Sitting of 23 May 1990

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

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received encouraging him to replace the community charge with a tax on property values.
    The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): As far as I am aware, no one has made a representation to me in favour of a roof tax based on capital or site values.
    Mr. Martin: I welcome my honourable—soon to be right honourable—Friend to the Dispatch Box at his first Environment Question Time. If he manages to extricate himself from his present job with the same high distinction with which he served in the previous two he will deserve the title of the Houdini of the present Government.
    Any reversion to domestic property values would mean a return to all the anomalies and unfairnesses that we knew under the rating system, and that would bear down heavily on the elderly, who stay for many years in houses that gain in value around them but whose incomes often do not rise in relation to that value. Would not such a return act as a wealth tax and would not there be a great cry after a while, exactly as there was before we abolished domestic rating?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend's opening remarks were very kind. He is exactly right: the trouble with the rating system, as all parties recognise—at least they did at one time—was that property is no proxy for the means that a person has, and any taxation system based on property will be unfair for that reason. One must assume, in the absence of any details, that Labour's new plans would be as unfair as, if not more unfair than, the rates.
    Mr. Orme: Does not the Minister recognise that the change from rating to a poll tax has meant that Salford needs to employ 300 extra people to collect the poll tax and to spend about £110,000 on an extension to house them? How does he justify that?
    Mr. Portillo: The cost of collecting the community charge is about double the cost of collecting the rates, and the number of people paying the community charge is about double the number who were paying the rates. The correlation is exact; the cost per head of collecting the
    268
    community charge is the same as it was under the rates. This is a fairer and broader-based tax, and that is a price worth paying.
    Mr. Knapman: Will my hon. Friend try to provide just a little more detail about the roof tax? I must declare an interest, in that I have been fortunate enough to buy an old mill and a few acres in my constituency, but it is not in very good order—10 years ago the roof fell in. Should I repair it or leave it as it is?
    Mr. Portillo: I wish that I could help my hon. Friend. He must, I am afraid, address his appeal to the Opposition. It is for them to supply the details of the new roof tax and, in particular, to explain who will pay it. We understand from the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) that who pays it will be based on maximum choice, and we now have interesting evidence from the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who says that whether one pays the community charge is a matter for the individual. Presumably that begins to elucidate what maximum choice in payment is about.
    Mr. Gould: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new task and to the bed of nails that is the poll tax. I accept that, given the work that we understand he is doing on changes to the poll tax, he cannot yet tell us what his alternative will eventually be, but can he at least give us a clue about the features of the poll tax that he finds objectionable and intends to change? Is it the unfairness; or is it the administrative and cost complexity to which he referred; or is it the fundamental principle of a head tax which, as he knows, is shunned in every country with the single exception of Papua New Guinea? Will the changes that he proposes require legislation and, if so, when does he propose to introduce it?
    Mr. Portillo: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome to me in my new job. If it were a bed of nails the hon. Gentleman would have cushioned the impact considerably by providing me with the opportunity to attack the Labour party, which criticises us without providing any alternative or any details of its policies.
    The Labour party is about to make announcements about policy. The Government have no plans to make new announcements on policy this week, and we will look with great interest at what the hon. Gentleman produces tomorrow. My policy since I took on the job from my distinguished predecessor has been to listen carefully to my hon. Friends to discover what anomalies there may be in the present operation of the tax.

    Water
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sums of investment are planned in improved water standards over the next 10 years.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): On present plans the water industry will be investing £26·3 billion over the next 10 years to improve standards and to repair and renew its infrastructure.
    Mr. Hague: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that figure is the strongest proof that water privatisation has been extremely good news for the environment? Can he

    269
    confirm and emphasise that in contrast to the days of state control, such expenditure is no longer subject to the uncertainties of the annual public spending round?
    Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There is now a massive investment programme in the improvement of the water environment. We look forward to hearing tomorrow the Labour party's plans for renationalising the water industry. I am sure that that programme would enable Labour, if it were ever in office, to do what it did on the last occasion when it cut investment in water and sewerage by 50 per cent. in real terms.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: Will not the Minister admit that the Government's record on investment in the water industry has been pitiful and is one reason why there are a number of cases pending in the European Court of Justice? Would not it be far better for the Government to make sure that more investment was put into the water industry so that those cases may be withdrawn?
    Mr. Patten: I am more than happy to stand on the record, which is that since 1980 investment in water has risen by 50 per cent. in real terms. Under the previous Labour Government investment in water fell by 50 per cent. in real terms. In so far as I understand the Labour party to have any plans for the water industry, it wants to spend taxpayers' money on buying back water shares.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: To facilitate future capital investment more than £5 billion of water authority debt was written off ahead of privatisation. How will the taxpayer bear the cost of that write-off? The obligation to repay £5 billion does not disappear into thin air. How will the taxpayer be required to meet that obligation?
    Mr. Patten: The taxpayer has made an important investment in the improvement of water quality. We were able to secure a green dowry for the water industry when we privatised it. As I said, we shall spend over £26 billion on investment in water quality over the next 10 years. It will be interesting to see whether Labour plans to increase that investment programme or whether it will follow past practice which is, whatever it says about infrastructure investment, to cut such investment.

    Sulphur Emissions
    Mr. McAllion: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to attain the targets for reductions in sulphur emissions in the United Kingdom set by the directive from the European Community.
    The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): The Government set out their general plans for implementing the directive in a consultation paper published in August 1989. A further consultation paper setting out more detailed figures will be issued shortly.
    Mr. McAllion: In her speech to the United Nations the Prime Minister boasted that Britain had a £2 billion programme of flue gas desulphurisation which would reduce acid rain emissions from our power plants. Why within six months of that speech has the programme been slashed by at least a third, and why is Britain turning to the much less effective but cheaper alternative of importing low-sulphur coal which has the added disadvantage of threatening thousands of jobs in the British mining
    270
    industry? Is it because the Government give a higher priority to cutting public spending and boosting private profits than they do to protecting the environment or the jobs of British workers?
    Mr. Trippier: The Government give a higher priority to the environment than the Labour party ever could. I detect from the hon. Gentleman's question that not only is he in a mess, but so is his party. The Labour party seems to wish us to burn as much coal as possible, but at the same time to reduce CO2 levels. It will be interesting to see how it squares that circle with the release of its policy document tomorrow. Labour's concern for the environment is not worth the paper it is written on. Its order of priority is the National Union of Mineworkers first and the environment second. That illustrates perfectly why the Labour party will never be a credible party of the environment.
    Mr. Butler: What will be the relative cost to the consumer in attaining those targets, of flue gas desulphurisation and of the importation of low-sulphur coal?
    Mr. Trippier: I hope that the consultation paper that will be issued shortly will give the informaton on costs that my hon. Friend requires.
    Mr. Allen: Will the Minister ask his colleagues in the Department of Energy why it supported British Coal's programme of closing the pits that produced low-sulphur coal? Will he also ask the Secretary of State to reinstate the programme to ensure that our power stations are cleaned up so that they can use British coal rather than cheap imports, and we can retain jobs in the Nottinghamshire coalfield?
    Mr. Trippier: I am certain that the overriding concern of British Coal is economics. The hon. Member knows that its strategy is aimed at achieving a competitive coal industry. That is the best guarantee of mineworkers' jobs. Keeping uncompetitive pits open will destroy jobs in the long term.

    Rural Housing
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to assess the need for new housing in the rented sector in rural areas.
    The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Spicer): There is a requirement for low-cost housing for rent and sale in some rural areas. That is why we introduced our rural housing initiative, including a special Housing Corporation programme and new planning rules enabling additional land to be made available for low-cost housing for local people.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that the shire district councils are experiencing acute frustration in discharging their function as facilitators of housing in rural areas, having made their assessments on requirements for both rented and for-sale accommodation? Is he aware that, for example, time and time again South Herefordshire district council has had a housing association interested in a project but has received no money from the Housing Corporation? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the balance of distribution within the Housing Corporation's resources properly reflects the real

    271
    requirements of the rural areas which, in view of demographic changes, have exactly the same needs as the urban areas in terms of homelessness?
    Mr. Spicer: I hope that the Housing Corporation will give priority to rural schemes where local authorities have provided their own resources, including cheap land. At least five initiatives specifically relating to rural areas have been taken. The Housing Corporation is placing special emphasis on housing for rent in rural areas. The others are the low-cost home ownership programme, the Rural Development Commission's start-up programme, the low-cost shared ownership programme and the special planning arrangements for low-cost homes. I hope that authorities in rural areas will take note of those schemes and make the best use of them.
    Mr. Bermingham: Further to the question of the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd)—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."] At long last, the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) has shown that he can count fingers. That is an advance on his previous state, when he could not even count.
    Does the Minister agree, in the light of the relevant question from the hon. Member for Hereford, that unless we keep young people in rural and semi-rural areas, the drain into the cities will put pressure on them and will diminish the work forces of rural areas? Does he also agree that, without further initiatives, there will be no hope of providing the homes that are needed for youngsters in those areas?
    Mr. Spicer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and with my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) on this matter, and that is why we announced the initiatives. I think that we should let the initiatives go through and see how they work out.
    Mr. David Nicholson: Would not the encouragement of young people, or people of working age, to remain in rural areas through the provision of low-cost housing, to which I think we all attach importance, help in the retention of village post offices and village shops generally which are threatened—I make no complaint about this—by high interest rates and a combination of the uniform business rate and the community charge? That is definitely a problem in rural areas, and I hope that my hon. Friend will address himself to it.
    Mr. Spicer: I agree with my hon. Friend that if people live in villages, especially people with young families, they will spend money in the local post office, and that that will be good for those businesses.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister has developed an unenviable reputation for not answering questions on housing, and his performance today has been no exception. I shall ask him a nice easy question today to help him regain his reputation. Why are Lady Anson and the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, as well as nearly every Conservative-controlled local authority in rural areas, saying that the schemes that the Minister has introduced do not begin to touch the problem and that a major change of Government policy is required if the housing crisis that is the result of a lack of affordable accommodation for rent or sale in rural areas is to be reversed? Why, in the hon. Gentleman's judgment, is Lady Anson wrong?
    Mr. Spicer: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman directly. Five initiatives have been introduced only recently. IF an initiative has been introduced in the past few months, which in some instances is true, the best course is to see how it works out and to make a judgment later. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, all the signs are that low-cost houses are being built in rural areas, and that did not happen under Labour Governments.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Yeo: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the way in which community charge is levied on owners of empty property.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): I have received a large number of representations about the level of standard charge which some authorities have set and the degree to which they have used their discretionary powers.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the insistence of many local authorities on levying a standard charge on the owners of empty properties which are awaiting resale following the removal of the owners to a new permanent address? Will my hon. Friend make it clear to local authorities that, as Parliament has given them the power to levy either a personal charge or a nil charge on some properties, they should consider making wider use of that power?
    Mr. Chope: I share the concern that my hon. Friend has stressed. That is why we shall write to local authorities to ascertain how they have been exercising their discretion. If we are dissatisfied, we shall have to consider whether we should specify the maximum multipliers that they can use in certain cases.
    Mr. Battle: Will the Minister explain why poll tax, if it is not a property tax, is levied on second homes? Why is it levied on empty properties? Why is it levied on caravans, with the result that people in Leeds who own a modest caravan can no longer afford to go on holiday? Is not it a property tax?
    Mr. Chope: Domestic rates used to be levied on empty property. My recollection from sitting in Committee with the hon. Gentleman is that the Labour party is in favour of a contribution being made by owners of empty properties towards the cost of local government expenditure. That is why we have a standard community charge.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my hon. Friend aware that many young people in my constituency and throughout the country who have bought a home in a bad state of repair to renovate are now being charged double standard community charge as well as their personal community charge? It is a disgrace. What will my hon. Friend do about it?
    Mr. Chope: I share my hon. Friend's concern. Responsibility must lie with individual councils. They have discretion, and some have not used it as I would have done. That some local authorities have found a reason to exempt their own empty council properties from the standard community charge shows the sense of priorities of some local authorities.
    Mr. Blunkett: Why, if the local authorities are to blame, was the scheme introduced by the Government in such a way, and why were 100 per cent. collection rates presumed, on the presumption that the money would be made up from the standard poll tax and the grant distribution would be assumed to have a standard poll tax collection rate of two per empty property? Is the Under-Secretary of State willing, in the review that we hear so much about, to ensure that local authorities are properly funded so that they can use their discretion to help all the people that Opposition Members believe should be assisted? Will he tell us why a property tax that is not a property tax needs a property tax to catch up on those who own second homes, who need to pay for local community services but cannot pay a property tax because the Government have abolished it?
    Mr. Chope: Perhaps my answer will be too brief for the hon. Gentleman. The Government make no assumptions about income from the standard community charge when calculating revenue support grant. Therefore, there is no pressure on English local authorities to set the maximum multiplier in all cases. There is absolute discretion, and many Conservative Members are concerned that local authorities have not been exercising that discretion reasonably.

    Storm Damage
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will increase the Government's package of aid to replace trees lost in the recent storms.
    Mr. Trippier: In February I announced a £1 million package of aid to Task Force Trees and English Heritage to help to replace amenity and historically important trees lost in this year's storms. We shall consider the provision of further aid as part of this autumn's public expenditure survey. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recently anounced special cash help to assist planting of broadleaved trees in woodlands damaged by the storms.
    Mr. Townsend: Although I pay tribute to the Government, the Countryside Commission and English Heritage for the work that they are doing to restore the widespread damage following the storms, does the Minister agree that it is now perfectly obvious that more needs to be done? Will he have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer to try to get him a little more interested in restoring damage and planting acorns—concepts that should not be utterly alien to the Treasury?
    Mr. Trippier: I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's underlying point. It is perfectly clear from the way that the Government have responded, especially with the near £30 million that has been spent following the incredible tragedy of the 1987 storms, that our commitment is total. Obviously, we shall have to wait for the negotiations in the public expenditure survey round later this year, but I have sympathy for the underlying point.
    Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware of the storm devastation that still exists in the south-east? A number of trees still have not been cleared, never mind new planting. I echo what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) said. Much more money is needed. How many
    274
    trees were lost in those two major storms and how many trees have been replanted, given the small amount of money that the Government have made available?
    Mr. Trippier: We have had a substantial number of applications from various bodies, including local authorities, and it would be impossible for me to catalogue the total number of trees affected, but after the recent storms we received 148 applications which I believe are eligible for grant aid. Some of that money will be forthcoming this financial year and some more next year in the public expenditure survey settlement. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I admit that the bulk of the cost is not in planting but in clearing fallen trees.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Day: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a person on average male earnings would pay in local income tax in 1990–91 in order to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge in Truro.
    Mr. Portillo: If we had a system of local income tax which raised the same amount as the community charge nationally, a single person in Truro on average male earnings could have paid up to £888.
    Mr. Day: I thank my hon. Friend for that most interesting and illuminating reply for which I am sure the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is grateful. Would it be even more helpful if roof tax figures were available for Truro and the rest of the country? Does my hon. Friend agree that the expected publication of Labour's mini-manifesto tomorrow is likely to throw no more light on the subject than Labour has shed on it in the past? Do not the public have a right to expect an answer concerning the Labour party's proposals?
    Mr. Portillo: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be helpful to have authoritative figures from the Labour party on the roof tax. My hon. Friend speculates that tomorrow's policy document will not provide much illumination on that subject. I can hardly believe that that is true. Labour party spokesmen—Mr. Peter Mandelson in particular—have more or less assured us that the details will be spelt out in tomorrow's document. Therefore, my hon. Friend must be mistaken if he says that they will not be forthcoming tomorrow.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: I assure the Minister and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) that Truro has absolutely no interest in the Labour party's roof tax. It is, however, interested in the local income tax proposals. Although the Minister is new to his job, he ought to be aware that his figures are not based on the kind of local income tax system that we would introduce. The local income tax figure for an average household in my constituency is £317, compared with an average household poll tax bill of £622. Cheadle constituents may be interested to know that the average local income tax bill for each household there would be £365, compared with an average household poll tax bill of £798. The hon. Member for Cheadle lost his seat as a councillor to the Liberals and no doubt will lose his parliamentary seat at the next general election.
    Mr. Portillo: All I can say is "abracadabra." The SLD has come up with a system under which everyone everywhere pays less. Today I can reveal how that trick is achieved. Part of the trick is to take last year's figures, thus raising only £7·2 billion in local income tax in England whereas this year £10·8 billion is being raised from the community charge. Immediately, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's figures are out by a cool 50 per cent. Furthermore, my figures compare what a person on average male earnings would pay in each constituency. We are looking at what a person on the same level of earnings would pay in each constituency, which seems to be the only valid comparison.

    Environmental Conference, Bergen
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent international conference on the environment at Bergen, Norway.
    Mr. Trippier: I led the United Kingdom delegation to the ministerial conference on sustainable development in Bergen on 8 to 16 May which was attended by all member countries of the Economic Commission for Europe. It examined progress within the ECE on implementing the recommendations of the Brundtland report and allowed us to consider, from a regional point of view, the most crucial issues that will need to be decided at the United Nations conference on environment and development in 1992. It was also the first opportunity for western Environment Ministers to meet their newly elected colleagues from east Europe. The United Kingdom won praise for its constructive approach to the conference as whole, and in particular for its contribution to the forward-looking ministerial declaration which was adopted unanimously and by acclamation and a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
    Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that it is a scandal that the conference failed to agree on even the modest first step of holding carbon dioxide emissions at their current level in 10 years' time? How can the Government say that they are committed to fighting global warming when all that they did at the conference was slavishly to follow the United States line?
    Mr. Trippier: That is drivel. If the hon. Gentleman compares the Noordwÿk declaration with that which was agreed to at Bergen, he will see that a step has been taken in the right direction. The Bergen conference was not about carbon dioxide emissions but about sustainable development. The conference which is to concentrate on carbon dioxide emissions, their stabilisation and future reduction, is the second world climate change conference in Geneva, when the United Kingdom delegation will be led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. It is absolute tripe and demonstrably daft for the hon. Gentleman to suggest to me, of all people, that we adopted the American line when we acted as honest brokers in bringing the Americans together with all the other countries at the conference.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend and his colleagues attend conferences, do they ever discuss not just man-made problems but natural problems? Many of the difficulties and hazards to the environment are caused by
    276
    nature. Is it not about time that we began to consider methods of rectifying the problems which result from natural disasters?
    Mr. Trippier: I accept entirely that one of the most important issues that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to address is global climate changes which are caused by man-made problems and those which occur naturally. That will be the subect of the three reports which I hope will be made public prior to the final report from Professor Bolin in late August.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the seriousness of his approach to the problems in Bergen and acknowledge that he played a part in telling everyone how serious the problems under discussion were? Is he aware that we are disappointed, as were many of the participants, that he blocked some of the proposals, particularly the attempt to get agreement on an immediate commitment to stabilise carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2000? Is not it a fact that the Minister and the Secretary of State recognise the scale of the problems being discussed but are constantly undermined by other Cabinet Ministers, including the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Energy and the Prime Minister herself"? When does the Minister expect to make progress with his Cabinet colleagues, or will this be another case of Environment Ministers saying, "abracadabra"?
    Mr. Trippier: What a pity—I was most impressed and incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for the way in which she commenced her series of questions, and I am most grateful to her for her kind words about me. I have said already that the conference was not about carbon dioxide. If the hon. Lady had been in my place at that conference, she would not have agreed to a target or to any level, and many other countries also would not reach such an agreement—it was not just Britain and the Americas—because those matters have to be addressed in Geneva in November. The Government have been a large subscriber to the IPCC process, both financially and in terms of human resources, so it would be ridiculous for us not to wait until the IPCC has reported before deciding targets. The point was effectively made by the Danish Minister at the conference, who said that she was fed up with having to attend so many international conferences—seven in the past nine months—at which every main issue expected to be addressed involved carbon dioxide emissions. The hon. Lady must be a little more patient as it is only a few months until the Geneva conference.

    European Environment Agency
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the role of the proposed European Environment Agency.
    Mr. Chris Patten: The aim of the agency is to provide the Commission and member states with objective, reliable and comparable environmental information at Community level. It will work by co-ordinating information from a network of national institutions and co-operate with other international bodies to avoid duplication. The regulation setting out the role of the agency in detail was adopted on 7 May 1990.
    Mr. Paice: My right hon. Friend will agree that the agency will gather statistics, which will prove once and for

    277
    all that Britain is well ahead of many other European countries in protection of the environment. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour council in Cambridge has said that it does not wish the agency to be based in the city of Cambridge, thus displaying the council's real level of concern? May I assure my right hon. Friend that there are many suitable sites in my constituency close to the Cambridge city boundary where we would be pleased and proud to see the agency based?
    Mr. Patten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Whatever others may have done or said, he has consistently and vigorously pressed the case for Cambridge and the Cambridge area as the best base for this important agency. Cambridge has all the resources that the agency needs to operate successfully. It is the best candidate in the European Community, and I very much hope that the decision will take account of the overwhelming case for Cambridge and the surrounding area.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will the Secretary of State also recognise the strong case that has been made by Aberdeen university to share in the work done by the environment agency and in the north of Scotland? As we do not wish to see centralisation, would not it be appropriate to steer some of the work north of the border?
    Mr. Patten: If we had the opportunity at this Question Time, I have no doubt that more than 600 good cases could be made for the agency to be sited in different parts of the country—I will forbear to press the argument for Bath—but whatever the case for other universities, it is recognised well beyond our shores that Cambridge has an outstanding case.

    Planning
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many simplified planning zones have been set up since the scheme commenced; and how many are in the pipeline for future approval.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): In England, simplified planning zones have been established in Derby and Corby. A further eight zones are at various stages of preparation.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the biggest problems facing entrepreneurs trying to bring enterprise and jobs to inner-city areas are the obstacles placed in their way by unhelpful planning authorities such as Kirklees council? Does he agree that we should be doing everything in our power, including the use of simplified planning zones, to make it easier to develop in inner-city areas, thereby reducing the pressure to build on green field sites?
    Mr. Moynihan: I recognise the excellent work that my hon. Friend has done in trying to persuade his council to use a simplified planning zone. [Interruption.] Some Labour Members laugh, but many Labour councils have recognised the benefits of simplified planning zones for regenerating areas where there has been industrial after-use and for jobs. I am surprised that Labour Members laugh at the prospect of councils working with Government to create jobs.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Minister recognise that many local authorities are extremely anxious that deregulation
    278
    will lead to danger for the community and a risk to the environment? Will he guarantee that simplified planning zones will not give freedom to the irresponsible entrepreneur, who may be most interested in such development?
    Mr. Moynihan: The hon. Member will know that a simplifed planning zone is established not at the direction of Government but at the request of the local authority concerned which, as with local plans, must undertake proper consultation, taking into account the important point that the hon. Gentleman made.
    Mrs. Currie: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Derby we are thrilled to bits with our simplified planning zone, which has enabled the quick clearance of a derelict site and the erection of fine industrial units which have been let or sold, to the delight of the local business community? Will my hon. Friend come and see what we are doing in Derby so that he can assure Opposition Members that their fears are groundless?
    Mr. Moynihan: It is always a pleasure to accept my hon. Friend's invitation to visit Derby. If I did so, I would see the 41-hectare site which, as a result of an imaginative response by the people of Derby and the simplified planning procedures, will enable an area of industrial plant to be brought back into active use in the interests of local people.
    Mr. O'Brien: Does not the Minister's reply show that the simplified planning zone system is all to cock and on the whole not welcomed by local government? How well does it fit in with the present unitary development plan and the overall strategic plan? Has the Minister given thought to the planning problems that local authorities face and does he intend to help them by explaining how the scheme will fit in with unitary planning?
    Mr. Moynihan: I am surprised that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman does not know the answer to that question. The answer is that the zones fit in perfectly. When local councils draw up their plans they will look at the specific areas where they need the opportunity to allow planning to go ahead without cumbersome procedures. They can identify those areas, propose simplified planning zones and institute them within the overall remit of their unitary development plans.

    Right to Buy
    Mr. Gerald Bowden: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions his Department has had with Southwark council about the level of capital repair charges which it sets for tenants who have exercised their right to buy.
    Mr. Chope: The Department has recently written to the London borough of Southwark following representations by my hon. Friend and others about pre-sale estimates of service charges for repairs and improvements.
    Mr. Bowden: My hon. Friend will be aware that those of us who take a close interest in the affairs of Southwark are convinced that Southwark council is using or misusing procedures under the right to buy to discourage people who are considering purchasing and, indeed, to demoralise those who have already purchased. Are the Government prepared to sit by and see their laws challenged in that

    279
    way? More importantly, are the Government prepared to see the rightful aspirations of those who wish to purchase thwarted by those procedures?
    Mr. Chope: No. Parliament has given tenants the right to buy their flats and the Government are determined to see that those tenants have the right to exercise that right. My hon. Friend is right in suspecting that the failure in performance of Southwark council is largely due to a lack of will. Southwark has sold only about 690 flats in a period when Wandsworth sold more than 10,000.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware that, not only in Southwark but elsewhere, councils which did no repair work on property before it was sold then estimate the repairs required in the next five years, apparently plucking figures out of the air and charging enormous sums of money—sometimes thousands of pounds—per purchaser per year? What do the Government intend to do to clarify the law? More importantly, does the individual purchaser have a right of access to the information on which the council carried out the valuation? If not, the tenant has no possibility of challenging the figure and apparently no option other than to pay. Freedom of information as well as clarification of the law is needed.
    Mr. Chope: This is, indeed, a complicated area of the law. It appears that Southwark council is trying to use that to its advantage. I have written to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden). Certainly it seems to the Government that Southwark has wrongly interpreted the law in certain respects. I should be happy to explain to the hon. Gentleman the Government's concerns about that. The hon. Gentleman referred to the amount of resources that Southwark has and the amount that it spends. Southwark has masses of resources. It receives £33 million in its housing investment programme allocation and this year it is likely to receive about £94 million in housing revenue account subsidy.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce amending legislation for changes in the poll tax.
    Mr. Portillo: The Government have already announced that they intend to bring forward legislation to amend the law on the standard community charge as it relates to caravans.
    Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister for the poll tax disappointed that the tax remains as deeply unpopular as it was when it was first introduced? Will the recently appointed co-ordinator of Government lies—I am sorry, I mean "information"—have an input in any adjustments to the poll tax?
    Mr. Portillo: Since I took on the new responsibilities, it has become clear to me that the principle that everyone should contribute to the cost of local government is becoming more and more widely accepted. Indeed, I remember hearing the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) say yesterday that the most unpopular system for local taxation in Scotland was not the community charge but the roof tax proposed by the Labour party.
    Mr. Conway: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, although there is no real need to amend that legislation, if
    280
    he is to make the community charge more understandable. and more accountable in the metropolitan areas, he should amend section 7 of the Local Government Act 1972 and enable the county councils to be elected on the basis of one third retiring annually so that local electors do not have to wait until 1993 to express their views about the high charges that have been levied by Labour county councils in the main?
    Mr. Portillo: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. He may be thinking of that the fact that in his own county of Shropshire income has increased over the past year by 16·3 per cent., which had a major effect on the community charge in Shrewsbury which was set at £333. I well understand that point and urge county councils to be responsible when setting their income demands because under the new system such demands impact on the charge payer.
    Mrs. Mahon: What extra resources will the Minister give the poll-tax-capped councils which have to send out extra bills for the administrative costs? In view of those capped councils, will the Minister explain the accountability argument?
    Mr. Portillo: It was with some regret that the Government felt that they had to embark on charge-capping, but unfortunately some councils exercised themselves in such a way that they overspent excessively. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State therefore felt bound to offer some protection to the community charge payers. In proposing the caps, my right hon. Friend took into account the administrative costs of rebilling.
    Mr. Dunn: Will my hon. Friend consider introducing legislation to help prevent the disgraceful practice of the Labour-controlled Walsall council, now also being followed by Labour-controlled Bradford council, that people living in Conservative wards are to receive fewer services and have less money spent on them than those in a Labour ward? Given that tomorrow the Labour party will be making a further attempt to con the British people into believing that Labour is suitable for Government, does my hon. Friend agree that the practices of Labour in power are nearer the truth?
    Mr. Portillo: I have been so appalled by the allegations of that spiteful act that I am looking urgently into the matter. I have spoken today to Councillor Pickles in Bradford and am trying to establish what is going on. It would certainly be disgraceful if those practices were actually being carried out. I urge community charge payers in those areas to examine whether they have some recourse under the law as it now stands.
    Mr. Gould: If the Minister is unable to tell us what changes he proposes to the poll tax, or whether legislation will be required, will he at least assure us that as soon as he has made up his mind he will make an immediate statement to the House? In the light of his earlier reply that all that he can say is "Abracadabra", will he assure the House that he is under no illusion that such an approach will suffice in the case of the poll tax?
    Mr. Portillo: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has risen for a second time this afternoon and is leading with his chin once more. It is not the Government who are due to make an announcement—it is the Labour party, and we shall be looking closely at what the Labour party

    281
    says. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are currently engaged in trying to establish what anomalies there might be in the operation of the present tax. If we conclude that any changes are needed—I have not yet reached any conclusions—we shall, of course, make an announcement to the House.

    Water Quality
    Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to improve the water quality off the north Devon coast; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Trippier: In October last year, the Government announced details of a £1·4 billion programme designed to bring United Kingdom bathing waters up to European quality standards within the next 10 years; £123 million of this was identified for improvement schemes on the north Devon coast. On 5 March my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that all significant discharges to coastal waters would be subjected to at least primary treatment, at an estimated cost of £1·5 billion. Discussions are now being held with the water industry and relevant regulatory bodies about the implementation of this investment programme.
    Mr. Speller: I hope that my hon. Friend realises that the phrase "primary treatment" just means that the sewage is chopped up and does not improve the position. Is he aware that 118 licensed consents for disposal of sewage—either raw or partially treated—have been granted in the Bristol area, and that the sewage goes into the Bristol channel? I thank my hon. Friend for the good figures in the Finance Bill, but does he agree that our aim should be that eventually no sewage, partially treated or otherwise, is dumped in the sea? We must look to other alternatives such as landfill, incineration and controlled treatment on land, for sewage that is now sent into the sea. The sea should not be the open sewer that it is at present.
    Mr. Trippier: The Government's view is the same as that expressed in my hon. Friend's two last points. He is right to point out that, given that alternatives must now be examined as a result of the policy decision made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and announced at the North sea conference, the other main options are incineration and landfill, or perhaps the use of treated sewage sludge as agricultural fertiliser. The House and every local authority must come to terms with the fact that alternative methods of disposal must be examined. That means that local authorities in particular must accept responsibility, especially for planning. We cannot simply wave a magic wand to make the dreadful stuff disappear.

    Empty Property
    Mr. Crowther: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the percentage of homes that have been empty for more than six months for (a) private housing, (b) housing associations, (c) local authorities and (d) Government and other public sectors.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: At April 1989, about 1 per cent. of local authority and 2 per cent. of housing association dwellings had been empty for more than six months. I do not have corresponding information for other ownership
    282
    groups, but surveys in 1977 and 1980 suggested that at any time up to 3 per cent. of private sector dwellings had been vacant for more than six months.
    Mr. Crowther: In the light of that reply, does the Minister agree that it is clear that, in the main, local authorities are exercising their responsibilities for their share of the nation's housing stock in an efficient way? Will he and other Ministers kindly stop attacking local authorities at every turn, as the local authorities are clearly doing better than other sectors?
    Mr. Spicer: I do not regard a total of 100,000 empty local authority houses—which the housing authorities are responsible for providing—as acceptable. However, I accept that a large number of private sector dwellings—some 600,000—are also unoccupied. Why are they unoccupied? According to our surveys and research, the main reason for that is years of Socialist policies, such as rent control and controlled tenures and it has become somehow unacceptable to rent houses—that is something that we must put right. There has been legislation to deregulate and liberalise the private rented sector; we should now be putting self-confidence back into landlords so that they start to bring their houses back on to the market.
    Mr. Tracey: Is my hon. Friend aware that just five Labour authorities in London have more than 10,000 empty public sector houses? In addition, five Labour authorities in London have £83 million of rents uncollected. As two of those authorities are Lambeth and Southwark councils, does the Minister agree that if they put their house in order it would help the homeless in London?
    Mr. Spicer: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. That is why in recent months the Government have given £250 million to local authorities to renovate their housing stock—especially Labour authorities, because, as my hon. Friend said, they are far and away the worst culprits. That money will help to put those houses back into use, so that they can be used by the homeless people to whom my hon. Friend referred.

    Water Quality
    Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's monitoring of eutrophication in British waters.
    Mr. Trippier: The National Rivers Authority is responsible for monitoring eutrophication in England and Wales.
    Mr. Wallace: I am sure that if the authority is doing its job it will have recognised that there is a problem of eutrophication in many British waters. Given that phosphates in detergents are a significant component cause of the problem, will the Government consider taking measures, in common with many other countries, to limit the amount of phosphates in detergent products and to introduce phosphate-stripping mechanisms in sewerage plants? I am sure that the Minister agrees that this is an important problem. What action are the Government taking?
    Mr. Trippier: I am sorry, but I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman's initial statement. He said that many inland sites are affected by eutrophication, but that is not correct. In the United Kingdom there are only a few affected inland sites, such as Loch Neagh in Northern Ireland, certain parts of the Norfolk broads and Loch Leven in Scotland. Earlier this year the natural environment research council confirmed that the United Kingdom's nutrient imputs, including phosphates, did not contribute to the accumulation of nutrients even in the North sea and the eastern part of the North sea where problems of eutrophication have occurred. It is more accurate to say that there is a serious problem of eutrophication on the continent in the Waddenzee, the Danish coastal waters, the German bight and the Adriatic sea.

    Environmental Issues
    Mr. Mans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards increasing public awareness of environmental issues.
    Mr. Chris Patten: I am firmly committed to increasing public awareness of environmental issues. My Department has taken many initiatives in this area, including greater public access to information, explanatory leaflets on environmental issues and plans for eco-labelling of products.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the moment the public is suffering most from too much inaccurate information and ill-informed opinion on the environment? Anything that the Government can do to increase the amount of factual information available must be an improvement on the present position.
    Mr. Patten: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is one reason why we have advocated the establishment of an environment agency, which we discussed earlier in Question Time. The more the public are aware of real and accurate information about comparative environmental statistics the more they will recognise that this country has a good record, but that we are not complacent about it and we want to do even better.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: It is a private Members' day, but I shall take the point of order from Mr. Marlow first.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) is about to explain to the House, not before time, the workings of the roof tax [Interruption.] One would have thought that that would be of great interest to the whole House, but, unfortunately, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who is the Opposition spokesman on the subject, is not here. We feel that he might want to listen to my hon. Friend's speech. Is there any way in which we can get him back to the Chamber? If not, as the roof tax is, I believe, an Opposition proposal in fundamental form, would it be more appropriate for my hon. Friend to speak from the Opposition Front Bench?
Mr. Speaker: Of course, it may be that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) will come back when these points of order come to an end.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time, a Minister at the Department of the Environment made an entirely unwarranted and unjustified attack on the city of Bradford. I said that he was trying to trample on local democracy and intimidate Labour councillors. Is it right that a Minister should be allowed to do that, particularly when Labour councillors, after their sweeping victory at the local elections, are busy clearing up the rotten mess left behind by the Tories?
Mr. Speaker: We often hear things with which we may violently disagree in this Chamber. It was in order.
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Further to the point of order of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) I wonder whether you would rule that it would be in order for my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) to speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box in the absence of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould)?
Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical matter.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) manages to get back, will you have a word with him to tell him to bring the Chancellor of the Exchequer along as well, so that he can come to the Dispatch Box to try to explain to the House why, in the first four months of this year, we have had a balance of payments deficit of £7 billion? That is the worst we have ever had and, despite all the gloss and the propaganda of the past few days, that balance of payments deficit is getting no better. We want him here.
Mr. Speaker: These are legitimate matters to raise on the Adjournment motion. The deputy Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, will be present to answer them. I cannot answer them.
Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Can you rule on this matter? There was originally in the list of Environment questions for today Question 7 in my name, which read as follows:
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment" ——
Mr. Speaker: For today?
Mr. Hughes: Not today's Order Paper but in the paper printed on Monday and on previous days. The question was:
"To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities in respect of the environmental protection of Antarctica."
The question was transferred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I understand from inquiry that the decision was made not by the Table Office but by the Department. I further understand that the Department of the Environment accepts that it has responsibilities other than those relating to the United Kingdom. It is a very important matter. Environment Ministers tell us about global warming conferences, follow-up conferences to Brundtland and Bergen, and international discussions. They must have international responsibilities.
Can you inquire whether it is possible in future for Members to table questions to Environment Ministers about international environmental issues, or is it the case in this area, as in so many others, that what we feared is the truth: that they are given no responsibility by the Government, by the Prime Minister or by others for anything outside the remit of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It has taken the hon. Member five minutes to make his point.
Mr. Hughes: I should be grateful if, today or later, Mr. Speaker, you would tell us whether we can ask the Department of the Environment questions which relate to anything outside the United Kingdom.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman alleged that the Table Office had transferred the question.
Mr. Hughes: No.
Mr. Speaker: I am responsible for the Table Office. The question was not transferred by the Table Office.
Mr. Hughes: That is what I said.
Mr. Speaker: It is a matter for the Department whether questions are transferred. The hon. Gentleman should take it up with the Department. It is not my responsibility.
Mr. David Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance on free postage and free notepaper in the House. Is it against the rules for a Member to use that privilege to circularise constituents? If it is against the rules, will you please take swift and strong action against the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who persists in abusing that privilege?
Mr. Graham Allen rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I can protect the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). He has seen the error of his ways and has paid for the notepaper and postage that he used.
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have heard during Environment questions the young and thrusting new

287
Minister for the poll tax making a disgraceful allegation about Bradford, which you have already covered. Did you also hear him say that, in order to find out whether the allegation was true, he had contacted the ex-leader of Bradford city council? Surely the constitutional relationship should have a Minister talking to the elected leader of Bradford city council. Will the Minister, through you, give an assurance that he will contact the elected leader—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds like a continuation of Question Time. This is private Members' time. I am bound to take points of order into account in making my selection.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Week after week, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) has filled the Order Paper with pages of proposed alterations to the rules. Is it not time he obeyed his own rules before proposing new ones?
Mr. Ron Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you explain to the lot opposite that there is a community charge, and the charge is that the poll tax is unacceptable, north and south of the border? I say that as a so-called Toy Town revolutionary. Toy Town revolutionaries will always challenge Toy Town reactionaries. The arguments and the campaign are, "Don't collect, don't co-operate—fight back."
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot answer questions like that. It is time that we all went away for the holiday.

Points of Order

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 15 JUNE
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Brian Sedgemore

  Mr. Michael Latham

  Mr. Alan Williams

  BILL PRESENTED
    PRIVATE SECURITY (REGISTRATION)
    Mr. Bruce George, supported by Sir Barney Hayhoe, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. John McFall, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Neil Thorne, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. John Wilkinson, Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Menzies Campbell and Mr. Don Dixon, presented a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Private Security Registration Council and to give that Council powers and functions for the regulation of firms offering private security servicess and of persons employed as private security agents; to require the registration for such firms and persons with the Council; to impose requirements upon such firms and persons; to make provision of training of persons employed as private security agents; to make provision for compensation to be paid in respect of inadequately insured death or injury arising from the activities of such firms and persons; to define offences and specify penalties; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 June and to be printed. [Bill 148.]
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

    CRIMINAL DAMAGE (NORTHERN IRELAND)
    Ordered,
    That the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1990 (S.R. (N.I.), 1990, No. 79) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    Ordered,
    That European Community Document No. 4748/90 relating to glazing, masses and dimensions and tyres of road vehicles be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.—[Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Roof Tax
3.40 pm
Mr. Neil Hamilton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower local authorities to raise revenue by levying charges on domestic property.
I should first of all like to deny the rumour that has been put around unworthily by some of my hon. Friends that this is an unserious or frivolous occasion, and what I am proposing this afternoon is a spoof tax. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a serious event. This afternoon I am seeking to advance democratic debate and provide alternatives for the people throughout the country to choose between. Recognising as I do that the Labour party is out of practice in introducing legislation into the House, I thought that I would distil the wisdom of the past 12 years to give it the opportunity, through me, to introduce its flagship local government proposals.
One thing we know is that the Labour party is firmly resolved to abolish the community charge as soon as it assumes office. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has said so on many occasions. Thanks to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), we also know that the Labour party is determined to produce an alternative. Before the local government elections in 1988, he said:
"Our local government campaign must not be, and will not be, a series of attacks on the Government. Simply to oppose is the sort of vacuous opposition which the people of this country despise. We must, and we will, offer our alternatives."
Several months later, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), the Leader of the Opposition, announced:
"We are sophisticating the policy."
I appreciate that sophistication and the right hon. Gentleman are not often found in conjunction. It is certainly true that we have not seen much sophistication since.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), who mysteriously appears to have vanished from the Chamber, announced in January of this year in the House:
"We are making very good progress with the work that we have undertaken to prepare our alternative … We have every confidence that in the coming months we shall reach a conclusion that we shall be able to bring forward with confidence."—[Official Report, 18 January 1990; Vol. 165, c. 438–39.]
I am delighted to bring that forward with confidence today.
The author of Labour party policy today, Mr. Peter Mandelson, the candidate for Hartlepool, announced on Radio Cleveland on 4 April that the next major policy statement by the Labour party would be on 23 or 24 May. He said that that statement would contain the party's fully worked out alternative to the poll tax. As that document is to be published tomorrow, I am giving the Labour party the first possible opportunity to put into legislative form the announcements that are about to be made.
In anticipation of this event, I wrote in these terms to the hon. Member for Dagenham on 9 May to announce that I was going to present my Bill today:
"Although I have my own ideas, I would be grateful for your assistance in drafting the details of the Bill … The Committee stage of the Bill will be an excellent opportunity for Labour to clarify its thoughts and test some of its ideas.
In view of the importance which you attach to replacing the poll tax as soon as possible with what you see as a fairer alternative, and the opportunity which I offer of a substantial backbench Tory rebellion if we can construct such an
290
alternative, I am sure you will agree that this is an opportunity to render a service to the country and derive some kudos for the Labour party at a time whem its electoral fortunes appear to be on the slide. Can we meet as soon as possible to discuss tactics?"
I regret to say that difficult as it must be for Conservative Members to understand, this opportunity was refused.
As the House well knows, however, the Labour party in Scotland has produced its alternative; the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) announced in February that the party intended to return, in effect, to the rating system and that, instead of notional rental values, the tax would be based on the capital value of a house. This would bring advantages for many hard-pressed sections of the community. Time does not allow me to name too many of them so I shall name only one: chartered surveyors. In the flat condition of the property market today they are, of course, desperate for work. In a
"if Labour wins power, the new system could bring an explosion of work through a one-off general revaluation followed by annual sample surveys.
Another aspect which should make professionals salivate is the almost unlimited potential for appeals",
and so on.
Of course, although advantages would undoubtedly accrue to certain members of the community, the great advantage of what is proposed by the Labour party is that no one need be worse off, because if a person is dissatisfied with the liability that he is likely to have on his house, he can always trade down. I believe that the hon. Member for Dagenham has already done that. Recently, in that estimable newspaper the Daily Mail, there was an article about the hon. Gentleman, who recently sold his delightful house in Oxfordshire in order to purchase a small flat near Moreton-in-Marsh.
I wondered why the hon. Gentleman had made this change. First and foremost, an instant's thought will tell the more sagacious Members of the House that Moreton-in-Marsh is represented by our right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and we can well understand the eagerness with which the hon. Gentleman desires to become one of his constituents. But as I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's flat is in a very large 18th century country house called Northwick park—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I can assure hon. Members that there is no ideological inconsistency in that, because the flat is in the former servants' quarters. It will undoubtedly reduce the hon. Gentleman's potential liability. Its third advantage is that it is further from Dagenham. I can well understand why the hon. Gentleman, proposing as he does a roof tax, wants to be as far away from his constituency as possible. As the average price of a house in Dagenham is £65,000, to raise the same revenue as the community charge, the roof tax there will have to be £10·90 per £1,000, so the average roof tax will be £711 compared with a community charge of £278. A single person would be £433 a year worse off than at present and couples would be £155 a year worse off.
Of course there are advantages to the roof tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) tells me that in Scotland many blocks of flats have been assigned a negative value by district valuers. One assumes that when the roof tax is introduced it will be perfectly symmetrical.

291
That means that people in hereditaments with a positive value will pay something while those who occupy properties that have a negative value will be paid to live there.
I hope that what I am about to say, Mr. Speaker, will not alarm you. You live in one of the most desirable of residences, and its capital value is very great. An open market valuation may well add several millions to it. You derive a reasonable salary for carrying out your onerous office, and I do not begrudge a single penny of it. We all hope that you will continue to occupy your residence, just as we all hope that there will not be a Labour Government after the next general election. I hope that we shall not find Mrs. Weatherill putting bed-and-breakfast notices outside your residence to supplement your income so that you can pay the roof tax.
It will he simple to avoid the roof tax in the same way as the window tax was avoided. Just as windows were bricked up, so the roof can be removed and that will considerably reduce the value of the property.
There are reasons why my Bill should be supported by hon. Members on both sides of the House. First, Labour Members should support their party policy by voting for me. Secondly, I should be supported by my hon. Friends who, by voting for the Bill, will show to electors all over the country and especially in London, the south-east and in areas where property values are greater than the average, how much they would lose by the election of a Labour Government. I call upon my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members to support me in the Lobby.
3.52 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh rose——
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Leigh: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
I am surprised by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). As one would expect, he has presented his Bill with his customary wit and wisdom, but the measure is singularly ill-conceived. If I did not know my hon. Friend better, I would suspect that he had consulted the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), but surely that could not be the case.
My hon. Friend is a somewhat unlikely champion of socialism. Only this week, I espied him at a society wedding, wearing spats and carrying a cane with a silver top. I know that the vodka-and-tonic version of the Labour party to which the hon. Member for Dagenham belongs may not mind people wearing spats. Earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition commented on the need for sartorial elegance by his spokesmen. Will they have to wear spats in the House in future?
Although my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton has presented his Bill in a mischievous tone, I must speak up on this entirely serious issue. I speak not just on behalf of my constituents but on behalf of those of the hon. Member for Dagenham. We have heard that people who occupy houses in Dagenham with an average value of £65,000 may well be as much as £400 worse off. This is therefore a serious issue for all our constituents.
I do not want to see the Bill proceed further, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, knowing
292
me as he does and as godfather to one of my children, knows that it will hit large families hard. My hon. Friend knows that children need roofs and that large families need large roofs. Only this week, I acquired another member of my family. The Bill is a personal dig at me, and that is another reason for opposing it. It must also be a dig at the hon. Member for Dagenham, who occupies a great mansion in Gloucestershire with sweeping valley roofs and great pitched gables. I understand that his roof tax could be as much as £3,000. Is this a dig at the hon. Member for Dagenham?
There are some serious points. I oppose the Bill because I want some answers. I see a Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) sitting on the Labour Front Bench. Let him answer a few simple questions. I will give way happily. I hope that he is listening carefully.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's questions, as this is a ten-minute Bill.
Mr. Leigh: How unfortunate. The hon. Gentleman can listen. I am sure that when that part-time Geordie and full-time London sophisticate Mr. Mandelson sophisticates the roof tax on Thursday, he will answer my questions. They have not been answered so far.
These questions can be put simply. First, how can it be fair to pay a tax based on property when a person's income can remain static while the capital value of his home goes up, with the result that, under the Bill's proposals, the roof tax will rise? Secondly, how can such a system be fair if one has no capital stake in one's home—for instance, when one is a tenant? Again, under the Bill's provisions, liability for roof tax still increases.
It is not surprising that this crab-like tax has crept forward, dodged around and come back. It is impossible to get a property tax like this to be fair. If we were to have a system based on income, there would be other problems. For example, Inland Revenue statistics are based not on a person's whereabouts, but on his job. How does one find out where a person is living and how much of his income should be redistributed around the authorities? Furthermore, London and the south-east have a concentration of high income tax payers. How does one redistribute that? It would make the rate support grant look like an easy game of draughts.
The roof tax is riddled through with inconsistencies and is fundamentally flawed. I am surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. In the manner of Opposition spokesmen, he has proposed a policy without a price tag. He has given us no figures. We still have not heard from my hon. Friend or the Labour party whether this will be a tax on individuals or on households. Only the Labour party would produce a tax without saying who would be taxed, and we must be told.
All this is a diversion from what we should be discussing. The problem is not the nature of local government taxation but the fact that local government taxation is too high. People are paying too much. If Wandsworth and Westminster prove one thing, it is that Conservative councillors, in the next year or two, have rigorously to look at all their budgets and get bills down.
The roof tax is a mere smokescreen. It is confused and confusing. It is unexplained and inexplicable. I urge the House to reject the Bill with a substantial majority.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business)
The House divided: Ayes Nil, Noes 119.

Division No. 223]

[3.58 pm

AYES

Mr. Neil Hamilton and Mr. David Evans.

Tellers for the Ayes:

NOES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Irving, Sir Charles

Arbuthnot, James

Janman, Tim

Ashby, David

Jessel, Toby

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Aspinwall, Jack

Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Batiste, Spencer

Kennedy, Charles

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Kilfedder, James

Beggs, Roy

Knapman, Roger

Beith, A. J.

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Knowles, Michael

Bevan, David Gilroy

Latham, Michael

Boswell, Tim

Lawrence, Ivan

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

Lightbown, David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Livsey, Richard

Buck, Sir Antony

Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)

Burns, Simon

McCrindle, Robert

Butcher, John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

Butler, Chris

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Cartwright, John

Morris, M (N'hampton S)

Cash, William

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Norris, Steve

Chapman, Sydney

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Colvin, Michael

Page, Richard

Conway, Derek

Porter, David (Waveney)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Riddick, Graham

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Cryer, Bob

Roe, Mrs Marion

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Shaw, David (Dover)

Day, Stephen

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Devlin, Tim

Shelton, Sir William

Dunn, Bob

Skinner, Dennis

Evennett, David

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Fallon, Michael

Speed, Keith

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Fishburn, John Dudley

Stern, Michael

Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Franks, Cecil

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Gale, Roger

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

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Gow, Ian

Thorne, Neil

Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)

Tracey, Richard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Trimble, William

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Viggers, Peter

Gregory, Conal

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Grylls, Michael

Wallace, James

Hague, William

Ward, John

Hannam, John

Watts, John

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Harris, David

Wheeler, Sir John

Hayward, Robert

Whitney, Ray

Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)

Widdecombe, Ann

Hind, Kenneth

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Tellers for the Noes:

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

Mr. Julian Brazier and Mr. David Nicholson.

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Irvine, Michael

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have said on numerous occasions that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a distinguished former chairman of the Labour party. There may have been some confusion during the Division because the hon. Gentleman voted against the Roof Tax Bill. As he is a member of the national executive of the Labour party, whose policy this is, perhaps he ought to come to the Dispatch Box and explain what happened.
Mr. Speaker: Since the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has been attacked, I shall hear him.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The record ought to be put straight. The Labour party's national executive, under my chairmanship, never discussed the roof tax. During the course of the subsequent year, it never discussed the roof tax. During the last half hour, the Tories have played a clever and humorous game, but it was based on a figment of somebody's imagination. There has not been a Labour party roof tax, there will not be a roof tax and we killed it long before the Tories played their little game today.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the matter can be taken any further. It is not a matter for me.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) voted, as he explained, against the Roof Tax Bill. He must understand what the Roof Tax Bill is all about and what a roof tax involves. We do not. Perhaps you would give him leave to explain during the Adjournment (Spring) debate what it is all about.
Mr. Speaker: I thought that we heard what it is all about in some detail from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton).
Mr. Bill Walker: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that decisions affecting Scotland are frequently made in Scotland by Scottish Members of Parliament meeting in Scotland. I understand that a roof tax decision affecting Scotland was decided upon in two minutes in Scotland. We are now facing the imposition of a roof tax that was decided upon in two minutes. However, we have just been told by a senior member of the Labour party's national executive that there will be no roof tax. Will the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) please do something about informing the people of Scotland?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. Since, however, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Scotland, I should like him to know how much I enjoyed my visit to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland last weekend.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. The House would like to know whether personal statements can be made today or tomorrow. The figment of imagination referred to by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a figment of the imagination of Labour party Front-Bench spokesmen—the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). It would be helpful to them, to us and to the hon. Member for Bolsover if we could be told whether a personal statement is to be made.
Mr. Speaker: I cannot be held responsible for figments of the imagination until they happen and nothing has happened yet. We should get on with the spring Adjournment motion.

Adjournment (Spring)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 24th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 5th June.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
4.13 pm
Sir Barney Hayhoe: The Adjournment motion provides an opportunity for Back-Bench Members to raise matters of local, regional or national concern. The brief comments that I want to make about the growing problem of funding in the National Health Service apply at local, regional and national levels. I make these comments not in the context of the public expenditure round for 1991–92, upon which discussions are now taking place between Ministers and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but in the context of the position this year. There is increasing pressure on the budgets of National Health Service hospitals.
Last autumn my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health told us how much he had achieved in obtaining extra resources for the Health Service for the financial year 1990–91. He equated those extra resources with a real growth in the Health Service. Since then, inflation has eroded—or more than eroded—that hoped-for and much-needed growth. Incidentally, the figures that the Government and Ministers produce on the Health Service, using the GDP deflator to demonstrate the effect of inflation, show a substantial growth in real terms in the finances available to the National Health Service. But one has to bear in mind that that global figure, although it is absolutely accurate, does not reveal the whole truth, which is that there has been a higher growth in family practitioner services, which are not cash limited, and a lower growth in hospital and community health services, which are.
The problems that we encounter in our constituencies are associated not with NHS family practitioner services but with hospital and community health services. Regional and district health authorities face severe financial constraints, and limits, reductions and cuts in patient services are necessary to balance the books for the current financial year. Ministers are more than usually insistent that the books are balanced this year to produce an even playing field next April for the introduction of the new financial regime for hospital services as a result of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill.
The Whitsun Adjournment gives Treasury and Health Ministers an opportunity to review the present difficulties. Ward and bed closures and restrictions on operating sessions are enormously inefficient ways of reducing expenditure within the Health Service because they reduce productivity and increase the unit costs of particular operations or services in an unacceptable way. They result in longer waiting times and waiting lists. Such actions are being taken within a Health Service where morale is certainly not at its best.
Only last weekend a group of nurses came to see me at one of my advice bureaux. Many of them were student nurses from my local hospital, the West Middlesex University hospital, complaining about the impact of the community charge. One can understand that. They feel that they are treated unfairly compared with RAF apprentices—that issue has been raised in the House. They are also concerned about what they describe as abominable conditions at their own nurses' home. The

297
problem is not that the district health authority and the hospital authorities do not wish to improve those conditions; but that they cannot do so because they do not have the available financial resources. Capital schemes generally have been badly hit by falling land values, particularly in the Thames regions.
The case for an in-year increase of funds for National Health Service hospitals grows stronger. It needs urgent and sympathetic action during the Whitsun Adjournment by Treasury and Health Ministers. I hope that an appropriate in-year increase for National Health Service hospitals will be agreed.
4.19 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: I want to make two important pleas to which I hope there will be a helpful response from the Government before the House rises for the spring recess. My first concern, which I know is shared by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, is to help people with haemophilia—and the recipients by transfusion of whole blood—who were contaminated with AIDS in the course of health care under the National Health Service. My plea is not only important but also compellingly urgent for the victims, many of them terminally ill, of this deeply appalling tragedy.
There have been three Adjournment debates over recent months about the issues raised by this tragedy. The most recent was initiated on 9 May by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). He has in his constituency a couple with two sons, both of whom suffer from haemophilia, and who became HIV-positive after the injection of contaminated blood products. The elder of the two boys now has full-blown AIDS and is terminally ill. Anyone who has read my hon. Friend's speech must have been moved by the scale of the tragedy that has stricken his constituents, but, as my hon. Friend said, their case is but one of 1,200 in which HIV has been confirmed. Many of the victims have already died, and more live with the certain prospect of an early and most painful death in direct consequence of treatment they were given under the NHS.
I should like briefly to raise today the case of 16-year-old Gerald Hillary, whose father is a detective superintendent in Manchester. Gerald was given contaminated blood products in the course of NHS treatment and, in 1985, became HIV-positive. He developed AIDS and died last year. From being a bright and active teenager, he weighed just three stone before he died and could hardly speak or walk. His mother said:
"If love and prayer could have cured, he would have lived for ever. What hurts most now is that he need not have died."
She blames the Government and regards the ex-gratia payment of £20,000 for haemophilia sufferers with HIV as insulting. She says of the Government:
"They were responsible. They were warned in 1980 that blood products could be infected, but did nothing."
In a recent letter to me, David Watters, general secretary of the Haemophilia Society, recalled that, as Minister for the Disabled in the 1970s, I appointed the late and much respected Sir Alan Marre to undertake an inquiry into the outstanding issues in the Thalidomide dispute. In 1978, Sir Alan had recently retired from the office of ombudsman and his report to me, in August of
298
that year, finally settled the dispute. David Watters, in his letter, asked me to press for a similar inquiry into the outstanding issues in the dispute now involving people with haemophilia—and the recipients by transfusion of whole blood—who became HIV-positive due to NHS treatment. He said:
"We feel confident that such a move could prove helpful. One of our main concerns for our people is that time costs money and, for those who do not qualify for legal aid, the cost of court proceedings is exorbitant. The indications are that a large number of those who do not qualify for legal aid are, in fact, now being forced to use their ex-gratia payment of £20,000 to fund their court actions. Meanwhile, the Government's own legal costs far outweigh those of seeking to resolve the issues more quickly by an independent inquiry of the kind you set up finally to end the Thalidomide dispute."
After receiving his letter, I wrote to the Prime Minister recalling my appointment of Sir Alan Marre and suggesting the appointment of Sir Anthony Barrowclough to undertake an inquiry into the outstanding issues in the current dispute over HIV caused by contaminated blood and blood products.
Sir Anthony Barrowclough, who retired only recently from the office of ombudsman, enjoys the respect of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of this House and is of high standing in the legal profession. Again, as David Watters pointed out, the costs of reaching a settlement of the current dispute through him would be very much less for the Government than those of pursuing their case in the courts. It would certainly also lead to a quicker settlement. The earliest possible starting date for court proceedings is January 1991 and David Watters told me of the Haemophila Society's
"very great fear that the defence lawyers could be about to embark on a series of delaying tactics which could set back the date for the conclusion of proceedings very considerably."
In writing to the Prime Minister, I reminded her that many of the victims, including young Gerald Hillary, had already died and that many others have scant prospect of living to see a court settlement of their claims. Justice for them, if any, will be posthumous which, as I hope the House will agree, is not justice at all. In urging her to follow the precedent of Sir Alan Marre's inquiry into the outstanding issues in the Thalidomide dispute, I pressed for an early reply. That was on 3 May and I still await her response. To date, the only official comment about my letter, apart from a formal acknowledgement from 10 Downing Street, was that of the new Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who replied to the Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend for Kilmarnock and Loudoun on 9 May, and who said that I would be receiving "a considered reply" from the Prime Minister. The Under-Secretary also said that there was "not a precise parallel" between the Thalidomide case and the current dispute involving people with HIV due to NHS treatment.
Nowhere in my letter to the Prime Minister did I suggest that there was a "precise parallel" between the two disputes. But the outstanding issues in the Thalidomide case involved severely disabled people who were trying, mostly against impossible odds, to achieve justice through the courts, and so does the current dispute. In fact, the increasing number of deaths among people with AIDS due to contaminated blood and blood products makes the case for an out-of-court settlement all the more pressingly urgent. What Sir Alan Marre did, after I appointed him, was to resolve the outstanding issues in the Thalidomide dispute within five months. I believe that Sir Anthony

299
Barrowclough could do much the same in the dispute which is now dragging on to the anguish of everyone trying to help severely disabled people who face death from AIDS in consequence of medical treatment.
It is very widely hoped that the Prime Minister will reply soon to my suggestion. Its only purpose was to help people who are involved in a tragedy for which they are in no way responsible. There is still time for an oral statement from the Government on this most urgent and important issue before the House rises for the spring recess and I profoundly hope for a positive response from the Leader of the House when he winds up the debate tonight.
I hope he can help me also in regard to urgent action by the Government further to the debate I initiated on 30 March about childhood neuroblastoma, a form of cancer from which it is now very widely felt that far too many children die unnecessarily. In reply to my appeal to the Government on behalf of doctors and bereaved families alike, I was given a number of important assurances by the then Under-Secretary of State for Health. He agreed with me that any prospect of reducing the toll of suffering and death from this most dangerous form of childhood cancer deserved the most serious consideration and he said:
"That consideration is now in hand in relation to neuroblastoma."
I was told that my views would play an important part in his department's decision-making and he concluded:
"I hope that"
the right hon. Gentleman
"will welcome my assurances and pass them on to those whom he represents."
Since then I have had no further word from Health Ministers and there is much concern that the assurances I was given in the debate should now be seen to have been acted upon. I know that the Leader of the House will want to have urgent inquiries made about progress since the debate on 30 March before he replies this evening. In doing so, I ask him to have particular regard to the former Under-Secretary's words about me in column 870 of Hansard on 30 March, when he said:
"I am persuaded by his arguments and I shall instruct officials at the Department of Health to find the figures by searching through the death certificates of children who have died from cancer and to ascertain the most current information about those who have suffered from the disease. That will be at exceptional cost, but the right hon. Gentleman's arguments merit exceptional treatment. I hope that he will accept that assurance in the spirit in which it is offered. I shall be in touch with him about how we can inform the House."—[Official Report, 30 March 1990; Vol. 170, c.874, 870.]
That was but one of the assurances I was given on 30 March and I repeat that, since the debate, I have heard nothing more from the Department of Health. I am confident that the Leader of the House will want to respond to me on both of the issues I have raised as helpfully as he can.
4.31 pm
Mr. Robert McCrindle: I draw to the attention of the House just one issue that requires the urgent attention of Her Majesty's Government. I refer to the future retirement age of males and females. This has always been an important matter, but it has become even more important in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Justice a few days ago. That judgment related to an entitlement under a private pension scheme, but I do not believe that there will be any consensus in the
300
private occupational pension industry unless and until a lead is given by Her Majesty's Government about how they think that this important matter will develop.
I concede immediately that the Government are faced with a difficult problem which, understandably, they have sought to avoid for a considerable time. It is a difficult nettle to grasp because whatever the Government decide they are bound to upset one sex or the other. What to do about establishing a common state retirement age has become a matter of considerable public importance. Should everyone be enabled to retire at 60, as women can at present? Should everyone be required to wait until they are 65? Should there be a compromise at, say, 63? Those are all extremely difficult questions.
There are three avenues along which the Government might proceed. They could revive the idea that had the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) when he was Secretary of State for Social Services, which would have led to a "decade of retirement", meaning that any individual—male or female—could choose to retire at any time between the ages of 60 and 70. However, if the individual chose to retire at an earlier age, it would be on a pro rata pension. That is by no means an ideal solution, but it is one way to proceed.
Another suggestion that has been made, and to which I have been attracted in the past, is for the retirement age of women to be moved up by perhaps half a year in each of five years, while the retirement age for men moves down by half a year during the same period. That would defer a judgment for that period, but would result in everyone's being entitled to retire at 62½.
The third possibility that Ministers could consider is an arbitrary declaration that in future everyone, including women, will have to wait until they are 65—or that everyone, including men, will be entitled to retire at 60. If that second course were adopted, it would require either a considerable amount of additional funding or a pension lower than people's present expectations.
Before the decision of the European Court of Justice, the Government faced a challenge on current pensions policy from the Equal Opportunities Commission. The EOC has been seeking a judicial review of that policy on the basis that it contravenes the treaty of Rome. That is a bold course of action. Until now, many people have seen the EOC as fighting—understandably—to remedy the inequities from which women have suffered; now, however, it will have to fight to resolve the inequities from which men have been suffering. The decision by the European Court of Justice will undoubtedly lend weight to the EOC's view.
I cannot deny that the Government face a difficult and controversial task. Were they to set the retirement age at 65 for women as well as men, they would undoubtedly upset many women who have planned and budgeted for retirement at an earlier age. However, allowing everyone to retire at 60 without any loss of pension rights would—according to the most recent estimate that I could obtain—require additional Government investment of £3·2 billion per year. Clearly, there is no easy way.
Unless and until the Government reach a decision about this controversial issue, they cannot expect decisions to be made about private pension schemes, which tend to follow central Government decisions, although occasionally they take the lead. When my right hon. and learned Friend replies, I hope that he will accept that, although

301
there are no easy courses of action, in the light of last week's decision by the European Court a decision cannot continue to be postponed.
I have been an hon. Member for just under 20 years. On many occasions during that time—under both Labour and Conservative Governments—I have drawn attention to the need for a common retirement date. However, in 1990 we are still in the same position as when I entered the House in 1970. The Government must give a lead.
I am aware of the cost considerations, but in my judgment the matter merits the urgent attention of Ministers. At the very least, I submit that the time has arrived for the Government to produce a set of proposals that can be debated. Males and females—members of occupational pension schemes and those who rely on the state earnings-related pension scheme—could then have the opportunity of making their views known.
I hope that the Government will consider my remarks, and recognise that, whatever the possibilities for procrastination in the past, in the light of the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice the time has now come for us to make a decision.
4.39 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: As on previous occasions, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) has raised an important issue, but it is self-evident that it will not be solved by the time the House rises tomorrow. However, I agree with him that we cannot continue to put it off, and I hope that the Leader of the House will understand the message that some sort of machinery must be set in motion so that the Government can take the lead in a public debate on the vital issue of the respective retirement age for men and women.
There are two related issues to which I want to refer the Leader of the House before we vote on the motion for the spring Adjournment. On the first issue, I merely hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will pass on my comments to the Ministers involved, but I hope that he will give a positive response to the second issue. The first relates to certain specific matters connected with the poll tax and the second to the police pay regulations.
In the past few days we have been able to have a number of debates on the poll tax and the various revisions to it. Yesterday we had a good debate on a motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and this afternoon we had an interesting and entertaining debate on the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton). Of necessity those debates have focused on the alternatives to the poll tax from next year, on which we all have views. There is, however, an urgent need for the group of Ministers assembled to consider the poll tax to introduce ameliorations for the current year. In the case of Scotland, those improvements should be retrospective to cover the previous year. I want to place on record some important issues that have not emerged in previous debates.
I hope that the Ministers in the group considering the poll tax will decide not to take the Whitsun recess. It would be useful if they were locked in a room for the week and told to sort something out. If they did something to help
302
people this year, they could then take a holiday. I hope that the Leader of the House will discuss that with his hon. Friends.
Areas of low rateable value and low incomes, which are hard hit because they are in the same borough or district as wealthy areas, must have some special provision made for them. Ministers at the Department of Environment are aware of the problem in my constituency at Castle Morpeth, as I have seen them about it. That area is a poor part of my constituency in terms of people's incomes and the rateable values, but people face a poll tax £100 higher per person than that in the neighbouring authorities because Castle Morpeth is part of an authority that contains a wealthy area with high rateable values.
Measures were taken in Wales to separate districts for the purpose of such calculations and that should be done in England. Some extra element of relief needs to be provided this year and the obvious mechanism for such further payments is the transitional relief system. I also hope that Ministers will consider increasing the rebate qualifying levels, as they obviously exclude many people whom we would recognise as being on low incomes.
There must be something wrong with the standard spending system, not least because so many authorities controlled by the Conservative party have been unable to get anywhere near the Government's proposed poll tax figure. It is no use the Prime Minister going on about Labour authorities when so many Conservative authorities are dissatisfied with the standard spending assessment figures.
I have also asked time and time again for urgent action to help those people who are excluded from transitional relief because they live in sheltered housing schemes. They previously paid their rates through housing associations, but now they have been told they are not entitled to transitional relief. Ministers have shown some interest in this problem, but they have not delivered the goods. They offer more and more excuses and say that they cannot do anything, much as they would like to. It is wrong that elderly people should be penalised in this way.
Anomalies have arisen over the interaction of the poll tax, the business rate and the standard community charge. One relates to bed-and-breakfast accommodation. In Scotland, the people providing that accommodation are not required to pay business rates in addition to the poll tax if they offer fewer than six beds—the same rule as applies to the fire regulations. In England, that exemption does not apply, and people will be expected to pay business rates and the poll tax for themselves and their spouses unless they restrict their bed-and-breakfast letting availability to 100 nights per year.
As a result of that exemption, the tourist season will be shortened, just at a time when the tourist boards are trying to extend it. Just as an injustice to Scotland was put right a few days after the Budget, that injustice to England should also be put right—bed-and-breakfast residences in England should be allowed the same exemptions from business rates as are available in Scotland. My constituency is on the border, and the different regime operating in the two countries means that the availability of bed-and-breakfast accommodation at various times of the year will be affected by the exemption and that the price charged for that accommodation will differ.
In most rural and holiday areas, the standard community charge is double the normal poll tax level. If it were not, the community charge would be a lot higher for

303
the normal resident charge payers. However, that standard charge bears heavily on those on low incomes who are obliged to live elsewhere, but who have purchased a retirement home in those areas. I refer particularly to vicars and ministers of religion, who live in vicarages or manses, from whom I have received many letters. They know that they must leave their present homes when their ministry comes to an end, and many make provisions for that time by purchasing an old farm cottage or something similar as a retirement home.
Those people are facing the severe pressure of having to pay a double poll tax in the area where they plan to retire, in addition to the poll tax that they must pay on their vicarages. A missionary and his wife who are working in Africa have no paid income. They live in a hut, and whatever food they require is provided by the local people. They have told me that they are required to pay a double poll tax on their retirement home, on which they are not entitled to any rebate. That problem also applies to some in Her Majesty's forces.
The categories of people subject to the double tax are already fixed—the present system affects those who live elsewhere because of their work. If councils simply reduced the multiplier for that category, all the wealthy second-home owners would benefit as well as those to whom I have referred. I believe that there should be a separate category for those who are required to live in provided accommodation as a condition of their work. That would come much closer to defining a category for whom the local authority could choose to set a lower multiplier. I hope that the Leader of the House will pass on that practical suggestion.
I hope that the Leader of the House will respond to the issue relating to police pay regulations as it directly affects his responsibilities. Today the Home Secretary is attending the Police Federation conference, where he is expected to get a pretty rough ride, not least because of the anger at the way in which those regulations have been treated. The police are angry because the Home Secretary has overturned the decision of arbitration. The Police (Amendment) Regulations 1990 were laid before the House on 9 March. They include changes in rent allowance and destroy the principle that a police officer can live in a rent and rate-free house or have the equivalent costs covered if he or she buys their own house. The matter was taken to arbitration and it is the result of that arbitration about which there is now controversy.
The police have pointed out that the special procedures for the arbitration mechanism are based upon the special circumstances of their work—the unsocial hours, the restrictions on their private lives, the exposure to danger, the need to be on call and the denial of the right to belong to a trade union. The arbitration mechanism exists because of those special circumstances and it has made certain proposals about the 1990 regulations. The staff side of the police negotiating board was taken to the police arbitration tribunal by the official side.
Tribunal decisions are binding on both sides of the negotiating board and are submitted to the Home Secretary. In the past the Home Office stated:
"The Secretaries of State would never withhold approval of an agreement save for reasons of grave national importance"
304
The Home Secretary has adduced no such reasons why he should not implement the decision of the arbitration machinery, which has attempted to deal with some of the severe problems presented.
Those problems are particularly acute for police officers in provided accommodation in rural areas. The police officers who live in their own houses will continue to receive the rates element in their allowance so long as they remain in their present homes. The level of that allowance is the subject of argument, but it will be provided.
Community police officers in rural areas, however, who must live in the village police house with the police office attached so that they can do their job will not receive that allowance. They have a much more limited temporary arrangement. By accepting the requirement of living in tied accommodation, they put themselves at a disadvantage anyway because they are not acquiring capital in a house of their own. They are to be subject to a further disadvantage in that they will have no rate allowance now that the poll tax has replaced the rates. These officers are almost invariably married, because it is normally regarded as essential to have a married man in such a post.
I quote a letter which I received from the wife of a police constable in my constituency:
"I am the wife of a Police Constable and the mother of three children. We live in a house provided by the Northumbria Police Force, and up until now we have lived rent and rates free.
This may seem to be very enviable, but I must point out that because we live in a house with an attached Police Office, we have lost a certain amount of privacy. My husband is virtually on 24 hours call, and does not claim overtime when he answers calls after normal working hours, or is disturbed in the middle of the night.… When he is at work I answer all calls and enquiries, which, as you can imagine, is a full-time job during the summer season, and for which I am unpaid. I therefore feel we deserve a rent and rate free house, which is part of the terms of my husband's contract …
The Police Federation's advice has been for us to purchase our own home, which we have done in the past, but the terms of my husband's current employment states that he lives in this police house. If we were to purchase our own home he could not work in this area."
If the regulations are not changed, we will be unable to recruit policemen to work in rural postings where they have to live in a police house, with a police office attached, which is the cornerstone of community policing in many rural areas. Hence the importance of the issue in rural areas, as well as in urban areas.
The regulations which implement the change are subject to annulment in either House. Prayers were duly tabled by the Leader of the Opposition on the English regulations and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on the Scottish regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) asked on 19 April when the prayers would be debated. The Leader of the House replied:
"I understand that there is widespread interest in the police regulations and I shall seek through the usual channels to find an opportunity for them to be debated in due course."—[Official Report, 19 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1557–58.]
The prayers appeared in the provisional business of the House, which we were shown through the usual channels, some time ago, not very long after the Leader of House made that statement. Then they mysteriously disappeared, and have not reappeared.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) wrote to the Leader of the House and I have spoken to him myself about the matter. There has still been

305
no debate, nor has the matter been referred to a Committee. Who is preventing a debate? Is the Leader of the House going to tell me that the Official Opposition have told him that he must on no account allow a debate on their own prayer? I cannot believe that; no doubt the Leader of the House will tell us if that is so. Or is the Home Secretary leaning on the Leader of the House, saying, "For heaven's sake, don't let a debate take place on the police regulations because I am in enough trouble with the Police Federation as it is, and I do not want the regulations debated"? There must be some reason for the delay.
It is the law of the land that the regulations are subject to annulment in either House. In preventing that procedure from operating, the Leader of the House is showing scant concern for the very law and order about which his right hon. and learned Friend is no doubt talking to the Police Federation conference. There is a provision in law under which the regulations may be annulled. The Leader of the House is not allowing the law to operate. It is not good enough for him to say that the matter may be raised by any hon. Member on the Adjournment or on an Opposition Day. The provision was made so that that time would not have to be used on the Government's legislative programme, which is what this is.
A statutory procedure is being subverted. I contend that it is an abuse of the House for it to be so subverted. It is not the first time that it has happened. There is a litter of such motions, as there has been in previous Sessions. They all break the promise given when the procedures were introduced: that time would be found for debates on prayers. In this case, in the face of clear controversy, the Leader of the House must ensure that the matter is debated. I ask him to say later how he will make provision for that to happen.
4·53 pm
Mr. John Ward: Before the House rises for the spring recess, I wish to refer to policing in Dorset. I say right away that I am a great admirer of the Dorset police, who carry out their duties with immense skill under their chief constable, Mr. Brian Weight.
Dorset, and especially east Dorset, has developed rapidly over recent years and the chief constable, with the full support of the police committee, has applied frequently for additional officers to be authorised by the Home Office to help him meet the increased requirement. Invariably Dorset is granted fewer additional officers than we think we need and the shortfall has had to be compensated for in other ways. There is a limit to what increased efficiency and the increased use of civilians can do, but the chief constable has made the maximum possible use of both options.
Every police force has additional burdens from time to time, but the cost of £2 million required to provide the necessary security at the forthcoming Conservative party conference does not make balancing the books any easier. In spite of the efforts of the local police, overall crime increased by 11·2 per cent. in Dorset in 1989. Although the detection rate has also increased and Dorset police have been among the leaders in the fight against drug abuse, it is an uphill struggle.
306
I hope I have shown that we are fully utilising the resources we have, and that we can make a good case for additional resources. Above all, we must retain the good officers we already have.
That brings me to the main point. As hon. Members will know—indeed the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has just referred to it—there has been some discussion and much correspondence about the Home Secretary's decision to reject the findings of the police arbitration tribunal this year. I do not question his right to do that, although I question the wisdom of the decision and the way that it has been implemented. The Home Secretary has responded to our criticism by making alterations which go some way towards making the settlement fairer; hon. Members will be familiar with the changes.
What I wish to highlight today is a great injustice which remains for Dorset police officers. Until now, some police forces have had their rent allowance uprated in even years, and some in odd years. Under the Home Secretary's present plans, some officers, including those in Dorset, will receive an allowance based on an uprating which took place on 1 April 1988, while others will receive an allowance based on an uprating which took place a year later. The arbitration tribunal recommended that there should be an uprating of the 1988 allowance under the old system of calculation, but the Home Secretary has said that the additional expenditure cannot be justified.
In spite of the most recent concessions by the Home Secretary, the effect will be that the Dorset police officer, who is currently receiving £1,333 per annum less than his colleagues in Hampshire, will receive a minimum of £856 per annum less than his Hampshire counterpart. I do not make too much of the London Metropolitan police allowance except to say that the London policeman will receive £2,863 more than the Dorset policeman. We all accept the additional risks often faced by the Metropolitan police, but I cannot accept that police in Hampshire, doing precisely the same job as police in Dorset and separated by an artificial line on a map, are worth over £800 per annum more in allowances.
During the recent disturbances caused by Leeds United football supporters in Bournemouth, we saw forces from other areas, including Hampshire and London, working shoulder to shoulder with Dorset police, carrying out the same duties, yet receiving different rates of allowances. It goes without saying that Dorset police are available to lend assistance to their colleagues in other police forces should the need arise. I am not asking for special treatment for Dorset police officers, but simply for fair and equal treatment for those who carry out the same job as their colleagues in other forces but who happen to live or work in the wrong area when it comes to allowances.
Obviously, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed did not know that today, during his address to the Police Federation, the Home Secretary said that there would be a debate in the House after the recess. We look forward to that. I hope that I have said enough to show that we both respect and like our police in Dorset. We need to retain the good and, yes, ambitious men who serve us. To do that we need to see fair play. Again I ask that the Home Secretary should reconsider the injustice of the present position and come back to the House, when we have the debate, with an arrangement which will right the injustice which I have illustrated today.
4.59 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Before the House rises I want to appeal to the Leader of the House on behalf of the many thousands of young miners who are to lose their jobs over the next three years. The Leader of the House will be aware of the announcement by Sir Robert Haslam this week that up to 7,000 miners can expect to have to leave the industry during the next three years.
The House will be aware that, since 1984, there has been a massive rundown of the mining industry. There are now more than 1,000 men fewer in the mining industry than there were in 1984. The present position is more serious than it has been hitherto, because the average age of the work force in the mining industry is 33. If those young men find themselves out of work and the Government continue with their policy of providing very little aid to the mining communities, there will be no hope of those young men finding alternative employment.
I am sure that we are all aware that one of the main reasons for holding down the mining industry was the Government's feeling towards the miners' leadership and some of the miners. As I perceive it, the position now is a little different. I believe that British Coal's decision arose from the privatisation of the electricity industry, and has meant that, due to lack of investment, British power stations have not been fitted with the flue gas desulphurisation plants required to limit CO2 emissions from them. If, like many of our European colleagues, we had undertaken investment during the past few years, we would be able to meet the EC directive on emissions from power stations by 1993. Unfortunately, because such investment has not taken place, that is no longer possible.
The only way that British Coal and the new private electricity companies can meet that demand is with low-sulphur coal. There is insufficient low-sulphur coal mined in this country to meet the demand. Therefore, as the executive directors of National Power and PowerGen told the Select Committee on Energy a few days ago, their judgments will be made on a purely commercial basis, even if British Coal could meet the demand. They told the Committee that British Coal would have to reduce their prices by up to £6 or £7 a tonne less than imported low-sulphurised coal if it was to stay in the market. From my knowledge of the mining industry, I believe that that is an impossible task.
We are having further to run down our mining industry and import more coal. That policy is purely and simply based on commercial judgment in the short term. If that policy is to continue and our pits are run down so rapidly—bearing in mind the fact that Sir Robert Haslam said that 7,000 would have to leave the industry, and I believe that figure could be doubled if one takes into account the spin-off jobs outside the mining industry—when and if the Government, of whatever political persuasion, decide that they might invest in the desulphurisation plants, this country will not have the coal-mining capacity to feed them. Therefore, we shall still continue to rely on imports.
I am sure that I do not need to tell the Leader of the House or any other hon. Member what will happen to the so-called cheap coal from abroad once we cannot meet our demands. It will no longer be cheap, and we shall have to continue to import low-sulphurised coal when we could solve the problem ourselves.
308
It is worth noting that, if we had provided the plant—and if we do so in the future—it would limit the emission of CO2 by 90 per cent. Low-sulphurised coal will limit that emission by only 50 per cent. Therefore, if we are serious about attacking the problem of acid rain, our efforts should be to provide the necessary plant to the power stations, which can be fed by British Coal. I would have thought that that was common sense. To sterilise thousands and millions of tonnes of coal in this country and leave ourselves open to competition from abroad does not seem sound market judgment over the medium and longer term.
However, if the Government, National Power and PowerGen are to continue with their policy of relying on imports, we must ask what will happen to the people who are thrown out of work in the mining industry. That is the appeal I want to make to the Leader of the House this evening. As mining communities have been wiped out—my own in the Wakefield, Pontefract and Castleford travel-to-work area has lost 11,000 mining jobs since 1984—they have received no assistance from Government to try to attract alternative employment.
Although that has been bad enough, there was previously a cushion because the vast majority of men have been 50 or over and have received weekly payments to cushion the blow of losing their jobs. There is now a completely different ball game. I have already told the House that the average age of the work force is 33, and they receive no weekly payments or cushion.
If the Government do not intend to provide the plant to use British coal, but intend to run down the industry, I believe that, by the mid and late 1990s, the work force of the mining industry could be down to 10,000, whatever Sir Robert Haslam says. He says that people who talk in such terms—I hope that he does not mean me—are Jeremiahs. I regret that unfortunately, since 1984, the prediction of the Jeremiahs to whom he referred have been right and Sir Robert's estimates have been wrong.
I hope that the Leader of the House will persuade his colleagues in government that, if the jobs have to go—I believe that it would be a retrograde step for this country—there is an obligation on the Government to plan and assist those areas to attract industry to provide alternative work for the young miners who will be thrown out of their jobs. Surely that is the least that a Government can do, and that is my appeal to the Leader of the House tonight. Will he give serious consideration to that issue if the mining industry is to be run down to the extent that he suggests?
5.9 pm
Mr. Michael Latham: The hon Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) has raised an extremely important point and he will have been heard sympathetically by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Those of us who represent Leicestershire and Nottinghamshire understand the problem that he describes, and we hope that he will have a sympathetic response later from my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House.
I wish to speak about two matters, the first of which concerns the relationships between church and state, which need urgent debate in the House. I shall not say very much about this because, by sheer luck, for the first time in 16 years I drew a place in the ballot this afternoon. Unfortunately, it was second place, but if the hon.

