a matter of experience, that there is more female participation. There are many courses on which women are now the dominant students where they were much more strongly discriminated against in the past. Although in terms of undergraduate experience matters have been improving, none of us would wish to be complacent and say that things had improved enough. The purpose of my amendment is to go beyond that and at least utter a word of warning that there is a danger that the Government's proposals place the position of women at risk. I put it no more strongly than that.
I shall concentrate simply on the proportion of women students going into higher education. There are further ramifications connected with discrimination against qualified women from that point on which one must consider. Various questions as to what is an incentive and what is a disincentive have been bandied around.
Women have an extra significance in the context of the amendments concerning part-time students which we debated earlier. Again, we have gone over that ground and I have nothing further to add. I simply underline the fact that I am aware of the position. My worry is that the Government say that students will bear a larger share of the costs of their maintenance in higher education. They regard that as one of the benefits of the changes that they are introducing.
The expression has to be "a larger share" because some noble Lords seem to be suffering from the misunderstanding that at the present time their students do not already bear a very large share of the costs of their education. They already bear an extremely large share of the costs of their education.
However, the Government said in their White Papers, and Government Ministers have said in various statements, that they expect students to bear more of the cost. On my own analysis, which I put forward at Second Reading, it would be particularly the case that women from the poorer socio-economic backgrounds are affected because, by definition, they get a full grant now whereas they will not do so under the new rules. If that is the case my fear is that we shall go back to the bad old days. Many of us have had personal experience of those days when the boys could go on to study and the girls could go out to work. I personally had experience of that. I was the beneficiary of it but my sisters were not. I fear that we place such women in danger.
I tabled the amendment simply to alert noble Lords to that matter. I noticed that when commenting on the two previous amendments the noble Earl said (I think these were his words): "We shall monitor the whole scheme very carefully". I suppose the worst that could happen is that we should see a cohort or two of women who would suffer and then the Government would step in. That is some reassurance although I am not sure it is as much as I should like. However, it is some reassurance.
Let me add—it is not something that is specific to this amendment, but, as the noble Earl appreciates, I cannot avoid rising to the bait—with regard to cancellation that occasionally in various debates in this Chamber—certainly in the debate on the Education Reform Act 1988—I predicted various events, most of which happened. Certainly I predict that as a result of the student loans Bill, within a not very long period of time the Government will be in the wholesale cancellation business. It may not be the desire to cancel but I assure the Committee that within the next 10 years it will be amazed to find how many of these loans are cancelled. That does not appeal to me. I should rather not be involved in this nonsense anyway. However, if the Government believe that they will not be involved in the cancellation business they have little idea of how these things work.
That is en passant. It is not about the amendment. However, as the noble Earl appreciates, I can never resist responding to points. The main point is to move forward particularly with regard to women in the poorer socio-economic groups. I do not wish us to take any more risks. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: There is a point which needs to be considered in this amendment. It relates very much to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and may refer to others to which we shall come. We are all thinking very hard of how the scheme will affect individual categories of students, and we are quite right to do that. We must think about it very hard and vote very carefully. But we are not thinking about how everybody else will react, and, if there is to be a shortage of teachers in the future, about the need to get women to return to teaching. Certainly if I were the leader of a local authority in the future and knew how desperately one needed women teachers to return to work, I would consider how to attract them.
Often one way to attract a particular person into a job is to pay removal expenses, or whatever. In this case perhaps one will simply say, "We shall write off your student loan". There would be absolutely nothing wrong with that. Employers outside the public sector will certainly do that if they want to obtain somebody. I should have thought that local authorities would also do it. It is very possible.
In a scenario in which so many people will have a student loan of this kind allowed for by legislation, that is something which may become a habit. I do not believe that the only solution is to suggest that people do not have to pay. There will be other ways as well. It will become a part of the labour market.
Lord Peston: I must reply to the noble Baroness. It is a matter to which I have given a very great deal of thought. It is a broader point than the question of women that we now raise. Let me add that I certainly would expect the employer to meet the cost of the loan. To take an obvious example—the brilliant young economists I produce—I shall say to them, "When you go to an interview you should ask whether they are going to pay off your loan". That will be my advice to them.

1415
I can see the class of person I am considering being able to do that. I cannot see the local authorities, given the present financial stringencies, having to recruit teachers and being able to compete in that market—quite the contrary. I should like to refute the noble Baroness's point that the cost of the loan will not be borne by the student. The cost will be borne by the employers. They will then pass the cost forward so that in the end, in a very roundabout way, it will be borne by the taxpayer via the cost of consumer goods. That is the economic argument, if anyone is interested in the esoterics.
My key point is this. I have given the matter much thought. I believe that there will be a distinction between the private and the public sector. In areas such as teaching the money will not be there.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am thinking of the scale of the sum. When a person finishes, for example, a three-year degree course, between £1,500 and £2,000 will have been borrowed. In a few years that will increase by £1,000 or £2,000. To write off a loan of £4,000 or £5,000 to obtain a new teacher in current financial terms is not out of the way for a local authority when one considers the other factors involved in attracting people. If Members of the Committee ask their local government friends how they attract the right people into the right job, they will find that that is not out of the way. It is not the answer to the proposals in the Bill, but it is part of what will happen in the future.
Baroness Seear: The point overlooked by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is not what may happen when a person applies for a job, having undertaken a degree course perhaps some years earlier and then having started a family. The debts will have built up. I do not much fancy the idea of a labour market in which one relies on going to the employer and saying, "By the way, you will pay off my debt, won't you?" I do not think that that is good practice. However, that is another matter. What is being overlooked in this discussion is whether people will take the courses in the first place. I find the vague prospect that in the future, when one has passed all one's exams, the employer will like one so much that he will pay off all the debts an unconvincing argument. Will a young woman who is deciding whether or not to go to university, or an older woman coming back to take a course—we have now been told that they will receive no encouragement to do
1416
so part-time while they are at home—say, "I shall pile up the debts in the hope that they will be paid somehow later on"? Or will she say, "I shall not bother to go to university. The risk is too great. I do not want the debt. I do not know what will happen in the future"? That is what requires monitoring. The issue is whether it will freeze the numbers entering the courses.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said about the practice in many families where there is a choice between the boy and the girl. If money is short in the family they put it on the boy. It may be very regrettable but we have all seen it happen. I do not believe that it has disappeared.
I have been connected with a company scheme providing a supplement for employees to go to university. Once it was under way, the percentage of girls attending university shot up because the family income was being supplemented. When families could receive the money from another source to send the girl, the ratio of boys to girls was fifty-fifty. There is good evidence to support that. The scheme has been running for 10 years. When the money is not the issue, girls get a look in; when money is short, girls do not. I do not believe that the prospect of an employer 15 years later paying off the loan will be a counter argument of any great strength.
Baroness Blackstone: I very much agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said but I should like to return to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. Her argument seems to be totally self-defeating.
The purpose of the Education (Student Loans) Bill, as I understand it, is to pass on some of the maintenance costs of higher education to the students who benefit so that the taxpayer has to contribute less. If all employers, including local authorities, end up paying off loans for students we shall be back to the taxpayer paying for higher education by the most extraordinarily roundabout route involving a complicated student loans system and through employers having to negotiate with graduates on whether they pay, how soon they pay, and so on. In addition we shall be faced with even higher community charges (or should I call it a poll tax?) than we have at the moment. I cannot think that that will be terribly popular.
10 p.m.
Baroness Young: I believe that everybody in this Chamber understands the point of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and, indeed, the two preceding amendments because in a sense they all deal with a similar point; namely, access for women, whether they are women undergraduates or women graduates who wish to return to full-time employment and who have families.
I believe that we all share a concern about this because clearly it is a very important point. Perhaps I may try to interpret what my noble friend Lady Carnegy said. I do not believe that she was saying that every student would have his loans paid off but I can envisage individual cases where that could be the case. However, if we return to the students who will not have their loans paid off, which is the point of this amendment, I should like to make three points.
First, one must remember that, whether we like it or not, many students are currently in debt to the bank. I am sorry to say that in many cases they are in debt to more than one bank and the more I have discovered about this Bill the more such cases I have found. At any rate, they are already in debt, so that the debt question arises from that.
Secondly, I believe that we should all be very pleased about the fact that the number of women undergraduates has risen considerably over the past 10 years from 42 to 46 per cent. of all students. That is still not quite high enough, but the numbers are increasing. The point about that statistic is that the numbers are increasing against a background in which the value of the grant has declined. Therefore, although every undergraduate is worse off in real terms, the number of women has increased. In a sense the argument that it has become more difficult has not applied in the past 10 years for whatever reason. I am not sure that I am particularly pleased that the value of the grant has declined, but that is a fact. I am pleased that the numbers of women have increased, and, hence, the unofficial loan scheme.
It seems to me that, once we get into a position where people do know much more precisely what they will receive, there is no reason to suppose that the future will be more difficult for women than the immediate past has been. However, in case that were to happen—and this is where I hope my noble friend will reiterate what he has already said—I think it very important that the scheme should be monitored. It is a new scheme and none of us knows how it will work out.
Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who has told us about his gloomy predictions all of which have come true, about an experience of mine in education. When I was first a Minister in 1979 in the DES, I had to take through your Lordships' House our proposals on charging overseas students full fees. I well recall a debate at about Christmas time 1979 when I had the entire House against me. A colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, said to me, "I was watching how you were going to get out of that debate". The upshot was that there was horror
1418
on all sides of the House and 10 years later we have more overseas students than ever before.
Baroness Seear: Yes, but—
Baroness Young: Before the noble Baroness leaps to her feet, I was very interested to read in the Oxford magazine, which dropped through our letterbox on Saturday, that universities are now starting to worry about the number of students coming from the European Community. Therefore, all sorts of things happen and work out differently.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, may well say they are not the same sort of students. However, all I am saying is that the terrible prognostications that there would be no overseas students have not come to pass and things have worked out rather differently. The truth of the matter is that we do not really know what will happen in this case. What is important—this is a very serious point—is that, if the statistics are adverse as regards women, the disabled or poorer students, then the Bill should make it possible to monitor the position.
Baroness Seear: I cannot let the noble Baroness get away with that about the overseas students. It is of course true that the numbers have increased, but she is well aware that the universities and colleges have gone hawking their courses around the world attracting the wealthy student, as against a time when I was teaching them at the London School of Economics when we had large numbers of students from developing countries who were hard up and paid for in all sorts of ways—fifth cousins sending contributions, and not sending them which was even worse. That is how they reached the colleges. We have the students, but we have kept out many good students whom we previously had.
Earl Russell: I feel that I should apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, for joining the queue to answer her, but for the moment she seems to have volunteered for the part of lightning conductor. The repayment of loans by employers is among the obvious possibilities. It causes some misgivings on these Benches: first, because if it is done by private employers it is capable of increasing our industrial costs, which is something that concerns Liberal Democrats considerably. A small increase in industrial costs can be a major disadvantage in competitiveness, which is often a matter of narrow margins. I am not convinced that that is the best place for costs to fall.
As for local authorities paying off student loans, I am doubtful about that. It may be possible in some places, but we have a measure which has just come into force and which was designed, so we have many times been told, to restrict local authority spending. It is tending to have that effect. I cannot see any local authority in London possibly being able to take on the job of paying off student loans. They have enough to do to recruit teachers, even at the fairly low salaries they have at present. Also, I do not see how the noble Baroness's proposal relates to the alleged discriminatory effect of loans set out in the

