Sitting of 19 November 1990

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

    Low-paid Workers
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review the Government's policy towards helping those in low-paid employment.
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): A range of improvements designed to help the low-paid have been implemented in both the tax and social security systems. As a result of our policies, families now keep more of their earnings. Moreover, family credit now provides considerable extra help to boost the incomes of well over 320,000 working families
    Mr. Steen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is often no incentive for single-parent families to go out and earn money, especially in low-wage areas such as south Devon where they are often better off staying at home and doing nothing than going out and finding paid work? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should be encouraging the work ethic and making it more worth while for those who wish to work to help themselves?
    Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed I do. My hon. Friend will be aware that within the past month, or just over a month, we
    2
    have improved the earnings disregard in respect of in-work benefits—housing benefit and community charge benefit —with an eye on precisely the problem that many lone parents face. My hon. Friend will be aware also that a major ingredient in the child maintenance proposals that we published in the White Paper at the end of last month is directed to the same end
    Mr. Pike: Does the Secretary of State recognise that, while these measures may be welcomed and should be supported, the Government should be doing more to ensure fair pay and perhaps a national minimum wage to help those on low pay? Is not it a fact that low pay does not save jobs and that increases in productivity achieved by farm workers and others on low pay have not saved their jobs?
    Mr. Newton: The most likely result of any minimum wage policy of the kind that the hon. Gentleman appears to be advocating, and that his party is thought to advocate, would be the destruction of a considerable number of jobs. The right course is to concentrate on encouraging employment and on reducing taxation and national insurance contributions so that people can get a good return from their work
    Mr. Tony Banks: May I welcome the Secretary of State to the Government Dispatch Box on the first occasion on which I am asking a question on social security from the Opposition Front Bench? I hope soon to be answering such questions. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer, will he explain why all other members of the EEC are able to present national minimum wage levels when he says that if we were to do that—the next Labour Government will be doing it—we would be destroying jobs?
    Mr. Newton: Without entirely endorsing all the hopes and aspirations that the hon. Gentleman expressed in his introductory remarks, I welcome him to the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that we all look forward to his being on the Opposition Front Bench for many happy years.

    3
    Perhaps lurking in the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is the reason why Britain has been more successful than virtually any other country in Europe in creating new jobs.

    Maintenance
    Ms. Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will reconsider his decision financially to penalise mothers who refuse to name the father of their child
    Mr. Newton: We have no plans to change the proposal that, where a caring parent has no good cause not to claim maintenance for the children but refuses to assist in obtaining it, there should be a power to make a reduction in the income support allowance for her own personal needs. Such a decision would be taken only after full and careful consideration of all the circumstances and would of course be subject to the normal rights of appeal
    Ms. Short: Does the Secretary of State believe personally that it is right to cut the income of lone mothers living on benefits who, for their own good reasons, refuse to name or pursue for maintenance the fathers of their children? Surely, a much better system is to make it easier to claim maintenance, to create an incentive to do so and then leave it to each individual woman to decide in her own circumstances what is best for herself and her child.
    In my view, the Government's proposals are an outrageous invasion of privacy——
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Ask a question
    Ms. Short: I have asked two supplementary questions, and I am making one minor comment.
    Several Hon. Members: Ask a question
    Ms. Short: This is the usual harassment. I started with a supplementary question.
    The Government's proposals—[Interruption.]Conservative Members are embarrassed by them and do not wish to hear what I have to say
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. Hon. Members must let the hon. Lady finish
    Ms. Short: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    The Government's proposals are an outrageous invasion of privacy and have caused real fear among many women who have left difficult relationships. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——
    Hon. Members: No
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a little unfair. The hon. Lady said that she wanted to ask two questions; she cannot have three bites
    Ms. Short: Now that the Tory wets are developing some spine, will they stand up for what is right? I have great respect for the Secretary of State and I find it hard to believe that he believes in these outrageous proposals
    Mr. Newton: As I have said on a number of occasions, it is no more right that a caring parent should be able simply to choose not to claim maintenance than it is right for the absent parent to choose not to pay it.
    We have put forward a carefully balanced set of proposals, which include incentives. As a result of the
    4
    mechanisms that we are setting up, it will be much easier to claim maintenance. However, we thought it right to include the possibility of a sanction, with all the usual rights of appeal, if someone unreasonably refuses to co-operate
    Mr. Favell: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that many families who maintain their children find it difficult to makes ends meet and that it is outrageous to expect them to maintain the children of those who simply do not want to name the fathers?
    Mr. Newton: The White Paper acknowledges, as I am sure that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) will acknowledge, that there will be circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to expect a name to be given and we shall set up careful procedures to assess different cases. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend is right to suggest that to permit circumstances in which people could, with no good cause, simply pass on the bill to the taxpayers—including other families with children—would be wrong
    Mr. Kirkwood: The Government's White Paper refers to exemptions for families with previous unhappy experiences—for example, rape or incest—and that is right. Will the right hon. Gentleman go further and help the House to understand what the Government have in mind for such exemptions? For example, would a caring parent who had been granted a divorce on the ground of unreasonable behaviour involving violence have the right to withhold the name of the other parent?
    Mr. Newton: She might. As is the practice in other parts of the social security system, we expect that well-trained officers would give full and careful consideration to all the circumstances. What would not be right, and what few people believe would be right, would be to bring about circumstances in which someone had only to say that she feared violence from the absent father for that absent father to be let off, or for the absent father only to make a threat of violence for that father not to be pursued for maintenance
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first responsibility for maintaining children lies with the parents, and that the role of the state applies only where parents cannot or will not fulfil their obligations? Is not it remarkable that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) should ask such questions? Does not her failure to acknowledge the principle that I have enunciated show that she has a view of family policy that is unsustainable?
    Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend about where the basic responsibility lies and the proposals in the White Paper reflect it much more clearly than ever before
    Mr. Frank Field: According to the Government's figures, 95 per cent. of mothers immediately and voluntarily give information about the father. Why do not the Government do something to get contributions from that group of fathers so that mothers can have some of the freedoms to which the right hon. Gentleman referred?
    Mr. Newton: In the interests of accuracy, I should make it clear that we think that that figure may be a bit on the high side because it is drawn from a particular sample——
    Mr. Field: The Government published the figure.
    Mr. Newton: Yes, but we think that the sample might have gone a bit astray—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I thought that it might be sensible to put that on the record. We think that the proper figure is about 75 per cent. That is based on the best information that we have from our local offices.
    Whatever the figure, as I said when I introduced the White Paper, the more that caring parents generally think it right to co-operate, the weaker is the case for ignoring those who choose not to co-operate.

    Lone Parents
    Mr. Irvine: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of income-related benefits paid to lone parents and their children in the latest year for which information is available and in 1978–79
    Mr. Newton: Between 1978–79 and 1989–90, the amount of income-related benefits paid to lone parents and their families increased from just under £650 million to nearly £3,000 million
    Mr. Irvine: Does my right hon. Friend agree that from any point of view that represents a massive increase? Can he confirm that only three in 10 lone parents currently receive regular maintenance payments from their partners? Does not that indicate that the Government's new proposals for securing more effective maintenance of children should be implemented with the utmost urgency?
    Mr. Newton: I can confirm that only about one third of caring parents receive regular maintenance payments. The proposals in the White Paper, "Children Come First", are directed at increasing that proportion as a matter of urgency
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that many lone parents have been widowed or are in families where there has been long-term sickness? Does he agree that next year, one quarter of a million of families will be denied the full value of the extra £1 benefit for the first born? Those families will suffer a net cut in their allowances of 4·7 per cent. by April 1991 compared with April this year. Will not the right hon. Gentleman confess that the changes in child benefit were a cynical attempt by the Government to buy back maximum political benefit at minimum cost? Will he also confess his shame at having cut that money from families most in need—those that have suffered as a result of long-term sickness or bereavement?
    Mr. Newton: I cannot accept phrases such as "a cynical attempt" and "minimum cost" when we are talking about additional expenditure of public money to the extent of well over £250 million. As to the interaction between an increase in child benefit and other benefits, be they national insurance or, more notably, income-related benefits, the policy being pursued is in line with that which has been followed for many years
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition should speak in support of child benefit rather than disparagingly about the increases that are secured?
    Mr. Newton: Yes.

    Care Homes
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received regarding the proposed £5 increase in income support payments to care home residents.
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): A number of bodies and individuals, including the National Federation of Housing Associations, Age Concern, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, have written to us about the proposed increases
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Is the Minister aware that the average increase in private care home fees in the Wakefield district this year is 17 per cent., compared with a 3 per cent. increase in income support payments that the Government announced recently? Has the Minister examined the evidence sent to his Department by Age Concern, showing that a number of elderly retired people are having to return to work, to earn money so that they can contribute towards the care home fees incurred by even more elderly relatives? Is not it scandalous that, in addition, the Government propose to withdraw housing benefit from vast numbers of care home residents?
    Mr. Scott: This year, after a tight survey period, we devoted the largest-ever increase to helping those in residential care and nursing homes. The Government are to be congratulated on that achievement. The limits on residential care homes rose by £45 per week between April 1985 and August of this year—by 41 per cent. against an inflation rate of 35 per cent. As to changes in housing benefit rules for those in residential care homes, they will apply almost overwhelmingly to those who have capital of between £8,000 and £16,000
    Mr. Durant: Would the Minister like to remind the House what these increases are, as the question only mentions £5? Also, will he tell us how many people are benefiting?
    Mr. Scott: Thousands of people will benefit as a result of these increases. The uprating has cost some £230 million and the increases range from £5 per week increase to £45 per week. This year we have rightly devoted the most significant resources to those people in nursing homes who have had the greatest increase in costs
    Mr. Meacher: How can the Minister possibly justify a mere £5 per week increase in income support for residents in residential homes when the Price Waterhouse survey shows that the average running and capital costs of such homes are £172 per resident per week, whereas he has increased income support to only £160 a week. How can he justify only increasing income support for nursing homes to £255 per resident per week when Price Waterhouse reveals that the average running and capital costs in those homes is £350 per resident per week? Is not it clear that the haemorrhage of bankruptcies and closures of homes will continue and that the Government, having encouraged homes to be built in the first place, will carry the responsibility for the inevitable eviction of frail and elderly people?
    Mr. Scott: First, the increase of £5 per week this year should be set against an increase of £ 10 per week April and

    7
    a further £5 per week in August, so the increase in the past year has been of the order of £20. We have produced the largest-ever increase in funds. Expenditure overall, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has increased from £10 million per year, which the Labour Government were spending when they went out of office, to £1·27 billion under this Government. We have shown our care for people in those circumstances and have demonstrated it with cash.

    Pensioners (Investment Income)
    Mr. Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much the average pensioner's income from bank and building society deposits has changed since 1979.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that the income which pensioners receive from savings more than doubled between 1979 and 1987
    Mr. Neubert: Can my hon. Friend say whether there has been a similar encouraging increase in income from occupational pensions in that period? How does this compare with the previous period—1974–79—when we were enjoying a Labour Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend will be equally pleased to hear that average incomes from occupational pensions in the same period grew by 77 per cent. His question about the way in which savings and incomes from occupational pensions behaved during the last Labour Government is the most significant, because such income fell by 16 per cent. during that period
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister balance the selective figures that she has been given by confirming that under the last Labour Government the percentage of pensions rose from 17·5 to 20·5 per cent. of male average earnings, while in the following years under the Conservative Administration they plummeted from 20·5 to a mere 16 per cent. of average male earnings?
    Mrs. Shephard: What matters to pensioners is the way their average total net income rises. While expressing valedictions and regrets to the hon. Gentleman, I must say that under this Government, from 1979 to 1987 pensioners' average total net income rose by more than 31 per cent. in real terms. That is what the hon. Gentleman should remember.

    Arcola Street Office, Hackney
    Ms. Abbott: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he next plans to visit Arcola street social security office
    Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so, but my noble Friend Lord Henley visited the office on 9 November 1990
    Ms. Abbott: Is the Minister aware that if he visited our Hackney social security offices he would see how London claimants continue to receive one of the worst services in the country and how Hackney residents suffer under his Poor Law regime? I draw to his attention the case of Mrs. S. Moore of 156 Evelyn Court, Amhurst road, London E8, who is disabled but was refused a grant for a pair of shoes
    8
    because they were deemed to be of low priority. What sort of social security regime refuses disabled people money for shoes?
    Mr. Scott: In general, I believe that those within the area of that local office are served well by the staff there. The hon. Lady will not expect me to comment on an individual case that she presents to me across the Floor of the House. The performance targets are being met. I know that the hon. Lady has a harmonious relationship with the management of that office and that the people there do their best to meet the points that she puts to them
    Mr. Jack rose——
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that there is an Arcola street in Fylde
    Mr. Jack: There is an Arcola element in my question, Mr. Speaker. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that all benefit claimants at Arcola street and other social security offices will benefit from the work carried out in my constituency by the Information Technology Services Agency, which has been working on a £1·8 billion project to computerise the social security system and thus improve benefits for claimants?
    Mr. Scott: I am sure that Arcola street, where computerisation for the pensions system will come on stream next February and for income support next April, will benefit from the efforts that we have put into operational strategy as a whole.

    Pensioners (Mortgages)
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners make mortgage repayments; and how much of next April's rise in the basic state pension is attributable to rising interest and mortgage rates in the 12 months to September of the current year
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the retirement pension will be increased by 10·9 per cent. from April 1991, once again honouring the Government's commitment to protect fully the value of the state pension against changing prices. The corresponding September figure for the retail prices index less mortgage interest payments was 9·5 per cent. The latest information shows that, in 1987, 49 per cent. of pensioners owned their own homes and 4 per cent. made mortgage repayments
    Mr. Moss: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does she agree that the figures show that about 15 per cent. of this year's substantial increase in the pension reflects rising mortgage costs—an expense which fewer than one in 20 pensioners have to pay? Does not that represent a tremendous bonus for the majority of pensioners in this country?
    Mrs. Shephard: Yes, and I am delighted that it should be so
    Mr. Meacher: As rising interest and mortgage rates are a reflection of the Government's economic incompetence and have caused misery to millions, is not it brass neck for the Minister to try to make a virtue out of it by claiming credit for a bigger pension increase, which the Government did their utmost to avoid? If the Government are so solicitous about the welfare of pensioners, why have

    9
    they blocked a bigger pension rise for pensioners in each of the past 11 years by breaking the uprating link with earnings? Is not it hypocrisy for the Government to try to feed that sort of soft question to Tory Back Benchers so that they can pretend that the Government are generous when, in fact, the Government have taken £22 billion off pensioners by breaking the earnings link?
    Mrs. Shephard: Conservatives need no lessons in economic competence from the hon. Gentleman. I know that he fully understands that the Government have a dual policy on pensions—fully to uprate the basic pension in line with prices, which his Government were unable to do during their period in office, and to pursue other policies that Opposition Members steadfastly oppose, such as to increase choice in pension provision. It is not the Conservative party which wishes to turn personal pensions on their head.

    Pensioners
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will meet pensioners' representatives to discuss pensions, standing charges, concessionary fares and other matters; and if he will make a statement
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We regularly meet representatives from pensioners' organisations. Most recently, I met a delegation from the National Federation of Retirement Pensions Associations
    Mr. Skinner: If the Government meet pensioners' organisations in the next few weeks, they will hear from those representatives that pensioners have been robbed of more than £13 per week as a result of the change in the system in 1979 when the Tory Government came to office. That system allows Ralph Halpern to pick up a pension of £9,000 per week while other pensioners in London, Bolsover and elsewhere do not have two ha'pennies to rub together. Why should those pensioners have to pay for their travel while the Prime Minister gallivants around the world on taxpayers' money? Why should they pay standing charges when the people at No. 10 Downing street do not pay a penny piece? There is one law for Ministers in this Government and another for the old age pensioners throughout Britain—get it changed!
    Mrs. Shephard: Yet again I remind Opposition Members, in particular the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), that the Labour Administration most certainly did not honour their promises to pensioners when they were in power. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that during the five years to October 1989, standing charges fell, in real terms, whereas during the previous Labour Government electricity prices rose by 30 per cent. That is a measure of the Opposition's care for pensioners. Under this Government, pensioners' average net income has risen by 31 per cent. in real terms. That is something that the Labour party could never hope to emulate
    Mr. Soames: Does my hon. Friend nevertheless agree that the important point about caring for pensioners is that policies should not stand still and that we should consider all the time how better we can care for them? Will she look at the way in which the Germans and the French
    10
    are able to provide an enhanced package of concessions for their old people, which makes their quality of life a great deal more agreeable?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I remind him and the House of the special help that has been provided by the Government for older and poorer pensioners. In October 1989, there was the special package, and a few weeks ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his uprating announcement. In Germany, pensioners get what they pay for. Pensions depend entirely on what people have earned during their working lives. There is no basic state retirement pension. Pensioners have to pay for their prescriptions. They also have to make a 6 per cent. contribution towards their health care. Moreover, the pensions choice that we provide in this country is being looked at carefully not only by Germany but by other European Community member states
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What are the Government doing for a particular group of pensioners who are casualties of the Thatcher years? I refer to those people who were put out of work in their middle 50s and who have not worked since. When they reach pensionable age, they find that all that they are entitled to is the basic pension; there is no supplement from their earnings, or other employment. They find life extremely difficult, having been on benefit for many years. As those people are supposed to have made a sacrifice so that we could get British industry back on its feet, is not it time that the Government compensated them so that they can enjoy a decent life in retirement, instead of having to struggle on the basic state pension?
    Mrs. Shephard: The point of the income-related benefits system is that the basic pension can be topped up by income support, community charge benefit and housing benefit. That provides a very good base for all the people described by the hon. Gentleman.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of individuals who will benefit from the Government's plans to reduce the number of hours which qualify for family credit from 24 to 15
    Mr. Newton: We estimate that 65,000 families where a parent is currently working between 16 and 24 hours will be better off from being able to qualify for family credit. In the longer term, we also expect the change in the hours rule to encourage more people to take up employment and claim family credit and to be better off as a result
    Mr. Arnold: I welcome the extension of family credit to less well-off families. Will not it be of value to parents, particularly mothers, who will be able to go out to work while their children are at school, to the benefit of their families and themselves?
    Mr. Newton: That is precisely the point which we are seeking to meet. We felt that 24 hours was rather a long time for that purpose. I ought to make it clear that, while the change in the benefit rules will be particularly useful to many lone parents, it will also help all families with children.
    Mr. Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is another important step towards achieving what must eventually be the objective of all those policies: that people should not lose benefit when they behave in exactly the way that the Government seek to encourage? May we be assured that my right hon. Friend will continue to work towards that objective across the whole range of benefits?
    Mr. Newton: That is an aspect of what I call the "children come first" package, to which I attach particular importance. I assure my hon. Friend that I shall continue to do everything that I can in the same direction.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the working of social fund loans and grants
    Mr. Scott: The social fund has continued to provide valuable help to a large number of people in greatest need. Since the scheme began almost 2·5 million interest-free loans and over half a million non-repayable community care grants have been awarded at a total value of almost £500 million
    Mr. Lloyd: The Secretary of State tells the House about his "children come first" policy, but can he explain why my constituents are refused assistance in the form of a grant, for example, when new-born babies come into the family, when people such as the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) want shoes or when my constituents are moved into unfurnished accommodation and need bedding or beds? Against that background, will the Minister explain through me to my constituents how he can justify the fact that some of the poorest people in Britain are told that they cannot have a grant? They are allowed a loan as long as, with their derisory income support, they can afford to pay it back, which, of course, many simply cannot
    Mr. Scott: As I said, a large number of grants have been given, including on many occasions grants to people who applied for a loan but were awarded a grant instead because it was thought more appropriate. We have increased the maternity payment from £85 to £100 and the capital limit has been raised for people aged 60 and over from £500 to £1,000. From January 1991 that will also apply to exceptional cold weather payments. We have demonstrated the flexibility of the social fund and its ability to react to changing circumstances.
    Sir David Price: As a matter of urgency, will my right hon. Friend extend the use of the social fund to providing assistance for the families of British hostages held in Iraq and for returning refugees who in many cases come to this country penniless?
    Mr. Scott: With regard to those who come from the Gulf and their relatives, we have liaised carefully with the Gulf support group. The response of the social fund has been first class. All flights from Iraq are met by officials from the Department of Social Security. People are given advice on how to pursue their claims with their local offices. Our officers sit alongside other advisers from the Foreign Office to make sure that the social security system plays its part; it also enables refugees to settle in Britain
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Does the Minister recall his reply to my letter about chronically sick and disabled people, among others, who have returned to the United Kingdom from Kuwait and Iraq since the invasion of Kuwait? Can he now update his reply and, in particular, say today whether the total resources of the social fund will be or may be increased to allow for those wholly unexpected new calls on its help?
    Mr. Scott: Of course, we review the budget and the claims on the social fund during the course of the year. There is no reason to suppose that the claims resulting from the crisis in the Gulf will alter the overall level of the budget this year
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Dickens?
    Mr. Dickens: Well——
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was rising.
    Mr. Dickens: I had almost given up
    Mr. Speaker: One must never give up
    Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the former system was a licence to print money, under which youngsters would leave home, obtain a house on demand and present the DSS office with a shopping list of 140 items that were paid for on demand? Now they must have a loan. They must justify it and pay it back interest free. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in return some other people receive benefits of the same amount of money, which is laundered from person to person? That is good news for taxpayers' money, is it not?
    Mr. Scott: I agree with my hon. Friend that the abuse of the single payments scheme and its entirely open-ended growth could not have been afforded by any Government. We took the right steps to alter the system to the new social fund, which is operating fairly, quickly and flexibly.

    Social Security Systems
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what lessons he estimates may be learned from a study of other countries' systems of social security; and if he will make a statement
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: We can learn a great deal from a study of each other's systems, but we need to remember that they are set in different societies with different traditions and different economic backgrounds. In the European Community Social Security Ministers have agreed that the exchange of information and discussion of problems should be encouraged. In the wider context, Ministers maintain contacts with many countries—for example, recently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited the United States of America to look at child support arrangements
    Mr. Thurnham: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to study the Swiss system with its much greater emphasis on individual, family and local community responsibility for welfare? May I recommend that she reads "Cradle to Grave" by Ralph Segalman and David Marsland?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind suggestion. I am not very familiar with the features of the Swiss system that he describes, but comparisons

    13
    between the British social security system and those of other countries of the European Community conclude with a flattering picture of the United Kingdom
    Mr. Winnick: What possible justification can there be for our present social security system, under which those with a small income, in some cases no more than £54 a week to live on, are expected to pay more than £10 a week in rent because of changes in Government regulations? Is not that absolutely disgraceful? I have notified the Minister of many such cases involving my constituents. Is it a wonder that so many pensioners cannot give a damn whether the Prime Minister or the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) wins? What they want is the defeat of the Tory Government and a Labour Government in office
    Mrs. Shephard: That is possibly the most ingenious question that we have heard so far this afternoon. Well done to the hon. Gentleman. The safety net that is provided by income support, and which is also supported by housing benefit and community charge benefit, together with the state pension, provides an excellent system of support for pensioners.

  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Ordinations
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will estimate the financial consequences for the commissioners of the trend in ordinations in the past three years
    Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): There is no clear trend in ordinations in the past three years sufficient to suggest any significant change in the balance of the Commissioners' expenditure in future years
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the trend would be more encouraging if women were allowed to become fully frocked priests? Does he accept that just as Rabbi Julia Neuberger has been a distinguished theologian, many ladies could become caring, efficient parish priests? When does my right hon. Friend believe that the first lady Prime Minister will appoint the first lady bishop?
    Mr. Alison: When my hon. Friend refers to women priests, he should be aware that there is likely to be a Measure on the ordination of women presented to Parliament in about 1993. My hon. Friend referred to women Prime Ministers. Perhaps I can say that there will be an opportunity to confirm a woman Prime Minister at a rather earlier date. I should put it on the record that no Prime Minister since Gladstone has made such an open and avowed Christian commitment as our present Prime Minister, or done so much for the Church
    Mr. Skinner: As the right hon. Gentleman used to be the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Prime Minister and she might finish up on the barbed wire tomorrow night, will he in his capacity as a Church Commissioner recommend her to take on one of those jobs because she might need some extra work?
    Mr. Alison: As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes constructive suggestions and helpful comments in the direction of the Church. It would not be out of character or beyond possibility for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister perhaps to wish to offer herself for ordination at a much later date. It is perfectly possible for her to complete a long tour as Prime Minister, which I hope she will, perhaps retiring at 70, and then to offer herself for ordination. She would be most acceptable in the Church of England.