309
Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has a short debate we shall be able to get on with discussing the problems of church and state. I shall table a motion which will express strong and radical views, but I suspect that the Government Whips will then make sure the debate on the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch will go on all afternoon.
I hope that when those who are charged with picking the new Archbishop of Canterbury start their work they will realise that many people in this House and in the country want a man who preaches well, who believes in orthodox doctrine—
Mr. John M. Taylor: And in God.
Mr. Latham: And in God, as my hon. Friend says. They want a man who will speak up for the traditional values and creeds of the Church of England—
Mr. John Carlisle: And is a Tory.
Mr. Latham: I disagree with my hon. Friend. The man's politics are irrelevant—what matters is that he preaches strongly and effectively. I believe that many people in the church are hoping for the choice of such a man.
I now turn to a wholly different matter—the Health Service in my constituency. The general subject of the Health Service was discussed strongly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) earlier this afternoon. There is a difficulty in Leicestershire similar to that which he described in his area.
Leicestershire health authority faces the need to make cuts of £6 million this year to balance its budget by the end of the financial year. That is producing some unsatisfactory and worrying proposals, one of which is to close the Vale of Catmose hospital at Oakham in my constituency. I do not want to bore the House with too much detail, but that 100-year-old hospital is undoubtedly scheduled for closure at some stage, and Leicestershire health authority had proposed to close it in the middle of this decade.
Last year, to the great annoyance of my constituents and myself, the authority insisted on closing the maternity unit at the Rutland Memorial hospital—also in Oakham—as part of last year's round of cuts in the Health Service. This year, however, it promised us that the way in which it would solve the problem of the Vale of Catmose hospital would indeed be to close it, but that the site would be sold off only after a new major rebuilding programme had taken place at the other hospital, the Rutland Memorial, which would cost more than £1 million. That compromise, though regretted by many of my constituents, was regarded as reasonable in the circumstances. It is certainly generally accepted that the Vale of Catmose hospital will eventually have to close.
The latest proposal, which comes as a result of the economies required by Trent regional health authority, is that the Vale of Catmose hospital should be closed as quickly as possible, and the proposed rebuilding of Rutland Memorial hospital has been postponed indefinitely. I must tell the Leader of the House what I told the Secretary of State for Health when I and Leicestershire colleagues from both parties saw him recently—that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. It arises almost entirely
310
from the collapse of the property market and hence the difficulty for Leicestershire health authority in disposing of surplus land. The authority had 600 acres of land for disposal. of which about 150 were of high residential development potential, and there is no doubt that the land can eventually be sold, but in the present bad state of the property market it cannot be sold for a figure that the district valuer would find acceptable.
The authority has therefore got into the present difficulties, but any commercial company in the same position would not immediately close down its operations—it would increase its borrowing. At our meeting with the Secretary of State for Health, my colleagues and I proposed that Leicestershire should be allowed to borrow some money to tide it over the present difficulties. The money could then be repaid next year when, I hope, the property market will have picked up. It is not a tremendously radical proposal—exactly such borrowing took place in the last financial year when Leicestershire health authority was allowed by Trent regional health authority to do so.
I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State for Health gave us a most disappointing reception when we went to see him. He said bluntly that Leicestershire health authority must live within its means, that he would not even look at the matter again and that he would not, as he put it, second-guess the health authority. That was a very disappointing reply.
It was reported in the local paper the other day that the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health—my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), whom I warmly welcome to his new position and who I am sure will do his job well—was quoted as saying that the Government
"are looking at ways to ease the problems for the capital growth, some of it this year and in future years as well."
I have discussed that remark briefly with my hon. Friend. He may well not have been accurately quoted, and he may have been trying to say that the Goverment have no intention of arranging the kind of flexibility between capital and current spending that I want and may instead be looking into the problem of frustrated land sales.
It is essential that the Government do not allow the National Health Service to get into another cash crisis. They got into terrible political and social trouble two years ago when a similar problem arose. People in my constituency, especially those in rural areas, are not prepared to put up with a Health Service which entails having to drive 30 or 40 miles to Leicester for hospital treatment. They expect cottage hospitals in market towns such as Oakham and Melton Mowbray to be kept open and to offer a wide range of services. So long as I am in this House, which is only until the next general election, I shall defend as strongly as I can their right to those local services, and I look to my right hon. and learned Friend for a positive response.
5.16 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I want to take this opportunity to urge the Leader of the House not to allow the House to go into recess until we have debated three items. I shall be as brief as I can because several other hon. Members want to speak too——
Mr. Tony Banks: That's enough, Bob.
Mr. Cryer: I am surprised that my hon. Friend has interjected because he has raised my first item on the Floor of the House.
I refer to Bradford under Labour control. Labour had a massive win at the last local elections, swept Pickles and his cronies from office and dumped them in the garbage can of history where they so rightly belong. The subject was raised at Question Time in the context of the Labour-controlled council's discussion of priorities. The Minister who holds the poisoned chalice of the poll tax, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), said in reply to an intervention by a Tory Member that he had contacted the leader of the dwindling number of Tories on Bradford council—the discredited Eric Pickles.
What right has the Minister, in an official capacity, to contact the person who led the defeated group, who is no longer in office and who has been shown that the people of Bradford no longer want him as part of their administration? If Ministers have contacts to make with Bradford, they should surely be with the leader of the council or with the chairman of the appropriate committee on the council. Any contacts must be with the elected majority group; otherwise, they are a deliberate snub to the massive majority in Bradford who got rid of the Tory majority and substituted a Labour majority. I am staggered that a Minister could say in the Chamber that he had contacted the discredited minority leader of Bradford in an official capacity.
If the Minister wants to go to Bradford as a Tory Member and try whistling in the wind for a few Tory voters, he is entitled to do that, but as a member of the Government he must perforce negotiate with the elected majority. I know that the Government want to get rid of local democracy and to trample the rights of local government into the dirt, but they have not managed to do that.
The people of Bradford have given a loud and clear message that they want a Labour-controlled council and Ministers must conduct negotiations with that council. The leadership on Bradford council has made it clear that by law the council must deliver certain services. Those services will not be prejudiced in any way, except of course through cuts by central Government. It is up to central Government to provide the money so that Bradford council under Labour control can deliver the services that are required by law.
Because of the difficulties created by inheriting a Conservative budget, the council will inevitably discuss priorities and will try to reverse the cuts which Pickles and his cronies introduced in Bradford. The sacking of teachers and other local authority workers was in the pipeline. Bradford council wants to improve and maintain services and to restore education and housing after the ravages of Conservative control. I am surprised that any Minister can defy the democratic will of the people of Bradford, and I shall keep a close eye on the way in which the Government behave. I expect them to have negotiations in good faith with the Labour majority in Bradford and I hope that they will negotiate better poll tax support grants for the future.
Secondly, I draw to the attention of the Leader of the House some evidence that was published today by the Select Committee on Members' Interests. It is the minutes of evidence on parliamentary lobbying. One of the lobbying organisations in the study is a firm called Ian Greer Associates. Before I was on that Committee, Ian
312
Greer gave evidence to the effect that he had nothing to do with Members of Parliament, that he did not pay them and that he kept them at arm's length. The evidence states:
"You are completely dissociated from them? A. That is correct."
Subsequently, Mr. Andrew Roth produced some interesting evidence that, far from being dissociated as Mr. Greer claimed, five hon. Members introduced business to Mr. Greer and obtained a commission. Apparently only one of the five took the trouble to declare his interest in the matter. Several large sums are likely to be involved. For example, one of the accounts was with British Airways. We can assume that the amount involved is perhaps several hundred thousands a year. A commission of 5 per cent. of that is big money, and it was alleged that the commission was greater than 5 per cent.
A Select Committee was dealing with this matter, which means that it is an important constitutional issue. Select Committees have the power to call for persons and papers, and they expect people to give evidence in good faith. Mr. Greer told the Committee that he could not name the hon. Members to whom he had paid the money. He said that it was not his responsibility, and even said that he did not have any responsibility for advising them to register their interests. In reply to a question from me, Mr. Greer agreed that with hindsight he might in future advise hon. Members to register.
People who are called before a Select Committee should give the fullest possible evidence and should not deny information about payments that they have made to hon. Members. I spoke earlier about local authority interests. If payments had been made to members of a council, the House would have been outraged and would immediately have called for disclosure of those payments.
I hope that the Leader of the House can arrange for an early debate or that he will take into account the published evidence and issue a statement suggesting that all hon. Members should register all their interests, and that, if four hon. Members have omitted to do so, they should rectify that omission as quickly as possible. I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is important for hon. Members to follow the rules of the House. Those rules, set out in the reports of 1974–75, say that hon. Members should declare interests that affect their conduct as Members of Parliament or that might be thought to affect their conduct. That category exactly fits the situation that I have described.
I shall now continue the argument that I started in an Adjournment debate, which is that we should not go into recess until we have had a full-scale debate on the sell-off by the Government of the skill centres. I assure the House that this issue will not go away. I remind the House that the Government decided to sell 60 skill centres, asked for bids and issued a document through Deloitte Haskins and Sells. The document was handed over on the understanding that it was secret and had to be handed back.
If the Government invited bids for a business and then secretly informed one bidder that £11 million was to be made available, I am sure that Conservative Members would regard that as completely unfair. They would regard it as even more unfair if they learned that the three people who made the successful bid and received the £11 million were the three senior civil servants who were in charge of the skill centres in the first place. Moreover, the Minister

313
has refused to reveal the price received for the sale of 27 skill centres to Astra Training Services, an organisation produced by the three civil servants.
There is a cloak of secrecy. Time and again, the Minister produced bland platitudes and he will not say how much taxpayers' land has been sold. He will not confirm that no other bidder received the £11 million, although the other bidders, several of whom I have contacted, have told me that they had received no information about the £11 million. The Motor Traders Training Association approached the Government and asked if any money was available to carry on training but it was told that no money was available. If the association was told that by a civil servant who was associated with the project, it looks not just casual or incompetent, but sinister.
The story from the bidders is that, when they went to the skill centres, they were not allowed to get the full information that they needed to make their bids. When they asked the Government and civil servants for information about trade union agreements—it was a condition of the sale that such agreements should be honoured—they were not given that information. If that is the case—and allegations have been made to me by bidders, none of whom was told about the £11 million, so all have a common cause of concern—it is more than incompetence. It is the deliberate obstruction of bids so that insider dealers, the civil servants, could purchase the skill centres. This is a matter of scandalous proportions.
The total value of the centres is about £130 million, including land and the assets on it. Those have been virtually given away, together with £11 million of taxpayers' money, and no prices have been revealed for the sale. In another case, £2 million has been handed to a training consortium, again without any acknowledgement of the arrangements that were involved. These matters must come before the House as soon as possible, so that we can have a full investigation and, hopefully, some remedial action. It is a seedy rip-off of the taxpayers by a clique of civil servants operating from the inside.
5.49 pm
Mr. Chris Butler: I am returning to the subject of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, not only because I failed to catch the eye of Madam Deputy Speaker on Monday but because I believe that it is important for the Government to restore public credibility before and during the recess and because the public need the Government to apply as much reassurance, frankness and caution as possible in this matter. BSE is leading people to think deeply about recycling animal proteins—sometimes even diseased animal proteins—back into the animal food chain, particularly for those animals which are naturally herbivores. This has already led to serious animal health problems. The drive for ever more efficient and cost effective ways to produce food has led to hidden costs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) will attest.
We think—we do not know—that BSE is caused by the same agent as scrapie. If it is, there may be parallels with the vertical transmission that we find in scrapie. The Southwood report referred to the placenta as "highly infectious" so it would not be surprising to find that BSE
314
is vertically transmissible. If BSE is the same agent as scrapie, then this organism has passed not only the species barrier but the genus barrier. It has jumped a whole sub-family. That makes me feel very uneasy.
The Tyrrell intermediate consultation committee said:
"Experience with scrapie suggests that many species may be susceptible to BSE."
Therefore, I was disturbed when I received a written answer that said:
"there is no scientific reason why the offals should not be incorporated into feedstuffs for non-ruminant animals. It is up to countries importing protein material from the United Kingdom to determine the conditions under which such imports may take place in the full knowledge they have about the disease and its likely cause."—[Official Report, 13 February 1990; Vol. 167, c. 197.]
We have no assurance that this disease may pass to animals other than ruminants. It could be that their lifespans are too short for them to develop the disease and show clinical signs. The Tyrrell committee said that pigs and chickens "may" act as sources of infection for man. It would be far better to incinerate all offal, so that the sub-virus reaches a dead end and is not passed around in an incestuous food chain, perhaps ending up on man's dinner plate.
It shows a rather nonchalant attitude towards other countries, some of them Third-world countries, to say that they can take some of these tainted materials—it is up to them, it is their risk, they take it in full knowledge. That is rather like the debates that we had about sending waste to the Third world. We should not pass around these materials to other countries and we certainly should not try to make a profit out of them abroad when we do not make a profit out of them in this country. We know that these materials are dangerous, and we do not have full knowledge of what they may cause. Other countries may not have such developed systems of governance or developed veterinary systems, and we should not put them to the test in this way.
We know that spongiform encephalopathies are transmissible to man and that in man they may take up to 30 years to develop. Doctor H. C. Grant, MD, FRCP, a neuropathologist at the Charing Cross hospital, has put forward his expert view:
"The Southwood report claims that the risk of humans catching the disease is 'remote', but the truth is that we do not know if it is remote. Experts doubtless thought the likelihood of cattle catching the disease was remote when they first fed scrapie-infected material to cattle in 1981."
The Southwood report said:
"It may be a decade or more before complete reassurance can be given."
If we cannot give complete reassurance, we should approach the matter with the utmost caution. I welcome the Government's decision to review the method of stripping out brains and spinal material from carcases, because it could be that the splatter of this nervous material on to red meat will defy the purpose of performing the operation. There may be better ways to do it.
In the debate on whether carcases should be buried or burnt, there should be a preference for burning, because we know that that organism is highly resistant and can be destroyed only by burning or powerful corrosive acids. I noted that, in a reply to a question from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who unfortunately is not here today, my hon. Friend the Minister said:

315
"Spongiform encephalopathies have never been recorded in domestic pets. Moreover, the industry's policy is not to use these materials. There is thus no need for regulatory action."—[Official Report, 2 February 1990; Vol. 166, c. 409.]
On 14 February, in the First Standing Committee on European Documents, I called for a legislative ban on these materials being recycled into the pet food chain. There are responsible operators who will keep this material out of the petfood chain, but that does not allow for the irresponsible operators, who may be out to make a quick profit from recycling these materials.
The experts who had never recorded the transfer of spongiform encephalopathies have now recorded the transfer of them to domestic pets, strengthening my argument that there should be legislative action on this point. The Tyrrell committee called in June 1989 for a random survey of cattle brains at the point of slaughter. The Government should give this more urgency than that afforded to it by the committee. Not only would such a survey give a better fix on the incidence of this disease: it might give greater reassurance to the public that they are not receiving meat that has already been infected and that has developed the disease but is not yet showing clinical signs of it. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend agrees that it would not be right for humans to be fed such meat. Just because this policy has been espoused by the Labour party does not mean that it should not be adopted.
5.37 pm
Mr. David Winnick: Given his concluding remarks, the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) should not be surprised when I say that my hon. Friends and I much agree with most of the points in his speech.
It would be useful, before we went into the recess, for the House to receive details about the appointment of the Secretary of State for Energy as the co-ordinator of Government information. The media were given the news by No. 10 Downing street, but the House was not. Can we table questions about this aspect of Government activity? If not, why not? Ministers are supposed to be accountable to the House. When I raised this matter yesterday on a point of order, Mr. Speaker said that he understood that it was an unofficial arrangement. What does that mean?
Why did the job go to the Secretary of State for Energy? Why did it not go to the most natural person—the Leader of the House? He always maintains that he has a close working arrangement with the Prime Minister, even if they meet only weekly at meetings and apparently can hardly bear to say much to each other. Surely the responsibilities of the Leader of the House are not so heavy that he could not take on these added responsibilities for co-ordinating information.
If the Leader of the House is out of the picture, why did not the appointment go to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? As we all know, he is the current chairman of the Conservative party and, unlike his immediate predecessor, the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, is keen on a high-level profile. I should have thought that the job of co-ordinating Government information, or lying, whatever one wants to call it, was right up that right hon. Gentleman's street. Why was not the job given to him? Though after the farce of yesterday's "summer offensive," which came unstuck within a matter of hours, perhaps the Prime Minister was not altogether
316
wrong, I must admit, in coming to the conclusion that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was not quite the right person for the job.
It appears that the political columnist of The Independent was told yesterday by an admirer of the Secretary of State for Energy, who has been given the job of co-ordinating Government information, that the latter has no ambitions, no thoughts of his own—that we can readily accept—and that his one desire and purpose in life is to anticipate the Prime Minister's every wish. The columnist added that this means that the Prime Minister has put herself in charge of winning the next general election. It is not for me to say whether that is good news for Tory Members.
In an article in today's Guardian the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)—we can all agree that the hon. Gentleman is certainly no wet, and is as Stalinist a right-wing Tory as one could find—said that the chairman of the Tory party has stated loyally that we must not drop the pilot. The hon. Gentleman comments:
"But he would, wouldn't he?"
In the same article the hon. Gentleman tells us that the
"topic of the Tory leadership is never far from Tory MPs conversation—paternalist or Thatcherite, Backbencher, or junior Minister."
The hon. Gentleman adds:
"Sticking to the pilot we have got may not, however, provide a safe passage now that we are moving into new and uncharted waters."
The hon. Gentleman then speculates on the change of leadership. Has he suddenly become an admirer of the pretender to the present throne, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)?
There has been much in the press in the past two or three days of the possibility that there will be a general election in June 1991. It seems that the press has been fed a good deal of information that it could be next June. We shall see in due course. Downing street has been extremely busy I believe feeding the press with the possible date of next June to avoid a leadership election this autumn. If Tory Members are persuaded that the period before the next general election is limited, that they should not rock the boat and that the election will be as early as June 1991, they may be less willing to participate in a leadership campaign unlike last year.
As I said, I think that we are entitled to answers. We are entitled to know the precise duties and further responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Energy. We are also entitled to know whether he will answer our questions on the Floor of the House relating to Government information matters following our opportunity to table them. These are matters of concern that should be dealt with by the Leader of the House when he replies.
5.44 pm
Mr. John Carlisle: Having sat on the Conservative Benches for about 11 years, I have heard several of the speeches of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but never have I heard such nonsense and cynicism expressed in the Chamber as that which I so recently heard. The hon. Gentleman must begin to understand, even at his rather mature age and with his long experience in this place, that it will not do to present to the House spurious information which is of no interest to my right hon. and hon. Friends and of even less interest,

317
if that is possible, to his own right hon. and hon. Friends. The hon. Gentleman is an embarrassment to his constituents and to his party.
I am about to disappoint the hon. Member for Walsall, North even more. He probably expected my few remarks to be related to South Africa, which is one of our favourite topics. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House, with his vast experience of foreign affairs during his distinguished time as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, would also show an interest in South Africa. However, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister having correctly said yesterday that sanctions are no longer an issue and that the Government consider them to be irrelevant after the excellent and successful meeting with President de Klerk in South Africa, I feel that it is appropriate at this stage to rest my case.
I wish to bring to the attention of the House before the recess a matter which is attendant to a subject that the House has been discussing during the past few days in various degrees of hilarity and seriousness—local government expenditure. I shall refer especially to local expenditure in Bedfordshire and in Luton. Anyone from outside this place who had visited it in the past 24 hours might have gone away feeling somewhat confused as to the Opposition's position. Yesterday, the Social Democrats fantasised about a local income tax. I believe that one of their speakers claimed that it would counteract the community charge that the Government have introduced, which he claimed has intruded on people's private lives. If anything intruded on private lives, it would surely be town hall bureaucrats investigating our constituents' Inland Revenue affairs. Today the hilarity was produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), who dealt admirably with the roof tax on which the Labour party seems to be hooked, although not even that is certain in these uncertain times for that party. The polls show that it is slipping further towards the level of popularity of the Conservative party. It seems that the Labour party is entirely confused as to what its policy should be.
What is not confusing to those of us in the real world is that the wrath which has been heaped upon my right hon. and hon. Friends in the past few months has not been the result of the Government's actions. Virtually all of it has been the result of high-spending local authorities, especially those controlled by the Labour party. In Bedfordshire, the Labour and Liberal hung councils took the opportunity, as they did in 1974, to impose upon the unwitting community charge payers—previously it was the ratepayers—massive increases in spending without any justification, knowing that they would not have to face the brunt of the anger that that would generate.
It is interesting that now that community charge bills have landed on doorsteps and people are beginning to pay—and those who thought that they would not enjoy rebates are enjoying them—the tone of correspondence has changed dramatically to my mind and in my experience. People are beginning to realise that it is not the Government's fault that in Bedfordshire, and in my constituency, there are community charge bills of more than £400 per person. They are beginning to understand that their bills are the result of the reckless spending of county authorities, and in some instances borough
318
authorities, which have decided to spend other people's money without any thought of where further moneys will come from.
The position in Bedfordshire is especially sad. Regrettably, it has always been a county of high-spending authorities. When the Conservative party lost control of the county council, good housekeeper that it was, people in monkey suits in Bedford county hall took control. They have taken no account of the ability of community charge payers, or of residents generally, to pay. To my mind, there is no doubt as to exactly where the blame lies. Over the years, the Labour-Liberal-controlled council has almost exceeded its wildest dreams in its excesses and in the burdens that it has placed upon us.
For example, some years ago, and following the spending of about £50,000, we became a nuclear-free zone. I am not sure whether the Bedfordshire ratepayers felt any better for that, but we were sore that such a sum was spent on their behalf changing signs. There was an attempt to twin with a black township in South Africa. That may seem creditable to Labour Members, but a great deal of money was spent on a political exercise which had no bearing on the well-being of the unfortunate citizens of the township or on the well-being of the ratepayers whom the authority purported to represent. Many a long hour in the council chamber has been spent debating freedom for Nicaragua, tropical rain forests, whether the BBC should move from Cambridge to Norwich——
Mr. Tony Banks: We should all be interested in rain forests.
Mr. Carlisle: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the rain forests are important, but the council is prepared to spend time and money debating subjects which have little or nothing to do with the needs of the people whom it purports to represent. To cap it all, in its expenditure plans for 1990–91—which were vigorously opposed by the Conservative group on the county council—it has proposed and brought in a massive increase in spending, which is totally unjustified. The justification for such spending is questionable. That is not just my opinion, as someone with a political axe to grind, but the opinion of the independent Audit Commission, which has made extensive surveys on local authorities' financing and budgeting in the past, as many hon. Members will know.
The Audit Commission has consistently found that since Bedfordshire county council passed into Labour and Liberal control it has been a high-spending council and that in a majority of cases spending is excessively high and exceeds other comparable county councils—this year it is some £23 million. Bedfordshire is way above the family average in terms of spending on particular services.
Education is the greatest spender, and Bedfordshire spends some 14 per cent. more on the number of teachers and on teachers' salaries than other councils in the basket of comparable authorities. If Bedfordshire had the best education system, if parents could say that their children were getting better education than anyone else and that examination results, even in the difficult areas—some of which are in my constituency—are better than in comparable councils and that people regard it as worth moving to Bedfordshire for that education, I would not complain. In surveys conducted recently by Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools, however, Bedfordshire has consistently come near the bottom of the table for

319
examination results and qualifications. That does not justify the enormous expenditure by an authority which is under political control. The Audit Commission rightly criticised the authority's organisation and management and said that spending on secondary education far exceeds what is required and that, in its analysis, the spending policy is basically flawed.
Part of the problem is that those who purport to represent the people of Bedfordshire in county hall will not bite the bullet and take the tough decisions to reduce the number of schools that a Tory council would have taken if it were in power. Item 14 of Bedfordshire county council's audit of accounts 1988–89 states:
"There are too many schools. Up to 30 per cent. of the places available are unfilled."
That is a disgrace and means that between 10 and 12 schools should be closed if the authority wants to make money available to improve services which need improvement—for example, special areas, provision for the young, and facilities for sixth forms. The authority could save money if it had the courage to take those political decisions, but it refuses to do so.
The Audit Commission goes on to say that something must be done
"to reduce the present imbalance between school places and overall pupil numbers."
On that basis alone, some £5 million per annum—possibly more—would be saved.
Social service expenditure by Bedfordshire county council is some 15 per cent. above the average. If our old people's homes were the best in the country I would not say a word about it. If every child in care in Bedfordshire had better treatment than children elsewhere I would not complain, but regrettably there is gross inefficiency within the service, although people who work in those hard-pressed services try hard. Savings could be made and have been identified by the Audit Commission. The tragedy is that, while we have an authority in power whose business seems to be to spend other people's money, those savings will not be made.
This year, once again, despite the difficulties that we face—I acknowledge that the new legislative requirements that the Government have rightly put upon local authorities have created more—the council still refuses to make savings and consequently to improve services. As the years go by, the situation snowballs. If Bedfordshire continues to be run by virtual loonies from country hall who continue with the same policy, we shall be in severe difficulties.
If my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House takes one message back to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and to the new Minister of State, it should be that any alterations made to the community charge—I am suspicious of any alterations—must not give more money to authorities such as Bedfordshire, which will only spend the money willy-nilly, without thought for our constituents.
Not long ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) made certain suggestions in The Times about changes in the structure of local authorities. Some of those ideas were taken up today in an excellent article by Simon Heifer in The Daily Telegraph, which I recommend to my hon. Friends. With more energy and virulence than my right hon. Friend the Member for
320
Henley, Mr. Heffer says that it is about time that we abolished county councils. They represent a level of local government that has become unnecessary.
If a message came out of the local election results—particularly the wonderful results enjoyed by the Conservative party in Wandsworth and Westminster—it is that if small local authorities can control spending and their destiny, as Wandsworth and Westminster have done since the GLC disappeared, there is some chance that the community charge system will make those spending the money accountable. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will take that on board, and if he does not recommend that action be taken before the House rises for the spring recess, he should certainly recommend that it be a part of the manifesto for the next Conservative Government in the 1990s.
The county councils are a level of government over-burdened by bureaucrats. They are expensive and do not work. Many of my constituents in Luton long for the days when the borough controlled its own education and social services. The small size of such a committee is attractive and must appear so to most hon. Members. We felt that we could control our own destiny, and it would be on our own heads. Wandsworth and Westminster have proved that only on that basis have we any chance of controlling local government expenditure, which seems to go up and up, especially in counties which are Liberal or Labour-controlled.
I have some sympathy for the idea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley about an election each year. I believe there should be elections on a three-year basis, as happens in some local authorities now. We must abolish the larger tier of local government, which has become unwieldy and an excuse for representatives who are not fit to be in government for all sorts of reasons. We would then get representatives who are far closer to the electorate—the charge payers.
As the House rises for a short holiday at Whitsun, I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House will think of the people of Bedfordshire and the burden placed upon them by the Liberal-Labour-controlled council, and that he and his colleagues will come back to the House with radical proposals for the next Conservative Government which will make local authorities far more accountable and ensure that we never have such Liberal-Labour overspending again.
5.58 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I disagree with virtually every word uttered by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle). That will not surprise him. At least I congratulate him on making a speech other than on South Africa. Given the speeches that he makes in this place, I was beginning to think that he represented Pretoria, North rather than Luton, North. He referred to a number of issues to which I am sure we shall return. The future of the shire counties is being debated within the Labour party. Their future will form part of our proposals when we come to power.
I intend to refer to an anniversary that has passed largely unnoticed this week; it is an anniversary that I know the Prime Minister would prefer to forget. Nearly two years ago, she was present at a ceremony at Battersea. power station. She went there for one of those ubiquitous. photo opportunities that she gets. She was seen with Mr.

321
John Broome, the developer. She described him as a man of enterprise and vision. His enterprise and vision was to turn Battersea power station into a pleasure dome.
The Prime Minister was there to give encouragement to Mr. Broome. She hailed him as one of the best examples of Thatcherism in practice. Mr. Broome, no doubt warming to the theme, having been encouraged by the Prime Minister in that way, gave an enormous hostage to fortune, as it turned out, by saying to the Prime Minister, "I shall invite you back on 21 May 1990 at 2.30 pm in order to unveil this great development. If you come at 2.33, Ma'am, you will have missed it." The Prime Minister was chuffed, as she often is by hearing words of that sort—bravura, bravado, call it what you will. However, the right hon. Lady still has a decade or so in which to wander down to Battersea, where she will find that she has missed nothing, given the present sad state of dereliction of that wonderful building.
The Prime Minister was right to say that the proposed development was a symbol of Thatcherism—of Flash Harrys with flash ideas, leading ultimately to failure. One could take it a stage further and say that Battersea power station as it exists at the moment is a symbol of the country—an empty shell, its grandeur and glory gone, decaying away due to inefficiency, neglect and lack of care. That symbol of dereliction, just a few miles down river at Battersea, is a symbol of the country. The power station is a derelict eyesore.
The Secretary of State will probably soon receive a request for Battersea power station's listed building status to be lifted so that the power station can be demolished. If the wind, the rain and the weather have not done that already for Mr. Broome, that is what the Government will be asked to agree to, and they will be as derelict as that building if they are prepared to allow that to happen. There ought to be shame on the Conservative Benches. Certainly there ought to be shame in No. 10 Downing street for having gone along with this carnival, this festival that has had such an unhappy ending, the problem still not having been resolved.
Battersea power station is a London landmark. Many of us have come to love that building. [Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) laughs and thinks that that is a joke, but many Londoners look with great warmth and affection on that building. Previously they derived great warmth from it. To see it in its present bad state is no laughing matter.
The Government have been extremely casual with public assets. By means of their privatisation proposals, they have given them away. What Lady Porter did with the three Westminster cemeteries, the Government have done regularly with many public assets. They have given many of them away, together with sweeteners. Privatisation is nonsense in that respect, and we know it.
I want to compare briefly what happened to Battersea power station with what might happen to county hall. Proposals are now coming forward that are not entirely dissimilar to Mr. Broome's proposals for Battersea power station. The county hall proposals are for a luxury hotel, offices, a business centre, an amusement park and luxury flats—all the Flash Harry ideas that Mr. Broome had for Battersea power station. I disagree with the proposals. The Secretary of State is considering—[Interruption.] I intend
322
to say what I should like county hall to be used for. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-East (Mr. Lightbown) knows exactly what I intend to say.
The considerations arising from the public planning inquiry are now sitting on the Secretary of State's desk; he will undoubtedly deliberate upon them, and he ought to bring them to the House so that they can be fully debated. The House has an interest in what is being proposed for a building on the other side of the river that is within our line of vision. We ought to decide whether we are happy with the proposals. I disagree fundamentally with them; they involve the spending of a great deal of money.
The Secretary of State has to decide whether the new Flash Harrys on the south bank will have the resources to carry out their proposals. I have seen little evidence of their financial assets being sufficient to fund the proposed development. We do not want to end up with a Battersea power station problem immediately opposite us on the other side of the river—county hall with its roof off and the builders walking off site because the money has run out. Despite the fact that I intensely dislike the proposals, I want the Secretary of State at least to ensure that the developers have the financial wherewithal to complete their development.
I despise the proposals. It is a political decision. The former Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), said on one occasion that he would like county hall to be demolished brick by brick. He could not demolish it, because it is a listed building. However, political symbolism makes the Tory Government want county hall to be used for a purpose that is totally outwith its previous function. County hall was built with inner-London ratepayers' money. It was built as a centre for London local government. It is a symbol of local democracy in London—the local democracy that this Government have done so much to undermine and destroy. We want couny hall to remain in its original form and to be used for its purpose—as the seat of London local government.
I am delighted to know that among the welter of policy proposals that are about to be launched upon a grateful nation by the Labour party there is one that states that a Labour Government will restore London-wide local government. There will be a new London council. We must ensure that it is based in county hall. I want to extract from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen—not my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott) who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench now, so he need not worry too much about it—an undertaking that, if the Secretary of State for the Environment allows a hotel to be developed on the county hall site, a Labour Government will take it back by means of compulsory purchase.
Who would that upset? It would upset the developers, the Flash Harrys. I could not give a monkey's toss for them, nor would many Londoners. It may upset a few rich tourists. I am sorry for them, but there are plenty of luxury hotels for them in and around London. If the Labour party in opposition and then in government were to give such a pledge, most of the people of London would support them. It would be a politically popular move.
As long as I draw breath in this House, which I hope will be for some years to come, I shall strive to get county hall back into public ownership to act as the headquarters of London local government. I have great confidence that I shall succeed.
6.9 pm
Sir John Stokes: Before we adjourn for the spring recess, I wish to discuss the teaching of history in our schools. The subject has been greatly ventilated in recent weeks and we have also received the final report of the history working group of the national curriculum.
A knowledge of history is absolutely essential if we are to retain our identity as a nation. It is most important that our children should understand what has made our country—its origins and its development through the centuries until the present time. It is essential that they should know how our small island on the edge of the continent of Europe was first colonised by Rome, passed through the so-called dark ages into the flowering of Anglo-Saxon civilisation followed by the Norman conquest and the feudal system, the wars of the roses when the aristocracy nearly destroyed itself, the reformation and the Tudor monarchy, the wars against France which we usually won, our own civil war, the growth and development of the British empire which at one time encompassed a quarter of the world—and what happy days they were—the rise of democracy and the two great wars this century.
Some people are shy about dwelling too much on our island history for fear of upsetting the immigrants among us. That is a mistaken view. Immigrants, like everyone else, expect us to be true to ourselves and to our history and identity as a nation.
Children should be made to learn the dates of the great events of past centuries. That is not just dull learning by rote; it will give them a framework in which to place all those unfolding events and to understand how they relate to one another. They will thus in due course begin to realise the remarkable continuity of the history of our small island. Incidentally, my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) recently remarked that what we are all about in this place is the continuity of history.
Children should know about kings, queens, statesmen and other leaders; and about battles and other great events. But that does not mean that they should neglect social, domestic and occasionally local history. While for most people in the United Kingdom history tends to be mainly the history of England, that does not mean that events in Scotland, Wales and Ireland should be ignored.
Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Stokes: No. Many hon. Members still wish to speak and we have only one more hour.
We are an old nation with roots going a long way back, unlike some of the newer nations in Europe, and it is essential that children should appreciate that. I have always been fascinated by the continuity of our history—for instance, the coronation rite, which goes back to before the Norman conquest, and the monarchy that can trace its ancestry back to King Alfred in Saxon times, the continued existence of the House of Lords and the hereditary peers of whom I am so fond, the tradition and procedures of the Chamber, our jury system and the English common law, the many words and phrases in the English language which go back for centuries and our wonderful heritage of cathedrals, churches, castles and country houses and the ancient towns and villages that we all love so much.
324
We have been most fortunate in not having been conquered since 1066, and our internal wars were mild compared with the fearful struggles on the continent. Our island status, guarded in the old days by a powerful navy, has kept our country intact.
The growth of the British empire and the trade that followed it is a romance in itself. The colonisation of north America and its subsequent successful rebellion is a unique story and our influence in America has been profound.
The more one studies our history and development, which are so different from those of nations on the continent, the more necessary it is to examine with great care, if not with suspicion, any proposals for our ancient country to join a new European federation. We are not a highly centralised country. We never had a Code Napoleon, but only a common-sense common law. Nor do we have a written constitution. We are a practical, not a theoretical, people; a kindly, tolerant, gentle people, slow to wrath but very angry and determined when need be; perhaps a people inclined to be lazy but capable of immense exertions in a crisis.
There is a great deal to be proud of in our history, despite some shaming events from time to time, such as our treatment of Ireland, but there is nothing wrong in being proud of our past. We in Parliament are trustees or posterity and must hand on the torch of our civilisation to succeeding generations. We have contributed a great deal to the civilisation of the world and we should be proud of that. We still have a great deal to give the world and we. should rejoice in that. I am happy to say that at present our standing among nations remains high.
6.15 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: One of the achievements in our history of which we should be proud is the development of the franchise—the struggle in 1832 to reform Parliament and to establish more equal and equitable electoral districts, the struggle throughout the later 19th century, especially by the Chartists, to establish a universal franchise for men, the struggle of the suffragettes in the 20th century, and finally the achievement of the universal franchise based upon people's residential rights that was finally established in 1928.
The pride that we take in the development of the franchise should be demonstrated by our intention to ensure that nothing removes or undermines it, but to extend democracy and the participation and involvement of the British people who struggled so hard to achieve electoral rights. But what is happening now? There are great problems about the state of the franchise. The franchise is being undermined and nibbled away by one piece of legislation in particular which cannot be reformed or altered to avoid that serious effect. That measure is of course the poll tax.
Before 1987, there was a close correlation between the numbers on the electoral register and the estimated population of those over 18. As we have a universal franchise and reasonable techniques for calculating the population, one would expect those figures to approximate. However, since 1987, the figures have started to deviate, initially in Scotland but now in England and Wales but not in Northern Ireland, which has a distinct advantage in not having the poll tax.

325
It is clear that the major factor undermining the electoral register is the poll tax. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys recognises that the decline in registration is due not to demographic factors or changes in the age structure of the population but to non-registration. If offers a number of reasons. The Prime Minister wrote to me suggesting that the decline in registration in 1989 may have been due to the postal strike of September 1988. The decline in Scotland was not associated with a postal strike, and the poll tax was introduced a year earlier in Scotland than in England. The poll tax factor on electoral registration operated earlier.
The poll tax register and the electoral register overlap considerably. The principles of accountability, on which the poll tax was based, are similar to those for electoral registration. If people are desperate, they take desperate remedies to protect themselves. People are not registering for the poll tax, but realising that their names still appear on the electoral register. That applies even to people who are only just 18, because the poll tax registrar can go back to past electoral rolls to discover missing names. Such people will not bother to register.
I asked the Library to produce evidence on the link between people aged 18 and over and electoral registration. In Great Britain, at least 1·5 per cent. of the population have disappeared from the electoral register. That amounts to more than 600,000 people, or 1,000 per constituency if it were evenly distributed throughout the country. But it will not be evenly distributed. There are obvious problems in some areas, such as in Glasgow, where, since the introduction of the poll tax, 40,000 people have disappeared from the electoral register, or 6·5 per cent.; in Liverpool 25,000 are missing, or 7·5 per cent.; and in the past two years in Finchley, the Prime Minister's constituency, 4·6 per cent. and 3·9 per cent. of people have disappeared from the electoral register.
I rang the electoral registration office in Finchley to ask about the reason for that under-registration. The answer was that it assumed it had something to do with the poll tax. Some opinion polls show that the Prime Minister may lose her seat at the next election, but another factor must be taken into account: those who were interviewed or their equivalents may not appear on the electoral register.
The people who have most to fear from the poll tax are those who will disappear from the electoral register. Masses of people are disappearing from it, especially in some areas. That is serious. It is doubly serious when we take into account a measure that the House passed recently to extend the expatriate vote on a voluntary basis—that is nonsense, given the obligatory franchise in this country—to 3 million overseas voters. If only 20 per cent. register, they will replace the 600,000 people who have been squeezed off the electoral register by the poll tax. That should worry hon. Members.
The Government's commitment to manipulating the franchise is greater than their commitment to ensuring that people appear on the register. Statistics on electoral registration advertising expenditure that I have obtained from the Prime Minister's office show that in 1988–89 only 0·3 per cent. of total advertising expenditure—£322,000—was spent on electoral registration. That contrasts
326
starkly with the £760,000 which has been spent on encouraging people to take up franchise rights overseas and to vote in our elections.
The electoral register is being manipulated. The franchise is being fixed and fiddled. Given the great sense of history in this Chamber, we should be as concerned about that as we are about some of the other great issues, such as the attack on the environment and the many dangers and injustices of much of the legislation that the Government have passed. If we lose the franchise, we lose one of our most sacred traditional rights. Hon. Members and everyone outside should be deeply concerned about that. We should ensure that the poll tax is abolished and that the franchise is fully and properly re-established in this country.
6.26 pm
Sir Anthony Grant: On Monday, we spent quite a lot of time discussing mad cow disease, which has not infected anyone. In contrast, more than 5,000 people are slaughtered every year on our roads, more than 300,000 are injured and, of those, 60,000 are seriously injured. Before the House rises for the spring Adjournment, I should like to make a few remarks on the subject. I must declare an interest, because I have the honour to be the president of the Guild of Experienced Motorists.
There have recently been signs of an improvement in the number of road accidents. The creation of motorways was a positive step, because research shows that one is far less likely to have an accident on a motorway than on other roads. The anti-drink-driving campaign has been a success and should be maintained. We must bear in mind the fact that four out of every five accidents are not related to drink, and we should be applying our minds to those accidents.
There are more road accidents in East Anglia than in any other region of Britain. We are fortunate to have the best health in the country, probably the best employment record and much going for us, but it is a disgrace that so many people are slaughtered or injured on East Anglian roads. Within East Anglia, the record of the county of Cambridgeshire is the worst. The overall increase in road accidents in Cambridgeshire since 1984 is 16 per cent. On rural roads where the 40 mph speed limit does not apply, the increase is 28 per cent. and on trunk roads it is 25 per cent.
Since 1987, there have been different trends within the East Anglian region. The figures have decreased in Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, but have increased in Norfolk, Essex and Suffolk. Cambridgeshire has experienced the biggest increase of all, which is against the trend elsewhere in the region and country. There are several reasons for that. I shall highlight only two in this short debate. Suffice it to say that in my constituency the A45 and A505 are absolute death traps. It is a nightmare to drive along them and appalling to see time and time again in local newspapers or on local television the ghastly mangled wrecks which are the result of accidents that occur on those roads. That is not good enough in a society such as ours.
I know that the Government appreciate the problem. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), the then Secretary of State for Transport, said in July 1989 when introducing the White Paper:

327
"The eastern region programme is being increased by over three and a half times … That reflects East Anglia's status as having the fastest growing economy in the country."
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, in a reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), said on 30 October 1989:
"One of the main features of the White Paper was its recognition that East Anglia has an inadequate road infrastructure. There are substantial plans set out in the White Paper to produce an improvement, and we shall honour them."—[Official Report, 30 October 1989; Vol. 159, c. 4.]
Those are fine words, on which I entirely rely.
Meanwhile, it is unacceptable that the appalling casualties should continue in my part of the country. The slaughter on the roads results in more deaths than any other cause—more than heart disease, tumours, diseases of the respiratory system and air accidents, much more than bombs and certainly more than mad cow disease.
There are several general observations to be made on this subject. Research has shown that the first principal cause of road casualties is driving too fast for the conditions that prevail. Conditions on most British roads are unsuitable for the speed at which vehicles move. The other cause is driving too close behind the vehicle in front, a persistent nuisance. That can be overcome quite easily through technology if the will were there to compel vehicles to be technically adapted.
The driving test is still hopelessly inadequate and needs to be revised. It is ridiculous that people can crawl around a suburb in a little Mini and then step into the type of vehicle that needs to be handled with the skill of Nigel Mansell. Again, the penalties imposed are too feeble. There should be much greater use of the power of disqualification and of confiscation of the vehicle involved in the accident. There could be greater use of sleeping policemen in rural areas and villages. These have been found to be effective restraints on speed.
Manufacturers must show a greater sense of responsibility. What is the point of making relatively cheap cars for popular use which can travel at 140 mph when the speed limit everywhere is no higher than 70 mph? What is the point of producing cars with engines that require someone with the skill of Stirling Moss or Nigel Mansell to handle them? Often such cars are poorly maintained and the drivers do not have the skill required. They have completely inadequate training. Manufacturers have a responsibility to incorporate the latest safety devices. I am bound to comment that, if it had not been for Government action, manufacturers would probably not even insert brakes in vehicles.
All this mayhem and chaos on our roads results in dreadful loss of resources and expenditure, heavy burdens on our Health Service, pressure on our hard-pressed police, bereavement of families and bitter misery for those who are disabled for life, as all too many are. It is no consolation to them to be told that in Europe and in other countries the number of casualties is higher.
This matter deserves greater scrutiny both by Her Majesty's Government and by the press and the media. That is especially true in the county of Cambridgeshire.
6.34 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The tragic events in Israel's administered territories and Jordan this week have highlighted again the unhappy Arab-Israeli conflict and we should pause to think about the situation for a moment before we rise for the recess.
328
While elsewhere in the world there are so many encouraging and happy developments, it is depressing that in the middle east there is still unsettlement and misery. Naturally, Israel is blamed and comfort is given to her enemies by Governments who should know better, even if they feel that they cannot do better.
I do not believe for a moment that Israel has any other intention than to see that its nationhood survives secure and that it remains an independent, multi-racial democracy under the rule of law. I believe that when Israel turns to violence, it is forced to do so in order to survive as a nation and to protect its borders and people as any other nation under unremitting attack would have to do. When the intifada is violent, the containment cannot but be violent. If there were no uprising, no one would be wounded and no one would die.
When terrorism repeatedly strikes Israel from its foreign borders, as it has for many years, Israel has tried to end those attacks by building a buffer zone between it and the Lebanon. Sadly people die in the fighting which ensues. If there were no terrorism and no military attack on Israel, no one would be wounded and no one would die.
I believe that Israel wants to live in peace with its Arab neighbours. Its people are not warlike by nature and, because they were so often deprived of human rights, they have respect for the human rights of others, such as the Palestinians. It is inconceivable that Israel should want to use up either its human resources in endless fighting or its economic resources, which are difficult to come by, in the endless struggle for survival. If Israel's Arab neighbours were prepared to live in peace with Israel, there would be no daily killing or misery.
If Israel had nothing to fear from its neighbours it would not need to settle the high ground on the west bank to build defensive settlements and land for peace would be the bargain now being struck. Of course, Israel wants to settle the 1 million Jews from the Soviet Union, not only because they are fugitives from a country in which, as Jews, they were not welcome, but because the tiny state of Israel, which is so vulnerable to the sheer numbers alone of its neighbours, naturally wants to be stronger. If the United States and other countries in the world will not take the Soviet Jews, where else do we expect them to go?
So far, the settlement on the west bank has been widely exaggerated by those who have reported it. I understand that fewer than 1 per cent. of Jewish emigrants have settled on the west bank. That is 32 families in all—138 people. Of course, the whole situation is unsatisfactory and unhappy and there is conflict which results in hatred and the spilling of blood, so we ask yet again at this time how it will all end and whether we can help.
One thing is certain. We cannot reasonably expect Israel to agree with any state or organisation that it should commit suicide. The greatest problem is that the Arabs demand a Palestinian state at least to begin with on the west bank, but everyone who has the slightest knowledge or understanding of the area knows that such a development is impossible. It is impossible for the Palestinians because there is no water, energy, raw materials, or infrastructure and no body politic to govern such a barren place. It is impossible for the neighbours of such a state, be it Jordan, which has its own history of violence to contend with from the PLO, or be it Israel. No nation could permit an enemy which is sworn to destroy it to have its guns pointed at its heart from only a mile or two away. It is 10 miles from the border to Tel Aviv, which

329
could be taken out in a moment. How long would it be before the west bank state needed to expand into Jordan or Israel?
In opposing a PLO state on its borders, Israel is hardly being unreasonable, although without a stable Government speaking for all the people it is perhaps difficult for it to have a cohesive foreign policy. One of the reasons being advanced for maintaining the absurd proportional representation which has caused the political chaos in Israel is that if it were abolished it would remove the small Arab representation in the Knesset, which the Israeli Government does not want to do.
There is, of course, an Israeli peace plan—to have free democratic elections among the Palestinians in the territories, thus providing elected representatives who can negotiate with Israel without fear of Arab terrorism, and from which autonomy would automatically emerge. The plan would seek to ensure that the Palestinians enjoy that autonomy for three years while confidence builds up between the two sides and while a final acceptable status for the territories is worked out, and backed by the super-powers or the United Nations. I believe that, in practice, everything would be negotiable in such talks, as was the case when the hard-line Mr. Begin negotiated peace for land in the Sinai with President Sadat at Camp David, and peace with Egypt resulted.
It is asked why Israel will not talk to Arafat, the Palestinian leader. Did he not say in December 1988 that he would recognise the state of Israel and renounce terrorism? The answer is that the Israelis do not trust Arafat to deliver his promise—and nor should anyone else trust him. Why? First, it is because in the years since the renunciation of terrorism at Geneva there have been 13 terrorists attacks by Fatah inside Israel's 1967 borders, 17 border attacks by the PLO or affiliated organisations, including two Katyuska rocket attacks on kibbutzim in the Jordan valley, 15 infiltration attempts across all borders, including two by Fatah, and 125 Palestinians have been murdered on the directions of the "Unified Command" by which the PLO operates in the territories.
Either the PLO leader is responsible for the terrorism of the groups which operate under his umbrella of command, or he is not. If he is responsible, he has not renounced violence. If he is not responsible, how can anyone expect Israel to negotiate with a man who has no control over or ability to stop terrorist attacks on Israel? What security would there be for Israel if it negotiated with Arafat? If he is in complete control, let him call off the violence that has been going on in the territories for two and a half years—the intifada. That will prove his control and power and oblige Israel to recognise the strength. Israel might then talk to him.
The second reason why one should not trust Mr. Arafat—if more proof were wanted—is the speech that he made to senior Fatah military personnel in Baghdad on 6 April 1990, which was reported in the Paris-based Lebanese newspaper Al Muharrar on 10 April as follows:
"Open fire on the new Jewish immigrants—be they from the Soviet Union, Ethiopia or anywhere else … I want you to shoot, on the ground or in the air, at every immigrant who thinks our land is a playground and who thinks that immigration to it is a vacation or a picnic …
Do not tell me that political decisions prevent us from military activity against immigrants. It makes no difference whether they live in a Jaffa"—
330
which is just inside the 1967 boundary—
"or in Jericho. I give you explicit instructions to open fire, do everything to stop the flow of immigration … I give you my instructions to use violence against the immigrants. I will jail whoever refuses to do this. My words are not just a threat, they are the reality. From today on, I will incarcerate whoever refuses to obey my instructions … Today I publish my orders to use violence against the immigrants and I wll put anyone who fails into prison … I have already put into prison Palestinian ambassadors, members of the Revolutionary Councils and clergymen when they made a mistake. My decision and the decision of The Fatah to use violence must be carried out in real terms".
Is that a man of peace? Has the leopard changed its spots? How can that language inspire anyone to believe that Mr. Arafat can be trusted when he talks of peace? That speech was made six weeks ago and has not yet been denied by Mr. Arafat. Can anyone blame the Israelis for not trusting him to deliver? When Western Governments continue to pander to Arafat, to pretend that they accept his moderation and his renunciation of violence, is it any wonder that Israel loses patience with those who proffer such absurd advice?
Is there no hope then? Of course there is hope. There has to be. Camp David showed that there can be hope, however hopeless the situation might appear. If the Israelis get their political act together, speak strongly in one voice and start acting flexibly, there will be hope. If they continue their policy of not settling Jews on the west bank in large numbers—because that would set back the cause of peace—there will be hope. If the PLO genuinely stops its terrorism, if the Palestinians elect moderate representatives democratically, if the United Nations and other world powers make an effort to push the peace initiative forward with fairness and good sense, the situation is not hopeless.
I hope that as the House rises for this short recess the Government's determination to be more understanding about Israel's difficulties—and its refusal to accept the hollow assurances given for its security—will become more evident. Israel should not negotiate with unrepentant terrorists. It cannot be expected to negotiate with neighbours who hate its very existence. Provided that our own and other Governments recognise those facts, they will help the peace process because Israel will feel less alone and will be more willing to accept sensible international advice.
6.47 pm
Mr. Keith Vaz: Before the House rises, I wish to raise briefly the case of one of my constituents, Mr. John Richardson. The House may think that this has become the Israeli half-hour, because I want to raise issues of concern that relate directly to Mr. Richardson's visit to Israel this morning. However, much of what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, which was interesting and to which I listened carefully, is not directly relevant to this case.
Mr. Richardson, who lives in Leicester, left for Israel this morning. He arrived in Tel Aviv at 4.45 this morning. Immediately on arrival, he was detained by the Israeli security services. He was allowed no direct contact with the British embassy, although he telephoned the embassy and asked for someone to go out to Tel Aviv airport. Mr. Richardson was sent back to Britain on the first plane. He arrived in Britain at 8.45 this morning and came to see me in Westminster at 1 o'clock because I was anxious to have the facts before raising this matter in the House.

331
Mr. Richardson was in Israel to attend a symposium. He was supposed to give a lecture in two days' time on the situation there. He is of impeccable character. I have known him—not only as a constituent, but also as a friend—for over six years. He is the commissioning editor for a newpaper, the Ithaca Press.
I am glad that the Leader of the House, the deputy Prime Minister, who has great experience of foreign affairs, is on the Treasury Bench, and I hope that he will press the Foreign Secretary at the earliest opportunity for a statement on the way in which British citizens are treated in Israel.
I refer also to the position of British Airways. When he left Tel Aviv airport, Mr. Richardson's passport was not given back to him. It was handed to a British Airways steward and was not returned to him until his return to Britain. We should examine carefully the role of our airways and airlines in immigration matters: it is wrong that a British citizen should have his passport retained by an air steward.
I raise the issue not because I can help Mr. Richardson by so doing—he left the House at 2.30 this afternoon and returned to Leicester—but to draw the House's attention to the fact that British citizens who are travelling in good faith to Israel are sometimes sent back without explanation on the first available flight. I hope that the matter will be taken up by the Leader of the House, and that he will mention the debate to the Foreign Secretary.
6.49 pm
Mr. Bruce Grocott: I am sure that the House will understand if I say that, much as I enjoy the privilege of speaking here, I wish I were somewhere else. Tonight I would like to be at the annual meeting of Wrekin district council, under the leadership of Councillor Malcolm Smith. Tonight Phil Heighway ends his one-year term in office as chairman, and is replaced by Graham Bould, with John Minor as his deputy. The council has been Labour-controlled since its inception, and that was greatly reinforced by a tremendous by-election result a week ago, when the Conservative vote of 1987 was halved, with the Conservative candidate coming third behind the Greens.
I have a specific matter to raise which relates to the responsibilities of the Leader of the House. I hope that the House will attempt to adjust its procedures—however uncomfortable that may be for some hon. Members—to the television age. For some six months, the nation has been looking at us, and it is perhaps time that we started looking at ourselves more critically.
It would be a mistake, however, not to refer to some of the contributions that have been made. It was notable that two Conservative Members spoke about the inadequacies of the Health Service. Opposition Members say "Hear, hear" to that. One Conservative Member made a telling contribution about the retirement age. I appreciate that issue only too well, especially the question of men who wish to retire at 60.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) made a powerful speech—which I am sure will receive universal approval—about the effects on haemophiliacs infected by the AIDS virus. What I liked about his speech was that he made specific recommendations, based on his experiences as a Minister, about how the matter should be resolved. I hope that the
332
Leader of the House takes to heart my right hon. Friend's comments about the treatment of Thalidomidevictims; perhaps that is an important precedent that could be applied in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) made a characteristically informed speech about the problems of the coal industry, about which he is, perhaps, better qualified to speak than any other hon. Member. He speaks from great personal knowledge. He pointed out the differences between the current possible round of redundancies and earlier ones, and I hope that the Leader of the House will refer to that in his reply.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (M r. Winnick) raised an issue that is dear to my heart: responsibility for Government communications and co-ordination. I am deputy to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham). He now shadows three Secretaries of State in varying degrees—the Secretary of State for Energy, the Leader of the House and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and we await the possibility of more being added to the list. We can cope with them, but it would be nice to know exactly what their responsibilities are.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is not here now. He made an important contribution about the future of county hall. I hope that the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes), with his deep sense of history, would have seconded my hon. Friend's proposal. We do not want to see historic buildings turned into luxury hotels; they should once again be the seats of democracy that they were in the past.
While we are on a democratic note, let me add that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) made an effective speech about the impact of the poll tax on people's ability to vote. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) also referred to some of the injustices of the poll tax. The poll tax, the Health Service and democracy—those themes have recurred.
We should try to make our procedures more intelligible to people outside. For the past six months, the country has been looking at us with varying degrees of amazement, interest and ridicule. This motion is a classic example of our procedures. It is nearly 7 pm, and we are debating
"That this House, at its rising on Thursday 24th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 5th June."
Suppose that we told any group of workers in the country that they could have a holiday next week, but that before they could have it there would need to be a three-hour debate, continuing until late in the evening. They would consider that a ludicrous proposition, and it would be passed without a vote. All hon. Members know that this is an opportunity for people to raise important issues, but surely we should be able to do that without calling an Adjournment debate.
The House should keep more sensible hours. I know that Conservative Members get worked up about the hours in the House. In the last full Session, we sat for longer than almost any other legislature in the world: at 2, 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, I sometimes wonder to what effect. In the 1988–89 Session, the House sat for 175 days: on 121 of those days—about 70 per cent.—the debate continued until after 10.30 pm; on 80 days—about 40 per cent.—it continued until after midnight; and on 21 days it continued until after 2 am. I do not mind—and I am sure

333
that no other hon. Member minds—sitting in the middle of the night if we are considering critical issues of national importance, but in some Consolidated Fund debates I have addressed a massed audience of three hon. Members at 5 o'clock in the morning, and I am sure that there must be a more sensible way. I am amazed that the camera operator can stay awake at that time of night. Hon. Members should examine again the possibility of morning sittings.
I know that traditionalist Conservative Members will not like this, but I think that we should think again about the way in which we address each other in the House. I can refer to the man sitting opposite me as the Leader of the House, although not many people outside know what that means; I can refer to him as the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East—although I do not know whether he is learned until I hear his reply to the debate. But if I were to address him as Sir Geoffrey Howe, you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would rule me out of order—although that is what people know him as, just as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford is Geoffrey Lofthouse. Why on earth can we not occasionally use the language of the real world? When we refer to someone as, for instance, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, the commentators who must make our proceedings intelligible to the world outside must say in hushed tones that we are referring to Edward Heath. Our next comments are then lost, because the commentary drowns them.—[Interruption] I am greatly encouraged that there is so much opposition from Conservative Members who want to retain the House as a completely unintelligible club.
What about the nonsensical way in which we ask questions at Prime Minister's Question Time? The Prime Minister is asked to list her official engagements for the day and on Tuesday she said:
"This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today."—[Official Report, 22 May 1990; Vol. 173, c. 16.]
On 10 May the Prime Minister replied to that same question:
"This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today."—[Official Report, 10 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 392.]
I could go on and on. Those answers are a waste of Hansard and a waste of the House's time. Twice a week we have a quarter of an hour of precious moments in which to question the Prime Minister, but each week we have inane questions and answers. I am all in favour of general questions, but not silly ones, and it should be possible to ask specific questions of the Prime Minister.
When the televising experiment comes to an end I hope that we will look more modestly and critically at the way in which we operate. A democracy will not work unless people understand what we are saying and our procedures. At the moment they leave a great deal to be desired and I hope that we shall improve them as quickly as possible.
7 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Grocott), if I am still
334
allowed to call him that, closed our proceedings with uncharacteristically acerbic observations. I thought that we could take comfort from the fact that this curious ritual of an Adjournment debate had enabled 18 hon. Members to raise a wide variety of issues in a short space of time, but I fear that I shall be unable to deal with all of them because the time allowed is too short.
With regard to the procedures of the House, the hon. Member for The Wrekin might like to notice that on Monday this week we announced a series of substantial reforms in the procedures relating to European Community matters. Yesterday we received a report from the Select Committee on Procedure which, if accepted, will reduce by 90 per cent. the number of questions tabled and will save about £750,000 a year, on which I look with favour. The hon. Gentleman will also note that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), answering for the House of Commons Commission, today gave an important reply about the work that the Commission has set in hand to review the management of the House. That is not too bad a record.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Sir B. Hayhoe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) discussed National Health Service expenditure. I know that they join me in endorsing the spending on the NHS under the Government. That spending has never been higher. It has gone up by nearly 39 per cent. in real terms since we came into office and it will rise by more than £5 billion in the two years between 1989 and 1991. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the differential rate of expansion between the family practitioner services and hospital and community health services, but there has been an increase in spending on hospital and community health services of 36 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79.
There has been some impact in Leicestershire and elsewhere as a result of the shortfall in land sales and we hope that that will not endure for very long. The Leicestershire district, however, has received an increase of nearly 3 per cent. in real terms in the year in question. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton also asked about borrowing, but I cannot add to what has already been said by the Secretary of State for Health. I am more enthusiastic about the other issue raised by my hon. Friend when he urged those responsible to ensure the appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury who unequivocally believes in God. I echo my hon. Friend's wish and I am sure that that proposition will commend itself to many.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) raised two specific issues with characteristic concern. The first related to the position of haemophiliacs infected with the HIV-AIDS virus. I can do no more than refer him to the speech of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health at the conclusion of the Adjournment debate on 9 May when he made plain that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would respond specifically and in considered form to the point which he had raised.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the childhood cancer, neuroblastoma. He will appreciate that following the Adjournment debate on 30 March there has been a change in Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State at the Department of Health. The new Parliamentary

335
Under-Secretary of State will be writing to the right hon. Gentleman in the very near future with the information that he requested.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) understandably raised the question of the possible equalisation of retirement conditions and used as the basis for his speech the recent judgment of the European Court of Justice. Obviously we need to address that question with increasing effectiveness. I say that with some feeling as the issue has been around for some time. I was part-author of two pamphlets in the late 1960s which commended some progress in this matter. Within her Majesty's Government I can be seen as a reasonably committed advocate of progress towards resolving the question and I shall not allow the issue to be forgotten.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed raised a number of points about the community charge which I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I believe that the House was particularly struck by his argument about second homes, albeit empty, which are required for retirement. It is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that there is already a substantial discretion with local authorities in that respect. We cannot make any changes this year, but local authorities should exercise their discretion more generously.
The hon. Gentleman also expressed his anxiety about the possibility of a debate on the police regulations laid down in 1990. That anxiety was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Ward). The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will appreciate that the business that the House debates is that which I announce at business questions, not what might have been discussed through the usual channels. Last week I told the House that there would be an opportunity to debate the regulations. The timing of that debate will remain to be agreed through the usual channels, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, speaking at the Police Federation conference today, said that such a debate will take place after the recess.
Mr. Latham: It could hardly be before it.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, but hon. Members may take some comfort in the fact that it will take place after it.
The hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) raised a serious matter about the possible impact of changes in the fuel-burning policy of certain industries on employment in the coal industry. He will recognise that the installation of further flue gas desulphurisation plants is one option for meeting the tighter sulphur reduction targets after the turn of the century. It will be for British Coal to convince the generators that the cost and reliability of its product justifies such an investment.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) raised a number of points, none of which impressed me greatly. It is surely entirely proper for my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities to communicate with councillor Pickles, as he communicates with other councillors in his capacity as Minister. It is a curious observation to regard that as somehow improper. The hon. Gentleman had an Adjournment debate on skill centres only last week when his charges were fully answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment.
336
It is unconstructive for the hon. Gentleman to raise specific questions in the House about Members' interests as the very evidence to which he is referring is being considered by the Select Committee——
Mr. Cryer: It is published.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It may be published, but that does not mean that it is not proper for the Select Commit tee on Members' Interests to consider it rather than for the hon. Gentleman to raise that evidence in bits and pieces on the Floor of the House in a debate of this kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) made a number of interesting points about bovine spongiform encephalitis. He will know that a number of them were the subject of observations by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the debate which took place on Monday. My right hon. Friend has been giving evidence on that complex subject to the Select Committee on Agriculture today. I hesitate to add my limited stock of knowledge to that already offered by my right hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) made some telling comments about t he extravagance, bureaucracy and inefficiency of Bedfordshire county council. It surprises us not at all because we all know, if we are well informed, that just as Conservative-controlled councils deliver high quality at low cost, so Labour-controlled councils offer poor services for charges which take no account of the charge payer.
In the intervention immediately following, by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), there was a reference which deserves at least some acknowledgement in relation to Battersea power station. The hon. Gentleman will know that a revised planning application is currently with Wandsworth local authority. Clearly, we all want to see the future of the power station resolved as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman will know also that county hall was the subject of a public inquiry last autumn. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce his decision when he has considered the report.
Apart from that, the hon. Gentleman's performance—the brash way in which he said, "Down with developers, out with tourists, exit enterprise, in with compulsory purchase orders, in with bureaucracy and up with expenditure", made him a perfect exhibit A in illustration of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) made a sweeping and entirely justified commendation of our nation's history and the importance of studying it. Perhaps he will join me in expressing the hope that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West will be consigned to the scrap heap of that history as an interesting example of Labour man.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (M r. Barnes) raised some characteristically thoughtful points about the registration of voters in relation to the registation of overseas voters. That is taking place in accordance with the legislation passed with the support of both sides of the House. When talking about the level of electoral registration, the hon. Gentleman should remember that in some years it does not keep pace with increases in the population. There are several explanations for the variation, so he should not jump to conclusions about it.

337
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-West (Sir A. Grant) made some important points about our record on traffic accidents. Overall, Britain has a better safety record than the European Community, but that is no cause for complacency—our record can and must be improved. My hon. Friend was right to draw attention to the features in his county. It is particularly important to improve our record in relation to children and pedestrians. I was glad that he made specific reference to the case for greater use of sleeping policemen, or humps, as a means of checking speeds in areas of special sensitivity, not only in village streets but near schools.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who has a distinguished record as an advocate, did not fall short of his own standard of advocacy in making some points on behalf of the people in the Government of Israel. None of us doubts the importance of that country's case for a peaceful and secure existence, but equally we attach importance to the case of the Palestinians for respect for their human rights. As so often before, therefore, we urge the PLO to maintain its commitment to a peaceful, negotiated settlement and we look to the Israeli Government to move quickly to dialogue and to avoid more violence and bloodshed. If there is one point that I should like to draw from my hon. and learned Friend's speech, it was his reference to a territory for peace. If that is the right basis for a deal, surely it cannot be entirely sensible to increase settlements in that territory which may yet be the subject
It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 22 (Periodic adjournments).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 24th May, do adjourn until Tuesday 5th June.
Mr. Latham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to raise the matter, but surely there are some conventions of the House that should be respected. An hon. Member came into the House shortly before the replies to the debate; he made a speech about a specific point and did not bother to stay for the closing speeches, although they were beginning immediately afterwards. I think that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) should have been more courteous to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I had not noticed what happened, but I deprecate the fact that bad manners are shown in the Chamber. Common courtesies in terms of our parliamentary behaviour should be upheld at all times. I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for making the point. What he said, and my comments upon it, will be recorded in the Official Report.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a convention that as soon as documents are published they are open to debate in the House. The Leader of the House implied that somehow, when the Select Committee on Members' Interests published evidence about parliamentary lobbying, it should not have been subject to debate. Surely you will agree that that is entirely wrong, but it is now on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. As he says, the matter is now in the official record.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not saying that such documents should not as a matter of order be subject to debate in the House. I was merely saying that to introduce them in the casual selective way that they were introduced in the Adjournment debate was unconstructive.
Madam Deputy Speaker: It is a matter for debate.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Before I call the Minister of State, it might be helpful if I made it clear to the House that debate on the order may cover all matters for which Northern Ireland Departments, as distinct from the Northern Ireland Office, are responsible. Of course, hon. Members will appreciate that police and security are the principal excluded subjects. 7.15 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990, which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.
This is the main appropriation order for the Northern Ireland estimates for this financial year. It authorises the expenditure of £2,496 million. That amount, when added to the £1,817 million voted on account for 1990–91 by the House on 12 March, gives a total voted cash provision for Northern Ireland Departments of £4,313 million for this financial year. There is other public expenditure not included in the vote, for example, expenditure by the Northern Ireland national insurance fund and capital expenditure by the Housing Executive, funded by borrowing from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund. Therefore, the total public expenditure for the Departments amounts this year to £5,289 million.
The estimates booklet gives full details of the sums sought and is available as usual from the Vote Office. So is the commentary on public expenditure which describes it all in a less technical way. As you correctly reminded the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, the estimates for the Northern Ireland Office and for law and order services are not covered by the order. Of course, the House has other opportunities to debate law and order. Because of your strictures, I will just emphasise that the defeat of terrorism remains the Government's first public expenditure priority in Northern Ireland. But the economic and social programmes covered by the draft order are also of great importance to the well-being of the people of Northern Ireland and make a considerable contribution to the defeat of terrorism.
As to the detail of the estimates, I will start with the Department of Agriculture. The net provision sought in the two agricultural votes amounts to about £144 million. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), will reply to the debate, so I shall not dwell on the details of those votes.
Vote 1 covers expenditure of some £35 million on those national agricultural and fisheries support measures which apply throughout the United Kingdom. In addition to certain pre-funded market support schemes under the common agricultural policy, the vote includes nearly £20 million for capital and other grants to assist structural improvements, such as grants to farmers for a range of effluent treatment, conservation and improvement works. A further £15 million is to provide support for farming in the less-favoured areas, by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
Vote 2 seeks provision of about £108 million in respect of the regional agriculture, fisheries and forestry services and support measures. Although it is a small amount, A draw the attention of the House to a new item. A token provision in these estimates of £1,000 is being made to
340
open an account for payments to voluntary bodies engaged in activities designed to identify the needs of, and the means of assisting, deprived rural areas of Northern Ireland. Specifically, that will enable the work of the rural action project to continue pending the outcome of recommendations from the interdepartmental committee on rural development, established by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier this year. That is a new item that will grow to larger proportions in time.
The next group of votes covers the Department of Economic Development. Vote 1 covers the Industrial Development Board's support and regeneration. About £111 million is sought to enable the IDB to carry out its vital work of industrial development activities. Hon. Members will be aware of IDB's record and its number of recent successes in attracting good quality inward investments to the Province, including Fruit of the Loom, Harris Laboratories and Data Design Laboratories from the United States. Only yesterday the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham), was able to announce another new project from Japan involving about 100 new jobs. We continue to attach a high priority to strengthening the Northern Ireland economy through such measures.
In vote 2 of the Department of Economic Development other economic support measures are provided, including about £143 million to provide assistance to the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. That is primarily related to the privatisation of Short Brothers and Harland and Wolff, which we have previously discussed. In addition, in vote 2 some £36 million is sought for the Local Enterprise Development Unit, Northern Ireland's small business agency. I had a lot to do with small businesses in my previous job and I am glad to say that that represents the highest-ever financial support for the agency and underlines the Government's commitment to helping small firms in Northern Ireland.
The House will be pleased to note that LEDU promoted 5,944 jobs in the last financial year, the highest in any year since it was established in 1971. That is a commendable performance. The resources sought will enable the agency to direct resources towards the development of established firms with growth potential and to encourage new enterprises.
Vote 3 of the Department of Economic Development covers expenditure by the new Training and Employment Agency—something of which I have also had experience on this side of the water. It has a budget of about £166 million, and undertakes a wide range of activities, including the youth training programme, the action for community employment scheme—the ACE scheme—the job training programme and the manpower training scheme.
The next group of estimates is for the Department of the Environment. Some £162 million is sought for vote 1, which covers roads, transport and ports. About £135 million of that is for the roads programme, the greater part. of which is required to finance the operation and maintenance of the Province's road system. It also enables new construction and improvement works to be undertaken. A list of the major construction projects is contained in the estimates booklet. Preparatory work continues on the Belfast cross-harbour road and rail

341
bridges project, with a view to starting construction in 1991. There is also an extended programme of structural maintenance work across the Province.
DOE vote 2 covers the important sectors of housing, for which £185 million is required, mainly to provide finance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and to the voluntary housing movement. When the net borrowing by the Housing Executive to fund its capital programme, to which I have already referred, is taken into account, the Government's net public expenditure allocation for housing will be £243 million in 1990–91. That is supplemented by rental income and capital receipts, which will mean that gross expenditure on housing should be more than £500 million.
In the DOE's vote 4, £34 million is included for urban regeneration measures. Those are aimed primarily at improving the economic health and environment of districts that have suffered urban dereliction. As in previous years, the sums sought are expected to generate much higher overall investment through the successful public-private partnerships that currently exist in the Province.
The three biggest votes in all the estimates are for education, health and social security. For education, a total of £997 million is sought, of which the schools sector, vote 1, accounts for about 60 per cent. The total is up by more than 10 per cent. The resources will ensure that schools and teachers are properly prepared and have the necessary facilities to implement the reforms in the period up to 1992–93.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I understood the Minister to say that money would be available for the schools to meet the challenges in the reforms after 1992. One school in my constituency, Rathmore grammar school, has already had 180 grade 1 applicants and has been unable to take any of the grade 2 applicants. The trustees are seeking mobile classrooms. Will that be permissible so that they can meet the needs in that district?
Mr. Cope: I cannot answer questions about a particular school off the cuff, but a total of £83 million has been set aside for the reforms in the period up to 1992–93. Obviously, the education and library boards are involved in all such decisions, as well as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney).
Vote I also includes provision for salaries and the related costs of the 18,888 full-time equivalent teaching posts of the current year—a total of £384 million. That will maintain the planned overall pupil-teacher ratio at the present level of 18:3. There is also provision for lecturers in the institutes of further education, which will allow for about 30 additional lecturing posts from next September.
Expenditure by the five education and library boards will amount to £314 million in the current year, on the day-to-day operation of the education service in Northern Ireland. That is an increase of 9 per cent. over 1989–90, and includes special additions of £7 million for the maintenance of buildings and £3 million to improve standards of provision in the classroom. About £45 million is sought for education and library boards' capital provision.
342
In vote 2 of the Department of Education,£116 million is sought for expenditure on Northern Ireland's two universities, the Open university and teacher training. Vote 2 also provides for grants to the new youth council for Northern Ireland. That body has taken over the advisory role previously carried out by the youth committee, and is also responsible for assessing and paying grants to voluntary youth organisations.
The next set of votes relates to the Department of Health and Social Services. A total net provision of £940 million is sought for health and personal social services—partly in vote 1 and partly in vote 3. That is to maintain and improve the standard of the Province's health and personal social services. Much of it is for the expenditure of the health and social services boards, but £195 million is for the family practitioner services. Public expenditure on the health and personal social services programme in 1990–91 for the first time exceeds £1 billion in Northern Ireland.
The third of the very large blocks is social security. Vote 4 seeks £932 million for social security benefits—income support, housing benefit, payments into the social funds and family and non-contributory benefits. In addition, and outside the estimates, more than £800 million is spent on contributory benefits from the Northern Ireland national insurance fund.
Towards the end of the estimates there is one other small but important item to which I draw the House's attention, because it is a new vote under the Department of Finance and Personnel which I have the honour to look after and assist. I refer to vote 3, in which 1·25 million is sought for community relations purposes. When expenditure by the Department of Education is taken into account, it is planned to spend about £4 million on community relations projects in 1990–91. That includes £1·5 million to encourage cross-community contact; about £300,000 for the new community relations council, established in January to encourage and support those working to improve community relations; about £600,000 for a new programme to encourage district councils to promote improved community relations; and £1.4 million for the cultural traditions programme. The aim of improving community relations in Northern Ireland is shared by all and I hope that the House will be glad to see this new vote entering the estimates.
I have sought to draw the attention of the House only to some of the main provisions in the order; hon. Members will want to raise specific points to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will do his best to respond at the end of the debate, or, if they are very detailed, thereafter in the usual way. Meanwhile, I commend the order to the House.
7.32 pm
Mr. Jim Marshall: As is customary on these occasions, I thank the Minister for taking us so expeditiously through the order. He seems to improve every time he goes through the ritual and I certainly look forward to the next time he moves an appropriation order.
The Minister referred to the overriding importance of eliminating terrorism in the Province—a point that does not fall within the ambit of the order—and that is certainly a shared objective. Irrespective of the expenditure required, we all agree that the money must be provided to eradicate terrorism from both communities in the Province. There is no difference between us on that topic.

343
It is of paramount importance; the sooner we eliminate terrorism the greater will be the impact of the votes that we are discussing on the lives of ordinary people in Northern Ireland.
As the Minister also said, these votes are of real importance to the living standards of people in the Province. It is regrettable that terrorism—inevitably—grabs the headlines so that attention is not focused on these votes, but it is they which make life tolerable and often better than it was before. It is unfortunate that they do not receive due attention from the press or the House.
It seems only a few weeks since we last discussed an appropriation order. Despite what the Minister said this time, I recall that it was a wide-ranging order admitting of debate on most aspects of economic and social life in the Province. I do not want to bore the House, but it is necessary to remind hon. Members of one or two points that I made in that last debate.
The Minister may recall that I questioned the Government's approach to industrial development and urged them to introduce a proper strategic plan for economic development. I also urged a concentration of investment in human capital through training, and drew attention to the underlying poor performance of the economy in Northern Ireland. I do not mean to detract from the efforts that the Government have made or from what success there has been, but compared with the rest of the United Kingdom and with some of our major competitors in the European Community, and despite the progress that has been made, the underlying economic performance of Northern Ireland is still relatively poor and a great deal still needs to be done.
My final point in this catalogue of reminiscence is that I recall criticising the Government's complacency on all the issues that I have just mentioned.
I found it a little strange today that the Minister did not draw attention to the recent publication by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland entitled, "Competing in the 1990s: The key to growth". It sets out much of the Government's strategy for the Province and it appears to incorporate some of the suggestions that I made in our last debate. That may be purely coincidental—or it may have been to do with the power of my arguments.
I do not want to criticise the objectives of the document, but by no stretch of the imagination could it be called a strategic plan for economic growth. I hope that I am not being over-generous when I call it both timid and short-sighted. The document gave the Government the opportunity to outline a comprehensive economic strategy for development, for which many people, including the Opposition, have been calling.
The game is given away on page 6, which states:
"This paper does not set out to be a comprehensive economic development strategy".
Why not? It is what the economy of Northern Ireland is calling out for.
The whole flavour of the report is that Government intervention is essentially bad and should take place only when it is unavoidable. I notice the Secretary of State shaking his head at that, but I do not know whether he is agreeing with the flavour of my remarks or with that of his document. which gives the impression that Government intervention should be tolerated only when there is no other possible line of action. The document also clearly shows that the Government will continue to intervene in
344
the economy only in the same grudging spirit that they have hitherto displayed. That augurs ill, as I have said on previous occasions, for the economy of Northern Ireland.
On the positive side, I certainly welcome the document's sectoral approach to investing in the economy. The Minister may recall that that was one of the points that I emphasised in our last debate—it is the way ahead. I also welcome the document's emphasis on training and investment in skills, but some of the Government's decisions in recent weeks and months will fundamentally undermine that approach to training.
The Government correctly place greater emphasis on the importance of a highly trained and motivated work force to economic recovery in Northern Ireland. Given the circumstances in the Province, it is right to stress the role of the youth training programme. To my mind and to the minds of many people in the Province, there are three fundamental concerns about the programme as it stands.
The first is a general concern about the arrangements for its funding, the second is the impact of the programme on further education, and the third is its impact on community workshops. The Minister of State will recall that the Government gave an undertaking that the levels of block funding would be based on last year's occupancy rates. The current figures show that there is a shortfall of £338,877 on the figure for last year. Will the Minister give an undertaking that it will be made good?
The correct and proper working of the system depends on the careers service assessing each young person leaving school to see what level of premium each is likely to attract. The evidence coming to me shows clearly that the careers service is either unable or unwilling to fulfil the role given to it by Government Departments in the Province. Inevitably, more of the training organisations are having to make the assessment and those that do not do so have to take on young people at the lowest level of premium. If that situation is seen to be widespread, I should like a commitment from the Government to look at the ability of the careers service to carry out the duty the Government have imposed upon it. If the Government conclude that the service cannot carry out that duty, the responsibility and the money that goes with it should be given to the training schemes.
The Government will be aware that private companies setting up to provide training are one of the growth areas in the Province. I do not criticise that, but I should like to see the private companies made subject to the same scrutiny that the Department of Economic Development applies to community workshops. If a great deal of training is carried out by private companies, those companies must be subject to Government scrutiny. Perhaps the Minister will assure us that the Department of Economic Development will be given the power to do that.
Under the old system, colleges of further education provided free training for people on youth training schemes. That is to be changed, and any training that is received in further education colleges will have to be paid for. The Government have given an assurance that that will not have a great effect upon people employed in colleges of further education, and I accept such an assurance at face value. However, there is evidence that the education and library boards are already trawling for 165 voluntary redundancies. That may be incidental, but 11 think that it is a direct consequence of the imposition of the new training regime.