1419
amendment. The point of that is of course that women, because they tend to bear children, are often out of the labour force for a number of years. I do not believe that the noble Baroness proposes paying off loans for women and not for men. To address the point of the amendment, there would have to be reverse discrimination, which I do not think that she was proposing.
I should also like to comment briefly on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, was making, which we have heard many times in these debates, about the decline in the value of the grant not having a deterrent effect upon applications. The crucial question, of course, is whether entering undergraduates are aware of how hard up they will be. We see them all during their first week. Almost invariably the answer turns out to be no. In fact, if one looks at other circumstances, people are incurable optimists. If one looks, for example—to take a slightly out of the way example, but it is the first that comes into my head—at statistics on Elizabethan privateering, most people lost money out of it, but there was always the dream that they would be the lucky ones. That is what is keeping them coming. It is not the actual facts of the case. If the actual facts of the case become more widely perceived, we may be in bad trouble.
Baroness Blatch: The supporters of the amendment, as with others that we shall debate later, are clearly concerned that the loan scheme will adversely affect certain groups' participation in higher education. There is no evidence from the operation of loan schemes in other countries that they have had that effect in practice. On the contrary, the government scheme is designed to increase participation. It will do that in two ways: first, by increasing the resources available to students; and, secondly, by relaxing the constraint on the number of students the taxpayer can afford to support.
I should like to assure my noble friend Lady Young on the point that she makes about monitoring and to remind her of the commitment contained in the White Paper, that the Government will continue to monitor the effects of the introduction of the loan scheme. If the proponents of the amendment are right in perceiving adverse effects—I do not agree with them—it will be possible to make the necessary changes swiftly by amending the regulations. I have made the point before but it is worth repeating, that the regulation-making power is essential to ensure that the scheme can be refined and developed.
Amendment No. 14, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, refers to the participation of women in higher education. It requires the Secretary of State to make any necessary changes to the regulations, and the noble Lord seems to appreciate the flexibility of the regulation-making powers when it suits him.
There is no evidence that women have been deterred from higher education by loans. In the United States, where reliance on loans is heaviest, women now make up more than 50 per cent. of entrants to higher education. There is not there the general provision for repayments to be deferred
1420
when income is low, which will be an especially important feature of our scheme for women. Deferment will be assessed against their income only; it is important to note that a husband's income will not be taken into account for the purposes of assessment. That means that a woman graduate who is without personal income while raising a family will not be required to make repayments. Therefore the negative dowry argument is a myth as far as our scheme is concerned.
I am grateful for the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour with regard to the range of inducements which will apply or could apply to persuade women to return to work. One need only think of the number of schemes that are already in place from local education authorities and indeed the Government to encourage people to return to teaching. It is also important to note that it will be a matter for employers. However, I am not detracting from that group of women for whom this will not apply.
It is also important for me to comment on the points made by a number of people, including the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, with regard to the inability of women to pay. It has been repeated throughout the debate that inability to pay is addressed by extending the period over which people will repay loans. If we refer only to current prices, I do not think the requirement of paying approximately £400 a year, which is around £8 a week, for those earning above £11,500 a year will act as a deterrent for people to return to work.
I return to the point at which I started. I believe that the loans scheme will be a help to all students. It does not discriminate against women and therefore I do not believe that it will be necessary to make special provision for women. I also want to repeat that we shall monitor the effect of the scheme carefully. If experience shows that special arrangements are needed for this or any other group, the regulation-making powers provide the flexibility needed to allow such arrangements to be introduced, subject to the scrutiny of Parliament. However, it would be quite wrong to fix in the Bill special provision for these groups before there is any evidence that there is a need for them or that the solution proposed would be the right one for their circumstances. In the light of what I have said, I hope I can persuade the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps she can answer the question which I raised on a number of occasions and to which I have not yet had a reply. We are constantly told that loans will not be a deterrent to people in this country because they have not been a deterrent in other countries. That seems to me to be a very odd argument. Up till now these courses have been free; students have not had to pay. While they were free they have not attracted sufficient women and people from lower income groups. On the Government's own labour market argument, if the idea of education cannot be sold when it is free, do they think it can be sold when it is not free?
Baroness Blatch: It is probably an over-simplification to say that education is free. We know that in the combination of parental and state support a large number of students have a shortfall because parents are not meeting their obligation to the student. In that case students resort to banks and other institutions for their loans at very high rates of interest, and, indeed, have to cope with repayments while they are still students. If we add to that the students who are in receipt of full grant by a combination of parent and state support but who still resort to expensive loans, whichever way one looks at it to describe the situation as a "free" service is not entirely correct.
I return to the basic assumption that we make and repeat the caveat that the scheme will be monitored. If we believe that it adversely affects women or any other groups it will be reviewed. But the extension of the period over which people repay the loan so that the value of the repayment is kept at around £400 a year—equivalent to £8 a week—I do not believe will act as a serious deterrent to students. It is an act of faith. We promise to monitor the situation and if there are any adverse effects the system will be reviewed.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Peston: I wish to make three concluding comments which I had intended to save until next Monday. However, I may as well make them now. The Government often make an international comparison, but they must stop the ad hoc approach. Either they make a full set of international comparisons or none at all. For example, in Sweden there is massive state support for 16 to 18 year-olds; then they have loans, whether or not they are reducing those. If the Government are about to announce massive support grants for 16 to 18 year-olds I should be interested, but they are not. In many countries there is enormous subsidy of student housing and food but I have not heard the Government mention that. In the United States there is open access to higher education and a completely different system. Therefore, one cannot make such simpliste comparisons. That is not an acceptable way of looking at the issue. I had intended to save that point until Monday but I have made it now. One cannot say, "They have loans and such and such", without looking at all the other relevant matters.
Secondly, I thought that my noble friend Lady Blackstone clearly put forward the point of who would bear the cost of the loans even better than I did. When the Government have had time to think the matter through I shall be interested to know whether their ultimate position is that students will not bear the cost of the loans. Essentially that was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy; that they will be borne by firms and in the public sector therefore they will be borne by the taxpayer. If the Treasury economists can think of something clever between now and next Monday I shall be interested to hear the rebuttal of that view. I was more convinced by it than by my own argument.
1422
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that it was an act of faith in terms of the effect on women. I do not agree; I believe that it is an empirical proposition. It is a straightforward issue. We shall see. The noble Baroness does not believe that it will have an adverse effect on women; I say that it will have such an effect on women from poorer socio-economic groups. We do not need to look for divine response. In a few years we shall have the relevant data and one of us will rise in your Lordships' House and say that we were mistaken. If that happens early enough—which it will not—the Government will agree to modify the loan scheme in order to take account of that, as the noble Earl said. We shall not do that: we shall abolish the scheme so we shall not have the same problem.
I emphasise that it is not an act of faith but a straightforward test of the scheme: will it work one way or the other? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall by conditions prescribed by regulations made under Schedule 2 below secure that any scheme of loans made under this Act shall make adequate provision in respect of eligible students who are likely by reasons of the nature of their course to incur additional costs in respect of equipment, in materials or other expenditure, such that those students are not disadvantaged in relation to other eligible students.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment is designed to meet the problem of equipment. It is specially designed to meet the problems of particularly expensive courses—for example, medicine—where the cost of equipment can amount to a substantial proportion of the total student costs. They can give rise to significant problems.
A more general problem lies behind the issue. It is an area in which the thinking of the DES is far from adequate. I am sure that the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the theory is that the present maintenance grant is putatively assumed to include an element for the provision of equipment. First, it does not cater for the problem of the many particularly expensive courses. Secondly, I do not believe that anyone teaching in a university supposes that undergraduates can spend money from their grants on books or equipment.
Since the introduction of this Bill, on three occasions I have set fairly recent books, which were available in the bookshops, for study by undergraduates. They came back to me, as they regularly do, saying, "We are sorry. We cannot do this essay because someone has taken the books out of the library." That happens to all of us every day and all the time. I have tried saying to the students, "If you want you can buy these books at the bookshop across the road. They are available in paperback." The cost was perhaps £3·95, £7·95, or thereabouts.
On one of the three occasions I was successful. Judging by what she wears I deduced that this particular undergraduate is probably one of those lucky few whose parents pay a good deal more than