    Church Commissioners (Abolition)
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, whether he has received any representations about the abolition of the Church Commissioners; and if he will make a statement
    Mr. Alison: I have received no such representation
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the feeling that it would be better to devolve that responsibility to local churches and parishes rather than for all the decisions to be made in London? Does he agree that that would involve the Church in a much more positive way in the affairs of the community?
    Mr. Alison: I am bound to say with great respect to my hon. Friend that I am slightly suspicious of his question, because in the previous Session he sought to have the Church Commissioners left intact but removed to the constituency of Bolton, North-East. Now that that has been ruled out as a possibility, he is suggesting that they should be abolished altogether—I imagine because my hon. Friend suspects that they might be moved to the constituency of, say, Henley or Finchley. I believe that the Church Commissioners are best left as they are. They find only one third of the costs of financing the Church of England; the rest must come from the dioceses and the man in the pew. I think that they do a good job as they are
    Mr. Frank Field: Is not there a serious point here—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As it is beyond the wit of man for some hon. Members to appreciate a serious point if it is dangled in front of them, I shall still address my question assuming that it raises a serious point. Given that the Church has published a report to say that it is important for the Government to increase investment in inner-city areas, what serious consideration has been given to moving the Church Commissioners out of their plush offices in Westminster into one of the inner-city areas?
    Mr. Alison: That question, which is serious, has been considered before. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that the Church Commissioners, for better or worse, acting through me as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, must have regular traffic with the General Synod, which is located in London and, above all, with this House, where Church Measures must be endorsed. It would be impracticable to discharge our duties fully to the House if the Church Commissioners were to be located in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or any other. I suspect that there would be hot competition for the location of the Church Commissioners and I believe that they are best left at Westminster.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Catering
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what representations he has received from those persons responsible for catering in the House of Commons
    Mr. A. J. Beith: (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): None, Sir
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman who represents the House of Commons Commission is also a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament. How does he react to the fact that the catering staff of the House of Commons have not had a single pay increase in the past seven years that meets the level of inflation? This year, when inflation is nearly 11 per cent., they will get a pay increase of 7 per cent., but the London weighting allowance has been frozen for the past three years. Does he really think that the House of Commons Commission is doing its job properly? How does he defend it?
    Mr. Beith: The House of Commons Commission is required by statute to keep the pay of its staff in line with the civil service and that it seeks to do. If the hon. Gentleman has detailed evidence of the way in which the pay rates are out of line—much of the press comment on that subject is wildly inaccurate—I hope that he will bring it to my attention
    Mr. Dickens: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee has just written to each and every hon. Member about the Christmas gratuity collection for the House of Commons staff? Opposition Members may table questions about the lot of the staff, but if they gave a little more generously this year than they did last year, the staff might be well treated
    Mr. Beith: I hope that hon. Members will respond generously to that appeal, but, however much is raised, that does not absolve the Commission from the responsibility that it seeks to carry out to pay its staff properly.

    Christmas Bonuses
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, if there are any proposals to pay Christmas bonuses to Palace staff
    Mr. Beith: No, Sir. However, as the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) pointed out, for many years hon. Members have made donations to a Christmas appeal for the staff of the Refreshment Department made by the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee
    Mr. Banks: Given how mean hon. Members are with regard to gratuities and tipping [Interruption.]—I tip all the time—it is no wonder that the staff are having such great difficulties in making ends meet from the money that they receive. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous pressure that there will be on the Refreshment Department at Christmas time, in particular when Conservative Members will be buying large quantities of goods from the
    16
    souvenir shop and buying dinners for their constituency association members, in a vain attempt to prevent their deselection in view of the fact that they backed the wrong side? In view of that enormous pressure, would not a large bonus be appropriate this year?
    Mr. Beith: Hon. Members in all parties are regular and extensive users of the facilities of the House, including those for the purchase of various items. I hope that the Tea Rooms are doing exceptionally good business while so much canvassing is in progress during the Conservative leadership election. However, it is not by way of extra subscriptions or appeals that the Commission seeks to ensure that its staff are properly paid; it is adhering to widely accepted pay rates.
    Mr. Holt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, while Conservative Members might be spending large sums of money on gifts in the shop, a large number of Labour Members will be spending their money in the bars? I hope that they will spend a large amount on buying drinks for the bar staff.
    Mr. Beith: I do not go to the bars very often, but I am led to believe that Members of all parties are to be found in them.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Telecommunications
    Mr. Jack: To ask the Lord President of the Council what plans he has to improve telecommunications between Westminster, the European Commission and the European Parliament.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The Services Committee has been asked to consider a package of measures designed to strengthen links between this House and the main European Community institutions. Those proposals include arrangements to enable hon. Members to communicate more easily by telephone and post
    Mr. Jack: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he give me any idea of the time scale of the conclusion of the discussions about these arrangements? My constituents in Fylde feel strongly that some good British common sense should reach the Commission and other European institutions early on, so that we can have our say before some of the more half-baked ideas creep out of Brussels and sadly become reality
    Mr. MacGregor: I hope that the time scale will allow the discussions to conclude reasonably soon. As for the form of the arrangements, they are likely to involve exchange numbers for the main European institutions being made available for direct dialling by Members of Parliament. It will be possible to go beyond the initial 12 once the software on the Palace of Westminster's own exchange is upgraded
    Mr. Winnick: Before such improvements are made, would not it be better to try to improve communication within the Cabinet? Is the Minister aware——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point is miles away from the question. That is not very good
    Mr. Winnick: If we are to improve communications with the European Parliament, it might be useful for the Cabinet to be able to communicate better than it can at present. Should not we bear in mind what was said yesterday by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) about what occurred in the Cabinet over the Westland affair?
    Mr. Speaker: I really do think that that is a bit wide of the European Parliament.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will the new arrangements include the Council of Europe, which is much wider than the EEC and the European Parliament?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure that the European institutions have been fully sorted out yet; however, I shall bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

    Scottish Affairs Select Committee
    Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Lord President of the Council what response he intends to make to the recommendation of the Procedure Committee in its report on the Select Committee system in the last Session of Parliament concerning the appointment of a Scottish Affairs Select Committee
    Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Member knows, I cannot anticipate the Government's considered response to the report. I shall be replying to that and the other recommendations made in due course
    Mr. Kirkwood: Is not it a ridiculous indictment of the Government that they cannot find enough Conservative Members to man that important Committee? The Scottish Office covers many diverse areas of public life in Scotland, including housing, transport and agriculture. Is not it more rather than less important for there to be a Select Committee that oversees the work of the Scottish Office, irrespective of whether its members are Welsh, Irish or even the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)? Will he again consider getting Conservative Back Benchers to man this important Committee, so that the work of the Scottish Office can be properly overseen?
    Mr. MacGregor: I have already said that I shall examine that matter again, but I am equally well aware that there have been several difficulties affecting the issue throughout the lifetime of this Parliament and I am not very hopeful of progress. The hon. Gentleman has raised many points relating to Scotland. As he will know some of those subjects are dealt with by other Select Committees, and the Scottish Office frequently gives evidence to those committees
    Mr. Soames: To follow on from the question of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many Members such as me with seats in the south who would be happy and proud to serve on a Scottish Select Committee, because it would enable many of us to spend a great deal more time in Scotland than we are able to do at present?
    Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure what sort of time my hon. Friend has in mind, but I shall consider his point
    Mr. Molyneaux: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, at an earlier stage, some of us devoted much time to using our good offices in an attempt to resolve the
    18
    difficulty? Will he encourage the reactivation of those discussions, to ensure that at least three component parts of the four parts of the United Kingdom enjoy and benefit from the oversight of a Select Committee?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that I can go further than I have today. I have been looking into the history of the progress of the matter during the lifetime of this Parliament
    Mr. Grocott: Does the Leader of the House accept that it is a pretty unfortunate precedent, particularly from a Government on the way out, not to establish democratic machinery simply because it is not in the Government's interests to do so? In this, one of his earliest performances as Leader of the House, will he at least establish clearly that his responsibility to the House is not simply to do what is convenient for the Government, but to do what is in the established, democratic traditions of the House, and set up the Select Committee?
    Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that it was all one sided. Having looked at the history of it, I believe that there were differences of view on the matter at various times on both sides of the House. As I said, I shall look into it. I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's belief that this Government are on the way out—quite the reverse.

    Textline
    Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Lord President of the Council what consideration has been given to reintroducing the textline facility into the branch library
    Mr. MacGregor: The reintroduction of textline in the branch library is not being considered because the suppliers of the standard textline service have now given general notice that that standard service is to be withdrawn altogether
    Mr. Barnes: I understood that it was Reuters that increased the price, which led to the removal of textline. Its facilities are available in the House of Commons Library. Will they be removed in the future? If facilities for hon. Members and their research assistants were removed, it would be as useful as hon. Members going round the Library with paper bags over their heads
    Mr. MacGregor: Apart from the fact that the service is being discontinued, there was a possible 400 per cent. increase in the Library charges over three years as a result of changes. In view of that, the Library Sub-Committee of the Services Committee concluded that the benefits of continuing the textline service could not be justified against the cost. The Library fully recognises the desirability of having some means of access to press material and is considering several alternative options.

    Register of Members' Interests
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received on the rules for the Register of Members' Interests; and if he will make a statement
    Mr. MacGregor: None, Sir
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Lord President aware that the register is being abused almost every year? Does he know that 19 Tory ex-Cabinet Ministers hold 59 directorships

    19
    between them and are raking in more than £1 million, not one penny of which is recorded in the register? Before there is a new batch of Tory ex-Cabinet Ministers in a few weeks' time and then another batch when we get into power, is not it high time that we got rid of the system, each Member of Parliament had only one job and we put an end to moonlighting?
    Mr. MacGregor: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's last point, because it is for hon. Members to decide what they should do. As is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his question, there is a great deal of talent that can be put to use outside the House and I do not think that it would be right to put a stop to that. The register is a matter for the Select Committee, which is looking at some possible changes to it
    Mr. Dickens: There is no doubt that many Conservative Members scrupulously enter everything with which they are connected on the register—it has got me into trouble. Does the Leader of the House accept that when we declare our position as unpaid consultants, we are often accused locally of having our fingers in too many pies because we have been scrupulously honest in placing everything on the register? There are many Opposition Members who should be making entries, but are not. However, I shall not name them today.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw
    Mr. MacGregor: One of the matters that the Select Committee on Members' Interests is considering is whether to define the requirements of the register more precisely, so that hon. Members' interpretation of the rules is more consistent. That might help to deal with some of the points that my hon. Friend raised.
    Hon. Members: He should withdraw
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intended to make any specific accusation. [HON. MEMBERS:"He did."] Order. If he did, he should draw the matter——
    Mr. Dickens: Would you like me to name them, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: No.
    Mr. Dickens: I am——
    Mr. Speaker: Sit down, please. If the hon. Gentleman has any such evidence, he should properly draw it to the attention of the Chairman of the Select Committee and not bandy it across the Floor of the House.

    Televising of Parliament
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Lord President of the Council how many complaints have been received about the televising of the House
    Mr. MacGregor: I am not aware of any recent complaints arising specifically from the televising of the House's proceedings that fall within my direct responsibility or that of the Select Committee on Broadcasting. Naturally, hon. Members raise from time to time a variety of matters relating to the effect of televising on the work of the House and the Select Committee and the Supervisor of Broadcasting are always willing to consider them sympathetically
    Mr. Banks: I thought that it was most unfair of "Spitting Image" to portray the right hon. Gentleman as someone who was so little known in the country that he had to walk round with a personalised paper bag over his head. As it is clear that the electorate and hon. Members very much like the televising of Parliament, and to help the right hon. Gentleman perhaps to become the best known Leader of the House, could the Committee now consider the possibility of gavel-to-gavel coverage of our proceedings so that people can watch what they want to see rather than what broadcasting journalists think they ought to see?
    Mr. MacGregor: I know that that point has been raised from time to time and the Select Committee can consider it again.

    Statutory Instruments, &c
    Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.
    Ordered,
    That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
    That the draft Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Patnick.]

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for not having been here when question 27 to the Church Commissioners was called. Will you consider whether the Sessional Orders also apply to London Underground and its lack of investment in the Victoria line which led to a plague of collapsing wheels and to my having to spend an inordinate time at Finsbury Park station awaiting the arrival of a train that did not come? My constituents and I would be delighted if you, Mr. Speaker, would pass that on to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, who could in turn pass it on to London Underground.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the Commissioner would reckon that that came within his responsibilities. In any case, the hon. Gentleman very nearly made it.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you a constitutional question? If a Prime Minister is dismissed—a prospect which, in this case, I should warmly welcome—is there a requirement upon the House to divide at any stage?
Mr. Speaker: I do not answer hypothetical questions
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking you about a particular case, although it is true that I qualified my opening remarks. I am asking you whether, in the event of a Prime Minister being dismissed, the House would be required to divide at any stage
Mr. Speaker: The question is hypothetical, but my predecessors have regularly ruled that advice on procedures and other such matters is not given by the occupant of the Chair
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Oh?
Mr. Speaker: I mean, of course, advice on tactics
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker: No; I do not think that I need any more.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to give the hon. Gentleman that sort of advice
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding the advice that you cannot give, will you confirm that the ballot that is to take place tomorrow night is about the leadership of the Tory party and that, in this quaint little place of ours, it does not have
22
anything much to do with who is Prime Minister? Knowing the Prime Minister's character and traits, there is half a chance that, if she were defeated, she would still come to the Dispatch Box and act out the role of Prime Minister. She might even force the Cabinet to reconsider the whole affair. It is not a matter of who is Prime Minister but of who is the leader of the Tory party. It might eventually be a matter for the Queen, and on that issue I am not very well informed. I do not know whether you are, Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker: I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that I believe that there is a contest for the leadership of the Conservative party
Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for civil servants, who are supposed to be impartial, to involve themselves in giving briefings in the Tory party leadership campaign? Mr. Bernard Ingham is being used by the Prime Minister not as an impartial civil servant but as someone giving press briefings rubbishing the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine). Is that in order?
Mr. Speaker: I understand that Mr. Bernard Ingham has been giving press briefings for about 10 years
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that the Queen calls on someone to take on the responsibility of Prime Minister? Do you therefore agree that, regardless of any ballot being held for the leadership of the Tory party—and much canvassing is taking place on the Conservative Benches as well as outside—it is entirely for Her Majesty to decide who will be Prime Minister? Therefore, it is likely that the present Prime Minister will continue in office regardless of any leadership ballot
Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer such questions. First, I am not in any way involved because I have no vote, or anything like that. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question, but I understand that discussions of this kind are going on and no doubt we shall hear more about them
Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker
Mr. Speaker: I have already called the hon. Gentleman
Mr. Corbyn: This point of order is on a totally different subject. You may have heard on last night's news that a substantial number of Conservative Members have threatened to resign the Whip if the vote goes in a certain way. At what point do you, Mr. Speaker, or the House, get an opportunity to decide whether whoever emerges as the Tory party leader can command a majority in the House? That should be a matter for the House rather than for the market
Mr. Speaker: It is certainly not a matter for the Chair.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.37 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time
  Mr. Speaker: I have selected the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition
  Mr. Brooke: The Bill is presented at a time when we have recently had further tragic confirmation of the ability of terrorists, both republican and so-called loyalists, to bring death and misery to men and women not just in Northern Ireland, but throughout the United Kingdom and beyond. I do not want now to rehearse the details of the present security situation, in which so far this year 71 people have died in Northern Ireland alone as a direct result of the security situation. They were mostly civilians, but the total included 11 members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and 15 members of the armed forces, including eight from the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  All of us are all too familiar with the litany of suffering caused by terrorists seeking to promote their political objectives by violence and the threat of violence—violence all the more atrocious because it is so completely futile. Each of us also, as we take part in the debate, will recollect particular incidents which have made an especially deep impression on us personally and which must inevitably influence our approach to the issues that we are debating.
  Since that is so, I do not need to spend time explaining why the Government will not rest until Northern Ireland is cleansed of the abomination of terrorism. I do not need to justify to the House why the Government seek to maintain the rule of law, or why we have a duty to ensure that all the people of Northern Ireland must be free to express their political opinions without inhibition, fear of discrimination or reprisal, or why we have a duty to defend the democratically expressed wishes of the people of Northern Ireland against those who try to promote political objectives, including a change in the status of Northern Ireland, by terror
  Mr. David Winnick: Like all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have always strenuously opposed terrorism and condemned the IRA and its sister organisation on the opposite side of the sectarian divide. There is no justification for terrorism. I oppose the campaign of terrorism that has been going on for 20 years. Ireland is no more united now than it was on the day in 1970 when the IRA started its bombing activities. However, is not it essential that, while those who are found guilty by the courts of such crimes should be imprisoned, those who are found guilty but are seen to be innocent should be released? Therefore, would not it be acting in the interests of the rule of law that, if the Birmingham Six are not guilty—hardly anyone believes that they are—they should be released as soon as possible? That would improve relations between Ireland and this country
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was more like a speech. Even if he had made that point in a speech later in the proceedings, it could well have been out of order in the context of this Bill.
  Nor do I need to persuade the House of the need to ensure that the police, supported so long as is necessary by the armed forces, have the resources that they require to undertake their difficult and dangerous work on behalf of the whole community, or why we need to provide in Northern Ireland a legal framework within which the security forces can act to defeat terrorism. Nevertheless, simply because the crimes committed by terrorists are so heinous, because they are such an affront to human decency and to the civilised values that we share with our friends throughout the world, and because these terrible deeds move us to great and justified anger, I should like to make clear to the House the Government's strategy to defeat terrorism and to explain how the Bill is an integral part of that strategy.
  Indeed, it is because I regard it as essential that the House and the wider public should be in no doubt what our policies are for eradicating the scourge of terrorism that, as right hon. and hon. Members will recall, I issued a statement to coincide with the introduction of the Bill setting out the general principles that inform the Government's security policy in Northern Ireland.
  The House will forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I do not go through that document in detail now, although I commend it to right hon. and hon. Members for further study. I would draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to one sentence in that statement, for it is perhaps the most important of all:
  "the Government is determined that terrorism will be defeated through the even-handed and energetic enforcement of the criminal law".
  There is something so fundamental here that I believe that I should explain why the Government are in no doubt that our response to terrorism must be conducted within the framework of the rule of law. It is, quite simply, because our adherence to the rule of law, in the face of the most atrocious provocation, as well as to democratic procedures and the principles of justice that sustain our civilisation, demonstrates why terrorism should not win and why it cannot win. For terrorism, by its very nature, represents a relapse into barbarism and savagery that unites the entire civilised world in determined and unquenchable opposition.
  For these reasons, too, we believe that, so far as possible, our response to the terrorist threat should be based on the ordinary criminal law of Northern Ireland. This means that the courts and security forces are constrained by the law. Suspects will be treated as innocent until proved guilty; they will be prosecuted on the basis of proper evidence adduced in open court and tested to proper standards; and witnesses for and against the accused will be produced for open examination. In short, those accused of involvement in terrorist activities will be accorded essentially the same treatment, both in terms of prosecution and defence, as other persons suspected of ordinary crimes. They are tried and, if found guilty, punished for those crimes in a way that ensures that justice is both done and seen to be done. This reflects the deep truth that terrorist methods, whatever their purported objectives, are simply criminal—and should be tried as such.

  25
  Nevertheless, successive Governments have recognised that some modifications to the ordinary law are needed to deal with the terrorist emergency in Northern Ireland. This will hardly surprise right hon. and hon. Members, since it is one of the terrorists' main objectives to bring this about, as part of their campaign to undermine the basic institutions of the state and to provoke the authorities to measures that will be judged oppressive and cause us to lose the confidence and support of the community at large. That is why Governments have sought consistently to limit these departures from the normal criminal law, both in extent and in time, and to ensure that such exceptional measures as are needed are strictly proportionate to the terrorist threat.
  At the same time, we need to ensure that the police, and the armed forces in their support, as well as the institutions of government generally, and the legal system in particular, are equipped under the rule of law to respond effectively to the terrorist threat—to have the power, so far as possible, to deter and interdict terrorist operations, to reassure the population, and, above all, to enable the police to bring the successful prosecution of terrorist criminals before the courts
  Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman speaks with such sublime confidence that everyone who is found guilty of terrorism is guilty that I find his speech extremely worrying. In Northern Ireland, there are the Diplock courts, with their lack of juries and many other things of that nature, and in this country we now realise that many who are innocent have been found guilty of various offences and have been in gaol for 15 or 16 years. Does not the right hon. Gentleman worry about this to some extent? What is happening in Northern Ireland is possibly even worse than what is happening in this country
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman takes up a matter which was introduced by the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and which does not relate specifically to the Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) has drawn attention to the workings of the Diplock courts and, if I understood him rightly, he cast aspersions. I wish to reject those aspersions from the Government Dispatch Box
  Mr. Winnick: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for intervening a second time. Does not he see the relevance—[ Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) would stop mumbling. He has not spoken about these matters previously
  Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: The hon. Gentleman does not give anyone a chance to speak
  Mr. Winnick: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely important that there should be full faith in the rule of law in this country and that the Dublin Government, as well as the Governments of other countries, including the United States of America, should understand that if a miscarriage of justice occurs, as with the Guildford Four and almost certainly with the Birmingham Six, it will be put right within our democratic system? Is not this relevant to trying to persuade people from abroad that the campaign against terrorism is one
  26
  which we take extremely seriously and that if miscarriages of justice occur they will be put right at the first opportunity?
  Mr. Brooke: I repeat what I have already said to the hon. Members for Hillsborough and for Walsall, North. In the hope of deflecting the hon. Member for Walsall, North and dissuading him from making a further intervention, I shall respond by saying that, while I and no doubt every other hon. Member regret any miscarriage of justice, we can take pride in the fact that the resolution of cases where there has been a reversal of previous judgments has been conducted within the normal process of the law and not as a result of any direct political intervention.
  In practice, I hope that the House will readily understand that a permanent balance has to be struck between maintaining the ordinary procedures of the criminal law, along with effective procedures to guarantee individual rights and liberties, and such departures as are strictly necessary to enable us to confront and ultimately defeat the special character of the terrorist challenge.
  Rev. Ian Paisley rose——
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn rose——
  Mr. Brooke: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Should not it be emphasised by the Secretary of State that the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six had jury trials? They were not found guilty under the Diplock court procedure. Will the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the assertion that has been made about Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening and supporting me and confirming what I have already said to the hon. Member for Hillsborough. The hon. Member for Antrim, North is correct.
  Although the Government do not rule out any workable and lawful measure——
  Mr. Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brooke: I shall finish this sentence first.
  Although the Government do not rule out any workable and lawful measure that may be necessary to defeat terrorism, we are convinced that if a lasting peace is to be achieved in Northern Ireland it will be secured in the long run only through sustained and vigorous application of the criminal law against all wrongdoers, from whichever side of the community they come
  Mr. Corbyn: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this subject, will he tell us what progress is being made in investigating violations of the law as it applies in Northern Ireland by the armed forces in the past and what investigations have been made into the shoot-to-kill policy that has been applied by the security forces in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that we all want to bring peace to Ireland and that to do so there must be a political strategy and a political dialogue? Can he give us any news on how that is developing?
  Mr. Brooke: Seductive though Opposition Members may be, I have some idea of the length of the speech that I must deliver in support of the Bill on Second Reading. Perhaps a discussion on political developments should

  27
  wait for another day. The hon. Gentleman asked a leading question. There is no shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland, and there never has been one. As he well knows, all allegations about such episodes have been investigated.
  Sir David Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland, and that it is operated by the Provisional IRA? They are the only people who operate such a policy
  Mr. Brooke: I agree factually with my hon. Friend, but for the purposes of this debate I am defending the Government's policy. If I make some progress with the Bill, it may assist the House.
  The essential purpose of the Bill is to re-enact, with amendments and additions, the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987, together with part VI of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, following the report by Lord Colville earlier this year. The Bill would usefully bring together in one piece of legislation all the anti-terrorism provisions that apply uniquely to Northern Ireland.
  I have explained that our strategy is to defeat terrorism by the resolute application of the rule of law. From that premise, it follows that our duty is to ensure that the law is effective for that purpose. As I explained when the Bill was introduced on 8 November, for the moment and for the foreseeable future that law must contain provisions that recognise the exceptional threat terrorism continues to pose. That is the purpose of emergency legislation. We must provide the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces, as well as the courts, with the legal means that they need to protect the community effectively and to defeat terrorism. At the same time, we must continue to provide appropriate safeguards for those accused or suspected of terrorism. I attach no lesser value to the latter than to the former. We must have both in our legislation and I believe that, taken as a whole, the Bill represents an appropriate response to both concerns.
  Emergency legislation is, by its very nature, something out of the ordinary. Because of its exceptional character, it has to be kept under constant review. Parliament recognised that when it decided that the current emergency provisions Acts should have a fixed, five-year life, expiring in May 1992, and that the principal provisions should be subject to annual review in both Houses. Right hon. and hon. Members will note that identical procedures are recommended for the Bill before us, should it be enacted. I would add only that, when the need for a particular provision no longer existed, it would remain the policy of the Government to repeal it or allow it to lapse as a step towards greater reliance on the ordinary criminal law
  Mr. Corbyn: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. He will recall that the European Court of Human Rights expressed grave reservations about the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989. Is he satisfied that the Bill will meet the requirements of that court on holding prisoners without access to legal representatives?
  Mr. Brooke: I should not bring this legislation before the House unless I had such confidence in it. If a case were to arise under the convention, it would take its course and the Government would defend their policy.
  As I said, it would remain the Government's policy to repeal legislation or to allow it to lapse when the need for it no longer existed. That time, however, is not yet. For the reasons that I have already given, I wish that it were and, for those same reasons the House may be sure that the Government would not be bringing forward this Bill now were we not fully persuaded that its provisions were entirely necessary. Right hon. and hon. Members will have noted that Lord Colville concluded that the basic measures currently available to the police, the armed forces and the courts remain necessary. There will, of course, be an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members to debate the merits of the various proposals in the Bill over the coming weeks. I simply make the point now that the ordinary criminal law and trial procedures are not in all respects adequate to deal with the special problems of terrorism as they now exist, so additional measures remain sadly necessary. That is not, of course, a phenomenon unique to terrorist crimes; it is recognised equally in the case of drugs and fraud, for example, for which special legislation exists. The Government therefore have no hesitation in bringing forward this Bill. It is central to our common fight against terrorism in Northern Ireland.
  As I turn my attention now towards the detail of the Bill, I should like to express the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government to Lord Colville for what we regard as a thorough, incisive and constructive report. As the House will know, Lord Colville has now been reviewing the emergency provisions Acts for some years, as well as the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1989, and his expertise is apparent for all to see in his report. I commend him for his report, which was valuable to Government and, I am sure, will be valuable to the House generally in its deliberations. I should also like to thank all those others, including the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and the Irish Government, who have given us the benefit of their advice.
  As will by now be apparent to the House, the greater proportion of the Bill, in line with Lord Colville's recommendations, is a straight re-enactment of existing provisions. That should be clear to right hon. and hon. Members from the explanatory and financial memorandum. I therefore hope that the House will bear with me if I do not devote too much time to those sections of the Bill that would essentially re-enact the existing provisions. Naturally, I recognise that simply because a provision is being re-enacted does not mean that it does not merit debate. But as the existing provisions are very familiar to the House, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members would regard it as a better use of our time if I were to concentrate on the new provisions rather than those which are already established.
  It may assist the House if I give a brief outline of the structure of the Bill, highlighting the new powers about which I will say more later. Part I of the Bill replaces, without significant amendment, part I of the 1978 Act. It continues the category of scheduled offences and makes provisions for trials on indictment for scheduled offences to be conducted by the court without a jury. It provides that bail in such cases can be granted only by the High Court or Court of Appeal and contains special rules on the admissibility of confessions by persons charged with