345
Such redundancies may be just the tip of the iceberg. If the managers of the training schemes become reluctant to buy expertise from the colleges of further education and decide to provide more training in-house, it will have a knock-on effect on employment in colleges of further education. I am not necessarily a defender of teachers or lecturers in colleges of further education or even in higher education establishments, even though I used to teach in a polytechnic.
Jobs are important, but perhaps even more important is the standard of training. If the in-house training is of a substantially lower standard than that which is available in the colleges of further education, it will affect the expertise that is imparted to young people and will undermine the regime for new training. I urge the Government to keep that matter under review.
The Government will know that when the changes relating to community workshops were first discussed they produced anger and dismay among those who work there. The people in the workshops launched a campaign and the Government were prepared to make some concessions. I have a letter dated 1 February 1990 from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham). Speaking about modifications, the Minister said:
"There is three months advance funding payable on 2 April, guaranteed funding for one year amounting to 90 per cent. of each workshop's current overhead budget, and a substantial increase in premium levels 1 and 2. It is my intention that in the autumn"—
I think the Minister meant this autumn—
"my Department in co-operation with the Association of Community Workshops will organise a conference at which the community workshops network can give their views on the practicalities of the new arrangements."
The practicalities of the new scheme are already becoming abundantly clear. The number of workshops has fallen from 44 to 41 and those that have survived are in a parlous state. In many cases there is a severe shortage of money and that has forced an estimated 30 per cent. redundancy rate among the staff of community workshops. The workshops say that they claimed for the extra premium at the end of April on the basis of their April occupancy levels. They say that, despite assurances that the matter is being looked at by officials in the relevant Department, no additional payment has yet been made. I urge the Government to look into that and to do so urgently in view of the severe financial difficulties facing many workshops.
The Minister's letter referred to a meeting that was to be arranged this autumn. I understand that the meeting had been arranged for October but that the workshops have been informed that that date is no longer available to the Minister. I am not quite sure what that means, but it has started alarm bells ringing in the minds of those involved in community workshops. I should like assurances that it does not show any lack of determination on the part of the Minister to meet the people and to make progress in solving their problems and that, if the meeting has been postponed, that is purely because of a conflict of diary entries. I also hope that the Minister will carry out as soon as possible his promise—his obligation—to meet the representatives of the community workshops.
There is a feeling, rightly or wrongly, among those who work in community workshops that the Government want
346
to see a reduction in their number, and are prepared to sit back and see community workshops go down one by one. I should like to hear the Minister's reply to that suggestion, and I should like him to reaffirm the Government's determination to support, and their commitment to, community workshop projects.
The estimates show an increase of 8·5 per cent. on the 1989–90 total gross provision for health. I know that Ministers delight in quoting that figure and, in their delight, imply that it will lead to great improvements in the Health Service in the Province. Our view, like that of most professionals in Northern Ireland, is that this increase is nowhere near big enough to meet existing unmet demand. The reality of the Health Service in Northern Ireland is more ward closures and longer waiting lists. At the Belfast City hospital, the waiting list is 112 per cent. higher than it was last year, and at the Ulster hospital it is 50 per cent. higher than it was last year.
In addition, the determination to proceed with rapid privatisation of certain aspects of the Health Service is proving an unmitigated disaster leading in many cases to dirty kitchens and unwashed linen. There has also been a massive increase in the number of unplanned hospital discharges because of the pressure on beds. Apart from the distress this causes, it is inefficient because these patients inevitably have to be readmitted. Rather than taking undue pleasure in the 8·5 per cent. increase in the health vote this year, the Government should be saying that, while this is a step in the right direction, greater financial resources will be provided, to make a real impact on health provision in the Province.
I have spent some time talking about the economy of Northern Ireland and the need for further action to increase economic growth. One growth area in the economy of Northern Ireland is in the consultancy studies being carried out into energy requirements and the future of the energy industry in the Province. In 1989–90, £391,000 was spent on the consultancy fees for such studies, but next year that will increase to £1,301,000—an increase of two and a half times. There we have an example of a growth industry. We must ask ourselves what kind of information and what kind of answers these studies will produce. I hope—I gather that this is likely to be a fruitless hope—that these studies will emphasise that the main problems in energy are generation and distribution rather than privatisation.
I understand that this year Northern Ireland Electricity is likely to make a profit of £50 million. I hope that that will be invested in improving the generation and distribution of energy rather than used to fatten up the cow for privatisation in the next 18 months or two years. There is an urgent need for the replacement of old switchgear, particularly in Belfast. I recognise that it cannot be done overnight and that even that £50 million will not be sufficient to pay for the replacement scheme. However, Ministers should be emphasising to the chairman and the members of the board, and the managing director, that, whereas in the Province switchgear is replaced in a cycle of 50 to 60 years, in the rest of the United Kingdom it is replaced in a cycle of 20 or 30 years. We should be encouraging a change to the shorter cycle.
We know that the capacity generated by the power stations in Belfast and Derry will cease in the next 10 years. This was a subject that came up at the last Northern

347
Ireland questions. To replace that capacity, the Government have decided to go for Kilroot 2 and the interconnector between the Province and Scotland.
I hope that Ministers will give us more information about this. At the last Northern Ireland questions, the Under-Secretary gave me an assurance on this, but I repeat the appeal that I made to him: will the Government publish their analysis of the energy requirements for the Province so that an informed discussion can take place before final decisions are taken? The Opposition are not convinced that the best configuration for the supply of electricity for the Province is the completion of Kilroot 2—although we support completion of that facility—and the interconnector between the Province and Scotland.
My last point is on one of my old hobby horses—lignite, the one indigenous pure fuel resource in the Province. It is regrettable that it is not likely to be exploited in the foreseeable future. I would find it regrettable if the exploitation of lignite was sacrificed on the altar of short-term expediency.
I understand that a consortium in Northern Ireland is seeking to obtain private capital to finance a lignite-burning station. Has the consortium approached Government Departments in the Province? If approaches have been made, what has been the response of Ministers? If it is considered feasible to build a lignite-burning power station in the near future, it would be regrettable if the project were to be abandoned purely because of the decision to which the Government may have come over Kilroot 2 and the interconnector between the Province and the United Kingdom.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman referred to sacrificing the exploitation of lignite on the altar of short-term expediency. Does he agree that it would be wrong if the environment of Northern Ireland were sacrified for a quick profit for the producers of power through the burning of lignite, especially when we consider the devastation of parts of eastern Europe?
Mr. Marshall: Of course. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I asked for the publication of the information that is in the Government's possession. The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the problems with coal-burning power stations is sulphur emissions. I want to know if the possible expenditure of £200 million has been included in the figures that are available to the Government. That would be the sum required to provide scrubbers for the elimination of sufficient sulphur from existing power stations in the Province. Until all the information, including all the figures, is available, none of us will be able to make any definitive statements or reach any conclusions on the methods used to generate electricity in the Province.
I am sorry to have detained the House for so long. My speech would have been two minutes shorter had it not been for an intervention. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Northern Ireland Ministers will be pleased to know that, as is customary on these occasions, it is not our intention to divide the House on this latest anniversary of the appropriation order debate.
8.3 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I shall keep my remarks reasonably short, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad to say that there are more of my hon. Friends who wish to
348
contribute to the debate this evening than on a previous occasion. In other words, I am pleased to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
On 14 October 1971, the Payments of Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) became law in Northern Ireland. It was a response to the rent and rate strike and a special procedure to circumvent the strike. It enabled deductions to be made from benefit payments for debt, even without the debtor's permission. During the consideration of the measure before it became an Act it was clearly stated that the sooner the rent and rate strike ended, the sooner the Act would lapse. That was in 1971, and it is now 1990. However, the emergency measure is still in existence. Even today, tenants who have their houses disrupted by repairs or improvements are refused redecoration grants because they are in rent arrears. In other words, workmen disrupt an entire house and the tenant is unable to redecorate because the Northern Ireland Housing Executive holds on to the money that would have been made available in the form of a redecoration grant because of the tenant's arrears.
Electricity consumers who have cleared their arrears still have deductions made from their benefit payments because the accounts department, or the Housing Executive, fails to cancel the original order at the Department of Social Security. Today, almost 20 years after the Act took its place on the statute book, direct deductions are still being made from wages and benefit payments. The Housing Executive continues to withhold redecoration grants. Even court claims are withheld so that ordinary civil debt can be cleared. No attempt is made to investigate the needs or circumstances of those concerned. The Act makes no provision for the examination of personal financial circumstances. Nor does. it provide a formal right of appeal against the level of deductions from income or benefit.
I repeat that in May 1990, almost 20 years on, the Act remains in force, even though the emergency which prompted its enactment has long since passed. Anyone who reads the debates on the measure before its enactment will agree that it was never intended to be used for ordinary civil debt. The Secretary of State should repeal the Act as soon as possible and restore a little dignity to the lives of those who are forced through circumstances to get into unwanted debt.
I have been encouraged lately by the efforts being made by the Department of the Environment to improve living conditions and the general condition of the countryside in Northern Ireland. There is a seemingly small but increasingly frustrating problem of untended grassed areas. Unfortunately, the planners or designers of estates require builders, especially private builders, to leave a certain space for grassed areas, or for trees, bushes and shrubs. These areas become a wilderness because no one seems to be responsible for them. Those who pay £40,000 or £60,000 for their homes find that outside their door there is an area which ultimately becomes a dump because no one will take responsibility. The local council will say that it is not its responsibility and that it is not required to look after those pieces of ground. The Department of the Environment seems to have no responsibility because these areas are left by private builders. The planning department will say that it required the builder to leave the open space within the estate, but that it is not responsible for keeping

349
it in good order. Anyone who becomes involved in such an issue finds himself going round the various authorities in a circle.
With our interest in the environment, surely some method could be devised whereby the local council is given sufficient funds to keep grassed areas in good order. I believe that the Minister responsible for these matters should give careful attention to such a scheme. Public representatives are frustrated because they seem powerless and unable to get anything done. Those who live on the estates are similarly frustrated.
A problem of the past, which seemed to disappear, is now rearing its head again for various reasons. It arises when a developer does not make up the road to the required standard to be taken over by the Department of the Environment. People may be living in homes for three years with an artificial lake outside the door where there is supposed to be a road. When the Department is approached it says that it is very concerned and has a bond which it will use. Unfortunately, bringing the bond into operation seems to be such an unwieldy process and seems to take so long that everyone gets frustrated. I understand that if the builder comes along after being threatened with the bond and puts in two or three kerb stones, the Department will not use the bond. That is a terrible loophole. Will the Minister get the Department to study the problem and tighten up the rules so the object of the exercise, the bond, can be a means of taking action quickly if the builder does not fulfil his obligations?
Another problem, which may seem minor in this honourable place, is the Housing Executive's reaction to broken windows. In certain areas recently windows have been broken by vandals—or perhaps I should use the term "thugs". I know of homes in which all the windows have been broken by thugs, for whatever reason. If tenants go along to the Housing Executive and say that they have had all their windows broken by a crowd of people who they do not know, the Housing Executive will say that it is nothing to do with the Housing Executive because of the agreement with the tenant which means that the tenant has to put in new windows. If the tenant goes to the police, they will say that it is a matter for the Housing Executive—obviously, the police cannot replace broken windows. Such vandalism is bad and the Housing Executive or the Department of the Environment should consider whether they can help the people affected and perhaps transfer them to other areas.
Mr. Roy Beggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that tenants on some estates have had their homes repeatedly damaged month after month? Many are pensioners and have been transferred to new accommodation only to go through the same experience again, and they cannot afford to replace windows. The problem must be addressed as a matter of urgency by the Housing Executive and the Minister must approve changes to meet their needs.
Mr. Forsythe: I completely agree with my hon. Friend as this is a serious problem in some areas. On rare occasions, people are helped. It is bad enough having all the windows broken and being threatened without having
350
the further problem of not being able to find the money to put in new windows or to have them boarded up. The problem must be considered as quickly as possible.
Perhaps the Minister is as disappointed as I am at the delay in the Slaght crossing inquiry. I am well aware of the legalities of the situation and that there may be good reasons why the inquiry has not got off the ground as soon as we should have liked—indeed, I know there are good reasons. However, there was an accident at the crossing and there are a number of similar crossings in Northern Ireland with a history of accidents. Unfortunately, the general public are still unaware of what happened. I have met the inspector of the inquiry—a sensible and responsible person who takes a serious view of the matter and has made great efforts to do whatever is necessary—but we still do not know what happened. People are very anxious about the matter and many people now take much greater care at such crossings.
Video cameras were installed at three open crossings in the Province. I understand that the cameras were installed to monitor the performance of, or conduct at, the crossings. I have two questions for the Minister. First, were the cameras installed because of fears about what was happening at those or at other crossings? Secondly, is there a video recording from each of those cameras which could be used to show what happened, or are the cameras monitored visually every day, without a recording being taken? I hope that the Minister will give an explanation.
I have asked the Department whether any fully automatic or half-automatic barriers had been changed to open crossings in the past few years. I understand from answers given to me that no crossing had been changed in such a way, but I understand from other information—albeit not official—that two crossings were changed from either full or half-automatic barriers to open crossings. Will the Minister tell me officially in the House whether that is so?
I am pleased at the great improvement in the international airport in Belfast. The airport is of a high standard and we look forward to the standard being higher, but I have one niggle of concern—that the airport is being fattened up, to use the expression used earlier by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), for privatisation. I am interested to know who will be involved in such a privatisation. We have a say about it in this House, but if the airport is privatised we may not be able to influence the running of the airport in quite the same way.
As for the Department of Finance and Personnel—vote 1, All—we read on page 147, dealing with the international fund, that
"This subhead covers the administrative costs of the Fund."
They amount to £343,000. The running costs come to £248,000. Grant in aid amounts to £93,000. I ask the Minister to spell out what it costs the United Kingdom taxpayer to administer the international fund.
8.20 pm
Mr. James Kilfedder: I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) about community workshops. I am fortunate to have a splendid community workshop at Bangor in my constituency. The staff are enthusiastic. When I visited it I was greatly impressed by those who had enrolled. My experience of that community workshop leads me to

351
believe that encouragement and help must be given to similar workshops. I should deprecate any attempt by the Government to reduce the number of community workshops in Northern Ireland.
I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) about Belfast airport. The travelling public are treated disgracefully, particularly by British Airways. It treats its passengers like cattle at the London end. That is unacceptable. It is high time that proper services were provided at Heathrow so that passengers could walk straight on to aircraft. There should be no more excuses when delays occur because there are no back-up aircraft.
I, too, welcome the new Member of Parliament for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I remember the last occasion when I had a long talk with Harold McCusker, his predecessor. On that occasion he came to have dinner with me in my home. I shall always remember his great courage and spirit, despite his illness. If the new Member of Parliament for Upper Bann carries on the tradition that was followed by Harold McCusker in this House, he will do well by his constituents.
The first speech that I made in the Chamber was a passionate plea on behalf of the elderly. I believed then, as I believe now, that our senior citizens, after long years of work either in the home or in factories, shops or offices, have earned the right to dignity and comfort at the end of their lives. What I said then is true today: those who have reached retirement age ask for certain basic rights, such as an adequate pension. I made that point when I last spoke in an appropriation order debate. National resources should be provided so that people who can no longer cope in their own homes can be cared for properly.
Most elderly people prefer to stay in their own homes. That is often possible only if they are provided with domiciliary help. If that is impossible, they have to seek sanctuary in residential or nursing homes, which should be supervised and inspected regularly if we are to ensure that the elderly are treated properly and with compassion.
Many years ago I drew attention in an Adjournment debate to the plight of those who look after an elderly or sick father or mother. It is usually the daughter who forfeits the prospect of marriage to devote herself completely to the constant daily care of a parent. At that time such total dedication went unrecognised and unrewarded by the state, even though vast sums of public money were saved because those elderly people did not have to be taken into care.
A recent survey published by Crossroads, a worthy organisation that deserves the respect of the community, emphasised that half the 6 million people in the United Kingdom who look after elderly relatives at home are at breaking point. It confirms that many carers who have given up work to look after frail parents feel like prisoners in their own homes. It is a physically demanding and stressful task that in many cases isolates the carers from the outside world. Those people—who, as I have said, are usually daughters—can lose contact with friends and acquaintances and the organisations to which they formerly belonged. Because of their total commitment to their elderly father or mother, they become thoroughly demoralised and worn out. What undermines their great spirit, which we all recognise, is the lack of recognition of their dedication and the Government's failure to provide adequate support for them.
352
Residential care for the elderly in the United Kingdom costs about £1 billion annually—a considerable sum of money. Such a staggering sum makes it imperative to encourage, wherever possible, the care of the elderly in their own homes. However, the carers, many of whom give up their jobs and marriage prospects, must be paid properly for looking after an elderly father or mother, or a sick or handicapped relative.
I refer also to the treatment of pensioners. Since the changes to the social security regulations, pensioners who formerly were in receipt of supplementary benefit now find that, because of the slight increase in their pension, they no longer qualify for rent or rate rebates. That has put an additional burden on many pensioners.
I have raised with the appropriate authorities the fact that many pensioners have to pay the full television licence fee. Pensioners who live in warden-controlled accommodation benefit from paying only a nominal television licence fee, whereas pensioners who do not live in such accommodation have to pay the full fee. That anomaly has been made worse. Pensioners who move into accommodation where residents benefit from the concession are forced to pay the full licence fee. It is wrong that we should treat our senior citizens in that way. Pensioners living alone or with another pensioner should have the benefit of free television. It is their window on to the world; it provides them with entertainment and, above all, it gives them companionship. It is high time that the Government recognised that justice should be done and that pensioners should be allowed to watch television without having to pay a single penny.
I am concerned about the proposed privatisation of electricity. I have already warned the Government to keep their hands off our electricity—the electricity of the people of Northern Ireland. It would be wrong to put it into private hands as that would create a monopoly. Northern Ireland is not the same as the rest of the United Kingdom where there are several electricity suppliers. Here in England there is a supply of natural gas which has been denied to the people of Northern Ireland. Even now, perhaps with the prompting of the Common Market, the Government should provide a gas pipeline to the island of Ireland. Perhaps such a pipeline should run from the Morecambe fields to the territory of Northern Ireland and gas could then be supplied to the Irish Republic.
It would be completely wrong to sell Northern Ireland's electricity supply industry as Northern Ireland already suffers from expensive coal. The price has recently been increased by 50p a bag, or £10 a tonne, which represents an unacceptable increase compared with the price charged in the rest of the United Kingdom. It is high time that we had an investigation into the cost of living in Northern Ireland which is higher than it is in most parts of Britain.
The Government are very strong on pollution. In the past year or two they have become very green and have dedicated themselves to improving the environment. But it is no use just talking about improving the environment; we want action. Quite apart from places such as Antarctica where international action is needed to turn the territory into a world park and save it from speculators and polluters, the Government need to ensure that raw sewage is not dumped into Belfast lough and is not dumped off the coast of North Down. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) would agree that the sewage from Belfast should not be dumped into the sea and washed up on to the coast by the tides or the

353
winds. It pollutes the entire coastline of County Down. It certainly creates great resentment among those who live in Bangor, Ballyholme and Orlock who see signs of sewage and other debris along the coastline. We need a commitment from the Government that they will build a sewage works, no matter how costly it may be, so that raw sewage is no longer thrown into the sea.
Finally, to refer to a matter in Holywood—not Hollywood in California but Holywood, County Down in my constituency. That is the development at Kinnegar, an estate on the coast at Holywood. I appeal to the Minister and to the House for support on behalf of the families who live at Kinnegar. They oppose, as I do, the use of the old gas works site for light industrial or office development. They have waged their campaign of opposition for well over a year and I have been closely identified with it from the start. I wrote to the Department of the Environment on a number of occasions urging that the site should be preserved and retained as a recreational area for the people and children of Kinnegar.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have not had the good fortune to visit Holywood. It is a lovely, ancient place. I see the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood), nodding in assent. I have the impression that he has travelled further afield than Kinnegar and may have visited County Armagh recently. If he comes to Holywood, he will find it and the rest of my constituency of North Down a pleasant place with a lovely environment and marvellous people, most of whom—perhaps I should not say most, but a sufficient number—vote for me. Pray God that in the next general election, despite the intervention of a Conservative candidate, those people will still vote for me, knowing the years of service that I have given my constituency of North Down. That was the start of my election campaign.
Holywood lacks all the recreational facilities that are to be found in other large towns and cities in Northern Ireland and that is unfair. Holywood has been passed by and that is why the old Kinnegar gas works site should be preserved. But sadly, despite all the objections by residents and all the protests that I have made, the site was sold and planning permission has been granted.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that the Conservative mayor of North Down came to see me yesterday about that very issue, drawing attention to the letter that he received from the hon. Gentleman. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look most carefully at his point about Kinnegar.
Mr. Kilfedder: I am puzzled by what the Minister said because I have not written to the Conservative candidate. I have certainly written to one of the Environment Ministers—I cannot recall which, so I shall opt for the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), who wears glasses and has a kindly face. I have written to Ministers about Kinnegar, and if I wrote to the Minister with the kindly face I hope that I shall get a kindly response.
Despite all their protests and complaints, the people of Kinnegar have been totally frustrated. Their opposition has been ignored and bureaucracy seeks to treat them with impunity. I warn the Department of the Environment that
354
those worthy people have not given up and on their behalf I appeal to both Ministers to reward their endeavours and restore faith in the democratic process by intervening in this issue.
I pointed out in the past that the ordinary citizen is at a grave disadvantage in attempting to oppose a planning application. If an application for planning permission is refused, the person making the application has the right of appeal to the planning appeals commission and can employ a high-powered barrister or Queen's counsel to push his case. Once a planning application is granted, an objector has no such right. It does not matter how many objectors there are, because they have no such right. I have urged the Government to amend the law and to provide objectors with a right of appeal. The case of Kinnegar confirms the need for such a right if justice is to be done.
Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, from his previous life as Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, of a proposal made by the environment committee which was accepted by the Department. It changed the planning regulations to the extent that the Department was willing, provided that two thirds of a council opposed a planning application, to hold an article 22 inquiry. The difficulty has often been that the Department has held on to applications until the two months within which an article 22 inquiry must be called have elapsed. A change in the legislation extending that period would help councils to ensure equality between objectors and applicants.
Mr. Kilfedder: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That shows the worth of the Northern Ireland Assembly and of the various statutory committees, including the environment committee, of which the hon. Gentleman was the distinguished chairman. It is right to praise those who deserve it, because there are a number in this House who deserve no praise.
The developers at Kinnegar have obtained permission to build seven office units of approximately 5,000 square feet per unit with car parking for 125 cars. They estimate that 300 people will be employed in the proposed units. It is perfectly clear that such a development will substantially increase traffic and service and delivery vehicles. There is a real and grave problem: the entrance to the Kinnegar estate is a small road, and even without that development it is often blocked by security forces' vehicles or ordnance vehicles from the Army barracks at the end of the Kinnegar estate. In addition to the military vehicles, which block traffic, sewage tankers travel daily through the estate.
A local public house—I know that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) does not approve of public houses—has obtained planning permission for an extension, which will generate more business, people and cars. I pity the people who will live in that area, with all that development and traffic and danger to their children. The area is already congested. Surely it is planning madness to allow that office or light industrial development to proceed. What about the rights of the ordinary people who live in the area, in particular the young people, for whom a recreational area would be of inestimable benefit?
8.44 pm
Mr. David Trimble: I understand that it is customary for me to begin by paying tribute to the previous Member for Upper Bann, which I do gladly. Mr. Harold McCusker can be aptly summed up as a man of the people. He worked extremely hard for the people of Upper Bann and cared deeply for their welfare. I know from canvassing in the recent by-election that he was held in high regard and with deep affection by the people of Upper Bann. Harold, characteristically, was a fighter. He fought for those people and he fought in personal terms. His illness would not have been so prolonged if he had not fought so strongly against it. As many hon. Members know, Harold's surname literally means "a son of Ulster", and he was a son of Ulster. He was conscious of the soil from which he sprang and the traditions of the area and its people.
The Upper Bann area is proud of its Unionist heritage, and many elements within the area express that heritage. I had some pleasure in reading a recent publication by the Public Record Office, edited by David Miller. Hon. Members will be familiar with his earlier work, which was extremely enlightening, on Unionism and loyalism. That publication included a copy of the account by Colonel Blacker of the formation of the Orange Order, of which I am proud to be a member. We find within it not only the Armagh area—sometimes the Armagh people, it being the County of the Diamond, forget that other counties contributed—but particularly in the west Down area. I am thinking particularly of the Bleary boys who contributed to that and to the successful defeat of the 1938 rebellion shortly afterwards.
The Unionist heritage of the north Armagh area is in some ways epitomised by the statute of Colonel Saunderson, which stands in the centre of Armagh. I shall refer again to Colonel Saunderson in a way that is particularly apposite to other matters.
Upper Bann is significant not only for its Orange heritage but for the way in which its character was formed largely through the plantation processes of the 17th and early 18th centuries. The major towns in the area are plantation towns. We see that from the contribution of the Brownlows to the creation of Lurgan and of the Warings to Waringstown and other towns in the area.
That plantation had a significant heritage in other repects, because directly from it sprang the Ulster custom, which after the Ulster land war of the 1770s provided a basis from which the industrial revolution was able to occur. The industrial revolution in Ulster, which was centred on the Lagan valley, was an indigenous growth. Ministers may be interested in this, because it owed nothing to Government contribution or significant landlord patronage. It was indigenous and arose out of the customary rights that the tenants had won for themselves. We find the traces of one of the first major industrial developments in the area—the textile industry—through the middle Bann valley, running from Gilford down to the town of Banbridge, which lies in the centre of the constituency.
During the recent by-election in Upper Bann, attention focused on the intervention of what are called national parties. I want to reflect on that for a moment. I mentioned Colonel Saunderson, whose statue stands in the centre of Portadown. The inscription refers to him as the leader of Ulster's Unionists in the House for more than 20 years. As
356
hon. Members will know, he first sat in the House as a Liberal, representing the constituency of County Cavan, and in the 1880s was returned for North Armagh, including Portadown, as a Conservative. Of course, he is noted as the leader of the Ulster Unionists.
The term "national parties" which has been bandied about in recent times is misleading. It was misleading for some people who call themselves Conservatives to intervene in that election and call themselves the national parties. They claimed that their arrival was something new. Of course it was not new. Nor are they right to refer to themselves as solely national parties as distinct from provincial parties. We in the Ulster Unionist party are the British national party in Ulster. We were formed historically by an alliance between Ulster Liberals and Ulster Conservatives, with Ulster Labour representatives too, to combat Irish nationalists. We are the national British parties in Ulster. In that context, one must put a large question mark against the aims and motives of a group calling itself Conservative which contested the election with, it seemed to us, the object of dividing and diminishing the Unionist voice and, by so doing, diminishing the voice of the British people of Ulster.
Since my arrival in the House, several hon. Members have expressed to me their regret at the decision of the Conservative party to contest the Upper Bann election. I did not regret it during the election. While canvassing, I repeatedly told the electors that the election was an opportunity for them to vote against the policies of the Government. The results show that the electorate of Upper Bann seized that opportunity with both hands. Hon. Members will not need to be reminded that the candidate representing the policies of the Government scored a total of 2·9 per cent.—less than 3 per cent.—of the valid votes cast in the election. That is a clear rejection of the policies of the present Administration. That demonstrates—indeed, it confirms, because we had demonstrated it on many previous occasions—that the policies pursued by the Northern Ireland Office have no mandate from the people of Ulster. That is significant.
People cannot say that a majority elsewhere in the United Kingdom in favour of the Government's policies legitimises those policies. A clear distinction can be drawn between Northern Ireland and, say, Scotland. In Scotland, where again the Government have no mandate for their policies, they can say that their policies are applied on a Great Britain basis and that they have a majority in Great Britain. However, the policies pursued in Northern Ireland are applied, not on a United Kingdom basis but specifically to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is treated differently from the rest of the United Kingdom and its constitutional status in the kingdom is diminished.
A mandate for the Government's policies can be obtained only from the people of Ulster. Clearly that mandate does not exist. In the light of that, the only honourable course for the Government is to reconsider their policies and accept the offers made by my colleague to extricate them from the position in which they have put themselves. They should adopt policies that reinforce the position of the kingdom of Ulster within the kingdom.
At least the Conservative party came to seek a mandate in Upper Bann, even though that mandate was refused. If listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). I find his detailed interest in matters relating to Northern Ireland interesting. I agreed with several of the points that he made. Surely he

357
must find it a little strange to take such a detailed interest in Northern Ireland matters and discuss them at length in the House when he belongs to a party that not only does not contest elections in Northern Ireland but refuses people in Northern Ireland the right or opportunity to join it. A member of a party which deliberately boycotts the people of Northern Ireland must surely find it inconsistent to take such a detailed interest in Northern Ireland.
Tonight we are discussing the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990. The measure is dealt with in the form of an Order in Council. Order in Council procedures are less than satisfactory. Indeed, that is an understatement. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) referred a few moments ago to defects in the planning legislation on article 22 inquiries. As hon. Members will know, a planning and building regulations order has been tabled and is shortly to be debated. If that was legislation dealt with in the normal way, the hon. Member for Belfast, East could table an amendment to provide a remedy for the defects to which he referred. Of course, he cannot do so. That is not right. The procedures should not operate in the way that they do. Significant changes are needed.
I support the comments made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) on the Payments for Debt (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. Order in Council procedure is objectionable partly because it is described as temporary. It is a temporary procedure stemming currently from the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 and originally from the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972. One wonders what the meaning of the word "temporary" is in that context.
That is even more appropriate in the context of the point raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, South. He dealt with a temporary measure introduced in 1971, which is still operating. Not only is the measure objectionable because it was a temporary measure which lasted 19 years, but the provisions made for deduction of benefits under the Act were made as the result of administrative action.
I should have thought that hon. Members who are interested in the rights of persons subject to the law of the United Kingdom would want people's property rights determined in the courts or through some form of judicial procedure, rather than civil service actions. Civil servants may decide to withhold benefits in order to pay debts owed to other persons. That is particularly strange when, through the Enforcement of Judgments Office and its provisions for attachment of earnings and other assets, procedures have to be followed and some independent judgment is placed between the debtor and the creditor by the operations of the enforcement officers.
Surely, at least on those grounds, something should be done. Even if it is still felt necessary to make deductions from people entitled to claim benefit, surely something should be done to enable people to make representations before a third party. It would be appropriate to provide something analogous to the procedure for enforcement judgments.
My first point about the order concerns planning policy in the Craigavon district. That area is unique in Northern Ireland as the only area that does not have in force a development plan or area plan. The original, non-statutory plan, which is now some 20 years old, is not
358
relevant, because the position has changed drastically in the past 20 years, with the failure of the new city project contained within it. In that area, we are operating with the detritus of the new city project.
While canvassing during the election campaign, I was struck by the desolation of the estates in the central Craigavon or Brownlow area. I hope that some thought has been given to planning policies that could help to regenerate that area. I was also struck by the way in which many areas of the town of Lurgan have been badly blighted because of road proposals which, I am told, have since been abandoned. Again, I hope that some serious planning policies will be evolved to regenerate those areas.
I was also struck by one of the consequences of the 1960s housing policies which I hope will not be repeated. I refer to the not very well built medium and high-rise flat developments. Nearly all the developments that I saw were semi-derelict and unoccupied. They were eyesores and worse—especially in the Portadown district, where properties that were originally constructed by the local Housing Executive have been bought by the tenants under the right-to-buy procedures, which the Government encouraged.
The owners have found that, to some extent, their properties have been devalued by the derelict medium-rise flat developments just across the road. I hope that some urgent action will be taken on that. I was told by the occupiers—the purchasers—that they had been told by the executive that they would have to wait two or three years simply for a decision on the flat developments, let alone for any action to be taken.
My second point about the appropriation order relates to the community relations cultural traditions programmes. As the Minister said, the programmes are being expanded considerably. That is a good thing, and I very much welcome the existence of those programmes. However, I should like an assurance that they will be genuinely representative and even-handed. I must confess to being uncertain about the Northern Ireland Community Relations Council. Technically, it is not a Government body, although in the first instance all its members have been appointed by the Government. It has been given a budget of £300,000. We must ask, how was the body formed? How representative of the community are the people who serve on it and how balanced is that representation? It seems that that representation does not rise above the level of tokenism as far as the majority tradition in Ulster is concerned. Many of the people who serve on it cannot be regarded as truly representative.
Finally, I refer to an item of expenditure relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I note that there is a provision for £274,000 to be spent—over £200,000 of which will be spent on maintaining a cadre to provide the basis for an Assembly, should one be called in the future. I welcome that expenditure because there is a great need for representative institutions in Ulster. Hon. Members will know that there is a virtual absence of representative institutions and that what are called "local authorities" are not really what are normally understood by that term. They rarely get above the level of English parish councils. There is a huge gap between them and this House. We need representative institutions.
Although I welcome that expenditure on the Northern Ireland Assembly, I do not want my comments to be taken as implying my approval of the proposals in the Prior Act—the Northern Ireland Act 1982. I am not sure that those

359
proposals ever were workable. If we ever have an Assembly—or devolution on any significant scale in the future—I hope that it will be much more substantial than that of the Northern Ireland Assembly, if it is to be regarded as worthwhile devolution as distinct from what is essentially local government restructuring, which is another matter.
Devolution is said to be the Government's policy. I find it curious that a Government with that policy have not made any proposals that would advance that policy. That is to be contrasted with the experience or the actions of the Ulster Unionist party because it is now almost two and a half years since the Ulster Unionist party made detailed proposals for developments in Northern Ireland to the previous Secretary of State, to which there has not yet been any response. The Government do not make any proposals of their own. Their attitude is passive. If we were to have discussions on the proposals, I suspect that the Government would not advance any proposals of their own, but would simply adopt the role of picking holes in the proposals of ourselves and others.
I wonder why that should be the case. I suspect that, despite its protestations to the contrary, the Northern Ireland Office actually prefers the present position. I suspect that it does not really want devolution, but prefers to sustain the present direct rule. Under that system, it is effectively insulated from any form of democratic control. Ministers can speak for themselves, but civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office give the impression that they are not really interested in devolution, and that they enjoy the freedom from accountability that direct rule gives them. That is another reason for ending direct rule at the earliest opportunity.
9.4 pm
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Let me take this opportunity to welcome the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) to the House. I welcome him not only as a Conservative and Unionist, but as a Roman Catholic. I had the opportunity of joining him for lunch today, and found him a charming and clubbable individual—in the nicest sense of the word—and I wish him every success in his political career.
The hon. Gentleman bears a grave and onerous burden: he follows Harold McCusker, who was held in great affection by his constituents and in the House. Harold McCusker spoke for his people with courage, honesty and decency, from his heart. The courage that he showed when fighting illness was the same courage as he showed in fighting the men of terror and violence. I remember hearing him say on many occasions in the House that he had carried more coffins of friends and relatives than any other hon. Member. That is something I know that the new hon. Member for Upper Bann will never and should never forget.
The hon. Gentleman raised a minor note of controversy. There is a convention that a new Member should not have too much of a go at his parliamentary opponents in a maiden speech. From my mere seven years' experience in the House, I can say that although he was heard in silence—as is the convention—he may not be next time. It is not always wise to attack one's parliamentary opponents, especially on both sides of the House—that is asking for trouble.
360
I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is a Parliament of the United Kingdom. If he really wants—I trust that he does—to represent the views of the people of Upper Bann, he will not come here only to debate matters relating to Upper Bann and Northern Ireland, but will participate in and legislate on United Kingdom matters. If anything can bring the Province to a degree of normality within the United Kingdom, it is the prospect of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues doing just that.
I know that this is not a debate about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and I shall not be sidetracked on to that, but one can only be encouraged by the constructive and helpful comments on television this morning by the leaders of the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party. I know that there have been many false dawns and graveyards of expectation, but for the first time for ages there appeared to be a united voice, and a flexibility on the part of Government and the major Ulster parties. That is to be welcomed, and the House will wish them luck.
The major recruiting ground of the IRA must be unemployment, and I pay tribute to Ministers in their crusade against it. The seasonally adjusted figure for unemployment in the Province in March 1990 was 98,400: that represented a decrease of 10,600 compared with March 1989, and a decrease of 26,900 compared with the peak of 125,300 in October 1986. In March 1990 seasonally adjusted unemployment stood at its lowest level for more than seven years, since September 1982. That is a major step forward.
There is also good news for the young unemployed because, since March 1989, unemployment among 18 to 24-year-olds has decreased by 5,053. The number of persons unemployed for more than one year, the long-term unemployed, has decreased by 7,447. The number of employees increased by 8,390 between December 1987 and December 1989. That is a key figure. Credit must be given to my hon. Friend the Minister for the work that he has done on this front.
The investment now coming into the Province is another key factor. Earlier my right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned some recent IDB successes which reflect the continuing progress of inward investment. About 5,000 new jobs have been promoted by the IDB during 1989–90 and 40 per cent. of those jobs are connected with new investment from outside Northern Ireland. The total investment associated with various new projects amounts to a record £440 million and the IDB contribution towards that investment works out at 21 per cent.
There have been some spectacular examples of inward investment. On 18 December 1989 the O'Connell Development company of Massachusetts announced its major participation in a £65 million investment in Londonderry. Current and programmed commercial investment in Belfast city by the private sector totals £450 million on top of the £120 million spent in the past five years. A significant proportion of that investment comes from Great Britain, including £75 million for the Castle Court retail, office, car park development. That is a tribute to what Ministers, the Department and the Government are doing.
There are many ways in which one can defeat terrorism and, apart from any political solution, one of the best is an economic solution. That means providing jobs, investment and a good standard of living in the Province. That is why I am happy to support the Government estimates tonight.
9.12 pm
Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute tonight. My first pleasurable task is to join in the welcome to the new hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I compliment him on the content and eloquence of his speech. Although we shall, undoubtedly, have considerable political differences, none the less I am sure that there are many matters upon which we shall be able to work together for the mutual benefit of our constituents, especially as we represent contiguous constituencies.
It is appropriate, if the House will forgive the pun, that the first vote in the appropriation order is to the Department of Agriculture for which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State is responsible. I was intrigued tonight by the announcement of a new account involving the princely sum of £1,000 for rural development. That is a mind-boggling concept, but no doubt it will be explained when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary replies.
The Minister is well aware that rural development is a particular passion of mine as I represent a rural community. I hope that the Minister can give us some information regarding progress made by his committee on rural development, which was formed in January this year, and the consultations that it has undertaken in order to promote a programme for rural rejuvenation. The committee has had contact with various district councils. I also refer him to the new committee of the Housing Executive with special responsibility for rural housing. Will he ask his committee to join forces with CRISP, the body set up by the International Fund for Ireland, which is seeking advancement in rural development and would be prepared to put money into it? Because of all the bodies involved, I fear that the whole project may be bogged down in administration and consultation and that, once again, although lip service is paid to the concept, nothing will happen in practice. I hope that the Minister will devote his energies to ensuring that we have a practical rural improvement and regeneration programme.
It will not surprise the Minister if I refer next to fisheries because I have made many representations to him and have asked him to use his good offices to expedite the capital improvement of Ardglass harbour, which is the only one of the three fishing ports in Northern Ireland—Kilkeel and Ardglass in my constituency and Portavogie in Strangford—without meaningful capital development of its harbour. The Minister has had the project from the Northern Ireland Fishery Harbour Authority since early in the year and I am disappointed that work did not commence on it, as anticipated, in April. My constituents would be receptive to an announcement in his reply to the debate tonight that work is to start. From the look on the Minister's face, I do not think that that is likely. I urge him to make the announcement soon because unless work is started on the project now it will have to be postponed for yet another year. The fishermen of Ardglass suffered enough last winter without their boats being endangered for another winter.
I wish to refer to part of my constituency which from prehistoric times has been known as the granary of Ulster, the east Down cereal-growing area. Cereal producers in south Down are paying the co-responsibility levy although they are net importers. They have to import, with high transport costs, but at the same time they have to
362
contribute for over-producing. It is a paradox which should be eradicated as soon as possible so that they may have a better income from a precarious occupation.
I was interested in the complimentary remarks of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) about economic development and job promotion. I pay tribute to the Department of Economic Development, to the Industrial Development Board and to the Local Enterprise Development Unit for the activity in which they are engaged, but I suggest that the cake which is being baked is not being distributed to all. I was horrified to note from answers to parliamentary questions that in the three years 1986–87, 1987–88 and 1988–89 the Industrial Development Board had brought inward investment companies to my constituency on only seven occasions. That is an indictment—there should be equal opportunities for all the people of Northern Ireland. Over the same period, 316 jobs were created by the various agencies. That is 100 per year, which is less than 1 per cent. of the unemployment figures for South Down.
I know that it is difficult to direct inward investment to certain areas, especially as it is scarce because of our other problems. None the less, it would be flying in the face of the statistics not to be worried that a proper direction is not being taken. Will the Minister ensure that the prospect of inward investment opportunity is given to my constituents, just as to other districts in the Six Counties?
The Minister will know that I was particularly enthusiastic when the Department engaged in a programme of fibre optic link developments, now known as the Star programme. I had great hopes at that time that the introduction of fibre optic links would give rural districts such as South Down and other rural areas of Northern Ireland the opportunity of providing what are known as back office operations in rural communities that are sensibly situated, designed and built. I urge the Minister that the Department, and particularly the Industrial Development Board, should place more emphasis on achieving inward investment of that nature, which is just as economically rewarding as the more industrially and production-orientated inward investment companies.
It appears that there is a great danger of becoming bogged down in administration. The Star task force was inaugurated, comprising representives of the Department of Economic Development, the Industrial Development Board, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the technology board for Northern Ireland, Queen's university and the university of Ulster. If the Minister can get all those organisations to agree to an immediate course of action, he is a better man than I. The time has come for action to be taken abroad, particularly in Europe and the United States, for the transfer of back office operations into the local areas served by fibre optic links.
The other great industrial job creation potential of an area such as my constituency, and indeed Northern Ireland as a whole, is that of tourism. I must again register my criticism at the lack of a serious cohesive drive to present other regions of Northern Ireland in a comprehensive way. My constituency is unique—it has natural and man-made facilities, environmental assets, historic content, ruins and traditions. Those could all be easily packaged to be promoted as another method of attracting tourists from abroad.
I urge the Minister to consider the issue of encouragement and, if necessary, aid for the provision of

363
bed accommodation, particularly in districts such as my constituency of South Down. The obvious and easy method is that of farmhouse accommodation development, which has the dual purpose of job and wealth creation, while at the same time creating income for the rural community. It is tragic when one compares Donegal and Down, at opposite extremes of the north of Ireland. Every crossroads in Donegal has bed-and-breakfast or tourist-approved bed accommodation, but in my area there are virtually none, and the only accommodation is highly priced. That market is no longer available for tourism generally. A small family seeking holiday accommodation want attractive, local, cheap farmhouse accommodation.
Other hon. Members have referred to the energy, electricity and gas industries. There is a great danger that in the north of Ireland we might have priced ourselves out of industrial competition in terms of energy charges. It was correctly pointed out that coal has gone up by £10 a tonne. Even more important in terms of industrial development is the enormous increase in the standing charge for electricity. I do not know whether it is a fattening-up process, but it certainly costs the industrialists a considerable amount—22 per cent. last year, 8 per cent. this year, a total of 30 per cent. in two years. Inward investing industrialists would certainly look at that closely.
The concept of rural planning is badly applied in many areas, both in principle and in practice. The principles of planning are not adhered to in any regular manner which would be intelligible to the layman. An important aspect in rural development and in the preservation of the integrity of rural communities is the fact that planning permissions in rural locations are almost always granted for second homes to wealthy people coming in from the cities. As a result, the available sites cannot he used by the indigenous population—by the sons and daughters of local farmers and villagers. The planning department must engage in a policy of setting aside certain areas either for the provision of public housing or for low-cost housing for local people, so that the sons and daughters of farmers and villagers have the chance to build houses there and live in their own environment.
In the context of rural preservation I am appalled at the news just published that 13 primary schools in the maintained sector in my constituency are up for closure, and it seems that in Closkelt, Ballyward, Leitrim, Gransha, and Edenvale, 13 state primary schools are also up for the chop. If that happens, entire rural communities will be wiped out in a couple of years in one fell swoop. If that is paralleled in the maintained sector, it augurs badly for any attempt to stabilise the rural communities of Northern Ireland. It is not a question of money—it is a question of will. The fundamental provision of primary school education in the community is the factor that makes a community gell. The schools are not just teaching institutions but centres to which communities look. They are used as social and recreational bases and are pivotal to village and community life.
I ask the Minister to ensure that the fullest possible consultation takes place with local people—not just with education boards or with the Catholic maintained schools committee, but with the people who will be deprived of institutions which have existed for more than 150 years. If the 20 or 30 closures in my constituency go ahead,
364
Northern Ireland Departments will be able to forget about rural population maintenance because the centres on which the communities are founded will have disappeared.
9.28 pm
Rev. William McCrea: I am thankful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have caught your eye in this important debate. However, the competition to speak is not as great as that which usually faces Northern Ireland Members. At most, 13 Members of a House of 650 have been present during this debate on the expenditure of public funds of £2,496,546,900, and that is a disgrace. It is easy for Members who call themselves the national party, as they did in the election a short while ago, to tell people how interested they are in Northern Ireland. There are three Conservative Members and one Opposition Member in the House. That certainly says something. Perhaps there is not so much competition to speak because we are not on peak-time television. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) was included in the 13 hon. Members that I mentioned.
Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Member agree that it is reasonable for Northern Ireland Members to expect those hon. Members who try to squeeze us out at Northern Ireland Question Time to be here? Where are they? Perhaps they will take note of the debate and desist from the temptation to ask questions that are handed to them by party Whips. That is done to fill space and prevent Northern Ireland Members who have serious matters to address on behalf of their constituents from being called to ask questions.
Rev. William McCrea: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs). I am certain that the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Ministers have something to do with many of the planted questions. If one looks carefully at the Official Report of the last Northern Ireland Question Time and at some of the prepared questions and prepared answers, one sees that in one case the answer given was not to the question that was asked but to the one that followed it. The detailed answer would certainly lead Northern Ireland Members to think that, in the run-up to a by-election, some hon. Members wanted to pretend that they had a special interest in internal matters in Northern Ireland. They asked about issue such as licences and breathalysers. They asked about little matters that many hon. Members on this side of the water would not have known about had they not been inded details of them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): Before we are diverted too far from the order, it is worth making two or three small points. The hon. Gentleman thinks that an interest in breathalysers is in some way connected with the Upper Bann by-election. That is an insult to the electorate of Upper Bann. If the hon. Gentleman had been watching me for the last four years, he would have realised that questions about such matters have not started recently.
If the hon. Gentleman would like a planted question, he should have a talk with me, because many interesting bits of information could be placed on the record. It is occasionally useful to have an hon. Member put down a question and it would be useful if we could have a deal about that. Before the Upper Bann by-election campaign, at one Northern Ireland Question Time only half the

365
Northern Ireland Members put down questions. Perhaps we could remind each other of the right time to put down questions, because that could lead to a better spread.
Rev. William McCrea: I thought that the Minister's intervention would turn into his winding-up speech, and that he had changed his timing. I do not think that the questions about breathalysers had a personal significance for Upper Bann. However, Conservative Members had to ask questions about something and they asked about matters that were relevant to Northern Ireland.
I would be delighted to find a genuine interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Interesting questions have been asked on other occasions, but it is strange that tonight the Chamber is almost empty. The Government have a majority of over 100 but only four Conservative Members are present. That shows that something is wrong and I hope that that will be noted by the electorate. The Minister and the Whip have to be here to carry on the business, and that means that only two Conservative Members are willing to be here. That is strange when one bears in mind that we are talking about £2,496 million of public money. Therefore, I have to put a question mark over the sincerity of those hon. Members. I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is rational for me, or any other hon. Member representing Northern Ireland, to question this, bearing in mind the recent heightened interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland shown by Conservative Members.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the House on a matter of considerable importance, because financial aid to Northern Ireland is vital for us. Vote 1 for the Department of Agriculture deals with marketing and processing and vote 2 with scientific and veterinary services. While I welcome the aid given to farming, which is the largest industry in my constituency, I must express the alarm and dismay felt by farmers in Northern Ireland about the effect of the BSE scare on Ulster meat exports. What is known as mad cow disease has already resulted in the cancellation of an order for meat from the Province to, for example, a German market chain because of the inability to obtain BSE-free certificates.
Farmers in my constituency and in the Province as a whole find this strange. They believe that they are being victimised because of the high incidence of BSE in Great Britain. They find it strange, as should the House, that the disease has a special relationship with constitutional boundaries. The meat plants in the south of Ireland can call their product BSE-free, yet the Department of Agriculture in the north of Ireland cannot do the same for meat there. Is this just a United Kingdom disease, is it something that attacks British cattle, or does it stop at Auchnacloy and immediately start at Castlederg?
This is a serious matter, and I am sure that the Minister will remember that it is most serious, because farmers in the Province will go to the wall. The veterinary section of the Department should intervene and get Northern Ireland special status within the United Kingdom. If this needs to be argued in Brussels, I trust that Ministers will promise the House that this will be done. It is a known fact that, on the mainland tonight, butchers are advertising "BSE-free meat from Ireland". Where is it coming from? The Minister should know that one of the realities of life is that there is a great deal of smuggling across the border.
366
Northern Ireland farmers will have to go to the south, where they are happy to take the meat and sell it to the mainland with this stamp on it. That cannot be right or permissible.
Northern Ireland is suffering for something for which it is not responsible. As the Secretary of State said yesterday at the agriculture show, there is little incidence of BSE in the island of Ireland as a whole. However, from the way that the media have put it, one would think that, although there was no incidence in the south of Ireland and some in Northern Ireland, as the latter is part of the United Kingdom, there must be rigid control on the cattle in Northern Ireland.
It is all very well for the Minister to tell us that the Department of Agriculture spends money on marketing and processing, but there can hardly be marketing and processing because of the situation of the Northern Ireland farmer. It is a serious matter and one that has nothing to do with boundaries. Northern Ireland farmers produce the best standard of British beef and I believe that that beef should be exported throughout the world. We in Northern Ireland are proud of our farming as a whole.
How is the Department of Agriculture succeeding in encouraging set-aside on arable land for alternative farming and non-agricultural purposes? Does the Minister believe that the present grants are attractive enough to encourage such diversification?
Does the Minister agree that the Government's policy is that the private sector should be the major vehicle for economic regeneration in the Province? How does he view the present state of manufacturing and other parts of the business fraternity within the private sector, following the dramatic fall in employment in manufacturing over the past decade? The private sector is dominated now by service industries.
Has the Minister studied the report of April 1990 from the Northern Ireland Economic Council? Is he deeply concerned that the Northern Ireland private sector is small when compared with that in the rest of the United Kingdom and that manufacturing firms within the Northern Ireland private sector are themselves small? The report states:
"The private sector will have to be able to adjust to rapidly changing technological and market conditions with greater success than has been evident in the past."
Can the House be assured that the Government will act constructively in a supporting role as the private sector seeks to prepare itself for the challenge of 1992? To ensure that that happens, the Government must consider additional incentives. Does the Minister feel that all the necessary financial resources are available to him and to the Department to rejuvenate Northern Ireland's industrial base?
I represent an area of high unemployment. Part of my constituency has the second highest unemployment rate in the United Kingdom. I am sure that the Minister will understand that my constituents are concerned about the economy and its relevance to their lives in future. As I come from an area which is in the west of the Province, I am sure that the House will understand my concern about the jobs that have been created recently and their siting.
I ask the Government to give careful consideration to areas in the west of the Province such as Mid-Ulster, which has suffered so much from industrial neglect. Surely the Government can promise my constituents that fresh efforts will be made to encourage industrial development

367
in Cookstown, which has the second highest unemployment figure in the entire United Kingdom. Will similar efforts be made to ensure that industrial development comes to Omagh, Fintona, Dromore and last, but by no means least, Castlederg, which has suffered great deprivation? Special incentives are needed.
I fear that there will not be a fair share of the jobs that are being created for the areas to which I have referred. I ask the Minister to take account of the jobs that have been created recently and exactly where they have been created. They have not been of great assistance to my constituency. I welcome all jobs but the Minister will understand me when I say that I must beseech the Department to consider providing special aid to the constituency of Mid-Ulster.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I think that what I am about to say will fit into the debate more appropriately at this stage than in my reply. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) recognises that a partnership with Ministers can assist in getting investors, especially those from overseas, to consider developments in areas with which they are not necessarily familiar. Not everyone overseas will have heard of Cookstown, although it matters greatly to the hon. Gentleman and to me.
We are talking about a partnership, but if Ministers say, "Have you thought about Cookstown?", and the first thing that happens is that, when people get to Cookstown, they buy the local paper and discover that Cookstown council is not talking to Ministers, it will be difficult. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could quietly talk to some of the people that he is associated with to try to overcome some of the apparent prejudice. It is not for me to ask people to come to see me, but a united front can be of some advantage to promote the area, as people in many other areas have realised.
Rev. William McCrea: I doubt whether the first thing that the major industrialists of the world do is buy the Mid Ulster Mail. I would like to think that they did but I must in all honesty say that I think that the Minister is pushing it too far and trying to score points for himself.
Certainly there are people in the Cookstown area who belong to other political parties which seem to have an open door to and the ready ear of the Minister, but that has certainly not helped Cookstown much. Therefore, let us not play a little game in which the Minister and the Northern Ireland Office seek to score points with Cookstown council. In the past, Omagh district council has had discussions with the Minister. I am talking about the deputation from Omagh. Why did that not bring prosperity and thousands of new jobs to the district? The Minister is pushing the wrong point. He must understand that there are differences of opinion and that people in Northern Ireland have been incensed by the way that the Government have dealt with their constitutional rights.
The Minister could demonstrate his openness and fairness by saying that the Government will no longer force upon the people of Northern Ireland something which is totally against their will but that, for a change, they will listen to the will of the ballot box. The lesson of the election in Upper Bann will have to be learnt.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made an excellent speech this evening and I congratulate him on his address to the House. I trust that he enjoys his tenure
368
of office as the Member of Parliament as much as his predecessor, the late Mr. McCusker, who I believe enjoyed representing the good people of Upper Bann.
I ask the Minister to go beyond the political arena and to appreciate the need for industrial devlopment in Mid-Ulster. The unemployed are members of the Province-wide majority community and of the minority community. I want the Minister to take the issue away from the political arena. We must get away from a headcount of whether people are nationalist or Unionist. I want to see an industrial base in Cookstown, Omagh, Fintona, Dromore, Castlederg and all the other little towns. The Minister could proudly take credit for that, if he so desired at a future date, and say he played a part—not the whole—in ensuring the prosperity of people in my constituency.
As regards outside investment, there will have to be special incentives for industrialists to come to the west of the Province, or the number of jobs will continue to stagnate. The Minister has to bear in mind that industry will stay near the ports. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is correct to say that the spread of jobs—I welcome all jobs—shows that some areas have not been touched or there has only been a smattering of jobs throughout a large part of the Province.
I have the privilege and the honour to represent the west of the Province. I trust that the Minister will accept that I am genuinely asking the Government to intervene on behalf of industry and future industry in my consitutency. Has research been carried out into industrial development in the areas to which I have referred by the Industrial Development Board or the Local Enterprise Development Unit? If the Minister has up-to-date information, I should appreciate it if he could send it to me. I hope that it will be good news for my constituency.
As for the Department of Economic Development, I am disappointed that the attempts to encourage tourism have not been co-ordinated. According to the explanatory note to vote 2, grants towards the provision, extension and improvement of hotels, guest or boarding houses and self-catering establishments have been reduced from £1,229,000 to £829,000. I ask the Minister to give the reason for that considerable reduction in grant aid.
Mr. Beggs: We all appreciate the recent investment in hotel development in Northern Ireland, but the fact remains that those whom we should like to visit Northern Ireland in greater numbers will be unable to afford to stay in such high-standard accommodation. Ought not the Government to consider providing assistance so that those who can afford to pay only modest rates will be able to find accommodation? The strength of the tourist industry in Northern Ireland was built upon coach tours. Northern Ireland is losing out on that trade. We shall be unable to get back unless we provide accommodation for those people.
Rev. William McCrea: I agree wholeheartedly. We must build up that trade again, but we shall be unable to do so with a budget of the size that we are dealing with in this debate. It has been greatly reduced.
According to vote 3, part of that money is provided for the loan of special aids to registered disabled people who require them in order to obtain or retain employment. According to the special provision for assistance to disabled people who are in employment or seeking

369
employment, there are job introduction schemes and capital grant schemes for adaptations to premises and equipment. However, that grant has been reduced by £90,000. Something is radically wrong if cuts have been made in the employment grant schemes for the disabled. This is the time to expand, not to cut, those grants.
Under vote 5, which covers expenditure by the Department of Economic Development, I must enter a plea on behalf of both industrial and private users of electricity. I trust that the Department will stop fattening the goose for privatisation. The Province can do without the privatisation of the electricity industry, bearing in mind the higher living costs in the Province. That is one privatisation which the Government can do without, and I trust that the Minister will take note of that.
I find the expenditure on assistance to the gas industry under vote 5 rather strange. Rather than trying to assist the gas industry it appears that the Government are trying to bury it, or, as the hon. Member for South Down would probably say, give the gas industry the last rites. At this late stage, will the Government change course and ensure that the proposed gas pipeline between Great Britain and the island of Ireland is routed to a location in Northern Ireland? Surely it is essential that the British people of Northern Ireland should share the national asset of natural gas. I am sure that the Minister understands that the people of Northern Ireland feel that the Government have let them down. I trust that the Government will bear that in mind and take some action.
I have to draw to the Minister's attention some issues involving the vote on the Department of the Environment that concern certainly my constituents and, I am sure, the constituents of other hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies. I note that the all-party House of Commons Environment Committee is probing conservation in the Province. I welcome the visit and the investigation by the Committee, and I trust that it will do all in its power to preserve the countryside.
However, I must draw the Minister's attention to a matter of grave concern to my constituents in Mid-Ulster—the Rio Tinto Zinc operation outside Omagh in County Tyrone. A motion will be tabled in the House and I trust that it will be signed by right hon. and hon. Members concerning the environmental and social implications of that multinational gold rush in Cavanacaw, Omagh, County Tyrone. It is disgusting that a large trench has been dug in the countryside, of which my constituents gave me some photographs yesterday. I believe that the operation has continued for a year without a licence and that the Government have now granted the company restrospective planning permission.
Are the Government giving the company an unofficial nod and wink? Are they not genuinely concerned about the environmental and social implications? That huge trench has been dug only 140 m from human habitation, necessitating the removal of 40,000 tonnes of farmland. All members of the local district council representing the wide spectrum of political parties within that council have been unanimous in expressing their opposition to the project. Will the Minister ensure that the truth about the project is known, that the company does not get the land by
370
deception or on false pretences and that the pollution that concerns many people in the area will cause the Department to intervene as a matter of urgency?
What knowledge does the Minister have? The operation is on the verge of a scenic wildlife preserve. It is disgusting that the Government have given the company a nod and a wink and then, after a long delay, have granted retrospective planning permission that would never have been achieved had the company approached it in the proper way. However, the company went ahead. It seems to pay to railroad proposals through against the will of the people and their elected representatives.
I asked the Minister to clarify the matter. If he has no particular knowledge of the operation, I trust that he will look into it. If he goes to Cavanacaw, he will be able to look into it, as it is certainly big enough. He will have to stand to one side, or he will drop into it. Seriously, it is causing great concern and I trust that the Minister will bear that in mind.
Under the Department of Education vote, will the Minister confirm that the budget allocated for nursery school places is sufficient to meet the needs of the community? What proportion of the child population is receiving nursery education? What representation has the Department received on this matter, and what response has been forthcoming to meet the concerns that have been expressed by parents in the Province?
Will the Minister comment on the evidence given to a conference yesterday that repair and maintenance bills for Ulster schools will eat up the bulk of Government cash earmarked for education reform? That has caused much consternation within the education fraternity.
There have been recent press reports of school closures. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for South Down on this issue. Whether it be the maintained school or the controlled school, there is much concern in the rural community that the promises of curriculum support for rural schools will not be kept.
Home help services have caused much concern to my constituents. The pensions given to our pensioners are inadequate, given the higher cost of energy and food in the Province. They are on a meagre pension. It is disgraceful that they are left to live on the breadline, bearing in mind that many of them grafted hard to build the Province into the industrious place that it is.
Will the Minister give a categoric assurance that the citizens of the United Kingdom, particularly of Northern Ireland, are not suffering because of the financial burden of the sight test? I should be interested to hear what he has to say about that.
I am delighted to have had the opportunity of raising these matters, which concern our constituents, under this wide appropriation order. I trust that the Minister will give us some pleasure with answers that will at least bring a little enjoyment to our constituents.
10.3 pm
Mr. Roy Beggs: Right hon. and hon. Members are aware that all the elected representatives of constitutional parties in Northern Ireland reject the Order in Council procedure. It is a most unsatisfactory and increasingly unacceptable method of dealing with Northern Ireland business.
I am delighted to welcome my Ulster Unionist colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann

371
(Mr. Trimble). I congratulate him on the content and presentation of his maiden speech and join him in paying tribute to his loyal and courageous predecessor. I wish my hon. Friend every joy and satisfaction in a worthwhile parliamentary career. He enjoys the support of the majority of his constituents, having gained 59 per cent.—20,547—of the votes cast. The Conservative challenger polled less than 3 per cent. and received only 1,038 votes. The Alliance candidate was almost wiped out. Votes for that party fell from the 1987 election level by 1,439 to a 948 low. The Right to Vote Labour candidate polled 235 votes and the SDP candidate received 154. All the mainstream mainland parties lost their deposits along with other parties.
The two other Unionist candidates received more votes than the Conservative party, the Labour party and the SDP. Surely that is a clear message. As has already been said, it was a total rejection of the policies imposed on the Northern Ireland electorate. I make those observations to emphasise the solid support of the Northern Ireland electorate for candidates who are entirely opposed to the Anglo-Irish diktat and the Order in Council procedure.
As a matter of urgency, there should be a determined effort to establish proper procedures for dealing with Northern Ireland business at Westminster, and such procedures should largely replace Orders in Council. At the same time, establishing democratic institutions in Northern Ireland and giving the elected representatives of constitutional parties there increased responsibility would show that the enthusiasm for democracy expressed openly in the House in welcoming the replacement of communist regimes in eastern Europe is also applied to restoring democratic rights and equality of treatment within the United Kingdom for British citizens in Northern Ireland. Will our Government and the Opposition recognise the repeatedly expressed wishes of Northern Ireland Members for an end to Order in Council procedures and to many Northern Ireland Office policies?
I refer briefly to votes 1 and 2 for the Department of Agriculture. I welcome the continuing support for the marketing, production and processing of agricultural products. Northern Ireland farming families, the industry and the Department of Agriculture have worked steadily over the years to produce high quality food products that meet the ever-higher standards demanded by consumers. Will the Secretary of State and his other Ministers continue robustly to defend the meat industry and the health status of our livestock produce against the unscientific speculation that has caused unwarranted anxiety here in Great Britain? Will he reassure consumers that Northern Ireland food products are safe and that the Department of Agriculture scientific and veterinary service is adequately resourced to ensure consumer safety? Does the Minister agree with Dr. Verner Wheelock of the food policy studies unit at Bradford university, who was reported in the Belfast Telegraph as saying:
"The way in which the authorities in England are reacting in taking British beef off the menu for fear of BSE is quite stupid"?
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House would probably concur with that statement.
Will the sums voted in the order be adequate to cover costs that might be incurred if emergency measures become necessary to cope with exports lost temporarily as
372
a result of scaremongering? Has the Department of Agriculture yet offered help to the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association and to meat plants?
With reference to votes 1, 2 and 3 for the Department of Economic Development, I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North (Mr. Needham) in concluding negotiations with the Japanese company, Ryobi Ltd., which will eventually provide about 100 jobs in Carrickfergus in my constituency. I share the concern that has been expressed by other hon. Members about the scarcity of jobs and job creation schemes and their feeling of loss when new opportunities are located elsewhere. If we face that problem jointly and encourage more investment to Northern Ireland, we hope that in the near, rather than in the distant future, it will be possible for areas that are not benefiting at present to achieve a fairer share of inward investment. As the constituency Member of Parliament, I am delighted to welcome that Japanese company to Northern Ireland.
I am sure that the Minister will agree that the excellent industrial relations record of responsible trade unionists, and the availability of a highly educated, trained, skilled, industrious and versatile work force, backed by the support of the Industrial Development Board, will, together with an outstanding environment, and any number of attractive locations from which a company can choose to locate, continue to make Northern Ireland attractive to other overseas investors.
I am sure that the Minister will also agree that. although grants help to attract and encourage inward investment, many of those who take the decision on where to locate do so for other reasons. Grant considerations come later. Again, I pay tribute to the enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Wiltshire, North who went an extra mile to give support to that new inward investment.
I ask the Minister to take a closer look at the provision of management training in Northern Ireland with a view not only to raising the standard of our management expertise, but to providing increased opportunities and a greater number of places on management training courses. As we get new investment, we shall need more and more management expertise.
I sincerely support the aims and objectives set out in the framework document for the Training and Employment Agency. I know that other hon. Members from Northern Ireland will be watching its progress carefully. We hope that that body will be successful in helping to ensure that employees in Northern Ireland have an attractive range of skills and expertise that will enable them to benefit from new employment opportunities.
Vote 3 relates to the community workshops. Unlike the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), who referred to the problems experienced by community workshops, I shall be direct and simply ask the Minister to tell us the Government's long-term policy towards them. is there a timetabling target for reducing those schemes? It is thought in some quarters that the assurances arid guarantees given by the Minister are not being honoured in the same spirit by officials, who have diluted them.
How many of those workshop schemes have already been forced to close because they cannot operate under the new funding arrangements? Will the Minister assure the House that adequate support is available on request to assist workshop providers to manage the limited resources

373
allocated to them, and endeavour to ensure that payments for claims submitted from the workshops are speeded up as much as possible?
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to the provision for the disabled in the same vote. In my experience, disabled people want to help themselves, and we have a duty to provide the resources to enable them to do so. With more funding, more could be done.
Let me again register a protest about the fact that consumers in Northern Ireland are being denied choice in the type of energy that they wish to use. They are also being denied access to cheaper natural gas. It is not good enough to blame past records of gas used; the gas produced in Northern Ireland has always been too expensive. Consumers in Northern Ireland should be given real choice and access to a natural gas supply. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to making choice available, and to seek EC funding to provide a cross-channel link to Northern Ireland from the British gas grid. Can he tell us whether the words
"assistance to the gas industry"
—in vote 5—would permit an assessment of the cost of a pipeline to Northern Ireland from Morecambe bay or the Scottish coast to be carried out?
Teachers in all schools find that the administrative demands arising from the education reform programme are impinging on their teaching time. For most conscientious Northern Ireland teachers, it also impinges on their out-of-school time. Can the Minister, at the earliest opportunity, consider further reducing pupil-teacher ratios in Northern Ireland, and making available more discretionary posts to area boards for distribution to schools where a need for extra part-time support has been identified? Can he also give an assurance that curriculum demands arising from the reform programme will not force the closure of all small schools serving isolated rural areas, and that the Department of Education and Science will make every effort to retain viable education in our rural areas?
Many parents are annoyed that in the current transfer procedure their children are unable to obtain places in the school of the parents' first choice. Parents in the Craigavon area claim that they have no real choice. The Minister should consider closely the validity of that claim made by people who feel aggrieved. I should also appreciate it if the Minister would tell us what arrangements there are to permit parents who are dissatisfied with the outcome of the transfer procedure to appeal.
I record my support for the case made by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) for improved pollution control and an end to the dumping of sewage off our seaboard. It is absolutely disgraceful that the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland has still not made provisions in my constituency and others to end the practice of disposing of raw sewage into the sea. My constituents make no distinction between untreated sewage and chopped-up sewage. They do not want it dumped in the coastal area and the rich fish harvest damaged or contaminated in any way. I trust that steps will be taken to help us to improve further the tourist attractiveness of the area, which is already deemed to be
374
one of outstanding natural beauty, by ensuring that proper sewage farms are in place and that our coastal waters and beaches are free from pollution.
Ministers responsible for the environment and economic development should also get together as quickly as possible to discuss how to solve the blight and the eyesore created by the limestone works in Glenarm village. That village is deemed to be worthy of conservation, but it and the surrounding area have been contaminated and polluted by limestone dust. I sincerely believe that the company is prepared to bear its share of the cost of relocation. It would greatly enhance our attractive Antrim coast road if those works were relocated.
Before we next meet to discuss an appropriation order, I trust that positive steps on some of those issues will have been taken.
10.22 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: Before I comment on the draft appropriation order, I join others in welcoming to our Chamber the new hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I do so not for the sake of convention, but because I genuinely welcome him here.
The hon. Gentleman and I have known one another for many years. In the past 20 years we have served on many committees and spoken together on many platforms. Those of us who heard his fine excellent maiden speech will recognise that he will bring a considerable knowledge of the law not only to his party but to others and that that will aid deliberations in this Chamber. He has brought commitment, ability and conviction on Unionist principles to an area which had a tremendous constituency Member.
Having fought the by-election, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the high regard that the constituents of Upper Bann had for the former Member. He will know, therefore, that he inherits a constituency which has been well looked after and that he also inherits a mission. It was the dying wish of his predecessor that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be destroyed and that an acceptable alternative should replace it. The hon. Member for Upper Bann will willingly lift up that torch and fight the same cause for his constituents.
The hon. Gentleman has our best wishes as he commences his parliamentary career. I agree with so many of his remarks that it is impossible to go over each one, but I noticed how carefully he chose the terminology of representative institutions. The Province is so bereft of democratic structures at any level that it is clear that more responsibility needs to be put into the hands of locally elected representatives. The hon. Gentleman will have seen from his short experience of the House the exceptional way in which Northern Ireland is dealt with. He referred to a planning instrument, which I will deal with later, setting up an entirely different procedure for Northern Ireland from that for other parts of the United Kingdom. Having heard his colleague the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) talking about grass cutting in his constituency and about broken windows in public sector housing, he should not feel in the least embarrassed in following his hon. Friend down that road, for this is one of the few opportunities that we have to raise those nitty-gritty, bread-and-butter issues in the House. No one in any other chamber has an opportunity to raise them.
The debate may not lend itself to cramming the House full of interested listeners, as happens at Question Time. I,

375
too, wish that the Tory Whips, when planting questions, would at least ensure that hon. Members can read the questions properly, instead of muffing them, as happened recently. We are happy to see Members from other parts of the United Kingdom taking a genuine interest in Northern Ireland issues—we just wish that they would spread their interest more evenly over the deliberations on Northern Ireland.
On the appropriation order it is usually best to make most of one's remarks on the subject matter which is the responsibility of the Minister who is to reply to the debate. One has a better chance of getting answers because he does not have to consult other Ministers, and one does not get the standard reply. "My colleague will write to you." The Minister should know the answers to all the questions. As a member of East Belfast conservative association, the Minister will want to do everything possible to assist the people of East Belfast. If he does not, I will tell them that the Conservative party will do nothing for them. If he does something, however, I will tell the people of East Belfast that I have done something for them, too, so he cannot win either way.
Vote 2, expenditure by the Department of the Environment on housing services, comes under the Minister's environment portfolio. I want to talk about one housing estate, Mertoun Park, which is on the boundary between my constituency and that of the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and on the periphery of the city of Belfast. The residents of that housing estate, which was built six or seven years ago and consists of about 106 houses, feel that they have been forgotten. The houses are good, but the estate is deplorably designed. It is so badly designed that the in-house architects for the Housing Executive refer to it as an experiment that went wrong. The residents can confirm that the design has led to a series of problems which are part of their day-to-day lives and require special attention from the Housing Executive.
The design is such that the houses surround small courts. In a space little greater than that between the Benches in front of me is a playground for 50 or 60 children. By any modern standards, that would be insufficent for the layout of Housing Executive estates. The children have no alternative play area other than the road, which has not been properly adopted—or if it has, it was adopted only in the past few days or weeks—six or seven years after the housing estate was built. I urge the Minister to provide the Housing Executive with the finance necessary to provide adequate play facilities for that area because the Housing Executive owns the field adjacent to Mertoun Park.
If it was not bad enough that the residents have all those housing difficulties in relation to design features, they happen to be opposte Kinnegar Army base, which provides them with another problem. The helicopters from the Army base fly low directly overhead. The net result is that the houses shake, their windows rattle and people looking out often wonder whether the helicopters will manage to clear the houses and the trees around the estate. In other districts, grants have been made available for double glazing and it is clearly essential that that should be done in this case.
Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is referring to a matter that is in my constituency of North Down. I have already pursued the issue a number of times with the Ministry of Defence and asked about getting money to
376
provide double glazing for residents in the Holywood area of my constituency. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support. He may rest assured, as may the residents, that I have not given up the battle.
Mr. Robinson: I am grateful for those comments. If the hon. Gentleman refers to the electoral register, he will see that Mertoun Park is split between our two constituencies. He is right that a small part of the estate is in his constituency, and a larger part is in mine. Together we can happily join forces in urging the Minister to take prompt action to deal with a district which, sadly, has been so badly neglected by the Housing Executive and where residents are under so much strain because of the Army camp nearby.
The residents in no way want to make it difficult for the Army operations to continue. They simply want to enjoy the facilities granted to the residents of other Housing Executive estates affected by noise pollution. I trust that the Minister will do something to alleviate that problem.
I wish to refer to an issue that I have raised with Northern Ireland Ministers over the past four years—for that is the length of time that people living in the Bloomfield area have suffered a blight which affects house sales, the quality of life, and the environment. There is a large area known locally as the Sunblest bakery site. After the bakery was burnt down, rubble remained there and the residents have had to live with the consequences, including bricks being thrown through their windows, young people gathering and making bonfires, and all the other nuisances associated with an abandoned site.
The Northern Ireland Office decided to permit two housing associations to purchase the site so that they could build homes on it. Unfortunately, the Minister has not provided the money necessary to enable that to be done. Both the Minister and his Department recognise that houses are needed in that area, but money has still not been forthcoming. Not only are people being deprived of accommodation on an available site, but existing residents are suffering the consequences of the dereliction. I urge the Minister somehow to squeeze out of his budget the finance required to allow the two housing associations to start building.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the planning and building regulations draft order that the Minister is promoting. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to a gaping hole in his constituency and said that the Department had granted retrospective planning permission almost as a matter of course. In some instances, that seems to developers to be a better way of obtaining consent. I have raised the same issue with the Minister before, and I suspect that I shall have to do so again as his new proposals do not meet the case.
The Minister's solution for dealing with retrospective applications is to give the Department power to require a person who has built without obtaining consent to make an application subsequently. That is not a suitable punishment for breaching planning controls. In many ways, it will not even serve as a deterrent. Only if a builder refuses to make an application, having already ignored planning controls, will any fine be levied.
I have put to the Minister the argument made in a previous Northern Ireland Assembly that a proper penalty should be imposed on those who commence building without receiving planning permission, which could take

377
the form either of a fine or a more expensive retrospective application. I urge the Minister to re-examine that issue and to make the necessary changes to the 1972 order so that it makes clear that people are required to make a planning application in advance, rather than only after the Department catches up with them. If the Minister does not recognise that that it is a major issue, he should contact town halls throughout the Province.
I have told the Minister before in the House that 25 per cent. of the planning applications made to Castlereagh borough council relate to schemes on which building work had already commenced. At every planning meeting, the council deals with retrospective applications, and that is in a borough where much house building and other types of building is going on.
I urge the Minister to take this matter seriously because by and large people are building without permission and hoping that they will get away with it. They know that if they do not, the Department will not look closely at the merits of the case in planning terms but will consider whether the person can be asked to pull down the structure. The Minister now has the opportunity for a new planning order to address this issue and find a solution which will be a proper disincentive to people who are tempted to build without planning permission.
I stress the point made by the hon. Member for North Down about the rights of objectors. Those rights must be protected, and that can best be done through district councils—so long as they have the power to call for an article 22 inquiry. The new draft planning order provides an opportunity to amend that article by removing the two-month requirement. That would significantly strengthen the hand of district councils and balance the scales between planning applicants and local objectors.
On the matter of the Department of Health and Social Services, I strongly concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for North Down said about the elderly. He has raised the matter in the House on several occasions and on each occasion I have endorsed what he said. I wish that somebody would listen to the two of us and recognise that there is a real need for proper concessionary licences and free transport for the elderly. Those things could be done at very little cost. They would probably cost less than it cost the Government to run the Upper Bann by-election campaign for the Conservative candidate and would do much more good for the people of Northern Ireland.
It is essential to remove the anomaly about concessionary television licences. I do not like the way that the Minister appears to be moving towards eliminating the anomaly by making everyone pay the full television licence fee. I urge him to set a concessionary fee for the elderly right across the board rather than continuing with the present inequitable system.
The last matter that I wish to raise may cause me to step on the toes of the hon. Member for North Down, but I know that he will be happy to support me because he and I share a concern about the issue. It relates to a proposal by the Eastern health and social services board to close two play schools—one in the hon. Gentleman's constituency at Tullycarnet and one in mine at Knocknagoney. The proposition by the board, which I assume is to meet the requirement for cuts in the Health Service proposed by this Tory Government, means that
378
people who are much in need of such facilities and who made great use of them are to be disadvantaged by their loss.
I trust that the Minister will urge his colleague who has responsibility for such matters in the Department of Health and Social Services to use his influence on the board. The board should be told that if it wants to engage in penny pinching it should not do it where it will hurt people. I am talking about areas in which there is much need. The board must not remove facilities which have been an excellent aid to people. In my constituency and in the constituency of North Down the united view held by local government representatives and parliamentary representatives is that the Minister should step in and do something about this.
It is right to pose my final question now that the Secretary of State has joined us. It comes under the heading of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am sure that the Minister will look at the sums granted in the appropriation fund, and give his considered opinion as to whether it will soon be necessary to present a money order to grant further sums to the Assembly. Does he expect a greater use of that building to be made over the next few months?
10.45 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: I found it interesting when, earlier, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) joined the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) in speaking about pollution from North Down into Belfast lough. Some people in Northern Ireland think that there is greater pollution in other parts of North Down, nearer to Belfast, and we should like that to be cleared up as well.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). We served together in the Northern Ireland constitutional convention, on which he also represented south Belfast. As he is a senior lecturer in law at Queen's university, in my constituency, that is another reason for welcoming him, although my alma maters were Magee university college, Londonderry and Trinity college, Dublin. I came from what was the bastion of loyalty, and he comes from what has, in the past 20 years, been a bastion of republicanism. I am delighted that his presence tonight has shown something of his ability.
My hon. Friend succeeds the late Harold McCusker, who came from close to Lurgan. Those who know Northern Ireland know that that is the spade town of Ulster, where we call a spade a spade. Harold was prepared to do so. Sometimes people did not like that, but at least they could not say that they did not understand what he was talking about. The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) teased my hon. Friend by saying that one should not be controversial in maiden speeches, but that my hon. Friend was getting close to it, and that he would not be heard in silence in future. My hon. Friend could have been even more controversial. He could have reminded the House that a Tory was originally an Irish Jacobite, and in this tercentenary year of the battle of the Boyne, we are glad that we beat the Tories again in Upper Bann.
Vote 1 for the Department of Health and Social Services deals with money for hospitals. A constituency case highlights the problem not only in Northern Ireland but in health care provision in the rest of the kingdom. We

379
are told that people are being given more choice. At times, I suspect that it is the choice of the turkey just before Christmas, which means that there is little choice left for the poor bird. The Jubilee hospital in south Belfast, which is part of the city hospital, has served the local community, and the wider community, for many years. I should like some clarification on this issue.
I tabled an oral question for the latest Northern Ireland questions, but because of the popularity of television appearances, and the movement towards the by-election, a large number of hon. Members representing other parts of the kingdom asked questions. As a result, I received only a formal written response. I wanted to know what guidance was given to the boards and units of management throughout Northern Ireland on the provision of services. I understand that the senior official in the Eastern health and social services board has told the unit of management, in the presence of others in City hospital, and Jubilee hospital in particular, that the board will not be purchasing obstetric and maternity services from Jubilee hospital. That is one way of stopping provision. I ask the Department to examine the matter. What does it have to say about in-house tendering? What does it have to say about competitive tendering? If my memory is correct, Jubilee hospital has been undertaking about 3,000 deliveries a year at a more economic rate than other hospitals. That runs counter to the judgment that the Eastern board and other boards must accept the lowest bid in competitive tendering.
We have been told this evening that responsibility lies with the board, not with the Minister. The same is true of education and library boards. When I heard the Minister's response, I was reminded of an incident in my boyhood, when my mother chastised my brother and I for splashing water round the kitchen. I said, "It wasn't me." We were twins, and I was holding my brother up to the tap so that he could splash the water. The Minister seemed to be saying what I said when he told us, "It is not my responsibility. The responsibility lies with the board." But who appoints the board and who ensures that the elected representatives who are members of the council are in the minority so that the Department, through its nominees, has the whip hand? I ask that consideration be given to the development of hospital services. It would be much better to tell the people that a hospital is to be closed rather than to have a moratorium, place pressures upon the staff and demoralise all those within a hospital that provides a service to the community.
The work of occupational therapists comes under vote 1 of the Department of Health and Social Services. They are a group whose care and provision affect the entire community. Are there enough occupational therapists? If not, why has their establishment been frozen? How many of them are in the various boards? How many of them are
380
involved in community occupational therapy and are geared for domiciliary services? We are supposedly thinking and moving in the direction of care in the community, and those people will be needed even more. As I understand it, the basic grade in our hospitals has been the subject of a freeze, and in north and west Belfast there has been a waiting list since 1988. How can we say that we are providing care in the community if a waiting list means a wait of six weeks? We must try to help people to develop their skills and to rehabilitate themselves to live in the community. Occupational therapy needs to be examined with greater accuracy and understanding.
When he replies to the debate, the Minister will have been told by a close colleague in the Department on this side of the water that Project 2000 has been promoted. This week it was announced that funds have been provided for it and that various schemes have been cleared. How far have we gone to develop Project 2000 in Northern Ireland? Have I missed an announcement that the scheme has already started, and that it has been recognised in one of the nursing schools? Is there a shortage of funds in that field, especially in the Eastern health and social services board, which has to provide so much specialised one-to-one nursing, partly due to the impact of the terrorist campaign? I understand that the impact of the regrading scheme for nurses left the board with a £6 million shortfall in the budget before it began this year. The board cannot make that up by economies and savings.
Another group that I wish to mention are the disabled, and specifically young deaf people. What provision is being made to train them? I am speaking in particular of the Department of Economic Development vote 3. What provision has been made to train employers and social workers to handle young deaf people who are seeking employment? One of their difficulties is that they are not as literate as other young people, but many of them, if they are treated with understanding, could be outstanding in their jobs. But many employers dismiss them straight away because they cannot communicate with them. I know that young deaf people in England and in Northern Ireland are seeking to promote and to help training. Is the Department doing anything to help through its training programme?
I mentioned transfer procedures earlier, and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) also raised the matter. I believe that appeals must be in by 1 June and will be decided by 15 June. If the evolution of the education system means that we put more people into the grammar school system—that is the choice that people make, and if they have the qualifications to go there they feel deprived if they are not given the opportunity—will we not endanger many secondary schools which could provide the technical and vocational training that so many of our young people need?
10.58 pm
Mr. Harry Barnes: It is often stimulating to study similar situations and try to find the differences. Often the media are interested in the differences that exist inside major political parties, rather than the distinctions between them. In Northern Ireland the position is somewhat different, and we are often aware of the differences between political organisations—they can be the most extreme differences imaginable—but sometimes it is instructive to consider the similarities between diverse political parties within Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) talked about a trench and showed us a picture of it. It is interesting to note that all the differing parties in the council concerned were united on the issue. As a new Member in the House, I learned a lesson when a deputation arrived from Strabane to try to persuade the Government to provide money—as is done under the Bellwin scheme—to deal with flooding, because the deputation included people with the widest possible range of political views.
I have been impressed by the extent to which agreement on social and economic questions has been reached. Reference has been made in the debate to pensioners' rights and social welfare provision and to the fact that the Government are not doing what is right for Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland appropriations provide us with an opportunity to discuss the nearest thing that we have to a Northern Ireland Budget. They are the stuff of politics. You ruled, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the police and security cannot be discussed in the debate. It is right that we should hold Northern Ireland debates from which the police, security and terrorism issues are excluded.
Unfortunately, whenever Northern Ireland appropriations are discussed, most hon. Members think that it is time to go. Nearly everyone disappears. That is partly due to the fact that there will be no Division and that no amendments can be made. I wish that those hon. Members who are interested in security questions and who receive a great deal of press coverage came to these debates to deal with the stuff of Northern Ireland politics.
I refer in particular to Opposition Members. We claim to be democratic Socialists and to be concerned about people's welfare. That is exactly what the Northern Ireland appropriations deal with. They allow hon. Members to discuss economic policies and the budgetary provisions for Northern Ireland. There is sometimes a tendency to get bogged down in the details, partly because there is no other means by which to deal with such issues. A devolved form of government for Northern Ireland would solve that problem. Northern Ireland Members of Parliament want to highlight the many constituency problems that they have to face.
The whole of the island of Ireland increasingly has to involve itself in international economic issues. The solution to Northern Ireland's serious economic problems will be part of a much broader pattern of economic development. It can be likened to the need for all countries to take action to solve the problem of global warming. One nation can do its bit by taking action to counter the greenhouse effect, but correct solutions will not be found unless there is international co-operation. That applies just
382
as much to economic problems as to pollution of the environment. Nevertheless, something could be done and some steps could be taken that the Government have not contemplated. Northern Ireland has its own special problems in addition to having our problems multiplied to the nth degree.
It is interesting to consider the Department of Employment's figures on unemployment in connection with tonight's debate. When the debate finishes at 11.30 pm, we shall have heard three speeches from Conservative Members. According to the Government's unemployment figures, the constituencies that they represent have fewer than 2,000 people unemployed. The constituencies represented by my hon. Friends and I have unemployment figures of between 2,500 and 5,000—unemployment in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is 5,000 and the figure for my constituency is just over 2,500. My constituency is marginal—half is Conservative territory and the other half is Labour territory, with unemployment concentrated in Labour areas. The problems of homelessness and indebtedness in my constituency are universal in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North.
According to the Government's figures, unemployment in the constituencies of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland is above 4,000 and sometimes considerably more. The highest unemployment figure for a constituency in Northern Ireland is 9,624. We must remember how often the Government adjust the unemployment figures. Those adjustments reduce the unemployment figures for the constituencies of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight, except those of Conservative Members. Seven of the nine constituencies with the highest unemployment figures are in Northern Ireland, where such problems cut across the political divide.
The two constituencies with the highest unemployment figures are Belfast, West, which is represented by Sinn Fein, and Foyle, which is represented by the SDLP. The constituency of Mid-Ulster is next and there is high unemployment in constituencies represented by Ulster Unionist Members. Although we have tried to tackle many of the problems in Northern Ireland with fair employment provisions, those measures cannot work properly without some strategy for tackling unemployment in the Province.
If time permitted, I could say much more about the problems and difficulties in Northern Ireland that represent an extension of many of those that exist in our own constituencies. There are problems of indebtedness: figures published by the Housing Executive show the number of families who have had their electricity cut off. That occurs much more in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
There is widespread homelessness, despite the work of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Many houses in Northern Ireland are old, and, according to a survey produced by the Housing Executive, 60 per cent. of dwellings were built before 1919. There is much overcrowding, inadequate food storage facilities and lack of proper facilities generally.
To tackle those problems, we need collective, co-ordinated and planned action. I attend these debates regularly, at which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) suggests such action. He said that there should be more social welfare provision and

383
economic development. The market philosophy and the principles of free enterprise and entrepreneurship, as propounded by the Government, are most damaging to Northern Ireland.
There are problems with collective, co-ordinated and planned action, but they can be solved by instigating democratic practices. No democracy can operate without vast bureaucracies but by extending democracy bureaucracies can be made to work better. Devolved government for Northern Ireland seems essential.
That is not to deny the difficulties of the political divisions and the deeper divisions in Northern Ireland. A Bill of Rights is particularly appropriate to Northern Ireland's problems, because it would prevent bias against the communities, thereby making them feel more protected and assured. The Secretary of State's responses show that he is not entirely opposed to that development.
Mr. Beggs: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman about the Bill of Rights, but does he agree that, in order to protect minorities, it should apply to every citizen of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Barnes: A case can be made for a Bill of Rights, but it is argued that, because of the civil liberties problems and divisions between both communities, before a Bill of Rights can apply to Northern Ireland it must be worked out for the United Kingdom, but that argument does not hold. A Bill of Rights is appropriate to tackle special problems, so it might be useful to instigate it initially in Northern Ireland. We might benefit and learn from that and be able to develop it more generally. The Government thought that it would be advantageous to introduce the poll tax first in Scotland. Luckily, they have not introduced it in Northern Ireland. They could take progressive action by introducing a Bill of Rights initially in Northern Ireland, from which we could benefit later.
The one democratic advantage of Northern Ireland is that it does not have the poll tax. Its franchise is therefore healthier than the rest of the United Kingdom, where 600,000 people have disappeared from the electoral register. It has the right franchise, but it cannot use it properly because the framework in which to operate it is wrong. If we want the young people of Northern Ireland to respect each other, to develop a social conscience and to be involved in the democratic process, we cannot continue to preach greed, ruthlessness and competition between people. The opposite qualities are exactly those which are required for Northern Ireland. They are the qualities of democratic socialism, which are required for the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us start doing something in that direction, because there is a crying need for social and economic provisions.
11.14 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate for the constructive way in which they have approached the problems of Northern Ireland addressed by the spending in the order.
In particular, on my behalf and that of the those who either heard the speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) or heard reports of it, I say that his speech will be remembered as one of the best maiden speeches that has been made in this Parliament. I speak as
384
someone who was elected at a by-election. An hon. Member from the other side said how much he appreciated my speech and how much better it was than that of my party leader. I shall not be as damaging as that because the hon. Gentleman's party leader has not spoken in the debate tonight.
The hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke in a way that showed no sign of nerves. His precise delivery may have betrayed the fact that he made a full-time living as a lecturer and could have continued to do so. But that is not the way the result turned out. We look forward to hearing from him more often. The hon. Gentleman shares with the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) a gift of understatement which is not always characteristic of Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland. He also speaks rather than proclaims, which again is welcome.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to meat. I have tried to avoid putting meat into the headlines. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland did well at Balmoral yesterday in answering open questions in an open way.
Without in any sense seeking to be secret or private, I believe that we are coming to a time when the level of publicity given to BSE should fall. I predict that during the next 12 months no one in the whole of the European Community will die of BSE. Some 55,000 people will die on the roads. How much more useful it would have been if half the publicity about BSE and meat had been diverted to areas in which we can save lives over and over again.
Mr. Jim Marshall: The comparison is nonsense.
Mr. Bottomley: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman seeks to make.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) must speak on the record.
Mr. Bottomley: My point is that the most important industry in Northern Ireland is agriculture and a most important part of that is beef.
I do not intend to answer all the points made about arable agriculture and set-aside. Few people in arable farming want to go into set-aside. Set-aside does not apply to most arable farmers, unless they are in environmentally sensitive areas, where different considerations apply.
My prime job is to work with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for Agriculture and Food from the south—I pay tribute to Michael O'Kennedy—with whom I was at Balmoral today. We spoke openly together about some of the agriculture matters that we have in common. We also work closely with the European Commission. Although it is not always shown in the appropriation orders, the outcome of discussions among the Twelve has been better for Northern Ireland than people predicted. I am told that sometimes it is like trying to line up 12 strawberries in a row on a fruit machine, although I would not want to confess to gambling while I am serving at the Northern Ireland Office. There is a partnership between Members of the European Parliament for Northern Ireland, the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ieland—officials as well as Ministers—and our colleagues in London and Brussels. There are further improvements to come, but agriculture remains the most important industry to be protected and on which to build.
Rev. William McCrea: Can the Minister explain why in the south of Ireland "BSE-free meat" is stamped on meat but in Northern Ireland we cannot have the same?
Mr. Bottomley: In terms of what I would call the "health contour", Northern Ireland stands between the south and the rest of the United Kingdom. Great Britain has a higher incidence of BSE——
Rev. William McCrea: What about Northern Ireland?
Mr. Bottomley: That is why I used the expression "Great Britain". Even so, eating meat in Great Britain is safe. Whether the beef comes from Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the south, it is safe to eat. The incidence of BSE is obviously much lower in Northern Ireland than in the rest of Great Britain, but we cannot declare ourselves to be BSE-free. It is vital that we have the same procedures as Great Britain for disposing of offals and any potentially dangerous bits. The south has a lower incidence. The figures are well known and I shall not use up my time by repeating them.
It is fair that we should try to enjoy the benefits of our position without declaring that we are not part of the United Kingdom. I would advance from that point and say that I want to continue disposing of the potentially dangerous offals and have it accepted that the beef anywhere in these islands—Great Britain, Northern Ireland or the south—is safe to eat.
The problem is the reaction of some people, such as education authorities and others in Great Britain, and potential foreign customers, who have begun to believe some of the media comments. I am not being party political because I do not think that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who speaks on agriculture for the Labour party, intended the media to carry his remarks as they did. But as the debate on Monday showed, whenever such issues arise, we get more and more appointed, and some self-appointed, experts who make declarations that are not necessarily right. I argue that it is not right to raise scares about beef.
I have never hidden the fact that I am a partial vegetarian. I have reached an agreement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that if I occasionally eat meat, he will occasionally eat vegetables. I am trying to ensure that I do what the chief medical officer for Northern Ireland did yesterday, which is to eat beef. I am not making a song and dance about doing it, or about doing it in front of the television cameras. I simply mean that we should eat beef to illustrate that it is safe. I do not want to use the rest of the time allowed for this debate talking about this issue because the more one repeats such things, the more one raises the problem.
The assurances were understood at Balmoral where very few people were asking questions about this. They understood the issues. The chief medical officer understands them, as do the veterinary officers. I hope that the customers will understand them, too.
In general, Northern Ireland food is, if I can use the expression, green, clean and healthy. We in Northern Ireland produce more natural food. We do not go in for the intensive use of either pesticides or concentrates, which is one reason why we have achieved recognition for doing far better than Great Britain for lamb, poultry, beef and virtually everything. In one area relating to pigs we are not
386
doing quite as well as Great Britain, but we will solve that problem. Other than that, we can buy our food with confidence.
I hope that those who buy food from continental Europe will recognise that they should be coming to Ireland instead—to all of Ireland, north and south, where we shall be doing what we can to keep the "contour of health" at the highest possible level and to bring others up to our level. If it is not damaging for me to agree with Michael O'Kennedy, I stress that some of the approaches adopted on mainland Europe will have to rise to our levels. We shall not come down to some of their practices. It will sometimes be difficult for other countries to face that. It is right that we should work both with MAFF and with Dublin. There are no real boundaries for food production in Ireland as a whole.
Many important points have been made in this debate. I shall concentrate first on the speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann. I shall then refer to those hon. Members who spoke last, before working back to those who spoke first. This seems appropriate given the Northern Ireland approach to politics and religion.
The Craigavon issue is important. Craigavon has not gone as well as it should. Discussions taking place between the planning service, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Economic Development should lead to a better future for Craigavon, which at the moment is in the balance. We need to find ways of using the talents of its people and of recreating its development so that it can become what it was intended to be—a thriving part of Northern Ireland. One advantage of the Upper Bann by-election—whose greatest disadvantage was the untimely death of Harold McCusker—is the focus on the area that has allowed many of us to know more about it than we might otherwise have done.
I must say how pleased I was to note that, every time I saw the hon. Gentleman driving past, he seemed to be sticking to the highway code.
I was grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the cultural traditions programme. I believe that it will help to bring people in Northern Ireland together and enable them to recognise that one cultural tradition need not triumph over another. As has been pointed out this evening, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pays as much attention to the rights of majorities as to those of minorities—but I do not wish to become involved in politics; that, I feel, would be entirely wrong on the Floor of the House of Commons.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the cadre of officials for the Northern Ireland Assembly. That would best be dealt with through correspondence. Several issues that have been raised this evening need more discussion, if that is possible, or a more detailed response.
I hope that I shall not be accused of favouritism if I return to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. I was not trying to score a party political point earlier, and I am sorry that he thought I was. Clearly we need to get to know one another better. I meant only that, if the natural reaction of overseas industrialists is to consider investing in places of which they have heard, or places where their colleagues have made investments—and we welcome the increasing involvement of the Japanese, for instance—they are more likely to choose areas such as Carrickfergus rather than South Down or Mid-Ulster. The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made the same point: how can the Industrial Development Board persuade more

387
people to come to those areas? I meant to make the point in the gentlest possible way, but I was obviously too heavy-handed for the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster.
Mr. McGrady: Can the Minister explain a paradox? Why does a voluntary society such as the one in charge of the reconstruction of the Down museum railway attract Japanese visitors to invest in its little project, while all the weight, bite and strength of the IDB cannot persuade them to visit the same area?
Mr. Bottomley: Perhaps I should ask the IDB to engage in consultation directly with the hon. Gentleman—and with every hon. Member who is interested in such matters—to establish what can be done to make their areas more attractive to potential visitors. There is no point in arguing so much between ourselves that the investment goes elsewhere—to the Netherlands, for instance. That is what happened when the third London airport was being discussed—or was it the fourth?
We must try to work in the interests of Northern Ireland, and overcome some of the hiccups relating to inward investment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will explain that to some of his contacts, as I feel that I may be doing more harm than good whenever I say it in public.
I may not support the views of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on the poll tax, but I pay tribute to his serious interest in Northern Ireland. Those who wax eloquent when some security-related issues are raised could gain some advantage from listening to his speeches about the Northern Ireland economy. It may not be easy for him to hold views on Northern Ireland that are unfashionable within his party, but he is always well worth hearing.
Admittedly, when the hon. Gentleman starts talking about collective co-ordinated planning, it sounds rather like what I used to hear when I was elected in 1975. We were always being told about matters such as industrial strategy agreements, which could not even be arranged with nationalised industries. There is much to be said for
388
the Northern Ireland approach, which is to try to find the enterprise and work with it, whether it is generated internally or externally.
Let us consider food, which is the other side of agriculture. It is worth recognising that the largest food business in Northern Ireland is still only about a third of the size of several in the south. Although we do not want a monopoly in any industry, we should work together if we are to succeed on a European scale.
The provision of viable education is important and that requires the provision of viable schools.
The arguments about the rural communities were well made. In my joint role as full-time Minister responsible for agriculture and part-time Minister responsible for the environment, I intend to do everything I can on the rural improvement programmes so that agriculture can make its full contribution and Government resources can be co-ordinated through the Hodges committee. So, even without adding much to the resources, we can use them more effectively so that the well-being of people throughout Northern Ireland is improved. That is what brings us together in Parliament and what lies behind people's political approaches. That aim also lies behind many of the improvements in the economy of Northern Ireland in the past few years.
It is for Ministers not to take the credit when things go well, but to ensure that more things do go well. Our responsibility is to make possible the things that are right—jobs and justice lie at the basis of that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990 which was laid before this House on 16th May, be approved.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland)

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Ordered,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 101 (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), the Criminal Damage (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (Amendment) Order 1990 (S.R.(N.I.), 1990, No. 25) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Lead in Water (Scotland)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
11.30 pm
Mr. Andrew Welsh: The lead level in Scottish water supplies is not a new problem. I remember debating the need for action on it when I was a student at the university of Glasgow.
One remarkable aspect about the problem is that, despite the improvements made, the numbers of Scottish people affected by drinking water containing lead has not changed in the past 20 years. The reasons for that are straightforward. While some remedial efforts have been made, standards regarding the acceptable level of lead in water have risen. Therefore, the number of people affected by water with above the tolerable standard has remained stubbornly high.
My purpose tonight is to point out that remedial efforts are no longer enough and that only eradication of the problem will suffice. That must be done through a properly financed and organised lead pipe and tank replacement scheme together with the Government's implementation of the European Community standards for lead levels in drinking water. The people have a right to expect that Governments will supply wholesome and healthy water for everyday drinking.
In the past decade, the public have been exposed to intolerably high levels of lead in drinking water. In that time, the Government have done everything possible to avoid bringing water standards into line with the European water directive. I intend to expose the Government's shameful record on this and to seek to persuade the Government to reverse their previous policy of inaction and comply with the European directive in the shortest possible time by means of a programme of lead pipe replacement.
It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that resources are available to local authorities to ensure that all lead plumbing is identified in public and private housing. Evidence that lead, even in low quantities, is damaging to health has been mounting since the early 1970s. Scientists in Europe and in the United States have produced study after study to show that the only safe level of lead in water is zero. Even at low levels, lead is a poison which has demonstrable effects on children's health.
More than 8 million households have lead in their plumbing systems—about 45 per cent. of British households. Those households are at risk only if they are in areas which suffer from the water characteristic known as plumbo-solvency, which refers to the ability of soft and acidic water to dissolve lead. About 2·5 million such households are located in plumbo-solvent areas. The combination of lead-solvent water and lead plumbing produces the unfortunate consequences of tap water with a high lead content.
For those with a historical frame of mind, there is an interesting parallel. I am told that the combination of soft water and lead is exactly similar in action to the wine and pewter combination which poisoned the Roman aristocracy and led to the fall of the Roman empire. While the people of Edinburgh are happy to share architectural style with the ancient Romans, there would be massive opposition to sharing their lead poisoning. Indeed, in a constituency next to that of the Minister, the results of a
390
survey carried out this week show that people are drinking water with five times the European limit of lead while others produced levels of twice and three times the limit. One Leith tenement had 22 times the permissible limit under EEC regulations. Such water is being drunk daily by Edinburgh families. That is the problem.
Within the United Kingdom, Scotland has by far the largest population living in old, unmodernised houses in soft water areas, and therefore the largest population at risk from lead contaminated drinking water. Within Scotland, Glasgow, Edinburgh and the populous central belt are most at risk. Limited funds have meant that all renovation work, including pipe replacement, has been slow and piecemeal.
One company which specialises in lead pipe replacement work states that it has been
"in touch with Glasgow district council grants department over the past few months. The situation at present is that they are not processing any new applications and have not been since mid December 1989. They cannot give any idea in the near future when anything will be processed. West Lothian district is in a similar situation with no funds having been available since January 1990. No date in the foreseeable future is expected from West Lothian district council for grants to be processed. Other areas in which we do work are now saying that due to demand, the allocation this year will not be sufficient, and they are not hopeful of getting further funding."
Work in the areas most at risk is coming to a grinding halt. I put the blame firmly on central Government who alone have the resources and the ability to fund and to run a proper lead pipe replacement campaign. The current grant system does not encourage builders or house owners to replace lead pipes. Indeed, public housing has suffered from a long period of spending restrictions imposed on local authorities by the Government. That has obviously meant that lead pipe replacement has been reduced to a snail's pace or has ceased.
Housing departments are often in the unfortunate position of having to choose between initiating programmes to eradicate dampness or to replace lead pipes, even though each poses a significant public health risk. In Glasgow 80,000 public sector houses and 81,000 privately owned homes still contain lead plumbing. In Edinburgh the respective figures are 20,000 and 45,000. The rate of local authority grants to private home owners has been small compared with the size of the task. Only 58,000 grants were made throughout Scotland over the six-year period between 1982 and 1988. At that rate of grant allocation, it will be well into the next century before Scotland's private houses are completely rid of lead plumbing.
In the early part of the decade, lead contaminated the tap water of about 35 per cent. of households throughout Scotland, yet there has been no co-ordinated, properly funded programme of remedial action to rid Scotland of lead plumbing. It is typical of the Government to prefer making economic savings rather than paying for a once-for-all solution. Water treatment can provide relief from the higher range of lead levels, but now that higher quality water standards are required to safeguard public health, water treatment no longer provides an attractive, cheaper option.
Additional reductions in lead cannot be achieved through treatment processes. Therefore, to improve the quality of drinking water to a level considered safe, all remedial action programmes must switch to lead pipe replacement.