1423
the required parental contribution. On the faces of the other two undergraduates I saw an expression of real and intense fear which was about to turn into real anger until I hastily reassured them that if the situation created difficulties I would set a different essay on a different topic with different books available.
There is simply not the money available to pay for equipment. Even the alleged 25 per cent. increase, which is in fact a good deal less, having been calculated at 1988 prices which are now out of date, will not be sufficient. Unless we have some separate provision for equipment and that separate provision is to some extent calibrated to the particular courses that undergraduates are taking, we shall find a worsening of our present rapidly increasing difficulties in teaching people what we ought to teach them because students cannot afford what they need. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: One understands and has some sympathy with the purpose of this amendment. But it is beyond the scope of the Long Title of the Bill; beyond the powers given to the Secretary of State in Clause 1; and beyond the scope of Schedule 2 to which the amendment is attached. In the circumstances I do not see how the Committee can possibly accept the amendment.
The whole of this scheme is for the provision of finance for student maintenance. We understand that in the course of technical studies, for example, there will be equipment used and maybe materials also. But that is not what this Bill is about. Therefore, it would surprise me very much if my noble friend on the Front Bench were to do more than utter sympathy. He cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness David: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, the present maintenance grant for students is supposed to cover items like books. So why should this maintenance grant be expected not to do that?
Lord Addington: I wish to reiterate the last comments for the reason that under the current grant system people are expected to purchase a certain number of books. It is accepted that students buy books. It is realised by very many people that the current grant level means that students are almost totally dependent on the library. The problem gets worse as students proceed with their courses because the books they have to buy become more and more complicated and specialist.
Thus libraries suddenly find themselves with one or two copies only of a book and 30 or 40 students trying to borrow them. The libraries try to fight back by saying that they have a short-term loan system for their books. So students spend hours and hours queueing up to use a book for two or three hours. Where student finance is involved, attention should be paid to such basic factors as the ability to obtain the right textbook. If the Bill does not address this point—and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is usually correct on these matters—steps should be taken to enable people to get their hands on the money they require for certain tools. Textbooks are the most
1424
glaring example. I did not undertake a science course or a course in medicine so I cannot comment on other specialist equipment. But if people are expected to use books, and if libraries are not to be expanded dramatically, we must provide the means to enable students, especially students on full grants to whom we should devote most attention, to meet these demands. Otherwise, the measure will be a total failure.
Earl Bathurst: I declare an interest as a trustee of a small charity which is able to give grants for exactly the purposes described by the noble Lord who has just spoken. I am surprised by the amount of equipment and the cost of equipment which boys and girls require. It is regrettable that the charity has little money but it is able to help.
I take note of the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton. Perhaps the Bill addresses this point and perhaps it does not. But I beg the noble Earl who is to reply and his colleagues to bear in mind the increased costs borne by students, especially those who are studying technical subjects and, funnily enough, artistic subjects. Sometimes students have to attend extramural courses. We can give only a small contribution but to the students it is a considerable contribution. If the Bill in any way endangers the ability of students to obtain equipment and clothing too, which is important on certain courses, I hope that the noble Earl and his colleagues will be able to consider the point at another time.
Baroness Seear: I ask the Minister to recognise that to skimp on books is to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. In any decent university, one can manage without staff better than one can manage without books. We shall be down to this ghastly business which one sees in a few places where students rely on taking down lecture notes. That is the absolute opposite of anything that can be described as a decent university education. One has to have books or one might as well shut up the whole place.
The Earl of Caithness: The present grant system provides for special circumstances with a range of additional allowances. These include, for example, allowances for extra weeks' attendance, vacation hardship and costs incurred by disabled students as a result of attending their courses. For 1989–90 the extra weeks' allowance is worth £45·05 for someone studying away from home outside London; up to £50·95 a week is payable during the vacations in cases of hardship; and the disabled students allowance is worth up to £765. As I understand the scheme before the Committee, these will not be affected by the Bill.
The top-up loan facility will be offered at different rates, according to whether the student studies away from home in London, or elsewhere, or continues to live in the family home. This will parallel the differences which already exist in the rates of mandatory grant. We do not think that further differentials should be introduced. The loan offers students a facility that they can draw on to the extent that they wish, and use for whatever purpose they

1425
wish. I believe the Committee will agree that it would not make sense to earmark a part of the facility for a particular purpose. We believe that the choice over how to use the money should be a matter for the student.
At this point perhaps I may take up a comment made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the 25 per cent. increase. It is a 25 per cent. increase on current cash prices, not the 1988 prices; so the noble Earl, who thought that students were not getting such a good deal as I said they were getting, is wrong and they are getting the deal which I said they were going to get.
Specific mention was made of the grants for special equipment. We all know from experience with the special equipment grant—which was abolished in 1986—that there were all kinds of problems with making differentiated provision for this purpose. As I undertstand it, although I am certainly not an expert in the matter, one of the reasons why the special equipment grant was abolished was that the scheme was so costly and complex to administer.
10.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: I must confess to being disappointed with that reply. I am truly surprised to hear books described as a "special circumstance". They are a circumstance without which people cannot be adequately educated. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady Seear that it would be better to do without all the staff and keep up the number of books.
I also think that when the noble Earl says that students may draw on the loan facility to the extent desired he is not facing up to the extent to which the maximum sum being proposed, even now, is not adequate. If people have to choose between buying a book and having a meal, they will normally choose to have a meal. Moreover, young people tend to have healthy appetites. Unless there is a sum set aside for provision of equipment—that is, books or whatever else may be necessary to do the course—we shall find our teaching becoming impossible.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said. I fear that he may be right. But at least tabling the amendment has served to draw attention to an ambiguity. The word "maintenance" as contained in the Bill is used in ways which may or may not cover equipment. Tabling the amendment has served to draw attention to the question of whether maintenance does or does not cover equipment. That is a question to which I should be glad to hear the noble Earl say that further consideration will be given.
I must admit that the underlying thrust of the amendment is that equipment ought not to be considered under maintenance as it seems to be at present and that in future it ought to be considered as a separate matter. Nevertheless, in view of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, I should not dream of pressing the amendment to a Division. In the circumstances, therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall by conditions prescribed by regulations under subsection (2)(b) above secure that any student otherwise eligible in accordance with subsection (2)(a) above who is attending the fourth or subsequent year of a course of higher education (or vocational training forming part of such a course) shall for any period in which they are not earning as part of such a course or training, incur no liability in respect of any loans payable for that period.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is designed to ensure that those who are undertaking courses of more than three years—which is the length of course which is talked about virtually without exception in the White Paper and thus I perceive it to be behind the Government's thinking on the Bill—do not incur extra loan debt as a result of the course.
The groups which would benefit, or rather be put on a more even footing, by not incurring this extra debt would include such people as those studying for a BA in order to become teachers and those studying foreign languages. The first case has already been discussed at great length in this Committee tonight and the current shortage of teachers is a matter about which I do not think anyone could have failed to hear ad infinitum over the past few years. When it comes to languages, 11 believe that, with 1992 hard upon us, we should be considering whether everyone should have more access to language teachers and that we should tie the two points in together. Also people with better language training would be available to businesses. Some of the people doing these language courses are paid, but many are not.
Personal experience leads me to refer to one group which has stuck in my mind—Scottish students. In Scotland higher education is based on a four-year honours course. This means that the basic four-year course which leads to an honours degree—that is, a degree of the same standard as the English three-year degree—will actually be worked against by the Bill. The four-year course in Scotland is based on two years of general study, which means that a student can go on to take a non-specialised three-year general degree which is not of anywhere near the same standard or the four-year course, which is of honours standard and the equivalent of the English course.
The reason for this is primarily that Scottish students do not do A-levels; they do highers over one year, in several subjects. They do not do the English specialist A-level course. This A-level specialisation is currently under review by the Government, or so we have been told, on the grounds that it is far too specialist far too soon. In other words, the A-level is a wonderful exam for getting people ready to go to university in certain specific subjects. Thus at the beginning of the courses in England and Wales students' options on the course are already decided by their A-levels to a large extent. The students are already channelled. If they make a mistake with their A-levels they are thus channelled into a situation where their "any choice" degree work is curtailed.
In Scotland they do not have this problem because they take a wider range of subjects to begin with. Their groundwork preparation has a wider basis.
That is why they have the course. Thus, if people are affected by the extra debt incurred by the extra year in Scotland, their choice of places where they can take their degree will be dramatically limited because they are not as well prepared as their English counterparts to do a degree in England or Wales.
The English students who go to Scotland have far more choice but may have decided that they want to take the more indirect approach to their degree, or they may not be quite so sure about which degree they want to do. Thus they will want a greater choice. This has the benefit that fewer people will drop out if they find themselves studying subjects that they do not like or for which they are unsuited beyond their school education.
There were certain movements afoot in England to apply for a first-year introduction course that gave students a better taste of a subject which has disappeared over the past few years. When I first thought about going to university, this was an option at several places, but it rapidly disappeared under financial strictures.
Effectively, we must consider whether all those who are on four-year courses will face a far greater disincentive than those who choose to do three-year courses. We must also consider that students coming from the normal schools in Scotland who do not have access to the A-level exam will have a very much reduced choice and also be under far greater financial stringency when they come to make that choice. I beg to move.
Lord Colwyn: I have some sympathy with this amendment which covers in a much broader sense my own Amendment No. 45 which we shall discuss next Monday. It is much more important to me to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say this evening, rather than rehearse any arguments that I shall use for my amendment, which is concerned with loans for the longer courses for health care practitioners. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give some encouragement to students about to embark on four, five or six-year courses. I look forward to returning to the matter in more detail next Monday.
Lord Butterfield: I rise to make a few remarks about the problems facing students in medicine, veterinary medicine, dentistry and increasingly in engineering. I do not wish to pre-empt what may be discussed under a later amendment, but it seems to me that ways may well have to be found so that students who are going to embark on these long courses are able to be covered by grants or bursaries for what we would call the clinical part of their subject.
A very important part of the argument for that is that once a person becomes part of the clinical services in medicine, dentistry or veterinary work, his opportunities for augmenting his income by vocation work disappear. I wish to make the point that if we do not take such steps we shall have an interesting swing of the pendulum from the present delightful mixed social class, high ability classes in
1428
these subjects. There will be a slow drift back to the kind of medical students the Committee may remember were depicted in the film "Doctor in the House". It is inevitable that the deans of the medical, veterinary, dental and perhaps even the engineering schools may find that, to an increasing extent, they are receiving applications from people who can undertake such long courses without feeling that they are incurring too large a debt.
I wish to refer to some calculations that were sent to me by the Royal College of Physicians. I know that these calculations correspond closely with some that the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, was going to present. They show that by the end of the fifth year examinations, assuming a 5 per cent. inflation rate and roughly present prices, medical students will be in debt to a level of about £8,000. That is the kind of debt which may inhibit poorer households and that is what I am worried about. I hope we can find a way of treating the first three years, which constitute the scientific, psychological and general foundation to the course, as if they constituted an ordinary undergraduate BA course, and of making some special arrangement for the clinical course with its special circumstances where, although I dread to put this on the record, the plain fact is that the students will be apprentices. I believe some kind of special arrangement will have to be made in the latter case.
Lord Peston: I hope the noble Earl will take the opportunity to clarify one or two areas of this amendment. I shall not deal with the matter of long courses per se which has been spoken about adequately. However, I should like some information on how the loans scheme will work for degree courses which involve a vocational year. This year often comes in the middle of such courses. Will the loans incurred in the academic years ahead of the vocational year build up at the implied rate of interest during the vocational year? That would act as a disadvantage for courses with a vocational year, which many of us think are very good.
Further, I should like some information on the position regarding what one might call the professional year. A pharmacist, for example, may obtain his degree but he cannot become a professional pharmacist until he has had a year's experience in a pharmacy. If he is earning a sufficiently small sum of money he may not have to repay the loan, but as I understand it he will certainly incur a growing cost to the loan because of the implied interest during that year. Many other disciplines may involve at least one year, if not more, of such professional training when students are earning a sufficiently low income not to repay the loan, but as I understand the scheme they will not merely retain the liability to repay but that will grow at the rate of inflation. It seems to me that the danger there is that that will act as a disincentive to precisely those kinds of activities which on all other grounds are highly desirable. Many of us believe that pretty well all degree courses should include a vocational year and that the straight old-fashioned three year degree is somewhat obsolete.