  29
  scheduled offences, and for reversing the onus of proof in relation to offences of possession of firearms and explosives. Part I also provides for the granting of remission for persons convicted of scheduled offences and for the reactivation of the remitted portion of earlier sentences. Those provisions are currently found in part VI of the prevention of terrorism Act 1989.
  Part II of the Bill replaces, with amendments, part II of the 1978 Act. It confers powers on the police and armed forces to enter premises without warrant, to search for munitions, radio transmitters and receivers, and for persons unlawfully detained, and for the purpose of arresting terrorists. It provides the police and armed forces with powers of arrest and seizure; powers to stop and question, and to search persons in public places; and powers of entry and interference with rights of property and with roads. The power of seizure for the armed forces is provided for the first time. That part also creates a new offence of bypassing closed border crossing points and a new power to allow the police and armed forces to examine documents and other recorded data.
  Part III replaces, with one significant addition, part III of the 1978 Act. It continues the category of proscribed organisations for Northern Irleand, and offences relating to membership of and support for such organisations. It also creates offences relating to the unlawful collection of information likely to be useful to terrorists; training in the making or use of firearms and explosives; and the wearing in public places of masks, hoods or other articles to conceal identity. This part also creates a new offence of possessing items intended for terrorist purposes.
  Part IV, together with schedule 3, re-enacts the power of executive detention. Part V replaces, with amendments, part III of the 1987 Act, and makes provision for the regulation of security guard companies in Northern Ireland.
  Part VI replaces, without amendment, part II of the 1987 Act. It contains statutory rights for persons arrested and detained under the terrorism provisions in police custody to have a person informed of their arrest and whereabouts, and to have access to legal advice. It also makes new provision to allow the police to take fingerprints without consent from terrorist suspects, in line with the law in Great Britain.
  Part VII replaces, without amendment, existing provisions in the 1978 Act and the prevention of terrorism Act 1989. It provides for the Secretary of State to make regulations for promoting the preservation of the peace and the maintenance of order. It re-enacts the provision that widened the grounds on which the Secretary of State may reject applications for licenses for new explosives factories and magazines, currently found in part IV of the prevention of terrorism Act 1989. It provides for the payment of compensation by the Secretary of State in respect of property taken, occupied, destroyed or damaged by members of the security forces. This part also contains a new power to enable the Secretary of State to make codes of practice governing the exercise of the emergency powers by the police and armed forces. Part VIII contains supplementary provisions.
  That, is a brief outline of the contents of the Bill. Generally speaking, and with certain exceptions that I will come to in a moment, the re-enactment of the various provisions, either with or without amendment, is in line with Lord Colville's recommendations.
  30
  I should now like to spend a few moments examining some of the new or otherwise prominent provisions of the Bill. I propose, therefore, to deal in turn with executive detention, the proposed new offence of possession of items intended for terrorist purposes, the proposed new power to examine documents and the proposed new powers in relation to border crossing points.
  I suspect that the first thing that may have struck many right hon. and hon. Members when they first read the Bill was that the provisions relating to executive detention have been retained. Here we have not accepted Lord Colville's recommendation. I make no apology for this. The Government are determined to keep available a comprehensive range of responses to terrorist violence in the Province. Although the precise circumstances in which detention would be reintroduced are not at present identifiable, and while there are no current plans to do so, the Government continue to believe that the outright repeal of the provisions would be mistaken, especially as, should the introduction of internment ever be needed, it may well be needed quickly, which would not be possible without the necessary powers on the statute book. Also, it may be of interest to right hon. and hon. Members to be reminded that the Republic of Ireland has an analogous power of internment available to it.
  I shall now turn to some of the new provisions in the Bill
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have never voted against the emergency provisions legislation, on the grounds that I operated it and that I have no right to change my mind when I am in opposition. However, I am of a mind to vote against the Bill tonight because of the issue that the Secretary of State has just passed over—executive detention—which has not been used since February 1975 and was ended at the end of 1975. There must be a better justification for including this important issue in legislation if it is not being used. If the Government wanted to use it, they should come back to the House of Commons and justify it because, as Gardiner showed, the legislation I inherited was not good—it sullied the law and had an effect abroad. Surely there must be a better justification than merely saying, "One might need it." One could not possibly introduce detention on the same principle as before
  Mr. Brooke: I am familiar with the arguments for and against executive detention, with which the right hon. Gentleman will also be familiar, and to which he has in part alluded. The fact remains that, if one wished to deploy those powers, it would need to be done promptly and in such a way that terrorists had no warning that one was proposing to do it. The powers on the statute book require the Government—by the procedure of order—to justify what they have done after the event. If one had to go through parliamentary procedure before engaging in executive detention, the purpose of that detention would be lost. As I said a moment ago, the circumstances under which it might be used are remote. The Government's view is that it should be retained on the statute book.
  In chapter 2 of his report, Lord Colville examined difficulties confronting the police and armed forces in Northern Ireland and considered the case for additional powers to—and I quote his report—
  "assist them to counter the changing and more sophisticated methods of operation now adopted by terrorists".

  31
  One such difficulty referred to by Lord Colville is that the terrorists are increasingly using and adapting for use as components in their improvised weapons and bombs a range of everyday articles which have otherwise innocent, lawful purposes. He says that it was put to him that
  "there are now various articles which, though harmless in themselves, are so closely associated with terrorist activities that possession of them, in circumstances giving rise to reasonable suspicion of connection with terrorism, should be a new offence: the onus of disproving the suspicious circumstances should lie on the possessor".
  He illustrates the argument by referring to adhesive tape, plastic drums, bell-pushes, coffee grinders, kitchen scales and nylon fishing line which, though innocent items in themselves, can, he quotes
  "also have very sinister applications".
  Lord Colville therefore recommends that, to remedy the current deficiency whereby persons caught in possession of items of use to terrorists, in suspicious circumstances, can evade prosecution, a new offence should be created of
  "going equipped for acts of terrorism".
  The Government have accepted that recommendation in principle and acted upon it. The Bill therefore contains a new offence of possession of items intended for terrorist purposes, in clause 29, modelled on Lord Colville's proposal. We believe that this will assist in the bringing of prosecutions against those who are responsible for acquiring, storing and using the equipment on which the terrorist campaign depends, as well as those who are intent on using it themselves.
  In chapter 2, Lord Colville also examined the difficulty confronting the police and armed forces over the examination of documents. He explained, in paragraph 2·6(d), that
  "messages, information about targets and other useful material may have to be reduced to writing on inconspicuous pieces of paper or innocent-looking documents, as being the only safe means of communication."
  There is thus a clear mischief to be remedied. There have been many examples in recent times of terrorists storing information in writing or other forms. Lord Colville's solution to this problem was to recommend that we should wait and see how the existing law, in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, develops. He made no recommendation for a new power. However, the Government regard this as such a damaging omission that it would be unsafe to leave it uncorrected. As the law now stands, the advantage lies very much in the terrorists' favour and the Government have decided that action was necessary, both to make the terrorists' life more difficult and to increase the police's and armed forces' chances of obtaining hard evidence.
  Right hon. and hon. Members will notice that the new power, which is found in clause 22, is tied explicitly to clause 30, the offence of collecting information useful to terrorists. As the law stands at present, it is an offence, under section 22 of the 1978 Act, which clause 30 replaces, to collect information about members of the judiciary, the police, the armed forces and the prison service and others, which would be useful to terrorists, yet there are no powers for the security forces to look explicitly for such information. The new provision is intended to remedy that anomaly. However, the Bill is drafted in such a way that searches under the new power would be limited to the extent reasonably required for ascertaining whether
  32
  information likely to be useful to terrorists was present. In the Government's view, neither this new power nor the new offence of possession will be applied in such a way that any law-abiding member of the public would have any reason to fear. The decision to prosecute in the case of the new offence would rest with the independent Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland; the exercise of the new power of examination would be determined by joint operational directives to be issued by the Chief Constable and the GOC.
  In chapter 13 of his report, Lord Colville drew attention to the problem of the illegal reopening or bypassing of closed border crossing points. As right hon. and hon. Members know, there has been a concerted campaign to reopen or bypass crossing points over the past 18 months. The Government recognise that the closure of border crossing points can cause inconvenience to local communities, but I assure the House that these crossing closures are vital in the interests of security. To quote Lord Colville,
  "not only are the security forces extremely sensitive to the dangers from such illegal vehicular access, but their apprehensions are shared by many of the civilian population, in border areas".
  The illegal reopening or bypassing of closed border crossings can therefore present the most serious risk in security terms because they can allow terrorists to move weapons or explosives across the border or to mount attacks. Given these dangers, it is imperative that certain crossing points remain closed. The Government have therefore inserted a new offence in the Bill, relating to the bypassing of closed border crossings. This will reinforce the offence in the existing legislation of interfering with closed crossing points. We have also created a new power to enable members of the armed forces to seize equipment used in the illegal reopening or bypassing of such crossings. Such a power is already available to the police, but, such is the nature of patrolling in border areas, they are not always present. Hence the need to close a loophole from which only terrorists and their fellow travellers benefit.
  I turn now to the subject of codes of practice. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Government published in July a non-statutory guide to the exercise by the police and armed forces of certain powers under the emergency legislation in Northern Ireland. We are currently monitoring the effectiveness of that guide. Representations were made to Lord Colville, as they have been in the past, that an alternative approach would be to have statutory codes of practice and Lord Colville recommends that we take an enabling power in case the guide proves inadequate. The Government accept his recommendation and such powers are therefore to be found in clauses 48 and 49.
  There are also a few other matters arising out of Lord Colville's report on which I should like to comment. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, another of Lord Colville's recommendations was that interviews with terrorist suspects should be recorded, without sound, on video and that consideration should be given to trials in tape recording such interviews, in parallel with the current trials in Great Britain. The House will want to know that the Government have considered these proposals very carefully. We acknowledge that there remains concern about police interview procedures with terrorist suspects and recognise that the introduction of sound or video

  33
  recording could have a beneficial effect on confidence in those procedures, as well as allowing allegations of ill-treatment to be controverted.
  Nevertheless, we have concluded, after the most careful consideration, that it would be wrong to proceed with Lord Colville's recommendations, although I would remind the House that, if we ever reach a different view, the change could be made without legislation—under the terms, for instance, of the kind of code of practice to which I have just referred. The Government believe that the introduction of video recording could seriously jeopardise the usefulness of the interview process, which remains crucial to the police in their efforts to deal with terrorism effectively. Nor do we believe that video recording would, in itself, remove completely the scope for allegations to be made
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: Is the Secretary of State suggesting that interviews that take place in police stations as a result of detention under the emergency legislation are a substantial means of obtaining information in Northern Ireland? I thought that one of the elements that we had to protect in Northern Ireland was that the emergency provisions should be implemented only where there was accurate suspicion about a person's involvement and that one should not trawl for information. That must be made very clear to the Secretary of State
  Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is of course justified in intervening on a matter which I understand causes him concern. However, the Government have made up their mind on an issue on which the Bennett commission of inquiry into interrogation procedures in Northern Ireland passed a view a decade ago. We closely examined whether there had been any changes in the pattern both of activity and policy during the intervening decade. The Bennett commission recommended that video recordings should not be introduced. We decided, on the basis of what had occurred during the intervening decade, that at this stage we would not be justified in changing the law, although, as I said a few moments ago, we should not need the Bill in order to do that.
  As for audio-taping, we do not believe that the time is right to conduct trials in connection with terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland. The police in Northern Ireland have little experience with tape recording, even in ordinary cases, at present, but we shall obviously study carefully the results of the trials involving terrorist suspects currently under way in Great Britain.
  There is also the question of ensuring effective complaints mechanisms to which, like the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding, I attach the highest importance. As I explained in my statement on security policy, the public have a right to expect the highest standards of behaviour from police officers and members of Her Majesty's forces. Activity or actions falling short of those standards will never be condoned. Indeed, the Government believe that anyone who has a genuine cause for complaint about the conduct of a police officer or a member of the armed forces should use the procedures that exist for the investigation of such complaints. It is against that background that we are paying special attention to what Lord Colville has to say on this subject in chapter 5 of his report and we shall return to this subject as the Bill progresses.
  34
  Effective action to curtail and disrupt the financing of terrorism is a vital element in the Government's strategy for defeating terrorism. Accordingly, the law in this area was substantially strengthened by the enactment last year of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. That Act created three new offences in connection with the handling of funds intended for terrorist use. First, it relieved banks and other financial institutions of their obligations to confidentiality where a terrorist connection was suspected. Second, it gave new powers to the police, acting with the express authority of a court or, in Northern Ireland only and exceptionally, of the Secretary of State, to search premises and examine records, including financial records in appropriate cases. Third, it provided new powers of restraint and confiscation for the courts in connection with the new offences.
  These new powers have already proved valuable, particularly in relation to investigation. However, as Lord Colville indicated in his report, there may be scope for further tightening of the law in this area and, while I would not wish to speculate further at this stage, the Government have not ruled out the possibility of further changes
  Mr. Corbyn: Many people are concerned about the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. Does the Secretary of State think it right that those who have been before the courts in this country, originally arrested under that Act and subsequently released by the court because no case was found against them, should be made the subject of a banishment order signed by the Secretary of State to prevent them from returning to England, Wales or Scotland? Does the Secretary of State think that that is a due process of law which ought to be on the statute book of this country
  Mr. Brooke: The decision that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would take in those circumstances would be based on the facts of those cases. I am aware that there have been such cases. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not hesitate to raise them as and when they occurred. However, I do not regard the process as inappropriate in terms of the activities against which the legislation is directed.
  Finally, the House will wish to know that I intend, shortly, to bring forward a proposal for a draft Order in Council to give effect to certain of Lord Colville's recommendations that would more appropriately be dealt with by that form of legislation than by this Bill, since their effects are not confined to the emergency law. These are the recommendations in paragraph 7.3. about remands into police custody and paragraph 16.4. on the copying of documentary exhibits. My intention is that this order should be made at about the time that the Bill will receive Royal Assent.
  I have given a lengthy explanation of the general background to and the detail of the Bill. I hope that that has been helpful to the House. I simply conclude by reaffirming the Government's determination that the people of Northern Ireland should be protected from terrorism. Her Majesty's Government will continue to take whatever measures are necessary, within the framework of law, to purge terrorism from Northern Ireland and we regard this Bill as making a vital contribution to the achievement of that goal. It is, naturally, not the only weapon in our armoury against terrorism: we shall, for example, continue to co-operate

  35
  closely on security with the Government of the Republic of Ireland and our other friends abroad. We shall also continue to implement effective measures in the political, social and economic fields, which are designed to promote equality of treatment, economic prosperity and stable democratic institutions—measures which are both good in themselves—but which will also complement and reinforce the work of the security forces, about which the hon. Member for Islington, North asked me earlier.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether, in keeping with what he says about co-operating closely on security with the Government of the Republic of Ireland, he had full discussions with Mr. Collins on this Bill? Mr. Collins has savagely attacked him and repudiated him
  Mr. Brooke: I do not detect in the hon. Gentleman's question the total constructiveness and support which I usually associate with his interventions. I detected an element of mischief in that inquiry. I should be the first to acknowledge that the Minister for Foreign Affairs and I had a purposeful conversation about the legislation and that we did not necessarily see eye to eye on every point.
  The Bill is nevertheless a most important part of that armoury, for we believe that it represents a fair and proportionate response to the current terrorist threat and that it will provide the courts and the security forces with the legal resources that they need to combat terrorism effectively, while still providing reasonable safeguards to protect the rights of individuals who fall under suspicion. It is, above all, a Bill which should be welcomed in principle both by the House and men and women of good will in Northern Ireland and elsewhere who share our determination to write an end to the chapter of terrorism in the history of Northern Ireland.
  Finally, I should like to pay tribute to two groups who should be in our thoughts during this debate: first, the men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the armed forces in Northern Ireland. They remain the first line of defence for the whole community against the terrorist threat and I pay an unreserved tribute to their continuing courage, dedication and professionalism. They have shown a resolve to tackle terrorism from whichever section of the community it comes and they have demonstrated by their actions in upholding the law that they are worthy of the full support of all sections of the community in the Province. A similar tribute is deserved for the judiciary, court staff and members of the prison service.
  Secondly I pay tribute to the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, who continue to demonstrate a remarkable and outstanding resilience in the face of the most extreme provocation. I should like to leave them with this message: the Government treat with the utmost seriousness their duty to defend all the people of Northern Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, Unionist and Nationalist, against those who try to promote their political objectives, including a change in the status of Northern Ireland, by violence or the threat of violence. We shall continue our efforts, taking whatever measures are necessary within the law, for however long it takes, until terrorism is eradicated in Northern Ireland. Terrorist violence serves only to strengthen our resolve
  Mr. Terry Dicks: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will take every action possible to stop the obscene funerals of IRA terrorists being shown on television and being allowed to take place in the Province?
  Mr. Brooke: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that what occurs within the law should be discharged within the law.
  Terrorist violence serves only to strengthen our resolve. That message will bear repetition until it has been driven home. The Government are determined that the terrorists will never win. The Bill and the new provisions that it contains are designed to make our task easier.
  4.20 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  That this House, whilst asserting the need to maintain confidence in the rule of law and in the administration of justice as the fundamental basis for achieving a just and stable society in Northern Ireland, declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which fails to implement the main recommendations of Lord Colville's review of the current legislation by refusing to remove internment without trial from the Statute Book and failing to introduce the video-taping of interviews with terrorist suspects; to introduce the 'certifying in' of scheduled offences; to establish an ombudsman to consider the operation of complaints against the security forces and a statutory duty for the Commission of Human Rights to supervise the operation of the statute; and to consolidate and reform the law relating to the examination of witnesses at Coroners Courts, the use of public interest immunity certificates, and the abolition of the right of silence.
  The Secretary of State has already pencilled in for us the difficult background of atrocities, deaths, woundings, maimings, killings and explosions that take place in Northern Ireland. It is always a difficult time and, therefore, always a difficult task to move from the proper emotions that those dreadful atrocities raise within us to an objective examination of the proposed legislation. The Bill before the House reminds us of the extent to which civil liberties and individual freedoms have suffered in the past 10 years as a result of terrorist atrocities.
  At the end of his speech the Secretary of State paid a proper tribute to the security forces, the judiciary and the ordinary people of Northern Ireland who have suffered tremendous aggravation from men of violence from all parts of the community. I join him in that tribute. The people who seek to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland have a difficult task to carry out. They have been subject to many attacks on them, whether they are ordinary squaddies, members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or members of the judiciary or prison service. We are indebted to them for their tremendous dedication to their job in past years.
  The Labour party does not dispute the need in principle for emergency legislation dealing with the problems in Northern Ireland. It is obvious that the IRA and other similar groups take part in the most direct infringement of human rights in the Province, particularly of the basic human right to live. Therefore, the House must agree that the murderous assaults of the paramilitary must never be allowed to win the day.
  However, the Bill is not about the iniquities of the terrorists, on which we all agree, but about the correctness of the Government's responses to them. That is where we are in profound disagreement with some of the proposals.

  37
  Our opposition is one of principle. We believe that terrorism is best met by a firm application of the rule of law. That is what distinguishes the forces of the state from those of violent subversives and the men of violence. Far from weakening the Army and police in Northern Ireland, the need to work within the rule of law is a valuable reminder of their and, therefore, our moral superiority. The IRA would like nothing better than for the security forces to descend to its level and squabble in some sort of lawless gutter. The moment that such a thing happened would be the moment when the IRA and other men of violence had their victory.
  The security forces must stay above that fray. They must not slum it in the criminal underworld below. The rule of law is their most important weapon in the fight against terrorism. It is the security forces' rationale. It is the ultimate guarantee that fairness and justice will eventually triumph within the Province. It is not enough, however, merely to invoke the phrase, "the rule of law". We need to ask what those words mean, as few formulas can have become so weakened by unreflective over-use in recent times. The Government constantly repeat their determination to maintain the rule of law, but they rarely explain the principles that underpin that commitment. That is entirely understandable, because discussion of those principles serves only to expose the degree to which the Government have, regrettably, drifted away from them in past years.
  The rule of law involves first and foremost the simple notion that we are all—Ministers, the police, the Army, the UDR, the SAS, hon. Members, as well as ordinary citizens —bound by that same law. There should be no special rules for, or treatment of, any class of or groups of persons, no matter how eminent. Of equal fundamental importance is the idea that the law should be certain. It should not leave too much to the discretion of law enforcement officers. It should not be changed simply because parts of it prove inconvenient or aggravating to the authorities. The rule of law is a package of rights, not a menu of options. It is not for the Government to obey only those bits that are palatable and to dispense with the rest.
  There may be occasions when it is necessary to depart from the normal circumstances that are associated with the idea of the rule of law. That is always the dilemma of democracy and that is what we are discussing today
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is not the hon. Gentleman talking nonsense? Is not the law what a democratically elected Parliament decides? Therefore, what is proposed here would be the rule of law. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is human rights. If he is considering whether there should be any diminution of human rights for those who perpetrate, or are suspected of perpetrating, terrorist acts, he is talking about something entirely different from the rule of law
  Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, he may use his definition of the rule of law and I shall use mine—one that the ordinary citizen understands as being the rule of law
  Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman and I are laymen. Would he expect the law to be based upon the highest evaluation of human rights? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the law should reflect such an evaluation?
  Mr. McNamara: I agree with my hon. Friend and that is why any diminution of those rights must be carefully examined and fully justified. It is not for the Government to obey only those bits of the law that they find palatable and to dispense with the rest.
  There may be occasions when it is necessary for the Government to depart from the normal standards that are associated with the rule of law. As I said, that is what we are discussing today—it is our dilemma and a dilemma for democracy. The need for emergency provisions legislation —a fact which we do not dispute—demonstrates that that is the case. Such changes, however, must be few and definite. They must be those that are judged absolutely necessary and must be strictly proportionate to the harm that they are intended to counter. They must be temporary, so that the need for their continuance is regularly assessed. They must be kept constantly under review, so that their exceptional nature is never forgotten. There is not, and never should be, any such thing as an every-day emergency, just as there never should be any such thing as an acceptable level of violence. Special powers should be dispensed with, despite continuing violence, if it is judged that the level of disorder no longer warrants their continued existence. A need in 1978 is not necessarily a need in 1990.
  The IRA is still killing and maiming, but it must not be allowed to determine our agenda of what should or should not be in the law. By its actions it should not be allowed to have any veto on modifications to our emergency laws. If there is one word that encapsulates the idea behind the rule of law it is fairness. In a divided community, fairness is the key element in making the legal system function.
  If the law is even handed and is seen to be such, it can have a vital role in fostering reconciliation between the communities in the Province. If the law is seen to be equal in its treatment of all, it will be much easier to wean communities away from the violent subversives that some of them presently support. Conversely, if the law is perceived as unequal and partisan, or it is believed that it protects some and punishes others, it will be disregarded and treated as just another alienating emblem emanating from the other side. Therefore, the rule of law should not only give us the standards that make us different from the terrorists, but provide us with a way of demonstrating, our good will and commitment to fair play in the communities where this message needs to be heard most clearly.
  As a result of our commitment to a real rule of law, we are compelled to oppose parts of the Bill. We have three main concerns. First, the Bill retains practically all the existing emergency powers contained in the previous Acts, but fails to consolidate all the other emergency law in the Province. Almost all the reforms suggested by Lord Colville in his most recent review have been unequivocally rejected. Secondly, the Bill proposes new laws which are extraordinarily broad and potentially very repressive. Thirdly, many of the crucial erosions in civil liberties that have occurred in recent years do not appear in the Bill. They lurk unnoticed and neglected in other legal nooks and crannies, despite the relevance to the issues with which the Bill affects to be concerned.
  In short, the Bill is in many respects repressive by reflex action. It consolidates only those laws that it suits the Government to consolidate, and adds unnecessarily to the plethora of restrictions that already inhibit freedom in the Province. If there is an advocate of liberty somewhere within the Government, his or her voice can hardly have