391
By thinking that they can save money by choosing water treatment instead of lead pipe replacement, the Government are inflicting a double injustice on the public. First, they will have to pay for lead pipe replacement in addition to the money spent on the now redundant treatment facilities. Secondly, the public have been unnecessarily exposed to lead during the time it has taken the Government to be bullied into such effective action.
As the costs involved in partial, as opposed to complete, lead pipe replacement are relatively small, the correct option has to be the final and complete eradication of such lead piping. Instead of action to protect Scotland's public health and produce wholesome, lead-free drinking water, the Government have dragged their feet over implementing the 1980 European water directive, which resulted in Scotland's drinking water failing to achieve a standard of quality by the stipulated deadline of July 1985.
A year later, Friends of the Earth in Scotland sent a letter of complaint to the European Commission, drawing to its attention the long list of actions and standards that the Scottish Office had failed to achieve over the six years since the United Kingdom signed the directive. The Commission has now brought a prosecution against the United Kingdom Government. I compliment the Friends of the Earth in Scotland on authorising a survey that showed a shocking level of lead-polluted water in Scotland and on its initiative in running a pure water campaign for Scotland.
The Friends of the Earth survey does not attempt to provide the detailed analysis for which official agencies and authorities are responsible and which they should be producing. However, in the absence of any other relevant data, the survey provides an estimate of the numbers of people affected by different levels of lead. The Minister, when he replies, will no doubt seek to play down the survey's significance by claiming that the size of the sample is too small and that it is not statistically valid across the whole population. If that is the case, let the Government compare like with like and produce the true figures.
The Government's response to environmental pollution has been piecemeal and confused. They have largely ignored the recommendations of the 1983 Royal Commission on environmental pollution that deals with home improvements and repair grants, as well as publicity. Lead in petrol is a much more controversial debate, yet the Government have acted on petrol but not on the scientifically more proven water problem. Different Government Departments have adopted different recommended standards. While the Minister gallops at a snail's pace towards the 50 micrograms per litre standard, his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recommend a lower safety level of only 30 micrograms per litre. Which is right? I would claim that both standards are inadequate compared with the United States' Environmental Protection Agency's final target of zero lead and its current working target of 10 micrograms per litre.
The Government claim that they are environmentally conscious and Ministers regularly declare, "How green is my policy." Yet here before them is the lead standard test. Will this be another case of mere Government greenwash or will they take real action? The Government have dragged their heels for 10 years over the implementation of current European lead levels, which are now being superseded. The only safe level of lead in water is no lead. Greenwash or action—which is it to be?
11.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) on securing an opportunity to debate the extremely important subject of lead in drinking water in Scotland. As I shall demonstrate, it is an issue that the Scottish Office has tackled effectively, and it will continue to do so. That applies not only to lead in water but to the quality of water supplies generally. We set great store by the quality of Scottish drinking water, and considerable progress has been made over the past decade in improving it where necessary. Further improvement works are necessary to achieve the strict quality standards in the new water quality regulations that we brought into force on 1 May.
It may be helpful it I describe the nature of the problem of lead in water and the particular difficulties that we have to overcome in Scotland. Lead was widely used for water pipes and cisterns in domestic dwellings up to the early 1960s. It is seldom naturally present in water supply sources, and the water put into supply by Scottish water authorities, regional and islands councils contains little lead, if any at all.
As the hon. Member for Angus, East pointed out, some waters—particularly soft, acidic waters—are plumbosolvent: that is to say, they dissolve lead through contact with lead pipes and plumbing systems. There can also be a short-term problem with the lead-based solder used in jointing copper plumbing systems. Plumbo-solvency is a problem in many parts of the United Kingdom, but it has been particularly marked in Scotland because of the nature of our water supply sources.
A second factor is the traditional pattern of housing in Scotland, which is something on which the hon. Gentleman also touched. It is a pattern of high-density, tenement property with a heritage of lead plumbing, particularly in urban areas. Later, I shall describe how that problem has been tackled.
Particular concern about the health implications of lead in drinking water began to develop in the 1970s. At that time, it was considered that a lead level of up to 300 microgrammes per litre was acceptable. As a result of growing concern, a nationwide survey of lead levels in drinking water supplies was undertaken in 1975–76, and the results were published in 1977 as "Pollution Paper No. 12".
In 1978, the use of lead for new pipes was prohibited by byelaws, but its use in that way had already generally ceased many years earlier. In the same year, a number of expert advisory groups were established to examine various aspects of lead in water, including the identification of plumbo-solvent supplies, monitoring procedures, and water treatment processes. Those groups produced four reports on lead in water in 1980–81, and another in 1984.
Additionally, the 1975–76 national survey led to a number of medical studies throughout the United Kingdom in the years that followed. In Scotland, the most significant were undertaken using population groups in Glasgow, Ayr, Dundee and Edinburgh. I will not describe or discuss the details of those studies but I shall highlight some important points.
The Glasgow and Ayr studies confirmed the significant contribution that lead levels in water made to blood lead levels. They also clearly demonstrated that the treatment

393
of water by pH adjustment significantly reduced the lead levels both in drinking water and the blood of the study subjects. The Edinburgh studies undertaken over the past six to seven years have contributed greatly to our knowledge of the health implications of lead, particularly for children.
I emphasise that the Scottish Office has always taken full account of the medical evidence as it has developed over the past 10 years or so, and the medical advice based on that evidence is reflected in the increasingly stringent measures that have been taken to tackle lead in water.
Mr. Welsh: Does not the Minister accept that remedial action will not solve the problem, but only the complete removal and replacement of lead pipes and tanks? It has taken the United Kingdom 10 years to catch up with European standards, which themselves will be made stricter still over the next few years. When will the Minister take action?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the complete removal eventually of lead piping is highly desirable.
It has often been claimed, and as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that little was done to tackle the problem in Scotland before the European Community's drinking water directive came into force in 1985. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have already mentioned the range of medical and other studies that started in the late 1970s, but practical measures were also under way by that time.
The first priority was to reduce quickly and effectively overall exposure to lead in the population. The treatment of water supplies to tackle plumbo-solvency by pH adjustment—and subsequently by orthophosphate dosing if necessary—was clearly the most suitable proven method of reducing lead levels to the benefit of the maximum number of people.Throughput the period up to 1985 the water authorities, encouraged by the Scottish Office, took effective action to improve their supplies by water treatment, particularly those serving major population groups.
For example, Strathclyde region installed lime dosing for the city of Glasgow before 1980—including the Loch Katrine scheme, which alone serves more than 730,000 people. All the major supplies in the region had pH control installed before 1985, by which time more than 70 per cent. by volume of the water supply in the region had such treatment in place. Similarly, all the main works in Lothian had lime dosing installed before 1985 and the main supply to Aberdeen was treated from 1978. The supplies to Dundee and most other areas of Tayside region had pH control before 1982.
It is clear that the problem was recognised and effective action undertaken in the main population areas in Scotland in the late 1970s and early 1980s. However, in 1983 the Government initiated surveys in all the water authority areas to identify all supplies at which remedial works were necessary. The survey results showed that, in 1985, 103 supply areas—many of them small and rural—should be treated. I should emphasise that, even within these areas, only a fairly small proportion of the population might have tap water with a lead content above the prescribed level. Of these 103 supplies, 86 were scheduled for completion by the target date of the end of
394
1989. Of the other 17, representing about 16 per cent. of the 103 supplies that needed treatment, 16 are in Strathclyde and one serves part of Edinburgh. Twelve schemes, including that in Edinburgh, are due to be completed this year, four are due for completion next year and the last, which is a major scheme involving work other than lead, is due for completion in 1992.
As the hon. Gentleman may know, it is these 17 supplies which form the basis of the application to the European Court of Justice alleging non-compliance with the lead standard in the drinking water directive. Perhaps I should say something about the case which the European Commission has raised in the court, alleging non-compliance by the United Kingdom on a number of counts related to the drinking water directive, including lead in water in Scotland. It is our strong view that the Commission's application is misconceived. It certainly does nothing to reduce the amount of lead in drinking water. Considerable progress has been made in tackling the problem, and we have made strenuous efforts over the years both to satisfy the Commission's information requirements and to reach agreement on the timetables for improvement works. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom will be mounting a robust defence to the Commission's allegations on lead and, indeed, on the other issues before the court.
The work undertaken by the water authorities to improve their supplies by treatment over the past 10 years or more represents major progress in reducing levels of lead in drinking water, but that is not all that has been done. The Scottish Office recognised that the long-term solution to the problem of lead in water was the removal of lead piping, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. The water authorities have for many years been replacing their lead communication pipes between the mains and individual properties when it is possible to do so in the course of other works and when house owners are replacing their own lead pipes. The authorities are now obliged by statute to replace their pipes at the request of a consumer who is replacing his lead pipe when there is a risk of the lead standard being breached at the consumer's tap. In 1982 the Government also extended the housing repairs grant scheme to include grant assistance specifically aimed at tackling lead in water.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. I propose to answer the point clearly made by the hon. Gentleman.
Grants became available for the replacement of domestic lead plumbing under more favourable conditions compared with other repair grants. At the outset, the rate of grant was pitched at 90 per cent. for a temporary period in common with the other categories of repair grant, but when the general rate reverted to 50 per cent. in 1984 the Government held the rate for lead pipe replacement at 75 per cent. in recognition of this particular problem. Between 1982 and 1989, nearly 67,000 such grants were made to owners in the private housing sector in Scotland. In the same period, some 475,000 dwellings were improved by public sector agencies, such as local authorities, Scottish Homes, the Scottish Special Housing Association and New Towns, and by housing associations, and many of these dwellings will have had lead plumbing replaced as part of the overall improvement works.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to develop what I am saying, as I have a lot to say. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to speak later when I have got through my key points.
The steps taken by the water and housing authorities are sound, positive measures to tackle the lead in water problem, but we are not content to leave it at that. The new water quality regulations which came into force on 1 May introduce a tighter quality standard on lead than is required by the EC drinking water directive. The water authorities will have to reassess their water supplies in the light of the new standard by the end of 1991 and, where necessary, improve their treatment works to meet that standard by 1995.
The new regulations also implement the Government's long standing policy of reducing exposure to lead in the environment and the recent medical advice that it is prudent to continue to reduce such exposure. Regulation 24 places a new requirement on water authorities, whenever there is a risk that the lead standard may be exceeded because of lead dissolved from consumers' pipes, to treat the water in most circumstances in order to eliminate the risk or reduce it to a minimum. This provision is expected to bring about treatment of water to reduce plumbo-solvency in many areas which are not covered by improvement programmes designed to meet the less rigorous standard set in the EC directive.
The Scottish Office has played its part in this, and has demonstrated its commitment to improving the water environment generally, by increasing capital expenditure for water and sewerage programmes by 50 per cent. in recent years, from £95 million in 1985–86 to £142 million in this financial year. Expenditure is set to rise even further to £170 million next year and to £190 million in 1992–93. In setting these substantial increases, we took into account the possibility that the water authorities would need to carry out further treatment to reduce plumbo-solvency to meet the new lead standard.
I was interested to read in The Scotsman of 21 April a report which quoted Mr. Roger Mullin, the SNP's environment spokesman, as saying that, according to local authority estimates, £800 million was needed to improve water and sewerage over the next five years. This was claimed to be £300 million more than the Government were prepared to spend. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are allocating more than £500 million over only three years and are therefore well on the way to exceeding the figure quoted by the SNP. If that rate of £500 million over three years was carried forward, it would be over £800 million, but we plan for only three years at a time.
The hon. Gentleman may also be interested to know that I met representatives of COSLA's water committee
396
last Friday to discuss expenditure on water and sewerage. I listened very carefully to what they had to say, and assured them that their views will be fully taken into account when we set capital allocations for future years.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have also asked the local authorities, Scottish Homes and the new town development corporations to estimate the number of public and private sector houses which contain lead plumbing, and the cost of replacing it. This information should provide a more accurate assessment of the scale of the problem and inform our consideration of what further steps might be taken to reduce exposure to lead in water. When all the returns are received, we will be collating arid publishing the results.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: When?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We shall get on with this as soon as possible, because it is extremely important.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the survey and report on lead in water by Friends of the Earth (Scotland). A copy of the report was sent to me, and I have today sent a full reply to the Friends. I should be happy to provide a copy to the hon. Member. However, the report reveals considerable ignorance and misunderstanding of the issues involved. In addition, the Friends' survey is so seriously flawed that no reliable conclusions can be drawn from it.
I am pleased to say, however—this is to its credit—that there is much about which we can agree in the Friends' 10-point programme for action. Indeed, the Government have implemented seven of the action points, and the other three were already under active consideration.
Mr. Welsh: Instead of attacking the Friends of the Earth, will not the Minister accept that the authorities were involved? At least the Friends of the Earth produced figures. In 10 years, the Government did not get round to producing the figures on which positive decisions could be taken. Five years have passed since the European deadline was reached, and only now are the Government producing the figures. They should have done so long ago.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have made it clear that we are implementing seven of the action points and that the other three are under active consideration. I can respond at length on the figures.
To sum up, the Scottish Office has always recognised the health implication of lead in water. We have taken practical and positive steps to tackle the problem in the light of the developing medical evidence and advice. We are certainly not complacent in any way. We are actively considering what further measures we might take. We shall certainly go ahead as quickly as possible. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for initiating the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at 12 o'clock midnight.

PRIME MINISTER

  Renault (Subsidies)
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the refusal of the French Government to obey the instruction of the European Economic Community Commission on the reclaiming of substantial sums provided to messrs Renault; and if she will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding reply 22 May 1990]: I understand that the Commission made a decision on this case yesterday. I do not know what the considered response of the French Government will be. We will continue to watch the case closely.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Risks
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has made any assessment of the fire risk among the homeless people living in cardboard boxes.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has conducted any studies on the risk of fire to people living in cardboard boxes.

  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to deal with the fire risk in cardboard cities.

  Mr. John Patten
  Assessment of all fire risks is a matter for the professional judgment of chief fire officers. Their contingency plans take into account the risk presented by makeshift habitations and operational arrangements are adjusted to meet any new circumstances.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the full time and part time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when the appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Waddington
  The available information is published by the Cabinet Office in "Public Bodies 1989", a copy of which is in the Library. The dates when these appointments are due for renewal are subject to change, and are not held centrally.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how may staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.
  172
  Mr. Waddington
  The table below sets out Home Office staff by region as at 18 May 1990:

  Numbers

  Per cent

  London region

  11,125

  26·6

  Rest of South-East

  7,684

  18·3

  South-West

  2,981

  7·1

  East Anglia

  1,980

  4·7

  East Midlands

  3,086

  7·4

  West Midlands

  3,116

  7·4

  North-West

  4,936

  11·8

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  3,528

  8·4

  North

  2,202

  5·3

  Wales

  943

  2·3

  Northern Ireland

  48

  0·1

  Scotland

  239

  0·6

  Total

  41,868

  100

  Note: Part-time staff have been counted as whole units.

  Charity Commission
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any changes will be made to the Charity Commission cash limit and running cost limit for 1990–91.

  Mr. John Patten
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the revised estimate, the cash limit for the Charity Commission's vote (class IX, vote 5) has been reduced by £4 million from £18,302,000 to £14,302,000. This is the result of a new office building being acquired by lease rather than by freehold purchase, as originally proposed. The Commission's running costs limit has been increased by £10,000 from £13,404,000 to £13,414,000. The increase represents part of the cost of a management consultant appointed to co-ordinate a comprehensive programme of change within the Commission. The full cost will be recouped by a contribution from the private sector and by other offsetting savings.

  IBA Transmissions System
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the payment of preliminary expenses in respect of the sale of the Independent Broadcasting Authority transmissions system is being financed.

  Mr. Mellor
  Parliamentary approval for this service has been sought in the supply estimates for 1990–91. Pending that approval urgent and necessary expenditure estimated at £281,000 will be met by a repayable advance from the contingencies fund.

  Private Security Firms
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any plans to introduce statutory minimum training standards for employees of private security firms; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no such plans at present. As part of the Training Agency standards programme, representatives from the security industry and users of security industry services are working together to develop training standards and related national vocational qualifications. In addition, the British Standards Institute is developing a British standard
  173
  code of practice for the operation and management of manned security services, which will include and specify requirements for the training of staff.

  Pornography
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the review of the academic research into the links between pornography and sexual crime, announced in January, has been completed; and when he expects that the review will be published.

  Mr. Mellor
  Good progress is being made. We hope the report will be published in the autumn.

  Young Offenders (Sentencing)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list by year for the last 10 years and by(a) sex and (b) ethnic group the number of children committed under section 53; and if he will make a statement.

  (2) if he will list by year for the last 12 months for which he has figures and by (a) sex and (b) ethnic origin, the offences committed by children detained under section 53.

  Table B

  Receptions1 into prison service establishments in England and Wales of offenders detained under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933: by sex, offence and ethnic origin, 1988

  Ethnic origin

  Offence Group

  White

  West Indian, Guyanese

  Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi

  Chinese, Arab, Mixed origin

  Other not recorded (inc. refusals)

  All persons received into Prison Service establishments

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  M

  F

  Violence against the person

  37

  2

  9

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  50

  2

  Sexual offences

  11

  —

  2

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  —

  Burglary

  29

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  31

  —

  Robbery

  34

  6

  13

  —

  3

  —

  2

  —

  2

  —

  54

  6

  Criminal damage

  3

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  —

  Drug offence

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Other offences

  23

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  26

  1

  Offence not recorded

  4

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  —

  Total

  142

  9

  28

  —

  9

  —

  6

  —

  2

  —

  187

  9

  1 Including detainees transferred from non-Prison Service establishments.

  Prisoners (Deaths)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the ethnic origin of those prisoners who died at prison service establishments between 1 January 1989 and 31 March 1990.

  Mr. Mellor
  Between 1 January 1989 and 31 March 1990, 103 inmates died at prison service establishments. Their ethnic origin was as follows:

  Numbers

  White

  89

  West Indian

  7

  Indian

  3

  Pakistani

  2

  African

  2

  174
  Mr. John Patten
  The number of defendants ordered to be detained under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 is given in table A below for the years 1979 to 1988. Data are not available by ethnic origin for orders made by the court. However, for recent years ethnic origin is recorded for receptions to prison service establishments. An analysis for receptions of offenders detained under section 53 is given in table B. To produce such tables for earlier years would involve disproportionate cost.

  Table A

  Defendants ordered to be detained under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 England and Wales

  Year

  Males

  Females

  1979

  75

  4

  1980

  80

  5

  1981

  82

  6

  1982

  112

  2

  1983

  84

  1

  1984

  116

  5

  1985

  164

  8

  1986

  166

  6

  1987

  169

  4

  1988

  188

  11

  Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many scientific staff are employed at the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory; and how many were employed at the laboratory in each of the preceding three years.

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

  Scientific staff employed

  30 April 1987

  206

  30 April 1988

  203

  30 April 1989

  207

  30 April 1990

  215

  Orange Badges
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding outlawing display and use of the orange badge by anyone other than the holder of the badge.
  175
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State met a delegation from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, led by the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), on 24 April to discuss this subject. We are considering carefully the representations which were made at the meeting.

  Police Stations (Prisoners)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for the counties of Yorkshire and Humberside for the latest date for which he has figures(a) the police stations that are holding inmates from prisons because of a shortage of detention space, (b) the number they are holding and (c) from which prison they were transferred.

  Mr. Mellor
  On Friday 18 May 1990 there were 155 prisoners held in police stations in Yorkshire. No prisoners were held in Humberside police stations. Not all of these currently held in police stations were at Her Majesty's prison Manchester at the time of the disturbance, but they would have been accommodated in Manchester prison but for the loss of accommodation there.

  Details of the number of prisoners held in each police station in Yorkshire are as follows:

  Police Station

  Number of Prisoners

  Holmfirth

  6

  Morley

  7

  Halifax

  13

  Weetwood

  5

  South Kirby

  8

  Huddersfield

  13

  Dewsbury

  10

  Sheffield

  29

  Doncaster

  23

  Barnsley

  14

  Rotherham

  16

  York

  11

  Electronic Tagging
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of electronically tagged offenders have breached the conditions of their sentence; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  The electronic monitoring trials involved defendants on bail and not sentenced offenders. As at 16 May the number of defendants who have breached their conditions of bail was as follows:

  Total Monitored

  Breaches

  50

  28

  Electronic monitoring of itself cannot prevent breaches of bail, which are also committed by defendants on bail subject to other conditions, but it does enable even minor breaches to be swiftly detected and recorded.

  Police (Firearms)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by individual police force in the United Kingdom, how many officers are authorized 176
  to carry firearms on routine patrols while (a) on foot, (b) in a patrol vehicle, (c) horse mounted, (d) in the air and (e) on other patrol.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Details of the number of authorised firearms police officers in England and Wales on 31 December 1989—the latest date for which information is readily available—is contained in the table.

  Numbers of authorised firearms officers by force area as at 31 December 1989

  Number

  Avon and Somerset

  110

  Bedfordshire

  37

  Cambridgeshire

  45

  Cheshire

  95

  Cleveland

  66

  City of London

  101

  Cumbria

  125

  Derbyshire

  98

  Devon and Cornwall

  141

  Dorset

  68

  Durham

  84

  Essex

  155

  Gloucestershire

  66

  Greater Manchester

  194

  Hampshire

  126

  Hertfordshire

  91

  Humberside

  92

  Kent

  193

  Lancashire

  191

  Leicestershire

  100

  Lincolnshire

  86

  Merseyside

  135

  Metropolitan

  2,552

  Norfolk

  110

  Northamptonshire

  70

  Northumbria

  159

  North Yorkshire

  183

  Nottinghamshire

  126

  South Yorkshire

  153

  Staffordshire

  55

  Suffolk

  100

  Surrey

  65

  Sussex

  198

  Thames Valley

  264

  Warwickshire

  55

  West Mercia

  103

  West Midlands

  140

  West Yorkshire

  185

  Wiltshire

  96

  Dyfed Powys

  46

  Gwent

  40

  North Wales

  67

  South Wales

  145

  Total England and Wales

  7,311

  The issue of a firearm to an authorised firearms officer requires the further authority of a senior officer. This is given only where there is reason to suppose that the officer may have to face a person who is armed or otherwise so dangerous that he could not safely be restrained without the use of firearms; or for the destruction of dangerous animals.

  Shop Opening Hours
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to introduce legislation to remove restrictions on small shopkeepers' opening hours; and if he will make a statement.
  177
  Mr. Mellor
  So long as opinions differ widely on the subject of Sunday trading, the Government have no plans for early legislation to reform the Shops Act 1950.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Provision of Services
  Mr. Page
  To ask the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the Commission is taking to improve the machinery for the provision of services to hon. Members and the House.

  Mr. Beith
  The House of Commons Commission has decided to set up a review to examine whether the responsibilities for the management of the House and its facilities, at present divided between itself, the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), the Department of the Environment and the Leader of the House, can be brought together with a view to ensuring that so far as possible there is a co-ordinated management and decision-taking structure under the control of the House, which can adequately respond to Members' needs and demands for services, and determine priorities between them.

  Sir Robin Ibbs KBE has been invited to undertake this work and in due course to advise the Commission of his recommendations for change. Members either individually or collectively through the various House Committees and other representative bodies will be consulted during the course of Sir Robin's study, and will be able to make individual representations to him.

  The House will be advised of the outcome of this review, and of any organisational proposals arising therefrom, after Sir Robin Ibbs has tendered his advice to the Commission.

  Food
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many free-range eggs are consumed in the House each week on average; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  An average of 10,000 eggs, all of which are free range, are consumed in the House each week.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many representations he has received from hon. and right hon. Members in the past 12 months concerning the availability of vegetarian and vegan food in the House; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Geoffrey Howe
  The Refreshment Department has received no requests from Members in respect of the availability of vegetarian and vegan food. Vegetarian dishes are, however, provided on the menus of all outlets in the House; and it is understood that the Refreshment Department responds sympathetically to specific requests for other specialised menus.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Legal Services
  Mr. Stott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has yet made a decision on whether to create authorised practitioners and licensed conveyancers 178
  in Northern Ireland along the lines laid down in the Administration of Justice Act and the Courts and Legal Services Bill in England and Wales; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  We are considering the future framework for legal services in Northern Ireland, including the provision of conveyancing, in consultation with my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. I expect that a policy paper for Northern Ireland will be published in the autumn.

  School Meals
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the number and percentage of free school meals provided; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) how many and what percentage of children took school meals in 1989; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) what is the average price of a school meal; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: At the annual census on a day in October 1989, 155,769 pupils took school meals, 47 per cent. of those present. Of the meals taken 74,416, 48 per cent., were free. The average charge for a fixed-priced school meal is 80p.

  Stevens Inquiry
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date his Department received the report of the Stevens inquiry.

  Mr. Brooke
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: The Chief Constable of the RUC made a copy of the report available to officials in my Department on 11 April 1990.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Population
  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions, for each of the years 1988, 1989 and 1990 have been made to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the United Nations Population Fund and the World Health Organisation's special programme on human reproduction.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The following contributions have been made:

  £'000

  1988

  1989

  19901

  IPPF

  6,000

  6,897

  7,399

  UNFPA

  5,250

  5,500

  6,000

  WHO/HRP

  2,200

  2,200

  2,300

  Total

  13,450

  14,597

  15,699

  1 Pledged contribution.

  Sir Charles Morrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the total expenditure on population activities for each of the years 1989 and 1990; and what percentage this represents of total gross public expenditure on aid for each of the years 1989 and 1990.
  179
  Mrs. Chalker
  In 1989, £17·275 million was spent on population activities: this figure represents 1 per cent. of total gross public expenditure on aid. Figures for 1990 are not yet available. In addition, aid spending on other programmes, including health care and education, especially that benefiting women, helps create the conditions for slowing down the rapid rate of population growth.

  Philippines
  Sir Philip Goodhart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what financial support has been offered to the Government of the Philippines to build a camp for refugees from Vietnam.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have committed £3 million from the overseas aid programme, within the context of the comprehensive plan of action for dealing with Vietnamese refugees, towards the costs of extending an existing camp at Bataan in the Philippines. This facility, which is being supervised by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, is intended to be used as a processing centre for Vietnamese from Hong Kong who are classified as refugees and are en route to resettlement in other countries. Other donors are also expected to contribute towards its costs.

  Overseas Development Administration
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the cash limit for expenditure by the Overseas Development Administration in 1990–91.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on the overseas aid vote (class II, vote 5) will be increased by £30,000,000 from £1,441,654,000 to £1,471,654,000. As I announced on 5 April at column 734, the increase enables provision to be taken for a pledge in support of Zambia's economic reform programme and for an increase in the external financing limit of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the full and part time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information has been provided by the Department to the Women's National Commission for its directory "Women in Public Appointments". The directory is to be published next month and a copy will then be placed in the Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.
  180
  Mrs. Rumbold
  This information is available in "Civil Service Statistics 1988–89, table 3" a copy of which is in the Library.

  Literacy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has, by year for the last 10 years and by local education authority, on the percentage of pupils leaving school who have literacy problems.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Department does not collect statistics on pupils leaving school with literacy problems. The attached tables show, for all LEAs in the regions and the larger LEAs individually, for three years, the percentage of pupils leaving school without a graded result in English.

  Maintained schools in England Percentage of school leavers with no graded result in English

  LEAs

  1977–78

  1982–83

  1987–88

  Avon

  16·3

  11·9

  13·2

  Bedfordshire

  22·2

  18·2

  15·0

  Berkshire

  17·7

  10·5

  10·7

  Birmingham

  28·6

  23·0

  20·5

  Bolton

  29·1

  25·4

  14·7

  Bradford

  32·1

  23·3

  28·5

  Buckinghamshire

  15·1

  8·3

  10·4

  Cambridgeshire

  22·9

  17·2

  10·3

  Cheshire

  22·8

  18·7

  13·7

  Cleveland

  18·5

  15·2

  19·4

  Cornwall'

  22·8

  13·0

  14·9

  Coventry

  20·8

  18·0

  16·1

  Cumbria

  17·3

  15·7

  13·5

  Derbyshire

  23·3

  16·1

  14·7

  Devon

  21·7

  12·2

  11·3

  Doncaster

  24·2

  21·2

  21·0

  Dorset

  18·1

  10·7

  9·8

  Dudley

  25·7

  13·6

  12·1

  Durham

  20·4

  19·0

  17·6

  East Sussex

  20·3

  17·2

  11·8

  Essex

  19·6

  15·0

  13·5

  Gloucestershire

  20·3

  11·6

  11·3

  Hampshire

  20·7

  12·1

  12·4

  Hereford and Worcester

  21·5

  13·5

  12·7

  Hertfordshire

  15·5

  14·4

  14·6

  Humberside

  23·5

  20·3

  14·5

  Inner London

  31·6

  27·3

  28·0

  Kent

  22·1

  12·8

  15·6

  Kirklees

  23·2

  15·9

  21·0

  Lancashire

  23·3

  19·8

  18·3

  Leeds

  24·2

  17·7

  20·1

  Leicestershire

  25·5

  18·6

  18·1

  Lincolnshire

  18·5

  11·7

  13·8

  Liverpool

  27·9

  26·8

  34·2

  Manchester

  28·2

  32·1

  39·1

  Norfolk

  27·4

  22·1

  19·1

  North Yorkshire

  18·0

  14·0

  14·9

  Northamptonshire

  23·6

  13·0

  17·1

  Northumberland

  15·6

  8·1

  12·7

  Nottinghamshire

  28·1

  14·3

  13·0

  Oxfordshire

  19·3

  9·6

  11·8

  Rotherham

  23·8

  18·6

  17·1

  Sandwell

  35·1

  23·4

  21·5

  Sefton

  18·9

  17·3

  19·6

  Sheffield

  13·8

  17·1

  17·0

  Shropshire

  25·2

  13·6

  14·7

  Somerset

  24·8

  13·6

  8·9

  Staffordshire

  32·8

  18·0

  15·9

  Stockport

  22·8

  15·6

  15·6

  Suffolk

  28·6

  18·9

  13·4

  Sunderland

  21·4

  14·1

  19·0

  Surrey

  16·1

  10·1

  9·3

  Wakefield

  30·8

  23·8

  21·5

  Walsall

  33·1

  20·7

  19·9

  Warwickshire

  20·2

  9·2

  14·2

  181

  LEAs

  1977–78

  1982–83

  1987–88

  West Sussex

  15·8

  8·9

  7·3

  Wigan

  23·9

  15·8

  11·6

  Wiltshire

  18·6

  10·3

  13·1

  Wirral

  18·6

  15·5

  20·6

  Regions

  North

  19·1

  14·8

  16·5

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  23·4

  19·1

  18·6

  North West

  24·8

  21·2

  20·3

  East Midlands

  24·4

  15·1

  15·1

  West Midlands

  27·3

  17·3

  16·2

  East Anglia

  26·4

  19·5

  14·7

  Greater London

  25·0

  20·4

  20·1

  Other South East

  19·0

  12·7

  12·5

  South West

  19·9

  11·9

  11·9

  Total

  22·9

  16·7

  16·2

  1 Including the Isles of Scilly.

TRANSPORT

  British Rail
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss issues regarding rail transportation in Britain and the implications of 1992; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I met the chairman of British Rail on 22 May, when we discussed a variety of railway matters. The single market will present opportunities for rail in Europe, and the Government support policy initiatives by the Commission to increase the competitiveness of the railways.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Atkins
  16,560 staff are employed by the Department of Transport and its executive agencies. The regional breakdown of this total is as follows:

  Numbers

  London area

  3,810

  South East

  2,270

  South West

  1,180

  East Anglia

  320

  East Midlands

  560

  West Midlands

  810

  North West

  860

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  700

  Northern

  440

  Scotland

  750

  Wales

  4,830

  Northern Ireland

  30

  16,560

  Figures derived from computerised staff records and rounded to nearest 10.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the full-time and part-time appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when the appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Atkins
  The majority of the appointments for which my right hon. Friend is responsible are listed in either "Public Bodies 1989" published by HMSO or "Women into Public Appointments" produced by the Women's National Commission. A copy of the former is available in the Library of the House, and an up-to-date version of the latter will be available there in June. The appointments which are not listed in either document are:

  Acting conservator of the River Mersey (£6,755 per annum).

  Delegate to the Central Rhine Commission (unpaid).

  Chairman and members of the honorary medical advisory panel on driving and diabetes (unpaid).

  Chairman and members of the honorary medical advisory panel for driving and disorders of the nervous system (unpaid).

  Chairman and members of the honorary medical advisory panel on driving and cardiovascular disorders (unpaid).

  The further information sought by the hon. Member could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Peat
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department intends to replace the use of peat with refuse-derived humus in major landscaping projects.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department is undertaking trials with alternatives to peat for tree planting. Refuse-based products have so far been rejected because of contamination. If a better formulation can be offered my Department will test it.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many tonnes of peat his Department uses in landscaping programmes each year;

  (2) how many tons of peat his Department uses each year.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department used 7,500 tonnes of peat-based composts in connection with tree and shrub planting in the 1989–90 planting season.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he received Eurorail's proposals for a high speed channel tunnel rail link; and when he proposes to publish his response to them.

  Mr. Freeman
  A report was received on 2 April on the work Eurorail and British Rail have done together since November 1989, together with financial projections for a joint venture to finance, own and operate international rail passenger services. My right hon. Friend received a presentation from BR and Eurorail on 19 April. The proposals are complex and require careful consideration, but I hope that an announcement can be made shortly.

  TGV Atlantique
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his reply of 17 May, which Ministers currently in his Department visited the TGV Atlantique route in France; and what were the dates of their visits.

  Mr. Freeman
  My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic visited the TGV Atlantique on 4 April 1990. My hon. Friend the then Minister for Public Transport, now the Minister for Local Government and Inner cities, visited the project on 20 June 1989.

  Bus Deregulation
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent reports he has received as to the impact of deregulation on the use of buses.

  Mr. Freeman
  The transport and road research laboratory have produced a wide range of reports on the impact of bus deregulation, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what studies his Department has carried out on the effect of bus deregulation in town centres affected by traffic congestion.

  Mr. Freeman
  Immediately after deregulation, the tranport and road research laboratory carried out an extensive research programme into the effects of deregulation. Copies of its reports are available in the Library.

  South Essex Transport
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to respond to the report "South Essex Transport—A Preliminary Report," sent to him by the hon. Member for Billericay in April.

  Mr. Atkins
  I am considering the report and will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Aviation Safety
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange for a public inquiry into aviation authorities and passenger safety following investigations in the United States regarding the bombing of Pan Am flight 103.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The disaster itself is already the subject of a major police investigation, which covers the handling of the flight at Heathrow, including the aviation security aspects. The air accident investigation branch is investigating the immediate cause of the crash, and the Lord Advocate has announced that it is his view that a fatal accident inquiry should be held into the circumstances of the Lockerbie disaster deaths. In such an inquiry the sheriff is required to make findings as to the cause of the accident and any reasonable precautions whereby the deaths and accident might have been avoided, so far as they have been established to his satisfaction. Since the disaster, the Department has carried out a thorough review of its aviation security requirements, and a number of far-reaching improvements have been introduced or are in train. In addition the Transport Select Committee has 184
  examined airport security in the light of the disaster and published a very full report. In the circumstances, I do not consider any further inquiry to be necessary.

  Radioactive Material Transport
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those ports which in 1989 were used for the import or export of radioactive material.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Department does not collect data of the kind requested.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether passenger ferries are permitted to carry nuclear fuel, and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The carriage of spent nuclear fuel on passenger ferries is permitted within the conditions prescribed for such transport in the international maritime dangerous goods code.

  Oil Pollution
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many oil-carrying vessels are not registered in a state which is a signatory to the international convention on civil liability for oil pollution damage, navigate the English channel each year.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  There are no mandatory requirements for oil tankers to report their passage through the English Channel to United Kingdom authorities; the information requested is not therefore available. However, if a laden tanker not registered in a state signatory to the civil liability convention spills oil and causes damage to the United Kingdom or United Kingdom interests, compensation for pollution, including clean-up costs, can be obtained under the convention on the establishment of an international fund for compensation for oil pollution damage 1971 and the 1976 protocol thereto, to which the United Kingdom is a signatory. This compensation fund is financed by the major oil importers in member states.

  London Underground
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his Department's assessment of the need and urgency of(a) new underground lines and (b) extension of existing lines to solve peak hour passenger congestion in London.

  Mr. Freeman
  I refer the hon. Member to the report of the central London rail study published in January 1989, a copy of which is in the Library, and to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) on 16 November 1989, concerning the central and east London rail studies, at columns 398–99.

  Rural Land Loss
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for each of the last 10 years the number of acres of rural land that has been lost to road schemes.

  Mr. Robert Atkins
  I regret that the information requested cannot be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Lorry Accidents
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the accident rate per lorry mile travelled within the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Atkins
  In 1988, goods vehicles with unladen weight of 1·5 tonnes or more were involved in 13,219 accidents involving personal injury in the United Kingdom. Total traffic for the same class of vehicle was around 27·4 billion vehicle-kilometres, giving a rate of roughly one injury accident for every 2 million vehicle-kilometres. Information on non-injury accidents is not available.

  Motorcyclists
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department is currently conducting, or intends to conduct, into the use of daytime motorcycle headlights as a conspicuity aid.

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: The transport and road research laboratory has conducted a considerable amount of research into motor cycle conspicuity, with regard to both running lights, and to the riders' clothing. The results of this research have been reported in TRRL report LR1137 and, most recently, in a paper to the 1990 Society of Automobile Engineers conference.

  I am sending a copy to the hon. Member.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Antarctica
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's responsibilities in respect of the environmental protection of Antarctica.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for environmental aspects of the Antarctic treaty system. These include the agreed measures for the conservation of Antarctic fauna and flora, the convention for the conservation of Antarctic seals, the convention for the conservation of Antarctic marine living resources, the convention on the regulation of Antarctic mineral resource activities and a large number of recommendations adopted under the Antarctic treaty.

  Public body

  Number of appointments

  Full/part time

  Salary

  Renewal date

  Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine

  2

  Part-time

  Nil

  March 1992

  Imperial War Museum (Board of Trustees)

  2

  Part-time

  Nil

  1991 and 1993

  British Council Board

  2

  Part-time

  Nil

  Indefinite

  Imperial College of Science and Technology (Governing Body)

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent

  Great Britain China Centre

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent

  Great Britain East Europe Centre

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent

  Great Britain USSR Association

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent Observer Status

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  10

  Part-time

  Nil

  Various dates between October 1990 and February 1992

  Universities China Committee

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent

  School of Oriental and African Studies (Governing Body)

  3

  Part-time

  Nil

  1 August 1991, 2 August 1995

  186
  The Department of Education and Science provides funds to assist the British Antarctic Survey with waste disposal and environmental management at its existing bases, with the clean-up of abandoned sites and to safeguard the environment at Rothera point where the airstrip is under construction.

  The Department of the Environment has a general responsibility for ensuring that environmental factors are given full weight.

  East Germany
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the East German authorities to enable British passport holders to visit East Germany without the necessity of obtaining a visa.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Officials are now negotiating the text of a reciprocal visa abolition agreement with the embassy of the German Democratic Republic.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (diplomatic wing and ODA) has 7,853 staff on its establishment. Of these, 5,109 are employed in the United Kingdom and 2,744 overseas.

  The United Kingdom staff are divided between the south-east (including London) 4,582, and Scotland 527. Of the staff in the south-east, approximately 1,600 work outside inner London.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The most recent information available for public appointments for which the diplomatic and aid wings of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are responsible is as follows:
  187

  Public body

  Number of appointments

  Full/part time

  Salary

  Renewal date

  Advisory Board to the Wilson Chair of International Politics: University College of Wales, Aberystwyth

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  November 1992

  Irish Pensions Appeals Tribunal

  2

  Part-time

  Per diem expenses

  Permanent

  Commonwealth Institute: Chairman of the Scottish Committee

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  November 1992

  Commonwealth Institute: Director General

  1

  Full-time

  Salary by negotiation between the public body and individuals concerned

  April 1991

  Commonwealth Institute: Member of Board of Governors

  12

  Part-time

  Nil

  Various dates between June 1990 and May 1992

  Sightsavers

  2

  Part-time

  Nil

  April 1992

  Commonwealth Foundation

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  February 1993

  Diplomatic Service Appeal Boards

  8

  Part-time

  Per diem expenses

  Various dates between January 1991 and September 1992

  Wilton Park Academic Council

  17

  Part-time

  Nil

  Various dates between 1990 and 1992

  Commonwealth Institute Chairman of Board of Governors

  1

  Part-time

  Not salaried, incumbent paid honorarium

  January 1991

  Lloyd Foundation

  1

  Part-time

  Nil

  Permanent (ex officio)

  Advisory Committee on Economic and Social Resources Overseas

  17

  Part-time

  Nil

  1992

  Commonwealth Schools Commission

  15

  Part-time

  Nil

  Various dates between August 1990 and July 1992

  Bureau of Hygiene and Tropical Diseases

  6

  Part-time

  Nil

  Indefinite

  Overseas Service Pension Scheme

  4

  Part-time

  Per diem expenses

  Indefinite

  Indian Family Pension Scheme

  8

  Part-time

  Per diem expenses

  Indefinite

  Institute of Development Studies

  22

  Part-time

  Per diem expenses

  1992

  Developing Countries Trade Agency

  8

  1 full-time, 7 part-time

  Full-time salary by negotiation. Remainder: per diem expenses

  Indefinite

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  7

  Part-time

  Salaries by negotiation

  Various dates in 1990 and 1992

  Crown Agents

  8

  1 full-time

  Salaries by negotiation

  Various dates in 1991 and 1992

  Hong Kong
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the outstanding points in the second report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Session 1988–89, on Hong Kong.

  Mr. Conway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the outstanding points in the second report of the Foreign Affairs Committee on Hong Kong.

  Mr. Maude
  We will publish our further observations on the report at 1530 hours on 23 May 1990.

  Foreign Compensation
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in implementing the Foreign Compensation (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (Distribution) Order 1987.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The Foreign Compensation Commission, which has been assisted in the performance of administrative tasks by Price Waterhouse, will on 1 June begin making final payments from the Russian fund amounting to approximately £28·2 million, representing 24·78 per cent. of the value assigned to a claim, to successful claimants against the fund. Taking into account the two previous interim payments, the total sum paid to claimants from the fund will amount to approximately 188
  £62·4 million, representing 54·78 per cent. of the assessed value of successful claims. The disbursements commencing on 1 June will exhaust the balance in the fund.

CIVIL SERVICE

  Personal Files
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister for the civil service if he has made any changes in civil service departmental procedures on personal files held on members of staff of staff as a result of the Colin Wallace affair.

  Mr. Luce
  No.

  Outside Organisations
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Minister for the Civil Service what was the level of interchange between the civil service and outside organisations in 1989.

  Mr. Luce
  My Department's report on the interchange of staff between the civil service and other organisations in 1989 shows that the number of long-term secondments—that is, those of at least three months' duration—between the civil service and industrial or commercial organisations increased by 24 per cent. in 1989 to 627. There was also an increase—of 6 per cent.—in the number of long-term secondments between the civil service and non-business organisations, of which there were 530 in 1989.
  189
  These figures represent a considerable advance on those for the previous year. They reflect the increased secondment activity generated by the Bridge programme which was launched by my right hon. and noble Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I in March 1989.

  A copy of the 1989 interchange report has been placed in the Library.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the role of his Department in drawing up the statutes for the European bank for reconstruction and development.

  Mr. Ryder
  Her Majesty's Treasury took part in international negotiations to draw up the statutes of the European bank of reconstruction and development, consulting other departments as necessary.

  Taxation (Wales)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the annual amount of direct and indirect taxation raised in Wales.

  Mr. Lilley
  Information is readily available only for income tax and local authority rates. For income tax the information is available only in terms of tax liabilities.

  The income tax liability of residents of Wales in 1987–88, the latest available year, is estimated to have been £1·5 billion. Local authority rates in 1988–89 are estimated to have been £660 million.

  TESSAs
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much he estimates will be saved by the introduction of TESSAs.

  Mr. Lilley
  The estimated direct revenue cost of £200 million for the TESSA scheme in 1991–92 in the Financial Statement and Budget Report is consistent with TESSA deposits averaging some £6 billion for that year. Both estimates are highly tentative.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what expertise Customs and Excise has in determining whether objects may be used for a military purpose.

  Mr. Ryder
  It is not the responsibility of Customs and Excise to decide whether objects may be used for a military purpose, but it is required to consult with the Department of Trade and Industry whenever it considers that objects may require an export licence.

  Electricity and Gas prices
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the likely effect of proposed price increases in the gas and electricity industries on the average household budget.
  190
  Mr. Ryder
  The announced increases in gas and electricity prices for this financial year will add about 0·4 per cent. to the retail prices index once the tariffs have been fully implemented.

  Hammersmith and Fulham Swaps Case
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the Hammersmith and Fulham swaps case on the reputation of the United Kingdom as a financial centre; and if he intends to introduce any legislation to deal with the consequences of the case.

  Mr. Ryder
  Further legal proceedings are outstanding in this case. The Government will need to study the House of Lords judgment very carefully before deciding what, if any, action is required.

  Car Tax
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce a reduction in car tax for new cars fitted with catalytic converters.

  Mr. Ryder
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce a lower rate of car tax for new cars fitted with catalytic converters. European Community rules on emissions will almost certainly make catalysts essential by 1 January 1993 and a tax change for such a short interim period cannot be justified.

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any changes are proposed in the cash limit and running cost limit for 1990–91 for the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Lilley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class XVIII, vote 7 will be increased by £29 million from £1,348,913,000 to £1,377,913,000 and the Department's running cost limit by £25 million from £1,291,363,000 to £1,316,363,000. The change in running costs arises from work consequent on the decision to introduce new arrangements for the taxation of bank and building society interest in 1991–92 and other work necessary to enable the Department to meet its forecast workloads. The change in the cash limit also includes amounts for capital expenditure for computers and accommodation for the new bank and building society interest arrangements partially offset by a consequential reduction in other planned expenditure on computer equipment. This increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  EC Financial Perspective
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the revision of the European Community financial perspective.

  Mr. Ryder
  Under article 12 of the inter-institutional agreement (IIA), a substantive revision of the financial perspective requires a joint decision of the Council and the European Parliament. On 21 May, the Council approved a revision based on texts negotiated by the Presidency and representatives of the Parliament. Final ratification by the Parliament will now be sought.
  191
  The article 12 revision provides for a net increase in the financial perspective of 200 mecu (£147 million) in 1990, 1,225 mecu (£894 million) in 1991 and 1,478 mecu (£1,080 million) in 1992. Around two thirds of the total increase over the period is to accommodate expenditure on assistance to central and eastern Europe. Under the terms of the revision, the amounts set aside for this assistance can be used for no other purpose without a further joint decision by the Council and the Parliament. Most of the remaining increase in the ceilings will be devoted to expenditure on aid to Mediterranean, Asian and Latin American countries; and on completion of the internal market. There is also extra provision for the structural funds in 1991 and for administrative expenditure in 1992.

  The overall net increase for each year is within the contingency margin of 0·03 per cent. of Community GNP specified in article 12 of the IIA. But there is a difference of view in relation to this margin. The Commission and the Parliament believe that it can be reconstituted—ie, used more than once—provided that the overall expenditure ceiling in the financial perspective is within the legally binding ceiling on member states' contributions. The Council, however, believes that the margin is available only once and cannot be reconstituted: it has accordingly declared that it will
  "deem inadmissible any article 12 revision proposal reliant on a partial or complete reconstruction of the margin."

  On this basis, any future article 12 revision would have to be confined within the headroom which remains after the current revision. That headroom totals 895 mecu (£655 million) in 1990, 300 mecu (£220 million) in 1991, 105 mecu (£75 million) in 1992.

  The revised expenditure ceilings in the financial prespective are comfortably within the ceilings on member states' contributions. In 1990, for example, the headroom is equivalent to 0·09 per cent. of Community GNP, or around £11 billion.

  Married Women (Savings)
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the numbers of married women who have savings of(a) under £3,000, (b) under £10,000 and (c) under £16,000.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: Direct estimates of the savings held by married women are not available. Estimates based on a projection of levels of investment income reported in the 1987–88 survey of

  Professionally qualified staff in post as at 30 September 1989 (whole-time equivalents)

  Vacancies for professionally qualified staff (whole-time equivalents) as at 30 September 1988

  Health authority

  Speech therapists

  Occupational therapists

  Physiotherapists1

  Speech therapists

  Occupational therapists

  Physiotherapists1

  Clwyd

  24·3

  35·7

  81·0

  4·0

  6·0

  6·0

  East Dyfed

  15·3

  16·4

  39·6

  —

  6·9

  7·2

  Gwent

  15·4

  48·0

  80·8

  9·3

  16·1

  3·6

  Gwynedd

  11·7

  22·3

  48·6

  0·5

  4·0

  1·3

  Mid Glamorgan

  18·0

  38·6

  70·2

  2·7

  9·7

  10·6

  Pembrokeshire

  5·0

  7·5

  19·3

  —

  3·2

  2·9

  Powys

  8·9

  11·1

  28·2

  1·5

  9·0

  —

  South Glamorgan

  30·8

  75·5

  146·2

  9·0

  14·5

  —

  West Glamorgan

  20·9

  33·3

  70·8

  2·5

  12·4

  9·9

  1Includes remedial gymnasts.

  192
  personal incomes and estimated rates of return are given in the following table. Estimates are subject to a large degree of uncertainty.

  Savings of married women 1989–90

  Savings

  Number of married women (millions)

  Under £3,0001

  8½

  £ 3,000 to £10,000

  4

  £10,000 to £16,000

  ½

  1 Includes no reported savings.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria govern the selection of chief executives of "next steps" executive agencies; and what pay arrangements have been made for these appointments.

  Mr. Ryder
  The first priority in selecting chief executives and other key staff for agencies must be to get the right person for the job. This principle is crucial to the success of agencies. In each case the starting point is to define the job to be done. Then it is necessary to examine what skills will be required for the job; to consider where those skills can best be found; to take account of what is needed to attract, motivate and retain somewone with those skills; and then choose the most appropriate method of selection. Open competition will be considered in every case as a potential means of attracting talented people from inside and outside the service. Pay is usually based on normal civil service arrangements but more is offered if this is necessary to secure the right person. In any case there is usually a significant performance based element. Next Steps is an evolving initiative, and those arrangements will progressively develop.

WALES

  Therapists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for the most recent available date the number of professionally qualified people in post in each health authority area in Wales and the number of vacancies that exist within the same disciplines as(a) speech therapists, (b) occupational therapists and (c) physiotherapists.

  Mr. Grist
  The latest information is given in the table:
  193
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps are being taken to improve training facilities for speech therapists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The question of training provision and training facilities for speech therapists, occupational therapists and physiotherapists in Wales is being considered in the context of the Department's consultation paper "The Health Service in Wales Towards 2000: Manpower Planning, Education and Training", responses to which are currently being considered.

  Private Medical Institutions
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of nursing staff employed in private hospitals, homes and clinics in Wales at the most recent available date; and what was the corresponding number five years previously.

  Mr. David Hunt
  At 31 March 1989, there were 6,389 (4,495·5 whole-time equivalent) nursing staff working in private hospitals, nursing homes and clinics in Wales, of these 2,364 (1,602·7 WTE) had nursing qualifications. At 31 December 1983, the figures were 1,180 (861·7 WTE) and 494 (369·3 WTE) respectively.

  Residential Homes (Closed Circuit Television)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy regarding the use of closed circuit television cameras in public sector and private sector nursing homes and residential homes.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No specific guidance has been issued on the use of closed circuit television cameras in nursing homes and residential homes.

  Health Service Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the criteria used for determining his distribution to district health authorities in Wales of(a) revenue grants and (b) capital allocation; and if he will indicate for each such criterion the weighting which is attached to it.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Revenue allocations to health authorities are historically based on the levels of expenditure on services taken over in 1974. Each year, these allocations are enhanced in respect of recurrent development funds and allowance for inflation. Those recurrent development funds which are earmarked for centrally directed developments are allocated in accordance with criteria that are specific to each category of centrally financed development eg treatment centres, regional services developments, mental health developments, information technology developments etc.

  Other recurrent growth funding is distributed for the discretionary use of authorities and its distribution is weighted in favour of those authorities which are shown by the revenue formula assessment to be below their target shares of available resources. The formula is based on weighted population shares because it is recognised that the demographic factors are the prime determinants of relative need. Target shares are accordingly calculated on
  194
  the basis of the latest estimates of crude population adjusted to reflect age, sex, morbidity, sparsity and seasonal variation as a result of tourism.

  The formula consists of five components for non-psychiatric in-patients, non-psychiatric out-patients, community health services, the ambulance service and accident and emergency services. These components are combined in proportion to the all-Wales expenditure on the five categories of service and the resultant adjusted population shares are compared with the distribution of recurrent revenue resources (net of expenditure on regional and psychiatric services, various other supra-district services and the service costs of medical and dental teaching) to indicate relative under or over-provision.

  The weighting attached to each category of service in the most recent (1990–91) formula assessment is non-psychiatric in-patients 64.48: non-psychiatric outpatients 12.01: community health services 15.70: ambulance services 4.42: accident and emergency services 3.39. These weightings, which derive from the 1988–89 annual accounts, can vary from year to year as they are dependant on annual variations in the level of all-Wales expenditure on these categories of service.

  Capital Resources

  The allocation of capital resources for centrally funded schemes reflects the same sort of criteria as are applied to the respective categories of centrally financed revenue developments. However, health authorities' discretionary capital provision is distributed in accordance with a capital formula. The capital formula is population-based but it also takes into account the distribution of existing NHS capital stock across Wales. It consists of three component: a population based components which takes projected population figures for the next decade and weights them for age/sex, anticipated cross-boundary flow and standardised mortality ratios; a replacement component which takes recurrent revenue allocations as a proxy indicator for capital maintenance and upgrading needs and an equalisation component which reflects the relative capital assets of the respective authorities on the basis of an index of capital stock per capita. These components are combined in the ratio of 25:25:50 to provide the overall capital formula share.

  The objective of both the revenue and capital formulae is to ensure that funds are distributed in a way which leads to a progressive equalisation of resources between authorities. Those authorities shown by the formulae to be relatively less well resourced receive a greater proportional share of discretionary revenue growth and capital funding than those which are relatively better resourced, thereby enabling them to catch up steadily and thus reduce the range of disparity.

  Meningitis
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a table showing the number of cases of meningitis newly diagnosed in Wales in each of the past 10 years, if possible by the various categories of meningitis which are indentifiable.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The available data are given in the following table:
  195

  Notifications of Acute Meningitis to Office of Population Census and Surveys

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  11989

  Meningococcal

  42

  41

  23

  32

  34

  39

  67

  71

  102

  91

  Pneumococcal

  2..

  2..

  6

  4

  7

  7

  9

  6

  9

  12

  Influenzal

  2..

  2..

  12

  19

  13

  11

  28

  29

  34

  41

  Viral

  2..

  2..

  10

  5

  10

  13

  21

  9

  21

  8

  Other Specified

  75

  28

  17

  9

  7

  6

  12

  13

  34

  27

  Other Unspecified

  36

  15

  6

  2

  7

  8

  10

  10

  13

  8

  Sources: 1980–87—Communicable Disease Statistics (Series MB2 Nos. 7–13).

  1988–89—Unpublished figures from Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  1Provisional.

  2..—Not available.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will review the working of his community charge with regard to its application to women's aid refuges; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Guidance on the registration of women in refuges has already been issued to community charge registration officers. If evidence can be provided that Welsh CCROs are generally designating women's refuges for the collective community charge, I will consider whether there is a case for further guidance to remind them of the appropriate criteria for designation.

  District Health Authorities
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what involvement his office has in the appointments of general managers to district health authorities; and whether any changes are proposed.

  Mr. Grist
  Responsibility for appointing a district general manager rests solely with the health authority concerned. While the director NHS Wales is always prepared to give advice and assistance during the selection process, should this be asked for, and has issued guidance to health authority chairmen on the procedures to be followed prior to an appointment being made, the Department has no other involvement in the process.

  No changes in the current arrangements are proposed.

  Urban Aid
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether he will make it his policy to publish the circular setting out the criteria for urban aid applications for 1991–92 in time to allow(a) applicants to draw up considered and well-planned applications, and (b) an early date for decisions so that successful applicants are able to make the best use of grants offered.

  Mr. Grist
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on Monday 21 May at columns 53–57.

  Chemical Waste, Rhymney
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the storage of chemical waste in Rhymney; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Grist
  On 30 March 1990, Rhymney Valley district council, under the provisions of part I of the Control of Pollution Act 1974, licensed Euromet Ltd. to store drummed waste at the Capital Valley industrial park, Rhymney.
  196
  On 3 May, the council revoked the licence, with effect from 26 May, on the grounds that continuation of activities on the site would cause pollution of water. The company has appealed against the council's decision, and under the Act's provisions, the revocation is ineffective pending a decision on the appeal.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Inner City Task Forces
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of the inner city task forces.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Responsibility for inner city task forces rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  The inner city task forces have continued to make good progress in meeting their objectives of securing more jobs and training for local people and encouraging local enterprise. In the financial year 1989–90, task forces committed about £15·5 million—which in turn levered almost £23·5 million from private and public funds—in support of 562 projects. These were expected to generate, or safeguard, over 6,200 jobs, facilitate over 22,000 training places and provide support for 3,584 new and existing businesses. A recent report entitled "Task Forces in Action" outlining progress in individual task forces is available in the Library.

  I announced on 28 February, as part of the Government's action for cities anniversary announcements, that the task forces would be withdrawing from Doncaster and Rochdale; and that new task forces would be opening in Derby and the Wirral. I also extended the existing task force in north Kensington into part of the neighbouring borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; it has now been renamed the west London task force.

  Atlas Steel Foundry
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at what cost he instructed Mr. Heriot Currie to appear in Lord Milligan's court on Friday 18 May in relation to the Atlas steel foundry, Armadale; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  It is not usual practice to disclose fees paid individual counsel in a particular case.

  The Office of Fair Trading has now completed negotiations: William Cook plc have given signed undertakings to the Secretary of State. The undertakings given to the Secretary of State reflect the undertakings given to the Court of Session on 18 May. In relation to the assets of Armadale steel works, they are as follows:
  197"William Cook plc will and will procure that its subsidiaries will:—ensure that no assets of the Armadale Steel Works owned by the Company ("Acquired Assets") are disposed of, and reasonable steps are taken to prevent deterioration of those assets; so far as such assets remain at Armadale Foundry, such reasonable steps shall be taken so far as is consistent with the fact that those assets are no longer in use; in so far as assets are removed from Armadale Foundry, all reasonable steps will be taken to prevent serious damage to the Foundry or to the assets removed or to any other assets;—if the Secretary of State so requires, following an adverse finding by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, return to the Armadale Steel Works any Acquired Assets which have been removed from it;—provide promptly to the Director General of Fair Trading such information as he may reasonably require to ascertain what steps have been taken to ensure that the undertakings above (and other undertakings relating to the business of Lloyds (Burton) Limited) are being fulfilled.

HEALTH

  Community Care
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are his best estimates of the additional costs already to be incurred by local authorities in 1991–92 due to the new legislation on community care.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Our estimates of the financial implications for local authorities of the National Health Service and Community Care Bill are provided in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill. The overall cost of our community care proposals, outlined in the White Paper "Caring for People", is being considered in the current public expenditure survey.

  NHS (Expenditure)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give for each five year period from 1960 to the present the amount spent on the National Health Service, expressing it as(a) a percentage of the United Kingdom domestic product and (b) for each five years the percentage increase over the previous five years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Health Departments' expenditure figures for the United Kingdom are available on a financial year basis only and because of changes in definition it is not possible to produce a consistent run of figures beginning before 1974–75. Figures as requested for the period 1975–76 to 1989–90 are set out in the table.

  Total NHS expenditure (gross) in UK (1989–90 prices)

  NHS expenditure in UK as percentage of UK GDP

  Real terms percentage increase over previous five years

  1975–76 to 1979–80

  £94,074m

  4·8

  1—

  1980–81 to 1984–85

  £110,085m

  5·3

  17

  1985–86 to 1989–90

  £123,735m

  5·1

  12

  1 Figure unavailable.

  Eye Disease
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study his Department has funded into the relationship between age and eye disease.
  198
  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has not funded any specific research into this aspect of eye disease. Nevertheless, the Medical Research Council is funding a considerable amount of research on vision.

  Medicine Imports
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what reports his Department has received of illegal parallel imports of medicines reaching the pharmaceutical wholesaling chain in the United Kingdom since 1 January; from which countries such products originated; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Since 1 January 1990 four reports of illegal parallel imports reaching the pharmaceutical wholesaling chain have been received. All such reports are investigated. Under section 118 of the Medicines Act 1968, details of investigations are confidential.

  King's College Hospital, Camberwell
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether King's College hospital in Camberwell remains interested in forming a self-governing trust.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Yes.

  Sight Tests
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the expected cost of the NOP survey into the volume of sight tests in the first quarter of 1990; and what was the survey method used.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The questions on sight test take-up were included as part of the regular NOP weekly omnibus survey. They were repeated over a five-week period and provided a random sample of some 10,000 adults. The cost of the survey is a commercial matter between the Department of Health and NOP.

  Kidney Transplants
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are awaiting kidney transplant operations; and what measures are being taken to encourage more people to carry donor cards.

  Mr. Dorrell
  According to information provided by the United Kingdom transplant service, the number of United Kingdom patients waiting for a cadaveric kidney transplant on 11 May 1990 was 3,543.

  For details of the measures being taken to improve the availability of donor organs, I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on 5 April, at columns 736–37.

  GPs' Contracts
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the new general practitioners contract will affect provisions for homeless people.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Homeless people have exactly the same rights as others to health services. The improved
  199
  services arising from the GPs' new contract are therefore available to them. The problem is reaching the homeless in the first place and encouraging them to come forward for the services which they need. The new fee payable to GPs who register patients and do a health check should help encourage GPs to register homeless people. Under the reforms in the White Paper, "Promoting Better Health", family practitioner committees are required to assess the health needs of all sectors of their local populations and actively to develop services to meet those needs. In areas where there are homeless people, family practitioner committees and district health authorities need to take account of the special needs of these groups in planning local services. Pilot projects have been funded in City and east London and Camden and Islington FPC areas to assess the needs of the homeless people and to work out the best way of delivering primary care to them. A summary of a Policy Studies Institute report on the projects has been circulated to all FPCs (and to other health and local authorities) so that as similar schemes are considered the lessons learned are shared.

  General Practitioners (Deprivation Allowances)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of deprivation allowances to general practitioners under the terms of the new contract in each family practitioner committee area.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health is he will list for each family practitioner committee area the areas which qualify for low, medium and high deprivation allowances within the terms of the new general practitioner contract.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he has asked family practitioner committees to identify areas of low, medium and high deprivation for the purposes of payments of deprivation allowances under the terms of the new general practitioner contract.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  In introducing deprivation payments for the first time into the general practitioner remuneration system the Government are using the analysis developed by Professor Jarman, professor of primary health care at St. Mary's hospital medical school. His index makes it possible to identify deprived areas by ward according to a score based on key factors such as the level of unemployment, numbers of elderly people living alone and extent of household overcrowding. Family practitioner committees have been supplied with software which will enable payments to be made to general practitioners automatically every quarter by linking patients' postcodes to postcodes in the wards classified as deprived.

  General Practitioners Contract
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the additional payments and allowances for patients from deprived areas within the new general practitioner contract.
  200
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The amounts payable in respect of patients living in areas of deprivation are as follows:

  From 1 April 1990 £ pa

  From 1 January 1991 £ pa

  For each patient resident in an area with a high level of deprivation

  8·50

  8·80

  For each patient resident in an area with a medium level of deprivation

  6·40

  6·65

  For each patient resident in an area with a low level of deprivation

  4·90

  5·05

  These figures represent an increase of 71 per cent., 53 per cent. and 41 per cent. respectively compared to the standard capitation fees.

  Transfusion Centres
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the reply to the hon. Member for Chelmsford, (Mr. Burns),Official Report, 30 April, columns 408–9, which regional transfusion centres have adopted the new arrangements referred to from 1 April.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The south London and south western regional transfusion centres have introduced the new arrangements from 1 April this year. These new arrangements in no way alter the fact that there are no charges for the blood which is freely donated in this country.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Dorrell
  On I April 1990 the number of staff employed by the Department of Health was 5,388. Information on the numbers employed in each of the standard regions is not readily available, although just over one third of the staff are based outside London in various locations throughout England.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the full time and part time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when the appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for approximately 4,600 full and part-time public appointments.

  Details of each of these could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, details of public appointments to bodies sponsored by the Department of Health can be obtained from the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1989". A copy is available in the Library. Details of salaries or fees can be obtained from the same source.

  Meningitis Vaccination
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects meningitis vaccination to be a routine part of the vaccination programme.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Routine vaccination with meningococcal vaccine is not recommended because the risk of meningococcal meningitis is low and, at present, there is no effective vaccine against meningococcal group B organisms which are the major cause of meningococcal disease in this country. However, there is an active programme of research into the development of such a vaccine.

  Meningococcal vaccines effective against serotype A and C organisms are already available. Vaccine is given, in addition to chemoprophylaxis, to immediate family and close contacts of cases of serotype A and C meningitis. The vaccine is also available to those travelling to areas of the world where meningococcal vaccination is required or advisable.

  Full details about meningococcal vaccines can be found in the 1990 edition of "Immunisation Against Infectious Disease", copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Whooping Cough and Meningitis
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have(a) died and (b) suffered serious handicap as a result of (i) whooping cough and (ii) meningitis in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The figures for deaths among children aged 0 to 14 years in England and Wales reported to the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys were as follows:

  Year

  Whooping cough

  Meningococcal infection

  Meningococcal meningitis

  1986

  3

  84

  15

  1987

  4

  95

  17

  1988

  0

  109

  21

  11989

  1

  117

  25

  1provisional.

  The figures for meningococcal meningitis are included within those for meningococcal infection.

  The total notifications for the same period were:

  Year

  Whooping cough

  Meningococcal infection

  Meningococcal meningitis

  1986

  34,695

  1,462

  582

  1987

  14,405

  1,717

  744

  1988

  4,874

  1,876

  864

  11989

  11,066

  1,776

  758

  1 provisional.

  202
  It is not possible to say how many of these have led to serious handicap.

  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the total of Government expenditure on(a) research, (b) promoting and (c) administering vaccines against (i) whooping cough and (ii) meningitis in each of the last four years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has directly funded research as follows:

  Meningitis

  Whooping cough

  £

  £

  1986–87

  16,600

  28,000

  1987–88

  16,600

  28,500

  1988–89

  27,200

  5,200

  1989–90

  12,400

  Nil

  The Medical Research Council, which is funded by the Department of Education and Science, has provided funds for research wholly or partly related to the two diseases as follows:

  Meningitis

  Whooping cough

  £

  £

  1985–86

  27,000

  67,000

  1986–87

  144,000

  137,000

  1987–88

  216,000

  194,000

  1988–89

  161,000

  273,000

  The figure for 1989–90 is not yet available.

  It is not possible to provide figures for promotion or administration relating specifically to whooping cough and meningitis vaccines.

  Centre for Applied Microbiology Research
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether he intends to grant additional exclusive rights to Porton International Limited, the centre for applied microbiology research;

  (2) when he expects to announce a decision on the future of the centre for applied microbiology research;

  (3) when he expects to conclude his review of the public health laboratory service.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have nothing to add to the reply my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 19 April, at column 990.

  Disabled Persons
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many physically disabled persons aged(a) 16 to 24 years and (b) 25 to 64 years are long-stay residents in hospital units or wards or residential care homes; and how many of them are in institutions designated for younger disabled people.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Information is not held in the form requested.

  Immunisation
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the most recent figures for the uptake of measles, pertussis, diphtheria and tetanus, and polio immunisation in each of the countries of the European Community.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: The latest confirmed figures for England are for 1988–89, as follows:

  Per cent.

  Diphtheria, tetanus and polio

  87

  Measles

  80

  Pertussis

  75

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are responsible for the figures in those countries, but I understand that they have each achieved comparable levels to England.

  A programme for more rapid evaluation of immunisation uptake in England is undertaken by the public health laboratory service's communicable disease surveillance centre, and I am pleased to say this indicates that by February 1990 uptake had reached 88 per cent. for diphtheria, tetanus and polio, 85 per cent. for measles and 80 per cent. for pertussis.

  The most recent figures for the other countries in the European Community are as follows:

  Diphtheria Pertussis1 Tetanus

  Polio

  Measles

  Belgium

  95

  97

  50

  Denmark

  88

  100

  82

  France

  96

  97

  41

  Germany (Federal Republic)

  97

  95

  50

  Greece

  83

  98

  82

  Ireland (Republic of)

  45

  90

  63

  Italy

  88

  95

  21

  Luxembourg

  79

  90

  70

  Netherlands

  97

  97

  93

  Portugal

  78

  80

  84

  Spain

  74

  78

  81

  1 Figures for pertussis are not available separately.

  The figures shown in the table are for 1988, except in the cases of France, Germany and Ireland, where figures for earlier years are the latest available. I should also point out that the basis for calculating immunisation uptake varies widely from country to country. The basis used in this country—the number of children immunised by their second birthday against the number of such children resident in the district—is acknowledged to be one of the most reliable and accurate available.

ENERGY

  Acid Rain
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what level of expenditure is planned over the next 10 years to reduce the amount of gases causing acid rain emitted from coal-fired power stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a matter for the industry and will depend on the options used to reduce emissions. However, the industry has stated that it will retrofit flue gas desulphurisation plant to 8GW of existing power stations. This, along with a programme to fit low nox burners to 12 of the largest power stations, will cost around £1·4 billion.

  Peat
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what factors were taken into account in deciding to classify peat as a renewable resource for its review of renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Peter Morrison
  While peat is not a renewable energy source, it is generally considered as an alternative fuel under the generic title Biofuels.

  Within our Biofuels research, development and demonstration programme we are carrying out a limited study on peat as a fuel which is due to be completed this year. The objectives of the work are to examine the characteristics of a range of Scottish peats and also the suitability of several combustion appliances for coal, when used with peat. In addition, my Department is currently considering its future policy towards peat as a fuel in consultation with other interested Departments.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I refer the hon. Member to "Civil Service Statistics 1988–89, Table 3", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Details of appointments for which I am responsible are published annually in "Public Bodies" arid "Women into Public Appointments". "Public Bodies" is available in the Library of the House. The latest edition of "Women into Public Appointments" is to be published next month: a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Mixed Oxide Fuel
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the potential uses of mixed oxide fuel.

  Mr. Baldry
  Mixed oxide fuel can be used in either thermal or fast reactors for generating electricity.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what quantity of fuel stored at Sellafield is awaiting processing; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand from British Nuclear Fuels plc that, at 31 March 1990, the quantity of irradiated fuel from United Kingdom and overseas civil reactors awaiting reprocessing at Sellafield amounted to some 700 tonnes of uranium as spent magnox fuel and some 3,500 tonnes of uranium as spent oxide fuel. Reprocessing of oxide fuel at Sellafield will start in late 1992 when the thermal oxide reprocessing plant is expected to begin commercial reprocessing.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he has any plans to amend the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 so as to bring repositories of radioactive waste within its scope; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Government are well aware of the need to provide for the licensing of radioactive waste repositories and propose to introduce regulations to achieve this at an appropriate time.

  Office of Electricity Regulation
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether any changes will be made to the Office of Electricity Regulation's cash limit for 1990–91.

  Mr. Wakeham
  A supplementary estimate will be sought by the Director General of the Office of Electricity Regulation, who is accountable for this vote.

  Subject to parliamentary approval of the supplementary estimate, the cash limit for class V, vote 8 relating to expenditure by the Office of Electricity Regulation will be increased by £1,500,000 from £10,635,000 to £12,135,000 to provide for slippage of setting up costs from 1989–90 into 1990–91. This increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will detail the numbers of those claiming rebates under the terms of the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information about the number of recipients of community charge benefit will be available in the Autumn of this year and details of the number of claims for community charge benefit will be available in 1991. It is estimated that the average number of community charge benefit cases in Great Britain in 1990–91 will be in excess of 8 million which, since a couple are treated as one benefit unit, equates with about 10 million individuals.

  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning eligibility for community charge rebates.
  206
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) on 28 March at column 204–5. In the two months since that reply, the Department has received a further 985 items of correspondence about the community charge benefit scheme.

  Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Don Valley, on 24 April,Official Report, column 155, if he will list by year for the last 10 years for social security appeal tribunals in the North-East England region, the cost of hearing successful claimant appeals in respect of (a) disablement benefit and (b) mobility allowance; and if he will show in his answer for each category, and by year, how much the successful claimants appeals were worth financially.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The figures quoted are current costs for Great Britain and apply whether an appeal is successful or unsuccessful. The current average cost of a social security appeal tribunal hearing in relation to disablement benefit is £187. The current average cost of a medical appeal tribunal hearing in relation to disablement benefit is £120 in respect of the tribunal alone. The administrative cost of preparing the submission to the tribunal with supporting medical evidence is usually much greater involving as it can the obtaining of consultants' reports. The complexities of each case vary enormously and detailed costings could be supplied only at disproportionate cost but the administrative cost is estimated to be in the region of £700. The current average cost of a social security appeal tribunal hearing in relation to a mobility allowance is £178. The current average cost of a medical appeal tribunal hearing in relation to mobility allowance is £185. I regret that records are not kept of the amount of benefit paid as a result of favourable decisions.

  State Earnings-related Pensions
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide estimates for each of the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 of the percentage of employees contracted out of SERPS.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Government Actuary estimates that for the years 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90 the percentage of employees contracted out of SERPS was 56 per cent., 55 per cent. and 58 per cent., respectively.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the reply of 3 May,Official Report, column 635, about income support deductions for non-payment of poll tax, how many people have had deductions of (a) more than £5 per week, (b) £4 to £5 per week, (c) £3 to £4 per week, (d) £2 to £3 per week, (e) £1 to £2 per week and (f) less than £1 per week.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Deductions from income support in respect of community charge liability are made at one of two rates: either £1·85 in respect of individual liability or £2·75 in respect of the joint and several liability of a couple, both of whom are on income support. The
  207
  information required to break the figure provided in the earlier reply into these categories is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Community Charge
  Mr. Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give details of the number of manual entries made each week by his Department in the administration of the benefit system before 31 March and as a result of extra entries due to the community charge changes, after 1 April.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Details of the number of manual entries made each week by the Department in the administration of the benefit system before 31 March and as a result of extra entries due to the community charge changes, after 1 April, are not readily available and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Social Security Upratings
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the weighted poll tax average of £340 was calculated in the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle, Central on 4 May,Official Report, column 683.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The figure of £340 represents the average over all income support recipients and their partners of the amount appropriate to each individual included in the benefit they receive.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) whether it will be the intention in future social security upratings(a) to announce the poll tax or community charge assumptions made for income support and (b) to take account of the withdrawal of the transitional relief system;

  (2) on what basis it was decided to provide for an assumed community charge or poll tax of £315 for each member of a couple and of £356 for a single person over 25 years in the benefits upratings which came into force in April; and if he will provide an estimate of the cost of providing for an assumed poll tax or community charge for a couple on the same basis as a single person over 25 years;

  (3) on what basis it was decided to provide for an assumed community charge or poll tax of £315 for a single person under 25 years but £356 for a single person over 25 years in the benefits upratings which came into force in April; and if he will provide an estimate of the cost of providing for an assumed poll tax or community charge for single people under 25 years on the same basis as single people over 25 years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As was made clear by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State in October 1988, the adjustment to the income support levels to provide help towards the 20 per cent. contribution to the community charge (and also towards the contribution of 20 per cent. of local authority rates in England and Wales in 1989–90) was made on a once-for-all basis in April 1989. The amounts included became an integral part of the overall benefit rates to be uprated each year as part of the normal uprating.