1429
I raise these points entirely for information purposes, as I could not quite understand how the suggested regulations will take those matters into account. I have expressed the worst scenario and the noble Earl may well have something more positive to say. However, I believe the situation could be threatening to a number of rather important professions, most of which but not all are connected with medicine.
10.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I should like to support the amendment. I support both what my noble friend Lord Addington said about Scotland and what the noble Lords, Lord Colwyn and Lord Butterfield, have said about medicine. Other people are also affected, and the British Dental Association, for example, is very much concerned. Before the subject is left, somebody ought to put in a word for Greats at Oxford, which, as many Members of the Committee know, is capable of providing an excellent education.
The inevitable effect of a fourth year is that the cost increases. If the Government's principles have any force at all they must recognise that increasing the price of a particular subject to the student is liable to deter students from undertaking that subject. We have to consider whether that is socially desirable. Do we, for example, really want fewer doctors? Do we want fewer people going to university in Scotland?
Scotland has a very distinctive education system, although I was extremely surprised to see that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, speaking in Standing Committee B, denied that there was such a thing as a separate Scottish education system. I very much hope that that is not the view of the Government because it is a piece of anglocentricity of the sort which from time to time puts the principle of the Union under threat. I very much hope that it will be withdrawn.
I hope that the Government can find it in their hearts at least to say that they will think about the effects of the problem of the course of longer than three years. I am sure that there are other examples that we have not thought of and that if we leave the Bill to go on the statute book in the form in which it now stands we shall be distorting the market for graduate intake for many years to come.
The Earl of Caithness: This is another amendment intended to protect a certain category of student—those on long courses—by cancelling part of their liability for repayment. My general comments with regard to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 apply here as well. We believe that the arrangements proposed offer sufficient protection but, if experience shows that special provision is necessary, it can be made through regulations. It would be inappropriate to make provision in primary legislation when we are not clear that such special provision is necessary or that we have identified the most appropriate solution for the problem.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, provides for cancellation of loans covering any additional years of a course beyond the
1430
first three years. We take the view that a loan facility for each year of a course, irrespective of length or subject, is the right approach. I acknowledge that this will lead to a larger debt but the long courses in many cases lead to higher incomes.
I look forward to debating Amendment No. 45 in the name of my noble friend Lord Colwyn. When at this hour of the night one has only reached Amendment No. 16 the thought of getting to Amendment No. 45 is a great excitement. However, I do not see why my noble friend wishes to restrict the provision to health care. It was the noble Lord, Lord Butterfield, who broadened the scope of the debate. As I believe the Committee is aware, the Government are examining the possibility of allowing longer repayment terms for those on courses longer than four years so that the annual repayments are not too burdensome.
Lord Peston: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Earl, because I am trying to learn. In the case of a four-year sandwich degree course, of which one of the years would be a vocational year for which I believe a mandatory award is not available in usual practice, is he now saying that a loan would be available for the vocational year?
The Earl of Caithness: I had intended to come to that specific point, otherwise I shall deal with it later because I want to make sure that I have the right answer. Perhaps I may repeat, because this is an important point for all those Members of the Committee who are concerned, that we are looking at courses which are longer than four years so that annual repayments do not become too burdensome.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, drew a distinction between A-levels and the broader range of highers in Scotland. What he said is generally true, but about 80 per cent. of Scottish pupils going directly into higher education now do a sixth year at school before doing so, as I am sure he will be aware. About 25 per cent. of entrants to Scottish four-year degree courses are from out with Scotland and generally have A-level qualifications. That points to the value of a four-year course in its own right.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, was sensible to have gone to a Scottish university from Norfolk. What he said did not fall on deaf ears. My noble friend Lord Sanderson of Bowden is listening carefully and, as I am sure the Committee is aware, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State received the benefit of a four-year course in Scotland. That is why we shall ensure that annual repayments for those courses longer than three years will be manageable for borrowers. It would be pointless to introduce a scheme under which a significant minority of borrowers found it extremely difficult to repay their loans. We are considering whether provision is necessary from the beginning of the scheme and we shall continue to monitor that aspect of the scheme once it is under way. If changes are necessary, they can be introduced through regulations.
I have failed to answer the noble Lord, Lord Peston. Perhaps I may do so at another time.
Lord Addington: I must apologise for my zealousness as a convert to the Scottish education system, having suffered under the A—level system. I am glad that the distinction between the two is being made clear. A—levels channel you very early into the specific subjects and you do not have much chance to break out, especially if you follow a single honours course in England or Wales. The Scottish system is nearer what we are told exists and I am glad to hear that it is receiving some consideration. The noble Earl did not put down a blanket shutter on any form of review in the future.
Even after sixth-form study, the highers are probably not quite of a sufficiently high technical level for someone entering a straightforward course in England. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind because even sixth-form study, which is more a preparation for the method of studying rather than the acquisition of technological knowledge, is not that good a preparation for entering such courses. The A—level is good for preparing you over two years to study for one subject if you happen to be good at that subject. That was one of the problems that I tried to point out, but the noble Earl has given a hint of sufficient light at the end of the tunnel to allow me to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert—
("(2A) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made under subsection (2)(b) above secure that any scheme operable under arrangements made in accordance with this section and Schedule 2 below shall make such provision for the maintenance support of mature students as appears to him to be necessary to promote access by such persons to higher education.
(2B) In this section, "mature student" means a person otherwise eligible for a loan who is at or above the age of 25 years.").
The noble Baroness said: Both these amendments involve mature students. The first requires the Secretary of State to monitor closely and review regularly the maintenance support for mature students in the interests of safeguarding and encouraging access to higher education. The second allows all mature students to be eligible for loans without an age limit.
With numbers in the 18 age group declining, mature students will be a large and important element in higher education. They already form 25 per cent. of students. It is essential both to attract them and to keep them when one has enough of them. During the Standing Committee stage in another place, the needs of mature students were recognised in part. In principle at least the Government recognise that mature students require special attention. The main evidence of that is in the maintenance of the mature student allowance—a special allowance for certain students over 26 when they begin their course. The Minister, Mr. Jackson, stated:
"I also give him [Andrew Smith, higher education spokesman for Labour in the Commons] the assurance that he seeks on the mature student allowance. That will continue. It will not be frozen and it will be uprated each year in the same way as other allowances".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee B; 25/1/90; col. 502.]
Despite several pleas from Members on all sides of the Chamber, there seemed to be no recognition of the existing problems of mature students, of the possible disincentive effect of loans for students or of the effect of the exclusion of students over 50 years from the loans scheme. The Equal Opportunities Commission, in an otherwise neutral response to the White Paper, stated:
"Whilst we consider that the proposed scheme will treat women and men equally in respect of availability, access and repayment, we are nevertheless concerned that people aged 50 and over will be excluded from its provisions. Our experience of the financial needs of mature women returning to education after a period of domesticity, or seeking a new direction, leads us to doubt the White Paper's assumption that people over 50 will be better able to rely on other resources during their studies. We would therefore welcome the removal of this age-related eligibility criterion, so reflecting the new regime's ultimate aim of widening access to higher education".
According to the DES leaflet produced last month, Top up loans for students: the Government's proposals, the reasoning behind the no loan over 50 proposal is that students embarking on higher education at that age can be assumed to have accumulated other resources on which they can rely in place of the loan.
I think that that is not at all a safe assumption. Many women, particularly if they are from non-traditional student backgrounds, are unlikely to have savings over £4,212. This is the sum in today's monetary terms that students will eventually be required to contribute towards their maintenance costs.
think it is worth noting that as the retiring age for men has come down, that for women has risen slightly. In 1971, 51 per cent. of women aged 55 to 59 were economically active; in 1988 the figure was 53 per cent.
There are a few facts which are worth noting from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys survey, which was commissioned by the DES, on mature students' incomings and outgoings. It showed that 54 per cent. of mature students received at least one state benefit in addition to child benefit; 76 per cent. of mature students had an outstanding debt of 12 months' duration; there were proportionately fewer mature students from social classes 1 and 2 than in the rest of the student population; and students from social classes 3, 4 and 5 were most likely to have higher debts.
With the increase in numbers of mature students and the desire of the Government to encourage more, it is clear that there will be considerable extra hardship for a sizeable proportion of the student population as a result of abolishing benefits. I hope that we shall be told some of the Government's thinking on mature students, many of whom have absolutely no help with fees or maintenance. Older people—those 50 and over—have a powerful case for improved educational opportunities. Almost all of them missed out on the post-war improvement of education. Only one in 10 of those now aged 50 carried on at school after the age of 16 compared now with one in two. Yet it was their taxes which paid for the schooling and higher education of a much larger proportion of the next generation. I think that they deserve some consideration.
As I said at Second Reading, I believe that noble Lords who are actively engaged and most of whom are well over 50 will take a sympathetic look at this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: There is nothing in the Bill to prevent what the noble Baroness wants to have done. However, no doubt she is anxious about what may or may not be in the regulations. That is the point we are on.
I do not believe in legislation by White Paper, but the Government have invited us to consider the White Paper in order that we may see how the Bill may be implemented by them. If we turn to page 13 of the White Paper, at paragraph 3.3 again there is encouragement for the noble Baroness in regard to people up to the age of 50. It says:
"The loan facility will be offered to all full-time home students in higher education … up to the age of 50"—
that is, except for post-graduate students.
Then in paragraph 3.5 a very important principle is laid down which I do not think we should ignore. It is stated like this:
"A student embarking late in life on study at first degree level has not the opportunity thereafter to repay the loan".
That must be the normal situation and one that we should not ignore. The paragraph goes on:
"The facility will therefore be available to students aged 50 or over at the start of their course. Students embarking on higher education at that age can be assumed to have accumulated other resources on which they can rely in place of the loan. They will continue to have access, as now, to the other elements of the mandatory awards regime".
I would just add this. The Treasury will always be looking at the amount of money spent on the student loans scheme. Although it may be of only marginal influence, shelling out money to any great extent to students aged over 50 means that students of a younger age who need the loan facilities much more might not receive them. I hope that my noble friend Lord Caithness will not accept these amendments.
Baroness David: I must make an apology to the Committee. Although I said that I was speaking to two amendments, I did not name the second amendment. It was Amendment No. 22 which states:
"No scheme made under arrangements in accordance with this section or regulations made under Schedule 2 below shall exclude any person from eligibility for a loan on grounds of age".
I apologise for that omission. However, I made the point that it is not correct to think that that age group will have accumulated enough money necessarily to be able to repay the loan easily. However, I made the point that women are working until a later age now and will be earning for longer. With increased qualifications they could therefore earn a higher sum and would then be able to repay their loan.
11 p.m.
Earl Russell: I should like to support Amendment No. 17 and speak also to Amendment No. 22. The presence of mature students is a vital part of the education of other people in a university. It is important for a community that all are involved. That was a factor I missed badly at an American university. The vast majority of students were drawn
1434
from one nationality. Similarly, if they are too uniformly drawn from one age there is a loss of educational value. I remember very vividly, for example, when teaching a police inspector on secondment from Bramshill. I set him a question on why the 15th century ecclesiastical authorities failed to root out heresy. He immediately pointed out, first, that the main centres of heresy were on jurisdictional boundaries; and, secondly, that even if other people did not agree with the heretics they did not mind them enough to inform on them. I was watching the face of an 18 year-old sitting across the room who suddenly realised—in a way that I could never have got over to him—that these were real problems about real people. For that reason I should be very sorry to see mature students discouraged.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, about legislation by White Paper. I agree with him that there is no other way that we can go about it. It is the 50 years cut-off that concerns me. The point that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, made about the period of repayment demands thought. But we are told in the government leaflet—again not in the Bill—that we are looking at a period of repayment of five years. A person aged 50 to 55 can be presumed to have five earning years in front of him or her in which repayment is possible.
I find the point about savings unconvincing. That comes from what I regret to say seems to be becoming a vanished world. It comes from a world before the explosion of mortgage debt that we are currently seeing, from days when it was a great deal more possible to build up a body of saving on a professional income than it is now. I do not think that we are facing up to the extent to which we are becoming an indebted country. My honourable friend, Mr. Taylor, in a Question in another place on 30th November last, elicited the information that the total volume of private debt in this country, including mortgages, has now risen to the startling sum of £378 billion. It is in the light of that figure that I am not entirely convinced by the argument in the White Paper about savings. I should like to support the amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: Before I reply to Amendments Nos. 17 and 22, perhaps I could return to the previous amendment and answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, who asked about sandwich courses. If a grant is available during a sandwich year, the loan will also be available. However, I understand that a grant is not generally available if the student is paid during the sandwich year, in which case there will not be a loan available either in those circumstances.
Mature students, who are the subject of Amendment No. 17, have everything to gain from the loan scheme. Those with families will not in general lose access to benefit. For them, the loan will be a net increase in resources. In many cases mature students already incur substantial debts at commercial rates. For them the opportunity to substitute borrowing under the very favourable terms of the scheme will be major help. For all, the 25 per cent. increase in the new package compared with this year's grant will be welcome.