  39
  been heard. Certainly the Government did not heed Lord Colville when the broad outlines of the legislation were being sketched.
  Our first concern is the complete rejection of practically all Lord Colville's positive recommendations. Nowhere is that more evident than in the Government's total lack of liberal instincts in relation to the problem of internment without trial—or, as it is now called, "executive detention". Lord Colville called for an end to that power, but the Bill preserves it. Moreover, it allows for its introduction without further reference to the House or Parliament. We are assured by the Secretary of State that internment is not currently on the agenda. The memory of the catastrophe of 1971 is still fresh enough in people's minds—and, within it, the making of the Provisional IRA. There is no guarantee, however, that the temptation of the quick but disastrous internment fix will not be yielded to in the future. After a year of peaceful revolution in eastern Europe, and at a time when Britain is rightly critical of detention without trial in other places—Israel's in the occupied territories, for instance—it is ridiculous that this power should remain on the statute book.
  The preservation of internment powers is enough in itself to justify the rejection of the Bill. However, Lord Colville's recommendations have been disregarded in many other respects. He recommended that police interviews with terrorist suspects should be video-recorded so that allegations of brutality could be more easily controverted and public confidence in the police could thereby be improved. The cameras are already in place, but no provision for such a recommendation appears in the Bill. It was with sadness that I listened to the Secretary of State's attempt to justify its omission.
  Not only has the High Court recently awarded substantial compensation for injuries received in just such an interrogation in Castlereagh, but a member of the bench in Northern Ireland has added his voice to those calling for this elementary reform. It would be possible to introduce it, and to preserve secrecy and protection for those carrying out the interrogation, while ensuring people's basic safety, so that they will not be roughed up while they are being interrogated. To suggest that there might be the odd little corridor where someone could be roughed up, and to use that as an excuse for not having a video camera in the room where the interrogation is taking place, is an argument for having cameras in the corridors, not an argument for doing away with the idea of videoing
  Mr. Flannery: Can my hon. Friend think why the Government struggle so strenuously against what to most of us seems such an obvious move? Given the terrible circumstances that we have been living through for so many years, that is almost unbelievable. Has my hon. Friend any idea why the Government are resisting the idea?
  Mr. McNamara: I have no idea, because it is now possible, with all the scientific techniques and technological developments, to distort a face on a television screen if one is worried about the security of the interrogating officer. Therefore, it is possible for such matters to be overcome
  Mr. Mallon: With reference to the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), the
  40
  figures in relation to detentions under both the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978—the EPA—and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974—the PTA—show, as a former Minister confirmed in Committee when we were dealing with other legislation—and it is on record in Hansard—that legislation allows detention to be used to trawl for information. If there were a video record, with tape, of every interview that would become patently apparent. That is one of the reasons why I believe, as does the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), that the Secretary of State was slightly embarrassed when he dealt with the matter earlier. Can he say anything to dispel that belief?
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), but there is some confusion. Lord Colville recommended videoing, but without a tape recording of what was taking place, so the evidence of trawling for information would not have become evident. I do not want to delay the House on a great deal of detail this afternoon but, in Committee, we could also explore the issue of taping. I believe that we can use both video and tape recordings and should properly introduce safeguards to protect the security forces, but that is something to be discussed in Committee.
  Lord Colville thought that it would be a good idea to have a system of lay visitors to police stations or appoint an ombudsman-style figure to oversee the complaints procedure of both the Army and the police
  Mr. Barry Porter: The hon. Gentleman said that some of those matters are for Committee—indeed, the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech has been about Committee points. Does not he agree that it would be entirely appropriate for the Labour party to show that it is still in favour of emergency provisions for the peculiar, particular and unique difficulties in the Province and for there to be a bipartisan policy? I am willing, as I am sure the House is generally, for all the matters that the hon. Gentleman raises in relation to Lord Colville's points to be dealt with in Committee. If the Labour party does not show that it is in favour of such provisions it will be a sign to the Provisional IRA and other paramilitary organisations that there is no longer a bipartisan policy, which can only be the wrong signal
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear the start of my speech—I do not know whether he was asleep, not in the Chamber or indulging in mind wandering and not paying attention to what was being said. I specifically and directly said that the Labour party accepts the need for emergency legislation to deal with the particular problems in Northern Ireland
  Mr. Dicks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, I have given way a great deal and shall get on with my speech. The hon. Gentleman can make his speech later. The hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) said that I was making Committee points, which may be so, but they are of sufficient importance for the Secretary of State to feel it necessary to introduce them.
  I was talking of the appointment of an ombudsman-style figure to look at complaints against the Army and the police. The Secretary of State said that he would deal with that point later in the Bill. It would be helpful to the House

  41
  if we could have some sign from his right hon. Friend the Minister in his winding-up speech about the thoughts of the Secretary of State and the Government on the matter.
  Lord Colville also raised the possibility of an organisation such as the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights being required to keep emergency law under permanent review. The Bill makes no provision for that and Lord Colville's rejection goes even further. He made a number of recommendations geared towards returning to normality at some future date if the time were judged to be politically right. He suggested a new provision, to allow certifying-in to the Diplock no-jury courts rather than the present certifying-out procedure. The current system ensures that many cases end up before a single judge without a jury, even though they are suitable for jury trial. Lord Colville's proposal was aimed at redressing the imbalance. We believe that jury trials should be the norm, from which we should depart only in cases of clear necessity and we, therefore, support certifying-in. The Bill makes no provision for that.
  In a similar vein, Lord Colville suggested a couple of alterations that would ease the change to three-judge Diplock courts if that policy were adopted in future. The Bill makes no provision for that. Lord Colville also recommended that provision be made so that, at some point, the law governing confession evidence admissibility in emergency cases could be replaced by the mainstream standards to be found in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order. The Bill makes no such provision.
  Lord Colville's suggestions are not revolutionary and they are clearly well intended. They do no more than to provide a set of goals towards which to work. They highlight the desire to return to normality that should characterise our attitude to all emergency legislation. Yet not one of Lord Colville's proposals appears in the Bill. The Government have rejected wholesale the idea that emergency law should contain the seeds of its own termination.
  One could be forgiven for wondering why the Government asked Lord Colville to review their emergency provisions in the first place. Even many of his surely uncontroversial suggestions for a rationalisation of the law on arrest have not been accepted. Lord Colville must be wondering why he bothered to devote so much of his time to the task, although one cannot but join the Secretary of State in admiring his scholarship, hard work and attention to detail.
  One of Lord Colville's suggestions has, however, found favour with the Government. Predictably, it is on a matter in respect of which Lord Colville favoured a tightening of the law. That is our second concern. Clause 29(1) provides:
  "A person is guilty of an offence if he has any article in his possession in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the item is in his possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland."
  That goes wider than Lord Colville's proposal. It applies in, as well as outside, the home. The crime is the possession of something, no matter how innocent, that gives an official a "reasonable suspicion" of a terrorist involvement. No such terrorist involvement needs to be proved. The mere fact of the reasonable suspicion is enough to convict. In other words, the clause is designed to catch those against whom there is not, ordinarily speaking, sufficient evidence. As a result, a 10-year gaol
  42
  sentence could be meted out to somebody for the crime of being suspected. That is Kafkaesque nonsense. It is a complete departure from the principles of certainty and fairness which ought to characterise the rule of law. In practice, the clause is a charter for official harassment. Its discretionary implementation will cause far more damage than it will prevent and the Opposition oppose it most strongly.
  Finally, let me list the items that do not appear in the Bill, which is supposedly a consolidating measure, and so demonstrate the Government's deplorable selectivity in their approach to the rule of law. First, there is no provision to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that seven days detention without charge constitutes a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Government continue to derogate from that decision. If any other litigant were involved, such conduct would be called by its proper name —contemptuous disobedience. That is what characterises the Government's attitude to the European Court of Human Rights.
  Secondly, the Northern Ireland exclusion order power remains in force, despite pleas from successive authorities, including Lord Colville, for its repeal. Freedom of movement within the United Kingdom remains less protected than the same right in former communist countries of eastern Europe. We should all find that a source of shame were we not so inured to restrictive legislation.
  Thirdly, no effort has been made to address the questions and concerns raised by deaths caused by the security forces when on duty in Northern Ireland—a point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred. In recent years, such deaths have created controversy and have damaged confidence in the security forces. But there is no attempt to provide a mechanism that will allay public fears.
  Fourthly, those who cause such deaths do not even have to appear at the coroner's inquest. The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal would have compelled such attendance but it was overruled earlier this year by the House of Lords. So, as often happens, a completely innocent civilian—such as my constituents' brother—can be killed by the police or the Army in Northern Ireland without the responsible officers ever having to account for their action in any court, whether at a criminal tribunal or a coroner's inquest. No apparent manipulation of the rule of law causes more offence than that—that the relatives of a person killed in Northern Ireland should not be able to ask of the person who pulled the trigger on behalf of the security forces where, why, how and when that death was justified. The opportunity should now be taken to overturn that decision by the House of Lords.
  Fifthly, the law on immunity certificates should have been reformed, as such certificates further protect the security forces from the need to account for their actions to courts of law.
  Sixthly, we deplore the absence of any provision to restore the right of silence. That ancient right, removed by order in 1988, should be restored forthwith. It appears that a boxer in this country can use the right to silence before a criminal court but an innocent person in Northern Ireland cannot.
  The Bill shows that, to the Government, the rule of law has become little more than a piece of empty rhetoric to be applied when convenient but changed or disregarded when

  43
  it causes the slightest embarrassment or difficulty. That is not only wrong in principle; it is short-sighted, as the abuse of the rule of law heightens alienation and, by fostering dissent, makes a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland less rather than more likely. If the Government are not prepared to accept our amendment, I shall recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that—much though we recognise the need for proper emergency legislation in Northern Ireland—we should oppose the Bill.
  4.46 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As the Secretary of State was finishing his speech, I bowled him a ball and, clever cricketer that he is, he just blocked it. The House should be aware of the significance of that question and of the great significance of the answer given by the Secretary of State.
  I am sure that the House will be surprised to know that I had great difficulty in obtaining a copy of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Vote Office has no copies and the Library possesses one that the staff almost made me sign for. Article 2(a) says:
  "There is hereby established within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council set up after the meeting between the two heads of Government on 6 November 1981, an Intergovernmental Conference, (hereinafter referred to as 'the conference'), concerned with Northern Ireland and with relations between the two parts of the island of Ireland, to deal, as set out in this agreement, on a regular basis with … political matters; security and related matters; legal matters, including the administration of justice; and the promotion of cross-border co-operation."
  The House will see that the Bill comes into the category of
  "legal matters, including the administration of justice."
  The agreement continues:
  "The United Kingdom Government accept that the Irish Government will put forward views and proposals on matters relating to Northern Ireland within the field of activity of the Conference, in so far as those matters are not the responsibility of the devolved administration of Northern Ireland. In the interest of promoting peace and stability, determined efforts shall be made through the conference to resolve any differences."
  It is now evident that the agreement was not adhered to and, according to Mr. Collins, there was no such meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference, no such discussion and certainly no effort to reach agreement. Mr. Collins says that he will raise the matter after the House has given the Bill its Second Reading. He will read it and make strong criticism, which will come as no surprise to Northern Ireland people.
  I welcome what I might call the first obituary notice for the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I trust that we shall soon have discussions with the Secretary of State and with constitutional parties in Northern Ireland to see whether we can find a replacement for that agreement that will have a better chance of bringing about peace and stability and that ecumenical word that I do not like, reconciliation, in the Province. My idea of reconciliation is that both parts of Ireland should live in a neighbourly and peaceful manner and that people in Northern Ireland should do the same. People who have taken the ecumenical bandwagon want to put a theological slant on reconciliation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is by way of introduction to what I want to say about the Bill.
  I am amazed by some hon. Members who say that they are dedicated to civil rights and human rights and will
  44
  oppose the legislation. I am told that a letter from four Labour Members has appeared in The Cork Examiner. It calls upon the Government of the South of Ireland not to dare to extradite anybody wanted for crimes in England, Scotland and Wales because in such cases the courts in this part of the United Kingdom could not adjudicate fairly. How can those hon. Members tell the House that they are dedicated to civil rights and human rights and then tell the Government of the South that there is no chance of fair play and justice in our courts?
  Mr. Dicks: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that six Labour Members recently sent a letter to The Cork Examiner telling the Irish Government that they should not take part in the process of extradition because those extradited to Great Britain and Northern Ireland would not get a fair trial? The Opposition spokesman says that he is in favour of fighting terrorism. That is two-faced nonsense.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was not listening because one of his hon. Friends on the Front Bench had conspired to take his ear. I shall forgive the Front-Bench Member for doing that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming that the letter was sent by six Labour Members and not four.
  I believe in human rights and in civil and religious liberty for all men. As I have said about the Guildford Four, if it is found that in some way there was unfairness at a trial and that people should not have been sentenced, they should be released immediately and should receive adequate compensation. That is a principle. I do not agree with those who say when such things happen that the people were innocent. We do not know whether they are innocent. They were not proved to be guilty in a proper court of law, and under our law people are innocent until proved guilty. I have heard people say, "We know that they are absolutely innocent." I know people who have been released by the courts in Northern Ireland because something went wrong at their trial. Everybody knew that they were guilty and later they were proved to be guilty.
  Mr. Barry Porter: Is not it the case that in proper courts of law some people were found guilty as a result of perjured evidence, which is a very different matter?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: There were certainly times when a safe conviction could not be brought, and when that happens people should not be punished or imprisoned. That is my position. I have made it clear in public and I now do so in the House.
  I do not think that many hon. Members know what we are up against in Northern Ireland. They do not realise the seriousness of the situation. I shall give one example. I have been a minister of religion for 44 years and in the city of Belfast I have always visited the Royal Victoria hospital where the major operations are carried out. A few months ago my church secretary had a heart attack and I went to visit him in the Royal. Hon. Members would have been surprised at the number of Army personnel who had to be provided to get me to that hospital, take me along the corridor and put me into the ward to let me speak to one of my church members and read the scriptures, pray with him and give him Christian consolation. I had hardly left the ward when two IRA men appeared there demanding to know whom Ian Paisley had visited. My church secretary

  45
  almost passed away because of that. That incident took place a few months ago. I was at the hospital on Saturday visiting another parishioner and the same thing happened.
  The situation in the Province is not normal. We are talking about an emergency, but how long will it go on? We are dealing with a serious and difficult matter. We need laws which in a normal society we would not even think about and to which we would not give credence. Everybody in Northern Ireland has to sacrifice some of his civil liberties so that we may deal with those who would take from us the greatest liberty of all, the right to live.
  In a democratic state in the 20th century no woman should be stopped at the door of a shop to have her handbag thoroughly examined. That is taking away her rights because a woman has a right to have a handbag and whatever is in it. However, such rights have to be sacrificed. If they were not, the terrorists, who are having a field day, would have an even bigger one because they could get their explosives into every shop in the Province. We must face the fact that we are dealing not with a simplistic situation but with a serious one.
  Some hon. Members have the strange idea that if the constitutional parties get together and find some sort of agreement that is upheld by the House and by a vote in Northern Ireland, the IRA will go away. Anyone who believes that is a fool. If that came about, there would be even more serious violence in Northern Ireland because the rats caught in the trap would be prepared to take their violence to the very last ditch.
  The House would do well to remember the history of the Irish Republic. There was a time when it was in a similar situation to that in Northern Ireland now, although that part of Irish history is conveniently forgotten. De Valera's irregulars were engaged in a killing campaign. It was Ireland's own civil war—not war against the Black and Tans nor against the security forces, but brother killing brother, father killing son and son killing father. It was anarchy.
  The Irish Free State Government appointed a man called O'Higgins to be in charge of security in the Irish Republic. It would do hon. Members good to read his story. He knew more about Irish Republican violence than any hon. Member will ever know, for he was part of the original set-up. He knew that no amount of so-called democracy, parliamentary activity and conferences could get rid of that poison, so he took strong military action, even against his own friends. He even moved against a man who had at one time received a weapon from his own hands. Within four or five years there was peace, and De Valera had given up the irregulars and gone into politics. He eventually became Prime Minister and then President of the Irish Free State. What dealt with that Republican terrorism was not conferences or agreements but stern retribution for those who carried out acts of violence. The House needs to recognise that.
  In the meantime, the people of Northern Ireland must suffer, and they are suffering. I shall agree with every extra law that is needed to strengthen the hand of those who want to deal with the perpetrators of violence and terrorism in the community. Alas, if the House thinks that by passing the Bill we shall defeat the IRA, the House should be disillusioned. I am sad, although it should be some solace to Labour Members, that the Secretary of State has said that the Bill does not represent any change in the Government's security policy. If there is no change in security policy, the people of Northern Ireland had
  46
  better know that they will have a continuation of the bloodbath of the past 10 years. I say that with sorrow, but until there is a change in the security policy we shall make no progress.
  I am not unduly concerned with what the Bill proposes. These matters will not, as has been suggested, take yet more rights from the people of Northern Ireland. After all, the Labour Government carried out many of the policies included in the Bill. This is part of an overall welding together of legislation. If it was proper to say, "Yes we need these things," when it was in power, how can the Labour party say, now that the situation has worsened, that it is not right now? There has been a spiral of killings in the years since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. Violence is increasing, not decreasing, and it will be people in Northern Ireland who suffer, not Labour Members of Parliament.
  The Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six were not tried under the provisions of this Bill. They were tried under the provisions of English legislation, before a jury. I have never agreed with the abolition of jury trials. When the emergency provisions Bill was introduced, I said in Committee that it was wrong, and voted against abolition of jury trials. The Government won by only one vote, a vote of a Roman Catholic. He told me that he was persuaded by Mr. Rawlinson, who was the then Attorney-General, that it would be unfair to Roman Catholics if jury trials were not abolished. The Government of the day should have no credit for getting that vote in that way.
  We should be trying to get back to jury trials in Northern Ireland. I never accepted the argument that we could not have jury trials because members of the jury would be shot. If one can say that, one might as well say that one can never have a trial because all the witnesses will be shot, and they are more easily identifiable than the jury. However, I shall argue that case when the time comes, not now.
  Do hon. Members think that all the miscarriages of justice have been against pro-Republicans? Could not one, two or even five others have suffered from a miscarriage of justice? I was amazed that, when some hon. Members asked for information about the UDR four, the police dragged their feet and were not prepared to say anything definite. I do not want to pre-empt any answer that will be given on Thursday at Question Time, but I get alarmed when such things happen.
  Today, as we debate the Bill, we must tell the Government that their security policy, and that of successive Governments, whether Labour or Conservative, has not won the war against terrorism. Terrorists are stronger than ever. We are told that there are only about 300 active IRA members. I do not accept that, but if it is so, why are they not marked? Surely with 20,000 members of the security forces, we could deal with 300 IRA members. The Government have to deal with the IRA men in more covert operations. Those men have to realise that when they go out with a gun to kill and maim, the great deterrent is there. That is the only thing that will stop them, and on that the Government must change their policies.
  It is better to have a dead terrorist than four murdered members of the security forces. The person with the gun in his hand who intends to do murder must be halted. It is a sad thing, but it is what the people of Northern Ireland are saying. If one takes away life, one forfeits one's own. It was

  47
  a sad day when the clear commandment of God, that the Government have the power of the sword, was given up, and IRA lawlessness continues. A terrorist can kill one, two or even 50 people, but his life will not be forfeit.
  I am an ex-prisoner. I was imprisoned by the O'Neill Government and I am proud of my record. I was in prison recently for protesting about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and I noticed a tremendous change in prison conditions. It was an extremely nice cell. There was a beautiful radio and I had everything that I wanted. When I was imprisoned previously one had to be sentenced to three years' imprisonment before it was possible to have a radio. In those days we were not allowed to see television, but I found recently that prisoners could see television every night. There was an open canteen. I am all for prison reforms and decent conditions within prisons, but prison should be prison. If a prison ceases to be a prison, there is no deterrent. We must remember that that has happened in Northern Ireland and that there is no deterrent.
  Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman seems to complain bitterly that he was treated too leniently when he was in prison and seems to believe that he should have been treated more harshly. I have spoken many times in the House both before the hon. Gentleman has contributed to a debate and after he has spoken, and I have had the opportunity to weigh his arguments. He knows that I am passionately in favour of no one being killed if it is possible to ensure that killing does not take place. I am worried because it seems that the hon. Gentleman is coming close to advocating the law of the vigilante when he says, for example, "Everybody knew that he was guilty." Apparently, everyone knew that the Guildford Four were guilty. Lord Scarman is telling us that the Director of Public Prosecutions should get a move on in dealing with the Birmingham Six. We know that juries make mistakes in such cases. I have been told this afternoon that I have cast aspersions on the Diplock courts, but I regret that there is only one judge in a Diplock court. I am sorry also that there is no jury. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking against the democratic process that he says that he is advocating when he uses expressions such as, "Everyone knew that he was guilty."
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not intend to go down that road with the hon. Gentleman. As he said, we have crossed swords on many occasions. I shall merely say that after the stage to which I referred, the individual was proved guilty. Those who were present and witnessed the crime knew the guilt of the murderer. Northern Ireland is a small place. Nearly everyone is related to one another. It is dangerous to pass remarks about another because anyone who does that may find that he is the 32nd cousin of that person. Northern Ireland is not, obviously, England or London. It is a close-knit community. I see that even the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, agrees with me about that.
  In the case to which I referred, everyone new the facts, and eventually they emerged.
  Mr. McNamara: My relatives have told me about the hon. Gentleman.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I trust that no McNamara blood flows in my veins, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would reciprocate. Thank God no Paisley blood flows in his veins. If it did, the hon. Gentleman might have some trouble with his Church. That is a story for another day.
  There are people in Northern Ireland who will never have confidence in the police as long as the police have a crown above the harp. No matter what we do, no matter what legislation we introduce and no matter how fair the system is made, such people will not accept the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Its members may be the fairest of all people and they may deal with their responsibilities in the fairest possible way, but they will never be acceptable to some people. We cannot make everyone accept the RUC.
  Let us take as an example the Foreign Minister of the South, Mr. Collins. He has conducted a deliberate, vicious and lying campaign against the Ulster Defence Regiment. Before an Anglo-Irish Conference meeting takes place, he says that he will raise various matters about the UDR. But those matters are not raised at the conference. How do I know? I shall explain to the House. I happened to have a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and the Secretary of State after an Anglo-Irish Conference meeting. I went to the meeting in great anger, having listened to Mr. Collins speak in a television programme of what he would say about the UDR to the Secretary of State. I put my views to the Secretary of State and he smiled as he can—there was a twinkle in his eye—and said, "He never mentioned the UDR to me." A Foreign Minister is making trouble against the UDR. He is prepared to slam it, as it were, but he does not say, "There is a serious situation in Northern Ireland and the British Government need extra measures to deal with terrorism." There is not a word about that.
  I believe that I am entitled to say that if Mr. Collins can carry out a campaign against the UDR, as he has done, and then say that he is not prepared to accept that the British Government need extra measures to deal with the events that are taking place in Northern Ireland, we have a man who is not prepared to act, as he keeps saying he is, in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. We look upon him as a hypocrite and a liar for what he is doing in his campaign.
  Who are the UDR men? They are people who give up their sleep at night to look after all sections of the community. They are people who, with their families, are prepared to make sacrifices. I visited a cemetery in Castlederg, an area that is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). On turning to the right after entering the cemetery, all that one can see are the gravestones of UDR men. What do their wives and families think of the campaign that is being waged incessantly against them? I say that Mr. Collins is giving an excuse to the IRA to kill UDR men. That is what he does, and they are set on in that manner.
  I have a copy of the memorandum that was issued by the Secretary of State. It says that he has certain aims—I am glad that he has aims—and that he will maintain the rule of law and not let violence prevail. He then says that he will not keep back from the security forces the support that they need. It is strange that the police tell me that they have financial troubles and that they are not receiving the equipment that they need. They tell me that in certain areas they do not have the numbers of patrol cars that they need. It seems that they do not have sufficient personnel vehicles and armoured Land Rovers. They tell me that