  The relevant amount for single people under 25 and for couples was £1·15 a head in April 1989. At that time, the rate for single people aged 25 or over already included
  208
  £1·30 a week as assistance towards their contribution to local authority rates, and it was decided not to reduce it. It is these figures which, allowing for the effect of the uprating in April this year, correspond to 20 per cent. of an annual payment of £315 and £356, respectively. The cost of levelling up for all claimants to the higher figure—which would of course exceed 20 per cent. of the average community charge after transitional relief in Great Britain in 1990–91—would be £36 million in a full year.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total number of staff employed in the Department as at 1 April 1990 was 80,892.

  The proportion employed in each of the standard economic planning regions is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Around a quarter of the Department's staff are employed mainly in London, Newcastle and North Fylde; three quarters are employed in the local office network, which is organised into seven regions as follows:

  Region

  Per cent.

  London North

  11·0

  London South

  11·1

  Midlands

  11·5

  North Western

  11·1

  North Eastern

  11·6

  Wales and South West

  9·7

  Scotland

  9·7

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost to the public funds in the current financial year and with retrospective effect to 6 April, of entitling all pensioners who are married or living together to be granted separately a communty charge rebate.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I regret that it is not possible to provide my hon. Friend with the information requested. It is a fundamental principle of the income-related benefit system that married and unmarried couples are assessed together. The wide range of assumptions needed would make any estimate of the additional costs of assessing pensioner couples separately for community charge benefit both arbitrary and uncertain.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, for each month since April 1988, what proportion of decisions on new and repeat family credit claims, respectively, resulted in an award of benefit; how many awards were current at the end of each month; arid what was the total caseload at the end of each month, including subsequent backdated awards.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: The available information is in the table.
  209

  Percentage of family credit decisions resulting in award of benefit

  Family credit awards current at month end

  Family credit caseload at month end (including backdated awards)

  New Claims1

  Renewal Claims1

  Total Claims

  (thousands)

  (thousands)

  1988

  April

  —

  —

  62·5

  194

  2243

  May

  215

  261

  June

  —

  —

  68·4

  236

  282

  July

  —

  —

  68·2

  243

  283

  August

  —

  —

  69·1

  256

  284

  September

  —

  —

  69·4

  242

  281

  October

  —

  —

  71·5

  248

  282

  November

  —

  —

  72·1

  261

  290

  December

  —

  —

  70·3

  255

  285

  1989

  January

  —

  —

  68·9

  250

  279

  February

  —

  —

  70·7

  254

  282

  March

  —

  —

  70·8

  254

  279

  April

  53·8

  88·7

  69·3

  252

  286

  May

  35·4

  86·7

  49·3

  235

  303

  June

  40·0

  86·5

  53·2

  263

  311

  July

  47·8

  86·5

  60·4

  275

  313

  August

  51·4

  86·5

  64·8

  282

  314

  September

  51·6

  86·7

  65·6

  289

  319

  October

  53·1

  84·0

  67·2

  278

  314

  November

  51·6

  82·2

  66·7

  274

  3304

  December

  47·2

  81·4

  62·1

  263

  299

  1990

  January

  46·6

  82·4

  62·6

  266

  299

  February

  50·9

  83·9

  64·7

  278

  306

  March

  50·5

  85·3

  65·0

  282

  —

  April

  52·2

  88·3

  68·2

  281

  —

  1 Separate figures for new and renewal claims not available for the period up to March 1989.

  2 Family credit caseload figures for April 1988 to February 1989 are estimated.

  3 Family credit caseload figures for November 1989 to February 1990 are provisional.

  Mr Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes have been made affecting the number of people entitled to family credit since April 1988; what was the estimated effect of each change; and what is the latest estimate of the number entitled.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer 14 May 1990]: The latest information about the number of families eligible for family credit is derived from a special examination of the family expenditure survey returns for the period April to December 1988 which indicated that at that time about 500,000 employees were eligible for family credit. No information is available about the number of self-employed who are eligible.

  The number of families eligible for family credit at any time depends not only on the levels of the family credit rates but also on levels of net earnings and on family composition which are changing constantly. The increases in the family credit rates in April 1989 and April 1990, which on both occasions were in excess of the inflation rate, and, to a lesser extent, the amendment to the family credit regulations in April 1990 which enable more people in casual or short-term work to qualify would, in isolation, have tended to increase the eligible population; on the other hand, changes to the national insurance contributions in April 1989, October 1989 and April 1990 and to the income tax provisions in April 1989 and April 1990, and general increases in earnings would, in isolation, have tended to reduce the eligible population. But because that population is changing constantly because of these and other factors, the effect of any one change cannot reliably be estimated in isolation. An updated estimate of the overall size of the eligible population (of employees) will be
  210
  possible only when information from the 1989 and, possibly, 1990 family expenditure surveys becomes available.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Whales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recent meeting at Tromso to discuss the international whaling ban.

  Mr. Curry
  We understand the meeting hosted by Norway was attended by Canada, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Iceland and Japan and considered whale and seal research, management procedures and scientific aspects of management questions. The review of the current moratorium on commercial whaling however is to be considered by the International Whaling Commission in July. The United Kingdom will take an active role in that discussion.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has had with his European and Japanese counterparts concerning the preservation of species whales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Japan and Norway are in no doubt as to our view on the need for conservation of whales. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made our position clear when she met the Japanese Prime Minister earlier this year, when I met the Norwegian Minister for trade. We consult other
  211
  members of the European Community with an interest in whaling in the forum of the International Whaling Commission (IWC).

  We shall continue to press strongly the case for the conservation of whales. At the IWC meeting in July we will insist there can be no question of lifting the present moratorium on commercial whaling until the scientific advice is clear that whale stocks can be sustained at healthy levels.

  Eli Lilley
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on what dates since 28 November 1989(a) he, (b) his officials and (c) members of the veterinary products committee have met representatives of Eli Lilley; what matters were discussed; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No such meetings with Ministers or the veterinary products committee have taken place. Officials of the veterinary medicines directorate met representatives of Eli Lilley on 12 December, 31 January and 29 March to discuss matters relating to product licence applications.

  Bovine Somatotropin
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many sites are currently producing milk from cows injected with bovine somatotropin; what is the number of cows currently involved in bovine somatotropin experiments; and what is the quantity of milk collected for sale from cows injected with bovine somatotropin.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that under the terms of their animal test certificates the companies concerned are currently treating 71 cows on three sites with manufactured BST. These cows produce approximately 1,560 litres of milk daily.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the occasions within the last 12 months(a) he, (b) his officials and (c) members of the veterinary products committee have met representatives of Monsanto to discuss bovine somatotropin; what was the nature of these discussions; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies I gave him on 13 December. Additional meetings have been held on ten occasions by officials of the veterinary medicines directorate with representatives of Monsanto to discuss questions of safety, quality or efficacy arising from the company's product licence application.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the nature of recent representations received from the National Farmers Union in respect of bovine somatotropin; and what other recent representations has he received on this subject.

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received no recent representations from the NFU on this subject. I have received a considerable number of representations from others expressing a variety of views.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what other European 212
  Community countries are currently undertaking research into bovine somatotropin, which involves the injection of dairy cows; and which of those countries permit milk from cows injected with bovine somatotropin to be collected and sold unlabelled to the public.

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that companies are currently carrying out such trials in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Milk is collected and sold unlabelled to the public in all of these countries except the Netherlands.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has made an assessment of the implications for the farming industry of the possible introduction of bovine somatotropin; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  No. To produce an assessment of any value would require more detailed data than are yet available, and a variety of assumptions about the commercial application of bovine somatotropin were it to be approved.

  Straw and Stubble Burning
  Mr. Latham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1) whether he will make a statement on his intentions with regard to research projects at his Department's experimental husbandry farms designed to help farmers to adjust to the proposed ban on straw and stubble burning after 1992;

  (2) what research he is currently funding into direct drilling techniques of cultivation suitable for use in fields of unburnt stubble which could be available to farmers after the ban on burning comes into effect;

  (3) what information is to be offered by his Department's advisory service to help farmers who work on heavy clay land, or who use direct drilling techniques, to adjust to the proposed ban on straw and stubble burning.

  Mr. Maclean
  My Department has an extensive research commitment aimed at providing farmers with the best possible advice on handling and cultivation techniques which will help them to adapt to the proposed ban on the burning of crop residues after 1992. The research being conducted on five experimental husbandry farms, in close collaboration with the Agriculture and Food Research Council, covers a wide range of soil types including heavy clay land, and a number of cultivation techniques, including direct drilling. The results of this work are disseminated to farmers by the agricultural development and advisory service through advisory visits, publications, conferences and seminars.

  Ministry Employees
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff are employed by his Ministry; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Curry
  The number of permanent and temporary staff employed by my Department on 1 April 1990 was 10,447.

  The number of staff by standard planning region is as follows:

  213

  Numbers

  Northern

  414

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  614

  North West

  310

  East Midlands

  341

  West Midlands

  827

  East Anglia

  1,163

  South East

  5,079

  South West

  1,151

  Scotland

  198

  Wales

  350

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the cost per capita per person in the United Kingdom(a) of the common agricultural policy and (b) of the annual farm price increases, for each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Curry
  Public expenditure on common agricultural policy measures in the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years has been as follows:

  Financial year

  Total expenditure (£ million)

  Estimated total United Kingdom resident population (million)1

  Expenditure per head (£)

  1980–81

  876

  56·3

  16

  1981–82

  877

  56·4

  16

  1982–83

  1,338

  56·3

  24

  1983–84

  1,618

  56·4

  29

  1984–85

  1,620

  56·5

  29

  1985–86

  2,066

  56·6

  37

  1986–87

  1,396

  56·8

  25

  1987–88

  1,610

  56·9

  28

  1988–89

  1,362

  57·1

  24

  1989–90

  21,222

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Mid-calendar-year population estimates falling within the relevant financial year (source—Office of Population Censuses and Surveys).

  2 Forecast

  The full cost of each annual farm price settlement cannot readily be calculated, as decisions in one year will have effects in each succeeding year.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information he has sought concerning the incidence of spongiform encephalopathy in the United Kingdom among(a) feral mink and (b) farm-bred mink.

  Mr. Maclean
  Transmissible mink encephalopathy has not been recorded in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many post-mortem tests for BSE his Department has conducted on cattle born since 8 August 1988.

  Mr. Maclean
  Four cattle born since 8 August 1988 have been subject to post mortem histopathology for BSE. Of those, three were negative and one result is pending.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the infective agent responsible for bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been found in bovine muscle tissue.
  214
  Mr. Maclean
  Research into the presence of the BSE agent in bovine tissues has not so far found any agent in bovine muscle tissue. Research into sheep scrapie indicates that the agent would not be found in muscle.

  Professor Richard Lacey
  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the library of his Department has any non-scientific or learned publications which contain contributions produced by Professor Lacey during the previous(a) year, (b) five years and (c) 10 years.

  Mr. Curry
  The following is a list of publications with contributions from Professor Lacey and held in the MAFF Library. All items were produced within the last year.

  The Independent

  Free speech 2: The nation's health and the sunday roast: the only logical way to avoid the risk is to change our diet. 24 March 1990.

  The Guardian

  Environment: Milk of unkindness—Professor Richard Lacey has been given clearance under the Official Secrets Act to argue why BST milk should be banned.

  6 October 1989.

  Safe Shopping, Safe Cooking, Safe Eating

  Penguin, 1989.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the library of his Department has copies of any learned scientific papers which have been published by Professor Lacey in the previous(a) year, (b) five years and (c) 10 years; and in what scientific journals they appear.

  Mr. Curry
  The following is a list of journals with contributions from Professor Lacey, which are held in the MAFF Library.

  (a) Published within the last year:

  Applied and Environmental Microbiology

  Evaluation of the mast ID and API 50CH systems for the identification of listeria-SPP.

  With Kerr, K. G.; Rotowa, N.A.; Hawkey, P.M.

  Vol. 56, No. 3, 1990. pp657–660.

  (b) Published within the last five years:

  Bovine Practitioner

  Should veterinarians be allowed to prescribe antibiotics?

  No. 23, 1988. pp 70–73.

  British Medical Journal

  Co-trimoxazole toxicity (letter).

  With Hawkey, P. M.; Deveraj, S. K.; Millar, M. R.; Inglis, T. J.; Godwin, P. G.

  Vol. 291, No. 6493, 1985. p 481.

  Environmental Health

  The enigma of food-borne listeriosis.

  With Kerr, K.

  Vol. 96, No. 10, 1988. pp 7, 9.

  Health Visitor

  Campaigning for safe food (interview).

  Vol. 62, No. 4, April 1989. pp 107–8.

  Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

  Does the protein binding of antibiotics affect their antistaphylococcal activity (letter).

  With Barr, K.

  Vol. 15, No. 6, June 1985. pp 786–7.

  Phenotypic resistance (letter).

  With Heritage, J.; Hawkey, P. M.

  Vol. 16, No. 6, December 1985. p 805.

  Beta-lactam antibiotics increase the frequency of plasmid transfer in staphylococcus aureus.

  215

  With Barr, V.; Barr, K.; Millar, M. R.

  Vol. 17, No. 4, April 1986. pp 409–13.

  Probable chromosal mutation to resistance to all aminoglycosides in staphylococcus aureus selected by the therapeutic use of gentamicin: a preliminary report.

  With Heritage, J.; Settle, J. A.; Lalani, E. N.

  Vol. 15, No. 5, May 1986. pp 571–4.

  Protein binding of anti-staphylococcal antibiotics (letter).

  With Barr, K. W.

  Vol. 17, No. 5, May 1986. p 679.

  Comparison of a slow-release trimethoprim with co-trimoxazole: efficacy and selection of resistance in the enterobacteriaceae.

  With Menon, R., et al.

  Vol. 18, No. 3, September 1986. pp 415–20.

  The mechanism of methicillin resistance.

  Vol. 18, No. 4, October 1986. pp 435–6.

  Epidemiology of antibiotic resistance in staphylococcus aureus.

  With Kruczenyk, S. C.

  Vol. 18, Supplement C, October 1986. pp 207–14.

  Selection of resistance to gentamicin and netilmicin in the foecal flora following prophylaxis for colo-rectal surgery.

  With Heritage, J.; Dyke, G. W.; Johnston D.

  Vol. 22, No. 2, August 1988. pp 249–56.

  Lancet

  Teicoplanin-resistant coagulase-negative staphylococcus (letter).

  With Grant, A. C; Brownjohn, A. M.; Turney, J. H.

  2 (8516) 15 November 1986. pp 1166–7.

  Listeria in cook-chill food (letter).

  With Kerr, K.; Dealler, S. F.

  2 (8601) 2 July 1988. pp 37–38.

  Materno-foetal listeriosis from cook-chill and refrigerated food (letter).

  With Kerr, K. G; Dealler, S. F.

  2 (8620) 12 November 1988. p 1133.

  Letters in Applied Microbiology.

  Listeriosis—the need for legislation.

  With Kerr, K. G.

  Vol. 8, No. 4, 1989. pp 121–2.

  Veterinary Practice

  Understanding antibiotic resistance: Did Swann get it wrong?

  Vol. 17, No. 4, 1985. p 6.

  Veterinary Record

  Should veterinarians be allowed to prescribe antibiotics?

  Vol. 120, No. 16, 18 April 1987, pp 394–6.

  Rarity of tylosin resistance in human pathogenic bacteria.

  Vol. 122, No. 18, 30 April 1988, pp 438–9

  (c) Within the last 10 years:

  British Medical Bulletin

  Antibiotic resistance in staphylococcus aureus and strepococci.

  Vol. 40, No. 1, January 1984, pp 77–83.

  British Medical Journal (Clinical Research)

  Maternal Alpha Facto protein screening 2 year experience in a low risk district.

  With: Standing, S. J.; Brindle, M. J.; MacDonald, A. P.

  Vol. 283, No. 6293, 1981, pp 705–7.

  Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy

  Bacteriophages and spread of resistance in Staphylococcus aureus.

  Vol. 6, No. 5, September 1980. pp 567–8.

  216

  In vitro evaluation of rosaramicin with special reference to the risk of resistance.

  Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1981, pp 293–9.

  Stability of the isoxazolyl penicillins to staphylococci betalactamase (letter).

  Vol. 9, No. 3, March 1982, pp 239–40.

  Treatment of Staphylococcal infections.

  Vol. 11, No. 1, January 1983, pp 3–6.

  Bactericidal effects of cefotetan and other antibiotics in human fluids.

  With: Lord, V. L.; Howson, G. L.

  Vol. 11, Supplement, January 1983, pp 125–32.

  In vitro evaluation of miokamycin: bacterial activity against streptococci.

  With: Lord, V. L.; Howson, G. L.

  Vol. 13, No. 1, January 1984, pp 5–13.

  Bactericidal effects of norfloxacin towards bacteria in urine.

  With: Lord, V. L.; Howson, G. L.

  Vol. 13, Supplement B, May 1984, pp 49–54.

  Treatment of acute urinary infection by norfloxacin or nalidixic acid/citrate: a multi-centre comparative study.

  With: Reeves, D. S.; Mummery, R. V.; Mahendra, M.; Bint, A. J.; Newson, S. W.

  Vol. 13, Supplement B, May 1984, pp 99–105.

  Staphylococci in the UK: a review

  With Keyworth N.; Lincoln C.

  Vol. 14, Supplement D, December 1984. pp 19–25.

  Journal of General Microbiology

  Evidence for two mechanisms of plasmid transfer in mixed cultures of staphylococcus aureus.

  Vol. 119, Part 2, August 1980. pp 423–35.

  Rarity of gene transfer between animal and human isolates of staphylococcus aureus in vitro.

  Vol. 199, part 2, August 1980. pp 437–42.

  Failure of coagulase-negative staphylococci to transfer antibiotic resistance to staphylococcus aureus 1030 in mixed cultures.

  With Fawcett, C. J.; Lord VL

  Vol. 126, part 2, October 1981. pp 507–9.

  Journal of Medical Microbiology

  Antimicrobial effects of trimethoprin and sulphadrine in infected urine and blood.

  With Rogerson, J. G.; Stokes A.

  Vol. 13, No. 1, February 1980. pp 121–32.

  Transfer of gentamicin resistance between cultures of staphylococcus aureus in nutrient broth, semen and urine.

  With Lord V. L.

  Vol. 13, No. 3, August 1980. pp 411–21.

  Sensitivity of staphylococci to fatty acids: novel inactivation

  of linolenic acid by serum.

  With Lord V. L.

  Vol. 14, No. 1, February 1981. pp 41–9.

  Do sulphonamide-trimethoprim combinations select less resistance to trimethoprin than the use of trimethoprim alone?

  Vol. 15, No. 4, November 1982. pp 403–27.

  Lancet

  Laboratory safety (letter)

  With Taylor, C. E.; et al.

  1 (8159), January 12th 1980. p 101.

  Comparison of trimethoprim alone with trimethoprin sulphamethoxazole in the treatment of respiratory and urinary infections with particular reference to selection of trimethoprim resistance.

  1 (8181), June 14th 1980. pp 1270–3.

  Trimethoprim alone (letter)

  2 (8188), August 2nd 1980. pp 256–7.

  New type of beta-lactam resistance in staphylococcus aureus (letter).

  With Lord V. L.

  1 (8228) May 9 1981. pp 1049–50.

  Double-blind study to compare the selection of antibiotic resistance by amoxycillin or cephradine in the commensal flora.

  With Lord, V. L.; Howson, G.L.; Luxton, D. E.;

  Trotter, I. S.

  2 (8349) September 3 1983. pp 529–32.

  217

  Possible selection of beta-lactamase-producing staphylococcus aureus by lysozyme (letter).

  With Millar, M.

  2 (8409) October 27 1984. p 987.

  Evolution of microorganisms and antibiotic resistance.

  2 (8410) November 3 1984. pp 1022–5.

  Medical Laboratory Sciences

  Evaluation of the measurement of reverse T3 in suspected thyroid disease.

  With Dalton, A.; Standing, S.

  Vol. 40. No. 3 July 1983. pp 235–42.

  Todays antibiotics—the way ahead.

  Vol. 41, No. 2. April 1984. pp 173–8.

  Nature

  Pathology. What origin for toxic shock syndrome? (news).

  305 (5936) October 20–26 1983. pp 667–8.

  Veterinary Record

  Does the use of chloramphenicol in animals jeopardise the treatment of human infections.

  Vol. 114, No. 1. January 7 1984. pp 6–8.

  Dichlorvos
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the advice given to him by the veterinary products advisory committee about the pesticide dichlorvos.

  Mr. Maclean
  No, because veterinary products committee advice is directed to the licensing authority and is usually in the form of recommendations on licence applications for specific products, taking into account the circumstances of their use.

  Dredge Spoil
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the dumping of dredge spoil is controlled under the terms of the North sea conference agreements; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  Yes.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what controls exist in respect of disposal of dredge spoil; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The disposal of dredged spoil at sea is controlled by a requirement for licensing under part II of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those locations where dredge spoil was dumped last year, giving the quantities for each site; and what checks are carried out to establish impact on the marine environment in respect of choice of location, quantity of dredge spoil and contamination levels of dredge spoil, before such dumping is carried out.

  Mr. Curry
  About 110 locations in English and Welsh waters have been designated for the disposal of dredged

  Name of body

  Date of next appointment or renewal

  Position

  Agricultural Training Board

  March 1992

  Whole committee

  Agricultural Wages Board

  July 1990

  Chairman + 2 independent members

  July 1991

  2 independent members

  Agricultural Wages Committees (England)

  1990

  1 Chairman + 21 members

  218
  material. The sites are identified in annual reports of the Oslo Commission, copies of which are in the Library of the House. Statistics of quantities disposed of at each site in 1989 are not yet available.

  The assessment of dredged material for disposal at sea is carried out in accordance with guidelines agreed by the Oslo Commission in 1986.

  The guidelines provide a means of assessing dredged material which it is proposed to deposit at sea, including information on the nature, quantity and composition of the material. They also include the factors which are to be considered in the designation of dredged material disposal areas. These factors include:

  1. Geographical position, depth and distance from the coast;

  2. Location in relation to living resources in adult or juvenile phases;

  3. Location in relation to amenity areas;

  4. Initial dilution achieved by proposed method of discharge;

  5. Dispersal, horizontal transport and vertical mixing characteristics;

  6. Existence and effects of current and previous discharges and dumping in the area (including accumulative effects).

  Guidelines for post-operational monitoring of dredged material disposal sites were adopted by the Oslo Commission in 1980 and form the basis of our current site surveillance strategy.

  Sheep Prices
  Mr. Amos
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to implement the award agreed at the recent price fixing for the sheep sector to take effect immediately; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  The new green rates for sheep, which will increase the sterling value of the support price by 11 per cent., will come into effect at the beginning of the 1991 marketing year. This is in line with usual practice and any amendment to the implementation date would have to be proposed by the Commission and agreed by the Council.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Curry
  The main appointments, for which I am responsible, with details of remuneration are set out in "Public Bodies 1989", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. All appointments are part time.

  The next dates for appointment or renewal are set out below. The dates of other appointments or renewals cannot be provided without disproportionate cost.
  219

  Name of body

  Date of next appointment or renewal

  Position

  Apple and Pear Research Council (formerly Apple and Pear Development Council)

  December 1992

  Chairman + 8 members

  Food from Britain

  May 1990

  Chairman

  September 1990

  2 Members

  September 1992

  Deputy Chairman + 11 members

  Home Grown Cereals Authority

  June 1990

  6 members

  June 1991

  Deputy Chairman+ 6 members

  June 1992

  Chairman+ 7 members

  Horticultural Development

  July 1990

  7 members

  Council

  July 1991

  6 members

  July 1992

  Chairman, Deputy Chairman + 7 members

  Meat and Livestock Commission

  August 1990

  Chairman

  January 1992

  Deputy Chairman

  March 1992

  Chairman of Consumers Committee+ 5 members

  September 1992

  5 members

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  June 1990

  1 member

  October 1991

  Chairman+ 5 members

  April 1992

  1 member

  October 1992

  3 members

  October 1993

  1 member

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  September 1990

  Whole committee

  The Wine Standards Board of the Vintners Company

  April 1992

  Whole committee

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  December 1990

  Chairman+ 8 members

  December 1992

  Deputy Chairman + 1 member

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committee

  Convened on an Ad Hoc basis

  Regional Panels for the Farming Industry

  Various dates between August 1990 and August 1992 depending on Committee

  Salmon Advisory Committee

  February 1992

  8 members

  November 1992

  Chairman

  February 1993

  9 members

  Steering Group on Food Surveillance

  March 1991

  Reviewed on a yearly basis

  Sugar Beet Research and Education Committee

  July 1990

  1 member

  June 1991

  2 members

  September 1991

  Chairman and 1 member

  June 1992

  3 members

  Veterinary Products Committee

  December 1991

  Chairman + 6 members

  December 1993

  9 members

  Agricultural Land Tribunals

  All appointments made by Lord Chancellor

  Dairy Product Quota Tribunal

  No fixed term of office

  Milk and Dairies Tribunals

  1991 to 1992 depending on region

  5 Chairmen

  Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal

  April 1990

  1 member

  September 1990

  8 members

  October 1990

  1 member

  March 1991

  14 members

  April 1991

  3 members

  January 1992

  1 member

  June 1992

  1 member

  August 1992

  2 members

  September 1992

  2 members

  Covent Garden Market Authority

  June 1991

  1 member

  July 1991

  1 member

  December 1991

  Chairman

  January 1992

  1 member

  August 1992

  1 member

  January 1993

  1 member

  Agricultural Statistics Consultative Committee

  Under consideration (expired 1998)

  Area VII White Fish Industry Advisory Committee

  December 1992

  Whole committee

  220 221

  Name of body

  Date of next appointment or renewal

  Position

  Committee on Agricultural Valuation

  March 1993

  Whole committee

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (formerly Consultative Committee on Research into Spongiform Encephalopathies)

  No fixed term

  Consultative Panel on Badgers and Tuberculosis

  January 1993

  Whole committee

  Consumers Committee for England and Wales under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958

  November 1990

  1 member

  January 1991

  1 member

  February 1991

  3 members

  September 1991

  Chairman

  May 1992

  1 member

  December 1992

  1 member

  Consumers Committee for Great Britain under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958

  November 1990

  1 member

  January 1991

  1 member

  February 1991

  3 members

  August 1991

  1 member

  September 1991

  Chairman

  May 1992

  1 member

  December 1992

  1 member

  Experimental Centres Advisory Committees in England and Wales

  Various dates between 1990 and 1992 depending on committee

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  December 1990

  5 members

  May 1991

  Chairman

  June 1991

  1 member

  September 1991

  2 members

  October 1991

  4 members

  November 1991

  1 member

  December 1991

  5 members

  January 1992

  1 member

  December 1992

  3 members

  Food Advisory Committee

  October 1991

  Chairman + 6 members

  October 1992

  8 members

  Hill Farming Advisory Committee for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  February 1992

  Whole committee

  National Food Survey Committee

  September 1990

  1 member

  July 1991

  2 members

  August 1991

  1 member

  October 1991

  1 member

  Priorities Board for Research and Development in Agriculture and Food

  June 1990

  4 members

  October 1990

  Chairman + 5 members

  November 1990

  1 member

  March 1992

  1 member

SCOTLAND

  Fish Industries
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish fishing, fish processing and fish merchandising industries; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  The Government place considerable importance on maintaining close contact with representatives of the industry in Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend the Minister of State last met representatives of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on 8 May. My noble Friend the Minister of State has regular contact with all sectors of the industry. He met representatives of the Scottish Fish Merchants Federation on 12 February and a further meeting has been arranged for 6 June.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average amount of Government grant and contribution from business rates which is made in respect of each community charge payer in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The average amount for 1990–91 is £1,031.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place a list of the names of the directors of the Thenew housing association in the Library.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held by the Scottish Development Department. Under
  223
  section 4 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988, Scottish Homes has the responsibility for maintaining a register of housing associations and overseeing their constitution.

  This register is available for inspection at Scottish Homes head office during normal office hours.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what projects the Thenew housing association is involved in the Possilpark area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not held by the Scottish Development Department.

  Approval of individual housing association developments is a matter entirely for Scottish Homes.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with housing associations funded by Scottish Homes on their policies on consulting local residents where they embark on new projects in an area.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  None. Detailed consideration of individual housing associations proposals is a matter entirely for Scottish Homes taking account of its own policies and programme, and in the context of local housing need.

  Civic Government (Scotland) Act
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what requests he has received to introduce an appeal procedure under section 49(2) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  It has been brought to our attention that section 49(2) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 makes no specific provision for an appeal. This will be one of the points addressed in the review of the 1982 Act which we are currently undertaking.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to publish proposals for changes to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A consultation paper will he issued this year.

  Skye Bridge
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the National Trust for Scotland concerning the proposed line of route and causeway design component of a bridge to Skye with particular reference to(a) the impact of this upon the National Trust for Scotland-owned Eilean Dhubh, (b) the alignment from the Plock of Kyle to Eilean Dhubh and (c) the desirability or feasibility of a viaduct construction in preference to a causeway; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As part of the consultation now in hand with various parties, the National Trust for Scotland wrote to the Scottish Development Department in a letter received on 18 May with its views. The comments of the trust are detailed and its views have not yet been assessed. The general view of the trust is that it wishes to see environmental and aesthetic standards appropriate to the project and its landscape setting, a view shared by all involved in the project.

  The next step will be for designers and landscape architects to take account of the various views expressed and prepare scale models of developed proposals for presentation to those concerned.
  224
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will assess the cost implications of the construction of the proposed bridge to Skye of a viaduct design in preference to the inclusion of a causeway; if he will indicate what impact such a design change might have upon possible toll charges to be levied; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Consultation is now in hand with the relevant parties about the various aspects of the proposed bridge to Skye. These include its environmental treatment and the views of conservation and amenity groups such as the National Trust for Scotland, the Royal Fine Art Commission for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland are being sought. When all these views on general treatment are to hand it will be possible for designers and landscape architects to work up proposals, costings and environmental solutions for detailed discussion. It would be premature to speculate on the likely level of tolls until a complete project has been satisfactorily defined.

  National Trust for Scotland
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what legislative procedures would be involved in a Government Department seeking to remove a specific piece of land from the ownership of the National Trust for Scotland; if such a procedure has been invoked before; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  If the National Trust for Scotland objects to any party seeking to compulsorily acquire land held in alienably by the National Trust for Scotland, the matter is dealt with through special parliamentary procedures. My right hon. and learned Friend would direct an inquiry to be held under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936.

  Commisioners appointed under the Act would hold the inquiry at such places as they would determine, hear the various parties and issue their recommendations. If my right hon. and learned Friend is not prepared to accept their recommendations, he can present a Bill for confirmation of the order to Parliament and section 9 of the 1936 Act would apply to such a Bill.

  There is no record of this procedure having been used in relation to the National Trust for Scotland.

  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to seek legislative means to remove the island of Eilean Dhub from the ownership of the National Trust for Scotland Balmacara estate; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to remove the island of Eilean Dhubh from the ownership of the National Trust for Scotland Balmacara estate.

  Primary School, Oban
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what request he has received for funding for a new primary school in Oban; and what response he has made.

  Mr. Lang
  Funding for educational building projects is the responsibility of individual authorities, operating
  225
  within limits on their overall levels of capital expenditure set by my right hon. and learned Friend. Account has been taken of proposals in Strathclyde regional council's financial plans for primary school provision in Oban in determining provisional limits for the council's capital expenditure in 1991–92 and 1992–93.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what account he took of public opinion before giving permission for a test borehole at Dounreay; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Before reaching his decision to sustain the appeal lodged by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority against Highland regional council's decision to refuse planning permission for the drilling of two test boreholes at Dounreay, my right hon. and learned Friend gave careful consideration to all representations made including those from individual members of the public and those from organisations representing a wide range of public interests.

  Seals
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to require fish farming operations to introduce measures to keep seals away which eliminate the need to employ marksmen to kill them.

  Mr. Lang
  In February this year the Scottish Salmon Growers Association published a code of practice on salmon farming and predatory wildlife. This document was developed in collaboration with various wildlife conservation interests, including the Nature Conservancy Council. It lays down the general policy that shooting or other methods of destructive control must only be considered as a last resort. In relation to seals, the code of practice emphasises that the killing of a particular animal may be considered only after reasonable measures have been taken to exclude seals from salmon farms.

  My right hon. and learned Friend welcomes the adoption of the code of practice and the emphasis on non-destructive measures with shooting only as a last resort to prevent damage.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many seals he estimates were killed legitimately last year under the terms of the Seals Act 1970; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  No such estimate is available. In 1989 no licences were issued to shoot seals of either species under the provisions in section 10 of the 1970 Act. There is no central record or requirement to report seals which may have been killed in other circumstances.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in respect of the establishment of fish farms adjacent to known seal colonies; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Proximity to areas of wildlife interests is one of the factors taken into account in the consultation procedures which the Crown Estates Commissioners undertake when considering a sea bed lease for the purposes of marine fish farming. The Crown Estates guidelines on siting procedures and principles, and 226
  on siting and design of marine fish farms in Scotland emphasise that important wildlife areas should be avoided. Nature conservation and other interests are given the opportunity to comment on applications for marine fish farm leases under the procedures agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend.

  Local Authority Budgets
  Mr. Younger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Ayr of 1 February,Official Report, column 213, he is now able to make a statement about local authorities' budgets for 1990–91.

  Mr. Rifkind
  Details of local authorities' budgets for 1990–91 compared with those for 1989–90 are set out in the table.

  Based on adjusted budget returns, it is now clear that authorities are planning an average increase of 8·9 per cent. in their expenditure for 1990–91 over the corresponding figure for last year. This is a noticeable reduction over the previous year's actual increase of 12·3 per cent., and I have already expressed some satisfaction that there are some signs that accountability is beginning to work through. There are, however, no grounds for complacency as too many authorities are still budgeting for growth in their expenditure, leading to higher than necessary community charges. It is for individual authorities to justify those increases to their local electorates.

  Budget Estimate 1988–90 £000

  Budget Estimate 1990–91 £000

  Percentage increase

  Borders

  71,169

  76,979

  8·2

  Central

  174,297

  194,142

  11·4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  98,292

  107,068

  8·9

  Fife

  232,235

  259,686

  11·8

  Grampian

  308,204

  333,956

  8·4

  Highland

  154,670

  176,434

  13·9

  Lothian

  482,368

  547,306

  13·6

  Strathclyde

  1,690,456

  1,780,005

  5·3

  Tayside

  266,540

  289,441

  8·6

  Regions

  3,478,431

  3,765,521

  8·3

  Orkney

  18,588

  19,184

  3·2

  Shetland

  23,714

  35,743

  50·7

  Western Isles

  33,384

  37,928

  13·6

  Islands

  75,686

  92,855

  22·7

  Berwickshire

  1,215

  1,465

  20·6

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  2,426

  2,612

  7·7

  Roxburgh

  2,686

  3,034

  13·0

  Tweeddale

  1,044

  1,144

  9·6

  Clackmannan

  5,992

  6,791

  13·3

  Falkirk

  11,912

  12,115

  1·7

  Stirling

  10,173

  11,983

  17·8

  Annandale and Eskdale

  2,749

  3,132

  13·9

  Nithsdale

  4,445

  5,110

  15·0

  Stewartry

  1,724

  2,073

  20·2

  Wigtown

  2,291

  2,755

  20·3

  Dunfermline

  12,631

  14,705

  14·6

  Kirkcaldy

  15,303

  16,465

  7·6

  North East Fife

  5,844

  7,175

  22·8

  Aberdeen

  24,950

  28,296

  13·4

  Banff and Buchan

  7,179

  7,927

  10·4

  Gordon

  5,212

  7,831

  50·2

  Kincardine and Deeside

  3,194

  3,663

  14·7

  Moray

  6,559

  7,129

  8·7

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  773

  909

  17·6

  227

  Budget Estimate 1988–90 £000

  Budget Estimate 1990–91 £000

  Percentage increase

  Caithness

  1,953

  2,082

  6·6

  Inverness

  4,408

  4,677

  6·1

  Lochaber

  1,597

  1,758

  10·1

  Nairn

  765

  891

  16·5

  Ross and Cromarty

  4,170

  4,565

  9·5

  Skye and Lochalsh

  881

  1,087

  23·4

  Sutherland

  1,194

  1,474

  23·5

  East Lothian

  8,600

  9,047

  5·2

  Edinburgh

  53,127

  60,191

  13·3

  Midlothian

  8,284

  9,016

  8·8

  West Lothian

  12,888

  13,788

  7·0

  Argyll and Bute

  7,673

  8,275

  7·8

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  3,650

  4,041

  10·7

  Clydebank

  6,229

  5,603

  -10·0

  Clydesdale

  6,506

  7,208

  10·8

  Cumbernauld

  5,875

  6,527

  11·1

  Cumnock

  4,370

  4,874

  11·5

  Cunninghame

  14,685

  16,415

  11·8

  Dumbarton

  8,405

  9,662

  15·0

  East Kilbride

  8,734

  10,168

  16·4

  Eastwood

  4,603

  5,028

  9·2

  Glasgow

  136,736

  148,060

  8·3

  Hamilton

  10,028

  11,418

  13·9

  Inverclyde

  9,684

  10,958

  13·2

  Kilmarnock

  7,752

  8,432

  8·8

  Kyle and Carrick

  12,574

  14,104

  12·2

  Monklands

  11,705

  12,991

  11·0

  Motherwell

  14,527

  16,320

  12·3

  Renfrew

  24,019

  26,459

  10·2

  Strathkelvin

  8,459

  10,012

  18·2

  Angus

  8,581

  9,533

  11·1

  Dundee

  19,931

  22,231

  11·5

  Perth and Kinross

  10,600

  12,521

  15·9

  Districts

  571,905

  635,740

  11·2

  Scotland

  4,126,022

  4,494,116

  8·9

  Note: Figures are total relevant expenditure excluding loan and leasing charges and CFCR.

  Local Councillors
  Mr. Allan Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he still intends to introduce regulations on councillors' allowances on 1 July 1990; and when he proposes to consult on regulations in respect of voting rights and political balance on local authority committees.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My final proposals for councillors' allowances in Scotland were sent to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA) last week. I have decided to defer introduction of the new scheme until 1 August 1990 to allow more time for authorities to make the necessary arrangements.

  As regards the proposed regulations on voting rights and political balance on committees, I shall be consulting COSLA on these shortly and shall reach a final decision on an implementation date in the light of their response.

  Fisheries Protection Services
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the future organisation of the Scottish fisheries protection services.

  Mr. Rifkind
  I have decided that the Scottish fisheries protection services should become a candidate for executive agency status within the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland under the "next steps" initiative.

  Rural Library Service
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will meet local authority representatives to discuss ways of improving the library service in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: Statutory responsibility for the local authority public library service in Scotland lies with the local authorities themselves and not with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I have had no request from local authority representatives for a meeting on rural library services and I do not think that such a meeting would serve any useful purpose at present. I am, nevertheless, aware of the recent report on public library provision in rural Scotland. My officials met representatives of the sponsors of the report to discuss the issues involved and I have undertaken to consider the proposal of a rural library incentive scheme in due course in light of an evaluation of a comparable scheme presently in operation in England.

EMPLOYMENT

  Youth Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish details for Great Britain and for the west midlands region, for each year from April 1986 to the most recent date, of the total number of(a) three-month extensions granted to YTS trainees with disabilities, (b) six-month extensions granted to YTS trainees with disabilities, (c) initial training places taken up by YTS trainees with disabilities, (d) adaptions to premises and equipment grants applied for by youth training schemes, (e) adaptions to premises and equipment grants granted to youth training schemes, (f) successful applications to the special aids to employment scheme granted to youth training schemes, (g) personal reader services for the blind provided to trainees on youth training schemes, (h) communication services for the deaf provided to trainees on youth training schemes and (i) residential training awards provided to trainees on youth training schemes.

  Mr. Nicholls
  This information can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) from the 1989 labour force survey, by standard region including Greater London, and for Great Britain as a whole, by male, female and total how many people who were not unemployed by the definition using International Labour Organisation/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines on the grounds that they had not actively looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview and were not available to start work within two weeks, but who stated that they would like a job if one was available, expressed a preference for(a) full-time work, (b) part-time work, or (c) expressed no preference;

  (2) from the 1989 labour force survey, by standard region including Greater London, and for Great Britain as a whole, by male, female and total how many people who were not unemployed by the definition using International Labour Organisation/Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development guidelines on the grounds

  229
  that they were not available to start work within two weeks, but had actively looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview and stated that they would like a job if one was available, expressed a preference for (a) full-time work, (b) part-time work, or (c) expressed no preference;

  (3) from labour force survey data for each spring from 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people who were not counted as unemployed by the definition using International Labour Organisation/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines on the grounds that they had not looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview and were not free to start work within two weeks, but stated that they would like a job if one was available, expressed a preference for (a) work as an employee, (b) work as self-employed, or (c) expressed no preference;

  (4) from labour force survey data for each spring from 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people who were not counted as unemployed by the definition using International Labour Organisation/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines on the grounds that they were not available to start work within two weeks, but had actively sought work within the four weeks prior to interview, and stated that they would like a job if one was available, expressed a preference for (a) full-time work, (b) part-time work, or (c) expressed no preference;

  (5) from labour force survey data for the years 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people in Great Britain claiming benefit as unemployed who were not counted as unemployed by the definition using ILO/ OECD guidelines on the grounds that they were not free to start work within two weeks, had looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview, and stated that they would like a job if one were available, were in each of the categories (a) students, (b) long-term sick or disabled, (c) looking after family/home, (d) retired from paid work, (e) believes no jobs available and (f) any other reason;

  (6) from the 1989 labour force survey, by standard region including Greater London, and for Great Britain as a whole, by male, female and total, how many people who were not unemployed by the definition using International Labour Organisation/Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development guidelines on the grounds that they had not actively looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview, but who stated that they would like a job if one was available, and were available to start work within two weeks, expressed a preference for (a) full-time work, (b) part-time work, or (c) expressed no preference;

  (7) from labour force survey data for each spring from 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people who were not counted as unemployed by the definition using ILO/OECD guidelines on the grounds that they had not looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview, but stated that they would like a job if one was available, and were free to start work within two weeks, expressed a preference for (a) full-time work, (b) part-time work, or (c) no preference;

  (8) from labour force survey data for the years 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people in Great Britain who were not counted as unemployed by the definition using ILO/OECD guidelines on the grounds that they had not looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview and were free to start work within two weeks, and stated that they would like a job if one was available,
  230
  were in each of the categories (a) students, (b) long-term sick or disabled, (c) looking after family/home, (d) retired from paid work, (e) believes no jobs available and (f) any other reason;

  (9) from labour force survey data for each spring from 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people counted as unemployed by the definition using International Labour Organisation/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines expressed a preference for (a) full-time work, (b) part-time work, or (c) expressed no preferences;

  (10) from labour force survey data for the years 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people in Great Britain claiming benefit as unemployed who were not counted as unemployed by the definition using ILO/ OECD guidelines on the grounds that they had not looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview and were not free to start work within two weeks, stated that they would like a job if one was available and were in each of the categories: (a) students, (b) long-term sick or disabled, (c) looking after family/home, (d) retired from paid work, (e) believes no jobs available and (f) any other reason;

  (11) from the 1989 labour force survey, by standard region including Greater London, and for Great Britain as a whole, by male, female and totals how many people were unemployed according to International Labour Organisation/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development definitions and wanting (a) full-time work, (b) part-time work and (c) expressed no preference;

  (12) from labour force survey data for each Spring from 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people were not counted as unemployed by the definition using International Labour Organisation/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines on the grounds that they had not looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview and were not free to start work within two weeks, but stated that they would like a job if one was available, expressed a preference for (a) full-time work, (b) part-time work, or (c) expressed no preference;

  (13) from labour force survey data for the years 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people in Great Britain were not counted as unemployed by the definition using ILO/OECD guidelines on the grounds that they had not looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview and were not free to start work within two weeks, stated that they would like a job if one was available and were in each of the categories: (a) students, (b) long-term sick or disabled, (c) looking after family/home, (d) retired from paid work, (e) believes no jobs available and (f) any other reason;

  (14) from the 1989 labour force survey, by standard region including Greater London, and for Great Britain by male, female and total, how many people unemployed according to International Labour Organisation/ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development definitions wanted full-time work, part-time work, or expressed no preference;

  (15) from labour force survey data for each spring from 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people were not counted as unemployed by the definition using ILO/OECD guidelines on the grounds that they had not looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview, but stated that they would like a job if one was available, and

  231
  were free to start work within two weeks, expressed a preference for (a) work as an employee, (b) work as self-employed, or (c) expressed no preference;

  (16) from labour force survey data for the years 1984 to 1989, for each standard region including Greater London, and for Great Britain by male, female and total, how many people were not counted as unemployed according to ILO/OECD guidelines on the grounds that they were not free to start work within two weeks, had actively looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview, and stated they would like a job if one was available;

  (17) from labour force survey data for the years 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people in Great Britain who were not counted as unemployed by the definition using ILO/OECD guidelines on the grounds that they were not free to start work within two weeks, had looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview, and stated that they would like a job if one was available, were in each of the categories: (a) students, (b) long-term sick or disabled, (c) looking after family/home, (d) retired from paid work, (e) believes no jobs available and (f) any other reason;

  (18) from labour force survey data for each spring from 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people were not counted as unemployed by the definition using International Labour Organisation/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines on the grounds that they were not available to start work within two weeks, had actively sought work within the four weeks prior to interview, stated that they would like a job if one was available, and expressed a preference for (a) work as an employee, (b) work as self-employed, or (c) expressed no preference;

  (19) from labour force survey data for the years 1984 to 1989, by male, female and total, how many people in Great Britain claiming benefit as unemployed who were not counted as unemployed by the definition using ILO/ OECD guidelines on the grounds that they had not looked for work in the four weeks prior to interview, were free to start work within two weeks and stated that they would like a job if one was available, were in each of the categories: (a) students, (b) long-term sick or disabled, (c) looking after family/home, (d) retired from paid work, (e) believes no jobs available and (f) any other reason.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Estimates from labour force surveys as requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if training and enterprise councils will be required to offer employment training trainees the same training bonuses as are now available to those who successfully complete their action plans and/or obtain vocational qualifications; how much the Government will continue to pay directly towards the training bonuses; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Nicholls
  Training and enterprise councils (TECs) have discretion over the arrangements for training bonuses on employment training. Where a TEC takes over responsibility for the training programme of a trainee already on employment training, the TEC must continue 232
  to offer terms and conditions no less favourable than those previously enjoyed by that trainee. Resources for training bonuses are included in TEC budgets.

  Apprentices
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list by trade the number of apprentices taken on by British industry for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available.

  Low Pay
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what was the proportion of female part-time workers, and female and male full-time workers in(a) Great Britain, (b) the South West and (c) Avon, whose hourly earnings, exclusive of overtime, fell below (i) £3·10, (ii) £3·85, (iii) £4·16 and (iv) £4·32 in April 1989.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The available information is given in the table.

  Per cent.

  Hourly earnings less than:

  £3·00

  £3·20

  £3·80

  £4·00

  £4·50

  Full-time males

  Avon

  6

  9

  18

  21

  31

  South West

  8

  12

  24

  28

  39

  Great Britain

  7

  10

  21

  24

  35

  Full-time females

  Avon

  14

  21

  39

  46

  59

  South West

  21

  28

  46

  52

  64

  Great Britain

  19

  25

  40

  46

  57

  Part-time females

  Avon

  48

  57

  74

  78

  86

  South West

  53

  61

  77

  80

  86

  Great Britain

  48

  57

  73

  77

  83

  Hourly earnings excluding overtime, pay not affected by absence.

  Employment Training
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many employment training trainees a re receiving(a) income support and the £10 training premium, (b) unemployment benefit and the £10 training premium or (c) only the £10 training premium; and if he has any plans to increase the value of the £10 premium in line with increases in the costs associated with taking up a training place.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available. There are no plans to increase the £10 premium part of employment training trainee allowances.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment for each region, for Great Britain, how many employment training trainees are receiving child care allowances.

  Mr. Nicholls
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on 13 February 1990,Official Report, columns 204–5, which is the latest information available.

  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for each region, and for Great
  233
  Britain for each month since July 1989, the number of (a) entrants to employment training, (b) people receiving employment training training allowances, (c) employment training special group starts, separately for skill shortage and labour market returners and single parents, (d) employment training leavers and (e) employment training leavers who left before completing their action plan.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many of the people undertaking employment training in each of the London area offices are receiving child care payments.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information requested is not available.

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the figures for the spending by his Department on(a) newspaper advertising, (b) radio advertising, (c) television advertising and (d) all other promotional material, relating to wages councils under the Wages Act 1986 (i) since 1979 and (ii) in each respective year; what is his estimate for the current year; and what is the budget for 1990–91.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The Department does not use newspaper, radio or television advertising in relation to wages council matters, although notice of wages council orders and proposals is published in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes.

  Notices giving details of minimum rates are distributed to all establishments where workers covered by the councils concerned are known to be employed.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend is responsible for some 4,000 appointments to a range of executive, advisory, tribunals and other public bodies. The information requested is not readily available and could not be assembled without disproportionate cost. Public bodies sponsored by this Department are listed in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies 1989" available in the House of Commons Library.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Eggar
  The attached table details permanent staff in post within the Employment Department group and shows a breakdown of the proportion of staff employed within each of the standard regions.
  234

  Permanent staff in post figures by standard region for Employment Department Group as at 1 April 1990

  Standard Region

  Staff in post

  Scotland

  5,885

  North West

  11,575

  Northern

  3,737

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  7,497

  Wales

  3,306

  Midlands

  8,484

  London and South East

  12,895

  South West

  3,561

  Total

  56,940

  Note: Figures on head count basis.

  Action for Jobs
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much of the total expenditure on the action for jobs campaign in 1985–86 was spent on(a) press advertising and (b) radio advertising.

  Mr. Eggar
  A total of £34,000 was spent on press advertising on the action for jobs campaign in 1985–86 and £6,000 on radio advertising.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what were the main headings of expenditure on action for jobs in addition to expenditure on television advertising and printed material in 1988–89.

  Mr. Eggar
  The main headings of expenditure on action for jobs in 1988–89, in addition to television advertising and printed material, were press, radio and outdoor advertising.

  Part-time Work
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish the latest available data on the number and percentage of part-time jobs that pay less than the national insurance threshold.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The latest available data on part-time employment indicate that in 1989 there were on average some 5·3 million part-time employees in Great Britain. It is estimated that about 2·5 million (47 per cent.) of those earned below the lower earnings limit for national insurance.

DEFENCE

  Radiation Monitoring
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide information on the number of personnel employed by his Department, including the Health and Safety Executive, on the inspection, maintenance and improvement of standards of radiation monitoring, by United Kingdom region, for(a) Ministry of Defence workers' exposure and (b) civilian workers' exposure.

  Mr. Nicholls
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Military Aircraft (Statistics)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, ( 1 ) pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of 3 May,Official Report, columns 647–48, how many aeroplane flights in which radioactive material was being carried have resulted in (a) crashes and (b) near-misses which did not constitute a serious risk of release of radiation or radioactive material;

  (2) whether the answer to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey of 3 May, Official Report, column 648, about transport of defence nuclear materials includes aircraft operated by United States personnel; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave on 3 May.

  Military Bands
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will publish a table showing the cost of(a) the Royal Marines and (b) the Royal Air Force bands in each of the last 10 years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Full details of all the costs of maintaining Royal Marines and Royal Air Force bands are not held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost and effort. The tables show those costs which can be estimated from information held centrally.

  The estimated Royal Marines costs, which cover pay, ERNIC, pensions and gratuities and other personnel costs (including travel and subsistence) are as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1980–81

  5·2

  1981–82

  5·3

  1982–83

  5·4

  1983–84

  5·6

  1984–85

  6·0

  1985–86

  6·4

  1986–87

  7·0

  1987–88

  6·9

  1988–89

  7·2

  1989–90

  7·5

  The estimated costs for the RAF are as follows:

  (£100Ks)

  Year

  Service pay

  Civilian pay1

  Band grants2

  1980–81

  18·5

  —

  —

  1981–82

  20·4

  —

  —

  1982–83

  21·6

  —

  —

  1983–84

  23·1

  —

  0·2

  1984–85

  24·4

  —

  0·5

  1985–86

  26·7

  —

  0·3

  1986–87

  28·8

  —

  0·4

  1987–88

  30·6

  —

  0·4

  1988–89

  32·6

  1·6

  0·4

  1989–90

  34·9

  1·7

  0·5

  1 Information for years prior to 1988–89 is not held centrally.

  2 Information for years prior to 1983–84 is not held centrally.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many public performances by Royal Marines and Royal Air Force bands last year were in(a) England, Wales and Scotland, (b) Northern Ireland and (c) elsewhere.
  236
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records are not held centrally in the form requested and the information could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Low Flying
  Sir John Farr
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring about the immediate ending of low flying by Royal Air Force and foreign aircraft over the east midlands.

  Mr. Neubert
  No.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which he is responsible together with the salary and the date when each appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  I refer the hon. Member to "Public Bodies 1989" issued by the office of the Minister for the Civil Service in December 1989; pages 9 and 10 list MOD appointments.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  At 1 April 1990 there were 141,372·5 United Kingdom-based civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence. The proportional breakdown between regions in the United Kingdom was:

  Per cent.

  South East

  27·8

  Northern

  2·2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  4·2

  London

  13·2

  Northern Ireland

  1·9

  East Midlands

  2·4

  West Midlands

  6·3

  South West

  21·5

  North West

  2·1

  Wales

  3·9

  Scotland

  8·7

  East Anglia

  1·8

  The balance of 4 per cent. were overseas, including those at sea or in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary.

  Anglo-French Military Co-operation
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the present extent of Anglo-French military co-operation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Anglo-French military cooperation is extensive, with a wide range of contacts and exchanges at all levels between all three branches of the armed forces, in addition to a number of joint exercises. There is also co-operation in the fields of equipment procurement and research. During the Anglo-French summit in London on 4 May, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the French Defence Minister, Mr. Chevenement, discussed ways in which this co-operation could be extended.

  Boeing
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current value of contracts placed with the Boeing company;

  (2) what is the annual amount of money paid out to the Boeing company for each year since 1979;

  (3) how many contracts have been placed with Boeing in each year since 1979.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The only contract placed with Boeing Aerospace Inc. since 1979 is that for AWACS aircraft in 1987, amended to include a seventh aircraft in 1988. The contract value cannot be given, for reasons of commercial confidentiality. I shall write separately to the hon. Member as soon as all details are available on contracts with Boeing Helicopters Inc.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the military and strategic circumstances in which all British nuclear weapons could be negotiated away.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Peace has been maintained in Europe as a result of the possession of both nuclear and conventional forces by the United Kingdom and our NATO allies. There can be no question of negotiating away our nuclear deterrent while other states possess or are seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon capability that could pose a threat to this country.

ENVIRONMENT

  Local Authority Associations
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of County Councils; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of District Councils; and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the district councils to discuss local government finance.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I met representatives of the Association of County Councils and other local authority associations on 21 May. We discussed the community charge.

  Detergents
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to counter the possible adverse environmental consequences resulting from the use of detergents.

  Mr. Trippier
  The National Rivers Authority is responsible for monitoring the possible adverse effects on the water environment resulting from the use of detergents. It has recently commissioned a study by the water research centre on the appearance of foam on some rivers. The Department has placed a study contract to review any adverse effects which may occur due to possible changes in formulations of detergents and other cleaning agents.
  238
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce a maximum limit for phosphate content in detergents; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department has no plans at present to limit the amount of phosphate in detergents. It has placed a study contract to review any adverse effects which may occur if polyphosphates used in cleaning agents are replaced by other chemicals.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Brandon-Bravo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to increase public confidence in the management and disposal of waste.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The best way to increase public confidence in waste management is to ensure that high environmental standards are consistently maintained.

  Through the Environmental Protection Bill we shall be strengthening controls on waste management by increasing the powers available to local authorities for licensing and enforcement. At the same time, we shall increase the information available on public registers about local waste operations and require local authorities to publish annual reports on their policies and performance in regulating waste disposal.

  Atmospheric Pollution
  Mr. Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives from the National Society for Clean Air to discuss atmospheric pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  Although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met representatives of the National Society of Clean Air he is familiar with its work.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to increase the controls over air pollution.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Existing air pollution controls are being reinforced in a number of ways. In particular, the Environmental Protection Bill strengthens and extends existing controls over air pollution from industrial plant and streamlines statutory nuisance control over other sources. We will shortly issue the draft plan to achieve substantial reductions in emissions of 202 and NOx from existing large combustion plants in the United Kingdom, and we are bringing in strict new standards to cut emissions of NOx, CO2 and hydrocarbons from cars.

  Lead Plumbing
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest estimates at current prices of the capital investment required to replace all lead plumbing in those houses which are entirely or partially affected.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his latest estimates at current prices of the capital investment required to replace all lead plumbing in those houses which are wholly or partially affected.
  239
  Mr. Trippier
  This information is not available.

  Eastern Europe
  Mr. Knapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with his European Community counterparts regarding joint action to assist the countries of eastern Europe in tackling environmental pollution.

  Mr. Trippier
  Community assistance to eastern European countries in dealing with their grave environmental pollution problems was discussed at the informal Environment Council on 21 April at Ashford castle. I took part in this meeting which noted the substantial financial commitments for environmental aid already made by the Community as a result of earlier discussions.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the Government will be taking to assist the countries of eastern Europe in cleaning up environmental pollution.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The extent of the environmental damage done by the communist regimes in eastern Europe requires international assistance. The United Kingdom is acting primarily through the joint programme coordinated by the European Commission for all the G24 countries. Following visits by joint teams of experts, initial programmes of projects are being implemented for Poland and Hungary. The process of formulating programmes has begun for East Germany and Czechoslovakia, and is expected to extend to Romania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia. The United Kingdom bilateral know-how fund for eastern Europe, administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is available to help with the transfer of British skills in dealing with these problems. The fund has already assisted the planning meeting on the Czech environment problems at East London polytechnic last weekend. Wider proposals for transfer of British expertise in management of the environment are being worked up and assessed.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has had any recent representations seeking replacement of the community charge with a tax on property values.

  Mr. Portillo
  As far as I am aware no one has made a representation to me in favour of a roof tax based on capital or site values.

  Mr. Favell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many suggestions he has received for alternatives to the community charge for the raising of local government finance.

  Mr. Chope
  I receive a large number of suggestions on local government finance. There is no intention, however, to replace the community charge as the fairest means of securing a contribution from local residents towards the cost of local services.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average level of community charge in inner London in boroughs that were(a) Conservative controlled and (b) Labour-controlled before 3 May.
  240
  Mr. Chope
  The figures are as follows: Conservative-controlled, £209; Labour-controlled, £445. They are based on charges at 1 April 1990.

  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average community charge for all the metropolitan districts if the percentage of their expenditure met from external funding was the same as Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Eastham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average community charge for all the London boroughs if the percentage of their expenditure met from external funding was the same as Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State For the Environment if he will estimate the average community charge for all the London boroughs if the percentage of their expenditure met from external funding was the same as Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Ms. Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for t he Environment if he will estimate the average community charge for all the London boroughs if the percentage of their expenditure met from external funding was the same as Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average community charge for all the metropolitan districts if the percentage of their expenditure met from external funding was the same as Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Patchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average community charge for all the metropolitan districts if the percentage of their expenditure met from external funding was the same as Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average community charge for all the metropolitan districts if the percentage of their expenditure met from external funding was the same as Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the average community charge for all the metropolitan districts if the percentage of their expenditure met from external funding was the same as Wandsworth; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The community charge everywhere in England would be £278 if councils budgeted in accordance with their standard spending assessment after disregarding the effect of the safety net and other special reliefs, low rateable value grant and inner London education grant. For every additional £1 per adult spent the community charge per adult is increased by £1. For every £1 per adult saved the community charge per adult is reduced by £1. Any grant or support system based upon the spending decisions rather than the needs of individual authorities would penalise the prudent and reward the extravagant.

  Mr. John Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State For the Environment what steps he has taken to invite interested groups and local authorities to submit views on the changes desirable to the community charge; and if he will make a statement.
  241
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to invite interested groups and local authorities to submit views on the changes desirable to the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Interested groups and local authorities do not, in my experience, need formal invitations to submit views on the community charge. I have received a large number of comments and suggestions on the subject. Constructive comment is always welcome.

  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate what changes are likely to take place in the standard spending assessment as it relates to Warwickshire.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend has said that he will consider any fresh evidence on standard spending assessments (SSAs) which is put before him. Officials are also involved in discussions with local authority representatives. It is too early to say whether this work will result in changes to SSAs.

  Mr. Robert Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of representations that he has received from Cornwall and Devon about the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested by my hon. Friend is not available. However, I continue to receive representations from members of the public in Cornwall and Devon about the community charge.

  Mr. Andy Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the average capital value rates bill on a property worth(a) £50,000, (b) £80,000 and (c) £100,000 in Dagenham in 1990–91 assuming such a system had to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures placed in the Library on 4 April show illustrative levels of capital value based rates in 1990–91 were such a system to be used to raise the same amount nationally as the community charge. The implied bills in Barking and Dagenham for properties worth(a) £50,000, (b) £80,000 and (c) £100,000 are £546, £874 and £1,092 respectively.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide details of the review into the poll tax being undertaken by his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further measures he is considering in respect of the poll tax.

  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the proposals for changes to the poll tax currently under review.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on proposals for changes to the poll tax currently under review.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to reduce the impact of the poll tax on lower income families during the current year.
  242
  Mr. Portillo
  We are looking to see what improvements, if any, should be made to the operation of the community charge. If and when any such improvements are identified they will be announced.

  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on changes to the poll tax in 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  I receive a large number of suggestions on local government finance. However, the community charge is the fairest means of securing a contribution from local residents towards the cost of local services.

  Mr. Allen McKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to meet representatives of local authority organisations to discuss the poll tax; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the local authority associations on 21 May to discuss the community charge.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on changes to the poll tax in 1991–92.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have received a wide variety of suggestions including many designed to reduce the level of charge which some authorities are levying.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the implementation of the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  The vast majority of local authorities in England have been working very hard to ensure that the new system is working efficiently in 1990–91. The registration process was successfully completed on time with a total figure in accordance with the Government's estimate of the adult population. All authorities have now sent out some bills and are beginning to collect the community charge. Almost all authorities sent out their bills net of transitional relief and community charge benefit.

  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a person on average male earnings would pay in local income tax in 1990–91 in order to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge in Yeovil.

  Mr. Summerson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what a person on average male earnings would pay in local income tax in 1990–91 in order to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge in England.

  Mr. Portillo
  The level of local income tax payable by a person on average male earnings would depend on the precise way in which such a system were introduced and on the tax allowances which were available.

  Illustrative figures exemplifying possible local income tax rates and the bill payable with a taxable income of £12,800 were placed in the Library on 4 April.

  For South Somerset this showed a bill of £955 and an England average bill of £949.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the average capital value
  243
  rates bill on a property worth (a) £80,000 and (b) £100,000 in Spelthorne in 1990–91 assuming such a system had to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures placed in the Library on 4 April show illustrative levels of capital value based rates in 1990–91 were such a system to be used to raise the same amount nationally as the community charge. The implied bills in Spelthorne for properties worth(a) £80,000 and (b) £100,000 are £789 and £986 respectively.

  Dr. Twinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average level of community charge, discounting the safety net, in London in boroughs that were(a) Conservative controlled and (b) Labour controlled before 3 May.

  Mr. Chope
  The following are the figures: Conservative-controlled, £267; Labour-controlled, £478. They are based on charges at 1 April 1990.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what would be the average capital value rates bill on a property worth (i) £50,000, (ii) £80,000 and (iii) £100,000 in(a) the metropolitan areas and (b) Dover in 1990–91, assuming such a system had to raise the same amount of revenue as the community charge.

  Mr. Chope
  Figures placed in the Library on 4 April show illustrative levels of capital value based rates in 1990–91 were such a system to be used to raise the same amount nationally as the community charge. The implied average bills in(a) the metropolitan areas for properties worth (i) £50,000, (ii) £80,000 and (iii) £100,000 are £543, £868 and £1,086 respectively and in (b) Dover £436, £697 and £871 respectively.

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on services being cut by the charge-capped local authorities.

  Mr. Portillo
  Local authorities which did not accept the caps which my right hon. Friend proposed and which put forward alternative figures have provided him with information about the implications of the proposed caps. My right hon. Friend is carefully considering all the information available to him before taking his decisions on the final caps of these authorities.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance the Government are giving to local authorities in England on keeping the poll tax register up to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  Practice note No. 3, "The Community Charges Register", which was produced jointly by the Government and the local authority associations, contains guidance on the maintenance of the register and subsequent canvasses. Copies have already been placed in the Library of the House. We have prepared more detailed guidance to local authorities in a new practice note, "Maintaining the Community Charges Register" which we propose to issue as soon as possible.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish figures showing average local authority rents and average local authority rates in each local authority area in 1989–90 and average local authority rents and the new community charge in the same areas in 1990–91.
  244
  Mr. Chris Patten
  [holding answer 17 May 1990]: I am arranging for tables to be placed in the Library of the House showing, for each authority, (a) the average weekly rent in 1989–90, (b) the percentage increase in rent in 1990–91 over 1989–90 as reported to the Department on subsidy claim forms, where available, (c) the average community charge at 1 April 1990 and (d) the average rate bill per household in 1989–90. Information on the level of rents in 1990–91 is not yet available.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make an official visit to Italy for the world cup; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ashton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the visit to Italy by the Minister for Sport to discuss crowd control with the organisers of the world cup.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I visited Rome, Cagliari, Milan and Genoa between 7 and 10 May and held productive discussions with the Italian authorities about safety and security arrangements in connection with England's participation in the World Cup finals. We were able to reach agreement on a range of important issues including the commitment of the Italian Government to prosecute English supporters who break Italian law and to deport those whose behaviour was undesirable.

  Other measures agreed include arrangements at the port of Genoa, restrictions on the sale of alcohol arid sporting weapons, ticket sales, ground security, segregation of rival supporters, and police arrangements during the tournament.

  Electricity Generation
  Mr. Curry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases harmful to the atmosphere resulting from electricity generation.

  Mr. Trippier
  Using 1980 as a base line, the United Kingdom is committed to reducing emissions of sulphur dioxide (SO2) by 60 per cent. by 2003 and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by 30 per cent. by 1998 from existing large combustion plants including power stations. In 1988 emissions of SO2 and NOx from power stations were 13 per cent. and 10 per cent. lower, respectively, than in 1980. Decisions on the extent to which the United Kingdom should reduce projected emissions of carbon dioxide will need to be taken in a global context, in the light of the work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the second world climate conference in November.

  Planning
  Mr. Bidwell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the subject of the Hindu temple at Bhaktivedanta Manor, following the announcement of his decision on the appeal by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness against a planning decision by Hertsmere borough council.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The International Society for Krishna Consciousness have entered notices of motion in the High Court that the decisions of the Secretary of State be quashed in respect of both the enforcement notice appeal at Bhaktivedanta Manor and the appeal against refusal of
  245
  permission for a new temple near Elstree. In addition, 12 representations have been received about the decisions announced on 20 March, 10 of those representations were critical of the decisions, and two welcomed them.

  Mr. Adley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to establish a register of lobbyists, on which anybody promoting, assisting or acting for those seeking planning permission would be required to register.

  Mr. Moynihan
  I do not believe that such a register would serve a useful purpose.

  Countryside Commission
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what amount funding for the Countryside Commission has increased since 1979.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Subject to the approval of Parliament, we propose to increase the Countryside Commission's grant-in-aid to £25·136 million in 1990–91. This represents an increase in real terms of 112 per cent. over the allocation of £5·6 million in 1979–80.

  Environment White Paper
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his next White Paper on the environment.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish his next White Paper on the environment.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This autumn.

  Environmental Conference, Bergen
  Ms. Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Bergen conference on the environment.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement regarding the tackling of environmental problems discussed at the United Nations regional ministerial conference in Bergen on the Bruntland report.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Ynys Môn.

  Cement Industry
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure rapid planning decisions in relation to the supply of chalk for the cement industry in southern England.

  Mr. Moynihan
  The Government are preparing guidelines to provide a national planning policy framework for the long-term supply of raw materials for the cement industry to be published for consultation later this year. I expect these to help both industry and the planning authorities to deal with applications as expeditiously as possible.

  Rural Development Commission
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to meet the new chairman of the Rural Development Commission; and what matters will be discussed.
  246
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is hoped that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will meet the new chairman of the Rural Development Commission during the summer to discuss the commission's corporate plan.

  Local Authorities (Grant Aid)
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will undertake a review of the grant aid system for all local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  We have said that we shall consider any new evidence on standard spending assessments before we come to take decisions on the 1991–92 revenue support grant settlement.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the per capita standard spending grant to(a) Westminster, (b) Wandsworth, (c) the average for all London authorities and (d) Derbyshire county council.

  Mr. Chope
  Revenue support grant, expressed as an amount per adult, will be paid in 1990–91 as follows:(a) Westminster, £791, (b) Wandsworth, £689, (c) all London authorities, £556 (comprising an average of £885 for inner London boroughs and, on average, £388 for outer London boroughs). Revenue support grant will be paid to district and borough councils only. It will not be paid to Derbyshire county council. The average for all districts in Derbyshire will be £184. These figures take account of safety net contributions and receipts.

  Rents
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about private landlords who have not reduced the rent inclusive of rates following the introduction of the community charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) on 8 February,Official Report, Vol. 166, column 756. The Department has received a number of letters from hon. Members on this subject, and our explanatory leaflet "You and the Community Charge: Rents" has now been published and widely distributed.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average council rent, excluding rebates, in England; and what information he has on the average council house rent in Basildon district council area and the average new town corporation rent in Basildon.

  Mr. Chope
  The information is as follows:

  Average weekly unrebated rent (£ per week)

  April 1990

  England

  123·26

  Basildon district council

  25·95

  Basildon new town corporation

  26·00

  1 Provisional estimate.

  Low-cost Housing
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress is being made in increasing the supply of low-cost housing for rent and to buy; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any proposals for enabling young people to enter the housing markets either as tenants or owner-occupiers.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer given on 21 February 1990 to the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Hemsworth (Mr. Buckley) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope),Official Report, column 749.

  African Elephant
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the effectiveness of international action to protect the African elephant.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The decision taken by the seventh conference of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to prohibit commercial trade in African elephants and elephant products has substantially reduced the demand for ivory. There is as yet little clear information about the effect of the trade ban on the illegal killing of elephants, but a prominent expert has suggested that prices overall have fallen to such a low level that poaching is no longer worth while, and in some areas may have almost stopped. I hope that this will soon be the case in all parts of Africa.

  Unleaded Petrol
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the consumption of unleaded fuel as a percentage of total fuel consumption; and what was the figure for April 1988 and April 1989.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is estimated that in April 1990 unleaded petrol consumption accounted for 32·3 per cent. of total petrol consumption. The figures for April 1988 and April 1989 were 0·4 per cent. and 15·2 per cent. respectively.

  Ozone Layer
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the forthcoming ozone layer conference in London in June.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The second meeting of the parties to the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer is due to be held in London from 27 to 29 June. The Government look forward to hosting the meeting, and the preceding working groups, on behalf of the United Nations Environment Programme.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was spent by his Department last year on activities connected with nuclear waste management.
  248
  Mr. Trippier
  It is not possible to provide information in the form requested. My Department spent an estimated £8 million in 1989–90 on research related to nuclear waste management and an estimated £500,000 in 1988–89 on regulating nuclear establishments under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the radiochemical inspectorate branch of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution takes to keep county councils informed of permissions to dispose of low-level radioactive waste within their areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Low-level radioactive waste may be disposed of only under the strict terms of authorisations issued by HM IP under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. Consultation with local and other public authorities is required by the Act before authorisations are issued in respect of nuclear licensed sites and promises occupied by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Consultation is also required by the Act where disposal from non-nuclear premises requires special precautions to be taken by local and public authorities. This statutory consultation has been extended administratively to cover these disposals where they take place on private landfill sites or on authorised premises.

  In addition to this, and except for reasons of national security, copies of all certificates of authorisation are sent to local authorities, including county councils, in whose area the disposal is to take place, normally 28 days before the authorisation takes effect.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to require local authorities to set up registers of contaminated land.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  An amendment will be introduced into the Environmental Protection Bill in the Lords, following discussions with the local authority associations on some of the detailed practicalities involved in setting up local registers, including the timescale and methodology to be used.

  Recycling
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the Government's target for recycling; and what steps it is taking towards meeting it.

  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about Government measures to assist and promote post collection and sorting of refuse into recyclable material.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government have set a target to recycle 50 per cent. of recyclable household waste by the year 2000. To achieve this we are proposing to provide, through the provisions of the Environmental Protection Bill, the right waste management framework to promote recycling. The provisions include: stricter controls on waste disposal by landfill and other means which will increase their costs and make recycling more attractive; requiring all local authorities involved in waste collection and disposal to give priority to recycling, wherever practicable, in their plans; allow authorities to
  249
  specify environmentally favourable options for waste disposal, such as recycling, even if they are not the cheapest in financial terms: permit collection authorities to arrange for the recyclng of all waste that they have collected, unless the disposal authority has an existing recycling contract for it; and require waste disposal authorities to pass to collection authorities the savings that accrue because refuse has been recycled rather than passed to them for disposal.

  Joint Department of Trade and Industry and Department of the Environment expert groups have been examining market failures related to the recycling of post consumer waste and exploring ways to increase recycling in the future. We intend to incorporate their findings in the forthcoming White Paper on the environment.

  The Government are working with local authorities to develop projects like recycling city in Sheffield and Cardiff where new methods of collecting and processing recyclables are being tried and which can, when fully evaluated, be used as models for future practice. We shall be providing comprehensive advice to local authorities to assist them in the production of recycling plans and the development of recycling projects. Advice will also be given to the public to explain the vital role they will have to enable their waste to be recycled.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be continuing to hold discussions with manufacturing industry to encourage it to develop products that can be easily identified and collected for recycling.

  Marine Environment
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives from Greenpeace to discuss the marine environment.

  Mr. Trippier
  We are always prepared to consider the views of voluntary bodies concerned with the environment. For the marine environment we look particularly to the marine forum for environmental issues to bring together those with a contribution to make in this field and my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Surrey, South-West (Mrs. Bottomley), met representatives of Greenpeace in a meeting organised by the forum on 23 May 1989.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further powers he proposes to seek in respect of the marine environment.

  Mr. Trippier
  Powers which enable the better protection of the marine environment from pollution through more effective control of industrial discharges to water and air are included in the Environmental Protection Bill, together with other provisions such as additional controls on dumping from ships aimed at further protecting the sea from damaging inputs.

  Sports Facilities
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Central Council for Physical Recreation to discuss sporting provision.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My last formal meeting with the chairman of the Central Council of Physical Recreation 250
  was on 2 May. No further meetings are planned for the immediate future, although we meet regularly on an informal basis.

  Mr. John Carlisle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Sports Council to discuss the placement of its grants.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My next formal meeting with the chairman of the Sports Council will be on 20 June. We will discuss a range of issues relating to sport and recreation.

  Phosphates
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to control the entry of phosphates into the water medium.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Details of measures which will reduce inputs of phosphates into the water medium are listed in the United Kingdom North sea action plan. The decision to ban dumping of sewage sludge at sea, and to treat all substantial sewage discharges to sea will further reduce nutrient inputs by between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent.

  Lower Grange Estate
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he approved grants for new homes at the Lower Grange estate; and what assurances he was given as to when the building of new homes for sale and to rent and the modernisation of existing homes was to start.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 28 February 1990,Official Report, Vol. 168, column 197.

  I understand that a contract has been let for the estate action scheme and work will start on site very shortly.

  The city grant arrangements are being finalised; work is required to start within three months of these being completed.

  Work on the new-build houses for rent has already started.

  Diesel Emissions
  Mr. Roger King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to secure European Community-wide agreement on the reduction of emissions from diesel engines.

  Mr. Trippier
  The United Kingdom has long been pressing the Commission to bring forward tight new standards for exhaust emissions from heavy duty diesel engines. At the March meeting of the Environment Council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained in more detail what we hoped to see. He urged that the draft directive should aim for the so-called US 1994 standard, which is the strictest embodied in any legislation in the world. The Commission has now published its proposal. Regrettably, it falls short of the United Kingdom's objectives and my right hon. Friend has written to the Environment Commissioner telling him that the United Kingdom will be pressing for a substantial tightening of the proposed standards. We hope that this can be achieved without further delay to a directive which is already overdue.

  Empty Property
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set a target of reducing the percentage of Government-owned empty property from 18 per cent. to 2 per cent.

  Mr. Chope
  It is the Government's stated policy to sell surplus properties wherever possible. The Department actively encourages other Government Departments to reduce numbers of empty dwellings and to let property to local authorities or housing associations where sale is not possible: some 570 such lettings have already been arranged by the Ministry of Defence which aims to reduce its empty stock to 9 per cent. by 1992–93.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will take steps to ensure that Government-owned empty property is used for the homeless.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning gave to the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) on 25 April,Official Report, column 315.

  Mr. Flannery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of Government-owned housing is empty.

  Mr. Chope
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning on 27 February to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley),Official Report, volume 168, columns 180–81.

  Climate Change
  Mr. Bevan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the Government are taking to improve the capability of predicting climate change.

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action the Government is taking to improve scientific understanding of climate change.

  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what contribution the United Kingdom is making to the scientific assessment of global climate change.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Department is adding to the Meteorological Office's established expertise in climate modelling with the climate prediction programme at a cost of some £6 million per year. The programme will enable the United Kingdom to continue to play a leading international role in improving predictions of climate change.

  This Department and the Department of Energy have supported the major international science assessment undertaken by Dr. John Houghton, chief executive of the Meteorological Office, as chairman of the World Meteorological Office/United Nations Environment Programme Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), working group I. The total cost will be £675,000. The working group will finalise its report at a meeting in Windsor on 23 to 25 May.

  A wide range of research aimed at improving understanding of climate change and its impacts is supported from the science budget through the research
  252
  councils. Expenditure in 1989–90 was estimated at some £35 million. Part of the additional allocation to the research councils announced on 10 January this year will further extend this work.

  Estate Programme
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many applications he has received for grants from the estate programme; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  For 1990–91, my Department received 326 outline bids for estate action resources to support new schemes. We have invited authorities to take forward 119 of these proposals. We expect, in addition, to provide further resources for over 200 schemes started in earlier years. Under the new financial regime loan charges on borrowing authorised by estate action credit approvals, which are charged to the housing revenue account, are fully eligible for housing revenue account subsidy, and estate action grant is now being phased out.

  Water
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the water industry plans to invest in improved standards of water quality and environmental improvements over the next 10 years.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague).

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Water Services Association to discuss the connection of new properties to the water supply system.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  This is not a subject which the Water Services Association has raised with my right hon. Friend in recent months.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps the National Rivers Authority is taking to monitor leakage levels from the water distribution system.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The monitoring and control of leakage from water distribution systems is primarily a matter for water undertakers. However, the National Rivers Authority obtains from them information about leakage in considering the judicious use of water resources.

  Mr. Lofthouse
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Water Services Association to discuss the quality of water supply.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My right hon. Friend plans to meet the Water Services Association on 18 July.

  Noise Pollution
  Mr. Rowe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to control the noise pollution caused by light aircraft, power boats and other forms of motorised pleasure craft; and if he will make a statement.
  253
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Department of the Environment is currently engaged in carrying out a review of noise control. The working party on the review aims to produce a report in time for its conclusions and recommendations to be taken up in the environment White Paper. Noise from light aircraft has been identified by the working party as an area of particular concern.

  Noise from powerboats and other pleasure boats is most effectively controlled by means of byelaws. These can be used to restrict noise from vessels both in coastal waters and on inland waterways.

  Rivers
  Mr. Lee
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentages of United Kingdom and European rivers are good or fair quality.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  A review of river classification schemes across the European Community published in 1988 by the water research centre showed that 95 per cent. of river length in the United Kingdom was of good or fair quality compared with 75 per cent. in the European Community as a whole. The review also indicated that no other member state bettered our position.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the level of pollution of the River Thames through London.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The 1985 river quality survey showed that the Thames is largely of "good" or "fair" quality—within the top two categories of the national classification scheme. A copy of the survey is in the Library of the House. More recent information on a directly comparable basis is not currently available, although the National Rivers Authority will be conducting another national survey during 1990, the results of which will be published in 1991.

  The classification system used for recent river quality surveys gives an overall measure of the levels of pollution in a river. Detailed information on levels of individual pollutants can be obtained from the public registers maintained by the National Rivers Authority. These include the results of the analyses carried out of routine samples taken of river water; and the registers available for inspection at the National Rivers Authority's Thames office contain data obtained from sampling at many sites on the Thames.

  Sewage Pollution
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the steps he has taken to implement his undertaking to ban discharges of raw sewage into the seas and estuaries around the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Discussions are now under way between my Department and the National Rivers Authority, the Office of Water Services and the sewerage undertakers to work out the detailed arrangements for implementing our policy on sewage discharges. The sewerage undertakers are being asked to draw up investment programmes to give effect to the policy.

  City Action Teams
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of the city action teams.

  Mr. Portillo
  The city action teams continue to play a vital role in co-ordinating the Government's action for cities in their areas. They are also making good progress in encouraging co-operation between business and industry, local and central Government and the voluntary sector in the revitalisation of the inner cities. The appointment in December of Ministers to help each city action team in its work has given a new impetus to their activities.

  European Community
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet his counterparts in the European Community to discuss pollution control.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside will be attending the next meeting of the Environment Council on 7 and 8 June.

  Sulphur Dioxide
  Mr. Hayward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the trend in the urban concentration of sulphur dioxide since 1979.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Following is the information:

  Sulphur dioxide: Trends in average urban concentrations in the United Kingdom

  Sulphur dioxide (micro-grammes per cubic metre)

  Concentration index

  1979–80

  57

  100

  1980–81

  48

  84

  1981–82

  50

  88

  1982–83

  41

  72

  1983–84

  40

  70

  1984–85

  38

  67

  1985–86

  37

  65

  1986–87

  36

  63

  1987–88

  35

  61

  1988–89

  33

  58

  Source: Digest of Environmental Protection and Water Statistics. No. 12.

  Average urban concentrations of sulphur dioxide fell by 42 per cent. between 1979–80 and 1988–89.

  Ozone Episodes
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's monitoring of the occurrence of ozone episodes.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  On behalf of the Department, Warren Spring Laboratory operates a 17-site national ozone monitoring network, with 12 key sites permanently linked to a co-ordinating and assessment centre, allowing the constant evaluation of the United Kingdom ozone climate.
  255
  During ozone episodes, or should any site measure ozone concentrations above 60 parts per billion, the Department makes data from the network available to the public.

  Low-level ozone is created by the action of sunlight on nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons. These pollutants are transported across national boundaries, and the Department sponsors a substantial programme of research into the computer modelling of ozone episodes as part of an international commitment to reduce their occurrence.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current number of homeless people accepted by local authorities; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  Latest estimates of households accepted as homeless appear in table 1(a) of "Local authorities' action under the homeless provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England. Results for the fourth quarter 1989. Supplementary Tables", which is in the Library.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many agencies committed to helping the homeless have been denied financial help by the Government in the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Hammersmith on 11 May,Official Report, column 245.

  Methyl Chloroform
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy to agree to a ban on the production and use of methyl chloroform when the Montreal protocol to control chlorofluorocarbons is renegotiated in an international conference in London in June.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is the Government's aim ultimately to phase out all ozone-depleting substances.

  Football
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance his Department will give to football clubs wishing to redevelop or move to new stadia in order to meet the recommendations of Lord Justice Taylor's final report.

  Mr. Moynihan
  My right hon. Friend is considering the issue of planning policy guidance on the considerations relevant to new and redeveloped stadia for Football League clubs and on other matters. We hope to issue a draft consultation document soon.

  In addition, the Chancellor has announced that pool betting duty is to be reduced from 42 per cent. to 40 per cent. on condition that the full amount saved will be passed by the pools promoters to the Football Trust 1990 to be used by them to improve the safety and comfort of spectators in accordance with the recommendations contained in Lord Justice Taylor's final report.

  Right to Buy
  Mr. Buckley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make provision for tenants of non-resident landlords to have the right to buy their house; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Mr. Gow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council houses and flats have been sold to their tenants in England since May 1979; and what proposals he has to extend further to council tenants the opportunity to become owners.

  Mr. Chope
  Over 1·1 million local authority and new town tenants bought their houses in England between April 1979 and the end of December 1989, mainly under the right to buy.

  The right to buy was extended from 1 March 1990 to new property which is particularly suitable for elderly persons and to existing property suitable for elderly persons let for occupation by younger disabled persons. Local authorities are also making increasing use of their power to pay cash incentives to help existing tenants buy homes of their own; in the current year, 81 schemes have been approved with the potential to release 2,572 vacancies.

  Endangered Species
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plan he has to improve further the protection of endangered species.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 introduced for the first time in Great Britain comprehensive statutory protection for endangered wild species and their habitats. The 1981 Act also provides that the Nature Conservancy Council is required to submit proposals on schedule 5 (animals) and schedule 8 (plants) every five years (quinquennial review). As a result of the first such review in 1986 the numbers of species receiving protection was increased to 113 species of wild animals and 91 species of wild plants. The next quinquennial review is due to be submitted in 1991.