1435
Amendment No. 22 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady David, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, relating to a student's age would remove the age limit proposed by the Government for the loans scheme. The Government propose that the loan should not be available for students aged 50 or over at the start of the course. Although the noble Earl, Lord Russell, did not like that, I am sure that he will be pleased to know that that age limit is generous compared to other countries which operate loans schemes where I gather that the limit is more commonly fixed at 30. The grant will continue to be available to students over that age although inflation will erode its real value. As the Committee knows, the grant includes payment of the standard tuition fees, but we judge that students over the age of 50 should not benefit from a further subsidy from the taxpayer towards living expenses through the medium of the loan.
I put it to the Committee that students of that age can be expected to rely in part on their own resources. Of course my noble friend Lord Renton was right to point out that it would also be inappropriate that students of that age should take on a repayment obligation when their remaining years of earning will be limited. The age restriction would be imposed as a condition of eligibility by regulations made under Clause 1(2)(b).
One specific point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady David, when she referred to mature students and child benefit. I assure her that child benefit is not affected by the Government's proposals. Students with dependent children will retain their entitlement to social security benefits, including child benefit.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for that reply although I cannot say that it pleased me very much. I do not quite understand the argument that because mature students already have debts, they will want to involve themselves in more. I do not believe that that follows at all.
I disagree with the point about the over-50s not having the opportunity to repay. I think that as women are staying in work longer, they will not have great problems in repaying the loan before they are 65.
I shall not pursue this matter tonight. However, I shall certainly return to mature students on Report. This evening, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall in respect of any eligible student who is a parent at the date on which a loan will be payable in any year make available adequate additional provision to such a person in respect of childcare costs.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a narrow but rather important point about certain categories of mature student whom we seem to be discussing at
1436
some length, although this may also apply to some younger students; that is, the question of help with child care for those students who have responsibility for children.
Many women wish to train in order to return to work at an age at which in many ways it is highly desirable that they should. An obvious example is women who wish to return to teaching but who need to study in order to obtain the required qualifications. That is very desirable. Those students will have children for whom they are responsible. The point has been made in previous debates in this House that the cost of such child care can be prohibitive. Women who are responsible, who want to take that kind of course with teaching in mind, are not going to allow their children to be looked after, not only at pre-school age but during school holidays and other times, unless they are satisfied that the provision is good.
Good provision is expensive. The Government recognised that fact in relation to employment training for single parents. If one has child-care costs in addition to the costs of study in many cases one will not study. A generous allowance of £50 a week for child care has been allowed to single parents when they take such courses. The same is necessary for women in higher education. The argument that they have husbands who can pay does not meet the problem. Husbands may be reluctant to see them take those courses. They involve costs to the family. If in addition they have to meet the child-care costs—many of those women are at the right age to take such courses—the women will not take the courses.
I urge the Government to look seriously at this proposal. This evening's discussion about mature students has revealed some curious attitudes on the part of the Government. There is the idea that resources are available for married women. What resources? A great many of them have not earned any money for a long time. They have no money of their own. They have to persuade their husbands to pay for anything of that kind.
The Government want to tap that valuable source of woman-power, especially for all the occupations that they are likely to choose—we hope they will not be restricted—where we know that there will be shortages: teaching, nursing and social work. We are short of people for those jobs. For Heaven's sake, surely the sensible thing to do is to invest money in this type of provision so as to get those women back to work. They will pay back the cost in tax in a short time. I beg to move.
Baroness David: I strongly support the amendment. The need for child-care facilities is beginning to be recognised more and more readily. I have an interesting list of the various universities and colleges which provide help in this way. It is also interesting to see how expensive such provision is in a good many cases. A joint college nursery for staff and students was set up at Cambridge University in the 1970s. It has now been almost entirely taken over by the staff. The students have been pushed out.