  49
  their overtime is cut. They point to all the police stations that have only partial opening. That was the position in Loughgall and it is no wonder that the police station was blown up by the terrorists. It was a target and when the police were removed from it, it was blown up.
  I trust that the Secretary of State will listen to those who are actually involved in Northern Ireland, who are ordinary men. They must be certain that he will ensure that there is proper support for them. The Secretary of State says that in his memorandum he gives the assurance that violence will not succeed. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that violence will continue in the community. He says that he wants to pull the community away from supporting terrorism. As long as Sinn Fein members sit on councils and carry out the work of councillors—give advice and take people to the Housing Executive to deal with their complaints—that will not break the relationship between the IRA and the community.
  Mr. Mallon: Part of the community.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That is what I am emphasising—it is that part of the community that gives the IRA support.
  Rev. William McCrea: Can my hon. Friend confirm that rather than such support being diminished in that part of the community, it is increasing? In two recent by-elections in Northern Ireland, electoral support for Sinn Fein rose by between 15 per cent. and 25 per cent., yet we were told that the purpose of the Anglo-Irish Agreement was to take away support from Sinn Fein.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The House should heed my hon. Friend's words. There is no lack of support for the IRA. One Northern Ireland constituency is represented by an hon. Member who does not come to the House, thank God. He is very active in west Belfast. People from his constituency who come to talk to me about European problems say, "Our most active constituency Member is Gerry Adams, and we go to him with our problems." We shall never break the link between them until we say to the IRA, "You will not be admitted to the council chambers of the Province."
  The Minister, the Secretary of State and his predecessor have been very firm and have never met Sinn Fein representatives, but they expect us to meet them. They expect the councillors who represent the party that I lead to sit with them. One of my Belfast councillors told me that one night he passed a Sinn Fein councillor who gestured with his finger and said, "We will get you yet."
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, and remind those who may have forgotten, that some Sinn Fein councillors have been shot on terrorist missions?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I understand that someone cannot gain a nomination as a Sinn Fein councillor until he has proved himself with the Armalite and in terrorist activities. All the Sinn Fein councillors are involved in that, yet we have to sit with them. How can decent people be asked to sit with them? If a police officer, a civilian, or a friend of a council member is murdered, the council naturally proposes either to adjourn or to pass a message of condolence to the victim's family, but the Sinn Fein councillors attack the motion and refuse to vote for it. They make it clear why they will not vote for it.
  Mr. Dicks: Would the hon. Gentleman believe that Labour councillors in my local authority in England behave in exactly the same way when Tory mayors die?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am surprised to hear that. I do not want to delve into Tory-Labour policies, but it is a sad state of affairs if it is true that when a Tory mayor dies Labour councillors will not support a message of condolence or offer any sympathy to that person's loved ones.
  One Sinn Fein chairman of a council actually said that council workers were a fair target for the IRA to kill. Where do we go from there? I plead with the Government carefully to consider the problem and to begin to deal with the link between the community and the IRA. If we do not break that link, we shall never lessen the support for the IRA, especially when people depend on Sinn Fein members for run-of-the-mill matters.
  Ulster is a sad place. Is there any hope? I believe that there is, provided that the Government not only say that they will deal with terrorism, but begin to take effective measures—some of which I have mentioned—so that it can clearly be perceived that there is the will to defeat terrorism. I trust that the agitation from Dublin to hinder the talks in Northern Ireland will cease, and that instead there will be talks about replacing the Anglo-Irish Agreement with an alternative, which, when the IRA is defeated, will guarantee peace and stability for the people of Northern Ireland.
  Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend agree that hon. Members would be interested in hearing the Opposition spokesman outline what effective measures the Labour party is proposing to defeat and eradicate terrorism?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: That would be most helpful. It is a shame that my hon. Friend did not ask that question while the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was speaking. However, the Opposition have an able spokesman to reply to the debate and I am sure that he will spell out their proposals in full.
  I trust that there will be proper progress that will bring hope and freedom. As I said in a recent letter to the Prime Minister, we want progress that will set Northern Ireland on the road to the light.
  5.26 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I welcome the statement by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that, in principle, the Opposition do not dispute the need for emergency legislation. There has been no dispute in the House or in this debate about the need for emergency legislation, so I find it difficult to understand why the Opposition wish to divide the House.
  The Secretary of State referred to the statement that he circulated when the Bill was published and in which he set out the policy that the Government are endeavouring to follow. It is important that we consider this legislation alongside the Government's policy and their overall objectives. It is wrong to think that we have ever believed that terrorism will be ended solely by repressive or military means. People say that there must be political measures to end terrorism, but invariably those political measures are wrong.
  The correct political framework to surround security policy and legislation should be, first, the determination to

  51
  ensure that terrorism will not succeed. I appreciate that the Secretary of State's policy document includes phrases of that nature, but unfortunately their effect and credibility are undermined by the Government's record. They have repeatedly allowed terrorism to succeed because political changes have been brought about as a result of terrorism. The Secretary of State will know that I refer principally to the constitutional change made five years ago, when the status of part of the United Kingdom was changed as a direct result of terrorism. Nobody could possibly believe that there would have been an Anglo-Irish Agreement had there been no terrorist campaign. Everyone knows that the agreement was entered into in the hope of appeasing the sources of that campaign. In doing that, the Government committed the cardinal error of indicating to terrorists that they could achieve success indirectly as a result of terrorism. That was a mistake, and it will be difficult for the Government to adopt a similar policy because of their failings in the past. The Government should at least endeavour in the future to ensure that no further political changes are made in an attempt to appease Irish nationalists, whatever form that appeasement may take.
  In providing the correct policy framework for security matters, it is also important to make it clear to the terrorists that their primary objective will not be achieved. The terrorist resorts to violence not out of mindless activism but because he knows that it is the only way in which he can achieve his objective of a united Ireland. Statements by the Secretary of State and other members of the Government constantly refer to the possibility of Northern Ireland's constitutional position changing and are in themselves an encouragement.
  It is not good enough simply to repeat the phrase, "There will be no change to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland unless a majority so desire." That holds out the possibility of change. Everyone knows that if one attaches oneself to normal democratic principles, there can be no change. Everyone knows also that there will never be freely given majority consent for a united Ireland. Therefore, constantly to refer to the possiblity of change is quite wrong.
  What is wrong with the activities of republican terrorists is not just their methodology, in using the bomb, bullet and sometimes the ballot box as well, but their objective. It must be appreciated that the objective of trying to bring about a united Ireland is in itself wrong. A united Ireland can be achieved only by coercing the people of Northern Ireland by one means or another—whether that means is the violence of the IRA or political or financial blackmail and oppression. In that context, the objective of a united Ireland is wrong, and that lesson must be learnt not just by the Government but by the Labour party and several other parties represented in the House. We must acknowledge that the objective is wrong and immoral; then it will be easier to defeat the expression of it.
  Mr. Mallon: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman realises the import of his remarks. He says that the position taken by the main Opposition party, the party to which I belong, and all the major parties in the Republic of Ireland is not just wrong but immoral. If the hon. Gentleman will examine the logic of that assertion, he may regret having made it. It is based on the premise that there
  52
  will be no change in the attitudes of the people of Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman rules out any possibility of change by persuasion. I am sure that the House does not want another history lesson, because it has already been given one, but it should be remembered that not so long ago the main proponents of armed rebellion against a British presence in Ireland were members of the Protestant community. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should not make sweeping statements or ascribe immorality to anyone.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) does not display a proper appreciation of the situation. The conflict that exists is one of nationality—between that of the Irish nationalists who came into existence in the 19th century and that of the Ulster British people. No one suggests, in respect of any of the current conflicts in Europe, that people of one nationality could, should or are likely to change their national identity. They would not do that and the same is true of the people of Ulster. They will not change their national identity—and once there is acceptance of that, it will be realised that there cannot be a united Ireland by consent legitimately and freely given. It can come about only as a result of coercion in one form or another. Any attempt to coerce people into accepting the nationality of what is to them a foreign state would be immoral. I say that deliberately and I am fully aware of the implications of that statement.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: It surely cannot be argued that the objective of a neighbouring community to change in time the nationality of others is in itself evil. It is possible that the people of England, Scotland and Wales will change to a European identity in the context of the European Community. Some might argue against that development, but the objective itself cannot be said to be evil. In the case of the Provisional IRA, the evil comes in the methods that are used to distort the objective, rather than there being any evil within the nationalist community.
  Mr. Trimble: I am reluctant to enter any discussion of the effects that Britain's membership of the European Community might have on our national identity and allegiance. That is a different issue, which may or may not be advanced slightly tomorrow.
  It may be that what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) thinks of as Irish nationalism is in fact Irish imperialism—the attempt by a nation that exists as a part of Ireland to extend its rule to the whole island, irrespective of the wishes of its people. That is an imperialist claim which seeks some form of Irish irredentism analogous to the Italian irredentism that Mussolini and others sought, and which was of a similar moral character.
  Mr. Mallon: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Unionist people in the north of Ireland have minds that are frozen in a time warp and that they are incapable of changing? Is not the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) only confirming a political condition whose existence many people have always suspected?
  Mr. Trimble: We are not in any time warp. The people who are led down the cul-de-sac of history are those who are still serving the aims of Irish nationalism—or, to be more precise, of Irish imperialism. It is up to them to consider their position in that respect. I am making the

  53
  point that it is important to end the constitutional uncertainty that the Government's policy has reinforced. That point was graphically made many times by my colleague the former right hon. Member for South. Down, when he argued that the Government's actions were keeping the terrorist campaign alive and that it was essential for the Government to end uncertainty. Until they do so, we shall not see an end to the terrorist campaign.
  There are lessons to be learnt from the 1920s, whether one considers the civil war in the Irish Free State or the disturbances in Northern Ireland. In both cases, when it became clear to the terrorists that they would not succeed, because the Dublin and Belfast Governments respectively were firmly established, their campaigns of violence quickly wound down.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is immoral to claim that one's constitution gives jurisdiction over part of a territory that does not and cannot belong to one's own country—and in so doing encourage violence in trying to achieve the annexation of that territory?
  Mr. Trimble: I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said. Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution provide Irish republican terrorism with a moral mandate, or—as a friend of mine put it the other day—they are a "hunting licence" issued by the Irish Free State. We know what the targets of the hunting licence are.
  I have some difficulty with the use of the word "emergency" in the title of the Bill. It has given rise to some misconceptions—especially those of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, when he referred to the operation of the rule of law. There can be different views of what constitutes the rule of law. The version that the hon. Gentleman gave us owed not a little to Dicey—it sounded like a garbled version of Dicey, which is fair enough. The mistake that some people make is to equate the rule of law with the current state of English common law, whatever it might be. Consequently, they think that any departure from English common law is a subversion of the rule of law. That is a rather exaggerated view of the merits of common law, which has merits but one should not elevate it to such a position that any departure from it is to be denounced.
  We have various standards that spell out in detail the rule of law. In western Europe, the appropriate standard can be found in the European convention on human rights, which sets out a series of standards for the operation of the law as regards human rights, which are generally accepted and have been since their inception in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
  The Bill is consistent with the European convention in all respects. It is not necessary for the Government to enter a derogation with regard to the Bill. No derogation operates as regards its predecessors. The Bill can be operated without derogating from the European convention in any way. Only one aspect of the Bill might cause difficulty—if powers of detention were reintroduced and implemented, that would necessitate derogation from the European convention. Apart from that, the legislation is consistent with the European convention.
  As that is the case, I wonder why they are referred to as emergency provisions. There is provision within the
  54
  European convention for derogation in cases of emergency. Under the convention, emergency provisions are those that depart from the convention, but this legislation does not—it is consistent with it. Therefore, it is misleading to think of it as an emergency provision.
  It is misleading in another sense. An emergency is, or ought to be, something which is limited in time—of short duration. It should apply when something exceptional has come up, and one has to take exceptional measures to cope with it, which it is hoped will be effective within a short time. One is doing something out of the ordinary, but the Bill is ordinary in that it is consistent with the convention and so the provisions should not be labelled "emergency".
  They might have been emergency provisions in 1973, when they introduced the code for detention which was in operation then, and so it was necessary to have derogations from the European convention. We are not derogating from the European convention and the provisions are not emergency in the sense of being short lived. Such legislation has been on the statute book, in one form or another, since 1973 and is likely to be on the statute book for the foreseeable future. I wonder why we insist on thinking of the legislation as temporary or exceptional when it is neither.
  The term "consolidation" has been used, but this is not really a consolidation Bill. However, we need consolidating measures to deal with all aspects of anti-terrorist legislation. That is what we should be thinking of—not the Emergency Provisions Acts or the Prevention of Terrorism Acts but what anti-terrorist legislation is required.
  The world has a problem with terrorism; it is not unique to either part of Ireland but also comes from other sources. The dangers may increase after 1992, as border controls wind down and other changes take place. There is probably a need for us to consider seriously what form of anti-terrorist legislation the United Kingdom—not merely Northern Ireland—needs. Lord Colville said very cogently in his report on the Prevention of Terrorism act 1986:
  "It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government might like to think again. There is now a very real threat of international terrorism impinging on the United Kingdom, as on any other country … It does appear strange that the main measure which is designed to give powers against international terrorism should be annually renewable … and completely entangled with the Northern Ireland problem, from which historically the legislation grew. It might be better now to design the range of control needs both at ports and internally to deal with international terrorism from the security viewpoint, with due regard to what is not within the powers of the immigration or customs services. This could with advantage include some points governed at present in detail by the Order … There is neither rhyme or reason for some of the distinctions which appear in the Order. The Order does not deal comprehensively with international terrorism. If that were done it would be possible to see what powers, whether more or less, but possibly as a renewable supplement, would be needed for the Northern Ireland situation."
  Lord Colville said that in 1987, and we agree that it is desirable to have anti-terrorist legislation in one Act which deals with the kingdom as a whole. It is silly to have at least two main Acts dealing with different aspects of terrorism, because the two interpenetrate. For example, arrest powers are provided for in the Emergency Provisions and the Prevention of Terrorism Acts. Most arrests in Northern Ireland were carried out under the Emergency Provisions Act but in recent years that practice has changed. Now the vast majority are carried out under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

  55
  The operations of the security forces in Northern Ireland rely quite heavily on the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which is a United Kingdom Act, rather than the Emergency Provisions Act, which is supposed to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. It would be better to put the two Acts together, along with whatever other pieces of legislation are required.
  I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North might agree with that, because the amendment that he moved refers to a series of measures—inquest public immunity certificates, the abolition of the right of silence —which are not included in the Emergency Provisions Act but deal with related matters. It would be better for those to be put into one Act.
  A practical advantage is that it would be so much easier for the people who operate the legislation and those who are affected by it to know what it provides if they could refer to a single Act, and not have to chase through several Acts to find out the position. It would simplify life for policemen and soldiers, who have to operate the legislation, and for citizens who are affected by it.
  Access to and knowledge of the law is important, and the present arrangement of legislation does not facilitate that. I urge the Government, rather than to consider almost routine re-enactment of provisions with only minor amendments, to consider comprehensive legislation, on a United Kingdom basis, giving normal provisions to deal with terrorism. The problem exists and will continue to exist in the foreseeable future. There will be terrorist threats of one sort or another. We need to consider what sort of legislation should be passed to deal with them. We may want to make some special additional provisions to deal with particular situations, but we believe that there is an argument for permanent anti-terrorist legislation.
  The main provision in the Act is for a different form of trial through what are called the Diplock courts, which are essentially non-jury courts, presided over by a single judge. Clearly, the concept of a single judge gives some hon. Members problems. I confess that I had doubts about whether a single judge was the most effective system
  However, after several years' experience, I am satisfied that a single-judge court is the only effective way of dealing with such cases. I know that it is normal to defend the single-judge Diplock courts in terms of the difficulty of providing multi-judge courts in Northern Ireland. The small size of the legal profession there and the age distribution within the Bar mean that it would be extremely difficult to recruit the additional judges who would be needed if we were to have multi-judge courts. There is an argument for saying that, with the unanimity rule, two judges would be sufficient. However, it would still be extremely difficult to staff such courts. Hon. Members will know that there is considerable difficulty at the moment in recruiting judges for the county courts. I believe that there is still one vacancy. There is great difficulty in getting anyone to accept such an appointment. One hears rumours about trawls being made through the Bar library in considerable detail, ranging down to people who are quite junior, in an attempt to persuade people to accept an appointment in the county or Crown courts. The latter provide some of the judicial manpower for the Diplock courts.
  56
  The position in the High Court is not altogether happy either, although I do not intend to discuss that in detail now. Nevertheless, there is growing unease in Northern Ireland about the way in which High Court appointments are made. This summer I heard a person who has been involved in politics in the Irish Republic say, "Thanks to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, we now have an input into the selection of judges." I was appalled. If politicians in the Irish Republic continue to boast that they are responsible for the appointment of certain judges, that will have more disastrous consequences for public confidence in the judiciary than any of the provisions in the Bill. However, that is a different matter for another consideration.
  Not only is it difficult to recruit judges for multi-judge courts, but such courts are likely to be unsatisfactory. We have the example of the special criminal court in the Irish Republic which consists of three judges—three different lawyers. Those who practise before the special criminal court in the Irish Republic say that the multiplicity of judges provides no defence and no safeguard for the accused. In practice, the senior judge makes the decision. Even if, on occasions, counsel manage to evoke some sympathy in one of the judges, that judge is quickly brought into line by the others. I heard a senior lawyer, who is also involved in politics in the Irish Republic, say unofficially not so long ago that he regarded the special criminal court as a sentencing court. Therefore, having three judges is not by itself a safeguard. A single judge with a reasoned judgment provides a better safeguard, because that single judge knows that he must give his reasons in detail and that the sole responsibility for making a decision rests on him. That leads to a tendency for caution.
  I am convinced that in the vast majority of cases, thanks largely to the quality of the judiciary, the single-judge Diplock courts have delivered justice. I sometimes wonder whether those who are so concerned about the danger of judgment by a single man—and who consequently criticise the Diplock courts—occasionally think about the other single-judge courts which we have in Northern Ireland, and which we have had since 1935. I refer to the courts of summary jurisdiction which, as hon. Members know, are presided over in Northern Ireland by a single judge, whom we call a resident magistrate and who is equivalent to a stipendiary magistrate in England and Wales. We do not have any benches of justices. We do not have any justices of the peace to exercise judicial functions. All the magistrates courts' decisions are made by a single judge. That is what happens in the vast majority of cases that go through the courts of summary jurisdiction.
  I should add that I do not have the same confidence in the quality of the magistracy as I have in the quality of the High Court judges, but perhaps I should go into that in more detail at another time and in another place. However, that point should be of greater concern than the Diplock courts to those who are worried about the effect of having a single judge.
  I cite as evidence the way in which the Diplock courts operate. The effective conviction rate in the Diplock courts varies between half and three quarters. It is a little higher than the conviction rate in jury trials, but that is only to be expected because an accused person who is to appear before a single judge is less likely to plead not guilty in a hopeless case. There will always be those who will plead not guilty in hopeless cases before a jury in the hope that their clever lawyer will get them off. However, people do not pursue hopeless cases to the same extent before a single

  57
  judge. Consequently, it is natural that there should be a slightly higher conviction rate in single-judge courts compared with jury courts.
  Diplock courts have another advantage. English lawyers wishing to make comparisons, who can be bothered to come over to Belfast to look at the operation of the courts, find that the business is conducted with remarkable efficiency. Trials in Northern Ireland rarely take half the time that is taken for an equivalent trial in England. That is because there are certain lines of argument that one would not bother to pursue before a single judge because he will not bother listening to it. Things are different with a jury. One cannot try it on before a judge as one would before a jury. Judges are quick to pick up the points and the argument must be put more precisely and more concisely. That is why trials proceed much more quickly, with consequent and not inconsiderable savings to the public purse, though that is by the way.
  I am conscious that if the suggestion that I made earlier about permanent legislation to deal with terrorism on a United Kingdom basis were adopted, that would allow for the use of Diplock-style courts in Great Britain. Of course, it depends on the mechanism that is used to introduce the Diplock courts and I have one in mind. The mechanism could be borrowed from the Irish Republic's Criminal Law and Procedure Act 1887, which provided for special courts and for non-jury courts. That Act was on the statute book in Ireland from 1887 until 1922. There is nothing unusual about such legislation. We have always had it in Ireland in one shape or form. The former Lord Justice Turlough O'Donnell used to refer to that Act as "the old Act". He had been in practice long enough to have heard stories about the operation of "the old Act". Under that Act, it was possible for an order to be made that all cases in a particular area, usually defined by county, were to be held before the special court, or for cases to be moved from one part of the jurisdiction to another. Borrowing from that procedure, it would be possible for the Lord Chancellor to make an order, subject to parliamentary approval, for the operation of Diplock-style courts in any jurisdiction within the kingdom or possibly within any part of the jurisdiction, or with regard to specific cases.
  The use of such a mechanism would enable Diplock-style courts to be used in England in terrorist cases. I believe that there is a serious argument for so doing. Terrorist cases are not like ordinary crimes. A terrorist action strikes at the whole community and gives rise to an emotional reaction that can affect the operation of justice. There are parallels here with cases that have already been mentioned, such as the Guildford and Birmingham cases, which gave rise to strong emotional reactions. In that context, juries will not operate terribly effectively. It has been suggested that, in terrorist cases in England, juries will inevitably convict no matter who appears before them. That is because the juror himself or herself feels a potential object of the terrorist act. Although he or she will not be personally involved, because of the way in which terrorism strikes at the community, an individual serving on a jury will feel personally involved and, as a consequence, may not render a true verdict.
  That is part of the reason why jury trials were discontinued in Northern Ireland. It was not just because of intimidation of the witnesses or other parties involved. The real fear was of perverse verdicts, perverse convictions and, in some cases, perverse acquittals. It would be a brave
  58
  practitioner in England and Wales who, looking at a jury dealing with a terrorist case, could not say that there were no perverse convictions.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the debate on that matter it was pointed out that there were only two perverse decisions by juries to which the judge drew attention at that time? That is on the record.
  Mr. Trimble: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to a particular time in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland or to a particular time in England?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am referring to juries in Northern Ireland at that time.
  Mr. Trimble: It is difficult to establish the incidence of perverse acquittals and convictions in Northern Ireland at that time. Such issues depend so much on individual appreciation and opinion. No one can be absolutely sure of the facts. The numbers involved may be small. No matter what the rate, when a problem arises one is justified in looking at the form of trial in order to find a different form in which there can be a degree of neutrality.
  The decisions that a Diplock-style court makes will not always be right. In terrorist cases, however, there is a strong case for saying that a Diplock-style court will be better than a jury trial. It will not be perfect; any human system is bound to contain imperfections and failures. I should be amazed if wrong verdicts had not been reached in the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland.
  However, what strikes me is the relative paucity of instances in which people have produced convincing evidence to show that there was a miscarriage of justice. I say that in the knowledge that recently evidence has been produced that shows that there was a miscarriage of justice. I refer to the Armagh UDR Four. I am now convinced that they were innocent and that they were improperly convicted. That case stands out by itself; there have been no other similar cases of which I am aware in which convincing evidence was produced to show that there had been a miscarriage of justice.
  There is gossip from time to time in legal circles that a decision may have been wrong. During one of the so-called supergrass cases a few years ago, I was told by counsel that he was satisfied that his client was wrongly convicted. He was on a minor charge—of allowing his premises to be used by terrorists in which they could hold meetings. According to counsel, the problem in that case was that two people of the same name lived in that street, that the supergrass had identified the wrong person with the same name, that his client was innocent and that he had a perfect alibi that would have shown that he was in a completely different place at the time, which would have secured his acquittal had he been able to give his alibi in court.
  Unfortunately, however, the principal person accused, the leader of the IRA in the area concerned, gave an order to the effect that nobody was to go into the witness box or to call evidence in their own instance. The other person, although he was not involved with the IRA, had to go back into that area, so he accepted the IRA's order not to give evidence, thus allowing himself to be convicted, even though he was innocent. His conviction was quashed on appeal. All the convictions in that case were quashed on appeal, but that is another story. That is one of the very