  "Polluter Pays" Principle
  Mrs. Maureen Hicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy as to charging polluters for the cost of implementing policies to clean up the environment.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Government's policy remains that the polluter pays the costs of pollution control. The Environmental Protection Bill introduces new charges so that firms will also pay the costs of administering the regulations.

  Supermarket Trolleys
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to control the nuisance of abandoned supermarket trolleys.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Clause 93 and schedule 4 to the Environmental Protection Bill, inserted on report, empower local authorities to seize, remove and retain
  257
  shopping and luggage trolleys which appear to them to have been abandoned. Trolley owners wishing to recover trolleys which have been seized will have to pay a charge to the authority. These new powers, on which the Retail Consortium and British Rail had been consulted, should ensure that abandoned trolleys are no longer left to spoil local amenities or cause danger to motorists and pedestrians.

  Wetlands
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last designated an area under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance; if he will indicate the area which is next to be designated; and when he expects to designate it.

  Mr. Trippier
  The last Ramsar designations in England, Pagham Harbour and the Wash, were on 30 March 1988, although the north Norfolk coast site was extended on 20 January 1989. Responsibility for the designation of sites in Scotland rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who announced the designation of four Ramsar sites in Scotland on 25 April 1990, bringing the Great Britain total to 43.

  I cannot forecast which site will be designated next, nor when. Government officials are currently carrying out consultations of a number of sites.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will designate the peatlands of Thorne and Hatfield moors under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance.

  Mr. Trippier
  I cannot forecast whether Thorne and Hatfield moors will be designated under the Ramsar convention. They have been identified by NCC as a potential Ramsar site, but no formal case has yet been submitted.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the species and scientific features of national or greater importance in the peatland area known as Thorne and Hatfield moors.

  Mr. Trippier
  I will write to the hon. Member with details of the information requested.

  Leasehold Houses
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the number and distribution of leasehold houses.

  Mr. Chope
  The English house condition survey estimated that there were 1 million leasehold houses in England in 1986.

  The highest concentrations were in the north-west (50 per cent.) and the west Midlands and Yorkshire and Humberside (15 per cent. each). The inter-censal survey for Wales in 1986 estimated that there were about 87,000 leasehold houses in Wales.

  Rents-into-Mortgages Scheme
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has recently met tenants' group representatives to discuss the introduction of a rents-into-mortgages scheme for public sector tenants.
  258
  Mr. Chope
  No.

  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he expects to complete his review of the Scottish Office's rents-into-mortgages scheme;

  (2) if he will commission a report into the desirability of introducing a rents-into-mortgages scheme for new town corporation tenants.

  Mr. Chope
  The Scottish Development Department and Scottish Homes are monitoring the scheme and plan a full evaluation.

  The relevance of the results for England, including the new town corporations, will be considered as they become available.

  Combustion Plants (Emissions)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to publish the plan for reducing sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from existing large combustion plants.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend intends to publish a draft plan for consultation shortly.

  Tenants' Choice
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much will be spent by the Housing Corporation in 1990–91 on the promotion of tenants' choice.

  Mr. Chope
  The Housing Corporation has allocated £55,000 for tenants' choice publicity in 1990–91. The corporation also provides advice and information to tenants as part of its day-to-day work on tenants' choice.

  Eco-labelling
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 25 April,Official Report, column 255, whether he will publish the membership of his Department's eco-labelling advisory group.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I am pleased to announce that Sir Kenneth Durham, former chairman of Unilever plc and Kingfisher plc, has agreed to chair this important advisory group. Sir Kenneth is supremely well qualified to take on this work, having a wealth of experience in both manufacturing and retailing.

  We are no less fortunate in the members who have agreed to serve on the group. They are: Ms Julia Hailes (SustainAbility); Mrs. Dorothy Mackenzie (Michael Peters Group, Brand New); Lady Wilcox (chairman of the National Consumers Council); Ms. Pippa Hyam (environmentalist): Mr. Steve Robinson (Environment Council); Mr. Ian Chalk (Reedpack Ltd); Mr. Kenneth Miles (Incorporated Society of British Advertising); Dr. Charles Suckling (scientist and member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution); Mr. Peter Green (Chief Trading Standards Officer for West Sussex); Mr. Richard Macrory (barrister, reader in environmental law, Imperial college, London); Mr. Nigel Whittaker (Kingfisher plc), Dr. John Adsetts (Albright and Wilson); Mr. Mike Rosen (Sainsburys); and Mr. John Jack (IBM).

  They have the challenging task of advising my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment

  259
  and for Trade and Industry on setting up an effective and workable scheme of labelling for environmentally more benign products, in line with the principles set out in my right hon. Friend's statement of 9 January. An important part of this task will be to advise on the UK input to negotiations with our European partners on the establishment of a single European Community-wide scheme of environmental labelling. Our aim is to secure such a scheme in time for the first labels to be awarded by the end of 1991 and we will he pressing our European partners to achieve that timetable if at all possible.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the full-time and part-time public appointments for which he is responsible, together with the salary and the date when the appointment is due for renewal.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies", produced annually, lists the part-time and full-time public appointment for which I am responsible and includes details of salaries: a copy is available in the Library of the House.

  In addition, the Cabinet Office publication "Women into Public Appointments" provides information on numbers of appointments due for renewal each year, and the average length of such appointments. A revised edition is due to be published next month and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Gravel Quotas
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how county council's gravel quotas are assessed.

  Mr. Moynihan
  There are no specific quotas for gravel production for county councils. However, MPG 6 sets out guidelines for aggregates provision in each region. These guidelines are then apportioned to local authority level by the regional aggregates working party machinery and serve as indicative figures for planning purposes.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many staff are employed by his Department; and what proportion of them are employed in each of the standard regions.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  I refer the hon. Member to "Civil Service Statistics 1988–89", table 3 a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Waste Recycling
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will estimate the cost of establishing a source separation infrastructure throughout England and Wales and the percentage of that cost which would be met by(a) the public purse and (b) the private sector;

  (2) if his Department has made an assessment of the cost of establishing source separation infrastructure and of how much of that cost will be met from (a) the public purse and (b) market co-operation, excluding any public body, grant, financial credit or other indirect support;
  260
  (3) if he will make it his policy to allow an increase in expenditure by local authorities to cover the costs of source separation;

  (4) if his Department has made an assessment of mechanised separation of domestic waste and the contribution it could make towards reaching the Government's target of 50 per cent. domestic waste recycling by the year 2000; and if he will make a statement;

  (5) for how long he estimates local authorities will be able to sustain source separation without legislation;

  (6) if his Department has made any assessment of the source separation of domestic waste as opposed to mechanised separation in terms of (a) cost, (b) efficiency and (c) substitutability;

  (7) what assessment he has made as to whether source separation of domestic waste, prior to recycling, is the most efficient and market oriented means of collection arid reclamation; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Issues of collecting and sorting domestic waste with a view to recycling have been addressed by the advisory group on recycling jointly run by my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry. We are conducting further surveys and research into various aspects of source separation, mechanised separation and recycling. The results of this work are being assessed and will be reflected in the forthcoming White Paper on the Environment which may include proposals for any further legislation and financial measures that are necessary.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to ensure that the Government's target of recycling 50 per cent. of domestic refuse by the year 2000 will be achieved.

  Mr. Trippier
  The 50 per cent. target will be achieved by a combination of measures, including the provisions of the Environmental Protection Bill which will require action by local authorities to promote recycling and enable the true cost of alternative methods of waste disposal to be identified. We also intend to being forward provisions to enable incentives in the form of recycling credits to be received by those directly responsible for promoting recycling. In addition we are evaluating the outcome of the expert advisory group on recycling with a view to stimulating the market for recycled materials.

  Landfill
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of financial incentives he has considered in order to encourage the recycling of domestic waste in place of landfilling.

  Mr. Trippier
  The measures in the Environmental Protection Bill to improve controls and introduce separate accounting for the landfilling of waste will, by making the true costs of landfill more apparent, provide a greater incentive for recycling of waste. It is also the Government's intention to introduce a further amendment to the Bill that will require waste disposal authorities to pass any money that they save because waste has been sent for recycling, rather than landfilling or other disposal, to the authority that is responsible for that recycling. Other measures have been discussed by the advisory group on recycling and are currently being evaluated; these include tax or other financial incentives to encourage manufacturers to use recycled materials, assistance with the capital costs of new
  261
  recycling plant or collection facilities, continued research and development support for recycling processes and the introduction of deposits on selected items.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will make it his policy that any incentive, through financial credit for avoiding landfill costs by recycling waste, will not be restricted to the recovery of glass, plastics, metals and newpaper, but will be specifically related to the amount of landfill that is avoided by the use of various recyclng mechanisms;

  (2) if he will make it his Department's policy to promote financial credits from disposal authorities to collection authorities for waste diverted from landfill, and that such credits will be paid for from the public purse; if he has made any estimates as to the size of this increase in public expenditure; and if he will make a statement;

  (3) if he will consider a sliding scale for financial credits to waste collection authorities, increasing in response to (a) volume of waste diverted from landfill, (b) volume of waste recovered, (c) volume of waste recycled, (d) volume of waste put to alternative use and (e) type of waste recovered, with specific attention to hazard and nuisance.

  Mr. Trippier
  The Government intend to introduce an amendment to the Environmental Protection Bill to provide for a recycling credits scheme and subsequently to undertake full consultation about the precise scope and method of application of such a scheme.

  Peat
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department intends to replace the use of peat with refuse-derived humus in major landscaping projects.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) on Monday 30 April 1990, column 380.

  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many tonnes of peat his Department uses each year.

  Mr. Trippier
  About 200 tonnes of peat are used in the royal parks each year. The PSA uses about 80 tonnes for ground maintenance at properties for which it provides services.

  Bathing Waters
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is his Department's total budget for carrying out research into the health risks of bathing in sewage-contaminated water in(a) the 1990 bathing season and (b) the 1991 bathing season;

  (2) what is his policy in respect of establishing a dose-response relationship between the level of sewage pollution of United Kingdom bathing waters and the risks of contracting swimming-associated ailments; and what is the shortest time in which this could be achieved;

  (3) what assessment he has made of the most likely microbiological agents responsible for swimming-associated gastroenteritis due to sewage pollution of bathing waters; and if these agents were (a) analysed and (b) found to be present in specimens taken from volunteers in the Langland bay study;
  262
  (4) what assessment he has made of the total cost of establishing a dose-response relationship between the level of sewage pollution of United Kingdom bathing waters and risks of contracting gastroenteritis and other swimming-associated ailments by (a) the healthy volunteer method, and (b) the methods used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency;

  (5) when he will be making public the full results of his Department's preliminary research into the health risks of bathing in sewage-contaminated water conducted in Langland bay in 1989.

  Mr. Trippier
  The cost of the study at Langland bay in 1989 was £155,000. of which the Government contributed £135,000. The report of the study is expected soon, and copies will be placed in the Library. We are considering what follow-up work is required.

  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the relationship between risks experienced by healthy adult volunteer swimmers of bathing in sewage-contaminated water and those experienced by children.

  Mr. Trippier
  Children were not included in the healthy volunteer study.

  House of Commons (Air Conditioning)
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the rooms, offices and working spaces within the House that have air conditioning; and if he will list the criteria for having the air conditioning on and working.

  Mr. Chope
  Only a small area of the accommodation occupied by the House is air conditioned. The main areas are:

  (a) The Chamber and surrounding rooms which were rebuilt in the late 1940s;

  (b) Offices in the various infill blocks. Upper Committee Corridor (North) and (South) and the Commons Court block—with no natural ventilation;

  (c) Refreshment Department kitchens.

  It is the practice to have the air conditioning on when the rooms are being used.

  Genetically Modified Organisations
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will list the people he appointed to the new advisory committee on genetically modified organisations and the organisations to which each belongs.

  Mr. Trippier
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, (Mr. Moss) on 27 April last,Official Report, column 344.

  New Midland Forest
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has received the report from the Countryside Commission on the proposed new midland forest; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  I understand that the Countryside Commission expects to submit the report on the results of its consultations at about the end of July.

  Stack Gases
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the studies currently undertaken to detect dioxins in stack gases.

  Mr. Trippier
  Studies of this sort form part of a wide-ranging investigation of dioxin emissions being made for my Department by Warren Spring Laboratory. The study is in its early stages and results are not yet available.

  Sewage Works
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to require the installation of phosphate stripping works at all sewage works; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  The National Rivers Authority is responsible for setting the quality standard of sewage works effluents. The Department has no plans to alter the present case-by-case system whereby phosphorus stripping is required in the few locations such as the Norfolk Broads and Loch Neagh where the receiving waters show signs of nutrient enrichment.

  Nature Conservancy Council for England
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the cost of advertising for the post of chief executive of the Nature Conservancy Council for England.

  Mr. Trippier
  The estimated cost of advertising the post of chief executive in the new NCC for England is some £15,500, exclusive of VAT.

  Local Government (Voting Rights)
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has considered the representations which he has received from local authorities that the dates for implementing sections 13 to 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 should be deferred.

  Mr. Portillo
  I have concluded that it will simplify the tasks of local authorities in implementing the new rules on the composition of their committees and sub-committees and on allowances for councillors if they are given more time in which to make the necessary arrangements. The provisions on these subjects and the necessary statutory instruments will come into effect on 1 August 1990, rather than 1 June and 1 July as previously suggested.

  Mortgage Transfers
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mortgage lenders have adopted the statement of practice on the transfer of mortgages; and whether he will publish a list of those lenders.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  We have been notified of 188 mortgage lenders who have adopted the statement of practice, which protects borrowers whose mortgages may be transferred to other lenders.

  The statement of practice requires that a lender who wishes to be free to transfer a borrower's mortgage must make this clear to the borrower. If this was not done when
  264
  the loan was taken out, it must be done before any transfer takes place, and any borrower who then objects will not have his mortgage transferred.

  I am today publishing a list of those lenders. A copy of the list has been placed in the Library, together with a copy of the statement of practice on the transfer of mortgages.

  I welcome the widespread adoption of this statement which will reassure borrowers. I am grateful to the associations representing mortgage lenders for their assistance in bringing the statement to the attention of their members.

  Rosebay Oil Spillage
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he plans to ask the National Rivers Authority to investigate the incidence of oil pollution in the South Hams rivers and estuaries resulting from the Rosebay oil spillage; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if he will outline the powers of the National Rivers Authority to take action in cases such as the Rosebay incident where the original pollution occurred outside National Rivers Authority jurisdiction.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: The National Rivers Authority has no powers in relation to this type of incident outside controlled waters as defined under the Water Act 1989. Once oil pollution drifts inside controlled waters it has powers to take remedial action under section 115 of the Act. In such cases the National Rivers Authority co-operates with the Department of Transport's marine pollution control unit which is responsible for oil clean-up at sea and with local authorities which are principally responsible for coastline clean-up.

  I understand that the National Rivers Authority is already investigating the incidence of oil in controlled waters although it has no remit to investigate the cause of the incident. It is co-operating with the marine pollution control unit, Devon county council and other affected local authorities in both preventive and remedial measures.

  Ivory
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment from what date Her Majesty's Government will consider ivory to be pre-regulation within the context of granting exemptions under article 6 paragraph 1(a) of Council regulation No. 3626/82.

  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: The European Community CITES committee has decided that the sale of African elephant ivory within the European Community is possible under article 6.1(a) of Council regulation 3626/82 where the ivory was imported legally before 1 January 1984 or in compliance with regulation 3626/82 between 1 January 1984 and 14 June 1989: ivory imported between 14 June 1989 and 18 January 1990 may be sold only if import took place under an authorised exemption provided for in regulation 2496/89. The Department will consider applications under article 6.1(a) for the sale of African elephant ivory on this basis.

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he is prepared to provide on applications for exemption under article 6.1(a) of European Community regulation 3626/82.
  265
  Mr. Trippier
  [holding answer 21 May 1990]: Information on applications for exemptions under article 6.1(a) of EC regulation 3626/82 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. As from October 1988 a record of exemptions granted under article 6.1 has been maintained and information on the number and species covered by the exemptions given since then could be provided.

  Parish Councils
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many parish councils have been formed in urban areas since his Department's circular 121/77; and if he will list them, by local authority area, together with their dates of creation.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: I regret that there are no accurate statistics of the numbers of parish councils. Even if the term "urban areas" were to be
  266
  defined it would not be possible to obtain the information sought without substantive research at disproportionate cost.

  Urban Reviews
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many reviews have been conducted by urban authorities under the Local Government Act 1972.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 22 May 1990]: Section 48(8) of the Act requires district councils to keep the whole of their district under review for the purpose of considering whether or not to make proposals to the local government boundary commission concerning the arrangements for parishes in their area.

  To date 205 non-metropolitan districts and 13 metropolitan districts have carried out reviews which have resulted in proposals being made to the commission. I do not know how the term "urban authorities" is to be interpreted.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers— Read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Baroness Cumberlege
Mrs. Julia Frances Cumberlege, CBE, having been created Baroness Cumberlege, of Newick in the County of East Sussex, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Trumpington and the Baroness Cox.
Baroness Brigstocke
Mrs. Heather Renwick Brigstocke, having been created Baroness Brigstocke, of Kensington in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Lord Greenhill of Harrow and the Baroness Platt of Writtle.

Teachers: East Sussex
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether two history teachers in East Sussex are being prevented from teaching history in the area of their own local education authority; and, if so, whether there is any action which they can take to remedy this situation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the two teachers are free to apply for whatever teaching posts in history they wish. It is then entirely a matter for their prospective employers. I understand that those concerned locally, including the local education authority, have always acknowledged the undoubted skills of these teachers and their great commitment to education.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a great shame that despite the ostensible freedom to apply for the posts, those teachers do not feel free to do so at present because of unfortunate remarks which have been made about them in public? It is a great shame that two excellent history teachers should not be allowed to teach history. One has been relegated to retraining as a primary teacher and the other to a course on tourism. Does my noble friend agree that that is a very bad situation at a time when the country needs every excellent teacher it can get?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the situation is unfortunate. Through my noble friend I invite the two teachers to invoke the grievance procedure within their own local education authority, which I understand they have
894
not done, and if they still feel aggrieved, to present their case formally in writing to the Secretary of State.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may say how pleased I am at the Minister's last remark. Is she able to throw any light on what this is all about? Two extremely good history teachers seem, on the face of it, to have been very badly treated. Your Lordships have debated the matter before: no one seems to be able to put a finger on precisely what is going on. It seems to be beyond any reasonable sort of behaviour to suggest that the two teachers have done anything wrong. Does the Minister's department have any knowledge of the matter? In particular, can we be told what is the alleged offence of the two teachers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that there is no offence at all. I understand that there has been a reorganisation of the schools in East Sussex and that the two teachers were not re-employed. Nevertheless, there appears to be a question mark and a difference between the allegations of the teachers and those of the education authority. It is important to repeat what I said in my first Answer; namely, that the teachers should set out their case in writing to the Secretary of State or invoke the grievance procedure within their authority.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to this point, but the noble Baroness seems to be throwing salt into the wound. There appears to be some implication that these two people have done something wrong. They have a view of history quite different to mine, but that is not an offence against anything that I can think of. Will the noble Baroness at least assure the House that if her right honourable friend the Secretary of State hears fom the two teachers, he will act rapidly and make it abundantly clear—as I believe will turn out to be the case—that these are two reputable people who are simply trying to do their jobs as teachers?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I repeat that there is no evidence to my knowledge that the teachers have done anything wrong. What is true is that they were not reappointed following reorganistion in that authority. I understand that the teachers are aggrieved about that process. As yet there is no prima facie evidence with the Secretary of State or the local authority. The account by the authority is that the procedures followed were correct; that the governors did not act incorrectly. I repeat that if the teachers continue to feel aggrieved they must present their case to the authority and in writing to the Secretary of State.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend indicate whether these teachers were the victims of some internal reorganisation? Were other teachers also affected by it or was it a reorganisation intended to deal with those two?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that there were other teachers who were not re-employed following reorganisation. My

895
understanding is that they were not as aggrieved as these two teachers appear to be, and therefore that grievance must be registered and considered.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this matter came before her department before she became a spokesman for it in this House and that far from the Secretary of State needing to be informed, the case has been before him for a long time, supported by the union to which the two teachers belong? Is she also aware that, far from the proper procedures having been followed, the director of education for East Sussex wrote to the press to say that he could understand why other schools would not wish to employ them?
Finally, is the noble Baroness aware that unless this matter is cleared up, faith on all sides of the House in the wish and willingness of the department to maintain high standards in teaching will be shattered?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I repeat that I am aware that a number of informal approaches have been made to the Secretary of State, from my noble friend Lady Cox and through the union and Members of another place. Today I am inviting the teachers to present their case formally to the local authority and in writing to the Secretary of State. That, to date, has not been done. I find that surprising.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, can I explain my interest in this matter?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am a school governor? As I understand it, it is the responsibility of the governing body of a school to determine the curriculum to be taught in that school. If there are teachers who are not prepared to teach the curriculum determined by the governing body, will the Minister say whose responsibility it is to determine the employment prospects of those teachers thereafter?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, all the evidence to hand indicates that the two teachers taught the curriculum as determined by the governors of the school. I do not believe that matter to be at issue. The governors have the responsibility for seeing how the curriculum is delivered and the authority lies with them. However, the implication in the noble Lord's remarks is that the teachers were not conforming with the wishes of the governors. I am pleased to say that the teachers taught GCSE in the school according to the requirements of the governing body.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, while agreeing with my noble friend that all legitimate procedures should be enlisted, can she advise me whether, if all else fails, the local ombudsman is available? Can she advise me whether, if that did not work, judicial review would be available?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I understand that this case has been before the local ombudsman. He has determined that there is no case to answer.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend in a position to respond to a request made by the NAS/UWT and by the TUC that there should be an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Mr. McGovern's loss of employment as a history teacher?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not aware of that specific request. The decision on whether or not there should be an inquiry rests entirely on a formal presentation by the teachers of their case in writing to the Secretary of State.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if this matter has been before the department for so long, why are we not told what is the issue?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I could spend a considerable amount of time at the Dispatch Box discussing what I believe to be the issue. However, this has not been before the Secretary of State in any formal capacity. It is important to invite the two teachers to set out their case in writing and present it to the Secretary of State. At that time I shall be able to come to the Dispatch Box and register the consideration of my department.
Lord Annan: My Lords, why were the teachers not advised to do that long ago?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am at a loss to answer that question.

Building Industry: Trends
3.8 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the present activity trend in the building industry.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, since 1981 there have been eight consecutive years of sustained growth in construction output in Great Britain. Output increased by 4 per cent. last year in constant price terms despite a reduction in housebuilding activity. Published forecasts predict a downturn of between 3.5 per cent. and 6 per cent. this year, with an upturn in 1991 and beyond.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that naturally I welcome the fact that over the past few years the building industry has done rather well? Is the Minister also aware that the predictions of the building industry do not accord with the latter part of his Answer? They state that only 39 per cent. of firms are working at near capacity as against 71 per cent. last year, and that significant pockets of spare capacity are now appearing in the South-East outside of London. However, is not the most disturbing fact that private industrial work is

897
declining at a rapid rate because manufacturers are no longer investing due to the high interest rates? When can we expect an end to the high interest rates and once again an upturn in the building industry?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, paints a picture of doom and gloom but I have to say that looking out of the top floor at Marsham Street I see nothing but a forest of cranes looking down to the east of this capital of ours.
As I Said in my Answer, there has been a projected reduction which does not in any way disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Dean, because his figure relates to assumed levels of activity within firms rather than output or orders placed. We should remember that it is most important for the future of our country that we get on top of inflation rather than preserve levels of expansion in the building industry.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if he lived near Swindon, as I do, he would find it absolutely impossible to persuade a builder to do anything for months and months because they have so much work?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's remarks because that point has been drawn to my attention on previous occasions. It is also true to say that in the South-East there will be some reduction in activity. That is hardly surprising bearing in mind the enormous level of growth in commercial activity since 1985 which equates to an increase in real terms of about 90 per cent.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the buoyancy of the construction industry is a barometer for the nation as a whole. If the industry is doing well, so is the nation. That is a fact of life. Can the Minister give details of the present position and state how he sees the future in regard to house building in particular?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the cumulative figures which I gave earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Dean, refer of course to a combination of civil engineering and house building. House building figures have dropped and that is hardly surprising because they always respond to the level of mortgage interest rates. However, it is a fact that we must curb inflation and that is why we have high levels of interest.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, has the noble Lord taken on board the fact that the interest rate policy which he just described hits specific sectors and geographical areas? That policy does not hit across the economic spectrum—witness the appalling trade figures we have seen today. Will the Government now review their counter-inflation policy, seeking not just to influence sectors such as the building industry in specific areas but seeking to get demand back across the whole economy?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government are acutely aware of the fact that the real losers under inflation are the poor, the weak and those on fixed incomes. They need to be protected.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell the House what activity in the building industry is concentrated on housing for local authorities and housing associations? In other words, I refer to housing that will help those he has just listed as being perhaps in the lower income groups in the community.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Baroness may remember my earlier remarks; for example, the Housing Corporation's gross capital expenditure will rise from just over £900 million to £1-7 billion by 1992-93—an increase of nearly 100 per cent. That shows the Government's commitment in regard to providing subsidised housing.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend make it quite clear that the Government will not be diverted from their anti-inflation policy for the sort of considerations that have been suggested by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can give my noble friend that assurance.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept my suggestion that the counter-inflation policy of the Government is wholly ineffective? It has no effect at the moment on the core rate of inflation. It has no effect on the trade balance. Is it not about time that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, woke up to the fact that a different and stronger policy is necessary?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, but, rather more important, I feel that he is now straying into an area where my noble friend the Paymaster General may be able to provide a more satisfactory reply, rather than now delaying the House on a rather difficult and technical subject which is not entirely to do with the rate of construction activity in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I asked the Minister for details of present activity but he gave the estimate for 1991-92. I hardly think that that is present activity.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the figures I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, were to show the Government's level of commitment. For the first quarter of 1990 the total number of housing starts was 33, 900. That is a provisional figure.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, do the Government agree that two of the more significant indicators in terms of the building industry are, first, the number of dwellings that are constructed by the building industry and, secondly, the amount of manufacturing capacity built by the building industry? On those two categories, can the Government advise the House of the difference between the figures that applied in 1979 and the figures that applied in 1989?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have the figures for 1979 relating to the noble Lord's question. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the construction activity to which the Question relates is the total level of construction activity, and is not for house building as a separate item. It is running at a record level, and even if there is a downturn it will still be running at a record level this year.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of our noble Leader of the House to the fact that the clock now shows 16 minutes and that we are only halfway through Questions?
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I suggest that we take a question from the noble Lord, Lord Dean, and then move on.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I shall be brief. If, as the building industry states, there is a substantial cutback in private industrial building, does that not augur badly for our future? We are now trying to regain our position as a major manufacturing country on the same basis as our contemporaries and business rivals in Europe. Surely the cutback will adversely affect any attempt to correct the balance of payments in manufacturing.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, now drifts of f into following the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in regard to manufacturing industry. That is another question for another day. However, it is interesting to note that the Benches opposite are not interested in the level of expenditure and growth in capital projects that will come from central government, which this year will be about 22 per cent.

Global Environment: Proposal
3.18 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they favour the establishment of a world environment fund which could assist developing countries to reduce pollution of the atmosphere.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth office (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the World Bank has proposed the establishment, on a pilot basis, of a global environment facility. This would help developing countries tackle issues which could have significant global benefits including ozone depletion and climate change. We warmly welcome the bank's initiative in outlining a possible framework of international collaboration on these issues. At the meeting of the development committee in Washington earlier this month, we supported the proposal that the bank should carry out further work to elaborate its proposals in consultation with interested parties.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I thank my noble friend for his reply. There seem to be differences of opinion among the industrialised nations on the institutional arrangements. But is it firmly agreed that assistance is necessary if the developing countries are to be persuaded to take special measures which were not in the past required of other countries?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the proposals of the World Bank have received broad support from industrialised countries, including ourselves. Naturally, this is an early stage of the proposals and more work is needed to clarify the issues before the scale of the programme can be defined. The bank plans to hold a meeting of donor governments in June for further discussions on its proposals.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the greatest challenge to humanity over the next 50 years is how the peoples of the developing world can reach a sustainable level of life without destroying the planet? Does he agree that as the industrialised countries are responsible for 80 per cent. of the pollution of our atmosphere it is the industrialised countries who owe it to themselves and to the rest of the world to help to finance the more expensive technologies which are required if the developing countries are not to follow the bad example of those of us in the developed world?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, broadly I think I can agree with the noble Lord, which is a change. Yes, obviously that is the purpose behind this proposal from the World Bank.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in regard to the figure of 80 per cent. given by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, does my noble friend recall that yesterday he said that 20 per cent. of the carbon dioxide produced was due to deforestation? That figure does not seem to fit in very well with that given by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. Will my noble friend also bear in mind that the more people there are in any country the more difficult it is for the country to prevent further assault on the environment? Therefore, does he not agree that it would be wise for any kind of financial assistance to be accompanied by advice on family planning?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the latter part of my noble friend's question is a matter which we shall be going into in greater detail later this afternoon. The figures that I have available show that it is estimated that developing countries currently account for about one-third of the annual greenhouse gas emissions, about 25 per cent. of fossil fuel emissions and 90 per cent. of carbon emissions resulting from deforestation.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House that the World Bank's proposals will take account of the problems posed by external debt? Can the Minister also say what the main proposal was of the Bergen conference and whether Her Majesty's Government were able to support it?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the World Bank's proposals cover four main environmental issues; namely, the depletion of the ozone layer; the control of CFCs; the control of greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity in the international river and marine environment. I do not think that debt is part of that process. The Bergen conference was useful. The United Kingdom played a constructive part which was recognised by the conference as a whole.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate 1o the House how his answers today square with the of t-made remarks of the Prime Minister and President Bush that countries in the developing world should essentially be left to their own devices in resolving problems and avoiding the catastrophic environmental mistakes made by the industrialised countries?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have in front of me the quotation to which the noble Lord refers. Before answering that question I would wish to see exactly what was said.

Marinas: Siting
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the siting of marinas on British coasts.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government believe that it should be chiefly for those who wish to develop marinas to decide where to site them, subject always to their obtaining any necessary planning permission. They would also need either to have or to obtain the necessary statutory powers and to satisfy any other statutory requirements such as those in the Coast Protection Act 1949.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Does he not agree that there is increasing pressure for development on the coastline of England and Wales and of ten in areas of natural beauty and of wildlife importance? In view of the fact that the last review of coastal development was carried out in 1960, and that 28 further sites have been identified by the Welsh Tourist Board as being suitable for development, do the Government not agree that there is a need for a major review of the coastal conservation policy throughout England and Wales?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the Government believe that these are matters for the local planning authorities. I am sure that they are well aware of their responsibilities. In addition, where powers to construct a marina are being sought by means of a harbour revision order, my right honourable friend may require an environmental assessment to be carried out. Where such powers are sought by means of a Private Bill as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, objectors may petition against a Bill on environmental or other grounds. I see no case for
902
the Government to seek to impose a strategy for marinas on those wishing to develop them.
Lord Parry: My Lords, while not wishing in any sense to cut across the Question asked by my noble friend Baroness Nicol, perhaps I may ask this question. Is the Minister aware that 12 years ago the Welsh Tourist Board undertook a survey of the ports and harbours of Wales in order to identify those which most suitably, and with the agreement of their communities, would provide marina facilities to the advantage of the nation and its economy? Is the noble Viscount aware that a number of those developments have been carried out satisfactorily? My noble friend is quite right in pointing out the danger if matters are left to the whim of the developer. If control slips from the developing authority, we can have a situation in this country where there are too many marinas which are badly controlled. At the moment the development is successful, but we have to take care.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I agree that there can be problems over developments. However, the local planning authorities will be aware of these far in advance of the Government.
Lord Moran: My Lords, is the Welsh office yet in a position to respond to the conclusions of a seminar which was held in April 1989 by the environmental study group of the Prince of Wales Committee under my chairmanship which studied coastal and estuarial development in Wales? Is the noble Viscount aware that the committee concluded that local planning mechanisms were not adequate to reconcile social, economic and environmental questions, and that it suggested that there should be strategic, regional guidance from the Welsh office?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I shall certainly look into the matter and write to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I note that Scotland is also included in this Question. Is my noble friend aware that some suitable schemes carried out in places where they will not obtrude on the environment enable sea defences to be renewed against storms and flood; sewage treatment works to be improved; and the dereliction of our coast to be repaired? Is my noble friend further aware that those measures enable private finance to be introduced to help where public funds from both central and local government are either scarce or not available at all?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very valid point.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that his answers indicate that the development of marinas is both indiscriminate and piecemeal? Will he confirm that the promised White Paper on environmental problems will include a policy dealing with coastal conservation? It appears from the questions asked by noble Lords that the development of marinas brings both benefits and serious problems.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the regional councils for sport and recreation which consist of representatives from local authorities and recreational interests, may include the siting of marinas in the regional strategy documents which they prepare for the Sports Council. I repeat that these issues are for the individual planning authorities involved in the handling of the specific cases locally.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that his statement that coastal conservation will be given serious consideration is very much welcomed? On the other hand, does the Minister not agree that it is necessary for the kind of marinas that may be built to be built in the best of taste and be classical in design? A good example of a marina meeting all those requisites is contained in the remarkable marina that is being constructed in the city of Swansea.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord knows more about that than I do. The choice of sites for development depends primarily on the commercial judgment of the developers. I repeat that the developments are subject to planning and other statutory safeguards.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will welcome the Government's statement that planning regulations are adequate to deal with the siting and construction of marinas. Will the Government comment on the procedure of the use of Private Bills going through Parliament to facilitate the construction of marinas?
Viscount Davidson: No, my Lords.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I have the good fortune to live near a marina. Does my noble friend the Minister not agree that one of the great pleasures that affords is to be able to watch people working hard on their boats and then going to sea without having to do either of those things?
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend is very fortunate.

Business
3.29 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, no formal time limits have been agreed to by the House in respect of the two debates this afternoon, but it is expected that each will last about 2 ½ hours. That being the case, in the second debate, except for the noble Lord, Lord Rea, opening and my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara winding up, each noble Lord will be limited to eight minutes. I suggest that Members of the House speaking in that debate may wish to take this as a guide line. I draw the attention of all who wish to speak in this afternoon's debates to the advice in the Companion that speeches, apart from the proposer's and the winding up speech, should last no longer than 15 minutes.

Civil Liberties
3.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg rose to call attention to the state of civil liberties under this Administration; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords:
"Thatcherism makes intellectual liberty just another commodity, to be enjoyed when there is no particular political or administrative price to be paid for it, but abandoned, with no evident grief, when the price begins to rise. That is not despotism. But it cheapens liberty and diminishes the nation".
Those are not my words, though I agree with them. They are the words of the Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Oxford, Professor Dworkin, in an important article at the end of 1988. His conclusion was that, "liberty is ill in England".
It is a theme to which he returned in a public lecture only last Thursday. His proposition was that the very concept of liberty,
"is being challenged and corroded by the Thatcher Government".
True,
"the Government's challenge to freedom has nothing to do with … despotism. It shows"—
he claimed—
"a more mundane but still corrupting insensitivity to liberty, a failure to grasp its force and place in modern democratic ideals".
The argument is that the concept of liberty turns, first, on the sovereign idea that liberty of speech, conviction and information figure among fundamental human rights; and, secondly, on a set of working assumptions about how these rights must be protected—assumptions to be characterised as together forming the culture of liberty. So the basic argument is the high value that should be given to freedom of expression; that it should not be traded in the same way as one social good may be bartered against another; that government should ever bear the burden of proving to a high standard a real necessity to interfere with freedom of expression.
The weight of these charges could be assessed by reference to many freedoms—freedom of the press; of broadcasters; of assembly; academic freedom. But a sustained feature of this Administration has surely been their obsession with government secrecy and national security, to the prejudice of traditional freedoms. It is hard to think that in the GCHQ affair hostility to trade unions did not walk hand in hand with indifference to basic freedoms. Some industrial action at GCHQ caused the Government to announce that staff there could no longer be members of trade unions. They would be free to join only a staff association approved by the Government. Their loss of freedom of association was to be bought of f at £1,000 a head—subject to income tax! They had to accept or else; and ultimately be sacked if transfer elsewhere was impossible. The last sackings took place last year.
The Government were adamant that a no-disruption agreement with the unions could not be given a chance, although the Government could then have had their way if the agreement had been tried and failed. The Government were condemned by the ILO, but that mattered not. The courts held

905
that they had failed to comply with their legal obligation to consult with the Civil Service unions before withdrawing freedom of association. But the Government succeeded because their decision was for reasons of national security and the courts held that they could not question whether that decision was truly necessary for those reasons. If they had, the Government would surely have failed.
GCHQ, however, was only one step in a series where the Government have exaggerated state security t0 the prejudice of freedom. There has been a huge increase in prosecutions under the official Secrets Act in the past decade. In 1983 Sarah Tisdall from the office of the Foreign Secretary delivered documents to the Guardian evidencing a government decision to delay a Statement to Parliament about the arrival of Cruise missiles in Greenham Common until after they had arrived. One object was to enable the Government to emphasise their position first, before the Opposition and the "peace movement" could react. The courts ordered the Guardian to return the documents. As a result, Sarah Tisdall emerged as the suspect: she confessed, and was sentenced to imprisonment. Your Lordships' House, in its judicial capacity by a very narrow majority of three to two, held that national security had required the return of the documents. However, the distinct impression was left that the "secret" tab on the documents was for reasons of parliamentary or political advantage, not genuine security interest.
Then there was the Ponting case in 1984. He had sent Mr. Tam Dalyell, MP, Ministry of Defence documents about parliamentary inquiries into the sinking of the "General Belgrano". At his trial he alleged that he had wanted to blow the whistle on how Parliament had been misled by Ministers and how Ministers had planned to mislead the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. This was an astonishing prosecution to bring under the official Secrets Act and eventually the jury said "no" to a prosecution it did not like by acquitting Mr. Ponting—astonishing because on day one it was conceded that his disclosure had caused no damage to national security, but only a breach of confidence. It was astonishing also because potential jurors were vetted by the Special Branch, although national security was not in issue. Ponting, of course, had no authority to reveal the documents to Mr. Dalyell. His defence was that he had revealed them because it was his duty in the interests of the state, under Section 2, to do so. The jury acquitted, despite a direction that "duty" meant official duty and the "interests of the state" meant the interests of the government of the day, which they do not.
Then in 1987 there was the bizarre Zircon affair. Your Lordships will recall that it concerned the withdrawal by the BBC of a film alleging that the Ministry of Defence had secretly launched a £500 million surveillance project unbeknown to Parliament, in breach of a clear undertaking that any defence projects exceeding £250 million would be disclosed to the Public Accounts Committee. Ineptitude followed—of a quite comic order. The of fending journalist arranged for the film to be shown in the other place, in order to prove that there was no risk to national security. Incredibly, the
906
Government went to the courts for an injunction. Obviously the courts refused—it was for Parliament to regulate its own affairs. Then the Speaker banned the film after the Attorney-General briefed him on the security implications.
The rest is history—the failed attempt to serve an injunction on the journalist; the New Statesman publishing the contents of the film; search warrants to search the offices of the New Statesman, followed by a search of the Scottish office of the BBC. So, this punitive action over, the problem went away, with injunctions lifted, the Speaker's ban withdrawn, the film transmitted by the BBC two years later, no prosecutions brought, and no damage at all to the national interest other than that the authorities had succeeded in making themselves look ridiculous.
But this was nothing alongside Spycatcher. Undoubtedly Wright was in breach of his obligation of confidence, but he had grave allegations to make affecting the public interest; that MI5 had attempted to destabilise a democratically elected government; had been implicated in an attempt to assassinate President Nasser; had been involved in the bugging and burglary of trade unions and political parties. I pass over the fiasco in Australia, the continued banning of the book in this country, long after publication in the United States and long after the information had become public knowledge throughout the world; and then the turning of the tide in the courts with the judge, who heard the trial at the end of 1987 for permanent injunctions against the press, declaring that the absolute protection that the Government were seeking for the security service, "could not be achieved this side of the Iron Curtain".
It became progressively bizarre to go on stubbornly trying to ban in this country what was freely available everywhere else, and here too with a modicum of effort.
In the aftermath of Spycatcher the staff counsellor for the security and intelligence services was invented. Members of the service could take their grievances to him. He has access to the Secretary to the Cabinet and reports annually to the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Home Secretary. But the arrangement is all, in-house, within the Executive; the public can never know.
It is an offence under the official Secrets Act 1989 to reveal any information about the activities of the security service. The opinion of the trial judge in the Spycatcher case that,
"the public was the proper recipient of information that M15 was attempting to destroy public confidence in a democratically elected government",
was ignored. The counsellor has no duty to account to Parliament.
The Security Service Act 1989 puts MI5 on a statutory basis for the first time. However, its powers are so broad that it can do virtually anything. The service must not be used to further the interests of any political party, but there is no prohibition on acting contrary to the interests of a political party. The Government refused to accept an amendment borrowed from Canada which would have prevented surveillance of those engaged in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent.
It is the Home Secretary, not the courts, who may authorise warrants permitting literally any interference with property. It comes down to the fact that the Home Secretary is absolutely free to decide on the width of the legislation. True, there is to be a security service commissioner who reviews the grant of warrants by the Home Secretary. But he reviews them only after the event. He cannot order the Minister to cease what is improper. He reports annually to the Prime Minister, but any part of the report appearing to the Prime Minister to be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the service need not be laid before Parliament.
It is also true that a tribunal to investigate complaints by individuals has been set up. But it cannot adjudicate on service inquiries into a category of individuals—for example, CND or a political party—and a complaint by an individual must fail if the security service has reasonable grounds for believing him to be a member of such a category. The truth is that the tribunal's powers are very weak; and it, and the commissioner for good measure, are made immune from judicial review. Nor is there any system for the accountability of the security service to Parliament or any other form of independent scrutiny of its activities.
The system which works well in Canada—that is, a security intelligence review committee of Privy Councillors appointed by Her Majesty's representative in Canada, after consultations between the Canadian Prime Minister and the leader of each party with a minimum of 12 Members in the House of Commons—is rejected. The Canadian committee has unrestricted oversight of the discharge by the service of its duties and hears complaints. There is the advantage that its composition is not dominated by a single person, the Prime Minister.
Equally, my party's proposal for accountability to Parliament through a House of Commons Select Committee was rejected. The legislative scrutiny that applies in the United States and Australia is unacceptable to this Administration. Surely public confidence in a proper system of democratic control requires something more than the assurance of supervision by a single Minister.
Then we had the official Secrets Act of last year. The one thing that this measure is not is a liberalising measure. It provides no positive rights to information and no freedom of information. It fails to recognise the public interest to know of abuses by government of its powers. A narrow amendment was moved in your Lordships' House which would have allowed officials to reveal really serious misconduct involving crime, fraud or other gross impropriety. Even that could not be accepted. Under the common law, where breach of confidence is alleged, that is a defence. It is a defence that the public interest favours disclosure. But that defence is not available under the Act. As Mr. Edward Heath pointed out in another place, newspapers could be prosecuted for disclosing an Irangate in this country. Therefore there is no defence for a newspaper, whose source is
908
a civil servant on a security or defence matter, which reveals that a Minister of the Crown has not told Parliament the truth, or has wilfully withheld it or been economical with it.
I do not accept that the categories of information protected under the Act represent a narrowing of the scope, in practice, of official secrets. An Act which was becoming substantially inoperable in practice has been replaced by one capable of being more repressive in practice. It is an offence for any member of the security service to disclose confidential information, even if it causes no harm. It is an offence for officials to leak information, however true, about unpreparedness in the military sphere, provided that the truth can be shown to be damaging. It would be an offence to reveal here information given in confidence by our Government to a foreign state where the information has been leaked by that state, and even if the information has had the widest currrency abroad, provided that the truth could be shown to be damaging. We retain a system well fashioned to keep from the public view any information embarrassing to government, whether bureaucratic error or, worse, deception—laws which do not reflect the balance a modern democratic society requires between the public interest to receive, and the state interest to withhold, information.
The Administration's claim that the statute liberalises is as ill founded as their same claim for the Interception of Communication Act 1985. A warrant for interception can be issued by the Home Secretary in the interests of national security, without any definition of what that means. So the Minister is judge. Again, the model of other countries, requiring judicial authorisation, is rejected. There are so many of these warrants that it is obvious they are authorised by officials with only formal approval by the Minister. The tribunal to hear complaints is a spurious protection. It can only consider whether a warrant is properly issued under the Act; that is, not perversely by the Minister—a burden which is impossible to discharge—but not whether the warrant has been used for unauthorised interceptions. Its decisions cannot be judicially reviewed, yet again, by the courts.
True, there is a commissioner to oversee the exercise of these powers. He is appointed by the Prime Minister. He must report on abuses to the Prime Minister, who is not obliged to publish these reports; and he must report annually on his duties to the Prime Minister, who can exclude anything from that report when published, if thought by the Prime Minister to be contrary to national security.
This year the commissioner's report runs to an economic three pages, with a one-page appendix on the number of warrants. The commissioner confirmed that all warrants had been properly issued and that the tribunal, in completing its investigation of 47 complaints, had found not a single breach of the Act. I do not question the good conscience of anyone concerned, but the system is no substitute for warrants being granted by judges and accountability to Parliament.
I shall not go on to multiply instances. I do not doubt that other noble Lords will do so in the course of this short debate. But I feel that I should not leave of f opening this debate without at least touching upon a great issue which I imagine will be addressed by other noble Lords: has the time come for our country to incorporate into our law the European Convention on Human Rights? The current position of my party is no, though it remains subject to debate. The Government's position is also no.
It was the 1951 Labour Government who were first among the members of the Council of Europe to ratify the convention. It was the Labour Government of 1966 who accepted the right of individual petition under the European convention to complain to the European Commission of Human Rights of alleged violations of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the convention.
Incorporation of the convention is no panacea for the decline in our civil liberties. The policy of my party is; that we should have a freedom of information Act and that both M15 and M16 should be made subject to parliamentary supervision. However, the further issue is whether incorporation of the convention into our law would also advance civil liberty. The main argument against is that powers would be taken away from Parliament, where they belong, and given to the judiciary, where they do not belong. Your Lordships may think that there is one basic question: if civil liberties are worth protecting, is it sensible to rely upon Parliament alone to do the job?
The case for incorporation is that the protection of Parliament is not enough. The Executive dominate. Governments are characteristically elected on a minority of the votes cast in elections in which civil liberties issues rarely receive much attention. The Prime Minister dominates the Cabinet. The payroll vote becomes ever larger. This Administration have set a precedent for the use of three-line Whips, even on Private Members' Bills. Sheer lack of parliamentary time of ten makes proper scrutiny a mirage. It is difficult to believe that any of us are wholly satisfied with the parliamentary process as it operates today. Two to three years ago, the other place was given but three days to consider more than 1,000 amendments to the Education Reform Bill and the poll tax Bill—on average, 80 seconds per amendment. The poll tax was a classic case of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure.
I do not desire to detain your Lordships for too long. I well know the argument that the powers of the judiciary should not be enlarged at the expense of Parliament; that the judges are not the best equipped to decide those issues. But is it the final position of both major parties that we do not believe that our courts can help protect our citizens' rights under the European Convention; that we rely upon our Parliament alone, whoever is in power, and foreign judges only? I beg to move for Papers.
3.51 p.m.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I confess at once that I put my name down to speak in the debate with great hesitation and, as I hope the
910
Opposition Bench will accept, with great reluctance. I was stung into the desire to do so by what seemed to me at the time—I am afraid that my suspicions have been confirmed rather than otherwise—the somewhat acidulous party political phrase that has been incorporated into the last phrase of the Motion. We can do better than that. This country deserves better than that. The country is entitled to expect the House to do better than that.
The issue of human freedom is not well accepted by the expression "civil liberties". I shall return to that general consideration in a moment. Nor is it at all well served by trying to draft American ideas into the British constitution. I hope that I shall not be suspected of insulting my mother's country. I am in truth a son of the American revolution, having had three male ancestors who fought against the British and thereby achieved the independence of Britain from the United States. I question the value of attempting to graft a pear onto a peach, and that is a point to which I shall again revert.
The first point is not to chase a series of individual hares around the course: from Ponting to Greenham Common; from Greenham Common to the Data Protection Act; from freedom of information to Spycatcher and all the rest of it. That would take us all night. The first question to ask oneself is: what is human freedom about? I put this general conception before the House: what a free parliamentary democracy is concerned to do is not to achieve freedom as such in the absolute, or law and order in the absolute, but to achieve the optimum level of freedom under law.
I shall describe what I mean by freedom under law. I mean the freedom of virtuous and responsible individuals to live according to their desires; to express their own personalities under just laws, enacted by a free Parliament and administered by an independent judiciary. That is my definition of what we are after.
By trying to turn the issue into a party political one, we do discredit to ourselves. We are talking ourselves down. In fact, we all know at the bottom of our hearts that this is one of the most agreeable countries in which to live. I only wish that it were even better. Comparing ourselves with the appalling state of the present world as we view it in the newspapers every day, this is an agreeable country in which to live. As I say, I hope that it will become even better.
I may be asked what I mean by "responsible people". I shall issue a caveat here. By responsible and virtuous people I mean people who obey not just the letter of the law but—to adopt a phrase from a recent lecture by the noble Lord, Lord Swann—obey the unenforceable code of obedience which natural morality imposes upon us. The freedom consists within that bound, subject to the provisos that I have made about a free Parliament and an independent judiciary, to allow human talent and virtue to blossom under those constraints only which a natural morality would otherwise impose.
It is a great mistake to use the phrase "civil liberty" too of ten. We are not the enemies of government when we live in a free country. By far the most

911
serious encroachments on civil liberty are criminality, violence and terrorism—people who murder others for political reasons. of course there is no absolute level at which law and order and individual freedom can be said for ever to be engraved on tablets of stone at a certain static point, like the two tablets brought down from Sinai by Moses. That is not so. We live in a particular political context. Obviously we have to allow government whatever powers they may need to achieve the best that we can do in the circumstances in which we are.
The use of the phrase "civil liberty" is not English; it is American. It represents a kind of formulation to which the history of human freedom owes a great deal. Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the Act of Settlement, the written element of our constitution, the declaration of independence—
"life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"—
by my American ancestors, and the first 10 amendments to the American constitution in the 1787 version, added immediately after the ratification of the original Philadelphia convention, have played an important part. So has the universal declaration of 1948 after the conclusion of the last war; so indeed did the European convention. They represent, as a matter of fact, only a fairly unsophisticated and perhaps primitive phase in the development of the kind of society that we wish to promote.
When we list freedoms and make a special freedom called civil liberty we seldom achieve our purpose. The first 10 amendments to the American constitution did not save the American negro from slavery for 82 years, nor from discrimination for nearly another 82 years. These are primitive ideas. The function of government, the function of legislation in parliament and the approach to civil liberties by the courts must be to articulate, within the context of a given society, the kind of natural morality as it affects real people, real men and women, in the social context in which they live.
That brings me to Professor Dworkin, of whom I wish to say nothing disrespectful, except that if he really said that liberty in this country was nil, he was talking nonsense—ridiculous nonsense at that. Professors of ten do. I make no complaint if he really said that, but it can only be described as nonsense.
We now come to the questions with which the noble Lord concluded his remarks. I gathered at last that he was stepping outside the galaxy of hares which he had been chasing during the earlier part of his speech to disagree with both major parties in their attitude to the European convention. I have a little more sympathy with him over that than my preliminary remarks might seem to imply. I should like to see, as I have said previously in this House, the European convention—subject to the sovereignty of Parliament—accorded modified incorporation into our jurisprudence. However, the reason is approximately the opposite of that the noble Lord put forward.
The Strasbourg court is carefully to be distinguished from the Luxembourg court. Different considerations apply. It sits in Strasbourg. Part of
912
its jurisprudence states that no one can go there until they have exhausted local remedies. I happen to think, rightly or wrongly, that British judges are far better judges of what does or does not comply with the European convention in the British context than foreign judges. Therefore, I should be glad to see the European convention, subject to the sovereignty of Parliament, incorporated into the British system.
It should be laid down that future Acts are assumed to comply with the European convention except in so far as Parliament has made plain beyond peradventure that an exception is to remain. When the House discussed a Bill the point could be argued out in Committee. I do not believe that the criticisms which the noble Lord levelled at his own party and mine were at all well founded in that respect. It would be a good thing if people were enabled to bring complaints against the European convention to the British courts. British judges know much more plainly than most what is suitable in the British context to read into the European convention.
I go back to where I started. When we look at all these enumerations of so-called civil liberties—whether it is the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1988, the American Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration or the European convention—they all represent a stage when free humanity asserted its rights against a known tyranny. The European convention was designed to stop people behaving like Hitler and Stalin. The Magna Carta was designed to prevent future kings behaving like King John. Up to a point, it succeeded. The Glorious Revolution and the associated legislation was designed to prevent the eccentric perversities of James II.
We begin there; we do not end there. We do not treat these as limitations upon our freedom of legislation nor upon the articulation with which that freedom is to be expressed, in law, custom or convention. We treat them as broad statements made at a point when humanity is trying to begin again after a rather dark experience. That is what we were doing in 1948 and the European convention followed. I hope we will not need to have to do that again during my lifetime before I pay the small tribute, which I shall have to pay sooner or later, to the reduction in the world population.
4.5 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has raised the issue of civil liberties—if I dare use the phrase—at a most appropriate moment in the wake of the legal services Bill. To follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is always a most daunting occupation, particularly when he is in what I might call his philosophical mood. Civil liberties for me mean civil rights. If I am less philosophical in what I have to say, it is because I have spent a great deal of my life upholding the civil rights of the ordinary person.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Including mine, if the noble Lord remembers.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, civil liberties in that sense come to mean something

913
extremely practical and pragmatic. I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, intriguing since it came from a distinguished and young Member of his party. I cannot fail to call to mind the record of previous Labour administrations: the ban sought on the Crossman diaries; the expulsion of Mr. Hosenball; the prosecution under the official Secrets Act of two journalists in the ABC case when the judge publicly called on the Attorney-General to abandon the charges under Section 1 because, in his view, they were oppressive; the discovery of secret vetting under the control of the Attorney-General of the time; and the prosecution of the editor of the Sunday Telegraph for publishing an embarrassing document on the Biafran war that showed the Government's statements in Parliament to have been less than frank. I hope that the noble Lord's speech shows a sea change within his party.
Harry Street, in his book Freedom and the Law, said:
"Liberty in Britain is a state of mind rather than a set of legal rules".
As the flood of legislation has poured in and out of this House, we have seen the truth of that observation. Innumerable amendments have been tabled on this side of the House to preserve and advance civil liberties and human rights, only to be almost universally resisted by Ministers in speeches betraying incomprehension as to their purpose.
Liberty is awkward; it is inconvenient; it is of ten expensive. It is most of ten urged on behalf of the disadvantaged and the unconventional. The well heeled and the well rewarded, safe in their complacency, need have little concern under a Right-wing government for their civil rights. No doubt they are virtuous and responsible in their daily lives. For others, who do not find life so agreeable, concern is great. This Government have shown themselves too of ten to be intolerant of criticism, paternalistic, dogmatic, convinced, under a dominant Prime Minister, of their own infallibility and determined to have their way. In such circumstances it has been inevitable that civil rights and liberties of the ordinary citizen have been very of ten undermined and eroded. If I may say so to the noble and learned Lord, that is why this matter is to a degree one of party politics.
Freedom from arrest and detention, a fair trial, freedom from discrimination, the right to privacy, the right to know the facts on which Executive acts are based and freedom from censorship are all areas in which the individual has been increasingly constricted and restricted. The roll-call of Bills passing through this House where this has been so include those involving police and criminal evidence, public order, the interception of communications, local government, data protection, contempt of court, video recordings, official secrets, the security services, criminal justice and, most recently, legal services. Police powers of arrest have been extended and detention incommunicado has been lengthened. The Intelligence services, as has already been pointed out, are now recognised by the law and remain unaccountable. The concept of the lifelong obligation of confidence, whatever the wrongdoing or criminality within the service, is now enshrined in the law.
914
Warrants to permit illegal acts and tapping of phones have been removed from judicial control. Many new absolute offences have been created. In the Spycatcher case which has been mentioned, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bridge—the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, will know this only too well as he was present on that occasion—made this observation,
"Freedom of speech is always the first casualty under a totalitarian regime. Such a regime cannot afford to allow the free circulation of information and ideas among its citizens. Censorship is the indispensable tool to regulate what the public may or may not know. The present attempt to insulate the public from information available elsewhere is a significant step down that very dangerous road".
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, quoted the words of Mr. Justice Scott in another part of that case. Those observations have been made by impartial judges so of ten decried as Tory dinosaurs by some noble Lords on my left.
In the criminal courts persons may now be held for 36 hours incommunicado, and with a magistrate's warrant they may be held for 72 hours. This occurs in spite of the overwhelming evidence that a series of unacceptable miscarriages of justice have been due to the presentation of false confessions allegedly made in such circumstances.
The right to challenge jurymen has been removed. In Northern Ireland the greatest triumph of the IRA yet has been the abolition of the right to silence. The central tenet of the whole system of criminal justice in this country is the presumption of innocence. On the mainland that right and the right to a jury trial still stand between the overweening power of the Executive and the citizen. However, since the advent of the Courts and Legal Services Bill the independent, disinterested professional advocate and the independent, professional judge who are the means whereby those rights are guaranteed and made real are now themselves in jeopardy. Those very rights are in jeopardy also.
Legal aid has been removed from millions who may wish to assert their rights. Police powers in relation to meetings and marches have been enlarged and they have new powers of arrest. Persons awaiting trial on remand—they are still innocent in the eyes of the law—are held in circumstances of such squalor and such confusion that their rights have simply been extinguished.
The common law, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has so authoritatively pointed out, is no longer the ally of a vigilant parliament. It is now the servant of a docile legislature which is unable to challenge the flood of legislation. The criminal law is apparently powerless to guarantee Mr. Rushdie's freedom under the law.
Judges have reacted by developing some judicial control of the Executive through the brilliantly devised system of judicial review. However, this can only operate on a very limited front. The citizen has reacted by recourse to the Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg. He is usually represented by lawyers who act for no fee, as legal aid is not available. In spite of the fact that cases have taken six to seven years to be decided, more cases have been taken and upheld against the British Government than against

915
any other government in Europe. There have been injustices involving contempt of court, data protection, prison rules, immigration, corporal punishment, mental patients' rights, children in care, phone tapping, official secrets, homosexuality and the closed shop. Over 100 significant changes to regulations and administrative practices affecting citizens' civil rights have resulted from decisions of the Strasbourg court. This long trek to a foreign jurisdiction to find the sustenance of justice must surely be a matter of shame to this Government.
There is now only one way forward. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that it is the incorporation of the European convention into British law. Every other European country has incorporated that convention into its law. Then our judges will do what all other European judges do already, that is, interpret and apply the provisions of that convention in deciding cases which raise issues of fundamental freedoms as regards people's grievances in this country. I suggest that that is now the acid test. I can only hope that if there is a change of government in the next two years the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, will be given a post of influence.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, for giving us the chance to debate this subject. However, I must confess that I too am somewhat perplexed as regards the precise significance of the prefix "civil". One knows that social justice is a subjective concept which bears little relationship to ordinary straightforward justice, but until the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, spoke I had imagined that there was no material difference between civil liberty and straightforward liberty. However, it seems that I may have been mistaken. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that even the use of the word "liberty" on its own is unsatisfactory. It is a word that one tends to associate with rather grandiloquent transatlantic rhetoric which stems, no doubt, from the Franco-American alliance of the late 18th century. I shall stick with the good Anglo-Saxon term "freedom".
How does one measure whether the general principles of individual freedom are being given sufficient weight and attention by the government of the day? One way might be through the monitoring of the volume of new laws, because most laws by definition are restrictive rather than permissive. Obviously those basic laws common to all civilised societies which protect the individual, his family, his possessions and indeed the state from violence or depredation are laws which enhance rather than detract from freedom. The same cannot necessarily be said of what might be described as optional laws, laws which create offences out of actions which most people probably have not traditionally regarded as criminal.
I have some figures which may surprise your Lordships. I can say with reasonable confidence that since this Administration came to power on 3rd May 1979 between 800 and 900 new offences—not laws but offences—have been created for which people
916
can be fined or imprisoned. of that total, about 200 provide for the possibility of imprisonment as an alternative or in addition to a fine.
Why am I so confident in that assertion? Because in July 1983 I established from a parliamentary Written Answer that between the beginning of May 1979 and the end of 1982 a total of 286 such offences had been created, of which 66 provided for the possibiity of imprisonment. As of 3rd May this year this Administration had been in power for exactly three times as long as the period covered by my partliamentary Question. The volume of legislation has certainly not diminished in the intervening seven and one-third years—if anything, quite the contrary. Hence my reasoned guesstimate.
What, in contrast, has been decriminalised during those 11 years? Exchange control has been abolished; restuarants can now serve drinks with meals throughout most of the day; pubs in England and Wales can now open until 3 p.m. on Sundays rather than 2 p.m.; reading spectacles can be sold across the counter without the need to produce a prescription; and, as has already been mentioned, the official Secrets Act has been liberalised, even if not to the extent that many of us would wish. Those are all thoroughly worthwhile and welcome liberalising measures. However, even if I have missed out two or three, they hardly counterbalance the 850-odd restrictive measures on the other side of the scales.
Having said that, clearly not every new law is unfairly restrictive or otherwise undesirable. New inventions, new techniques and new processes create new opportunities for crime—for example, computer crime—against which new laws must be devised. The growing menace of terrorism necessitates new restrictions as the lesser of two evils. None of us likes those restrictions but we must agree that we need them for the time being. The same can be said of the menace of the drug trade. However, in the latter case it is not certain that all the means can be justified by the intended ends.
The creation of other new offences is a much more controversial matter. One thinks of the measures of a nanny state—compulsory crash helmets, seat belts, and so on. Those of us who were laughed at for predicting that those were the thin end of the wedge are unfortunately being proved only too right. Not only are there more and more plans afoot compulsorily to helmet and belt us against every conceivable hazard, but attacks on tobacco and smokers of tobacco have reached unprecedented levels.
Then there are environmental laws. The environmental laws. "Environment" has become one of those words, like "children", which causes most critical faculties to be suspended. I readily join Mr. Auberon Waugh in deploring the laws which permit people to be fined up to £2,000 for chasing a pair of bats out of their attic or for uprooting a couple of rare weeds from their garden.
There is also what might be described as panic legislation. That is legislation which might, indeed, turn out to be partly or even wholly justified on mature reflection but which is rushed through in a

917
great hurry so as to still the shrieking demands of the tabloid press. One thinks of the Firearms Bill, the happily mainly abortive Football Spectators Bill, legislation on censorship of videos, kidney transplants, acid house parties and so on.
Finally, but most importantly, there is what might be called overkill legislation: the assumption of massive powers to deal with what, by any objective standards, is a minor nuisance. A notorious example of this appears in the Broadcasting Bill which your Lordships will debate soon after the Recess. The Bill includes clauses which empower the authorities forcibly to board a pirate radio ship, whatever its nationality of registration, on the high seas (not only in territorial waters) and to arrest every single person on board, and which indemnify the boarders totally against any damage or injury caused in the process. That is a measure which we shall need to look at very carefully indeed during the Committee stage of the Broadcasting Bill.
Apart from new laws there is the matter of administrative action over which the Government have either control or influence. The action of the police in stopping cars travelling from county to county during the miners' strike seemed to many people to stretch police powers to the absolute limit, and possibly beyond. However, I suppose that it could have been defended as the lesser of two evils on the grounds that it almost certainly prevented a considerable degree of criminal damage, injury and even death. One has only to think of the unfortunate taxi driver who was killed by a concrete block which was dropped on him. The action of the police in stopping cars travelling to so-called acid house parties is more questionable since the action is aimed at a nuisance rather than at violence. The frequency of strip searches of young people returning from places such as Amsterdam still gives cause for considerable disquiet, particularly as drugs are found only in a tiny proportion of such cases. There is also the Cleveland scandal, although I am not sure whether the Government can be blamed for that.
Having said all this, would the situation be any better if Labour came to power, governing either on its own or in coalition with the Liberal Democrats or the SDP? The answer is almost certainly no. That is partly because Labour is not a libertarian party by instinct any more than are the present day Liberals, and partly because all political parties when in power tend to be more authoritarian than they are when in opposition.
It was amusing to hear the vehemence with which noble Lords on the Labour Benches opposed that part of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill giving police the right of almost unfettered entry to clubs, arguing as they did that clubs, particularly working men's clubs, were essentially private places. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will remember, that is almost precisely the opposite of the stance that Labour took when in power. In 1976 the Labour Government took precisely the opposite line, arguing that clubs, and in particular working men's clubs, were essentially public places and must therefore be subject to the restrictions and obligations of race relations legislation.
918
Nor can one ignore the changed public mood, the Zeitgeist. Partly because of the declining birth rate, Britain is now a more middle-aged country than it was 11 years ago, both literally and to some extent in spirit. Caution, order and risk avoidance are the priorities now, not, I fear, individual freedom. The 1960s slogan "Do your own thing" is now wholly out of fashion, as is that very much older maxim "Live and let live", which might have been the motto of John Stuart Mill whose general precepts those of us in the Society for Individual Freedom try to uphold. Paternalism, even a very mild authoritarianism, is not now regarded with total disfavour by a substantial segment of our population, alas. Any incoming government, of whatever complexion, would, one suspects, be only too happy to take advantage of this prevailing mood among that substantial, but I hope not majority, section of the public.
In conclusion, the record of this Administration on civil liberties certainly leaves much to be desired. However, I very much doubt whether any foreseeable alternative administration would, on balance, do any better.
4.29 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for instituting debate on this important topic. The part of his speech to which I should like to add a little is the theme that he developed at the end which related to the question of whether or not we should incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights as part of our domestic law. Without the constraints of party discipline, I think that the noble Lord would have said unequivocally that he was in favour. Whatever the constraints of party discipline, I should like to express my own view in support of the incorporation of the convention, but I do so with a somewhat different emphasis from that of the noble Lord.
I would take a less gloomy starting point. I do not believe that overall this country has at the present time a bad record in terms of human rights or civil liberties, or however one describes them. There are many areas in which this country has led the way. The evolution of parliamentary democracy, the safeguards that apply to procedures at trial and habeas corpus are obvious examples. I do not believe that the vitality of that trend in our national character is spent.
An obvious recent illustration to which the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, drew attention was the immense development over the past 20 years of administrative law. An independent judiciary has resurrected, shaped and expanded the right of the courts to exercise some considerable fetter upon the actions of the Executive. We have seen that right across the board in cases affecting individual rights and involving rates, transport, social security, education and immigration, and in challenges to national security issues. Our administrative law has now become an important aspect of our freedom. Not for nothing, and in my view accurately, did the late Lord Diplock describe it as the greatest development in the law in his lifetime.

919
The impact of those developments has gone far wider than decided cases because the law as it has evolved and the concern as to how the courts will look at decisions must be taken into account by the Government in reaching many important decisions across the board. That legal development has restrained the power of both Labour and Conservative governments. In each case, governments of both political complexions have accepted the development of that restraint, at any rate publicly, without protest or demur. The checks and balances within our democracy have evolved and have been accepted. I see that as a tribute to both the judiciary and to successive governments, not least the present Administration.
However, as with so much of our historical development, that evolution has been pragmatic. We have declined to incorporate in our own law what has now become our most important and influential constitutional document. It is now almost 30 years since we became the first country to ratify the European convention. As noble Lords well know, in many countries ratification automatically incorporates a treaty into the domestic law of that country; but that is not so in our law. However, we have regarded the European convention sufficiently highly to include it as the basis of the constitution of some 24 former colonies when they gained independence. We have taken a different view of what is needed by former colonies than we take of our own needs. That no doubt reflects the remarkable pervasiveness of Professor Dicey's view that written constitutions were necessary for less fortunate peoples.
We have also accepted the right of individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights at Strasbourg since 1966. We therefore acknowledge the importance of the convention. We accept its impact. We accept judicial decisions upon it, but we decline to take the ultimate step of making it part of our own law.
The decisions of the court at Strasbourg have already had a notable impact. That has not least been so in cases which affect the rights of prisoners—a minority who carry very few political votes. Cases from Strasbourg have improved the freedom of prisoners to correspond without restriction. They have enhanced the access of prisoners to legal advice. The European Court will shortly consider the case of Michael Thynne and will decide whether a failure to provide for the periodic review of an indefinite sentence, to see whether a personality disorder still subsists, is a breach of the convention. That argument highlights an important issue dealt with admirably in the report of the Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment: what should be the procedure for reviewing the duration of an indefinite life sentence? It is important that that procedure should develop so as to ensure an independent review, conducted under fair procedures, with reasons given for decisions adverse to the prisoner.
In the area of prisoners' rights, we must also work increasingly towards emphasising that imprisonment involves deprivation of liberty but
920
not human degradation and loss of other civil rights. In that regard—I very much hope that the Woolf Report on the Strangeways disturbances will prove an important and illuminating milestone—the European convention has proved that it has a role to play, and it has an important continuing role to play.
Why do we not then incorporate the convention? It may be because of a concern that it impinges upon the sovereignty of Parliament. It undoubtedly has the effect, unless it were enacted with the modification suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, that it would enable a court to declare legislation passed by Parliament in this country to be unlawful. However, although that sounds a startling proposition, perhaps we should reflect that we have in any event to some extent already accepted that principle. We accept that the court at Strasbourg can reach such decisions.
A few years ago I represented the present Government when they sought to defend legislation introduced under the previous government as being compatible with the convention. Both legislation which nationalised the shipbuilding and aircraft industries and legislation which provided for leasehold enfranchisement were involved. In each case, the applicants sought to challenge the legislation head on. The argument was heard by the European Court of Human Rights and in each case was determined in favour of the Government. However, if it had gone the other way, precedent suggests that the Government would have respected and implemented the decision of the court.
If we accept that legislation can be challenged under the convention before the Strasbourg court, would it not perhaps seem sensible that we should allow the issue to be considered by our own domestic courts? We can surely commit the issue to our judges. I do not believe that that would politicise the judiciary. The fact that it has been involved in essential social questions in determining issues of judicial review has not for the most part led to anything other than enhanced respect for the wish and determination of the judiciary to uphold the individual against excesses of government power.
I do not want to suggest, perhaps especially in this Session, that incorporation of the convention is urgent. I certainly do not wish to suggest that it should be added to the burden of legislation in this current Session. It has in one sense become less urgent because of the willingness of the courts to interpret and shape our law in the light of the provisions of the convention.
However, there remain concerns that the sovereignty of Parliament alone is not a sufficient protection for all our citizens. There is a danger that, as I believe my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham once described it, Parliament has increasingly become an elected dictatorship. Our society increasingly comprises minorities whose interests may not have enough widespread appeal or, to put it crudely, sufficient voting pull for them to be effectively protected in Parliament. The convention contains a framework within which our civil liberties and rights can be safeguarded.

921
I am encouraged by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Lairg, to think that the party opposite may shortly reach the view that it is high time that this charter for the protection of the citizen should become part of our domestic law. I look forward with interest to the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with his well-known and highly developed concern for individual rights. I should like to see my own party reach the same conclusion so that this important constitutional safeguard could be enacted into our law with broad cross-party support. I do not see it as a convention simply necessary at the time when the world emerges from the dark night of the excesses of law.
I see the convention as a reasonable expression of what is to be a fair balance within society: the balance between individual liberty and the rule of law; the balance between freedom of expression and individual rights to privacy; the balance between individual liberties and the need of the Government to preserve public order. I would consent to all those questions being adjudicated under the convention. It is a highlight of mature democracies that they wish to patriate and shape the development of their own constitutions. I hope that the time will shortly come when we, as the most mature of democracies, long alert and still alert to civil liberties, will decide that it makes elementary and obvious sense to patriate what is already our most important and relevant contemporary constitutional document.
Lond Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and since we have a few moments in hand, perhaps I may put one question to him arising from his very interesting speech. Does he not agree that one problem of the incorporation of the European convention into our law is that the convention was drafted at a time when Europe was much more left-wing than it is today? It therefore does not sufficiently protect property rights: hence the court's decisions in the aircraft and shipbuilding nationalisation and leasehold reform cases. In that regard the European convention, I think he would agree, is somewhat defective.
Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I should like to call upon my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham to lead me on my response to this issue. My impression is that the convention contains protection for rights of property. But it also contains a margin of appreciation to the domestic government on how those rights shall be balanced. That is reflected in the decision in the aircraft and shipbuilding nationalisation case. It was illustrated by that case when the Bill was before Parliament. If I remember rightly, the present Government were then in opposition and opposed the passage of the Bill because they believed that it was inappropriate and, as a matter of domestic politics, did not sufficiently protect property rights. However, when the issues came before Strasbourg the Government recognised that a larger issue was under consideration: the right of government and parliament within a particular country to draw the balance in that area. They therefore upheld the principle under the convention.
922
I believe that the flexibility that is given within the convention enables the individual courts applying it to shape the limits of the proper protection of property, and to evolve those limits as befits the tenor of thought within any period.
4.47 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, at this stage one wonders whether one is in Committee or a debate. I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, for introducing this topic. The headline of my contribution has to be, "Put not thy trust in princes". That is the thrust of a number of contributions: that we should incorporate the European convention or the universal declaration of human rights into our legislation and leave it to the judges to protect us from all ill.
I approach the problem from the point of view of the individual, and of democracy being essential to the preservation and protection of civil liberties. The subject of the debate is the state of civil liberties under this Administration. There are a range of areas where civil liberties have come under attack and threat. Perhaps I may touch on one or two.
The first relates to information. How are we to determine the state of our civil liberties if we do not know what is going on in our society? It is interesting to ponder that the United States is not prepared to allow large chunks of its media to be under the control of people who are not citizens of that country. Yet we are prepared to see the control of large chunks of our media, which provide information to our citizens, under the control of people who are not citizens of this country. They are people who owe no allegiance to our country or to the citizens who live in it. We are prepared to accept that they will provide the information to our citizens on which those citizens base their decisions. That is one of the most fundamental factors that we need to question when considering the perfection or otherwise of the state of civil liberty.
The second concept concerns freedom of association. I argue that freedom of association in terms of civil liberties is essential. The ability of people to come together, to associate together, to pursue a common aim, is important for the freedom and civil liberties of our citizens. This Administration must face questioning on that aspect in relation to their actions. Perhaps I may mention a few examples. Shortly after I came to this House we debated the 1985 Local Government Bill, now an Act. It effectively destroyed swathes of local government in our country. It destroyed the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils which had been in existence for only 10 years.
Democracy and the ability of people to come together and to work together is a fragile flower. It takes time to be nurtured—for people to come together to agree upon actions, and for those actions to take effect. Ten years after the inauguration of those local authority organisations this Administration destroyed them. In the process of doing so, they destroyed their political opposition in those organisations because every one of them was controlled by their political opponents—the Labour

923
Party. However, far more importantly, every one of those organisations—the GLC, the Greater Manchester Council, Merseyside County Council and South Yorkshire County Council—under the control and administration of the Labour Party was an organ of democracy. They were implementing the policies that had been agreed by the people in their localities on what should be done in those local administrations. It was a great attack on the civil liberties of people living in those areas.
The vast majority of the population of this country was affected by those actions. This Administration effectively destroyed the civil liberties of the majority of the population of this country by destroying those organs of local government which epitomised the freedom of association of those people.
Another aspect of which this Administration is guilty is the denial of individual freedom. I am not talking about the freedom of rich people to become richer. Indeed, almost the only issue that this Administration have promoted is the ability of rich people to become richer. I am talking about the ability of ordinary people in this country to go about their business and to do what they want to do as individuals free from the threat of intimidation, arrest and harassment by the state. That ability has been curtailed by this Administration.
I was interested to hear the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He described freedom as being freedom under the law. That phrase has a nice ring to it until one begins to ask: whose law and what law? Is it the law of the rich and powerful—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I do not believe that the noble Lord is doing me justice. I defined what I said as just laws enacted by a freely-elected Parliament. I hope that the noble Lord will not do me the injustice of pretending that I meant something else.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord's contribution. However, I bring to him the realisation that we are the other Chamber in a so-called democratic Parliament. It is a Chamber which has no concept of or part in democracy, apart from the way we vote when reaching decisions.
Lord Somers: My Lords, the noble Lord spoke of the rights of people to pursue their own business. In the town in which I live countless small businesses have disappeared not due to the policy of the Government but due entirely to the actions of local government.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. I am not sure how it pertains to our debate, which is to call attention to the state of civil liberties under this Administration. I am attempting to point out that virtually all the actions of this Administration seek to ensure the ability of rich people to secure their liberties at the expense of the vast majority of people in this country in securing their civil liberties as individuals and collectively.
924
Another example of the curtailment of civil liberties is the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Home Secretary who introduced the Act in 1974 described it as draconian. At that time it was subject to annual parliamentary review because it was so draconian. This Administration have written it into the statute book as part and parcel of our legislative baggage with no opportunity for Parliament to review it on a yearly basis. That epitomises the state of civil liberties and the way that they have sunk under this Administration.
There are innumerable examples, one of which we had as recently as last year. The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 curtailed civil liberties yet again. Until then anyone working in local government could stand for election as a representative of the people. For 100 years or more there was never any question of people in local government being ineligible to stand as elected representatives of the people. Yet that Act introduced by this Administration—and I hope that noble Lords will listen carefully—effectively curtails not just the civil liberties of the individuals restricted from standing for election but those of everyone in this country because it denies people the ability to elect those whom they want to represent them. That is the important issue. While the Government seek to project the image of curtailing the civil liberties of minorities here and there they are in reality curtailing the civil liberties of everyone in this country.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, not only for having brought forward this interesting subject for debate but also for giving the House such an extraordinarily able presentation of the reasons why some noble Lords on the Benches opposite are removed from the feelings of the mass of the electorate. I could not believe that he was serious when he began by quoting Professor Dworkin. I do not suppose that the name of Professor Dworkin is familiar on the streets of Bootle where the electorate's temperature is being taken at the moment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: They talk about nothing else in Edmonton!
Lord Beloff: My Lords, if I may coin a phrase, he is the epitome of what New Yorkers style "radical chic". His belief that this country is suffering under some extraordinary, tyrannical government is so remote from reality that I was surprised that the noble Lord began his speech in that way.
However, it illustrates one of our existing problems which is related to the European convention. It is our tendency, naturally enough, to look at the disadvantages of our society, whether social or juridical, and to assume that things are better elsewhere. For instance, the problems about the rights of the accused in legal cases and so forth were rightly presented to us by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. However, as soon as a British subject is arrested in Spain, France or Greece, we suddenly

925
find that many of the issues that we regard as being outrageous and as covered by most international conventions occur as a matter of course because those countries have a different way of looking at them. As was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, we, like other countries, have issues of differing importance which must be weighed against each other.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, drew up the now familiar and bedraggled cast of Miss Tisdall, Mr. Ponting and other characters who flitted across the stage not always to their own advantage. Again, such characters are of no great interest to most people because on the whole they believe that people should keep the confidences entrusted to them. On the whole security of the country is regarded as having a great deal of importance.
If asked about civil liberties most people would believe them to be something much more primitive than freedom of speech or association. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, has not shown me the usual courtesy of waiting for a reply, but I must point out to him that nobody is prevented from standing for election if he is an officer of local government. The Act prevents the holding of a post which is intended to be a full-time post of employment in one local government authority while being a member of another. That is different, and again I do not believe that there is the sense of outrage which the noble Lord professes to feel.
However, there are anxieties in this country about civil liberties and the main anxiety is simple. It is about the right to life and limb and not to be harassed. I particularly refer, as have other noble Lords, to minorities who may not have the opportunity to present their case fully in Parliament or elsewhere. Harassment largely comes from other private citizens. In other words, what we lack in this country to some extent is a system of protection.
Only today the Metropolitan Police has announced that it needs to take further and stringent measures to prevent the harassment of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and other citizens in this country. However, that cannot be done if it is told that the rights of anyone else may not be restricted, because the right to abuse other people or other groups and the right to harass them are matters which in their turn have to be checked. One could very well argue that we are in a period in which we must accept restrictions on civil liberties, as defined by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in order to preserve liberties of life and limb and the feeling of day-to-day security, which most people would put first.
That is equally true—this has been mentioned by other noble Lords—as regards the struggle against terrorism. You cannot deal with terrorism as a phenomenon which does not and may not demand exceptional measures. Most people in this country would regard the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the procedures deriving from it as perhaps regrettable, but as compared with the deaths of innocent servicemen and civilians they would regard those curtailments of the liberties or privileges of certain individuals as of lesser importance.
I think that the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine—and I apologise if it was another noble
926
Lord—about Mr. Salman Rushdie, who is much in the news. Clearly it is desirable—and this is generally felt—that Mr. Rushdie's right to publish his rather inferior fiction should be preserved, as should the right of his publishers to publish. Indeed, it is a blot on our society that a citizen who has done no more than exercise normal rights or civil liberties, as defined by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, should be living in fear of his life and unable to lead the normal life of an ordinary person.
However, what should we have done if we believe that protection must go to the ultimate extent? There should have been a prosecution of those in this country who had publicly demanded his removal by assassination. When this subject was raised we were told by noble Lords on the Front Bench that the evidence was not available for a prosecution. Considering that one of those threats was made at a meeting attended by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester—one would have thought a very good witness—it is surprising that that view was taken. It may well be that the Government considered that it was better to do nothing and to permit a rather unusual open appeal to assassinate a British citizen because other considerations arose on race relations which made action more dangerous than inaction. I do not know. This is not a debate on that subject.
However, I reiterate the importance—here I merely follow my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham—of looking at the matter initially from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, particularly the ordinary citizen who by reason of belonging to a minority or for other reasons may be underprotected. We must consider what protection can be given which causes a minimum departure from our traditional legal system. That is not something which can easily be solved by the kind of people like Professor Dworkin who read the New Statesman or write letters to the Guardian because that is not representative of the ordinary citizens of this country but is a particular form of elite—one might say the scribblers' elite.
Many noble Lords have said that democracy should inspire us. Democracy certainly starts by respect for the individual. Here it is very difficult to understand—and again difficult to reply to Banquo's ghost—what was meant by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, in respect of freedom of association, because that is normally thought to be voluntary. The metropolitan counties may or may not have been good but they were not voluntary associations. They were organs of government created by one parliament and, rightly or wrongly, removed by another. In other words, we must not become muddled into considering aspects of the machinery of government when we are trying to solve extremely difficult problems and problems which I have no doubt this Government have not solved perfectly. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, pointed out, other governments in the past have not done so, nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rightly pointed out, will governments in the future.
We must not select foreign examples. Indeed, the United States has a panoply of protections which no

927
doubt give Professor Dworkin and other American lawyers a great deal to go on. No one, looking at the condition of some American metropolitan areas, would say that Americans are less in fear or enjoy greater rights than the citizens of our own country. If you were asked whether you would prefer to live in Tower Hamlets or the Bronx, I suspect that the answer would be quite unequivocal.
Let us consider what we have in this country. Let us try to amend it. However, do not let us begin by fantasies about a government determined to be tyrannical.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, free from all constraint I immediately plead with the House for the right of freedom of reply for Professor Dworkin. That is a freedom which unfortunately he does not enjoy in spite of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
It is appropriate in regard to both time and place that the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg should take place in the House of Parliament, the protector of the freedom of the subject, whether one calls it civil rights, freedom under the law, or whatever. How appropriate it is in regard to time, because those freedoms must be protected by being examined periodically and not too infrequently. As has been said on many occasions, our freedoms are counted on the basis of the vigilance that we keep in order to protect them.
There was a complaint made by the philosopher, statesman and lawyer who bears the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, whose voice, whether or not accompanied by a chuckle, we in this House always love to hear. His complaint was that the Motion initiated by my noble friend had a political touch. The title is: "Debate to call attention to the state of civil liberties under this Administration". The Administration has been in being for a long time. I suppose one could have said that it was to call attention to the state of civil liberties during the past decade. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Irvine of Lairg would have been content with that. I am certainly content to look at things over the past decade, trying to forget which government may have been in power.
If brickbats of a gentle nature can be thrown by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, at a past Labour Administration, and if lessons need to be learnt by a Labour Government as well as a Tory Government, let us combine, learn the lessons and be sensible about it without trying to score political points on either side.
If that be right, perhaps we can look at the situation over the past 10 years and not be too sanguine in so doing because we are discussing a solemn subject. It may be right to say that it is nicer to live in Tower Hamlets than the Bronx. It is perhaps possible to say that there are parts of the Bronx which are better than parts of Tower Hamlets and parts of Tower Hamlets which are better than parts of the Bronx. However, we will not get very far in that regard.
928
I listened attentively while the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, spoke of his American ancestors. He said that he hoped that he was not being too rude to the Americans when comparing our state of civil liberties with theirs. I immediately searched in my papers for a transcript of a lecture delivered by a very fine American lawyer. Floyd Abrams, who gave the Granada Guildhall lecture in November 1984. The House may be amused, in view of our comparisons with what exists in the United States, by what the Americans think of us. I should say in advance that the lecture was chaired by the late Lord Elwyn-Jones, whom so many of us miss. He put Mr. Abrams right.
In the lecture Floyd Abrams said:
"A good deal of what I do in my country as a lawyer relates to your country: let me phrase it as candidly as I can. What I do is to seek with all my power to dissuade our legislatures and courts and citizens from looking to your country as a model for us to emulate as we continue to define and redefine precisely what the unadorned words of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution—'Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press'—mean.
And so, I urge upon our courts that we are different from you, that, as Mr. Justice Hugo Black observed for the United States Supreme Court in 1941: 'No purpose in ratifying the Bill of Rights was clearer than that of securing for the people of the United States much greater freedom of religion, expression, assembly and petition than the people of Great Britain ever enjoyed'.".
I close the quotation, and so far the score is: United Kingdom and United States, one-all. I do not think that it does much good to talk in terms of contrasts and comparisons. However, it was right to point out, as was pointed out in the debate, that when we consider human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights—which we ratified in 1951 and which came into force in 1953—in fact we were found to have breached that convention more times than any other European state.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Has it not occurred to him that the reason for that is very simple? We have not incorporated the jurisprudence of the European convention into our own law because it is a fundamental principle that one cannot go to the European court until one has exhausted the local remedy. The reason we have been arraigned before the European court is that one can go from this country straight to the European court without going up the staircase of local remedy. That is exactly why my noble friend Lord Alexander and I said what we did in our respective speeches.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I appreciate that comment but it does not answer the point. One must assume that if the European convention had been incorporated into our law our courts would have found, in exactly the same way as the European court—unless one is offensive to their judges—that there had been more breaches than were reported to the European court. I agree that other countries may have local courts to deal with those breaches, but there are a great number of breaches of human rights which have been found to be so by the European court. If that be so none of us must sit back and be content, especially in the face of another statistic mentioned in this debate. On over 80 occasions either our legislation or regulations have had to be