1437
It is also interesting to note that in another place Mrs. Gorman has introduced a Bill (the Tax Relief for Household Employers Bill) which will allow tax relief on earned income in respect of the earner's employment of home helps, child minders and other workers in cases where such employment is essential to the earner's availability for work. It should equally be available for women taking degrees. All that is very much in the air, and I hope that the Government are paying attention to the matter, because as the noble Baroness has said, education is an investment. II is an investment to have more of those people better qualified. Goodness knows, we need them. I hope that we shall receive a sympathetic response.
Baroness Blatch: The Government are committed to broadening access to higher education. Mature students are presently among the groups which are under-represented. We all accept that it can be especially difficult to study and at the same time care for young children; but to make additional provision in the form of a bigger loan would be inequitable because students with children would be faced with relatively larger repayments—
Baroness Seear: I was hoping that instead of a loan the Government would stump up and pay for child care.
Baroness Blatch: Paragraph two of my reply may be more helpful. Instead, we shall retain the dependants' allowances payable with mandatory grant. The 1989–90 allowance was worth up to £1,455 for a spouse or adult dependant or a first child where there is no dependent spouse or other adult dependant. Additional allowances are payable for other children, depending upon their age. The 1989–90 allowances range from £305 for a child under 11 to £1,165 to a young person aged 18 or over. Eligible students will also continue to receive the mature students' allowance, worth up to £840 in 1989–90. The level of the 1990–91 allowances will be announced shortly.
In addition, both single parents and students' dependants will retain their entitlement to social security benefits. For single parents the entire top-up loan will be an additional resource. Student parents will also be candidates for assistance from the access funds.
Child care is not just a matter of cost. The growing recognition of the need to provide childcare facilities such as crèches for working mothers and single parents will not pass by the higher education institutions. There will be increasing demand from students and they will choose institutions with reference to the extent and quality of the provision offered. This is, however, entirely a matter for the institutions concerned.
The Government believe that the scheme they propose is appropriate to the needs and circumstances of all eligible students, including those with children. The additional allowances payable with the mandatory grant will continue. As well as being unnecessary, additional provision of this nature would add cost and complexity to the scheme.
1438
I invite the Committee to reject the amendment, but before I sit down, it is important to say that the Government consider this issue to be very important. However, it is a question of how we help these young people. In the light of what I have said I hope that this amendment will be 'withdrawn but if it is pressed I hope that it will be rejected.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, replies, perhaps I could clarify one point. The comments of my noble friend Lady Blatch were extemely helpful. However, a very important point for the future and one about which people are very concerned is child care costs. It was difficult to take in all the figures given on dependants' allowances, but I assume that they apply separately to the wife and do not include the salary of the husband. If the answer is not available immediately I should be happy if the noble Baroness gave it a later stage, either in Committee or on Report, to clarify the point. I assume that that is the case because I think that that applied at earlier stages of the Bill. It is important that the assessment should be quite separate.
Perhaps I may raise one other point. A married woman with small children considering a degree course—which will be a complicated matter no matter how generous the provision for child care or anything else—is unlikely to contemplate a full-time course away from home. Presumably she will be living at home and attending a reasonably local university or polytechnic. That said, do I understand that not only the allowances but also the grants would still apply as they would to a student living at home?
Baroness Blatch: I take my noble friend's latter point first. With regard to the person studying from home, maintenance costs would probably not apply. Grant would apply and allowances would continue to apply depending upon the particular circumstances of the person concerned.
With regard to the initial matter my noble friend raised, I am afraid I shall have to write to her. I understand that the answer is rather complicated and concerns means testing. I assure other noble Lords who may be interested in the reply that copies of the letter will be sent to all who wish to see it.
Baroness Seear: I should like to digest at leisure what the noble Baroness said when I am rather more awake. However, I hope that the whole question of child care and the cost of it will be very carefully considered if it is desired to persuade these women to return.
In so far as the grant will be means tested, I hope the husband's income will not be taken into account. In many cases that would mean that the very people whom it is desired to have back would not find it easy to return. The husbands may have the money but it does not in the least mean that they would part with it for this particular purpose.
Throughout the evening we repeatedly heard as an argument against carrying out various suggestions

1439
that it will make the scheme more administratively complex. We must not allow the administration tail to wag the educational dog—if that is not too complicated a way of putting it. It is a remarkably bad argument to say that something which should be done cannot be done because it is inconvenient for the administration. That is an argument put forward by administrators and should always be fiercely contested and I do so now. At this time of night, and until I have seen the allowances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("(3A) The Secretary of State shall by regulations made under paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 2 below provide that a person who has been an eligible student for the purposes of this section but who, by reason of illness or accident is unable to complete the relevant course of higher education, shall cease to be so eligible and their liability shall by such regulations be cancelled.").
The noble Earl said: I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 21. These amendments deal with students who must intermit their course. They provide that in that case the interest shall not accumulate; that the debt shall not grow during the period of intermission. Secondly, in the case of students who are unable to complete their course, it is provided that the debt shall be cancelled.
Often one does not realise how many people suffer misfortunes. During the past three months I have come across someone who nursed a girlfriend through a psychiatric breakdown; someone nursing a dying mother; and someone recovering from a third attack of malaria. Fortunately, all those people will complete their courses. However, regularly we find that for one reason or another some people must be advised to withdraw or to take a year off because for medical or other reasons they are too far behind to be able to do themselves justice.
It will become more difficult to advise such people if one is in the process of advising them to take on a much larger debt. Furthermore, we must accept that a high proportion of those who will be affected by the amendments are psychiatric cases who often make a full and complete recovery. However, by definition, psychiatric cases are not always rational. Therefore, faced with the prospect of additional debt, they are likely to become much more agitated. It can make the situation more difficult to deal with.
It would be better if one were able to advise those facing such difficulties on genuine educational grounds. University teachers should not have to act as auxiliary bank managers in advising people about what they will do to their future financial prospects. This is a simple humanitarian amendment and I do not believe that, in the end, it will cost much. In the case of people who do not complete their course the reason behind the loans proposal would not apply. The loans proposal is justified on the grounds that it is equitable because graduates earn higher incomes. However, such an argument cannot apply in the case of those who do not graduate.
I hope that, although he may not agree to the amendment here and now, the noble Earl will find it in his heart at least to say that he will take it away and think about it. I beg to move.
Baroness Blackstone: The reasoning behind the amendments is that it is unjust that someone who fails to complete a course through no personal fault should be further penalised by having a debt to repay. Similarly, it is unfair that a student who takes longer to complete a course because of illness should face an additional repayment burden. The extra interest accrued would increase the repayments compared with those of a student who completed a course within the usual period.
Students who have the bad luck to fall ill for a considerable period of time will be particularly disadvantaged. Students who are unfortunate enough to be forced to drop out of higher education because of illness or accident have a double handicap. At first they have the disappointment of failure to gain a degree. They will feel that it is failure not to get the degree that they and their parents very much hoped for. Students who have not managed at the end of their course to obtain a higher education qualification are very unlikely to benefit from the increasing earnings which the Government have constantly told us is the basis for this Bill and for recouping some of the maintenance costs of higher education from the students themselves.
Since that is a central principle behind the Bill it would be quite wrong to expect students who are not graduates either to repay the capital or the interest on the loans. I support these amendments.
Earl Bathurst: Will the noble Earl extend his amendment and, if not, what will my noble friend who is to reply say about the position of a student who is injured in a genuine sport or game at university and who may be out of action for five or six months or even a year? Would that situation apply to the noble Earl's amendment? If so, I shall be very interested to hear what the noble Earl has to say in reply because such incidents happen.
The Earl of Caithness: Once again we are discussing amendments which are intended to protect a certain group of graduates. I refer the Committee to the comments that I made concerning Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 16 which I shall not repeat now except to emphasise that the flexible structure of the Bill permits changes to be made through regulations should monitoring reveal that adjustments are necessary.
Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 would make special provision for students who leave their courses or delay completion as a result of illness or injury. My noble friend raised a point about injury and I saw the noble Earl, Lord Russell, nodding his head in agreement with what my noble friend said. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right to say that it is anticipated that graduates will have a potential for a higher salary when they leave. Therefore, I wonder whether he will agree with me that even those who have sat for part of a course of higher education can have an additional value in the labour market.