  59
  few instances of which I am aware in which, according to counsel, the accused was wrongly convicted. There will have been some wrong convictions, but not many.
  The other principal provisions relating to the Diplock courts deal with confessions and the reversal of the onus of proof in certain cases. Colville recommended that the Government ought to consider more closely the videotaping of interviews. All interviews are monitored by television cameras. A senior police officer looks at the television screen from time to time. If interviews were videotaped, without sound, the video tapes would be available to the inspector to see whether any ill-treatment had occurred. A substantial amount of investment would be involved in providing a bank of video tapes. A certain amount of time would also be involved in looking at the video tapes. If the interrogation took place over a long period, one would have to look at the video tape for a similar period. Colville made the point, which has some weight, that the amount of time involved in looking at the video tapes would lead to a saving of time at the trial, since hopeless points would not be pursued when there was no evidence to back them up.
  There are certain reservations about videotaping. There would have to be an absence of sound. It is important that the words spoken should not be available, since that might enable terrorist organisations to discover what information the security forces had about their operations in particular places and what statements had been made by persons under interrogation, perhaps implicating other people. Precautions would also have to be taken to protect the identity of the police officers concerned so that they could not be targeted.
  I do not, however, believe that these problems are insurmountable. They would reduce the number of cases in which people argue that brutality has occurred. There are not many cases, I believe, in which the police give way to the temptation to use physical abuse. However, allegations are made to that effect. A method that could effectively quash those allegations would be very much in the interests of the security forces, because a lot of silly people believe these allegations. It would be of considerable value to be able to refute them effectively.
  The provision relating to the reversal of the onus of proof requires little comment. The judiciary operates it sensibly. In that context, the effect of the reversal of the onus of proof is to compel the person charged with the possession of explosives or firearms to go into the witness box. The way that judges operate that provision is to compel a person to go into the witness box to give evidence of his knowledge, or absence of knowledge, of things found on his premises.
  A clear analogy can be made with the provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which modifies the so-called right to silence. The concern expressed in some quarters about this modification of the right to silence is perhaps exaggerated. When one looks at the sensible way in which the courts handle the reversal of the onus of proof cases, there are ample grounds for reassurance.
  The other main provision in the Bill relates to the power of detention. I am afraid that this is a matter on which we part company with the Government. It is not right to rule out the use of that power. I appreciate that that power is
  60
  provided for in the legislation, but statements made from time to time by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland appear to rule out its use. That is not wise. A serious case can be made for the use of the detention power. We know that the police and the Army are having difficulty over apprehending persons, with sufficient evidence to bring cases to court. One only has to look at the figures mentioned by Diplock and Colville and at those that are available elsewhere. In 1984–85, well over 500 cases a year went through the Diplock courts. That figure rose to nearly 700 in 1985–86. In recent years, however, it has dropped back to just over 400. Fewer cases are going through the Diplock courts.
  We know that in many cases guilty men go free, either because witnesses will not come forward or because the terrorist is careful enough to destroy any forensic evidence. Moreover, he has been trained to withstand interrogation. There is, therefore, a strong argument for looking again at the use of the detention powers. The point that is always made is that they were tried and did not work. They did work—in 1922, 1940 and 1956. They did not work in 1971.
  One must consider carefully the reasons why they did not work in 1971. If one does so, one sees that the reasons were that the intelligence base that was used was poor and that during the previous two years the RUC had effectively been prevented from operating by the Government. The result was that the RUC's information was out of date. Moreover, the Army had not built up any effective information.
  Not only was the intelligence base poor but the operation was carried out crudely in all senses of the word. When ordinary squaddies are told, as they were in 1971, that they have an opportunity to get their own back on the people who have been shooting and throwing stones at them in the previous months, it is not surprising that some of them take those words at face value and get their own back. It was understandable. Of course, it was wrong. It helped to corrupt the operation. One needs to look carefully at the mistakes that were made then and consider how they could be remedied. I believe that one can remedy them.
  We now have a much better intelligence base on which to operate than we had in 1971. That is indisputable. We also know that a limited number of persons are involved in terrorism. We may argue about the exact number, but it is common ground that it is a limited number and that the key players take care never to become involved in ways that would expose them to arrest. That is the argument in favour of selective detention.
  As hon. Members will be aware, it is just over a week since we had a particularly appalling atrocity in my constituency. A week ago last Saturday, four wildfowlers who had gone out on a day's recreation were ambushed and slaughtered by the IRA. Of the four, two were policemen and two had no connection with the security forces. They were just friends who went out on that occasion. Such an incident gives rise to considerable feelings and tension. I shall not indulge in an emotional statement on the matter, but I should like to quote from an address delivered at the first funeral of the victims last Monday. The address was given by the Right Rev. Matthews of the first Lurgan Presbyterian church, and former moderator of the Presbyterian church—the largest non-Catholic church in Ulster. He is a responsible person. He was speaking at the funeral of Keith Dowey, a young

  61
  man who was not a member of the security forces. Keith was the product of a mixed marriage—his mother was a Roman Catholic. The Right Rev. Matthews said:
  "May I remind the Government that its primary responsibility is the protection of its citizens. In this respect, the Government is signally failing at present. How can our society enjoy normality or peace while vicious criminals, known to the police, are free to stalk the land and strike at will? … The community is tired of words. It cries for action. Statements about a determination to win sound hollow to broken hearts unless the freedom of the killers is removed.
  Our Government is far too much concerned for our reputation abroad and far too little for our safety at home. Our Government seems to reserve far greater sensitivity for the feelings of those who give latent or overt support to terrorists, than for decent, upright, law-abiding citizens.
  Of the 346 murders"—
  it is now 347—
  "committed by terrorists in the last five years, three out of every four were committed by republican terrorists and one out of every four by loyalist terrorists. Only one in 10 of republican terrorist murders have been resolved in the courts while one in two of loyalist terrorist murders have been so resolved.
  Something more is needed to compensate for the inadequacies of the law to deal with terrorists sheltered by sympathisers.
  Our Government has been ill-advised in its reluctance to introduce selective internment. How can we continue to expose our security forces (and civilians) in their daily duty and in their times of leisure to the evil of these psychopaths? It is surely time for common sense to prevail. I believe that the vast majority of both communities would breathe a sigh of relief to have known killers from both communities, in proportion to their numbers, put out of circulation.
  One sure way to make the situation worse is for the Government to continue its present inaction in this regard."
  As the Secretary of State will know, the Right Rev. Matthews had many occasions on which he could have criticised the Government when he was moderator of the Presbyterian church. He told me after the funeral that he never took any of those opportunities. That statement made at Keith Dowey's graveside was the first time that the Right Rev. Matthews had publicly attacked the Government. He is a responsible man. He expressed a widespread feeling when he called for more action and specifically for the operation of selective detention powers to take the terrorists out of operation.
  I can conclude in no better way than by repeating the last sentence of that statement.
  "One sure way to make the situation worse is for the Government to continue its present inaction in this regard."
  The present legislation merely extends the existing legislation with minor changes. The Government have stated that they will continue their security policy. As the hon. Member for Antrim, North said, to continue that policy is to condemn the community to further terrorism and suffering. We need more effective action.
  6.15 pm
  Sir David Mitchell: I shall be brief but I want to put one particular point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Before I do so, I stress that those in Northern Ireland who believe that they can persuade United Kingdom Ministers to change their policy by any degree of terrorism have wholly misjudged the British character and the character of Ministers in this or any other Government. Those in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland who believe that acts of terrorism can change the view of the British electorate have sadly misjudged the character of the British people. That point needs to be put across because we must disabuse at every
  62
  opportunity those who involve themselves in terrorism of the misunderstanding and misjudgment that lies behind their expectation that they can achieve something by their acts of terrorism.
  I support the Bill, first, because it enacts legislation that enables the Government to prosecute the campaign against terrorism with fairness and firmness; secondly, because it recognises that we shall need a continuing and sustained campaign against violence from either side of the sectarian divide; and, thirdly, because it seeks to ensure that terrorists are caught and brought to trial within the due processes of law, with all the rights that that confers on a suspect until he is proven guilty.
  While dealing with the due processes of law, I should like to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, or my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who will reply to the debate, whether any research has been carried out into the right of silence. If so, what has the research shown? My other questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister are the portent of what I want to say to the House. Is he satisfied that the RUC and the security forces have the benefit of all the electronic research and development that they need? Considerable scientific advances have been made in electronics and the House would like to know that the RUC and security forces have the most advanced research and development at their disposal.
  We all know that science has reached the point at which a house can be spotted from a satellite. It seems that we should be able to do more to spot an illegal border crossing than we do with the methods that we now use. Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State noted the high proportion of offences that take place within striking distance of the border? One must ask why the border is such an attractive area for committing offences. To what extent is there still the opportunity for terrorists to strike and escape across the border into relative safety? I am not in any way attacking the Gardai, who have been doing much more than they used to and who are co-operating immensely well with out security forces. Nevertheless, a disproportionately high number of offences are occurring in that area and it leads one to ask whether more can be done to ensure co-operation and prevention.
  Finally, would there be an advantage in applying electronic tagging to some of those who are on bail, bound over to keep the peace, serving non-custodial sentences, on probation or granted a remission of sentence for scheduled offences under part I of the Bill? It might even apply to those who would be candidates for detention, although I understand why my right hon. Friend does not want detention to apply in the Province. Nevertheless, that might be an area where something can be done.
  My questions are all in the area of electronics, technology and technological advance. I seek assurances that all that can be done is being done to introduce technological advances to assist the forces of security and law and order in the Province.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Seamus Mallon: We have had an interesting debate with a smattering of political opinion and historical reference—I almost said historical fact. It is right to consider the Bill in a political dimension because in the last analysis there is not a clear distinction between solving security problems and solving political

  63
  problems. If hon. Members believe that a solution can be found in terms of security—I do not—they are going in the wrong direction. That is one of the myths that has caused problems for legislation throughout the years. One of the difficulties is that that has had an effect on the political process. We should not think of the two issues separately. They are so closely intertwined and interlocked that we cannot look at one without also looking at the other. That has been made obvious by some speeches.
  I challenged the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) on his views about morality or immorality in relation to political stances. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to it. It is remarkable that the great political obsession of the IRA is with the immorality of partition. Over the years all its statements and everything that it has written refer to the immorality of partition.
  At one stage when our party confronted the IRA across the table with the contradictions of its position, we said, "Look, you cannot judge these things in terms of morality or immorality. They are there and that is the reality." The use of immoral methods can never be a basis for dealing with something that one considers to be wrong. It is difficult, if not silly, for anybody who values the political process to state that a political ideology is immoral because he does not agree with it or because others have debased or abused it.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann said that there were no circumstances in which the Unionist people of the north of Ireland would ever change their minds. I assume that he is so strongly convinced of the conviction of the Unionist people that he believes that they will not change their minds. Alternatively, is he telling us that they are incapable of moving out of what I call a time warp? Only a short time ago the leaders of Republican armed insurrection in the north of Ireland came from the very same tradition. Think of Roddy McCorley from north Antrim, John Mitchell from the area of my constituency and Theobald Wolfe Tone. I could go on for ever. When we talk in those terms we must be absolutely clear that we are not locking ourselves into historical traps. One of our difficulties is that the warping of history has played such a dominant role that we sometimes do not see the present clearly or anticipate the future.
  Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is making the mistake that is common to Irish Nationalists. He misunderstands and misrepresents the 1798 incidents. Wolfe Tone was never a member of the Ulster British community. By no stretch of the imagination could he possibly be described as such. Those Presbyterians were not all of the Presbyterian community. The element of that community who supported the united Irish ideals were not seeking the Irish nationalist state or participating in an Irish national enterprise. They were essentially seeking democratic rights and reform within the kingdom. That can be seen by how, within months of the Act of Union, it was completely accepted by the Ulster British people.
  Mr. Mallon: There is a small element of truth in that. One could accept that, if one did not have the precedent of the United States' war of independence involving the same people of sturdy Presbyterian stock. What did they do when they reached the United States? They led the removal
  64
  —that is a euphemism—of the British presence and set up that country. To their credit, they provided that growing state with a large number of Presidents. If the hon. Gentleman's point were taken in isolation, there would be an element of truth in it, but Irish people, wherever they may be, can get out of a time warp. The antecedents of the present Unionist community have proved that in the past and they will undoubtedly show that breadth of vision again in the future.
  Sir David Mitchell: May I return to the point that the hon. Gentleman made at the beginning of his speech when he said that the IRA seeks to justify its claim on the grounds of the immorality of the border? Can he tell us whether the IRA is sustained in that view by the constitution of the Republic?
  Mr. Mallon: It is absolutely wrong to attribute immorality to any decision that has been made on a political basis. If anyone went through the records of this House or of any other Parliament, he would find decision after decision that was wholly questionable if it were judged in terms of morality. Partition exists. It is a fact of life, whether we like it or not. If I want to change it, I must change it by peaceful, democratic means—by the power of persuasion. That is where the absolute difference lies. That is the rub in relation to the Bill.
  The important thing to remember is that, irrespective of how people view the partition of Ireland, there can be no justification for taking life and for the other violence that occurs in the north of Ireland. To try to pull a cloak of pseudo-respectability over such violence with discussions on the morality or immorality of what happened many years ago evades the issue.
  We have been told that those in the north of Ireland who view things from a Unionist perspective will never change their mind. If that is so, they should have been jumping up and down with joy the night the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. They should have lit bonfires and stood drinks for the rest of us because, in those circumstances, the real victory belongs to them. If the hon. Member for Upper Bann is correct, the Anglo-Irish Agreement should reinforce the perspective that he believes will exist in perpetuity. I happen to believe, however, that the people of the north of Ireland are more mature and will not allow themselves to be locked in one specific position. If the threat of violence could be removed and a decent standard of living achieved so that people were free from existing pressures and strains, they would examine carefully the political options available to them. There will, however, be no miracles as the current situation cannot be cured by them, but by changes created painstakingly at the bottom. Every stage of progress will contribute not just to the present but to the future.
  Ever since I was elected to the House, I have used this opportunity to express my views on the emergency legislation. Today, the Secretary of State said—no doubt he will correct me if I am wrong. but I hope that I have got it exactly right—that he had to make sure that the law is effective to defeat terrorism. I do not believe that that is the business of thlaw. The defeat of terrorism goes wider than that; it is something different. If one uses the law to defeat terrorism, the process of law is demeaned because it means that the law must be changed. Consider how many times the law has been changed in relation to the

  65
  emergency legislation. It has been added to, amended, and some would say bent to deal with an objective with which the law does not exist to deal.
  Those who break the law must be made amenable to it and the law must protect society. Above all, one must ensure that the integrity of the law survives, whatever the era in which it operates. Unfortunately, the Provisional IRA has allowed and encouraged the Government to demean and debase their high standards of law and the integrity of the legal system. Those problems do not apply to the north of Ireland alone; the same thing has happened here. The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four cases arose from the pressures exerted on the legal process to solve terrorist acts. Had that pressure not been exerted, we should not face the problems connected with those cases. In recent times, the judiciary, to its credit, has not allowed itself to be subjected to such pressure. We must not, however, overlook the danger that such pressure poses to our legal process.
  As in the Dail Eireann, it is always comfortable to believe that one is part of the moral majority in debates such as this. We are back to morality again, but I am seeking to use it in a different context. It is always comfortable to be part of the moral majority and to have that little bit of self-righteousness on one's side. I do not feel that in this debate because I believe that, by trying to defeat terrorism by bending and amending the law, we are, in effect, creating terrorism, especially among young people. Those young people often get it in the neck for actions carried out by others—I know that from experience in my constituency and others and from my day-to-day work. Every time a young person is stopped and subjected to harassment and abuse, carried out legally under the emergency legislation, that young person moves further and further away from the norm in Northern Ireland. It makes that person easier prey for the terrorists in his community.
  The House will remember the recent incident in Derry when a man was used as a human bomb. He was declared missing because they could not find anything to bury—we all remember that day. A Sinn Fein spokesman was quoted in the newspapers in the north of Ireland, saying:
  "We will retain our support—have no doubt about that; the army will he in the estates raiding houses and telling kids that their fathers are murderers. They will be doing our job for us."
  Sinn Fein knows—it plays on it—that every time there is an abuse of the emergency legislation by the Army, the police, the UDR or whoever, it will be the net gainer. We must face up to that.
  Today, the Ulster centre for study of conflict, at the university of Ulster—I assure the House that it is not an SDLP mouthpiece—issued a report that said:
  "Progress is essential if the legitimacy of the Security forces, including the RUC, is not to be further undermined within the Catholic community."
  I agree with the hon. Member for Antrim, North that some people will never support the forces of law because of their political ideology. I do not accept, however, that everyone who happens to be of the same religious persuasion as me is a potential terrorist. I shall never accept that a young person who goes to a Catholic school should be looked upon with suspicion because he happens to have long hair, wears jeans and is a Catholic. The Secretary of State should keep his eye on the legislation because of that problem.
  66
  By implication, the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) made reference to the by-election at which I spent four days canvassing in the wind and rain. I made time to go to that area as I believed that it was crucial, coming after the incidents when men were strapped to their cars and made human bombs. Imagine my disgust when we lost that by-election by six votes, but my feelings were made even worse when I looked at the register and saw the people who did not vote. They were not the ordinary people living on the estates, but those people who pontificate to all of us about politics, those people who offer us advice on how best to end our terrible problems. Those are the people who did not come out to show their revulsion at those acts that took place within the north of Ireland. That is reprehensible.
  I must refer the Secretary of State to harassment. People who were not supporters of Sinn Fein—and who would not vote for it—raised their concern in house after house. This problem affects people going to work, young people and children on their way to and from school. It is not planned, but it is happening time and again. The problem is reaching crisis proportions. I referred to it at a party conference at the weekend, and I shall do so again now. Something is substantially wrong, and the sooner that we get to grips with it the better.
  Like other hon. Members present, I have seen more than my share of the violence and suffering. I clearly want to see an end to that, but I am worried about the rake's progress of the past 20 years. It is a matter of historical fact, and for want of a better time we could start with the period of internment. We should stop using euphemisms such as "detention" and call it what it is—internment without trial. Lord Justice Bennett reported on the brutality in Castlereagh and in the Gough barracks in Armagh. Then there were the affairs that Mr. Stalker and Mr. Stevens tried to investigate, as well as all the legislation introduced in the House. The rake's progress is going one step further each time, because what had already been decided on did not work. The question is, who breaks the cycle, and where will it end? There are those who advocate the introduction of internment without trial. That would not work—the Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office also know that—but once one goes down that slippery slope towards the rake's progress, one must go a little further, because there will always be atrocities and terrible outcries against them. There will always be people who point the finger at Ministers and say that they are the people responsible, because they are not doing enough.
  That is not the case. The trouble is not that the law is not rigorously enforced, or that there is not enough stringency, or that the law is not repressive enough; the trouble is that the problem of terrorism in the north of Ireland cannot be solved only by the use of law. For that reason, the basic premise in the introduction of these measures is as faulty as the other elements in that rake's progress.
  Cynicism comes in when we see what is happening. People in England, Scotland and Wales should examine the matter carefully, for it is British justice that is being demeaned. I happen to be one of the people who admire British justice; I am not cynical about it. I do not go along with the supposed view of Mahatma Gandhi, who, when asked what he thought of British justice, is said to have replied—although I do not believe it—that he thought it would be a good idea. There is a good and proper system

  67
  of justice here, but it has been demeaned, because it has been made to do that which it is not geared or written to do.
  As someone who lives in the heart of south Armagh and who has seen more terrorism than I care to remember, I ask the Secretary of State to believe one point. What do the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Volunteer Force fear most? It is not soldiers, because in many ways the soldiers fulfil their purpose—indeed, help them; it is not the police, because as long as policemen are around they are targets and they can be blamed; it is not the Ulster Defence Regiment, which is of great benefit in many ways, because it will react and the spiral will continue. It is not that type of law; if it were capable of inspiring fear, the problems of the past 21 years would be long over. What those organisations fear most is normality and a stable society. They fear the normal way in which the law works, and in which society can go about its business. Above all, they fear the normal way in which their children can go about their business without being afraid of being made the butt of this type of legislation.
  Although it will be a matter for Committee work and for further reading, I should make some reference to the power of seizure contained in clause 18(4), which gives the Army power to impose significant penalties, especially in relation to the closure of border roads. The police already have that power, so why should it be extended? If we are to call a spade a spade, it means that someone can incur a substantial penalty without any judicial intervention. In other words, a piece of machinery valued at £20,000 or £30,000 can be taken from a person without any recourse to judicial intervention. Surely that is wrong. Another problem is that people's documents can be taken away and read on a mere suspicion.
  We had great problems in this country with journalists recently. I can imagine the events in the north of Ireland that will happen—or will be set up—and will then be used cynically. A journalist could be driving along the road, and that power could be invoked by a soldier. The journalist says that the information is privileged. Can hon. Members imagine that happening to a politician? I know that it will, and I am almost sure that I know to whom it will happen. However, it is inevitable: once we introduce such legislation, we must be prepared for it to be abused. No one can say, as the Secretary of State did, that it will not happen; it will happen, because there will be those in the security services who will be silly enough to abuse it. There will also be those among terrorist groups who will be cynical enough to ensure that a situation is engineered to make it happen. There is already substantial power in this regard; why repeat the procedure?
  I am also concerned about the problem of items intended for terrorist purposes. It is possible to reduce the possibilities to absurdity. A sympathiser of the IRA or Sinn Fein could have in his or her house marzipan to make pastries; however, that material is also used for making explosives.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: Nonsense.
  Mr. Mallon: I can tell the hon. Gentleman of a case in my constituency where an arrest and detention was made on that basis: it is a matter of record, and I shall let the
  68
  hon. Gentleman have the details. I wonder whether he would also laugh if I told him that fertilisers and diesel oil are also used to make bombs. In a rural area, it is almost inevitable that there will be both fertiliser and diesel oil in almost all farmyards. One can imagine the problem. In such circumstances, the essential legal problem—or non-legal problem—is that the onus is on a person to prove that he did not have those substances for terrorist purposes. That is when the law is so bad, because it puts the onus of proof on the person involved to show that he was not going to use the material for terrorist purposes.
  In terms of codes of practices, there was an opportunity to do something about that. Clauses 48 and 49 could have enabled the Secretary of State to make statutory codes for the exercise of emergency powers—something for which we have been asking for a long time. The Bill will not do that, but will still rely on the non-statutory guide to emergency powers. There will be a clear distinction between the implementation of codes of practice in relation to emergency regulations and normal law. Now is the time to get to grips with that. If we are satisfied, as we should be, that the codes of practice are adhered to, why not make them statutory, as they are in relation to the rest of law?
  Lord Colville's view on complaints has been mentioned. It is a crucial issue, because the complaints procedure in relation to the Royal Ulster Constabulary is not working properly. That cannot be said often enough, and it is not a party political point. I should like to be able to say that it was working properly and effectively, because I was one of the people who, for years, exerted pressure to get it, but it is not working properly. There is no complaints system in relation to Army procedure. There are those who will say, "Of course there is a procedure —go to the local colonel in charge." But the colonel in charge is not in contact with the community. I deal with such cases on an almost daily basis. Lord Colville suggests the appointment of an independent commission. If we want to make doubly sure that the legislation will not allow harassment, we should have an independent commission so that immediate redress can be sought.
  Another grave omission from the Bill, a recommendation that Lord Colville made not just once, but twice—in 1989 and 1990—is that the use of excessive force in self-defence could, in effect, result in a charge of manslaughter. That recommendation, which Lord Colville made twice, must surely be adopted eventually. If it were, we should be much better equipped legally to deal with incidents labelled "shoot to kill" and, even better, we could have a system of inquests.
  I went to observe the last such inquest in Craigavon courthouse. It was appalling and like a film made from a Kafka novel, with policemen and witnesses hiding behind screens and a jury sitting hidden from the view of those giving evidence. The continuation of such inquests has been reinforced by a decision of the House of Lords, against the wishes of the High Court in the north of Ireland, chaired by the Lord Chief Justice. Such a system should be dealt with, because there can be no confidence in the legal and judicial process while there is such a total gap and difference between what is happening there and what happens here in England, Wales, and Scotland. The systems are substantially and fundamentally different. Why should that be so, especially in circumstances where a change is needed and when we are trying to build confidence?