929
altered because they were found to be in breach of the European convention.
All that I am endeavouring to say is that we must not feel so superior in the way we protect human rights that we think there is no need to conduct debates to enable us to look at ourselves over the past 10 years and see if things cannot be better over the next 10 years, whichever government happen to be in power. My prayer, quite obviously, is in one direction and your Lordships will know what that is.
What is the state of the way in which we legislate regarding information? Again, that was a point touched on in the debate. All our legislation appears to be for the protection of information and not the giving of information. That is why very of ten in this House there has been a plea, certainly from these Benches and sometimes taken up by the Benches next to ours, for legislation which tells the subject what he is entitled to know and look at among government papers.
What can be wrong with legislation of that kind? All that we have been debating over the past 10 years is some sort of amendment to Section 2, the infamous Section 2; so that what we have been able to do, still, is to protect information, very largely, and to ensure that some part of the imparting of information which was deemed to be confidential is not necessarily a part of our criminal law. But what about the rights of people to knew what is happening?
I turn from that to our security services. I pay tribute from these Benches on behalf of the party to those who in the security services take many brave actions in order to protect the security of our nation; but what about some of the scandals that have occurred as a result of the fact that there is no proper democratic supervision of that service? We have spoken about the Home Secretary and all said what a busy man he is with all his multifarious departments and wondered how he can possibly supervise the security services and their activities in a proper way; is it right, in any case, for one Minister to be responsible?
Only so that your Lordships get the feel, not necessarily of cases over the past 10 years that have been very properly referred to—Ponting and the rest—I mention a very interesting publication called Application Refused. I found it in the Commons Library. This book was sponsored by the Civil Liberties Trust. The foreword to that book interested me. It was written by someone who, as she says, is complexly non-political. She writes:
"In Britain, since I have never been a political militant, I dismissed the stories of tapped telephones and mysterious burglaries that circulated amongst the far left as evidence of the ubiquity of the British secret service as either paranoia or self-aggrandisement.
"And then it happened to me. What happened to me has happened to up to one million people, but most of them don't know it. I only found out about it through a combination of coincidence and the diligence of another journalist. He had investigated vetting by MI5 of job applicants to the BBC, a practice which had begun perhaps with justifiable reasons but which had grown into a political screening system that would not have shamed a totalitarian regime. My own application to the BBC had seen vetoed by MI5 on the grounds that I was briefly the secretary of an organisation called Scotland China Association, a
930
body that counted amongst its luminaries several distinguished academic sinologists and a sizeable handful of former missionaries, including the Dean of the Faculty of Divinity of Edinburgh University. A less subversive body it would be hard to imagine and yet, ten years later, the British government stated in its defence to the Commission of the European Court of Human Rights that it still considered the veto to have been justified.
"Like many other people, I had been judged by persons unknown, on evidence that I was never allowed to see, in a process of which I was meant to remain ignorant, a process which by the most basic standard of justice is an outrage".
That is the sort of invasion of civil rights that is much more pertinent, if I may be allowed to say so, and much more dramatic than those which have been established in courts of law and have caught the front pages of newspapers, however worthy it may have been to quote those cases—and it is proper that they were—this afternoon.
That example gives the picture of the ordinary subject, not the servant of the state, who finds the whole machinery absolutely oppressive in regard to obtaining employment and the instrument which interfered with it not supervised by any democratic machinery.
Therefore, if my party says (here I am speaking politically) that we should have a right of information Act, that we ought to have—with great respect to all the fine work done by MI5—some sort of democratic supervision of that organisation, am I not asking for an improvement which we all want to see, regardless of party?
I conclude on one other note. I cannot help, as a lawyer, speaking in terms of what may be happening to our law and our criminal law. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, dealt with this matter—as usual very effectively. We keep hearing suggestions in this House and in the other place from certain quarters about doing away with the jury system in certain classes of cases and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, reminded us, suggestions about doing away with the right of silence. After all, it is said, why should not people be made to say why they are innocent, and should there not be an inference of guilt from the fact that they remain silent?
I cannot help but repeat to this House the words of one of the most renowned of our judges, Lord Devlin. I hope his words in regard to civil liberties will always be remembered. He said:
"I hope the day will never come when the right to silence is denied. We afford to everyone suspected and accused of crime at any stage the right to say 'Ask me any question and I shall answer none. Prove your case'".
So often, I say again, this right to silence is queried and the abolition of jury trial in certain classes of cases spoken of as being a possibility, and even recommended in the report of one of our worthy and learned judges. I believe that would be the start of no juries in any case.
Those are invasions of rights and liberties and they lead me to my final remarks. I make them only because the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, with his usual courtesy, suggested that I might say something from this Front Bench on the subject. I can never ignore a request from the noble Lord—provided it is a reasonable one. I refer to where one stands on the incorporation of a European convention into our

931
law. I say from this Bench that most interesting and persuasive remarks have been made in this debate about that subject. I and my noble friend Lord Irvine will ensure that what has been said in this debate will be communicated to those in my party who are in charge of policy. What was said will be carefully considered and it is most likely that it will have great influence. It has been a pleasure to sum up this debate which was so well moved by my noble friend.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, for raising what has proved to be an interesting and stimulating topic in debate and for the thoughtful approach he brought to such a wide and complicated subject. There can be few matters as important and deserving of debate in your Lordships' House as this. I am grateful to other noble Lords who contributed and I hope to touch on most of the points raised in the time allowed.
It seems that the debate has turned on three main areas. First, we have the argument that basic freedoms have been diminished during this Government's term of office. Secondly, there is the question of the proper balance to be struck between the liberties of the individual on the one hand and the rights of others and the general public on the other. Thirdly, there is the issue of how civil liberties are protected under our present constitutional arrangements. These three areas are of course interlinked, but, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to look at each main area in turn.
Needless to say, I cannot accept the erosion of freedom hypothesis put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. I believe that his argument presents an altogether misguided picture of the true situation. Under this Government there has been a very real and worthwhile extension and enhancement of civil liberties. I hope I shall be able to persuade your Lordships that the Government's record bears close scrutiny and emerges with credit. As a Government we have set great store by the extension of economic freedoms because we believe that civic rights are much better extended under a prosperous economy. Our actions aimed at deregulation and the freeing of economic life have produced enormous benefits, increased productivity, lower taxes and more disposable income in real terms.
I believe strongly that reducing taxation gives the individual the freedom to spend his hard-earned money in the way he wants rather than the state saying where the money will go. Our guiding principle, therefore, is not materialism but a realisation that freedoms can only but be enhanced by increasing economic prosperity. Economic freedom is important. We have taken, for example, action against the closed shop; we have given trade union members the right to be balloted before any industrial action; and we took resolute action against secondary picketing. We on these benches view with utter dismay the fact that the Labour Party wants to relegalise secondary picketing.
There was precious little freedom under the last Labour Adminstration at factory gate strike meetings, and I am sure your Lordships will recall
932
all too many an ugly scene involving intimidation by mass pickets. As your Lordships know, we are currently taking action in another place to end the practice of wildcat strikes, among other things. Where we think it right to give further protection to the public and indeed the ordinary employee, we will not hesitate to act.
We have taken action to give council tenants the right to buy—a measure which has since received grudging Labour Party support. Action which extends economic freedom has helped many ordinary citizens to do what would never otherwise have been possible. I shall give other examples. The Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act are very important examples of the extension of individual liberty. We have put the Data Protection Act in place. We have given access to educational records and certain medical reports.
The Opposition are much concerned about police powers. But it was this Government who set out a new framework in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act which gave added safeguards for the citizen and for dealing with complaints against the police. We have given a statutory right to compensation for victims of violent crime, which is a measure that commands all your Lordships' support.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made much reference to the official Secrets Act, quoting the cases of Tisdall, Ponting and others in some detail. The previous Labour Administration were taken to task by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, in his characteristic and well-argued contribution. As regards official secrets, the reform we introduced was radical and now only six types of official information are protected. In general, it is for the prosecution to prove that specific form of harm defined in the Act arose or was likely to arise from disclosure. It will also be for the prosecution to prove that the accused knew or had good reason to believe that harm would occur, except in the case of those treated under the Act as Crown servants. Under the 1989 Act the number of people prescribed as Crown servants has been greatly reduced, from an estimated 500,000 to an estimated 27,000.
We have made provision about the interception of communications, with the appointment of a commissioner, and for complaints to go to an independent tribunal. The security service has been put on a statutory footing, again with provision for the appointment of a commissioner and for complaints to go before an independent tribunal.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it is proposed that Labour would pass a security service Act bringing MI5 and MI6 under the general supervision of a Standing Committee of the House of Commons which would oversee their activities. That would bring the security services under political control, allowing politicians to influence operational decisions, despite the fact that no Western democracy exercises parliamentary scrutiny over the operational decisions of its security services.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I know that the noble Viscount, with his usual courtesy, will allow me to intervene. It has been made absolutely clear that the current operational work of MI5 would not be within

933
the ambit of any such committee. It would be the general supervision of MI5 in regard to policy matters but certainly not in regard to its day-to-day activities.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, it will be interesting to see whose words are proved right.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the current state of affairs is that the Prime Minister cannot ask the security services to provide her with information about a particular subject of concern to her?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I am developing a theme and I believe that I should go on with it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, complained about the Courts and Legal Services Bill. The administration of civil justice is being reformed and will improve access to justice for the public by speeding up, simplifying and reducing the cost of proceedings, which are important benefits.
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the Government are committed to openness in their processes. We now make as much information available as possible while preserving the principle of confidentiality that is essential for the effective working of government. Under this Administration there has been a considerable increase in public consultation, very much more briefing for the media and the publication of research and evaluation papers; and the Select Committee system has produced important benefits.
Many more examples could be given. I think, however, that I have made my point. Our record is one of very positive achievement in extending and enhancing civil liberties. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that freedoms are counted by the vigilance we use to protect them. I agree with him and I believe that this Administration have been vigilant and protective.
I now turn to my second theme, the question of balance. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that the people of this country know their rights end that they are not infringed. That does not of course mean that those liberties can always be unqualified. That is because all governments have a duty to make a judgment of the rights of the individual as well as of society at large and of the conflict of rights between various groups in society. This is not always an easy task, but it is one which this Government have not sought to avoid.
I do not mind that IRA terrorists can travel less easily to and from Great Britain as a result of powers taken to prevent terrorism. Those powers are essential for the defence of ordinary law-abiding people, as, I am sorry to say, are other powers that the noble Lord, Lord Monskswell, and perhaps the Labour Party would like to see revoked.
Nor do I mind the curtailment of the liberty of a young man to carry a knife in his pocket; nor the fact that, should he appear in court, the burden of proving why he was carrying the knife now rests with him and not the prosecution. We are conscientious and meticulous in looking at issues of individual
934
freedom. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that where we decide to increase or diminish freedom we do not do so lightly or without clear evidence of need. Where the protection of the public has needed limited and well-defined reinforcement, we have provided it and will continue to do so.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham brought his characteristically incisive intelligence to bear during the debate. He was right to remind us that the greatest threat to freedom stems from criminality, violence and terrorism. It is fundamental to our way of life that the citizen should be able to live his life free from harm and fear. My noble and learned friend called it the optimum level of freedom under law. I agree with my noble friend Lord Beloff that if that means curbing in some way the liberties of the evil-minded or irresponsible few, then that is what has to be done, and I make no apology.
I turn now to my third theme, how civil liberties are protected under our present constitutional arrangements. We heard the suggestion from the noble Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington and Lord Mishcon, that civil rights would be better protected if civil liberties were enshrined in a Bill of Rights. Civil rights are already protected in our legal systems and by statute and are in far more precise terms than, for example, in the European convention, which most proponents of a Bill of Rights would like to incorporate in our domestic law.
Incorporating the European convention would mean that the courts rather than Parliament would determine society's needs. That is no reflection on the impartiality of the judiciary. Rather, it is a reaffirmation that it is for Parliament in the exercise of its sovereignty to decide. We do not doubt that ability of the judges, but we believe that requiring them to undertake such tasks would propel them into the political arena. One has only to look to the United States to see that the two most important criteria for appointment to the Supreme Court are the candidate's social views and his or her political opinions. There is no evidence that the general public favours either a written constitution or a new Bill of Rights. The Government therefore believe that until consensus as to such a need emerges, the present adequate safeguards should remain.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon said in a fine speech that checks and balances have evolved. Rights are protected in this country by public opinion, by parliamentary responsibility and accountability and of course by judicial review, and the Government see no need for the radical changes suggested. My noble friend Lord Beloff summed it up by saying that we have the tendency to look at disadvantages and assume that things are better elsewhere.
In the short time left I should like briefly to refer to the Labour Party's proposals in this area. It seems that Labour intends that your Lordships' House shall be abolished and replaced by an elected second Chamber which would be able to delay repeal of legislation affecting fundamental rights for the whole life of a Parliament. That way, it says, the electorate will decide at the next election on those questions

935
of liberty proposed for abolition. What, I wonder, does it propose to abolish?
That is a prescription for muddle and confusion. On what basis will the second Chamber be elected; and what reason is there to think that its political composition would be much different from the other place? Would the second Chamber have the independence and political will to set itself against the other place? There are too many grave constitutional dangers in what Labour proposes.
The Government believe that the real intention of the Labour Party has nothing to do with civil liberties whatsoever. We believe that its real intent is to remove all constraints on the power of the other place. It would indeed be what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has called an elective dictatorship.
We have sounded the alarm bells, and I hope that the nation will heed them. To the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, I would end by saying:
"Liberty is well in England".
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. It has been light in the number of contributors but heavy in the weight of the contributions it has attracted. I assure noble Lords that I accept that our comparative international standing in upholding liberty is high. The best guardian of liberty, however, is, as my noble friend Lord Mishcon said, vigilance. That, I am sure, is what Professor Dworkin was essentially saying in words that I commended and commend to your Lordships' House, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said when addressing your Lordships so characteristically on behalf of the man on the Clapham omnibus.
Liberty is not lost overnight, but liberties can be lost piecemeal when other more ephemeral interests are allowed to override liberty. Then, after a period of years, we wake up too late to an appreciation that liberty has seriously diminished. My purpose in moving this Motion was to call attention to the risk of our ceasing to be, due to the events of the last decade, at the very frontiers of liberty where we ought to remain. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Population Growth
5.48 p.m.
Lord Rea Lord Rea rose to call attention to the relationship of poverty, illiteracy and environmental degradation to rapid world population growth; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before moving my Motion, perhaps I may ask the Leader of the House to clarify one point. While I think it is the intention of all noble Lords who will speak to keep to the spirit of a short two-and-a-half hour debate, am I right in thinking that there is no formal limit to the time allotted to the debate?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I have taken advice. I thought there was a formal time limit but the noble Lord is right. There is not, because the Motion was not moved.
Lord Rea: My Lords, nevertheless, I hope that we shall keep to the spirit of the normal two-and-a-half-hour short debate.
I have centred this Motion on the world population problem because it is such a widely accepted concern. But I hope to show that it is a problem which demands a much wider view of the human situation, particularly of the relationship between the developed affluent North and the under-developed poorer South, than would be obtained by a narrowly focused discussion on family planning as such, vital though that is. It is a huge subject upon which I would have to speak for an hour or more in order to cover the whole field—and then there would still be many gaps. As it is, I hope in about 15 minutes to set the stage—and truly for this topic all the world is a stage—for the 14 distinguished speakers who will follow me. I know that they will make the evening much more interesting and inform the House much more fully than would be the case if I were to attempt the task alone.
Many noble Lords will know the size and shape of the problem. At present the world's population is estimated at 5.28 billion. By the time my 15 minutes has elapsed, it will have increased by another 2, 700. It took the human race about 250,000 years since it first evolved from its ape-like ancestors to reach I billion. That occurred in the early years of the 19th century. It took a further 110 years or so to reach 2 billion. That occurred in about 1925. Since that time the next billion took only 35 years to evolve, the following one 15 years and the next one took 13 years. It will not be until the human race reaches the total of 7 billion in about the year 2010 that the rate of increase is likely to start to slow down, but even that prediction is now in doubt according to the most recent report of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities.
The final size of the human population is estimated by the United Nations to stabilise at something between 11 billion at a medium projection and 14 billion at a higher projection by the end of the next century. Whether we reach the lower or the higher of those estimates very much depends upon what happens in the next decade, because of the built-in increase which will inevitably occur as young people born now mature and have their own families.
The industrialised North has virtually ceased to increase in numbers and in the next century the vast majority of people on the earth will be born in the South. In the face of all that busy reproduction, I am tempted to stand back at this point and reflect that as all this activity is due to sex, the obvious answer is perhaps self-control and abstinence. To quote from a source which I shall not name:
"The pleasure is momentary, the position ridiculous and the consequences disastrous".
I doubt whether that view will be shared by many of your Lordships present in the Chamber tonight.

937
I have committed the impermissible: I have mislaid one of the pages of my speech. Therefore, the next section of my speech will be slightly disjointed. When a species increases in vast numbers, as the human race has done, it can be held to be a mark of its success in adapting to the environment. In man's case, not only have we adapted to the environment; we have also been able to adapt the environment itself to our own ends. So far as concerns tonight's discussion, there is no measure which we have achieved more effectively than that of controlling mortality.
In the last century we gradually became more aware of our environment and increased our industrial growth. The increase in our population was slow because we had not yet begun to understand fully the causes of death. Therefore, the increasing prosperity was able to match, or go ahead of, the increase in the size of the population, although we had our own population explosion. However, these days, we are able to export to the developing South the techniques we have developed to control mortality so that mortality rates there have begun to fall much more quickly than birth rates.
In the third world the birth rate has been affected by a colossally high mortality rate due to a whole range of tropical diseases, such as malaria, as well as intermittent shortages of food supplies and a full range of other diseases from which we suffer, such as tuberculosis, pneumonia and diarrhoea. As I said, we have been able to export quite simple methods of mortality control to the South. This has happened almost inadvertently; for example, as regards transporation, the building of roads has a major effect in limiting mortality. It is much easier now for a family to bring their sick children to a village some distance away from their home than it was when they had to trek on foot for many miles through the bush.
The result of this development has been that out of six or seven children per mother, four of five are now surviving rather than the two or three that usually survived before modern means of controlling mortality were introduced from the North. Even so, that still leaves a very high mortality rate of up to 25 per cent. in many countries in the developing world, compared with our rate of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. Therefore, there is still a colossal wastage of child life in many developing countries due to entirely avoidable causes. According to the WHO, 14 mil ion children die each year.
The possibility, even though it is less than it was previously, that their children may die is a potent reason why many third world mothers continue to desire to have large families. They wish to ensure that some of their children survive. In subsistence economies children are perceived as an economic asset. In contrast, in more developed countries with a better educated population, having fewer children frees women to pursue a fuller and more economically productive life.
At present, many third world countries are at that "transitional" or turning point. It is especially there that women are eager to avail themselves of modern means of contraception. Sadly, those means are nowhere near as readily available as they should be.
938
The current economic plight of many developing countries makes it more difficult to supply them even if there is a government that is willing to do so. Indeed, that is the case with the majority of governments in the third world today.
I should now like to concentrate on the three factors mentioned in the title of the Motion. I shall deal first with poverty. If countries are plotted on a graph, with GNP per head on one axis and the fertility rate on the other, one can see that there is as clear relationship between income and fertility, although it is not consistent. Some points are well outside the main trend. On the useful axiom that the exception proves the rule, it is worth looking at the outliers. There are, first, those that are poor but have low fertility. Three countries stand out—China, Cuba and Sri Lanka. Cuba has the lowest fertility rate in the third world, equal to some European countries; China, with its 1 billion plus population, follows closely behind. Both those countries have in common a strong government commitment to promote health care, and have achieved low infant mortality rates. China in particular has a powerful population policy, although there is recent evidence that the one-child-per-couple policy is less successful than earlier campaigns because it has gone beyond what the population can accept. It may even have been counter-productive. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, will be able to give an account of life in Sri Lanka, which may lie behind its lower fertility rate.
The other outliers on the graph are the Arab oil producing countries whose GNP per capita equals, and in some cases exceeds, that of the richest countries. However, women continue to bear five to seven children, and the population increase is about 3 per cent., whereas in China and Sri Lanka it is about 1-3 per cent. and in Cuba, only 0-9 per cent. Two factors are probably at work in those countries. There is an unequal distribution of wealth, and women, despite the fact that many are now going to school, are still trapped in a male-dominated society which, by and large, insists that a woman's place is in the home as a child raiser. The role of education, especially of women, is crucial.
I chose the word "illiteracy" because this is International Literacy Year. In fact, it is secondary education which is correlated most clearly with decreased fertility. That is not hard to understand. The ability to read, as taught in primary schools, is a help in understanding simple written instructions, but it does not widen the scope of outlook beyond the traditional community as much as do further years of schooling. They widen horizons and enable children to key into the world store of knowledge by using the printed word as a source of exploration.
Secondary education can open women's eyes to possibilities other than raising children or looking after the family plot. It is from that wider outlook that the desire to limit family size takes root. UNFPA figures show that women with seven years' education have on average 2.2 fewer children than those with no education. In nearly all developing countries, women's education lags behind that of men, and male education is not so highly correlated with family size.

939
I added the factor of environmental degradation to the Motion because it rightly disturbs many people. Its relationship to population pressure is not, however, as simple as it might appear. In many countries, as rural populations grow the size of each family plot of land diminishes and overgrazing occurs. There is increasing cultivation of marginal lands. That can result in soil erosion and even eventual desertification. I have seen that in countries as far apart as Kenya and Guatemala. It is not just population pressure that is to blame. An important aspect is the use of the most fertile land by large landowners and the state for the export crops which are necessary to pay for imports and to service debt.
Many of your Lordships may have eaten the delicious mange tout peas imported from Guatemala, and may think that that is doing Guatemala a good turn. We may be helping its debt problem, but those peas are grown on land which could be feeding Guatemalan peasants who, having been displaced from the best lands, are farming land pitched at about 45 degrees half-way up the side of a volcano. Their fields look pretty scrappy.
I shall leave it to other noble Lords to go further into the ecological aspects of the problem. We are in part to blame. The export of agricultural produce and timber from the south to the north accounts for a large part of the rain forest destruction, erosion and cultivation of marginal lands. If we are to preach environmental conservation, we should start by putting our own house in order, as was discussed at Question Time today.
As the south develops, and the standard of life of its people improves, it is hypocritical to suggest that they must be more frugal and environmentally conscious than we are.
Thanks to the IPPF, I was recently privileged to be invited as an observer to the second Western Hemisphere Conference of Parliamentarians on Population and Development, held in Quito, Ecuador, in March this year. Practically every American and Caribbean country sent delegates. There is now a realisation that family limitation is not an imperialist plot. Development is slow if too high a proportion of resources has to go on education and child care. A notable absentee from that conference was the United States of America, which has pulled out of population activities because of its own domestic problems with the pro-life anti-abortion lobby—surely a short-sighted and mistaken move.
I must draw my speech to a close because I am overrunning my time. I understand that the IMF and the World Bank are having second thoughts about the effects their requirements for economic reform have had on social programmes (health and education) of countries that receive loans.
One of the major reasons why progress in Africa in health and education has been so slow, and has even become worse in the past decade, is that there are virtually no social programmes left because the countries are so impoverished. Despite that, the UNFPA feels that an injection of a further £2 billion into population activities worldwide would enable
940
nearly all women who wish to be able to limit their families to do so with the help of modern methods. That would probably result in a reduction of about one-third in the number of births.
In conclusion, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will act on the advice of Sir Charles Morrison, chairman of the All-Party Group on Population and Development, contained in his letter to The Times yesterday: that the Government should increase considerably their contribution to population activities in their overseas aid budget. At present it stands at £17 million—about 1 per cent. only of the total. At the same time, will the Minister ensure that those aspects of our aid budget going to health and education projects are increased for the reasons that I have outlined and take a more prominent and generous role in international discussions, aimed at phasing out as soon as possible the external debt of the poorest countries? To do those things would be acting in our interests. Population expansion will be slowed more quickly; environmental pressures will be lessened; and poorer countries will be in a better position to enter the world market and pay for our exports, rather than becoming poorer and seeing all their earnings swallowed up in the dismal, losing battle against increasing debt. I beg to move for Papers.
6.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for introducing this tremendous subject to us this afternoon. His background of medical knowledge and overseas experience has given him insights from which we benefit. The subject is so vast and important that it must make much of the political debate in which we are currently engaged rather trivial in comparison.
There are constant calls to developing countries to limit their population by family planning. Earlier this afternoon the point was made in the discussion following the Question by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. However, we need to appreciate the constraints on family planning programmes in developing countries. We are caught in a vicious circle in our world because no such programmes can possibly succeed without rising living standards. That includes both education, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred, and security.
Perhaps I may illustrate this by a little anecdote from the years that I spent in Kenya. That country still has the most dubious distinction of having the fastest growing population in the world. The Kenya family planning association put out a poster which it thought would be effective. It was divided into two halves. On one half was a hut and outside were a man and woman sitting on nicely made chairs with a table; two well dressed, well cared for children played outside. The other half of the picture was given over to a dilapidated hut with a man and woman, poorly dressed, obviously undernourished, sitting on packing cases, with something like 10 children who looked poor and tattered playing in the dust. The association had to withdraw the poster because it gathered that people said, "Look at that

941
poor man, he only has two children". I think your Lordships would agree that this makes the point that it is no use pushing family planning programmes in situations where children are seen as an essential means of security. Many people in Britain today do not appreciate that.
Things have changed in Kenya, as elsewhere. There is a much more widespread appreciation of the importance of the limitation of families. As affluence in a certain section of the population begins to increase, so these factors begin to operate. That makes people want to keep to smaller families and have children when they are wanted. However, millions and millions of others are trapped in hopeless poverty and near starvation. Children are regarded by them as a sign of security and wealth.
We might note one other constraint on family planning programmes. That is in situations of tribal or racial tension. It is considered that the attempt to limit families in one's own tribe may cause one to lose out to those who will exercise power on the other side. So conditions of social justice and equilibrium where there are racial tensions are also important in the spreading of effective family planning programmes.
Religious objections have also been a powerful constraint, and still are in many parts of the world, on artificial methods of birth control. The Church of England agonised over this in years gone by, but for many years it has been the view of the Church of England, reinforced by successive Lambeth conferences, for example, that artificial methods of birth control can be used responsibly. They are part of God's gift for use within marriage.
I regard it as deeply sad that our Roman Catholic friends, who are so influential in many of the parts of the world about which we are speaking, have not yet come to that point of view. However, as we well know, many Roman Catholic lay men and lay women ignore the leadership given on the issue, whether from the Vatican or elsewhere.
We must face the enormous challenge of world poverty. It is no use simply isolating birth control programmes as the answer to rising population. Until standards begin to rise in these countries and there is greater security, and people are not so dependent on feeling that they must have large families in order to face old age, family planning programmes will not be effective. Far too of ten in this country people simply make excuses for world poverty by saying, "There you are, you can see how many children they produce. It's all their own fault". We do not appreciate that because of our wasteful lifestyle we ourselves put far more pressure on the resources of the world. In a way if this pressure is followed in other parts of the world and people emulate our lifestyle, on present predictions that lifestyle is quite unsustainable.
It is sad that in the run up to the next election, which we are told by our newspapers is now beginning, the whole aspect of the challenges facing our world is not likely to feature prominently. Instead, there is bargaining between the various political parties as to who can be seen to offer the lowest taxation. However, higher taxation might well
942
be required to implement social programmes in our own country and to provide the kind of support which we should give to nations overseas. I am quite aware that there are economic implications in taxation; there must be limits to it. However, I still find it deeply saddening that we have this constant bargaining going on and each party is afraid to be labelled the party of high taxation.
The truth is that there is always a temptation to concentrate simply on the short-term self-interest. This operates as much in a democratic society—or perhaps even more so—as anywhere else. With periodic elections, the temptations for politicians of all parties to concentrate on the short term is overwhelming. We might well need, for example, to hear voices calling for lower growth instead of the constant appeals to people to have it even better when they have never had it so good. We are consuming far too much in our country already. People, even in an electorate like ours, can see the challenge on occasion. There was one classic instance back in 1984 when it was widely rumoured that there would be major cuts in the government overseas aid programmes. Whether or not there was truth in the rumours I do not know, but there was a sharp revolt. It is worth noting that the revolt was joined by many of those who would be described as middle ground Conservative voters who were horrified and outraged that this should be suggested at a time when there was publicity over the famine in Ethiopia and the Sahel. So an educated, informed public opinion on these matters can exist and needs to be encouraged. The sadness, again, is that all too of ten it depends on these disasters which appear on our television screens from time to time. There is insufficient widespread public appreciation that disasters are only the tip of a catastrophic iceberg, if I may use that metaphor.
The charities have a major part to play—Christian Aid, CAFOD, Oxfam, the Save the Children Fund—with their overseas experience in educating our electorate. It is dangerous and misguided for some people to put Oxfam under investigation for being too political in a non-party sense. That is what they are. I am reminded of the comments of Archbishop Desmond Tutu about the religious inspiration behind many charities. He said, "When people tell me that there are no politics in the Bible, I wonder which Bible they are reading".
These matters are deeply entwined with political programmes of various kinds. It is vital for the health, the well-being and future of our own country and our descendants that these problems of world poverty and the enormous growth in population should be tackled effectively. Fortunately, many creative writers and artists are thinking about these matters today. The television programme "The March", which some of your Lordships may have seen the other day, tried to depict in a stark form the rising masses of Africa revolting under their poverty. That picture was brought in front of the public.
The programme was based on a very simple slogan on the part of the Africans shown marching to Europe. The slogan was: "We are poor because they are rich". We all know that that is an over-

943
simplification yet it also contains a profound truth. One can understand that truth when one looks at the debt problem which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in opening the debate. In a sense the repayment of debt has been rightly described as the most powerful engine yet devised, except perhaps for slavery, for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.
We need encouragement at this moment in our history when we are faced with so many tremendous challenges and changes on the world scene. We need to combat a certain feeling of hopelessness. In the 19th century that feeling must have been strong in the days when Charles Dickens was writing his novels. Yet, somehow, there was a major breakthrough and conditions of greater equality and a greater sharing of resources arose in our own country. However, the danger is that we may be slipping back to conditions of greater inequality once more. It has of ten been remarked that it was only when the health of those in middle class areas was threatened by cholera from working class districts that there were major advances in public health. That, surely, is what is beginning to happen on the world scene today. As regards environmental problems, people in the affluent countries such as our own are at last beginning to realise that their own health, safety and future are threatened.
One of the major problems that must be faced is the debt problem. I am sure that later in the debate other noble Lords will address themselves to that problem in a more expert manner than I am capable of. The Brady plan was put forward by Nicholas Brady, US Treasury Secretary, to:
"rekindle the hope of the people and leaders of debtor nations that their sacrifices would lead to greater prosperity in the present and the prospect of a future unclouded by debt".
That plan has been sharply criticised in Latin American countries and also by the Organisation of African Unity for having far too little sense of urgency as regards the catastrophic situation facing so many countries at the present time. I look forward to hearing the Minister give us some encouragement that the Government are taking these problems of world debt, fairer trade terms and overseas aid immensely seriously.
As we look to the future shape of societies under change, such as those in Eastern Europe, it is no good to expect that free market economies will bring the solutions we need to these great problems. Certainly the free market should have a role to play but we need a much deeper philosophy than that in order to cope with what confronts our world.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, first of all I must apologise as I shall not unfortunately be able to stay until the end of the debate. However, I shall read all the contributions tomorrow in Hansard and take careful note of them. When I mentioned to someone last night that I was going to take part in both the debates this afternoon, on civil liberties and on population control respectively, the response was that I could not speak in both as one debate was a
944
contradiction of the other. It was presumed that I was going to speak in favour of telling people that they had to control their procreation activities.
That is something we must be careful about. I speak as someone who enjoys sex. We should be careful that we do not tell other people how many children they should have and when and where they should indulge in sex. That would be an enormous and monstrous presumption on our part. However, we can appreciate the fact that if this planet of ours is made to support an ever-increasing number of people it will eventually run out of resources. There is a need to ask how we are going to balance the world's population with the resources that the world can generate.
One of the things that I think about is why we have children. There are probably two main reasons apart from the enjoyment of the act of procreation that I have already mentioned. One reason for having children is instinctive. One has an instinctive desire to perpetuate one's genes, personality and persona into the future. The other reason is rather more material. We want to ensure that our standard of living in the future is maintained. On the one hand we have children to carry ourselves forward and on the other hand we have them to support us in our old age. If we think about that latter point we can appreciate that in some circumstances it necessitates having a large number of children. If there is a high risk that one's children will die because of pestilence, war or famine, one needs to have a large number of children to ensure that some of them survive.
If there is no pension provision through a mechanism such as social security for people in their old age, they need to ensure that they have as many offspring as they can produce to support them. It stands to reason that if the life expectancy of children is high and there is some degree of material protection for old age, there will be a reduced need for people to have a large number of children. On a worldwide basis the way forward is to ensure that the life expectancy of individual people is enhanced and that there is material provision for people's old age. But how do we do that on a worldwide basis? It is interesting that in the advanced Western economies of the world life expectancy is fairly high—people live to 60, 70 or 80 years of age—and material support is available for people of pensionable age. Virtually every Western country has a mechanism for pension provision which reduces the need to be dependent on one's offspring.
The message is clear. What we need to do as a world is to ensure that the conditions which currently pertain in the more affluent countries of the world pertain world wide. It is not a question of the rich and affluent countries of the world telling the poorer countries that their people should not have large families. Rather it is a question of the rich and powerful nations of the world saying that they will ensure that there is pension provision for everyone on God's planet and that there is a reasonable life expectancy for everyone born on God's planet. That is a very large task. It is a completely different task to the one that is proposed by those who suggest that some people on this planet should tell other people on this planet when and where they will indulge in

945
sexual activity and how many children they will or will not have. I would argue that it is far more important for us to work towards world pension provision and an increase in life expectancy for everyone on the planet rather than to tell other people when they shall indulge in sexual activity and how many children they shall or shall not have.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, I too must start with an apology. I was under the impression that this debate was to be limited to two-and-a-half hours and made arrangements on that assumption. If, as seems possible the debate continues for rather longer I may not be able to stay to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, speak.
I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for introducing this very important subject and for giving us such a wealth of information and wisdom based largely on personal experience.
As usual, I find myself in complete agreement—although last time it was only partial agreement—with the right reverened Prelate. The problem of overpopulation is primarily a problem of poverty. As the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, also pointed out—although I did not agree with everything that he said—one of the primary reasons for large families in poor areas, especially in the third world, is that they are an insurance for old age. So long as poverty continues and old age is uncertain families will be large.
To a certain extent we are in a cleft stick, because the spread of medical knowledge, even in the most remote corners of the world, means that many diseases have not been conquered. Even in poor and isolated communities people live longer and as years go by will live even longer. Populations will grow for that reason. At the same time, because the problems of poverty and security have not been dealt with to the satisfaction of those who today suffer so much from insecurity, in many countries there will continue to be large families.
I suggest that the way to deal with that problem is through a combination of education and literacy, which goes hand in hand with education, and the improvement of the standards of living of those in the poorest parts of all the continents. That means a redistribution of wealth, and I shall come to that point later. Above all, it means that in rural areas there must be good teaching, good educational facilities, good practical agricultural education and good education in the schools themselves.
What happens today? Envisage a remote village, let us say in Africa but it could be anywhere in the third world. There is a bright young student at a not very good village school. The headmaster of that school will say to the parents of that girl or boy that they have a bright child, and if they can save up enough money to send the child to the nearest town he or she will have a better education and a better chance of getting on in life. With luck the child will be able to become a schoolteacher, a doctor or even a lawyer—although I would deprecate wasting good education in the third world on turning out more lawyers and I would rather turn out more agriculturalists and doctors. When the child has had
946
a good education and become a doctor or schoolteacher, what choice is there? He or she can go back to the village and live in simplicity, walking a mile to fill a bucket with water and going to bed early at night because there is only an oil lamp which is not sufficient to read by. There is no stimulating company because it is only a small village and the people living there are mainly illiterate. Or will he or she stay in the city where there is electricity, running water and stimulating company?
The great majority of those children who have the capability of benefit from a better education will not go back to the countryside but will stay in the cities. In other words, there is an automatic creaming of f of the most intelligent and the brightest away from the rural areas into urban areas. God knows, poverty exists in urban areas. In some ways it is more visible and in some ways it is worse. However, so long as that situation persists we shall continue to see the proliferation of illiteracy, poverty and large families.
The problem can only be overcome by a serious effort at the redistribution of wealth. That is where we have failed. In the so-called civilised world we have an amazing record—of harnessing the atom, putting men on the moon and exploring space, crossing the Atlantic in three-and-a-half hours and other magnificent achievements of that kind. However, we have not solved the problem of how to redistribute the wealth which we are capable of producing and which we produce here.
A short while ago I was sent some figures which made a great impression on me. They came from an organisation in Geneva. Imagine that the world, instead of consisting of billions of people, consisted of a village of 1,000 people. On the basis of the way in which wealth is distributed today, of those 1,000 people 60 would have half the total income of the village; 500—half the population—would be hungry; 600 would live in appalling conditions in terms of shelter; and 700 would be illiterate. We know perfectly well that if we lived in a community of only 1,000 and happened to be one of those 60 enjoying half the income, we should not be happy living in the fleshpots while such conditions existed among our neighbours.
It is only because the tens of billions of people in poverty live 1,000 or 10,000 miles away that we can close our eyes and turn our backs. That is where our effort must be made. It is not only this country that is at fault; I am not thinking only of us or the rich world. Other countries do the same. We know that there is maldistribution of wealth even in the poorest countries of the third world.
I have some more figures from India—a poor country, but an extremely civilised one in many respects. It now has the world's third largest pool of scientific manpower. It comes just after the superpowers. It produces scientists, engineers and doctors at a rate that by far outstrips its economy's capacity to absorb them. That is an amazing achievement for India. Not only has it achieved agricultural self-sufficiency, but at present it has a glut of many of its products.
However, in spite of that, homelessness and starvation persist. Some 288 million Indians, or 36

947
per cent. of the population, live below the Government's poverty income line. Its population is growing at the rate of 2 per cent. a year. Again, it is a problem of distribution of capacity to produce wealth and wealth itself. In addition to concentrating on the points that I and the right reverend Prelate have mentioned and that other noble Lords will mention—the alleviation of poverty in the rural and poorest areas, education, more food and so on—we should give more thought to how we in our democratic society can persuade people of the situation as if it applied to our village of 1,000 inhabitants. We must persuade people that we have just as much responsibility for the tens of billions as we would have for neighbours living at our own front door.
6.41 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, the timing of the debate is opportune as the United Nations Population Fund's annual report, entitled The State of World Population, was published last week. In some respects, that report could be regarded as being an encouraging report; in other respects, it could be regarded as being most depressing.
The report is encouraging because, between the mid-1960s and the present time, global fertility rates for women have fallen from almost 5 to 3.4. In the developing countries the decline has been even deeper—from over 6 to 3.9. Life expectancy has increased, as my noble friend Lord Rea indicated, from 51 years to 59 years for men and from 53 years to 61 years for women. Infant mortality in the first year has fallen from 103 per 1,000 to 71.
The acceptability of family planning has increased worldwide and so too has political support, both in the recognition by governments that their birth rate is too high and in the increasing number of governments who are directly involved in the provision of family planning facilities. In that respect, the political impetus comes not from the governments of the first world but from the governments of the third world.
All that is on the plus side and is encouraging, but—and it is a big but—there is also a negative side. Those improvements have been in percentages and proportions of total numbers in world population. The discouraging aspect is in the actual numbers that we are discussing—numbers that are increasing in totality. Again, as my noble friend Lord Rea said, world population is growing rapidly. It is growing more rapidly than at any time in our previous history. A section of the report, appropriately entitled Running to stand still, points out that global population growth of 2 per cent. has slowed social progress.
So much additional investment has been required to increase the quantity of health, education and other services to meet the increasing needs of a growing population that the quality of the services has suffered as a consequence. I quote from the report because it is an apt quotation:
"Racing to provide services for fast-growing populations is like running up the down escalator: you have to run very fast indeed to maintain upward motion".
948
As has been indicated, there are many factors involved in those increasing numbers. One of the most important is the age profile. While in the northern hemisphere we have an ageing profile with population growth below replacement level, in the southern hemisphere it is a young profile where both the birthrate and the fertility rate of women is very high. To bring the birthrate down, we must control the fertility rate.
A factor of overriding importance in that respect is women's literacy. For the next few minutes available to me, I want to concentrate on the problems of literacy, particularly women's literacy. When we talk of the 28 per cent. of the world's population that is illiterate, we are talking about women because two-thirds of that 28 per cent. are women.
In addition, in talking about literacy we are concerned not just with the ability of women to read and write but with the wider effects of literacy on the well-being of the whole community. Adult literacy programmes recognise that and build in to the programme such matters as knowlege of legal rights and access to practical information such as preventive health care and family planning. Such programmes are not always welcomed by men who see them as a threat to their own position of power. As a result, women are of ten deterred from participating in those programmes.
Education offers a new status to women beyond that of childbearing alone. It is recognised in many developing countries that the status of women depends on the number of children that they produce, but education helps to take them beyond that. Studies have shown that women with seven years of education tend to marry on average almost four years later than those women who have no education. That is important both in respect to their own health and to the health of the children who might be born to them.
The use of contraceptives by educated women is on average two and a half times higher, and in Africa four times higher, than that by non-educated women. Here I would say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester that those women would have seen the point behind the poster to which he referred.
Four to six years of education for women lowers the fertility rate by between 5 per cent. in Asian and African countries and 15 per cent. in Latin American countries. Child mortality is lower. In Kenya, women with no education lose 104 children under five years per 1,000 while women who have completed primary education lose 72, and women who have secondary education lose 64. Those numbers are still high by our standards but the relevance of education is obvious.
Mothers with more education tend to enter the labour force more than other women. That brings not only improved status and financial independence but more resources to spend on the family diet. There also tends to be more communication between husband and wife. That also has an influence on fertility rates as well as an improvement in the quality of life.
Better feeding practices, verbal communication with the child—which again helps the child—the

949
use of medical facilities in clinics for immunisation, and pre-natal and post-natal care are all consequences of better education for women. Those benefits accrue not only to the women themselves but to the families and to the community.
The World Bank has said that female education is one of the strongest factors in reducing fertility. I suggest that it is also one of the strongest factors in creating a healthier and more stable world population. Consequently I hope that provision for women's literacy and of better family planning services to meet the unmet demands of women—because there is an unmet demand by women in the third world—will feature more in world population and development programmes.
I should like to think that the United Kingdom could give a lead in that respect. In the first place I should like us to increase our contribution to the underdeveloped world to at least the UN target of 0-7 per cent. of GNP. I should also like to see an increase on the 1 per cent. contribution that goes to family planning services. I should like at least 2 per cent. of funds to be earmarked for that purpose. I should also like to see an earmarking of funds especially for women's literacy programmes. I believe that that would be a very appropriate gesture in this current International Literacy Year.
6.54 p.m.
Lord Thurlow: My Lords, in speaking today I have a certain sense of dé jà vu because with great pleasure I find myself again following the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. She has talked about population. On 22nd March when we debated the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Aid I followed the noble Baroness when speaking on the same subject. I am glad to say that I agree with almost everything that she said. She spoke with great authority of the areas that she emphasised.
In the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Overseas Aid emphasis was put on the underlying fact that population pressures overshadow every aspect of life in the third world. Restriction of population can be encouraged either by direct means such as the family planning that the noble Baroness discussed or indirectly by education. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords have already referred to that.
In the debate on the report the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, hit the nail on the head when she commented—as have also the right reverend Prelate and others tonight—that there will not be promotion of family planning on a large scale as long as poverty is of such a degree that people can look only to their children for help in old age and emergency. Poverty is the central obstruction.
However, I differ from the right reverned Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, about the main means by which poverty is to be countered. I do not see that solution coming about by redistribution. By all means let us aim at greatly increasing the contribution of this and other developed countries to the third world. Let us hasten to achieve the percentage figure to which the noble Baroness referred. We are limping a long way behind.
950
Nevertheless, from my experience of working in parts of the third world, in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, I simply do not believe that it is practical politics to view the solution to the gap between the rich world and the poor world in redistribution. We may be sorry about that but as a matter of practical politics I do not believe that it will happen.
There is a gap in so far as noble Lords on the Government Benches are not speaking tonight, apart from the noble Lord who will answer for the Government. Perhaps I am fulfilling their role. However, I believe that many noble Lords on the Benches opposite would share the view that redistribution is unlikely and in my view will not happen.
But does that mean that we have to despair? I certainly do not despair. On the contrary I believe that there is a way forward. It is possible to crack the problem. The key is education. If we consider the present state of education in the third world, how can we expect that the breakthrough can come quickly enough? Many noble Lords have visited schools, as I have done, at all levels in Africa, India and the Caribbean. There is a limit to the extent to which their resources can be channelled. There is a great limit on such resources. In any of the countries of central, western and eastern Africa I do not believe that there is the slightest possibility of resources on a sufficient scale being available for improving the number and quality of schools, colleges and so forth. That is not the means by which we can face and conquer the problems of the crisis.
As was eloquently shown by the noble Lord, Lord Rea—and I am grateful to him for introducing the debate—the new report of the United Nations on population trends confronts the planet with a crisis. The only means by which the crisis can be tackled with a hope of success is by a strategic plan for a new kind of education.
It is all very well for me to talk about the desirability of a new kind of education, especially with eminent educators sitting beside me. However, to my knowledge the research necessary to work out the means of accelerated education of a new kind is being carried out. The prospect is that there is soon likely to be an application of the results on the continent of Africa. I am most hopeful about its possibilities. I shall not bore your Lordships by describing the principles of the accelerated educational method but, briefly, it looks towards a constellation of educational units. There will be a central unit to train the trainers and teachers and a ring of subtended units. They are capable of offering within a matter of weeks a form of education that can provide peasants and illiterate urban people with enough know-how and the means of obtaining know-how to tackle their particular problems of agricultural production together with advice from extension services and so forth.
With members of your Lordships' Select Committee I visited Nigeria in the autumn. As the noble Lord, Lord Walston, will remember, we then saw a form of new cultivation which had been worked out at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Ibadan. It is capable of being applied over a large area of Africa and can produce the

951
equivalent of the Asian green revolution. One of our puzzles has been that a green revolution has been achieved in Asia but not in Africa. However, the means now exists; the research work has been done. But how can the results of that work be brought to the ordinary farmer? That will involve an enormous increase in agricultural extension services and in bringing to the peasant the capacity to respond to advice.
I believe that the breakthrough in accelerated educational techniques is the means by which this kind of change can take place, thereby producing teachers and transmitting the capacity to respond on the part of peasants. That applies not only in the agricultural sphere but also in the sphere of illiterates in the terrible growing conurbations cropping up all over the third world.
We can be cautiously optimistic about overcoming the population explosion if a concerted effort is made by the governments of third world countries while working with the governments of the developing world, the United Nations and specialised agencies, industrial companies, which have a great contribution to make, and research institutions. The blueprint for accelerated education now exists as the key to increased economic progress, to much greater wealth creation and then to the fulfilment of the objective of widely applied family planning.
Noble Lords may recall that estate agents have defined three criteria for choosing property to invest in first, location, secondly, location and, thirdly, location. In the field we are discussing, the solution lies in applying three criteria; first, education, secondly, education and, thirdly, education.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, a little over 20 years ago I was asked from time to time to advise an African president on what was happening in his country. At the end of my visits I put forward a list of my observations but left the most sensitive to the end. Then I asked whether he had any idea of the population increase in his country. He told me that he had not and I told him that it was 2-9 per cent. He asked, "How does that bear on what we are trying to do?" I explained to him that at that time, before 1970, 45 per cent. of his population was aged 15 or under and that within 10 years it would be over 50 per cent. Taking into account the old people it meant that less than half his population had to maintain all the services, particularly the social services, for more than half the population. I must add that he turned to me and said, "How do I convince my people to reduce the size of their families? I have nine children myself. I have not yet found an answer to that question.
That country made valiant and very largely successful attempts to introduce entirely free primary education; it greatly increased secondary education and added tertiary education through a university system, none of which it had when it was left to become independent by the British. Today every sector of that educational system has broken down. Free education has gone, illiteracy is
952
growing, secondary education has declined and is expensive and the universities are just as of ten closed as they are open. What is more, in the field of health, drugs are not available, hospitals have started to charge for beds, overcrowding is endemic and diseases are spreading very rapidly. That was a country which started not just with high hopes but which had very high endeavours and which achieved a great deal.
I need say little more than to support everything which the right reverend Prelate said. He said what I would have said and he said it better. I merely wish to hammer home one or two of the lessons which he put before your Lordships. The first is that, although we of course support every form of family planning endeavour in the Third World, none will work unless there is a change in the balance between poverty and riches.
I pick up a point made by the right reverend Prelate. He will remember that in that film "The March", which was shown to us in this House a week ago, there was a phrase which is worth remembering. It was that the world today is divided by economic apartheid. That division is the division which has been illustrated so many times. It is a division which can be so easily seen on all the tables. One only needs to look at the World Bank's annual reports. On the one hand, in this country, which is by no means one of the richest in the world today, the average per capita GNP is something over 10,000 dollars. There are 30 countries—the poorest 30 countries in this world—where that average has to be put against an average of 275 dollars. That is an average falling down to just over 100 dollars.
That is related to another statistic relevant to this debate. Whereas in this country the number of children dying during the first five years of life is 1.1 per cent. (11 per 1000), in the 30 countries to which I have referred that average is over 20 per cent. (over 200 per thousand). Again that is an average. For example, in Ethiopia it is over 30 per cent. (over 300 per 1000). As the right reverend Prelate and other speakers have said, as long as there is high infant mortality, no form of birth control programme will succeed.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has just been speaking about education. However, education is breaking down and the number of illiterates in the world is increasing. At the same time, health services are breaking down and diseases are spreading throughout the world. Malnutrition is increasing. That has now reached over one in 10 of the total world population. There are over 500 million people who are living, according to United Nations' standards, below the point of malnutrition. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said in his introductory speech, something like 14 million or 15 million children are dying each year.
This afternoon we have heard much which was well intentioned but always with the word "if. I am more concerned about our responsibility and what we should be doing in those circumstances. We should not be doing what is becoming so common in the world economy, the global economy, in which we live. For example, because the tobacco companies are finding a reduction in their profits in this country

953
through propaganda and education, they are making their pr of its by exporting strong tar cigarettes to the third world. That is increasing the burden on and the diseases in those countries. We see armament firms persuading third world countries to buy arms which they cannot afford and which cannot bring them anything but disaster. That is not the way in which we in the developed world should be tackling the problems which have been identified this afternoon.
I make a third accusation against the way in which we in Britain are contributing to that problem. It is directly in the lap of Her Majesty's Government. We have heard many times from that Front Bench how generous we are in our aid to the third world. What has never been answered is why, over the past 10 years, the proportion of our gross national product given in overseas aid has declined from 0-53 per cent. to what is now something like 0-33 per cent.
Why his it declined? We were told earlier that it had to decline because of the depression, because of the increase in unemployment and because of the state of our economy. We have been told for years now that there has been an economic miracle. I know that the noble Lord, who has answered me on this matter several times, will say that that percentage is of a higher gross national product. However, should it not be? Should not the percentage be higher? As our gross national product increases, should we not achieve a higher proportion? Can the noble Lord find it within himself to say that that is generosity when the proportion of the wealth in this country contributed to the third world has declined steadily and rapidly over the past 10 years?
However, that is a minor point because the disaster to which all speakers have referred this evening—and it was just referred to as a crisis—needs a great deal more than any amount of overseas aid which we give from this country. It needs nothing less than the Marshall Plan that rehabilitated Europe after the Second World War.
The British Government cannot produce a Marshall Plan. They can take an initiative, and there are other governments, particularly in Scandinavia, Germany and Holland, which can take that initiative through the United Nations and other international organisations. Nothing less than something on the scale of the Marshall Plan can save this situation from disaster.
Finally, it was said—I refer to it only in passing because I have referred to it many times before—that not only is there a threat to the world population and world society; but there is a threat to the place of humanity on our planet. If we are hoping to see the third world people increase their standard of living to the point at which they can maintain life, then I ask can they do it? Can we show them how to do it without them then following the disastrous path that we followed? If they follow that path, and if the 80 per cent. that we now contribute to pollution is followed by third world endeavours in order to increase; heir standard of living, then this planet is doomed for human life.
We have an opportunity. There are methods which exist in this country. For example, there are methods of decommissioning refrigerators. That requires
954
legislation and the backing of the Government. There are British methods which are available to the third world. The third world can be prevented from bringing disaster to our planet only if we are prepared to put our resources behind the transformation of life that can be produced in their world without entailing environmental disaster for the whole planet.
7.22 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, much of what I had planned to say has already been said far better and with greater authority by previous speakers. I hope your Lordships will forgive any repetition. I should also like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for giving us an opportunity to debate this vital matter.
It is common sense that better health care leads to longer life expectancy and lower infant mortality. It also used to be thought obvious that following from that families would automatically somehow become smaller. We failed to take into account that ideas of family size are deeply rooted in our culture and that to change those ideas requires two other important ingredients; first, education; and, secondly, a growing sense of economic security.
We cannot now assume that the sense of economic security can always be provided. We must find a way of slowing the rate of population growth, especially in areas where the economic prospects are grim. The weight of population is already putting a strain on resources and a brake on development. We must manage to slow the increase in the number of people without promising an immediate economic pay- of f.
Female education, as has been said by many speakers, has proved to be a vital factor, the key which unlocks the problem. Although the figures vary from one country to another there is a clear correlation between the level of female education and family size. There is another considerable direct benefit to a woman who limits her family to two or three children rather than five, 10 or even more; her health and therefore her life expectancy are greatly increased, which in turn makes it more likely that she will be able to provide effective and continuing care to those children she has.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, for her detailed description of the effects of education on the attitudes of women and I hope that what I say will add a little to that. From my experience there are admirable qualities of family life in many third world countries. However, too of ten it is the men who extol the merits of their system. The voices of women in those societies are seldom heard. An important side effect of improving the level of education of women is that it would enable women in those societies to re-examine their roles as women.
Too of ten we find extreme examples of the double standards for men and women. It is not so long ago that our society placed women on a pedestal, overtly protected, covertly exploited—a condition sometimes referred to with approval as Victorian values. Raising the self-confidence and self-awareness of women in developing countries is

955
a delicate business, but it is vital to success both in stemming the tide of humanity which threatens to engulf the world and in improving the quality of life for those already born.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I expect I will upset some people by saying this, but in my personal opinion the ancient teachings of the Catholic Church on contraception are (not to put too fine a point on it) extremely unhelpful. They are sensibly ignored by many of those engaged in this desperate struggle.
I should like to mention Sri Lanka, of which I have some slight personal experience. It is a tropical island about half the size of our own with two main ethnic groups. The main and indeed the state religion is Buddhism. I suspect that that may be a significant reason why Sri Lanka's population increase started to slow much earlier than that of many comparable nations.
R. H. Tawney in his book Religion and the Rise of Capitalism explained the relationship between religious belief and economic development. Although his conclusions are widely if not universally accepted, I do not know of any similar study applied to religion in countries which have yet to achieve a substantial degree of economic development.
Sri Lanka has an excellent national health service. Admittedly it does not have the high-tech equipment of our own, but there are no waiting lists and the standards of medicine and nursing care are excellent. The education system too, though the facilities might strike noble Lords as rather basic, are universal and free up to secondary level. There is a deep and powerful desire among the majority of the population to obtain an education. I visited a school in the interior; in other words, a village school far from the nearest town. It catered for children from nought to 16. If the figures of the headmistress are accurate, as well as teaching all the children to plant and cultivate rice it managed to obtain better O-level results than I guess would be obtained by a comparable school in this country.
I should like to commend to your Lordships' House the outstanding contribution to developments in Africa, Asia and Latin America made by both Oxfam Trading and Traidcraft. I have more information regarding the latter, but both organisations are similar. Traidcraft is not a charity; it is a pic, a business. It is a trading organisation like any other except for its clearly defined purchasing policy. It buys only from organisations operating for the benefit of their workpeople and/or the local community. It pays a fair price for what it buys. It makes advance payments to suppliers where appropriate and also provides them with help in the development of their businesses.
There is nothing that Traidcraft is doing which could not, in principle, be done by any other business trading with the developing world. It has set up Traidcraft Exchange, which is a charitable trust associated with the company and has a growing consultancy business providing service to small-scale enterprises in developing countries. In the year 1989-90 its sales comprised: craft products from the
956
developing world, 30 per cent.; food products from the developing world, 28 per cent.; clothing items, 5 per cent.; and the rest was recycled products from this country.
The products are sold through mail order catalogues, shops and over 1, 700 voluntary representatives. The organisation provides employment on fair terms for 4,000 people in the third world and so far it has generated £9 million of earnings which have gone direct to some of the poorest people on the planet.
In addition to the monetary benefit are the effects on the suppliers' self esteem. Laxmi Rani Malik, a lady who works in a small sewing and tailoring co-operative near Calcutta, makes silk scarves. She is quoted as saying,
"Before I came here I didn't only have financial worries but mental worries too. Now with the money I'm getting I can manage".
She is now supporting herself and her two young sons. Truly, Traidcraft is a model for development that should be enabled to expand and be duplicated all over the world. By that I mean replicated widely but on a human scale. The scale is terribly important. There is an important concept here. Schumacher, in his book Small is Beautiful, wrote of 2 million villages. That is what we need to bear in mind. What works best in the absence of an organisation like Traidcraft is having poor people selling to poor people, not poor people selling to rich people by whom they are too easily exploited.
The stages of economic development all over the world have been, first, craft workers making simple products in their own homes or small workshops which are then centralised into larger workshops for the convenience of the merchants who buy their products, and eventually into large factories—the dark satanic mills of William Blake. The next step is for those who can afford it to move out and repopulate the deserted villages, enjoying the kind of life the original inhabitants could easily have had if only matters had been arranged somewhat differently, while their descendants struggle as landless labourers in a seething, dirty, third world city.
Using the Traidcraft model of development, this process can be short-circuited and people can control their working environments, living intrinsically healthier and independent lives in better surroundings, contributing to their village, town, country and the world. I can assure your Lordships that working at a craft for which you receive fair remuneration and in pleasant surroundings is a very satisfying way of life. We of ten ask for too much. Most of the world's population would be more than happy with enough.
There is a role for top down internationally aided government projects. The Mahevili River scheme in Sri Lanka is an excellent example, providing hydro-electricity and irrigating large areas of formerly arid land. Successive British governments are to be congratulated on its conception and execution.
The American contribution to development in Nicaragua has been less happy. At a conservative

957
estimate 30,000 people have been killed in the past 12 or 13 years and millions of dollars, largely obtained through the drugs and arms trades, have been spent on financing armed insurrection. It has been estimated that it will take 20 years of exports just to repair the damage that the civil war has caused.
However, bad as conditions were in that country, and despite fighting a war at the same time, the educational campaign increased the level of literacy from 50 per cent. to 87-5 per cent. and won an international prize in 1981. Sadly, partly as a result of the economic effects of the war and partly as a result of direct attacks which damaged schools and killed teachers, it has now fallen back to between 75 per cent. and 80 per cent. That is still a marked improvement. I leave to your Lordships' imagination what could have been achieved had all this money and effort gone in the direction of positive development.
In Latin America there is a highly regarded educationist, Paulo Freire. His approach to literacy is to start from people's own experience, to create an educational process out of that, and then to build self-help programmes and direct action to improve their living conditions and their immediate environment. With the continuing third world debt crisis, and also from a human point of view, I believe that "bottom up" or "bootstrap" development of this kind has the best chance of bringing about the necessary changes.
Finally, I refer to rural electrification. There are many benefits to a third world village from having an electricity supply. It is a great help to any educational activity. Families in the third world of ten work very long hours and extending the working day makes studying at home after work a possibility. As has been mentioned, paraffin lamps—the most widely used means of lighting in the third world—are unsatisfactory because the most that can be obtained is the equivalent of about 8 watts candlepower, and that is not enough to study by. Another effect is that the younger people in the village are less likely to leave for what they believe are the bright lights of the town or city.
When I was discussing this debate beforehand with my noble friend Lady Seear she said to me that the numbers are so vast that they must be emphasised. It is true; the numbers are unimaginable. But there is a Chinese saying that a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. Perhaps we can regard the example and success of Laxmi Rani Malik as a first step.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, it is about time that more leaders of affairs in politics, religion, industry and education came into this debate. Some of us have been working in it for many years and although there has been widespread interest in our work throughout the world, governments themselves have not entered the debate as they should.
I am extremely pleased that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh made such a splendid address to the United Nations' Fund for Population Activities in New York on 30th March. It was
958
masterly in its presentation and delivery. I am only echoing what he said on this matter of bringing more people at top level in to counsel on the crisis that undoubtedly faces the world today.
The address given by the Duke of Edinburgh was one which neither Mrs. Thatcher nor Mr. Kinnock would have been disposed to make. They would have been afraid of the political implications of what they were saying. Most certainly the Pope would not have made that speech because he would have been afraid of the implications in the field of sexual morality, contraception and abortion, and all the other aspects that he abhors about the natural activities of mankind. Nor would the President of the United States deliver that address, for he is carrying on the capricious policy of his predecessor of selective aid, from an American standpoint, to the more deserving nations of the world.
There are undoubtedly prejudices and undercurrents of diffidence, inhibition and dogma. When are the religious leaders of the world going to face the facts about humanity and its future? When will the political leaders stop being afraid of evangelical forces at home and ignore their prejudices against certain matters when deciding what aid they shall give to other countries. President Reagan, without any warning, cut of f large amounts of aid that the United States was giving to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities for the purposes of spreading opportunity, facilities and education related to family planning.
Why is it countries are so afraid of discussing birth control? If man does not have the common sense to control the instincts of his species, then he will pay the penalty which nature always imposes on those who disregard its conditions. Now we have President Bush. Last November Congress voted a 15 million dollar grant to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities for the year 1990; but President Bush not only vetoed that, he vetoed the 14 billion dollars of foreign appropriation. Why? It was because the United Nations Fund for Population Activities gives aid to China, and China is believed to indulge in coercive abortion. The American people will not stand for that. Happily, other countries have come to the rescue of this work in order to avoid the serious collapse of activities in the field. Those activities would have been dismantled without much notice had not Sweden and the United Kingdom come to the rescue in the financial crisis.
We are members of three institutions of the world: the United Nations, the EC and the Commonwealth. I ask the Minister: what are we doing to influence those with whom we associate in those institutions in order to make them aware of the problem and make them willing to contribute to its solution? Let us get rid of the eternal squabble about sanctions in South Africa whenever the Commonwealth representatives meet. They should talk about some of the practical questions affecting the countries themselves to which they belong.
It is very difficult indeed not to despair of mankind. He is probably the biggest fool ever of all the species because he has the brains but he does not use them; he has the will but he cannot use it. The time comes when, as I have said, nature takes revenge

959
on thoughtlessness and neglect. That is likely to be the future fate of large parts of the world. I wish that we could find something better than the constant references to the third world. What is the first world? What is the second world? Why the third world? What is this disparagement and this contempt for poverty? Let us find a different reference that will convey to those whom we are addressing what we really wish to say. The title third world puts people of f almost before they begin to consider a situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, has had so much experience in this matter and with affairs at large. When he has hope, then it is not for the rest of us to lose it. We need a combination of political, industrial and financial power when considering this crisis. The first consideration for industry is its location. We want investment in countries which are lacking it. We want educated people to be there. There should be a new kind of world assistance.
In centuries gone by we were noted for our genius for colonisation, administration and industrial development in all parts of the world. Why cannot we mobilise that genius again? Let us expand our voluntary services overseas. There are plenty of young people about who are looking for satisfying and worthwhile jobs among people whom they want to help. We should finance them. Investment can be made in these countries not only for agriculture but for some forms of manufacturing so that these countries can supply some of their own goods.
A new economic discipline is needed. A survey should be conducted of national resources available throughout the world. We should get rid of the idea of sovereignty and the attitude that if you have a separate sovereign state it is yours to do what you like with and it is nobody else's business. You can cut down all your trees and get into a state of desert poverty. You can dissipate your resources. All these resources now belong to the planet as a whole and we have to regard them as being in the care of us all.
The new economic discipline must avoid the reckless use of finite resources for the purpose of raising the standard of living. We have to have more regard for the use of resources which are sustainable or replaceable. That is better than using up our basic assets as some countries are doing today.
The problem is becoming a matter of world concern. I am glad that this debate has been so well supported. Reference has been made to top people coming into this field of concern. Top people are already in it. There is the all-Party British Parliamentary Group for Population and Development. I was its first chairman. The present more active and skilled chairman is Sir Charles Morrison, the Member of Parliament for Devizes.
We are constantly in touch with all parts of the world. We are keeping this Parliament in touch with the movement in every possible respect. We have a close association with the United Nations Fund for Population Activities. We want support in your Lordships' House and in Parliament as well. It does not matter what are our problems because they are small compared with those of other nations. It does
960
not matter what are our privations because they are minute compared with those of other nations.
I recently saw a film which had a considerable emotional impact. It dealt with abortion clinics in Calcutta. There was an attempt made by the Marie Stopes overseas trust to arrange for abortions to take place in conditions which give reasonable hope for survival. The film showed the squalor and the depth of degradation that the women experienced. It was revolting. But those women have already had six, seven or eight children and they do not know what else to do. There are no birth control facilities for them. They are uneducated. They are sick of children and sick of bearing them. They are also poverty-stricken. They get into the hands of charlatans or of charities to relieve them of the burden of further additions to the family.
Why are these conditions allowed to continue? Nine-tenths of the grievances of the British people are minor grievances compared with those that exist in other countries. How can we be complacent and speak about the philosophy of aid which says that we must get richer ourselves in order to have more money to dispose of in charitable grants to the third world? We must get rid of that attitude.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Vernon: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who was in his usual vigorous form. I agree with every word that he said.
I have a special interest in this subject. For the past five years I have been chairman of an organisation called Population Concern of which some of your Lordships may be aware. It does something in a small way to try to help family planning clinics overseas. I have travelled in various countries, especially in India, and so I have seen a little of what is going on.
In 1972, about 18 years ago, I introduced a Motion in your Lordships' House drawing attention to the need for a population policy in the United Kingdom. It seemed to me then, as it does now, that if we are to ask the poorer countries to reduce their level of population and their growth of population, we in the West, whose populations grew so dramatically in the last century and just after and who are responsible for so much of the present environmental damage and pollution, must play our part and set an example in population reduction.
Reading through the speeches in that debate I was much struck by some words of the late Lord Gardiner. Explaining why, notwithstanding his many other duties, he had assumed the presidency of what at that time was the Birth Control Campaign, he said:
"I did so because I think quite simply that this is probably the most important single subject in the world".—[official Report, 26/4/72; col. 431.]
If it was the most important single subject in the world back in 1972, how much more is it today when, as we have heard, world population is accelerating at such an alarming rate and between now and the end of the century will increase by one-fifth?
The destruction of the rain forests, the over-fishing of the oceans, the pollution of the atmosphere, global

961
warming and so on have all been talked about in both the press and on television. One would have thought that this information, with its horrifying implications for the environment, would make our Government and other governments sit up and take notice. After all we had detailed reports from the Brundtland Commission, from the Brandt Commission, from the World Bank and from many other responsible bodies telling us exactly what is happening; and still the Western world does nothing or almost nothing about it.
It was suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and others that if the abysmally low living standards in the third world can only be improved by the introduction of massive Western aid, family size will drop automatically. That is true in theory. We know that it happened in this country in the last century. We know that with increasing literacy, better health and better education, people stopped having so many children, so why should it not happen in the third world? That is the argument, but there is a flaw in it. The flaw is principally the time factor and the rate and scale at which population growth is taking place. It is much faster than anything experienced by the Western nations in the last century, when in any case we were able to export our surplus population to the United States of America and to the colonies, an option not open to any of these countries today.
If this problem is to be solved in a civilised and humanitarian way and not left to nature—nature, as we all know, can be very cruel—much more drastic action is required. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, referred to the Chinese. The Chinese, with one-fifth of the world's population, have discovered that family size must be brought down before living standards can go up, and not vice versa. They are achieving this by methods which some people may regard as unacceptable and ruthless but which I believe are fully justified in the circumstances. It has been suggested that the Chinese experience has not been as successful as they thought it would be. However, the doubling time of the Chinese population today is 49 years when previously it was going to be somewhere between 20 and 30 years. That is an enormous improvement. It has given them a breathing space with which to increase their living standards and so bring that process into effect.
It lies with individual countries and individual governments to decide exactly how they will tackle this situation. But we must give them all possible help. We must also try to persuade the countries of the EC and other countries to give more help also. There was a time when countries were highly suspicious of the advocacy of family planning by the West; but not now, as their governments battle with the economic effects of seeing their populations double in anything between 17 and 25 years. They welcome with open arms any help from us.
The World Health Organisation has estimated that there are today 300 million married couples who would stop having more children if they had the means of doing so. That is so at the present moment without them having this higher standard of living. In addition, there are many more millions who
962
would reduce the size of their families if they were made aware of the greater life expectancy of both mothers and children and also of the opportunities for them to lead fuller and more rewarding lives once they had arranged to space their families.
In the present era, family planning is not just a matter of handing out contraceptives. There is a huge educational job to be done. My noble friend Lord Thurlow dealt with the educational aspect. This is just a part of what he was talking about. This can be done in conjunction with the local family planning associations. It is not just the women who must be educated; the men must also be educated because the views of many men, as we all know, are unhelpful to say the least.
Therefore, I urge the Government, as other noble Lords have done, to increase substantially the proportion of the aid given to family planning. In that respect I go further than the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. Several years ago I was told that out of the whole overseas budget only 2 per cent. goes to family planning. I suggest that that should be doubled to 4 per cent. I hope that when the noble Lord replies to the debate he will be able to say something specific on that aspect of the matter.
Finally, I suggest that all overseas aid to countries with fast growing populations whose governments do not operate effective family planning policies should be reassessed. Without such family planning policies, our money is being poured straight down the drain.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if the Government had any doubt about the relationship of poverty, illiteracy and environmental degradation to rapid world population growth, I hope that it has been dispelled by the excellent speech we heard today from my noble friend Lord Rea. It is the kind of detailed, well-researched speech to which we shall refer time and again. I also congratulate him on initiating the debate, not only for the intrinsic value of what has so far been, and I am sure will be when finalised, an excellent debate but also because I hope ! that it will be one of a number of debates that will continue in your Lordships' House on what many of us think is a major issue facing mankind.
In mentioning that fact, perhaps I may say how deeply saddened I am that we have not heard a single contribution from the Government Back-Benches. Indeed, at present there is not even one Conservative Back-Bencher in attendance. I hope—and I am sure that I am right—that that is not an indication of a lack of interest in such an important matter.
There is overwhelming evidence of the relationship to which I refer provided not only by reports from the United Nations but also from the activity carried out by the various agencies and voluntary organisations working in this field. The question is what to do about the problem. There are many aspects which are particularly worrying. The most important, as I see it, is perhaps the fact that the fall in birth rate in most of the developing world in the 1960s and 1970s slowed down in the 1980s. The latest United Nations report says that between 1990 and 2000 the population will grow by 1,000

963
million, which will be a greater increase than in any previous decade.
There have been welcome improvements in certain areas, some of which have been mentioned by noble Lords this afternoon. However, it is clear that the overall position is becoming worse. Last week's report from the population fund, which has been referred to several times, and the recently published United Nations report World Population at the Turn of the Century— which has not been mentioned so far in the debate but which is a most valuable document—confirm that view. As they provide the most up-to-date information on the position, I hope that the Minister's reply will in part at least be directed to the contents of those two reports.
The debate is justified by the contents of the two reports. The so-called bottom billion, who live in poverty, threaten land degradation and destruction of the rain forests, and the so-called top billion, who have the biggest share of resources, create the most waste, damage the ozone layer, create acidification and are largely responsible for global warming.
I was concerned at the Answer which I received to a Question as recently as 9th May from the Minister who is present tonight. I asked what action the Government were taking in association with other countries to deal with the problem of the population explosion. I was perturbed to learn that we are contributing only £17 million to the various organisations involved with the problem and that in 1988 the figure was as little as £6.5 million. Some of my noble friends, and indeed the previous speaker, referred to the percentage of GDP. While I shall not repeat what was said, it seems to me that that is the kind of standard at which we should be looking.
Money is not, by itself, the solution. I shall touch upon other measures later. But financial contributions by governments are a major factor. I say to the Government that if they feel that £17 million is the best that they can do, they are not as concerned as they pretend to be about the problem. After all, there is a self-interest factor. For example, the benefits which accrue to this country by increased trade, by the use of special skills in underdeveloped countries, by vastly improved political relationships—this is perhaps the most important aspect—and by other matters are a form of investment. But I hope that our assistance is based on the morality of helping human beings who are in many instances in dire circumstances. I am sure that the Government make their contributions at least partly on that basis.
We are constantly reminded by the Prime Minister and others that we have had an economic miracle in this country. Indeed, I think that my noble friend Lord Hatch referred to that fact. If the most we can afford from such a miracle is £17 million, the millions of people in India, Africa and South America who have a continuing struggle for existence must indeed be cynical about our professed concern for them.
However, I repeat that money is not a solution in itself. I find that one of the most depressing factors
964
is the slow progress in introducing family planning. It is a matter for education. Strenuous efforts are made to improve education in many countries but we have to recognise that they are not as successful as they should be. I must say how saddened I was to hear the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Monkswell (who have both left the Chamber for reasons about which we are all aware) play down the importance of family planning. But I realise that they were putting it into the context of education.
As someone who has been engaged in education for the whole of my life, perhaps I may say that I readily agree that education, which has been mentioned by every speaker so far, is of prime importance. However, that is not to say that the importance of family planning should be played down. I greatly appreciate the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, justifying, if it needs to be justified, the essential role which family planning must play. Efforts made in education and family planning must go hand in hand; they are not separate matters and they ought to be dealt with together.
In a statement issued only last week Dr. Nafis Sadik, the director of the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, made specific reference to the disappointing results being achieved in family planning. The dedicated people who devote their lives to education in family planning in third world countries need and deserve all the help we can give them with what is a basic weapon in dealing with the population problem.
I have not had the wide and deep experience of third world countries of other noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. My experience is a result of short visits on parliamentary delegations. That is different from the kind of experience we have heard about from other speakers.
I recognise—I am aware that the Government do too—that family planning has its own problems, not least the view taken of it by some religions. It was deeply disturbing to some of us to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, last week when my Question was being answered that the Reagan Government cancelled all United States funding to the IPPF as a result of pressure from the so-called "life lobby". I was pleased to hear my noble friend Lord Houghton repeat that remark, and indeed go further and talk about what President Bush is doing in that respect. I am not sure whether the Government feel themselves competent to make representations on that issue, but many Members of your Lordships' House are deeply concerned about the attitude being shown by our friends in America.
It would be helpful if the Minister—not now but perhaps later—could give us some idea of how many British personnel are engaged in family planning education in the underdeveloped countries. I say that because it seems to me, as I said a moment ago, that the people doing the work at the coal face, if I may so describe it, are of the utmost importance.
The United Nations report recommends that spending on family planning be doubled by the end of the century and that a greater proportion of the aid budget be spent on such programmes. I hope that the Government will accept that recommendation as

965
a matter of urgency; but I understand that there is, in some countries at least, the problem that such funds are not always used to improve family planning facilities. That is a point which needs to be watched carefully, and I am sure that the Government are doing so.
I am not sure how the Government receive reports from family planning workers in the field. They are the people who have to face the difficulties, and it is essential to know what the problems are so that solutions can be attempted.
It is heartening to learn from Family Health International that surveys carried out in many developing countries show that 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. of married women want to limit or space future births. My noble friend Lady Lockwood made a similar point which she put more eloquently than I have. A different story came from those countries only a few years ago, but even so there is a great variation. In Mexico in 1974 only 12 per cent. of women were using modern methods, but due to improved access to contraception the figure doubled by 1976 and doubled again in 1982. That is heartening news.
By contrast, in Africa where the problem is at its worst, only 23 per cent. of women who do not want more children use contraceptives. There is clearly a tremendous amount of work to be done there, and we cannot but be saddened by the rate of progress.
It is easy to be critical of population increase and its consequences, but I do not underestimate, despite my criticisms of the Government, the many and great problems involved. I repeat what I have said in the House previously: there is no greater problem facing mankind today. It brings about poverty and illiteracy on a massive scale and now more than ever it is realised that the effect on the environment may literally be calamitous. The difficulty is that it is not a problem which affects the daily lives of most people in the developed countries. I believe nevertheless that there is a slowly growing consciousness of just how serious overpopulation is to our planet.
When reading various reports and accounts of what is happening, one comes across nuggets, if I may so describe them, of success which are not just heartening but which are encouraging and a spur to further effort. Only yesterday I read of the first family planning success in southern India, which has been one of the hardest areas to cope with in relation to population control. Progress can come only from the concerted effort of all countries. I hope that our country and our Government will not be found wanting in that endeavour.
8.15 p.m.
Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, I was able to attend the launch in London last week of the UNFPA report on The State of World Population 1990 which was introduced by Dr. Nafis Sadik. The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, gave a good account of some hopeful details contained in that report. I have been encouraged by the extensive coverage of that excellent report in all the serious newspapers last week and this week, especially in the context of the
966
present "One World Week", during which, although population is mentioned, it is still not being discussed as a vital, integral part of "green" problems. The media may have been encouraged to feature "population" because there appeared to be bad news.
Although that UNFPA report contains some bad news—mainly that future population projections are increasing slightly—there are also some positive sides to it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, said and, as was pointed out in the leading letter in The Times yesterday from Sir Charles Morrison (chairman of the All-Party Group on Population and Development) which has been mentioned. I should perhaps say that I am vice-chairman of that group. He pointed out that the report also said that effective family planning programmes had played and continued to play a successful part in many countries in helping to achieve significant reductions in total fertility rates. He also quoted the estimate in the report that by the end of the century there will be a 60 per cent. increase in demand for family planning in the developing world. He suggested that our contribution towards that demand should be met by an increase from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. in the funds devoted to family planning within the ODA budget. That is not a request for new money, but for a transfer of emphasis to that area.
Talk about population problems has recently increased. How quickly that talk is translated into results remains to be seen. Frustrating as it may be, even just talking about those problems seems to have had an effect over the years on the gradual change in the climate of opinion on that subject.
I thought that the Brundtland Report, although excellent in many respects, was disappointing in not making a clearer statement on population problems. I hope that last week's Bergen debate on population, which is being shown on BBC 1 tomorrow, will reflect how the debate has moved on since the Brundtland Report. That programme is part of the BBC's contribution to "One World Week", although it is disappointing that that recording has been assigned an 11 o'clock slot tomorrow morning. As part of that same project, according to The Times, Prince Charles will say on BBC 1 this evening:
"All main religions have had to think again about family planning",
which he identifies as another significant saviour of the planet.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned Prince Phillip's masterly speech. Most noble Lords are aware that Prince Phillip has been speaking out on the subject of population for some time in a characteristically forthright manner. Unfortunately his remarkable speech in New York in March to the United Nations Population Fund received little coverage in this country. It was a lengthy and closely argued speech which I obtained from the Library. It would not be meaningful to pick out and quote just a few dramatic sentences, but it is one of the clearest and most graphic accounts of the problems that confront us, put in the most direct and challenging form. An abbreviated account of the speech appeared in Monday's Evening Standard.