1441
Someone who has successfully completed part of a degree course may expect to achieve higher earnings on average than someone without any higher education. Therefore, it is surely right that that person should be asked to repay the loan which he has taken up. We do not believe that it would be equitable for the taxpayer to give a further subsidy to former students in such circumstances. I reassure my noble friend on that point because I can understand his concern. We must remember that what we are asking a graduate, or someone who has taken part of a course, to repay is the loan only when lie reaches 85 per cent. of the national average earnings which at the moment is £11,500.
If the work that the person did on the higher education course does not lead to a salary that takes him above that level he is under the deferment provisions that we have provided for and he is protected in that way.
Baroness Blackstone: Can the Minister tell the Committee what evidence there is that students who have failed to complete a degree course actually have higher earnings than other people with similar earlier qualifications, like two or three A—levels?
The Earl of Caithness: I did not say that it was a guarantee. I asked the noble Earl, Lord Russell, whether he would agree with me that there was potential for that. I answer the noble Baroness by saying that if that person does not receive the expected income that he might have got from completing the course, and that income does not take him above 85 per cent. of the national average wage, then the deferment provisions arise.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend to consider a further point. There could be one or two very hard cases indeed. It is arguable that if one has completed one and a half years of a university course the chances are that one will get a better job. But I can envisage the case of a student who has a terrible accident—I do not know whether this is what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, had particularly in mind—and is therefore seriously handicapped. Such a student will not earn very much at all. Is there no provision within the Bill or the regulations to remit a loan if it is clear that because of illness or accident it will not be possible to repay it? I do not know the answer to that question but it is matter which should be considered at some stage.
I am certainly not in favour of a general proviso to remit a loan for someone who drops out of the course for a rather feeble reason. One has to take care not to open a door which it would be quite improper to open and which it is not intended to open. But I see that there could be a few hard cases. I wonder whether my noble friend would like to consider this point and perhaps tell us at a later stage what he thinks.
Baroness Seear: I should like to reinforce what the noble Baroness has just said. Those who have worked with students know that a small percentage drop out as a result of breakdown. I assure the noble Earl that any idea that those people will get good jobs because they have had one and a half years at university, a breakdown and psychiatric treatment, is absolute pie in the sky. They are the most difficult people to help. To say that they will not have to pay it back because they are not receiving 85 per cent. of average national income is only deferring repayment. They still have that debt.
Only a small number drop out but these cases happen all the time. Those in higher education know that it happens. Such people are terribly difficult to help and to place afterwards. Some of us have had them around us for a very long time. I ask the noble Earl to take the point away and consider whether something can be done to cancel the debt so that such people do not have this additional worry. They are a difficult group to help.
The Earl of Caithness: I have listened with particular care to what my noble friend Lady Young, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has said. The deferment provisions which I mentioned earlier will come into effect if their income is not up to the expected level for repayment and in due course the stage will be reached when the person is aged 50 and the loan is cancelled. But without any commitment I should like to study carefully in the Official Report what my noble friend has said.
Earl Russell: Those words offer a valuable small crumb of encouragement. I welcome them. I welcome also what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. I do not believe that one should talk about the higher potential earnings of non-graduates. As my noble friend Lord Addington has reminded me, employers ask about qualifications. They do not ask about educational experience. I know that we used to be told once upon a time that there were regular applications from people claiming to be failed B.A. We do not get those now.
The Minister might usefully think—and I hope he will—about increased debt for those who intermit for a year. This also covered cases of physical injury. I remember a recent case of a smashed elbow joint which is healing extremely slowly. That is the sort of situation where the pupil ought to be able to think freely, without financial anxiety, about the possibility of intermitting for a year to allow recovery and, therefore, more efficient writing.
The point which underlies all this is that many of us would like to be able to advise our pupils on educational decisions on educational grounds. The intrusion of financial calculations into this kind of decision may perhaps be a part of market forces, but I am not convinced that it leads to good education. However, the Minister has offered a crumb of comfort and I too should like to read very carefully what is recorded in the Official Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 21 to 23 not moved.]
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 11, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with such persons as appear to him to be concerned").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to probe the likely use of the power to add, or remove, types of course from the list giving rise to eligibility. Schedule 1 defines courses of higher education for which an eligible student can receive a loan. Clause 1(4) provides for the Secretary of State to amend Schedule 1 by order. I assume from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum that this is a negative instrument and therefore that there may be no discussion in Parliament on the matter.
The amendment asks for consultation prior to the Secretary of State making the order and provides an opportunity to find out what changes the Government have in mind. The definition in Schedule 1 of higher education includes all courses defined as higher education by the Education Reform Act with the exception of postgraduate courses and with the addition of the Scottish Vocational Education Council courses and courses higher than the higher level of the Scottish Certificate of Education. The list is comparable to that for which mandatory grants are available, but includes Higher National Certificate and other sub-degree courses and professional examinations above A-level standard. At present these are excluded from mandatory awards.
The White Paper states in paragraph 3.39 that one of the conditions will be that students must be full time. However, that condition is likely to be a condition referred to in Clause 1(2)(b). The principal extension to eligibility is courses in further education; for example, A-level and sub-higher education vocational courses. Many students undertake these courses full time and are likely to lose housing benefit under the new regulations, although some may receive funding from the further education access fund. Although we welcome the fund, the £5 million that the Government are proposing to devote to further education is minimal. When questioned about the matter in the Standing Committee on 23rd January 1990, the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Jackson, (at col. 418) thanked MPs for proposing new categories of student who would be eligible for loans and stated:
"Our general position is that although it may be desirable to extend the scope as resources allow, it is important to get the scheme up and running first. Any case for extending its coverage will have to be considered not only in the light of general policy and availability of resources but on the merits of the argument in each instance. I intend …. to pay close attention to the impact on recruitment of the extension of student support through the broadening of the categories of course that the loan can cover".
Will the Government please state what indication they will use to monitor the recruitment of higher education students in order to extend the student loans to further education students, especially to those on courses that will enable them to gain access to a higher education course? Further, will they consult on those indications? The amendment seems to me to be very reasonable and one to which I should have thought the Government would certainly agree. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I always find the noble Baroness, Lady David, convincing in her arguments and sometimes she is even more convincing than usual. I thought that she was particularly persuasive tonight. As she will be aware, the Government always consult before taking any action. In my view it is probably right that we should put this on the face of the Bill. I should, however, like to check between now and the next stage of the Bill's proceedings the wording of what is proposed. In the circumstances, if the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment, I shall see whether something can be done in the matter at a later stage.
Baroness David: I am delighted and, I must confess, even slightly surprised. It is not very often that the Government agree to an amendment. I thank the noble Earl very much and agree to withdraw the amendment. I look forward to that of the noble Earl.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 31 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Courses of higher education]:
Lord Peston Lord Peston moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert:
("1A. A taught second degree course.")
The noble Lord said: I am aware that it is late at night but this is an important amendment and therefore it is necessary for me to speak to it. I implied or stated in my Second Reading speech that if we were interested in experiments with loan schemes what we should do is precisely not what the Government are doing. We should take an area like taught masters degree courses where no mandatory awards are available. One can go for competitive awards but students largely finance themselves.
My inclination for many years has been to say that since I have always been interested in exploring loan schemes—as an economist naturally I would be—the area of exploration would be the taught masters degree. There we could gain some experience of how to run a loan scheme. We could check what I believe to be the case, namely, that the taught masters degree is a particularly good investment.
It is also an area where, taking the longer view of the future of the economy, we shall have more people taught at that level. My own view is that the taught masters course is a more sensible way of proceeding than the extension of the undergraduate degree to four years. For a great many reasons I have felt that this is precisely the area where we ought to examine loan schemes. To use the words of the noble Earl, since quite a number of my students finance their masters degrees by borrowing from the banks, I should be happier—and certainly they would be happier—if they were then able to borrow from the Government at possibly more favourable rates.
There are many grounds for saying that that is where I should have liked to have seen the experiment. Where I particularly did not wish to

1445
see the experiment with loans, as opposed to other methods of repaying the grant, was in the undergraduate area. I feel that I ought at least to delay our proceedings this evening for a few moments to place those remarks on record. As an economist I feel so strongly about this that if it were not this hour I should wish to divide the Committee in order even more strongly to place on record my views. However I hasten to assure noble Lords that 1 have no intention of doing that.
To summarise, as someone who takes the question of student finance seriously and who is open to arguments, including those on student loans, if I had a free choice and it were up to me where we carried out our first experiments, this is the area I would select. I am particularly disappointed that this is precisely where the Government say that they will absolutely not do it. If ever we had a case where the Government had got the whole matter completely wrong, it is this one. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: I wish to support this amendment very strongly. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Peston said. A long time ago, I, like the noble Lord, arrived at the conclusion that there was a strong case for loans for taught masters courses. It is extremely important that the Government should recognise that finance for these courses is highly desirable. By definition, the people coming on the taught masters courses are, by and large—but not exclusively—the cream of the undergraduate population. We talk about quality. If we want quality we must develop the ablest people among the students to the highest degree possible. That means the taught courses with expansion in undergraduate courses. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Peston, will agree with me, but I have observed a tendency, to put it bluntly, to do a slightly more mass produced job on the undergraduate courses than some of us would think desirable. This has partly been because there has been an increasing reliance on the fourth year of the taught masters in order to give the quality of teaching to the people with the greatest level of ability. What I can see happening, if we do not provide loan provision for taught masters courses, is that the mass produced approach to the undergraduate courses—undergraduate students are apparently to be taught without books according to what we have been discussing recently—will go ahead and we shall lose the quality in the undergraduate courses without picking it up again by providing good masters courses for the people who are capable of taking them.
If we want to keep quality in the academic world and in the world outside where the graduates go to work—we desperately need to maintain quality—it is important that these courses should continue. However, they will not continue if no loan finance is available to them. Once these youngsters have acquired loan debt at the end of their undergraduate courses, they will not be willing to finance themselves, with a debt already round their neck, if they can obtain some kind of a job at the end of their undergraduate courses. We shall lose heavily by not developing the potential of people of the
1446
highest level of ability. I hope that the Government will not make up their minds firmly about this measure and that they will at least lake it back and think about it again.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Addington: I should like to add a few words to this discussion. Many acquaintances of mine and my brothers and sisters who have finished their first degree courses were confronted with the possibility of undertaking higher academic work. Many of them were worried about the financial problems that that implied and about the fact that they may not be suitable for a different type of academic work that was more research based. Surely a taught masters degree which provided some form of financial support so that they did not face quite the same degree of financial burden would be a good idea. I am of course assuming that the Government would not charge these students competitive interest rates but interest rates at the same level as those for undergraduates. That would mean that these students would at least attempt to find out whether they were capable of undertaking higher academic work.
As our technical burden for industry and virtually any form of commercial activity we are engaged in in an increasingly complex world increases, we shall need more experts who have extended their academic training. Therefore I suggest that any scheme that gives people at least some form of cushioning and some guaranteed form of financing as they attempt to find out whether they are capable of following a more specialised path would be advisable.
The Earl of Caithness: Let me make it absolutely clear that the Government are firmly committed to improving the supply of very highly qualified manpower. This commitment is reflected in the number and value of awards available to postgraduate students and in the care and rigour with which these are allocated.
The needs for support of postgraduate students are different from those of undergraduates. This is recognised in the very different arrangements currently made for them. These arrangements are closely targeted on the areas of work for which postgraduate courses, especially the specialist taught courses, prepare students. Thus the majority of government support for them is channelled through the research councils which are well placed to make sure that the money is efficiently and effectively deployed. The students apply on a competitive basis; this ensures that only those of very high calibre are successful. Some 7,000 students are supported through the research councils on a mixture of taught courses and supervised research and 1,000 through British Academy studentships.
Postgraduate awards are tax-free and are mostly larger than mandatory awards. In 1989–90 the rate of grant was £3,725 for a research council studentship living away from home outside London. The Committee will be pleased to note that unlike mandatory grants, research council awards have