  69
  Those are my general points. Do I believe that there is a need for emergency legislation when there is horrific violence, such as we have seen? Yes, there is need for adequate legislation, but there is also the absolute need to try to ensure that ordinary, normal law is used whenever possible, and we do not always use the escape hatch of tacking on another little bit of emergency legislation because things have got slightly worse. That is demeaning the process of law in Northern Ireland.
  6.54 pm
  Rev. William McCrea: We have had an interesting debate, traversing a number of subjects, including one that comes to mind as we approach Christmas—that people will be in danger of arrest because they possess marzipan. As it is the beginning of the Christmas period, people will be making their cakes and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said that there was fear of harassment in a part of the community because people possess something to assist them in baking Christmas cakes for their families.
  We have also been told that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has a clearer understanding than the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) about what the Unionist population believe. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said that the hon. Member for Upper Bann gave the impression that the Unionist population were in a time warp. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is convinced that he knows better and that the hon. Member for Upper Bann is in the time warp, not the Unionist population.
  Perhaps the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh does not realise that the other evening a poll was recorded in the Belfast Telegraph. It was interesting because, of those questioned, no member of the Protestant community supported the Social Democratic and Labour party, but a number of members of the Roman Catholic community supported both the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party. How can he suggest that he has entered into the minds of the Unionist population and knows what they are thinking? I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann. The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh should not be surprised to learn that the Unionist population have no interest in changing their nationality or citizenship. It is beyond belief that he should show such horror on his face and try to make something of that.
  We are dealing with a serious matter and I have heard charges today of harassment and certain actions of members of the security forces, the Ulster Defence Regiment, about whom the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh made a sweeping statement a few minutes ago. We are not on a picnic but are dealing with guerrilla warfare, one of the most vicious types of warfare against an innocent population, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. There are no niceties of war. We must remember that the IRA has declared war on the British population in Northern Ireland.
  Few hon. Members understand the nightmare in Northern Ireland. There are many hon. Members who have little understanding of the sorrow and tragedy. They stand back from it and many have not tried to find out the reality of what is happening on the ground and what the community is going through. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to visit Northern Ireland more frequently to see
  70
  exactly what is happening. It is part of the United Kingdom and they should be interested in ensuring that they have personal knowledge of the measures they recommend, for which they vote and about which they speak, instead of being fodder in the voting Lobbies at the end of the debate.
  I have listened to the official Opposition's spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), and to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, but I have yet to hear them make any positive suggestions about how we should deal with the terrorist conspiracy, threat and rebellion that exists in a part of the United Kingdom. How do they think we should deal with terrorism and stop the men of violence?
  The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North spoke about civil liberties and individual freedoms and said that the Bill was "repression by reflex action". Has he any understanding of the horror, terror and turmoil suffered by innocent members of the community or any idea of the extent to which they are living with repression? Many of them are prisoners in their own houses. They are afraid to go out at night for fear of being murdered. That is the reality.
  May god speed the day when the British people and their elected representatives in this House come to care more about the victims of terrorism than about the terrorists. It is about time that they understood what the victims are going through. I draw attention not only to the plight of the families and widows of those who have been murdered but to that of those who have suffered attacks and are still alive, who are forgotten and who do not appear in the statistics compiled in connection with the tragedy in Northern Ireland. It is about time that the House alerted itself to the sad facts surrounding the terrorism that has blighted our community for the past 20 years.
  Mr. Alex Carlile: Every hon. Member will agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the suffering to which the victims of terrorism are subjected, but does he share the rejection by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), on theological grounds, of reconciliation between the communities of Northern Ireland?
  Rev. William McCrea: That is a red herring if ever there was one. With great respect, that was a pathetic intervention coming from someone who has little knowledge of the turmoil and suffering that the people of Northern Ireland have to go through.
  Mr. Carlile: But the hon. Member for Antrim, North said it.
  Rev. William McCrea: My hon. Friend was making a theological point about reconciliation and the way in which the ecumenists abuse the term, which is a scriptural term referring to man's reconciliation with God, given that man is at enmity with God. It is pathetic for the hon. and learned Gentleman to seek to bring that into the debate, and if he had any knowledge at all of theology he would know that my hon. Friend's statement was quite right.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: My hon. Friend will be aware that I mentioned reconciliation in connection with the ecumenical movement. It is a pity that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) did not find out what the ecumenists meant by reconciliation before he asked his question. They mean that Protestantism should

  71
  be annexed to Romanism and that every Protestant should now accept that the Pope should be the head of a universal church. That is anathema to me, and, if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to know why, I shall talk to him outside the House.
  Rev. William McCrea: I note that some Opposition Members are reeling. If one throws a stone into a pack of dogs, those hit most squeal the loudest. If hon. Members want a theological debate, they should be willing to listen to it. The hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention was a red herring, and it is clear that the Opposition do not like the answer. I appreciate my hon. Friend's intervention and his exposition of what ecumenism is all about.
  We often hear pious statements about sympathy and the rest. I am reminded of a speech made by the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) in our debate on the return of capital punishment for terrorists. He said that the House had been full of words and sympathy and that what the country needed was action. Opposition Members know little about my constituents' feelings. They have not been to their homes or spoken to the widows and children of the victims about their grief. It is easy to utter pious words of sympathy, but they are no comfort whatever to those who have suffered the IRA's vile and vicious attacks on the community. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) wishes to intervene, I shall be happy to allow him to do so.
  People make sweeping statements against the security forces. In recent days, a priest from Dungannon, Denis Faul, has engaged in his customary black propaganda against the RUC, saying that it was in cahoots with the loyalist gunmen in the murder of Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland. That is a foul and diabolical deception. There is no foundation whatever for that allegation and Denis Faul never even tried to back it up with fact. I warned that the IRA would take it as a nod and a wink to say that they should take another swipe at the security forces. We know what happened: two RUC members and two of their friends were murdered while out on a wildfowling expedition and their families were left to suffer the results of those wild allegations against members of the security forces.
  Recently we had a Rev. Burke from the United States pedalled in to speak at the Patrician hall, Carrickmore, in my constituency. At an open meeting he said, on behalf of Noraid, that the only legitimate army in Ireland was the IRA. Four members of the IRA appeared on the platform —two women in hoods and jackets, and two men in full IRA uniform. That did not happen somewhere in the backwoods. It happened in my constituency and a photograph appeared in the local paper, the Ulster Herald, on 10 August. Rev. Burke made those remarks in the midst of a terrorist campaign in which the innocents of that constituency had been slaughtered. Hon. Members who have protested so loudly would do well to take a trip to see Mr. Burke and ask him whether reconciliation is a theological term and was on his mind.
  As the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell) said during the speech made by the Secretary of State, there is a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland —the shoot-to-kill policy of the IRA, whose members do not care about the suffering of their victims and their
  72
  victims' families. They are happy without jury and without judge because they act as judge, jury and executioner rolled into one. Yet it seems that hon. Members are concerned about the introduction of effective measures against such people.
  It will come as no surprise to the Secretary of State to hear that I do not believe that the present measures are effective. I welcome the existing provisions, but I do not believe that they go far enough. It is some time since we had an opportunity to discuss security. I have several times asked the Leader of the House for a debate on the necessity for extra security measures to deal with the terrorist onslaught on the innocent citizens of our Province. Unfortunately, I have to the report to the House that the campaign of terror continues unabated. This debate takes place at a time when the IRA murder gangs are able to run unhindered through my constituency and when the cycle of tit-for-tat murders is on the increase.
  On behalf of my constituents and. I believe, of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland, I salute the dedication and bravery of the security forces, especially in areas such as my constituency where members of those forces are in the front line facing the terrorist attack. They face danger not only every time that they put on a uniform, but every time that they take their families out of the house or sit down to a meal. The men and women of the security forces—the Ulster Defence Regiment, the RUC, the RUCR and the Army—have shown not only discipline but bravery and dedication. All hon. Members should rise as one and support them without reservation because they are facing a merciless foe that does not care about the hurt or destruction that it brings upon members of the security forces or their families.
  In recent months members of the security forces have made a tremendous sacrifice in the innocent blood of their colleagues. I fear that families are hurt not only by the fact that the terrorist campaign is still going on after 20 years, but because they feel that after a few hours their loved ones are only statistics. Another tragedy comes to take over the limelight and in a few hours loved ones are forgotten except by the members of the immediate family who feel the hurt. People in my constituency are now facing the winter months.
  The other day I met the members of a community association in Castlederg, in my constituency. One of the elected representatives met me at the door and asked whether I had met one of my constituents, a young widow. That young woman was the first terrorist widow of 1990. She is left broken-hearted and desolate with her young children. She does not know what to do or where to go. She cannot stay where she is but does not want to move. She is left in turmoil after all the trauma, and it is her young children who keep her sane enough to have any purpose to go on. Standing outside that community association meeting at Castlederg, that elected representative said to me, "If you had been here a few moments ago you would have witnessed eight or nine members of the families of different members of the security forces." That was at 11 o'clock in the morning, and after taking their children to school those family members were coming from the graveyard. That goes on every day.
  In our country widows are trying to come to terms with the tragedy, and as they seek to get over it another murder occurs and the wounds are reopened. Then someone

  73
  appears on television and cries against the treatment of some terrorist by the security forces. That grieves and hurts those widows even more.
  Mr. Dicks: Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the poverty in which those families have to live and the difficulty of getting financial help from the Government? Would he like to comment on the low levels of compensation paid to those members of the forces who are injured in Northern Ireland?
  Rev. William McCrea: I intended to raise that matter and this is a good moment to do it.
  The other evening I went into a home in Cookstown where another member of the UDR had been murdered. Two leading members of the security forces were there offering sympathy to the widow. This was later on the day that her husband had been murdered. They were genuine in their offer of sympathy to the family. Albert Cooper, the man who was murdered, was a gentleman in every sense of the word. Mr. Cooper received a telephone call from a woman who asked him to fix the exhaust on her car. She said that she needed it urgently, and if he was kind enough to wait she would be there in 10 or 15 minutes. She asked him to wait because she had to go on an urgent call.
  That gentleman waited at his garage. He looked at his watch the minute the lady turned into the driveway and said to his companion, "Do you see that, she is dead on time." The woman got out of the car, went into the office and looked into the face of that young father. She repeated her pathetic plea about how she needed the job done and would he be kind enough to do it. Then she left, but before she reached the street in Cookstown, a matter of 40 or 50 yards, Albert went to do the job, seeking to help, and he was blown to bits. A woman who under God was given the privilege of carrying a child and of giving birth was the very one used by the devil himself to take away an innocent man's life.
  I sat in that widow's home with those two leading members of the security forces and we talked about certain people who were seen in the proximity of the murder and were noted for their terrorist connections. The family asked—and I have a room full of people to confirm this —why those persons could not be held if they were under suspicion. The senior officer said, "If I kept them overnight on suspicion only, they would take me to court and the court would award them £3,000."
  Young Darryl McKeown, a teenage lad in Maghera, came out with his dad from work and sat down in the car beside him. His dad did an ordinary day's job as a butcher in a shop. The terrorists watched Mr. McKeown and his child come out and then riddled the car with bullets. The young lad had to fall to the floor and he watched as his father was slaughtered in front of his eyes. The authorities offered him £3,000 for the trauma and the tragedy, the same amount that that senior officer said that suspected terrorists would get for spending one night in a cell. That answers the question asked by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks).
  The value of life in our Province is low and that has been proved by some of the points made by hon. Members. The life of a terrorist or of a person who is suspected of the most heinous and foul crimes is more important than the life of a victim. What is the use of weeping? Four men are lying dead, two of them in the car and one on the floor or
  74
  on the ground and one in the water down at the lough shore. That is the reality, but it goes further because some people face a living death.
  A few days ago I received a communication which I shall read because the House should hear it. I wish that more hon. Members were present to hear it. It is entitled, "Far Across Yonder Blue Lies a Golden Fairy Land". The words of this beautiful song were sung to a hushed and enthralled audience as the singer unfolded to his friends the beauty of Northern Ireland. He went on to sing another haunting ballad beginning, "If you ever go across the sea to Ireland, then maybe at the closing of the day"; then comes the lovely line: "and watch the sun go down on Galway bay." The person who wrote to me about this incident continued: "I had to leave the room. The singer's face was shining as he sang. He stood tall and proud, yet his sightless eyes and hearing aid told it all. Charlie was blown up 16 years ago while serving with the RUC. This winter, he will make soft toys in his dark and silent world. His friend Willie was more fortunate. He can at least hear." What was he singing? It was, "and watch the sun go down on Galway bay". He would never see the sun go down on Galway bay again.
  Sean heard someone knocking on his door 19 years ago. He looked out of the window and part of his brain fell out on the cot where his infant son lay because he had been shot in the head. Today, he is wheelchair bound, totally dependent on his elderly parents. He needs constant nursing care. Another lad was a Royal Marine, a tough one. Today, he sits in a red wheelchair with 11 bullets in his stomach. A surgical collar and sling complete his ensemble. He was only doing his duty outside the law courts, protecting the public.
  Another gentleman got into the back of his car after duty and was hurled through the roof by a bomb. Today, he sits in a blue wheelchair wearing a corset to support what is left of his anatomy. Michael lost two arms. He is in his late twenties. Many things are difficult with iron hooks or claws. This is not fiction; this is reality. Another was a human fireball in Londonderry after a petrol bomb struck him on the back. Another carries more steel plates in his head than many of us see in a lifetime. His epilepsy does not help matters.
  Those people are still living. I ask the House to think carefully about rejecting a Bill that is aimed at curbing the freedom of the terrorist because it would be wrong to do that. I have already said that I do not think that the Bill goes far enough, but, while we curb the freedom of the terrorist, we are giving the innocent at least a chance.
  I have been a Member of Parliament for eight years and I believe that I can honestly say that in those eight years I have walked behind the coffins of more of my constituents than has any other Member of Parliament. The tragedy is that, in the last year, that has continued. We hear a lot of cries whenever we suggest that there should be a return of capital punishment.I say without apology that I believe that the Government should bring it in. If anybody needs any proof that the terrorists are afraid of capital punishment, they should think about Ellis last week.
  Ellis was on hunger strike in the south because he believed that he could pull it off. They shipped him over here to the United Kingdom—I think that the Irish Government thought that he would die and they wanted to give the British Government the problem—and his sister said on television that he would starve to death now that he was in the United Kingdom because he had no reason

  75
  to live and because he would get no justice here. No sooner were the words out of her than he came off the hunger strike because he knew that he would have been allowed to die. The one thing that the terrorists fear more than anything else is death, and probably what comes after it as well—they have every reason to fear that. That is why I trust that the day will soon come when the Government have the guts to grasp this nettle, in the interests of the innocent, and reintroduce capital punishment.
  I asked a leading member of the security forces who was standing outside the yard of Albert Cooper, "Can you please tell me when this will end?" His telling answer was, "Not in the next 20 years if we carry on with the policy that we have at the moment." I defy anybody to disprove that statement in the closing moments of my speech, or call it what Members like—I do not care how it is written up or what anyone says afterwards. At least when I walk into my constituency, the people there will know one thing. I might not have what others have, but I love my constituents with something that is in my heart, not just in my mind. I am begging for the lives of my constituents.
  I ask any hon. Member—I ask the Minister who is replying to the debate—what answer I should give to Mrs. Cooper, Mrs. Jamieson and Mrs. Kilpatrick and their children when they ask me when the terrorist campaign will end. The Prime Minister said that she believed that the terrorists should be wiped off the face of the earth. All that the terrorists have to do is to come over the border from Haughey's territory in the south. It cannot be disproved that the vast majority of attacks in Mid-Ulster are the result of terrorists coming over the border from the south, doing their dastardly deed and going back to the safe haven of the Irish Republic, while Ministers were telling me about state co-operation. Not one terrorist crime committed by the IRA in my constituency has been solved.
  Will the Bill assure the Province that the terrorist will be wiped off the face of the earth? If the Minister can promise me that, I should like him to go further: how long do we have to wait, and how many more coffins do we have to carry down the road, before the day of peace comes?
  7.30 pm
  Mr. Alex Carlile: The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has spoken of the feelings and suffering of the victims of terrorism with a passion which is driven by his long experience of ministering to that suffering. I know that we all understand, though he may feel that we do not always do so, the extent of that suffering, even if we do not have the privilege of living in Northern Ireland, which, as he and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) emphasised, is part of the United Kingdom.
  These debates give us the opportunity to remember especially those who have died only because, in their working lives, they sought to keep the peace and the law, or because they were merely friends of those who sought to do that in Northern Ireland. The brutality of those deaths is exceeded only by the futility of those who killed them. That futility is demonstrated, in my view, by the continuation of the violence, which in itself is evidence of the lack of achievement of any credible objective.
  I am strongly opposed to capital punishment. I do not want to enter into the argument in detail, but in my
  76
  professional life as a lawyer I have represented someone who spent 16 years in prison for a murder that he did not commit, of which he was wrongly convicted and in respect of which he was later released.
  I believe strongly that repression of opinion is wrong. I am against any form of political repression. I have to say, however, that people of liberal and libertarian views such as myself are driven to the brink of those views by the sort of incidents to which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred, involving the deaths of four men who went out on a day's wildfowling. We do not go over the brink, because of our desire for democracy and our beliefs that people can eventually trust one another if only they have the confidence to do so and that the objective of reconciliation—I use the word advisedly in the context of the debate—is achievable.
  As a citizen of the United Kingdom on this side of the water, I believe that I express the view of the great majority of the citizens of the United Kingdom when I say that I find the sneering of the hon. Member for Antrim, North at "reconciliation" as a secular concept both distasteful and disturbing. Reconciliation happens between husbands and wives, brothers and sisters, neighbours and communities. I believe that the vast majority of the population of the United Kingdom—the United Kingdom of the hon. Member for Antrim, North—find the hon. Gentleman's theology to be specious and but a disguise for what sometimes appears to be, though clothed in great eloquence, an antipathy towards the ordinary understanding that people have of the meaning of reconciliation.
  My right hon. and hon. Friends and I recognise the continuing need for what is described, rightly or wrongly, as emergency provisions legislation for Northern Ireland. If the House divides this evening, we shall be supporting the Government. This type of legislation is not desirable, but it is a reality of life and we must recognise the need for most, if not all, of the new provisions.
  I think that the House should place great value on the tremendous work that has been done by Viscount Colville of Culross, whose repeated analyses of the situation in Northern Ireland, and clear expression of his opinion of it, have given hon. Members who have bothered to read his reports a much greater understanding than certainly that for which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster will ever give us credit. I wish to pay tribute also to the work that has been done by the Standing Advisory Council on Human Rights, which has made a considerable contribution to the debate and has ensured that the matters that it raises are always considered on as objective a basis as possible.
  Ms. Mildred Gordon: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that Parliament has a duty to consider legislation, to prevent terrorism and to maintain the rights and liberties of individuals. Is he aware that in the past six years almost 7,000 people have been detained at ports and airports under legislation that has related to Irish political violence, and that 86·4 per cent. of those detained have not been charged? This means that thousands of innocent people have been stopped. Is he aware that in the past 10 years inquiries made by ports and airports to the national drugs unit at Scotland yard have increased more than twofold and that the number of people stopped and examined for more than an hour at our ports and airports has increased fivefold in the past five years, and is increasing? Does he agree that Parliament

  77
  must consider the impact of these happenings on civil liberties and ensure that a balance is struck when considering legislation of the sort that is before us?
  Mr. Carlile: The hon. Lady has only recently wandered into the debate and it is obvious that she has not read the Bill. Her intervention has nothing to do with the debate and I think that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I attempted to respond to the issues that she raised, which would require a complex and detailed reply.
  I was about to say to the Secretary of State that, although I have indicated the broad general support of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the Bill, some major disappointments arise from it. The first disappointment, which has already been mentioned, is the retention of the power to introduce internment. I join the Alliance party of Northern Ireland in its argument that the power is unacceptable, impracticable and contrary to all the best advice, including that of Viscount Colville of Culross. I wish to put on record the strength of view held by Viscount Colville. At paragraph 11.9 of his report he stated:
  "The detention of thousands of Palestinians without charge or trial by the Israeli authorities in connection with the intifada appears to have been carried out under powers not dissimilar to what is in the EPA."
  That is the emergency provisions Act. He added:
  "It would be ironic for the UK to have to explain that its much cherished legal system is so liberal that it has proved inept to bring to trial and convict known criminals, and that it is an excess of fairness which now predicates executive detention as coming to our society's rescue."
  He comes to this conclusion:
  "As things now stand I can only endorse with vigour Sir George Baker's recommendation: no more detention."
  As Viscount Colville suggested in another part of the section of his report to which I have referred, whether to retain or remove the power to introduce internment is a political decision, and I understand that it is a difficult one. It is a matter of judgment and not of absolutes. I suggest to the Government that the judgment that has been made is wrong and that it is impossible to imagine circumstances in which internment would be likely to be introduced. It will continue to rankle as a political matter until it is removed. The advice of Sir George Baker and Lord Colville is the best advice on this subject.
  The introduction of the video-taping of interviews in terrorist trials would provide both proper protection for the rights of suspects and proof of the reality of confessions. Currently, the inquiry under Sir John May is considering the case of the Guildford Four. Many people, including myself, who have submitted memoranda of evidence to the inquiry have argued for the introduction of video-taping of interviews for certain serious crimes in England and Wales. We do not yet know what view Sir John will take, but, if it were introduced throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, it would take away a substantial area of controversy in trials that reach the higher criminal courts.
  I have practised for almost 20 years in the criminal courts, and I have experienced the advantages of the tape-recording of interviews—the difference that is made to trials and the narrowing of the issues. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter. The video-taping of interviews would remove the controversy surrounding disputed confessions. They would either be true confessions or they would not and it would be possible to ascertain that from the video tape.
  78
  The Secretary of State referred to clause 29. If such a clause had been included in the Criminal Justice Bill for England and Wales, those of us who are intimately concerned in such matters would have had a fit. It is a draconian measure. I understand the thinking behind it, but I am concerned about the applicability of that new offence to the inside of a suspect's home. All sorts of examples have been given. I do not know whether marzipan can be used in the making of explosives, although that is certainly a schoolboy myth which I have carried through my life—at least, until today. It raises the spectre of a housewife in Northern Ireland suddenly being arrested and having to discharge the burden of proof—which is shifted to her—that the marzipan was kept merely to make the Christmas cake.
  I noted that when Lord Colville suggested the introduction of an offence along those lines, he clearly did not have in mind a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment. In paragraph 2.10 of his report, he suggested that the offence required only a relatively minor penalty. I should be interested to know why the Government have decided that the offence should go rather wide of what he had in mind and attract, on indictment, a very substantial maximum.
  In chapter 5 of the report, Lord Colville suggests the introduction of an ombudsman to deal with complaints, especially with those against the police, which would bring about a welcome and increased level of confidence. I invite the Minister to say why the Government have rejected that idea. I note that the Secretary of State is shaking his head. Perhaps the Minister could say why such an ombudsman is not yet being introduced to provide that increased level of confidence. It would be inexpensive, but it could have a considerable effect on the public's view of their rights of complaint to someone outside the police force about the actions of the police. It is important that people outside the force deal with complaints against the force. I argued that during the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as did others. We still argue for the introduction of a police ombudsman for England and Wales.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann suggested that we should look at the Diplock courts. I have done so. There is no doubt that, whether or not they are desirable, the Diplock courts are fair. I had the opportunity to discuss the trial procedures with the judiciary and others, and concluded that the courts lean over backwards to ensure that wrongful convictions are not entered, that reasons are given for everything—which is more than can be said for the courts of England and Wales—and that evidence is analysed with a fine-toothed comb.
  Mr. Flannery: I have previously raised that matter. No matter how fair the hon. and learned Gentleman's observation has revealed the Diplock courts to be, does he agree that they exist only because of the position in Northern Ireland? I hope that he is not advocating such courts for mainland Britain.
  Mr. Carlile: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was simply developing my argument.
  The Diplock courts are fair. We should pay tribute to the judges in Northern Ireland, who operate in the most appalling personal conditions. By taking appointments as judges, their private lives and those of their families are ruined. They face the permanent risk of being murdered

  79
  —and we know that there have been murders among the judiciary. I pay a strong tribute to those brave people who accept jobs as judges in Northern Ireland.
  The Diplock courts are undoubtedly an exception to the ordinary rules of jurisprudence applied in the United Kingdom. I do not share the view that they should be introduced in England and Wales, because I believe that the jury system works. It has been criticised on many grounds, but it is a constitutional safeguard. Anyone who has doubts about the importance of the safeguard provided by a jury should think about those cases in which juries have refused to convict on what have turned out historically—and this goes back for centuries—to be grounds that have proved later to be right.
  I accept that there is no option other than the retention of the Diplock courts, or something like them, in Northern Ireland for the time being; although I think that I am right in saying that the Government share the aspiration to reintroduce jury trial at the earliest possible opportunity. The use of the Diplock courts could be mitigated by Lord Colville's suggestion of increased certifying-in of cases. It could also be mitigated by the use of multi-judge courts, although I recognise that that might be impracticable at present. I suggest a minor alteration to the system that would make it appear to be even fairer than it now appears to be.
  I propose the introduction of pre-trial reviews before a judge other than the ultimate trial judge, when questions about the admissibility of evidence—for example, a confession—or discussion on points of law that might have a prejudicial effect on the defendant could be raised. Judges are accustomed to directing themselves to ignore what they have just heard. Any of us who have ever sat in a judicial capacity have had to do that. It is not easy, but with experience it no doubt becomes easier—and that may be why Diplock judges do it well. However, for public peace of mind and the protection of civil liberties, the simple, albeit time-consuming, alteration that I suggest could be useful.
  All of us in the House look for and offer solutions, but in the end the real solution is in the hands of the terrorists. That solution will come only when they realise that the vast majority of people—probably 99 per cent.—want to live in peace and want those terrorists to lay down their arms.
  7.51 pm
  Mr. David Davis (Boothferry): As an English Member of Parliament, it is with some trepidation that I speak in the debate—not for any constitutional reason, because I view the constituents of all right hon. and hon. Members as every bit as British as my own. But perhaps the one thing that unites the hon. Members for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) is that they live through and suffer the pain of the consequences of terrorism at first hand, whereas the rest of us merely read or hear about them, or see them on television. We do not have to face those consequences day in, day out, through the years. Some of the speeches made today give eloquent testimony to the pain that is caused to the hon. Members who represent constituencies in that tragically torn Province.
  80
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), in which he spoke of the move away from the rule of law in applying the provisions of the Bill. He was speaking of the conventional view of the civil rights basis of British law, which is best encapsulated in the statement that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than that one innocent man be wrongfully imprisoned. Today we heard about the consequences of one guilty man going free, in that it can lead to 10 innocent men being wrongfully killed.
  The scales of justice are difficult to balance in such a trade-off. The stance taken by the Opposition today tipped that balance very much against the interests of the victim and, sadly, in favour of the terrorists. Such a stance might be appropriate in the mainland society in which we live, but not for a society riven by evil organisations, such as Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Jim Marshall: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say that, and only regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) cannot be here to speak for himself. My hon. Friend made it clear that Labour's policy offers no succour to terrorists. It is that any deviations from the law as it applies in the rest of the United Kingdom must be justified. We do not suggest that there should be no deviations, but that if there are changes from the generality of the law as enforced in the United Kingdom, they must be justified.
  Mr. Davis: I am also sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is not in his place, because we are constituency neighbours and we usually have great respect for one another. I could deal clause by clause with some of the points that he made, but frankly I do not think that he understood them. One, dealing with the important issue of evidence, is particularly important, but I shall return to that.
  The attack on terrorism can be placed into three categories. First, there are the political initiatives to take away the grounds for discontent that provide a breeding ground for terrorism. Secondly, there is direct action, much of which is encapsulated in the Bill, by the police and security forces. Thirdly, there are indirect actions, having the aim of strangulating terrorism. The best example of that in previous legislation was denying the oxygen of publicity to terrorist organisations. More recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken several legislative and executive initiatives to deny terrorist organisations funds in the form of income from racketeering. That is a major advance and should be commended.
  Each of those policies and strategies has a down side. While there can be no doubt about the need for political initiatives, their very existence offers some hope to republicans, who may think that, one day, they will get their own way and that they become more plausible. One must live with that down side. Similarly, even in the best-run military operations relating to terrorism, mistakes are made, which may occasionally create problems that help to recruit supporters for terrorist organisations.
  Anyone who has witnessed a detailed house-to-house search will know that, however careful may be the people who carry it out, it is never a pleasant process for the