967
Alarm bells have been sounded, but the question is: who will allow themselves to hear them? It may be surprising to some that the Prime Minister briefly sounded alarm bells about population in her speech last November to the United Nations in a debate on the subject of the global environmment. She said:
"More than anything, our environment is threatened by the sheer numbers of people and the plants and animals which go with them. When I was born the world's population was some 2 billion people. My grandson will grow up in a world of more than 6 billion people. Put in its bluntest form: the main threat to our environment is more and more people, and their activities".
Those are strong and clear words on the central importance of population to the environment. I am not given to quoting the Prime Minister of ten. I also used that quotation in the speech that I made on 22nd March. I have done so for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, pointed out, that we have no Conservative Back-Bench speakers on the Motion and there are in this Chamber no Conservative representatives on the Back Benches. That is a pity because this should be an all-party subject, as it has been, in my opinion, for a long time.
To be fair, everyone I have quoted, including the UNFPA, seems to recognise that for the environment a change of attitude is needed as much in the developed as in the developing world. With all the support that I have quoted from the top and given that the Minister, Mrs. Chalker, has an excellent and sympathetic record in the field, could we not expect that within the existing budget of the ODA substantially more should be directed towards population activities? I am sure that what I called the alarm bells are heard only too clearly in the Ministry, but the temptation must be to regard them as a distant sound and a distant problem. It is a long-term problem, but an act of will and vision is needed to respond to those long-term problems. If they are ignored now, they will become compounded, as the UN report clearly shows. We should ask the Government on our behalf to think and act in the long term in this field and to give an urgent lead to other Western governments.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, the Motion we are debating this evening and most of the speeches draw attention to one of the many vicious circles that face developing countries. The Motion starts with poverty, moves on to illiteracy and the environment and then to rapid population growth. My noble friend Lord Rea might well have traced the circle the other way round, starting with population growth and leading to poverty. It does not matter which way round we go, poverty is both a cause and a consequence of rapid population growth. Wherever we look in the developing countries, we find that one problem leads to another and we go round again full circle to where we started. The outstanding circular problem is debt. A country is poor; it borrows to feed its people; it is then charged interest which it cannot afford and so it borrows again. That is the nature of the development problem we face.
Where do we start with the problem? I suggest that we have no choice but to tackle all aspects
968
simultaneously. That is why those of my noble friends who have called attention to the need for a larger aid programme are perfectly correct. All these problems are inter-related. If a country is poor, it cannot teach its people to read and write. If they are illiterate, they cannot easily be taught the need for or the methods of family planning.
The United Nations suggested one way in which we might break into this vicious circle. It has designated 1990 as International Literacy Year in the hope that public opinion worldwide can be mobilised to tackle the problem through elementary education. That can be the focal point, I suggest, for activity not by educationists alone but by health workers, economists, agriculturists, by the Churches (I see that the right reverend Prelate has just arrived in his place) and not least by governments.
It is not easy, when speaking of the problems of the developing world, to avoid the use of statistics. I only do so in order to emphasise the point that was so well made by my noble friend Lady Lockwood. If we take population and literacy statistics together, they reveal that a decreasing proportion of the world's population is illiterate. That is good news in a sense; but unfortunately population growth is such that the number of people who cannot read or write is increasing, despite the advances being made in respect of literacy taken in isolation. In other words, we are swimming against the tide. The only way to make progress against the tide is to redouble our efforts. That is what the world must do now if disaster is to be avoided.
Therefore I suggest it is to be hoped that in this International Literacy Year all international organisations—governmental and non-governmental alike and not just UNESCO—will redouble their efforts. I am glad that one international organisation with which I have had close association in the past—namely the International Co-operative Alliance—is taking a positive attitude to the task and to the International Literacy Year. It is urging all its national affiliates worldwide to incorporate literacy programmes into their activities. It is taking steps to monitor the response of the affiliated organisations.
I pick on this not only because of my personal association, but because it is important, since the co-operative movement has a network of co-operative societies with many millions of members, some in the developing countries. The important point is that they are organised right down to the village level. It is surely there that the messages of both literacy and family planning need to be delivered. We are concerned with that double message this evening. I wish to make a brief comment on the Government's attitude to that double problem.
I have little difficulty in commending the Government's record in relation to such organisations as the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Fund for Population Activity. The United Kingdom has consistently been a leading donor to those organisations. However, my noble friends Lord Houghton of Sowerby and Lord Dormand have pointed to the fact that President Reagan succumbed

969
to the pressures of the pro-life lobby in the United States and cut of f the United States' subscriptions to those organisations. It was commendable that this country refused to follow suit and continued to support those two international organisations.
However, this evening we are debating both population and literacy. I wish I could say the same things about the Government's record in respect of literacy as I have about family planning. On literacy the Government meekly followed the United States when that country withdrew from UNESCO. Only a few weeks ago we refused to rejoin UNESCO despite a massive expression of opinion that this country should be in it.
I recognise the validity of many of the criticisms that have been levelled at UNESCO, but I recognise also the efforts that are being made by the present director general, Sr. Major, who is trying to overcome UNESCO's problems. This country ought still to be a member of that body helping him with those efforts. That is especially true in relation to the subject of this evening's debate for UNESCO has a proud record in the fight against illiteracy. This country could make a contribution to that fight. We should still be in that body if we are serious, as the Minister will no doubt claim, about conquering illiteracy and the related problem of population growth.
8.32 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for giving us the opportunity this evening to discuss the problems of work population growth, illiteracy and poverty. I had not intended to speak in this debate as I thought that my noble friend Lady Robson was going to speak from her long and deep knowledge of world population problems. My noble friend kindly gave me notes to help me in my speech tonight. I hope she will not be of fended if I refer only briefly to the content of those notes. I suppose it is a guage of what happens to one after six years in your Lordships' House—it is six years to the day that I made my maiden speech on the closely related subject of aid to the third world—that I come back to where I began and speak with some enthusiasm about this topic but also with sadness that so little has happened during those six years to encourage us. I refer particularly to those countries in East and Central Africa of which I have some experience.
I was in Africa through the 1970s for long periods of time. I lived in four countries. I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, mentioned one of those countries although he did not refer to it by name when he made his interesting and, as usual, perceptive speech. I saw at first hand hunger, disease, famine, and also corruption which has not been mentioned this evening That is why my speech is devoted to the problem of poverty. I take it as read that there is a connection between poverty, illiteracy and world population growth. However, as other noble Lords have said, we need to target our attention most particularly at the area of poverty.
Having said that I saw all those bad aspects of third world countries, I have to say also that I saw incredible good humour, resilience and good aspects
970
of family life under conditions of extreme hardship. I also saw—this is very important—the extraordinary forgiving nature of Africans. That is a characteristic of Africans which we need to bear in mind when we consider the future of South Africa. When one considers how President Kenyatta was treated in prison, it is remarkable that when he came out and led the nation with a strong and by and large, good hand, he did not refer to the indignities that he had suffered in captivity.
I remember seeing shanty towns. The right reverend Prelate will know what I am talking about here. I remember one evening when I was outside Nairobi seeing an enormously red glow spreading against the wonderful African sky. I heard a most incredible noise of crackling, banging, shouting and screaming. A shanty town had caught fire. All the plastic and paper which formed the dwellings of the poor inhabitants had caught fire. That was very understandable as most of the material used for the houses was highly combustible. I shall never forget the screams of the dispossessed. However, another shanty town sprang up shortly afterwards and the same story goes on.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, will refer to the role of women in third world countries. I have seen women looking after the staple crops, carrying water, collecting wood and raising their families with precious little appreciation within their culture. I was in Africa as part of an aid project. I now look back on that as a most unsatisfactory period in terms of aid to the third world, and in particular Africa. In a small way I helped to direct aid to projects in Africa. Some of the projects were good but I regret to say that most of them were not very good and some of them were downright scandalous. I am not talking particularly about aid from Britain but aid that came from many of the industrialised countries. That aid was devoted to useless projects where money had to be borrowed in the first place because there was no foreign exchange. The donor nations took part in a race to lend money to those countries so that they could buy things for which they had no real need.
Noble Lords who have travelled in Africa will have noticed that one of the strange aspects of that continent is that one nearly always finds grand airports full of marble and chrome. Yet when one leaves such countries a police officer or a customs officer begs one's fountain pen as a present. That is the kind of madness and nonsense which exists in Africa. Large projects are undertaken to build sophisticated airports, and highly sophisticated projects are carried out for making petrol out of molasses. There are high technology telephone exchanges, locomotives and railway equipment which are more sophisticated than that which is found in the donor countries. How did these projects come about? I come back to the point about corruption. Those projects required influence. Those who were in positions of power such as politicians and civil servants—they were known as the "fat cats"—received, in recognition of their services, large sums of money which were salted away in Swiss banks. Many of those who have survived that period are now exiles and live in big flats and houses, often

971
in European countries, enjoying the fruits of their activities. I know some of those people myself. The effect on those countries of this continuing charade has been political instability.
There is no doubt that aid to Africa is now better targeted. It is high time that that occurred. However, not all countries were guilty of the sin of venality and ill-directed aid. The Scandinavian countries were notably effective in the kind of aid that they gave to countries in East Africa. They provided aid for simple projects to provide, for example, water and basic medicine rather than the high technology projects to which I have referred.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that the right reverend Prelate made an admirable speech. I too should have liked to make such a comprehensive and perceptive speech. As the right reverend Prelate said, this country and many other countries in the developed world take a very short-term view, not only on the subject which we are now debating but regarding activities affecting those countries themselves. Large corporations in this country take such a short-term view that they can only think about what will happen to their share price on Monday morning; there is no thought of future planning and future investment. Young men who earn high salaries sit watching news screens, anxiously wondering what the stock market is doing, and passing the information on to their superiors. The Government take an equally short-term view. That is understandable because they have to consider their own future election prospects.
The right reverend Prelate also referred to the extraordinary consumerism in the West, which has a knock-on effect on the developing world. I am also guilty of the extraordinary gluttony which affects us all. We over-eat and then try to take of f weight. Some people are so narcissistic that they buy bicycles which do not go anywhere. They go jogging. One sees them running round our parks, sweating profusely, in the concentrated care of their own over-indulged bodies.
In Africa, where they do not have the wherewithal and the surplus to allow them to do that, people suffer from disease, illiteracy and overpopulation. It is sad, because in this country we have the ability to cope with those problems. There are enough resources, enough food and enough technology to be able to cope with the problem and to redistribute wealth in order to help solve it.
There is one further point which concerns me and which I do not believe any noble Lord has mentioned. What happens if we do not cope, apart from the fact that many will die or become diseased? I suggest that Moslem fundamentalism and other such extremist movements have a role to play. They of fer something to people who have nothing. When the Moslems moved into India the most ready converts to Islam were largely the Untouchables, those who had nothing. A great part of the Moslem population of India are descendants of those Untouchables who had nothing but to whom Islam gave some hope.
My noble friend Lord McNair, who made an excellent speech, referred to Sri Lanka and the
972
success in providing medical care and basic provisions on that island. In the state of Kerala, in South West India, which I visited last year—it is a communist state, but that need not alarm noble Lords opposite (not that there are many)—exactly the same situation prevails. There has been a lowering of the birth rate. It has stabilised because education is offered and contraception is provided for women. The basic necessities of life are also provided.
I do not want to hold up the spectre of Moslem fundamentalism or communism as the inevitable effect of our neglect of the problem. However, I believe that the point is worth considering. Unless we find some way of coping with the problems, as many noble Lords have said, it could be too late. We could have disaster, on a gigantic scale, on our hands.
8.44 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, a short time ago I noticed a tragic but unfortunately true statement in a recent World Health Organisation report. The report said:
"Childbirth is a universally celebrated event, an occasion for dancing, fireworks, flowers or gifts. Yet, for many thousands of women each day, childbirth is experienced not as the joyful event it should be, but as a private hell that may end in death".
The reasons for that have little to do with personal circumstances but everything to do with the social and economic circumstances surrounding the birth. That is a factor which is central to our debate this evening and one on which I should like to focus—the position of women.
My noble friend mentioned some very disturbing statistics showing the trend in population growth. Many noble Lords have mentioned the UN Population Fund report and also the conference held this month in Norway entitled, Action for a Common Future. It has been pointed out that almost all of the population growth in the 1990s will be in the developing countries, with Africa doubling its population in 23 years' time. That point reflects the anxiety which has been shown by so many noble Lords this evening.
My noble friend Lord Rea, in his excellent introduction to this very important debate, said that priority must be given to relieving economic pressures in those countries and also to accelerating the educational process, in particular for women, to help them plan and control the size of their families. That is entirely true. There is little doubt that knowledge, wealth and access are key factors in infant and child mortality rates, maternal mortality and family size. Forty thousand children die every day of the year, most of them unnecessarily and avoidably. The average maternal mortality rate in the developing world is 15 times higher than that in industrialised countries. It is interesting to note that the United States had a maternal mortality rate of over 600 per 100,000 live births in 1915. That is similar to the rate today in sub-Saharan Africa. The reason is that in sub-Saharan Africa social conditions have not improved. There is no improved medical care and no application of existing medical knowledge and technology.

973
The relationship between knowledge and the prevention of infant and child death, and between child survival and decreases in population growth rates, has been well documented by UNICEF and the World Health Organisation. Major health hazards for both children and mothers are pregnancies which are too early, too late, too many or too frequent. In the early 1960s only a few countries had family planning programmes. Now over 120 governments support such programmes, either directly or indirectly. Unfortunately their spending on such programmes is less than 1 per cent. of their budgets. In over 50 countries, in which 20 per cent. of the world's women exist, contraceptive prevalence rates are below 10 per cent. Yet, as both my noble friend Lady Lockwood and the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, have pointed out, there are 300 million couples in developing countries who do not want any more children who are not taking any effective action to limit family size, for the very good reason that they do not know how to.
It is for that reason that I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Monkswell. He has left, but he said that he would read Hansard tomorrow morning. I do not agree with him that it is patronising to produce ways of helping women in developing countries to control their lives if the only way of doing so is to control the size of their families.
There is clear evidence from developing countries that if family planning services exist women will use them. Speaking as a woman, I am not surprised that they do. However, it is realised more and more that men have not been targeted enough in those family planning programmes. It is so of ten the man who influences the woman. It has been discovered that he is of ten aware of those programmes but does not tell his wife about them and she is therefore left entirely ignorant. To give an idea of the extra costs of bringing family planning to all women who want it, it is estimated that it would cost 2 billion dollars a year until the year 2000. That is slightly less than the annual US expenditure on tobacco and advertising. I find that a sobering thought.
UNICEF strongly believes that, as infant deaths decline and parents are assured of their children's survival, it will be easier to make people adopt family planning methods. UNICEF believes that family planning methods should be decided by the individuals and countries themselves, as is right.
I intended to give some details about the education of women, but my noble friend Lady Lockwood has already done that. She pointed to the worrying fact that a high proportion of the world's illiterates are women and that the more schooling women have, the more likely they are to have fewer children at more widely spaced intervals.
On a visit to Kenya in January, I noticed that women accepted the argument that spacing was to do with their health rather than with some ridiculous idea from the rich countries to compel them to have fewer children. They understood that it was in their interests and the interests of the whole family, including their existing children, if they looked after their health by spacing the births in their families.
I also saw a good example of the importance of literacy to women. I went to a poor area where there
974
was a centre for immunisation and family planning. I asked how many of the women who came there could read and was told that nine out of 10 could probably read. That was certainly not representative of the proportion of women who could read in that poor area. It meant that it was only the women who could read who availed themelves of the family planning, immunisation and other advice facilities. That is an important point.
It has been stated time and time again this evening that there is a direct link between poverty, illiteracy and family size. Specific goals within a fixed time should therefore be set in those countries, but, as has been said this evening, given the external debt repayments of interest and principal which amount to three times the total of all new aid being received each year in those countries, it is inconceivable that those countries, especially those in Africa and Latin America, will have the resources to build the necessary economic foundation to meet those important human goals of the 1990s.
It has been an inevitable consequence that basic public services, particularly health and education, have suffered cuts, so the vicious circle of poor education, poverty, large families, poor health and nutrition and poor schooling continues. A major action programme to deal with the developing countries' debt would enable a significant switch of resources to the social sectors. As my noble friend Lord Hatch and other speakers have said, that is vital.
Perhaps I may conclude by asking one question of the Minister and making one suggestion. UNESCO is the lead organisation for International Literacy Year, to which my noble friend Lord Oram referred. As the United Kingdom is regrettably not a member of UNESCO, can the Minister tell us whether we are channelling any support towards that international year in some other way, as we are presumably not channelling it through UNESCO?
I am sure that the Minister knows that in September of this year there will be a summit for children in New York. Does he agree that it might be a wonderful opportunity for world leaders to work out a population policy? The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, said that a population policy was vital not only to developing countries but to us too. I should have thought that we could follow the example of the banks, which have written of f some of the developing countries' debts for development. The money has gone into development projects such as afforestation. The banks might also think of writing of f some of the developing countries' debts if the money went into social development so that family planning could be integrated into the primary health care programmes of those countries. That is important not only to the women of those countries but to all of us. That point might be worth considering.
8.55 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate on a most serious issue. Its implications cannot be minimised.
It is clear that rapid population growth, if not directly contributing to many of the developmental

975
problems besetting the poorest countries of the world today, is certainly making the finding of sustainable solutions more difficult. It increases pressures on health and education services, on social infrastructure, on labour markets and on physical and natural resources generally.
However, as the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, that is not the only mechanism at work. The relationship which is the subject of this debate is more like a vicious circle in which population growth is accompanied by poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, emphasised that unless the poor are more secure they will not wish to limit their family sizes. Other noble Lords have stressed that we should understand that poor families will see the benefits of having many children as outweighing the costs.
Many noble Lords have indicated that when infant and child mortality rates remain high—and they are still unacceptably so in many societies—there is an obvious disincentive for parents to think of having fewer children. In many communities, the prevailing cultural and social pressures of ten result in the poorest women, particularly the illiterate, being least able to take advantage of family planning information and services. Large families in turn make for less healthy, less well educated and less productive children, and so the work of the vicious circle goes on.
These problems require a comprehensive and consistent strategy. The broad objectives of the Government's overseas aid programme are to promote sustainable economic and social development and to alleviate poverty in developing countries. Long-term alleviation of poverty is our central goal. That must be achieved through appropriate domestic policies. It is gratifying to see that more and more developing countries acknowledge the need for policy reforms and the benefits of promoting private sector incentives and initiative. A main plank of our bilateral aid programme is to provide financial assistance in support of these macroeconomic policy changes alongside other agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF.
Such policies can, however, be difficult to implement. Political and social opposition can be strong. Many previous attempts have been frustrated; and the results can be uncertain and disappointing. It is therefore all the more necessary to complement these measures by action which is aimed specifically at tackling the problems directly.
The Government give high priority to population-related activities within the overseas aid programme. In 1989, we spent more than £17 million in that sector. Our policy is quite clear. The noble Lord, Lord Dormand, quoted the figure for population-related activities in all our aid programmes which I gave in my Answer of 9th May. I regret to say that the figure of £6-5 million should have related to 1981, not to 1988. There was a misprint and I am writing separately to the noble Lord to put that right.
976
We support the need to reduce global population growth and we aim to encourage and assist developing country governments to gain an understanding of population issues and to help them deal with their problems. We do not support programmes in which there is an element of coercion: our watchword is planning, not control. The aim is to enable individuals in developing countries to choose voluntarily the number and spacing of their children.
Most of our assistance is channelled through multilateral population programmes, such as the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation and WHO's Human Reproduction Programme. We are contributing some £15-5 million in 1990.
This balance reflects the preferences of many developing countries, which prefer to receive assistance through multilateral agencies. But we also use the other channels available within the aid programme. Major bilateral projects have been mounted in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Kenya. These are wide-ranging in content and include census work, the provision of family planning information and services, health care services, and training programmes. There has been a steady flow of trainees from developing countries coming to study in this country; and we hope that this will increase. Non-governmental organisations have a vital role to play in this field. Under the Joint Funding Scheme, the ODA is prepared to meet up to the full cost of population projects run by British voluntary agencies, rather than 50 per cent. as in other sectors. ODA contributions on populations activities under the scheme have increased from £87,000 in 1978 to £641,000 last year. The United Kingdom is renowned for its expertise in population research and training. My right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development has recently launched a major new programme of support to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Research and training in population will be a key component.
It is important to remember that progress is being made in slowing population growth. Many developing country governments have established policies and invested funds in population programmes. Smaller family size is now the norm in some countries. Thailand and others in South-East Asia are the most obvious examples. The speed with which this has been achieved is without precedent in its rapidity. We now have the first positive signs of change in some African countries—in Kenya, Botswana and Zimbabwe.
I am delighted to report to the right reverend Prelate that during the past five years the proportion of couples in Kenya practising family planning has increased from 17 per cent. to 27 per cent. The average family size has fallen from 7-4 to 6-4. That is a result of intensified efforts by the Government of Kenya with substantial support from our own Government. These are early signs. There remains much hard work to be done but we can be optimistic that worthwhile results have been and will continue to be achieved.

977
I turn now to illiteracy. The benefits of education are many and varied, but I wish to stress here those which impinge most significantly on the issues under debate.
I should also like to make explicit what has been implicit in all that I have said so far; namely, the role and position of women, of which the noble Baronesses, Lady Lockwood and Lady Ewart-Biggs, made much in their speeches. These are centrally important for future population trends.
Experience has shown that as development progresses family size falls. To this extent the broad development objectives of the aid programme are consistent with that of reducing population growth. However, this is not the only force at work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has pointed out, studies have shown that birthrate decline is more closely associated with adult literacy and life expectancy than with income per head. In particular, women's educational attainment is the social factor that has proved most consistently and strongly related to family size. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, that women are especially vulnerable to the adverse implications of illiteracy, particularly those who are poor and living in rural areas. Factors at work here are the sexual division of labour and male control of women's sexuality. Girls who are deprived of schooling are more likely to enter into early marriages and social pressures can militate against the attendance of literacy classes by adult women. Education is a means of breaking this vicious circle. It opens up the options available to women and makes for later—and more discriminating—marriages. Children whose mothers have received some education are likely to be healthier, while reduced infant mortality in turn makes for the demand for smaller numbers of children. This effect is reinforced by the influence of education on the acceptability of family planning methods, access to them and the efficacy of their use.
The overseas aid programme's assistance to education covers a broad spectrum of activities, all of which do not necessarily bear directly on the issues underlying this debate. Increasingly, however, we are seeking to open up opportunities for women and girls to improve their skills and productivity as well as their general education level. In a number of cases, education forms a component of a wider social development programme. A current example is the literacy training and basic education provided under the Indore Slum Improvement Project in India. Improving women's access to education is a key factor. We are already helping, but we recognise that more needs to be done.
We have recently provided £1-5 million in support of the expansion of functional literacy in Ghana. The project, which is within the orbit of the social programme that addresses the effect of structural adjustment in Ghana, is designed directly to meet the functional needs of women and girls out of school. Appropriate population education materials will be integrated into the programme. Many literacy projects are supported under our Joint Funding
978
Scheme for NGO, as these organisations are most closely in touch with the needs of people on the ground.
I turn to the environment. I come now to the question of environmental degradation and its relationship with population growth. It is a truism to say that people affect the enviroment in which they live. And it is equally self-evident that, for any given type of technology, level of consumption and mode of social organisation, the more people there are the greater the impact will be. It is, however, much less obvious—until recently—that people also affect environments in which they do not live. The fact that deforestation in mountain or upland regions brings the risk of flooding to low-lying areas, for instance, has long been recognised; but the potential risk of deforestation to life on this planet through its impact on global warming is a much more recently acknowledged danger. We have also only relatively recently acknowledged and begun to take action in connection with the international air-borne or water-borne transmission of pollutants, industrial or otherwise.
It follows from this that the faster population growth, the more difficult will be the task of arresting environmental degradation. This is why tackling population growth is an important aspect of the Government's overseas aid policy. But the threat to the environment also requires a direct response. This should be based on good science, good economics and, to the greatest possible extent, on the use of market mechanisms. One aspect of this is to emphasise the economic value of the environment and the costs associated with its degradation; costs which those who inflict the damage do not usually bear. This approach is reflected in the Government's policies on the environment. More than I can say here is set out in this booklet entitled The Environment and the British Aid Programme which my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development is launching today. Our aims are particularly well exemplified in our support to tropical forestry. The intention is to help developing countries maximise the economic and social benefits that they enjoy from their forests in a sustainable way. Our aim is to limit deforestation by tackling its causes; to promote reforestation and agroforestry; and to strengthen government departments charged with the task of forest conservation and management. The programme also finances training and research projects designed to increase the productivity of forests.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, told us that commercial logging for exports is a main cause of deforestation. Certainly that can be the case in some areas but not in general. An excellent article in this week's New Scientist by Paul Harrison tells us that some three-quarters of the deforestation which took place between 1971 and 1986 can be explained by population growth.
In 1988 we were supporting some 80 forestry projects at a cost of £45 million. Now we have ongoing or in preparation some 156 projects costing £150 million. In November last year, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that we would aim to commit a further £100 million

979
to tropical forestry activities over the subsequent three years. Part of the new money will be needed for projects now in preparation but there will still be room for many new activities.
Our support to the forestry sector is, as noble Lords will note from the figures that I have just given, substantial. It forms the largest element in the range of work that ODA is supporting to conserve biological diversity. On 17th May my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development announced the ODA's plans to strengthen its activities which have biodiversity as a major aim. The ODA's environmental objectives also include energy conservation. On 3rd May my right honourable friend announced that one of the ODA's largest grants this year would be of £50 million in new aid towards energy efficiency projects in India.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, action to halt environmental degradation needs, above all, global co-operation. The United Kingdom participates in the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and has signed the Montreal Protocol for the protection of the ozone layer. It is recognised, however, that the developing countries will need specific help in adapting to and limiting the adverse effects of climate change and phasing out the use of ozone depleters. The ODA is willing to give such assistance. It is funding developing country participation in the IPCC and in the Montreal Protocol process. In addition, more than £200,000 has been committed for a study now being undertaken of the options open to India to phase out ozone-depleters such as CFCs.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke of our contribution to population activities and referred to the letter from Sir Charles Morrison in yesterday's edition of The Times. As I have said, our contribution to these activities is now some £17 million per year. It is a priority area and we are ready and seeking to do more. We have recently reviewed our assistance to health and population in more than 10 priority countries with a view to increasing and rationalising our assistance and yielding sustained improvements in population health care and family planning. We hope that the lessons from these reviews will enable us to intensify that aid, particularly in the vital area of population.
Several noble Lords asked whether we can do more to relieve the developing countries of their debt. The extent of our activities to date may not be fully appreciated. We have already cancelled all the aid debts of the poorest countries, which are worth £1 billion. We took the initiative which resulted in the rescheduling of the Paris Club debts under the Toronto Agreement. We are the largest single contributor to the interest subsidy scheme under the IMF's enhanced structural adjustment facility. We also support the Brady Plan to provide official support for commercial bank debt reductions for countries pursuing economic reform through the IMF and the World Bank.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked about the relationship
980
of the aid programme to GNP. The Government have made clear their commitment to maintain a substantial and growing aid programme. At just over £1-6 billion this year the aid programme is 8 per cent. more than last year. By 1992-93 it is planned to increase it to £1-75 billion.
In view of the huge development tasks ahead, of which some have been highlighted in this debate, the Government recognise that additional efforts will be needed to increase the aggregate level of resources being transferred from developed to developing countries. However, resources are one thing; the use to which they are put is another. The Government attach as much importance to the quality of our aid as to the quantity. We are recognised internationally as playing a valuable role in enhancing the effectiveness of aid.
The Government have always made it clear that they accept in principle the target set by the United Nations of 0-7 per cent. of GNP for official development assistance. In 1988 our ODA GNP ratio was 0-32 per cent. That was up on the previous year, when it was 0-28 per cent. We also recognise that a target is only one of a number of possible aid performance measures. The important point is that our aid programme is growing and in real terms we are making strenuous efforts to improve the effectiveness of our aid for the recipients and the efficiency with which it is administered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, asked us whether we could spend more of the aid programme in the population field. As I said, we seek to do more on population, but the uses to which our aid is put is rightly determined by the requests that we receive from our partners in developing countries. I am not sure that it would be right for us to earmark unilaterally a fixed proportion of the aid programme to a particular activity or section.
I am pleased to agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, on the excellent work of the Intermediate Technology Development Group and Traidcraft. Both seek to tap the productive potential of poorer people. The ODA is supporting both those organisations and believes that the relationships has been extremely fruitful.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked whether the Government would use their influence with the United States to encourage a resumption of US funding in the UN Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. As has been said, population programmes raise difficult and sensitive issues, including that of abortion. The Government draw a clear distinction between advocating abortion and recognising the importance of family planning. We very much hope that the US Administration will be able to move towards our position. They are aware of our views and we shall continue our dialogue. In doing so, we must acknowledge that the United States has not withdrawn from funding population programmes worldwide and remains the largest bilateral donor for family planning programmes.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will give way. If he is hoping to use his influence with the United States and is anxious about the abortion issue, is he aware that every year there are about 500,000 deaths among women from abortions and that 90 per cent. of those deaths are in the third world? Is that not an argument for increasing the supply and provision of population control measures in order to prevent back-street abortions, which are now a feature of most third world countries?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot confirm or deny the figure which the noble Lord gives. As I said, we support those organisations and we shall seek to persuade the Americans that they should do the same.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, suggested that we could have been more effective in our work to help to eradicate iliteracy if we had stayed within UNESCO. We disagree. We left that organisation because it was ineffective. It sponsored some of the useless projects to which the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred. We diverted our contributions to UNESCO to other educational programmes which do work. A further gain was that UNESCO appreciated that it must mend its ways. In our view the total effect of our withdrawal has been positive.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. How will support be channeled in International Literacy Year if we do not do that through UNESCO?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I cannot answer that. I know that we have channelled the support that we would have given to UNESCO up till now through our own ways. I shall certainly look at the specific point raised by the noble Baroness and write to her with my reply.
To conclude, the wider debate on environmental issues has given currency to a very potent concept; that of the present generation holding the planet in trust for future generations. To ignore the problems to population growth is to hasten environmental degradation, and without proper regard for the conservation of our national environment the long-term attack on global poverty will not succeed.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and before I formally close the debate, perhaps he could clarify one of the figures that he gave. He mentioned that the ODA funds going to population activities for 1990 amount to £15-5 million. Will that figure be increased as 1990 progresses, or is it a final sum? He also gave figures for the increase in the total ODA aid budget. Was he speaking in cash terms or real terms when referring to estimates for the coming two years?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's point, our provision of £17 million on population growth is for the current year. The figure of £15-5 million to which I referred was the provision to the specific multilateral agencies. In answer to the second point, the figures I gave were cash terms compared one with the other.
Lord Rea: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. Although I was impressed with the expertise shown by the speech of the noble Lord as given to him in his brief by the ODA officials, it is a sad reply. It does not show that that expertise will be harnessed as fully as we should like. This country has the skills and the tradition to play a major role in assisting the plight of the South (the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has gone) rather than the third world.
The debate has confirmed the extent and severity of the crisis facing the world's population. Almost every speaker put forward a valuable suggestion as to how the problem should be tackled. I am most impressed and grateful for that. Overall the need for far more effectively directed economic, educational and technical assistance and investment has been made out, including assistance for health and population related activities.
My noble friend Lord Hatch in a most effective speech called for a new Marshall Plan, this time from the North to the South rather than from the West to the West. If a programme of major proportions such as that is not mounted, and very soon, I am afraid that we in the North as well as those in the South will bitterly regret it.
I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Sentencing Levels
9.24 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the general level of sentencing in Great Britain is appropriate.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was told last night that this debate would start at seven o'clock. Those who are so eloquent in restricting the birth of children are not so restrictive of their own speeches, so it has come on two hours and 20 minutes later than we expected. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learnt from that.
I should like to thank in advance all those who have had to wait so unexpectedly long to take part in the debate. I hope that my very expert old friends who will be speaking will forgive me if I single out two speakers from the others for mention at this point. We must all be particularly glad—I am sure, for example, that the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, will be—that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, is to take part. In the past I have paid tribute in writing to the intellect and integrity of the judiciary, but now I add a further tribute to the courage, or audacity, of the noble and learned Lord for coming forward at a time when the judges are under fire for the first time in a lifetime. In all honesty, we look forward to his defence of the judiciary.
I am also glad that the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has decided to contribute. I salute him on a number of grounds but particularly now for his heroic defence for 15 years of the Maguire family which it now seems likely will culminate in triumph.
However, at this late hour I must continue. I submit that the House will agree that it is high time that we had a debate on sentencing. As my argument proceeds a number of issues will be raised but there is one question that I must first put to the noble Viscount, who has been given notice of it. I hope that I phrased it in the way that I do now. At any rate, my question is this. Are the Government prepared to agree that a new approach to sentencing is required? That is the issue I raise today. I hope for the best from the noble Viscount.
Sentencing now occupies the centre of the stage in any discussion. That has been increasingly so in the many debates in this House. I am in the course of preparing a book Punishment and the Punished, and in doing so I have interviewed a great many persons who are well qualified in this field, from ex-Home office Ministers to representatives of penal organisations and ex-prisoners. All these discussions in the end come down to the conclusion that we must somehow or other secure a reduction in the prison population. That can only be achieved by an improvement in sentencing policy.
A highly qualified committee of the lawyers' society, Justice, in its report last year reached this conclusion:
"If judicial discretion in sentencing is not to be totally unfettered, it must be exercised within the context of a coherent rationale arising from some underlying philosophy".
It went on to say that the May Committee failed to find such an underlying philosophy and Parliament has shown a marked reluctance to find one. Therefore, tonight we are engaged, one might say, on an early stage of the search for an underlying rationale on sentencing.
That was the situation before the riots began in Strangeways and spread to other prisons. For example, before Strangeways I had interviewed a score of people, as I mentioned earlier, who are well qualified in this field. Therefore, my general conclusions were reached before the riots. We have all read a great deal about the riots. We must not forget that two people died as a result of them, so whenever we add up the pr of it and loss we must remember that people died and others were badly injured.
At any rate, before Strangeways we were saying in many debates in this House—some noble Lords speaking tonight have said this many times—that we are sending too many people to prison. Obviously Strangeways drives home that lesson. We read in the papers that 1, 600 people were in Strangeways—a prison built for 1,000 in the last century. One would assume that in this century it would contain rather less than 1,000 if it is to be a civilised prison. Certainly, I am not going to say that the riots were justified. People were killed and undoubtedly brutality occurred. The lesson was driven home that Strangeways was grossly overcrowded.
In this highly controversial area it is difficult to speak of general agreement. I will not commit the Minister to agree at this stage, though he may when he winds up, but I believe that almost everyone here will agree that at the moment we send more people
984
to prison than any other European country. We send them there because the judges and the magistrates so decide.
When I said that on an earlier occasion one noble Lord, who is an eminent man, said that we send people to prison because they commit all these crimes. That was a plausible intervention though it did not amount to much. It was stated authoritatively by the Government not so very long ago that we in this country are not more criminal than people in other countries. In their wisdom the judges and magistrates in this country send more people to prison than do their counterparts in other countries. The conclusion seemed to follow at an early stage of the discussion that the judiciary must be persuaded to pass less severe sentences or sentences in which confinement to prison is less favoured than alternative treatment outside prison.
I have not time to quote it, but there was in the Sunday Correspondent an interesting article which some noble Lords may have seen. There was one point raised in the article to which I shall refer. It stated that the Government hoped that in future people will not be sent to prison unless there is no possible alternative. According to the writer of the article, who had interviewed a number of judges, the problem was that the judges thought that policy was operating already. Therefore, at the moment it is a little difficult to convince the judges that a change or an improvement in attitude is required on their part.
As I have said, sentencing holds centre stage today. That was not always so because when I first raised the subject of prisons in a debate nearly 34 years ago it was not in my mind or those of other speakers, as I recall. Over the years that followed, sentencing did not feature very strongly. However, by 1981 sentencing was in the minds of those discussing such questions. At that time the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, was the Home Secretary, and he made public efforts to persuade the judges to pass less severe sentences. He seemed to be dedicated to that policy. Unfortunately, he got the bird, to use a crude expression, at the Conservative Party Conference in that year. He was more or less forced to drop such ideas.
His successor, Sir Leon Brittan, drew his own conclusions and moved painfully in the opposite direction. In penal reform circles since 1981 there has been a demand for lighter sentences. Now we all seem to be agreed that that is what is required. How is that to be achieved without undermining what is usually called the independence of the judiciary? I can remember being rebuked for appearing to infringe the very outskirts of that independence which hitherto had been regarded as sacred in much of the discussion.
I make it plain at once that I am not for one moment suggesting that we should interfere with particular judgments. They must be left to the judiciary. It would be monstrous and would suggest an almost totalitarian regime if the Government were allowed to interfere with particular decisions. I speak with all the emphasis available to me in support of my main contention. Other noble Lords will consider the issue today and later and decide

985
how far they agree. My main contention is that the general level of sentencing in our country is as much the responsibility of the elected government of the day as the general standards of health or education.
The government of the day simply cannot, with honour or decency, divest themselves of that responsibility. In practice this means that judges must act within a framework which meets with the approval of the elected government. I profoundly hope that as far as possible a national consensus is secured in support of a national sentencing policy. Judges may have a difficult task but they are eminent and brilliant men and will be able to cope with it. However, they must on no account feel that they are being asked to implement a partisan initiative—the policy of one party. I have in my mind a clear approach.
Various fairly obvious proposals on which I can only touch today should be considered to give effect to this approach. I agree with those who suggest that maximum penalties over a wide range of offences should be lowered. That is indisputable. However, the benefits accruing from such a development will be limited in the short run. What we must all find encouraging is the reduction in the number of children and young persons sent to prison in the past few years under the impact of laws passed in 1982 and 1938. The effect of those laws has made it harder for the judiciary to send children and young persons to prison without giving powerful reasons for doing so.
In the White Paper the Government seem to have in mind similar proposals for dealing with adults. I hope and believe that much progress can be made along that line. What I have said up to now is not sufficient to satisfy penal reformers. I cannot do better than quote from the comments of the Prison Reform Trust, which has done such splendid work in the past few years, on the White Paper Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public. It begins with a well-deserved compliment:
"In the view of the Prison Reform Trust, the 1990 Criminal Justice White Paper is an important step towards a more rational penal system and one that is less reliant upon custody".
The trust approves of the White Paper to that extent and I go along with it. But it rapidly proceeds to qualify its phrase, again in my opinion advisedly. The trust states:
"The White Paper is a gamble. By continuing to invest a wide discretion in the courts, the government has ceded much of its responsibility for planning the criminal justice system to the senior judiciary. There can be no guarantee that this gamble will come of f".
The Prison Reform Trust leaves us in little doubt that it believes that the Government's gamble will fail and that they will end up increasing the number of people in prison.
Perhaps I may pause for a moment and ask what people would consider to be a reasonable reduction in the total number of prisoners over the next few years. It has been suggested that a reduction of 14,000 in eight years might be reasonable. The Government go to the opposite extreme. The Home office has issued a projection of an increase of 14,000, not a reduction of 14,000, over the next eight years. That official Home office forecast has
986
been issued since the publication of the White Paper. I gave the Minister notice of this question. Does he repudiate that Home office forecast, and will he substitute for it a more encouraging forecast?
Thus far I have gone along with the comments of the Prison Reform Trust. However, that does not mean that I regard it as being infallible. For example, I am much more doubtful about the first sentence of the final paragraph of its summary. It reads:
"We also regret that, in its general tenor, the White Paper emphasises punishment to the virtual exclusion of any other objective of the criminal justice system.
As Members of the House will know from earlier debates, I am far from objecting to the idea of punishment in the community. There is much to be said for it. However, tremendous efforts must be made to ensure that if the policy is ever carried out, it must be carried out with the full co-operation of the probation service. I shall not pursue that aspect today; but noble Lords may remember that I opened a debate on the subject of the probation service in January.
In conclusion, I should like to lend my very strong support to the idea of sentencing councils (which are favoured by the Prison Reform Trust) which lay down guidelines to be followed by the courts in normal cases. There are various forms of sentencing councils and various ways in which this idea can be put into effect. It may be that other speakers will develop those ideas. I shall confine myself now to offering my very strong support for the idea.
A former Home office official of much sagacity offered the opinion to me when I was interviewing him that no politicians would ever stand up to public opinion in the sense that they would never want to appear to be adopting a s of t policy. He said that if we wanted a more enlightened sentencing policy, we would have to enforce it through a more efficient research department attached to the appeal courts. I do not take that low view of politicians.
The time has come when the public want to see a more enlightened sentencing policy. I think that the public—although we all detest crime, especially when we read about some beastly outbreak—has begun to feel, as I do, that our prison system at the present time is a disgrace to a Christian country, and that people want some change to be brought about in this connection.
9.41 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, cunningly cast a fly across my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when he sent him a copy of the first draft of his speech, wisely anticipating that it would be sent on by my noble and learned friend to the senior Law Lord. So courteous, and indeed elegant a gauntlet could hardly be ignored. It appears to be a tradition in the Law Lords' Corridor, and one of which I am not wholly in favour, that when they decide to conscript a volunteer, they do so basically on an alphabetical process, rather than one of merit.
Perhaps I may start by reminding your Lordships of the wise observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in the debate on 30th

987
November 1988 when he said it should be remembered that the judiciary are responsible neither for crime nor for the conditions in prison.
This is the first time that I have experienced the considerable honour of speaking immediately before the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, who is an old sparring partner of mine. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to cry moderation, I have a distinct feeling of unease. Therefore, I think that I should, in anticipation of what he may say, remind your Lordships that in the same debate to which I referred he posed what was intended to be a highly critical question; namely, why had the average sentence imposed in the Crown Courts increased, as he then added, despite the guidelines issued by the Lord Chief Justice? I endeavoured to explain that they had increased because of the Lord Chief Justice's guidelines, and let me again explain why. With statistics that I had obtained I demonstrated to the House that, whereas sentences for offences of theft, handling stolen property, fraud and non-domestic burglary had gone down, there had been a significant increase in serious offences, for which the public required, and were entitled to receive, protection: offences of violence against the person, robbery and sexual and drug offences. I quoted the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary speaking in the same month in another place when he said that sentences for serious crimes were then increasingly severe and properly reflected the revulsion that we all feel in regard to such crimes.
Your Lordships will find in Chapter 3 of the White Paper entitled Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, issued in February of this year and referred to by the noble Earl, a table which conveniently sets out the number of offenders sentenced to immediate custody in 1978, 1983 and 1988. I shall merely invite your Lordships' attention to the contrast in the five years between 1983 and 1988, the last year for which we have statistics. Paragraph 3.4 of the White Paper reads:
"Compared with the five years before, the number of prisoners sentenced for rape, other sexual offences and drug offences has doubled. Those convicted of robbery had increased by 57 per cent. and of violence against the person by 31 per cent. On the other hand, those convicted of burglary, theft and related offences had fallen from 52 per cent. of the sentenced prisoners in 1983 to 35 per cent. in 1988".
Since 1983 the number of offenders under 17 sentenced to custody has been halved and there has been no discernible increase in the number of offences committed by juveniles. In the last year there has been a significant drop in the number of young adults aged 17 to 20 sentenced to custody. That is a clear indication that the sentencing policy is following the appropriate course: the sentences for those involved in offences relating to property have gone down and the sentences of those convicted of the serious offences have, as the Government and the public wish, gone up.
Again I refer to the White Paper and in particular to paragraph 3.12, which states:
"Parliament guides the courts on the relative gravity of offences when it sets the maximum penalties for them. It has recently increased the maximum penalties for some violent and sexual crimes, including cruelty to children and attempted rape. More
988
offenders are given custodial sentences for violent and sexual crimes than in the past and the average sentence lengths for those offences in the Crown Court for men over 21 have increased".
I am bound to admit that I belong to the school that thinks that the courts should have particular regard to the fate of the victims rather than the pre-natal experiences of the offenders. I was therefore happy to see in the same paragaph of the White Paper a confirmation that the Court of Appeal has indicated that sentences should be longer if the victims of violent crimes are very young or very old and thus especially vulnerable. Paragraph 3.13 states:
"The Government proposes to take this approach further by giving the Crown Court power to give custodial sentences longer than would be justified by the seriousness of the offence to persistent violent and sexual offenders, if this is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. There are a small number of offenders who become progressively more dangerous and who are a real risk to public safety. Some will be mentally disordered and can be detained under mental health legislation. For those convicted of the most serious crimes, a sentence of life imprisonment may be justified".
The White Paper also records in paragraph 3.6 that the Court of Appeal has made it clear that a custodial sentence should be given only when it is necessary and that, if it is necessary, the sentences should be as short as is consistent with the need for punishment, particularly for property offences. This is and has been the attitude of the Court of Appeal responsible for laying down guidelines for the past 10 years. The White Paper might as well have referred to the well-known case in 1980 of R v. Bibi in which the Lord Chief Justice said, 10 years ago:
"This case opens up wide horizons because it is no secret that our prisons at the moment are dangerously overcrowded. So much so that sentencing courts must be particularly careful to examine each case to ensure that if an immediate custodial sentence is necessary, the sentence is as short as possible consistent only with the duty to protect the interests of the public and to punish and deter the criminal".
The Judicial Studies Board, a special board headed by a judge of the Court of Appeal, currently Lord Justice Glidewell, has for some time issued and currently issues to judges the following instructions headed "The Current Approach to Sentencing", which is a kind of route card. It reads as follows:
"In every case, the following steps must be taken in the order in which they appear below. Can a non-custodial sentence be passed? If so, such a sentence must be imposed. If a non-custodial sentence is out of the question, is it possible to make a Community Service Order as an alternative to a short custodial sentence? If it is not possible to make a Community Service Order, is it possible to suspend the whole of the prison sentence which must inevitably follow? If so, you must suspend the whole of the sentence you impose, but remember that you must determine the length of the sentence on the merits of the case. It is wrong to increase the length of the sentence simply because you are suspending it. If it is not possible to suspend the whole sentence is it possible to pass a very short immediate sentence without any suspension? If a short sentence is insufficient to meet the needs of the case, is it possible to suspend part of a longer sentence which must necessarily follow? If it is possible, then a partially suspended sentence should be imposed and you must decide what proportion of the whole must be served. If a partially suspended sentence is inappropriate what is the least possible total sentence which can be imposed bearing in mind the circumstances of the case and the record of the of fender".
Those are the instructions. We all know—all the judges know—that prison is of ten counter-productive. It is an expensive method of

989
warehousing people. On occasions it has to be used because it is the only way of protecting society.
Perhaps I may now deal with comparisons which are made with other countries. Much is made of comparisons between the prison statistics in this country and those in Europe. However, I have yet to meet a criminologist who believes that without a study in depth of the conditions in those countries any significant inferences can be drawn from such a comparison.
It is interesting to record that only very recently, on 7th May this year in The Times, the legal affairs correspondent, Miss Frances Gibb, published an article headed "Big range found in sentencing policies:". The article states:
"Startling disparities in sentences imposed by courts of different countries for crimes including rape and armed robbery are shown in the preliminary findings of a new international survey of sentencing practice".
The crimes of rape and robbery were considered in the survey. The same set of circumstances was presented to judges and expert lawyers in a number of countries who specialised in crime. The facts that were assumed were that the rapist was a man aged 27 who attacked a girl of 16. The results of that survey showed that in England the sentence would be seven to 10 years. In Ireland it would be 18 months One can imagine the call for the resignation of any English judge who sentenced such an of fender to 18 months. In Denmark the sentence would be two to three years. The same demand for the resignation of the judge concerned would follow if that sentence were meted out in England. The Netherlands has a slightly higher sentence of three to five years for such a crime.
The assumed facts in regard to the robbery were that the robber was 19 years old, unemployed, and had taken part in an £800,000 armed raid. In England the sentence would have been 10 to 15 years. The same sentence would have been meted out in Scotland. In Norway the sentence would have been five years and in Ireland four to six years. In the Netherlands it would be the same length of time. I refer to two crimes for which the sentences given in England would have been the only acceptable sentences in England. The sentences given in other countries which I have described would have been strongly criticised. Judges have in the past been criticised for not reflecting public opinion in their sentences. Rape is such a case. Your Lordships may remember that another case in point is that of causing death by reckless driving. There has been strong criticism in that regard.
The White Paper records that in 1988 there were 100 people in prison in England and Wales for every 100,000 people in the population. In France the figure is 81 and in West Germany, despite a considerably different approach recently, the figure is 85. There is not a great difference there. Canada has a higher figure than ours, at 109. The United States of America has a figure that is three and a half times our figure, at 350.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, raised two points, one of which I agreed with and one of which I did
990
not agree with. I shall consider the latter point first. The noble Earl said that he lent his strong support to the idea of sentencing councils laying down guidelines to be followed by courts in normal cases. In a debate in November 1988 the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, said that he wished to make one thing absolutely plain; namely, that judicial independence must never be compromised. He proposed a sentencing commission consisting of judges and magistrates at all levels and all others who are experts in the field such as prison governors, probation officers and representatives of interested bodies. He observed that Canada has done this with great success.
However, the statistics to which I have just made reference hardly bear out that point. I interpose that in the United States the Executive has laid down a points system which requires more the intervention of a computer than a judge to fix sentences. Yet the numbers in prison in the United States are three and a half times our numbers.
The noble Lord suggested that that commission would fashion guidelines and principles for the courts, which would, however, retain their discretion to apply them. One wonders how. The noble Lord observed:
"We should ask ourselves why the courts sentence as they do".
Once more, I hope that I can provide a short and satisfactory answer to that question.
Over the years the Court of Appeal has laid down sentencing guidelines encompassing imprisonment in general—I have already quoted one case—and offences in particular; namely, causing death by reckless driving, riot, violence at football matches, robbery, kidnapping, rape, unlawful sexual intercourse, buggery, gross indecency, living on the earnings of prostitutes, theft in breach of trust, benefits frauds, offences involving drugs and offences involving obscene publications. Very recently, in exercising the new powers under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to increase inadequate sentences, guidelines were recently provided in the very difficult subject of incest.
Those guidelines are all published. They are contained in the Judicial Studies Board Handbook. I have never heard any public criticism by criminologists, by police officers or by welfare authorities of those guidelines. Until there is any criticism, I still do not understand why they are not adequate.
The point on which I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, as does the Lord Chief Justice, is the suggestion that there should be a research unit assisting the Court of Appeal. It is frequently not appreciated how much judges welcome and depend upon other people's views. For the past fortnight I have sat in the Appellate Committee. The case which we have been hearing is no different from any other case, save that we sat seven rather than five. We had the advantage of authorities from New Zealand, from Canada, from Australia and the United States and learned articles from Professors at home and abroad. By all means let the judges have further and

991
better assistance, but do not interfere with their discretion.
Finally, perhaps I may suggest that the answer to the question posed by this debate is as follows. A
992
new approach to sentencing is being provided by the Government's proposals contained in their White Paper by the provision of new powers to enable more offenders to be punished in the community, and it can be confidently expected that proper use will be made of those new facilities by the judiciary.
10.2 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, the Question that the noble Earl raised so eloquently this evening can be summarised in the language of the recently published Government White Paper: are convicted persons getting their just deserts? Clearly, the answer to the question must be "No, that is why we have produced the White Paper".
The speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, to which we have just had the pleasure of listening, has been a breakthrough in our many debates on penal affairs in this House. I am enormously grateful to him for having participated in the debate. He has illustrated in those 15 or so miniates the basis on which the present senior judiciary approach the sentencing problem. In his apologia for that approach he has illustrated the gulf which, alas, exists between the senior judiciary in relation to sentencing and Western European judicial views on the question of how to deal with those who of fend against the law. He has portrayed the basic problem which we now face in sentencing in this country. He says that sentences reflect the revulsion which we all feel in relation to sexual and violent offences. Sentences, he is glad to say, have gone up in recent years in relation to those offences. He compared those sentences with sentences in other European countries for similar forms of offence of rape and indicated that in other countries the sentences passed are at least half of those currently passed in this country. He did so not in order to question whether there may be some good reason for that, but simply in order to say that, if those sentences were passed in this country, there would be a demand for the resignation of the judge concerned. They would simply not be acceptable. They are not in line with what the public demands.
With the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, surely the days of that attitude are now over, as is illustrated in the Government White Paper. What has that attitude achieved? It has achieved Strangeways, simply more and longer sentences, more and longer time in prison and more crime. It is a bankrupt policy.
However one looks at them, the statistics prove that this country continues to be the most punitive country in Europe. of all men convicted of indictable offences, 20 per cent. go to prison for longer periods than was the case 10 years ago. Yet, in spite of what the noble and learned Lord said, fewer than one quarter of those persons have committed violent or sexual crimes. Half those people are reconvicted within two years. Among the teenagers who are sent into custody, 64 per cent. are reconvicted within two years. As I have already said and as the noble Earl said, in the case of Strangeways, the courts sent 1, 600 prisoners to an establishment built to house 970. If those figures are not an indictment of our criminal courts, what are they?
The Minister will be surprised to hear that the remainder of my speech will consist almost entirely of praise for the Home office, particularly praise for Mr. John Patten who has succeeded more than any other Minister in putting sentencing on the map.
994
The White Paper is a breakthrough. It marks an exciting moment in the long struggle for penal reform, and, taken alongside the Woolf inquiry with its remarkably gifted chairman and assessors, 1990 may well be a watershed in the way in which we deal with those convicted of crime. I am far more optimistic than is the noble Earl or the Prison Reform Trust.
I should like to quote some of the more remarkable passages in the White Paper. For example, it states:
"There is still much uncertainty and little guidance about the principles which should govern sentencing".
Proposals are made,
"for a new and more coherent statutory framework".
On custody the White Paper states:
"There is a growing awareness that prison is usually not the best way of dealing with less serious property crimes".
It also states:
"No one regards imprisonment as an effective means of reform … Custody can have a devastating effect on prisoners and their families … Imprisonment makes it more difficult to compensate victims and allows for the evasion of all responsibility".
Pre-eminently it states:
"Legislation on the use of custody for young offenders shows it is possible for Parliament to give guidance without placing intolerable restrictions on the court's discretion".
The White Paper then suggests that courts should be required to consider a report from the probation service before sentencing, a report which the White Paper says is to include detailed information as to how the of fender can be punished in the community. If a custodial sentence is nonetheless to be passed, the court must fulfil certain criteria and in every case give their reasons for such a sentence. Furthermore, sentencers should be trained by the Judicial Studies Board to give effect to these new policies.
Here at long last is a government recognising that Parliament has a clear role in laying down sentencing policy for the courts and furthermore requiring sentencers to be trained to give effect to it. I feel that many of us in this House, and pre-eminently the noble Earl, have not after all laboured in vain. We find here the very matter which the noble Earl was saying only a short time ago was so essential in a sentencing policy.
There is more to praise in the White Paper. I refer to the abolition of the partly suspended and extended sentences; the recognition that repeated financial or community penalties are in order without leading inevitably to custody where the offences themselves may merit such penalties; the duty of the courts to consider the cost of different penalties; the recognition that a probation order is in fact a sentence; the duty of the probation service to provide feedback to the courts on the effect of their sentences; the raising of the jurisdiction of the newly named youth court to cover those up to the age of 18; the means-related fines and the lowering of certain maximum sentences. Those are all admirable and I suggest worthy of full support.
My main reservations on the proposals in the White Paper are for the curfew electronic monitoring

995
and the power to give longer sentences for sexual or violent offences. The Carlisle proposals for the rationalisation of parole depend, as the report urges,
"on a determined attempt by the Government to secure a reduction in the length of all sentences".
Surely the relative gravity of these offences can be marked by a reduction in other sentences. I recognise that political concessions must be made to the inevitable Tory hard-liners. However, I urge the Minister to remember the appalling results of Sir Leon Brittan's attempts to do just that.
As a sentencer I was next door to the bailiwick of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who in those days was but a modest recorder. If there is anything I learned as a sentencer in relation to young adults, it was the crucial role of patience. Adolescence is a disturbing and difficult time—a thousand times more so when you come from a disadvantaged or broken family. Adolescents grow out of their criminality. Such offenders cannot shoulder the kind of restrictions and responsibilities which may be appropriate no doubt to public school delinquents. If too many requirements are imposed, the higher is the risk that many such offenders will be returned to court and imprisoned for a breach of their conditions. If the new proposed combined orders are used to replace existing community penalties instead of replacing custody, that indeed may well happen.
I wish to make two pleas to the Minister who is representing the Government this evening. Can the new legislation concentrate specifically on the problems of young adults? They are the key to the whole problem because young adults and juveniles commit the vast majority of crime in this country. The remarkable success in reducing juvenile crime and the numbers sent into custody has been due mainly to three factors. They are: special funding; inter-agency co-operation; and bringing in the voluntary bodies.
The White Paper recognises the value of inter-agency co-operation; but it does not spell out what that means. It is the bringing together on a continuing basis of the key individuals from all the criminal justice organisations in each particular area including the judiciary, the magistracy, the police and the local authority. Nor does it emphasise the importance of continuing public explanation and education at every stage because the local community must be carried along. Will the Minister seriously consider calling for the appointment in each criminal court complex—because the problem exists mainly in urban areas or inner cities—of one judge to preside over a young person's court assisted by experienced justices from the juvenile court? Into that court would go all cases involving young adults. The judge could chair the inter-agency committee, and the role would be enormously appealing to some members of the judiciary. It would have no resource implication whatever. It would be a start in involving the judiciary in these general social problems.
My second plea to the Minister is to think yet again about the question of a sentencing council. I agree entirely with what was said by the noble Earl
996
in the opening debate. I do not believe that the Judicial Studies Board can fulfil the role of giving necessary guidance to sentencers. It is too close to the legal hierarchy. It reflects, inevitably, the thinking of senior judges; and, surely, that advice should come from an entirely independent body with a broad input of expertise. Perhaps it could evolve from the Judicial Studies Board but would do so only with the encouragement of the Government.
Finally, I ask the Government to address the disturbing factor of the over-representation of black people in prison. If you are black, it remains eight times as likely that you will be sent to prison. Surely provision should be made in the legislation for ethnic monitoring of the whole criminal system.
I end where I began by paying a sincere tribute to the Government for their radical proposals for reducing the use of imprisonment. The main thrust of those proposals should surely receive the enthusiastic support of all those who have fought so hard and so long for radical measures of penal reform.
10.20 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, it is always with reluctance that an untrained layman intervenes in a debate about the judiciary or the judges. I have noticed that in both Houses. However, I intend to take advantage of the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Longford this evening. This is the first opportunity that I have had since last Monday, when I sat in on the Sir John May inquiry, to address the House on the Annie Maguire case, which I have mentioned before in this House and in another place.
There is always reluctance to question the independence of the judiciary because it is supposed to comprise people with legal training and knowledge of the legal system who cannot make mistakes. However, I believe that it will be conceded that mistakes can be made by judges, juries and the Home Secretary.
In 1974 explosions took place in Guildford in which five soldiers were killed. Arising from those explosions, four young men were sentenced to prison. I listened particularly to the words of my noble friend when he said that sentences must reflect the revulsion of the community in any given case. There is no doubt about the revulsion of all decent people in England and Ireland at that time. Two of those men were sentenced respectively to 30 years and 35 years in prison. That expressed the revulsion of the community.
Arising from that, allegedly on the word of one of those convicted, the police surrounded the house of Annie Maguire and her family. Seven in all were arrested and taken to Paddington Green police station. Allegedly, nitroglycerine explosive material was found on their hands. They were all sentenced to very long terms of imprisonment. Annie Maguire and her husband received 14 years, her brother 12 years, a friend of the family 10 years, and her young son six years; another received four years.

997
I became involved in that case because one of those who was sentenced was Giuseppe Conlon. I visited him in prison. As I have said in the past 24 or 48 hours, anyone who spoke to that man for a second would have realised his total innocence.
After a number of years in prison and after he had received many visits from me, I had a call to go to the prison. I was told that he was dying. Before he died he pleaded with me. He took of f his oxygen inhaler and said, "Gerry, I realise that I am going to die but I plead with you to continue to prove my innocence even after my death".
I took that as a total commitment and it stayed with me until last Monday. That is why I am speaking here this evening. I began a campaign to prove the innocence of Giuseppe Conlon and in so doing I knew that I should prove the innocence of his six co-defendants. I met a whole succession of Home Secretaries, the first being the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, then Merlyn Rees, and then the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. They all told me, "Look, we have gone through the judicial system. Our judicial system cannot be faulted or questioned. The British judicial system is the best in the world. No one can query its verdicts".
I continued to query the verdicts and the convictions in those cases. Over a period of years I began to enlist support. When I first began the campaign I was Gerry Fitt, the West Belfast MP. Some people perhaps thought that I was engaged in a constituency duty and trying to act on behalf of one of my constituents. Anyone who knew my record in politics in Northern Ireland would know that not for a single second would I go out of my way to help anyone where I had the slightest suspicion that they were involved in terrorist activities. At that time, over many years and up to the present time I have been the victim of terrorist abuse.
I began the campaign. For the first few months it was lonely, and then I enlisted the support of Sir John Biggs-Davison, the Conservative MP. Again, his attitude towards terrorism could not be questioned. I then enlisted the support of a Labour MP, Chris Price. I also enlisted the support of Cardinal Hume; then Sir John Wheeler, the MP for the constituency in which Annie Maguire lived. I approached the noble and learned Lords, Lord Scarman and Lord Devlin; then former Home Secretaries Merlyn Rees and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins.
I persevered and succeeded in obtaining 204 signatures across a broad spectrum of the House of Commons, even from the extreme Right wing. What would have happened had I not done that? I had to enlist that support; I had to put a great deal of energy into enlising those eminent persons, with the integrity of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Scarman and Lord Devlin, two former Home Secretaries, and 204 MPs. It was only because I was able to enlist that support and through delegation after delegation to a succession of Home Secretaries that the Home office eventually said, "Yes, we will look at this case again".
I was pleading particularly on behalf of Annie Maguire; but the Guildford four case was so closely
998
interlinked that the Home office decided to look at both cases. It found that the Guildford four case was totally unsafe and the four prisoners were released after serving 15 years in prison; 15 years were taken away from their lives.
In response to the release of those prisoners the Government decided to set up a tribunal which is now sitting under the chairmanship of Sir John May. It was given the job of looking into the circumstances surrounding the convictions of the Guildford four and Annie Maguire and her family. I attended the tribunal on Monday morning and listened to Mr. Clarke, counsel to the tribunal. He read out a document which contained many aspects of the case, the main one being that new forensic evidence had come to the fore which made the convictions of Annie Maguire and her family totally unsafe. That is the recommendation to be acted upon by Sir John May.
The family are now all released from prison. They have all served their sentences. If they had been guilty they could have run away and hidden, but they were determined at my instigation and of their own volition to fight tenaciously to prove their innocence. That innocence has now almost certainly been agreed to by the judicial system.
However, we must have some other mechanism between the Court of Appeal and someone serving 15 years. After the Court of Appeal has given its decision, "No, we agree with the sentence in court", there should be some other mechanism, without having to wait 15 years, to allow the Government to intervene where there is obvious public disquiet, as there was in the case of Annie Maguire.
It was only the public disquiet and the fact that so many eminent people had gone out of their way and put their reputations at stake that forced or permitted the Home Secretary to set up the inquiry which eventually found the Guildford four and Annie Maguire innocent. I believe that such a system without amendment, where injustices can continue, is very wrong indeed. Some means must be found for review where there is obvious public disquiet. I know that judges will say that it would only be necessary to mount a public campaign and foster public disquiet. I do not believe that that will happen.
There is a case in Northern Ireland at the moment where four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment—they are not of my religion or political persuasion—have been sentenced allegedly for the murder of a Catholic. From what I hear there is, again, the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. As I said, those men would not agree with me on religion or politics but I believe there could be a possibility of a miscarriage of justice.
I believe that the two cases to which I have referred give some form of justification for the anti-British element that there has always been and always will be in Ireland. They will go around with the trumpets of triumph that we saw after Guildford saying that it proves the British judicial system is anti-Irish and that an Irishman cannot get justice before a British court. I have never believed that. I accept that there are imperfections in the British judicial system, but something must be done to inquire into the validity

999
of or justification for sentences where 10 or 15 years have been taken out of the lives of people who were totally innocent.
The Irish judicial system too leaves a lot to be desired. I say that as an Irishman. I have been absolutely appalled and disgusted at some of the decisions handed down by the Irish Supreme Court over recent months. The British people are entitled to feel aggrieved at some of those decisions. The Irish Supreme Court, consisting of the most eminent legal luminaries in the land, decided to release two convicted IRA men who escaped from Northern Ireland and are now living in Dublin. The court refused to extradite them on the ground that they had committed a political offence.
The Winchester Three were released on a technicality. Many people in Ireland and many in this country wonder what the Winchester Three were doing on the land of Mr. Tom King with balaclava helmets, binoculars, £4, 500 and a book with the names and addresses of eminent figures in public life. I do not believe that they are entirely innocent; yet there was a great hullabaloo in Ireland that they were innocent and were victims of British injustice.
Only last week in the House of Commons the Prime Minister was asked whether she would be confident that if the murderer of the young soldier, Sergeant Chapman, last week were to reach Ireland he would be extradited back to this country by the courts. She said that she could not be confident. I would not be confident either. I see that some of the journalists in Ireland are saying that the Prime Minister should not have said that because it is not good for Anglo-Irish relations. If one has to keep one's mouth shut and say nothing in regard to those decisions of the Irish courts then Anglo-Irish relations stand for nothing.
There is, however, a necessity for the British judicial system to show to Ireland and the world that there is not an anti-Irish bias. The view in Ireland is that where there is a terrorist atrocity the police will run out and grab the first Irishmen they can get and take them before the courts, and that they will be sentenced to 25 or 30 years' imprisonment. I do not believe that to be true. It is not in the interests of the police or the British judicial system to send innocent persons to prison. If such people are sent to prison some people will say that it was a difficult situation and that the police were under pressure; that those people were arrested and sentenced because it eased the tension then existing as a result of the commission of the crime. That might be a short-term gain, but 15 years later there will be someone like me proving that a wrong decision had been taken in those circumstances.
The Irish Extradition Act 1987 will have to be amended to close every possible loophole in order to ensure that if a person is suspected of having committed a terrorist offence, he can either be extradited to Northern Ireland or to Britain. I do not think that there can be any room left for the Supreme Court in Dublin to hand down decisions which say that, because Ireland is partitioned, the young men are misguided Irish patriots who are only fighting for their country. If the war against terrorism
1000
is ever to be won, it must be won with the co-operation of this Government and the Irish Government.
Anyone backing away from that responsibility has the awful burden of knowing that he is lending credence to the continuation of this campaign. There will be further debates on this subject. I say deliberately to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, that judges are not the sole authorities in the situations that I have just illustrated. They will say that the jury have listened to the evidence before them and to the directions given. The judges will say that they have carried out their responsibilities. If that is the case and the judges have no further responsibility at either the main court or the appeal court, then the Home office must accept responsibility.
It is not right that a person's freedom should be decided according to whether or not eminent people outside the judiciary, like Robert Kee and the noble Lord, Lord Annan, are involved. What would have happened if we had decided not to lend our weight to the campaign to prove the Maguires innocent? It was a long campaign to prove the innocence of Annie Maguire and her family. I hope that never again a case such as that occurs in this country. The Home office should take note of all the circumstances and of all the years that have elapsed in which the family was wrecked and devastated, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, by the years spent in prison knowing that they were totally innocent.
Some other mechanism must be found to consider a case which causes so much disquiet. The Home office, either in conjunction with the appeal court or on its own, and thereby overriding the appeal court, must reach a decision. I know that the judiciary will not want to be overriden by politicians because they will say that they change from government to government. Some means will have to be found to make certain that the injustices connected with the Annie Maguire case in particular will never again be allowed to happen in this country.
10.39 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I am proud to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, whom I much admire. I shall not be so eloquent in following him, except to say that I rejoice with him in the outcome of the Maguire case. I congratulate him on his magnificent persistence which has resulted in that verdict, or very near verdict.
I have always thought that one of the virtues of this House, and an incidental one, is that it can be admired as a museum. Every now and again one has a museum piece. When Lord Brockway and Lord Shinwell were speaking, I used to think that, apart from their many other qualities, they were living museum pieces in that they had learnt their oratory in the political life of the late 19th century. What an addition to our life they were. I had the same kind of feeling when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, spoke to us earlier this evening. I could not help feeling that here was another museum piece. In that respect he reminded me of Lord Brockway and Lord Shinwell.

1001
In his jokey way he referred to warehousing people. He professed to prefer the interests of the victim to—and again he said it in his jokey way—the antenatal history of the of fender.
Lord Ackner: Prenatal, my Lords.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: That is very similar, my Lords, but a pertinent and, I am sure, judicial intervention. When he preferred, in his jokey way, the interest of the victim to the prenatal history of the of fender, he reminded me of the High Court judge who, in the days of corporal punishment, used to say that what the violent of fender really needed or wanted was a few strokes of pussy. That was the same kind of judicial humour. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for showing himself to us in that way as a museum piece.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this important topic at this time. I say "at this time" because there is still an opportunity to influence the Government before the introduction of their Criminal Justice Bill which we all expect next Session, although I have heard ominous rumours that recent events may lead to the postponement of that Bill. I very much hope that the rumours are ill-founded. Many of the reforms adumbrated in the Government's mostly excellent White Paper, and indeed in their Green Papers, brook no delay, as they used to say about the reform of the House of Lords.
I refer not least to the proposal to extend to adults the requirement that sentencers should always explain their reasons for handing down a custodial sentence and rejecting a non-custodial option. They should do that in all cases except those involving the most serious offences. That is an absolutely acceptable fetter on the liberty of sentencers to do what they like within the law. It does not undermine the so-called independence of the judiciary, any more than does a maximum sentence laid down in statute. That gives a statutory guideline as would the requirement that judges and magistrates should have to explain why they have rejected a non-custodial option.
One might say that the abolition of the death penalty or of flogging had fettered the independence of the judiciary. Judges have had to put up with that hardship. Most of them are now quite happy that they no longer have those options. Equally, Parliament should have no hesitation in passing many, if not most, of the Government's recommendations in their White Paper Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public.
At this point, I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said about Mr. John Patten, the Government and the Home office, regarding their remarkable series of state papers which we hope to see enshrined in legislation. I have some reservations about them, naturally enough; as indeed did the noble Lord.
One of the aspects I found unacceptable was that although the Government wish to lower maximum penalties, they do not propose to lower the maximum penalty for burglary of people's homes which they said in the White Paper "can be a very serious
1002
matter". However, the maximum sentence for committing burglary in people's homes is 14 years' imprisonment. Do we really need to have a maximum penalty of 14 years for burgling people's homes?
I ask: what burglarious offence of a home can justify a prison sentence of 14 years, unless it is aggravated burglary in which the of fender has committed violence? In my view, if that is the case, the extra sentence should be for the aggravation and not for the burglary; in other words, the aggravation should be dissociated from the burglary. To my mind, it is extremely excessive to keep on the statute book a sentence of 14 years for the offence of burgling people's homes. I very much hope that the Government will think again about that aspect of the matter.
Pending legislation, there are many measures which can be done (some of which are being done) which would lead to the involvement of fewer people in the criminal justice system, and hence to fewer people being sentenced to terms of imprisonment. This is relevant to the debate because assiduity in keeping people out of the criminal justice system can and does vary widely across the country, according to the policy of the police, the prosecution authorities and the judiciary. Therefore, there is no "general level"—to quote the words mentioned in the noble Earl's Question. The level fluctuates widely from area to area and illustrates the need for guidelines to be issued and abided by.
Let us take, for example, the policy of cautioning. The best practice may be debatable. Cautioning practice is left in the hands of chief constables, and therefore there is wide disparity between areas. A forward looking chief constable in an area such as Avon has extended its already good practice in cautioning children, instead of committing them to the courts, to the cautioning of adults, in conjunction with the probation service. This process has led to a saving in court time, in police time, and in probation service time. It also frees otherwise busy staff, enabling them to turn to much more rewarding tasks than committing offenders to court; for example, diversion from crime and encouraging and initiating measures of crime prevention. of course, new cautioning policy must be agreed between the police and the courts, especially as regards the citation of cautions in courts. But that aspect can be sorted out with a sympathetic bench of magistrates.
As regards the non-custodial sentences, there are wide disparities in their use between areas in the country, as there are wide disparities in the use of cautioning. That cannot be satisfactory. Here, again, I refer to the words contained in the noble Earl's Question. There can scarcely be said to be a "general level" of non-custodial sentencing because of these wide fluctuations in the country.
It cannot be fair to an of fender that someone in an area contiguous to his own should be treated differently from the way that he has been treated. Incidentally, there is wide agreement among those who know that there is no need for further types of custodial sentences. Many of the proposals contained in the Government's papers are redundant. What is needed is a greater use of the ample opportunities for

1003
passing non-custodial sentences which are already available to sentencers but which for one reason or another they are not too keen to adopt.
One means of encouraging sentencers to use non-custodial sentences that would inspire public confidence in the sentencers would be an appropriate system of day centres and residential hostels. I ask the Government to consider the possibility, which I know is considered heretical in some circles, of suspended sentences for young people. They do not exist at the moment. Apparently such sentences have been used with great success in the Federal Republic of Germany. I ask the Government to consider whether we could use suspended sentences for the more serious cases where they are considered appropriate.
As a matter of urgency the Government should think about requiring sentencers to consider the most appropriate sentence to ensure that offenders do not re- of fend. I remember at school, as I expect others do, that there were wretched boys who were punished and for whom the punishment did no more than encourage to commit further offences, which thus attracted further punishment. The same boys were punished time and time again while others seemed to escape. The punishment did no good, harsh and brutal though it was. There should have been a more understanding approach to ante-natal considerations. Harsh treatment and frequent beatings had no effect. The boy merely seemed to attract more.
There is a strong case for sentencers to consider treatment to be at least as important as punishment. Prison is counterproductive in the same way as harsh penalties were found to be counterproductive.
I should like to end by referring to an interesting conference that I attended this time last year. It was held by the Centre for Policy Studies (Mrs. Thatcher's think-tank) and it was called "Custody reconsidered". It focused on the excellent and then recently published pamphlet by Professor Andrew Ashworth, who recommended that there should be a sentencing council to include judicial and lay representatives to do the task which the Lord Chief Justice had started and which the Judicial Studies Board is, among other things, following up. I shall not discuss the sentencing council because it has been amply covered in the debate, except to say that I agree largely with Professor Ashworth.
I have always had the utmost respect for the judiciary in its findings of fact. I have had less respect for its sentencing competence. I have always felt that its sentencing function would be strengthened if it had lay assessors, but that is another matter. Among those present at the conference was Sir Frederick Lawton, who cannot be described by anyone as a wet. He recalled that his father, who was a prison governor, was of the opinion all that long time ago—well before the Second World War and perhaps before the first—that 75 percent, of those in his custody should not be there. What an indictment of the criminal justice system!
Many people believe that the same is true today—that 75 per cent. of those in prison custody
1004
should not be there. There are, for instance, 20,000 young offenders for whom non-custodial options ought to have been found; and non-custodial options should be found for their successors. Fine defaulters should not be there. There are also many mentally afflicted people who, if it is possible for them to be treated in the community, should not be there. But if not, they should be in custody under medical supervision, but not in the prison system, where they are now most unsuitably incarcerated. It is also thought—and this must be heresy to the noble and learned Lord—that many sex offenders might be successfully treated in less hostile surroundings. If they respond to treatment they may, with due caution, be integrated into the community without danger.
That amounts to a formidable number of people who should not be in penal custody. I remember that at the conference Mr. John Patten said that he was 75 per cent. NACRO in his thinking and 25 per cent. Judge Jeffreys. Perhaps we all have a little bit of Judge Jeffreys in us when we hear about the horrific crimes on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, concentrated. However, I strongly recommend to the noble and learned Lord that he should reverse his priorities. Instead of being 75 per cent. Judge Jeffreys, he might consider being 75 per cent. NACRO in his thinking.
The younger judiciary think in the way that Mr. John Patten thinks. I hope that as they take over from the older judiciary, as Lord Justice Glidewell has taken over on the Judicial Studies Board, we can all hope for different things in the future from the judiciary.
10.57 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, since I came to your Lordships' House there has not been a single aspect of penal affairs which my noble friend Lord Longford has not presented to the House. The subject he has put before us this evening is as important as all the previous ones and I very much look forward to the reply that the noble Viscount will give my noble friend on the two crucial questions. The first was whether the Government are prepared to agree that a new approach to sentencing is required. The other was whether he can confirm the forecast of an increase of 14,000 in the prison population, which would be worrying.
It is important to remember at the beginning of a debate such as this that our position at the top of Western Europe's prison league table is due to punitive sentencing and not higher crime rates. That has been confirmed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said, by the Home Secretary. Therefore the present statistics should worry us. We have more people in prison than anywhere else in Western Europe, although we are told that four-fifths are there for non-violent crimes. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, spoke about that.
We have prisons which are hideously overcrowded. That has now led to a series of prison riots in excess of anything that has been seen on the Continent of Europe. Police station cells are now filling up with surplus prisoners. Prison officers are under stress and care and rehabilitation of prisoners

1005
have assumed a low priority. We have also seen some high reconviction rates. I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that that is the other side of the coin to his remarks that sentencing policy is following a proper course. We should consider the two sides of the matter.
On the credit side, I was happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, speak with so much enthusiasm about the Government's White Paper Punishment Custody and the Community. I think everyone who has spoken agrees with the proposal for legislation allowing prison sentences only when they are necessary to protect the public from serious harm or when the offence is so serious that only a custodial sentence is justified. That would mean that the courts would have to give reasons justifying a prison sentence on one of those two grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, was again right when he said this could be the most radical step ever taken to reduce the use of prison sentences. We are happy to welcome the White Paper and to place as much hope in its beneficial effects as the noble Lord has expressed this evening.
I wish briefly to cover three aspects of the subject before us. I wish to give the views of a consortium of voluntary organisations called the Penal Affairs Consortium, say a few words about the system in the Netherlands and mention a point that was not made by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and others on a sentencing council. The Penal Affairs Consortium is a very important body. It is made up of 16 different voluntary agencies working in the penal field. It comprises agencies as different as the Prison officers Association, the Prison Governors Association, the Howard League, the Prison Reform Trust, Mew Bridge and others. Those 16 bodies meet regularly and draw up reports which they have agreed. Those who know as much about voluntary organisations as I feel I know will appreciate how hard it is for them to reach agreement on particular subjects. Those reports would be of great assistance to parliamentarians and all others involved in policy making and penal affairs.
In June of last year the consortium published its report Criteria for Imprisonment. A case was made for statutory guidelines on the use of imprisonment for adult offenders. Those 16 organisations, speaking with one voice, gave their support to the proposal which has now been put in the White Paper. They believe that if such a proposal were put into effect it would be as beneficial for adults as it has been for young people in restricting the inappropriate use of imprisonment. As I have said, great weight was given to the proposal.
I do not know how of ten our policy makers look at what is happening across the English Channel, but when one visits prisons in The Hague or elsewhere in the Netherlands, and talks to those who are involved in penal affairs, one sees an enormous difference between what is done and thought there and here. The number of prisoners in the Netherlands, which is third bottom of the Western European prison league table, is one-third of the number in England. It is important to recognise that that is not because the Dutch are less criminal. Until 1955 the Dutch prison population exceeded that of England. That
1006
low rate is due to other reasons. Public attitudes are very different from those here. The public prefer a remedial system to a punitive one.
Moreover, Dutch legislation does not allow more than one prisoner per cell. Home leave can be used flexibly so that only the most serious cases are admitted to prison. Mentally ill offenders are not held in prison but in institutions called TBSs. That means that overcrowding is an impossibility. It also means that prison staff work with difficult inmates with a genuine hope of therapy and rehabilitation.
Those are prisons in which there is no violence and no inmates are protected—there are no Rule 42 inmates. They are decent places for prison officers to work in. They are places in which a Strangeways ! situation could not arise. It is a very great achievement for a country which has a population which is just as criminal as ours to develop such a civilised prison system.
Furthermore, Dutch judges appear to have lesser expectations of imprisonment and greater expectations of rehabilitative ideals. In Britain we have a large range of alternatives to custody but, as we have seen, that has not stemmed the rise in the prison population. It is generally thought that that is because they are used as alternatives to other alternatives rather than to custody. In the Netherlands a more restricted range of alternatives used more flexibly seems to have worked better than our wider range of choices.
There is active debate within the Netherlands as to whether the criminal justice system is over or under-integrated. It is undoubtedly far more coherently integrated than that of England. The English criminal justice system lacks not only a framework for formulating criminal justice policy but also the means of implementing one were it to be constructed. The judiciary in Britain regard criminal justice policy as a contradiction in terms. Policy is viewed as inimical to their independence. That judges should be independent is a cardinal principal of criminal justice in both the Netherlands and Britain, but the British interpretation of independence allows great inequities to flow from the major variations in sentencing between courts, of which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, spoke this evening. It is fair to say that the Dutch penal system is a model from which we could learn a great deal.
I should only like to add to what has been said about a sentencing council the fact that the 1989 NACRO report, The Real Alternative, proposed a different version of a sentencing council to that proposed by Dr. Andrew Ashworth to which the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred. NACRO's version of the proposal differed in making it clear that the sentencing council would be a judicial body, part of the Court of Appeal and consist solely of judges, and that the other people involved—the magistrates, the governors, and so on—would act solely as advisers. I believe that that was a slightly less worrying proposition to the judiciary.
I firmly believe that the subject of this debate is of enormous and critical importance. I hope that the Minister will have listened very carefully to the very

1007
constructive ideas which have been put before him this evening. There has been a consensus of opinion that something needs to be done to change our penal system, which at present can only be described as hideously costly, inhumane to both staff and prisoners, and also entirely irrelevant to the problem of controlling crime.
11.10 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for giving us the opportunity to debate sentencing practice this evening. I must tell the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that I have listened to the discussion with great interest.
The noble Earl asked about sentencing levels in Great Britain. I am sure that he will understand if I confine my remarks to England and Wales. He asked whether a new approach to sentencing is needed. He referred to the proposals for a new statutory framework for sentencing which was set out in the White Paper, Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public. I am sure that many noble Lords are by now familiar with the White Paper proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, described the White Paper as an exciting moment in penal reform, and I agree with him.
The House gave the proposals a warm welcome upon publication on 6th February. We have been very gratified by the interest which the White Paper has stimulated. We have received over 170 responses, the overwhelming majority of which welcomed its objective to achieve a more consistent approach to sentencing. We shall consider the responses carefully. It is our intention to bring forward legislation based on the proposals as soon as parliamentary time permits.
I am glad that the proposals have the support of the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, among others. I agree with the noble Earl that the Government should not interfere with particular judicial decisions. The independence of the judiciary is rightly regarded as a cornerstone of our liberties, but sentencing principles and sentencing practice are matters of legitimate concern to government.
The White Paper proposals are indeed very significant, but they do not represent a radically new approach. They build on developments which have taken place over the past 10 years. The Court of Appeal has encouraged a more consistent approach to sentencing in its recent guideline judgments on rape, drug trafficking and incest. The structured approach to sentencing decisions which the Court of Appeal has used has been a helpful development which has influenced our thinking.
Sentencing trends have been changing. Custody is now used more for violence and sexual offenders and less for burglary and theft. Sentencing trends have changed in the way described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that a custodial sentence should be given only when it is necessary and that it should be
1008
no longer than necessary. We want to take that approach further by avoiding the use of custody for less serious, particularly property, offenders, while ensuring that the courts have adequate powers to deal with serious violent or sexual offenders.
In seeking to promote a more consistent approach to sentencing, the White Paper does not reflect an underlying lack of confidence in the way the courts sentence offenders. Much play is made of comparative statistics on sentencing practices in different courts to show that one court is more severe or lenient than its neighbour. However, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that different courts will see different mixes of offences. A Home office research study carried out in 1988 on Crown Court sentencing showed that there was already considerable consistency of approach in sentencing by Crown Court judges. It is on this that we wish to build.
Nor do we confuse a consistent approach with uniformity of outcome, which is neither desirable nor attainable. We set much store by the use of judicial discretion in individual cases. Judges have shown great skill in the way in which they sentence exceptional cases. The courts will need to retain a wide discretion if they are to continue to deal justly with the great variety of crimes that come before them. For that reason we reject a rigid statutory framework or a system of mandatory or minimum sentences.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, expressed their strong support for a sentencing council. The Government see no need for such a body. Composed of judges, magistrates, representatives of criminal justice services, Home office officials and academics, it would blur responsibility in particular if its guidance took the form of secondary legislation. Our proposals make the responsibilities clearer. The Government propose legislation, Parliament passes legislation and the courts interpret and implement it.
I am glad to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, that both he and the Lord Chief Justice would support the idea of a research unit for the Court of Appeal. We believe that the Judicial Studies Board will play an important role in disseminating the guidance provided by the statutory framework proposed as developed in the Court of Appeal judgments.
Our intention is to provide a basic legislative framework on which the Court of Appeal can build in the future. We have seen how this works with the development of Court of Appeal guidance on the criteria for the use of custody for young offenders. The noble Earl welcomed the reductions brought about by the Criminal Justice Acts 1982 and 1988. Since 1983, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, reminded us, the number of juvenile offenders given custodial sentences has halved, with no increase in crime by juveniles. The proposed legislation would bring a similar approach to all offenders.
The new framework which we propose will clarify the objectives of sentencing. This is essential if there is to be a consistent approach. Courts will be required

1009
to focus first and foremost on the seriousness of the offence before them when they sentence. The White Paper rightly emphasises punishment as the primary objective of sentencing. That is the only way to ensure that offenders are dealt with according to the gravity of their crimes. But other objectives are not excluded. There may be some offenders from whom the public needs to be protected. For others, we believe that the prospects for their reform are better if they are punished in the community.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has held up the Dutch as a model for us to follow. The court's sentence will be the outcome of a series of questions, as outlined in some detail by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and I think to a great extent welcomed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, starting with financial penalties.
We attach great importance to the award of compensation to the victim. A fine has great advantages in enabling the of fender to repay his debt to society without society having to spend even more upon him. If properly assessed, a fine can punish an of fender without damaging his opportunities for employment or his responsibilities towards his family. We intend to maximise the effectiveness of fines by improving their enforcement and assessment. The proposed unit fines scheme will have great advantage in enabling the fine to be linked more closely to an of fender's means.
Custody and community penalties would be linked in a system of graduated restrictions on an of fender's liberty. The degree of the restrictions on liberty will depend on the gravity of the offence. If the court considers financial penalties to be inadequate, it will have to consider how much restraint on liberty is needed to punish the particular crime. The court will have a wider and more flexible range of community penalties from which to choose. It will be able to combine a probation order with other disposals such as a fine or a community service order. The supervision which underpins community penalties will be strengthened to increase public and judicial confidence in them.
Custody is a serious deprivation of liberty. We believe that courts should think hard before imposing it on an of fender. In the case of all but the most serious offences, the court would need to be satisfied that custody was justified by the seriousness of the offence or needed in order to protect the public from serious harm—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the Home office forecast published after the White Paper that within the next eight years the number of people in prison will increase by 14,000? I gave the Minister notice of that important question.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, yes, I shall deal with that question if the noble Earl will be patient. The court would have to consider the options for punishing the of fender in the community which would be set out in a report from the probation service. It would have to say why it thought custody was justified. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, welcomed that fact most particularly.
1010
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, referred to the recent incidents in Strangeways and elsewhere. I can only express sadness that so many lives could be so recklessly endangered and so much damage could be done in so short a time. It is deeply regrettable that there was loss of life and that both staff and prisoners suffered injuries and distress.
The noble Earl asked whether the Home office projections of prison population, which point to an increase of 12,000 to 61, 200 in 1987-88, are out of date as a result of the White Paper proposals. The long-term projections show what the population might be on the basis of trends during recent years unless our diversionary policies are further developed in line with the policies in the White Paper. Chapter 9 recognises the difficulties of accurately predicting the resource implications of the proposals and puts forward some illustrative examples. It would clearly be foolish to change the population projections on the basis of proposals which have not yet been approved by Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, asked whether there could be a judge in each criminal court complex who could be given special responsibility for juveniles. That is a responsibility of the Lord Chancellor's Department but it is an interesting idea. I shall pass it on to my noble and learned friend.
The noble Lord also asked about ethnic minorities. A more consistent approach to sentencing within the new statutory framework should ensure that all defendants, including those from the ethnic minorities, are fairly treated. The White Paper makes it clear that there should be no discrimination on grounds of race or sex.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the case of the Maguires. I must say that Sir John May's inquiry into the cases of the Guildford Four and the Maguires is considering the circumstances surrounding the Maguires' convictions. My right honourable friend will respond to the inquiry's report when he has received it. I have noted what the noble Lord said about that and other cases. However, I am sure that he and other noble Lords will understand that I can comment no further until the report has been received.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, asked why we need to retain the penalty of 14 years for domestic burglary. We believe that it is right to retain 14 years as the maximum penalty for domestic burglary to mark the clear distinction which most people make between this and other burglaries. Some burglaries of homes, especially those where houses are ransacked and soiled, are regarded as being more akin to assaults and therefore that maximum penalty is considered fitting.
The noble Lord also asked me about suspended sentences for young offenders. We believe that young offenders should be kept out of custody whenever possible. That is best achieved by their being punished within the community where careful supervision can help them to tackle their of fending behaviour and live more law-abiding lives.
I hope that I have dealt with most of the points raised in this interesting debate and that the House will see from what I have said this evening that in

1011
bringing forward the proposals in the White Paper, we are not acting out of concern for the way in which our courts deal with offenders or advocating a sudden change of direction. Rather, we have built on trends over the past 10 years to produce a coherent statutory framework to assist the courts in their sentencing task.

Planning (Consequential Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Planning (Hazardous Substances) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the amendments be printed.

Town and Country Planning Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was ordered that the amendments be printed.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock.

  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: ESTABLISHMENT AND CONSULTATIONS
  TRAINING AND ENTERPRISE COUNCILS: ESTABLISHMENT AND CONSULTATIONS
  CITB: MEMBERSHIP
  CITB: MEMBERSHIP
  HOSPITALS: POTENTIAL TRUSTS -DOCUMENTATION
  HOSPITALS: POTENTIAL TRUSTS -DOCUMENTATION
  FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE: REVISION
  FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE: REVISION
  HOUSE OF LORDS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT: FUNDING
  HOUSE OF LORDS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT: FUNDING
  V & A AND NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMS: RUNNING COSTS
  V & A AND NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUMS: RUNNING COSTS