1447
retained their value and are worth more in real terms than in 1979. The rates for 1990–91 will be announced shortly.
I believe that the current system of support for students on taught postgraduate courses is fair and efficient. The level of the award will continue to be uprated annually, unlike mandatory awards, and the students will thus not need loans for their support.
On the question of loans I should like to take the noble Lord, Lord Peston, up on one point. He said that he would like to abolish our scheme. I should like him to make clear what he would put in its place, because I believe that that is important for our discussions; how much that would cost; and whether he has cleared those proposals with his right honourable friend the Member for Monklands, East. I do not expect him to reply tonight but I hope that he will have time to consider the matter for a later stage.
On the other hand, I was greatly encouraged by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Peston, appeared to see some advantages in the student loan scheme. Although he preferred loans for the taught second degree course rather than what we have proposed, the mere fact that he showed enthusiasm for them gives me hope of convincing him of the full merits of our scheme.
At this time of night I should obviously like to read with care what the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have said. I hope that they too will in due course read what I have said.
Lord Peston: I thank the noble Earl for that reply. I repeat that we shall abolish the scheme. The noble Earl will have to wait—not very long now—for an exchange of positions. He will then hear precisely what I have to say on these matters.
I think that it is a bit thick. I was advocating this sort of scheme before the noble Earl or the Government had thought of loan schemes.
Baroness Seear: Is there not some doubt about that? I thought that the noble Lord's party was going to abolish us, so he will not be in a position to do that, will he?
Lord Peston: We appear to be having a great number of different debates on what we are going to do. I assume that I at least and perhaps the noble Baroness will be here for a little longer. If we are not I shall have to go back to being a retired professor of economics. Indeed, that might be a much more satisfactory way of spending my time.
As I said, I have lectured on the subject for a great many years. The people who have come lately to it are the Government. Many of us thought the matter through much earlier. The Government have latched on to it. They do not understand it and have got it wrong. It is too late for me to go over the history of thought on repayable grants, loans, and so on. I resent the fact that it is suggested that I am the one who has been converted when I can produce writings going back a long time.
1448
Where were we? Despite all the badinage, my main point is that what I said about the masters degrees was not concerned with research council awards. I am perfectly well aware of the research council awards. They are good schemes. My point is that I do not see us expanding the full awards in order to finance masters degrees. I see the need to expand masters degrees. I believe that a worthwhile experiment could have been undertaken via the loans approach.
It is late. The noble Earl said that he would think about what one or two of us had said, and so we may come back to the subject anyway. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blackstone Baroness Blackstone moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert—
("1A. A course of supervision in connection with a research degree.").
The noble Baroness said: Some of us on this side of the Chamber had hoped that we would complete the first day of Committee on 12th March rather than running into 13th March. I shall be very brief in the hope that we may still achieve that, although it is rather doubtful.
Some of the arguments have already been put by my noble friend Lord Peston in relation to postgraduate students on taught masters degrees, and they apply also to postgraduate students on research degrees. It is vital that we continue to have a substantial number of our most intellectually able and talented students continuing to study for Ph.D. and D. Phil. degrees or whatever a particular university terms the degree that is awarded at the end of the period of research. Those students obtain awards through the research council on a competitive basis, but those awards are very low and quite difficult for students to live on. For students on science, engineering and medical postgraduate courses, the rates last year were £3,700 outside London and £4,600 in London. The rates were rather lower for students in humanities.
Students who decide to study for a research degree which normally takes not less than three years make considerable sacrifices in living on that low income while they obtain their higher degree. Many of them are dependent on housing benefits in order to allow them to live in reasonable accommodation and make ends meet. As I understand it, the Bill will make postgraduate students ineligible for housing benefit just as undergraduate students are to be made ineligible, yet, at the same time, postgraduate research students will not qualify for a loan. In other words, we are taking something away from them and we are giving them nothing in return other than the possibility of going to an access fund where they will have to plead poverty to a new group of people when, under the present system which is set up and running, they may receive housing benefit.
I am not clear what the advantage is of taking that group of students out of housing benefit where there is an established scheme under which their income is properly assessed and regional differences in housing costs are already taken into account, to establish

1449
another scheme involving an access fund. Even if they were able to obtain support through an access fund, it seems strange that we should exclude that category of students from the possibility of taking up a loan if they are in financial difficulties on the low amount of money that is available for funding postgraduate awards for research students. Many will find it hard to make ends meet. It seems to me that that category should be included in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Caithness: I explained at some length on the previous amendment why the Government do not intend loans to be made available to postgraduate students. I said then that I should look carefully at what had been said, so I now say to the noble Baroness that I hope that she will read what I have said.
The arguments apply with particular force in the case of students working for a research degree. Those students have access to a system of government studentships designed to ensure that a sufficient number of our brightest young people continue to take research degrees, especially in subjects which are important to the future economic health of the country. As I understand the situation, many of them are able to supplement their income with earnings from teaching or related work. Thus, they do not need loans in quite the same way as undergraduate students. The noble Baroness was right to mention the question of housing benefits and to draw attention to the access funds. Again, I noted that point carefully for my future discussions with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Earl sits down, perhaps he will answer the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, regarding the logic of taking postgraduate students out of the social security system without giving them access to loans. I must confess that the logic of the Government's position escapes me.
The Earl of Caithness: We believe that not all students should receive housing benefit, although those who are disabled will still be able to claim housing benefit. That was a basis of the scheme. We then thought it right to have the access funds for areas of particular hardship, as the noble Earl knows. We should then separate the students who are studying on a first-time course from those whom we are discussing under the terms of the amendment. As I said, I understood the situation of the two types of student to be different. That is why within the resources available we have been able to offer loans to one which are not means tested but not to the other.
12 midnight
Baroness Seear: If I understood what the noble Earl said, there will be a restricted number of places and resources for people doing research—supervised research students—and they will be selected according to somebody's criteria of what are important subjects to study. I should dearly like to
1450
know who are the people who will say which subjects are to be studied. It is in the nature of research that you do not know what people will come up with; otherwise it would not be research. Who is it? What are the qualifications of the people who will make the judgments about what should be researched?
Is the noble Earl aware—I am sure that he is—that, for example, there has been a big demand in American industry for people with degrees in philosophy? I very much doubt whether that would have been a subject picked out as being of particular value. In many ways nobody is in a position to know what are the best topics to research. One has to take people of real calibre who will discover things of real value. The idea that there is somebody outside to tell us what should be researched is an insult to the intellectual community.
The Earl of Caithness: As I understand the situation, support is provided for postgraduates through government funded bursaries and studentships, which are distributed mainly by the research councils and the British Academy. Some are paid for by the department itself. Therefore it will be the research councils that will make the decisions about which the noble Baroness asked.
Baroness Blackstone: I am still not quite clear why postgraduate research students should have benefits removed from them but not be eligible for loans. I do not think that we have had a satisfactory answer on that. I was also interested in what the Minister said about the possibility of research students supplementing their income with teaching and other related work. It was true at one time but it is becoming more and more difficult for postgraduate students to do, partly because of the financial constraints under which universities are operating, which mean that there is very little spare financing available to take on research students to do that kind of teaching. It happens a little but on a very small scale and many of them cannot get such work.
But I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Certainly I have no intention of pressing this amendment tonight. I shall read what he said. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 23, at end insert ("including a course in the performing or visual arts").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to make students on courses in the performing or visual arts eligible to receive loans. Under the Bill as it stands only students on advanced courses in the arts, such as drama or music degrees, would be entitled to loan support. This would mean that many students on other arts courses would be left to the mercy of the discretionary award system.
The NUS Local Authority Awards Survey 1989—which is the only national survey of discretionary awards that is recognised by the DES as authoritative—allows that there is a wide variation in the policies of local authorities in making discretionary awards for visual or

1451
performing arts courses. While many authorities offer awards, the total numbers per authority vary, as do the amounts. Of the 92 (out of 104) authorities responding to the survey, 11 did not make any awards for art college diplomas and 12 did not make awards for vocational arts courses. In the field of dance some authorities would only offer assistance with tuition fees.
In view of these wide variations both in the availability of awards and in the amount, often due to the low level of funding that local authorities face as a result of the low level of priority accorded to such courses, it is vital that the problem of finance for arts students is considered. There are many examples of famous artists and dancers who have made it the hard way. What we rarely hear about is those who fail to make it because of lack of finance and not owing to lack of ability.
Music students have a particular problem. They cannot supplement their income by working in vacations because they have to practise every day for many hours a day. Another problem is with the conservatoires in England. Five top ranking institutions are in London where we know that the cost of living is particularly high.
I have a great deal of interesting information about music students. However, as the hour is so very late I shall restrain myself and not talk about them now. There is a very real problem, I assure the Minister. I hope that he will carefully consider the amendment. It is of great importance. I hope that the Government—who are occasionally accused of being philistine—will take a very nice view of the amendment so that we can change our assessment of the way in which they consider these matters. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: The overall effect of Schedule 1 taken as a whole is to provide for all courses of higher education below post-graduate level to attract the loan, subject to being provided on a full-time or sandwich basis and being of at least one year's duration. The fact that the schedule takes more words to say that is due to the need to make it quite clear which courses these are in practice.
So far as I am aware, no course of the kind I have described is excluded; nor is it the Government's intention that any should be. Against that background, courses of the kind mentioned by the noble Baroness may be covered by one of several provisions in the schedule. If they lead to a qualification of the kind specified in its first three paragraphs, then they are designated by virtue of those paragraphs. If they do not, but lead to a professional examination of a high enough standard to be regarded as higher education, they are covered by paragraph 6. If they do not lead to a professional examination but are still of a sufficiently high standard to qualify as higher education, then they are designated under the terms of paragraph 7.
I make no apology for labouring the point because it is as well to be absolutely clear. I hope that I have persuaded the Committee that the amendment is not necessary and therefore can be withdrawn.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for what I think is an encouraging response: that these courses are probably covered under those paragraphs under Schedule 1. I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness has said and consult. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Standard Life Assurance Company Limited Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Mersey Docks and Harbour Bill [H.L.]
Committed to a Select Committee.

British Film Institute Southbank Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at eight minutes past midnight.

  CAMBODIA: PEACE PROPOSALS
  CAMBODIA: PEACE PROPOSALS
  ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION, SCOTLAND
  ELECTRICITY PRIVATISATION, SCOTLAND
  DRIVERS: LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
  DRIVERS: LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
  DRIVER CONTROL: TECHNOLOGICAL AIDS
  DRIVER CONTROL: TECHNOLOGICAL AIDS
  DRIVER BEHAVIOUR: RESEARCH
  DRIVER BEHAVIOUR: RESEARCH
  MOTORCYCLISTS' HELMETS: EC STANDARD
  MOTORCYCLISTS' HELMETS: EC STANDARD
  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM: ALTERATIONS
  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM: ALTERATIONS
  ELECTRICITY GENERATING CAPACITY
  ELECTRICITY GENERATING CAPACITY
  THIRD NORTH SEA CONFERENCE
  THIRD NORTH SEA CONFERENCE