  81
  families who are on the receiving end. The individual who has had his house searched is bound to feel some grievance, so there is a down side to even the most legitimate and carefully executed operation undertaken by the military or security forces.
  I join the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and other hon. Members in acknowledging what a difficult job the security forces perform and how well they have undertaken it in difficult and unpleasant circumstances over a long period. I add my congratulations to them on that. It occurs to me that indirect attacks on terrorism have less of a down side. It is difficult to see how anyone could be martyred by having his accounts properly scrutinised, or how antagonism could be created by the administrative aspects of the work against racketeering. That is an area on which more emphasis should be placed. My right hon. Friend has done much in that connection already, but we should debate further what we can and should do to defeat terrorist racketeering.
  In concentrating on IRA racketeering, I do not underestimate its other forms; the Provisional IRA has business operations that produce about £5 million a year. The income comes from black cabs, drinking clubs, smuggling, protection—from all types of illegal activity in Northern Ireland, and sadly from some legitimate activities. By raising about £5 million a year, the Provisional IRA, its allies and opponents do about £500 million worth of damage to Northern Ireland each year. I do not count the grief, misery, death and destruction that we have already heard about; merely the economic and public cost. Every £1 raised does £100 worth of damage. On those grounds alone we ought to consider the importance of our strategy to deal with racketeering and of increasing the resources devoted to it. That is not to say that funding should be reduced in other areas, because all the work that we do is essential, but we must emphasise the work required and support it.
  It is also worth considering what the IRA achieves in nationalist communities in west Belfast and elsewhere through the existence of such commercial operations. It is difficult for an English Member of Parliament who does not come from the Province or live there, but I have tried to imagine what life must be like for a young Catholic in his teens growing up in west Belfast. If he goes for a drink, where does he go? There are no pubs, so he goes to a republican drinking club. By passing money across the bar he inadvertently contributes to the Provisional IRA. He is surrounded by the symbols of militant republicanism when he does so. If he travels, he goes by black cab, and contributes to the IRA. If he buys a "black" video, he contributes to the IRA. If he wants to get a job, where does he go? In many cases the local IRA chieftain has the patronage to give him work on building sites. If he wants housing advice or to know how to get housing benefit, he will go to a Provisional Sinn Fein advice centre, which is probably paid for out of IRA funds raised by the methods that I mentioned.
  In the worst cases, the young man might know someone in his street who is a prisoner and whose family get a pension from the Provisional IRA. It is not difficult to imagine how any young man in those circumstances—surrounded by anti-British, sectarian propaganda, his life permeated by all those tentacles of Provisional IRA activity—can easily be seduced into the organisation, into its line of thinking and the type of action that it tries to
  82
  encourage. As a result, it is hardly surprising to hear that very young IRA members have been captured in the past few months.
  Therefore, it is critical that the Northern Ireland Office does several things about racketeering. Any action that it takes must be quick. The Provisional IRA and other terrorist organisations—either independently or by mimicry—have proved innovative when it comes to raising money. Some other methods that I did not mention, which are used south of the border, include selling illegal hormones for agriculture and smuggling. As one closes down one operation, another is opened up to provide more money for terrorism, as we have witnessed in the past few years.
  Any policy that we decide upon to try to improve the situation, as opposed to nibbling at the edges or keeping things as they are now, must quickly make inroads into such activities. It will require more than one method—more than mere legislation in the House. Such policy needs to be comprehensive and to deal with several areas of activity at the same time. Because of those requirements, the policy will also have to encompass social action, legislation such as the Bill and other Acts, and action at European level so that European directives can be used to prevent such commercial activities evading us by crossing borders.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has to consider several issues. Another problem is that any action taken has to be watertight. One of the best examples of non-watertight action was the Government's attempt to cut off the oxygen of publicity. This week, "Panorama" on BBC television carried pictures of known terrorists with actors' voices dubbed over them to get round the legislation. That makes a mockery of our policies. We must ensure that other policies do not fall down because of such loopholes, technical or otherwise.
  There are two ways in which the Bill does not go far enough. I am not a lawyer, I cannot be sure that what I have to say is accurate, but I hope that the Secretary of State will give this matter some attention in Committee. First, clause 22 allows the search for and acquisition of documents for evidence, within the limits of clause 30—in other words, documents that will be used to further terrorism. I understand why it is unimportant that a limitation should be placed upon that right. However, documentary evidence will become more and more important, especially in indirect ways, to stop terrorism. For example, it would be a tragedy if a search turned up documents, but because the search was under a warrant constructed under the Bill, and the documents were relevant to the section in the prevention of terrorism Act that aims to prevent the funding of terrorism, the action failed. We may have created a lacuna because of the way that the Bill is drafted. While I am conscious of the issue of the limitation of powers, that loophole should be considered in Committee.
  The second matter that the Bill does not cover—I know that it will raise hackles on the Opposition Benches because of civil rights—is the use of information collected by telephone tapping. At the moment we are able to intercept communications in Northern Ireland under legally and administratively constrained arrangements. Such information is not allowed in a court of law. It seems to me that it is no more of an infringement of civil liberties to allow such information to be used in a court of law than to gather it in the first place. Therefore, I should like that

  83
  to be included in the Bill. The key distinguishing factor of law and order in Northern Ireland is the problem of intimidation of juries and witnesses. Therefore, other forms of evidence are critical, and any form of evidence that can help us save lives is worth considering.
  We must recognise that mistakes can cost lives. We recognise that intellectually, and several hon. Members who represent the Province have told us about the pain, misery and suffering that can arise from such errors. We do not take that lightly. I see that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has now returned to the Chamber. None of us takes lightly the trade-off with civil rights, but civil rights are being played against lives. We must always keep that in our minds, and with that in mind I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis (Fermanagh and South Tyrone): The hon. Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) expressed some reservations about daring to speak on a matter pertaining to Northern Ireland. Having listened to him, I believe that his sympathy and understanding and the practical way in which he dealt with the issue have singled him out as one who should speak more often on this subject. I appreciate his contribution.
  As I live in Northern Ireland, I must inevitably welcome the Bill, not because I want there to be a need for emergency legislation, but because I recognise that, without it, we will be even worse off than we are today.
  I regret having to make my next point, because I have some respect for the Secretary of State and for the way in which he has tried to address our problems, but, having welcomed the legislation, I must now express my deep reservations about some comments that he has published about the Bill. They are almost a paradox, because the right hon. Gentleman began by saying:
  "It is the Government's duty to ensure that the law is effective for that purpose"
  —that purpose is dealing with terrorism. However, he later stated:
  "The Bill does not represent any change in our security policy."
  That appears to be a total contradiction, especially when one considers that, in 1985, the number of deaths from terrorism had dropped to 47, but has now risen to 84 and that the figure for this year is still much in excess of the figure for 1985. We do not want no change; we want effective change.
  I do not want to quote all the Secretary of State's comments, but I believe that he chose the wrong word when he said:
  "The Government believes that, taken as a whole, the Bill represents an appropriate response to the current terrorist threat".
  The word that I doubt is "appropriate". What does the Secretary of State mean by "appropriate"? Does he mean "appropriate" purely in political terms, in terms of how the handling of the affair by the Government of Northern Ireland might be seen in Great Britain or the United States? Like many other hon. Members, I should have preferred the right hon. Gentleman to use the word "adequate" and to talk about "an adequate response", because, despite the best efforts of our security forces and despite the endurance of the vast majority of the
  84
  law-abiding community, this legislation, as the Secretary of State interprets it, is unlikely to contain let alone eradicate terrorism.
  The House has had the benefit of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who spoke about the emergency provisions legislation from the legal viewpoint. It is not for me to follow several other hon. Members who have indulged more in philosophical arguments than in practical arguments about the legislation. It is right that the philosophy of the way in which we deal with terrorism should be addressed, but for those of us who live in Northern Ireland there is an urgency about this. There is a practical sense and a reality which, at times, becomes impatient with those who indulge solely in the philosophical debate.
  I can best illustrate what I mean by reminding the House of exactly what terrorism means in Northern Ireland in stark terms. I shall take the period of exactly five years from 15 November 1985 to 14 November this year. In those five years we have had the Anglo-Irish Agreement—some would tell us that we have had the benefits of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, but others would tell the truth. During that time there have been 347 murders—an average murder rate per year that is almost exactly 50 per cent. higher than the murder rate in 1985. Of those 347 murders——
  Mr. Brooke rose——
  Mr. Maginnis: If the Secretary of State will allow me to finish, I shall certainly give way to him later.
  Of those 347 murders, 259, or 74·6 per cent. were carried out by republican terror groups, 83, or 23·9 per cent., were carried out by loyalist terror groups and five are attributed to a person or persons unknown. Of the victims, 119 have been Roman Catholics, and 49, or 41·2 per cent., of those Roman Catholics have been killed by republican paramilitary groups; 68, or 57·1 per cent., of the Roman Catholic victims were killed by loyalists; and the murders of two of the victims, or 1·1 per cent., were attributed to a person or persons unknown. Among the 228 Protestant victims, the deaths of 210, or 92·1 per cent., of them are attributable to republican terrorism; 15, or 6·6 per cent., are attributable to loyalist terror groups and three, or 1·3 per cent., are attributed to persons unknown.
  I know that statistics can be boring, but I should like to complete them before setting them to one side. I remind the House of what has happened year by year since 1985 in terms of terrorist killings. I advise the Secretary of State, to whom I shall give way shortly, that I am dealing in Anglo-Irish Agreement years—that is, from 15 November one year to 14 November the next year. In 1985, before the agreement was signed, there were 47 terrorist murders. In 1986, that had risen to 59. In 1987, it had risen to 80 and in 1988 the number was 84. In 1989 the figure dropped to 54. Although that figure was still much too high, we were grateful for that temporary and partial respite. However, in the past year, the figure has risen again, to 70. I shall deal later with why the figure dropped in 1989 because there is a lesson to be learned from that, but I give way first to the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I simply wonder whether, later in his speech, he will dwell on the coincidence of the years that he is quoting to the period during which the Provisional IRA has been heavily armed by Gaddafi of Libya.
  Mr. Maginnis: I shall endeavour to address that point later for the benefit of the Secretary of State.
  I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question. Who will protect the people of Northern Ireland? The answer may seem simple, but I ask the question because I do not believe that over the years the Government have taken adequate steps, in terms of active and practical measures, to deal with the continued suffering of the people who live in Northern Ireland. I refer not just to those who live in Northern Ireland. There are those in Great Britain who have also become the IRA's victims. In the light of the events of the past year, one should include, too, those throughout Europe who have suffered at the hands of the same organisation.
  It may seem to be trite, but it is not meant to be, when I say that we know that the RUC, the Regular Army and the Ulster Defence Regiment, to which I pay the greatest compliment for its endurance and courage, will endeavour to protect us. If, however, one deals separately with each of those services, we know that each has to carry out its duty under constraints that ought not to be imposed upon it. We accept that our security services must abide by the rule of law, but other things could be done and other steps could be taken to make their role more effective and to provide them with more protection.
  During the last few years, the RUC has experienced greater and greater difficulty in operating within its financial budget. That makes itself manifest in various ways, not least when a policeman in Armagh was shot through the window of his own home because no one had ensured that a simple, effective and not very costly method of protecting him was installed—adequate window glazing to hinder the firing of a gun at him. When I found out that that had not been done, I wrote immediately to the Northern Ireland Office and asked that steps should be taken to examine the safety of RUC members and properly to assess the likelihood, according to the areas in which they live, of their being assassinated. Before anything was done, however, yet another policeman in the same area was shot in exactly the same way.
  I do not believe that senior RUC officers are oblivious to the needs of the men whom they command, but it is so difficult to provide protection that at times they adopt a fingers-crossed attitude. The RUC man is the most vulnerable. He has to carry out the ordinary civil duties of a policeman. I hope that this place will recognise his security needs. I do not intend to dwell for too long on the subject; I recognise the difficulties that the Regular Army faces. It is within the Government's competence to deal with those difficulties. Not least among them is the gross undermanning of Army units for the tasks that they have to carry out close to the frontier.
  I have said to the Secretary of State before, and I say to him again, please do not ask the commander on the ground how he is getting on, knowing that the commander believes that he must give an answer of which the Secretary of State will approve. I ask him, please, to go and decide what the task is and then to ask the commander how many men he has to carry out that task. I also ask the Secretary of State to question the commander on how he allocates men to do the job. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State would soon understand the total inadequacy of the manpower in those areas.
  If I have more sympathy for one security service rather than another, it must be for the Ulster Defence Regiment, not just because I served in the regiment for a considerable
  86
  number of years, but because I find that its members are subjected, even by people who are not pro-IRA, to aggravation, false accusation and allegations that would never stand up in a court of law but which are repeated again and again until they begin to wear the men down. That is what the allegations are intended to do: To undermine the morale of soldiers, particularly the part-time members of the Ulster Defence Regiment.
  What are the allegations? They are of the most spurious type: that a member of the UDR has been rude to someone on the road or that a UDR member has been aggressive or threatening on the road. Each allegation has to be, and is, fully investigated. Just imagine what that does to a man who, after doing a day's work, goes out to do eight hours duty with the UDR and who comes in at 4 am to find that perhaps at around midnight someone drove up to the gate of his barracks and put in a complaint which the Special Investigation Branch has been asked to investigate. That man wants to get home and have three or four hours sleep before commencing his next day's work, but he is asked to stay behind because he has to be interrogated by the SIB.
  Could it be that after almost 12 years' service in the UDR I am blind to its faults, that I do not know what goes on or, to put it bluntly, that I am prejudiced in how I see the men with whom I served? That can best be illustrated if I say that my battalion, the 8th battalion of the UDR, has had 33 of its members murdered by the IRA. As I look at those 33 names—God knows, that is enough—I see that they must represent a broad cross-section of those who served in the UDR. I ask myself then about people such as George Shaw who took me, as an 11-year-old lad, to my first scout camp. He served the community, and for all his 57 years he was a public-spirited man. I ask myself, too, about Eric Shiells, a business man. He was a person with liberal views who employed people from both sections of the community. I ask about Cormac McCabe, the headmaster of a secondary school, and I ask myself about Albert Cooper, who was referred to earlier today. I taught him at school. Then there is Jimmy Johnston, whom I also taught at school. I ask myself about Denis Wilson. I cast my eye across my constituency and see so many of those faces. I challenge anyone with an iota of honesty to tell me whether any of those 33 people, of whom I have named but a few, was ever known to adopt aggressive behaviour towards any member of the community, Roman Catholic or Protestant. That is how I ask people to judge. They should not do what so many of the UDR's critics do and consider the regiment as uniforms with no faces and no bodies. I challenge members of the Social Democratic and Labour party, members of the Labour party, members of the Roman Catholic Church and members of the Irish Government, who seem all too ready to criticise the UDR first to look at the cases of those who have served and died as they stood between the community and those who would bring it to its knees. Then they should make a judgment.
  When does the Secretary of State intend to find a way of calling to account those who make false allegations against members of the security forces? It is right that the public should be protected. I support the protection of the public against anyone who goes to excess, but I expect exactly the same protection to be accorded to people in the security services.
  Schedule 2 contains a list of those who are proscribed by the legislation. Recently, there has been a debate in Northern Ireland about whether the Ulster Defence

  87
  Association should be proscribed. I do not give a hoot about any illegal or paramilitary—I suppose that I had better call them that—organisations being proscribed. The Secretary of State may proscribe the UDA tomorrow and I and my colleagues will shed no tears. We do not want to see our Roman Catholic neighbours gunned down any more than we want to see our Protestant constituents bear the onslaught which they have endured for the past 20 years. But those who call for the proscription of the UDA are somewhat hypocritical. This year, there has been an upsurge in the number of killings by loyalist paramilitaries from about 20 per cent. to almost 30 per cent. But why have those people who ask for the proscription of the UDA not considered how 92 per cent. of Protestants killed during the past five years were victims of the IRA and indirectly, or sometimes directly, by its political wing, Sinn Fein? Why do those people not call for the proscription of Sinn Fein?
  My party will support the proscription of any organisation on either side of the community that is engaged in violence against the community. We should be fools not to do so. I hope that the Secretary of State or the Minister of State will answer a question. Is the reason why the UDA is not proscribed, that no one is prepared to face up to the need to proscribe Sinn Fein? Many of us fear that that is the case. If it is, the Government's policy is less than honourable.
  Lord Colville suggested that the power of internment —I am not afraid to call it that, because I know that it is and what I want it to be—should be removed from the legislation. I am glad that the Government did not do so, if only because it would have sent out the wrong signal to the IRA. But I wish that those who talk about internment would begin to ask why we need it and examine its historical background. They should ask what it is. We need it because only 8 to 10 per cent. of IRA terrorists are brought to justice through the courts—I refer to those who commit actual murders. I do not suggest for a moment that bringing 55 or 60 per cent. of loyalist killers to justice is good enough, but there is a difference. That is a reason why we need internment.
  Some people make a glib excuse and say, "Look at what happened in 1971. Look how the community was alienated." But in 1971 the community was alienated for other reasons. It felt that it was socially underprivileged and that it had a considerable amount of ground to make up. But surely after 20 years neither the Secretary of State nor anyone else will tell me that a section of the community in Northern Ireland, which lives under exactly the same Government as the rest of the community, administered from Westminster, is still underprivileged or still has the perception—that is an important word to that section of the community—that its people are second-class citizens.
  Internment did not work in 1971 because it was used to some extent, if not entirely for political purposes. I forget the exact number, but between 300 and 400 people were hauled in one after another. There was no real basis for selection.
  We must remember that internment is not retribution. Retribution is exacted through the judicial procedure and the courts. Internment is a means of detaining those who cannot be brought to justice through the judicial system,
  88
  either because people are not willing to come to court to give evidence or because the security forces need to protect valuable sources of information simply to keep themselves alive. It is, and must be seen only as a means of disrupting the command and control structure of paramilitary organisations.
  I challenge people, such as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who criticise the legislation to answer a question. What will they do to protect their Protestant constituents and, indeed, the 41 per cent. of victims of violence killed by the IRA who were Roman Catholic? What suggestions do they make? Unless hon. Members have positive and practical suggestions to make about how to deal with terrorism, they have not earned the right to criticise what we endeavour to do this evening.
  I challenge not only the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, but every Member of the SDLP. I challenge the Roman Catholic Church and I do it with respect. I challenge the Irish Republic and I do it with respect, but I ask them, "How long will you maintain your harsh, uncompromising, irredentist attitude to Northern Ireland in terms of articles 2 and 3 of your constitution?" Meantime, the Government must reason out why they have retained internment. I hope that it is not just so that we do not give a wrong signal to the IRA, because, by that very constraint, we give a wrong signal.
  Our emergency legislation does not deal effectively with those who choose to use the ballot box and Armalite philosophy. They are those who seek election to our district councils. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and I are forced to sit with killers. Recently I was accused of gloating over the shooting of an ex-member of my council, one Martin McCaughey. I do not gloat over the death of anyone. I repudiate the allegation. Because I am concerned for the law-abiding members of my community, I am satisfied when he is brought to justice and prevented from continuing his killings in my constituency.
  What are members of district councils who are constitutional politicians and who support law and order to do when we are forced to sit with those who, while they face us across the chamber, conspire to kill us and members of the community whom we represent? The time when Martin McCaughey was shot was an opportune time for the Government to say, "Here we have adequate proof. Now is the moment for selective internment."
  I am pleased that the legislation is being strengthened in terms of what can be achieved in closing some frontier crossings. I recall a story told, not by a Unionist, but by an SDLP member of my council when a Sinn Fein member brought a resolution condemning the closure of cross-border roads on the basis that it was a social, economic and political constraint. The SDLP member asked the Sinn Fein councillor whether he had worked that argument out and recalled the day when Tyrone reached the final of the all-Ireland Gaelic football championship. The people from round Dungannon intended to cross from Aughnacloy towards Clones over the Moy bridge. The IRA planted a huge van bomb on the bridge. He asked, "Was that for social or cultural reasons? What about the bomb that was driven into the village of Clogher? A Roman Catholic father of several children was forced to drive a bomb along a twisty, bumpy road while his wife and children were being held at gunpoint. The vehicle was parked outside a draper's shop in the village

  89
  and the Roman Catholic woman who owned the shop and had carried on the business for years was lying on her death bed on the floor above. She had to be brought out on a stretcher. What was that? Was that for social, cultural or economic reasons?" Those are the questions that we must put to the IRA.
  I could talk until midnight and beyond on this issue. Many stories must be told in this House so that people begin to face the practical reality of, and not just the philosophical arguments about, terrorism.
  I advise the Minister who will reply that what we need is education, not equivocation. For 20 years the IRA and others, wittingly or unwittingly, have been conditioning the community in Northern Ireland to believe certain things that are fundamentally untrue and harmful to that community, not least that if we introduce internment everybody, not would, but should be alienated. I cannot believe that the decent members of the Roman Catholic community whom I know or the decent members of the Protestant community whom I know and who are the vast majority would go to the wire for the sake of one or two people within their immediate community who are holding them to ransom and making them hostages every bit as much as Saddam Hussein is making hostages of the people of Kuwait.
  It is time that the Government faced up to their responsibility to condition not only the people of Northern Ireland, but those throughout the United Kingdom and further afield to the reality of the situation. They should not make believe that we are treating everybody with kid gloves. There are people whom we cannot treat with kid gloves. We cannot go on for ever saying, "We shall not do this because we know that you will all come out on to the street", or "Things would get worse if we did this or that." We must think of the 98 per cent. and more of the community who are law-abiding citizens and say to them soon, "We are doing this for your benefit. Understand our reasoning. There will be safeguards. The House of Commons and the courts will safeguard your rights, but you will have to endure some inconvenience for your own benefit and that of your neighbours, Protestant and Roman Catholic, who are being held to ransom."
  If we can implement this legislation in that spirit, beginning to condition the community now to the inconvenience that it must endure, we shall go a long way towards ending the nightmare to which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster alluded and which he predicted would not leave us for the next 20 years. Many of us do not have 20 years. Many of us will have less likelihood of seeing 20 years if action is not taken to implement the full rigours of the law and to explain to the community why that must happen.
  8.48 pm
  Mr. Terry Dicks (Hayes and Harlington): As my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Mr. Davis) has already said, it is a delicate matter for an English Member to speak on matters concerning Northern Ireland. even though it is part of this country. It is especially difficult after the wonderful and moving speech given by my colleague and friend the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea). How can one follow the drama of that speech and the heartfelt feelings he expressed?
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should be aware that the regulations are not tough enough. I am sure
  90
  that previous Secretaries of State made exactly the same speech, which contained the same good wishes and promises, but we are as badly off now as we ever were. We are not winning the battle against terrorism and to pretend that we are is misleading and a delusion. The people of Britain, especially of Northern Ireland, know that the battle has not been won and that it is getting worse. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) cited figures to prove that.
  The security forces are not given sufficient freedom to do what is necessary. They know the identity of some of the villians, the terrorists and their leaders, but they must fight their battle against terrorism with one hand—no, perhaps two—tied behind their backs. Tonight concern has been expressed about a shoot-to-kill policy conducted by the security forces. I hope to God they never have a shoot-to-miss policy. If a shoot-to-kill policy means that IRA terrorists are put away, I have no compunction about lending my support to it.
  Clause 32 of the Bill refers to
  "any hood, mask or other article … used for concealing the identity of features".
  No mention is made of the wearing of military uniforms. People cannot understand why we allow the funeral of a murdered IRA terrorist to take place on the streets of Northern Ireland at which other terrorists wear uniform and fire a salute. As we watch that on English television we ask ourselves what the hell is going on. Those people are terrorists and murderers, but my Government sit back and allow them to have their funerals.
  Why are the Government so proud of a policy that allows long-serving IRA terrorists to have Christmas at home with their families? The Minister will have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster about the suffering of widows and children and those maimed by that dirty, filthy war. However, Ministers proudly sit on the Front Bench and boast about how they allow such terrorists to go home to spend Christmas with their families. What a disgusting and disgraceful situation.
  I was appalled that, when a terrorist recently died, his brother was allowed compassionate leave to attend his funeral. What sort of compassion is it when my Government allow a convicted terrorist to weep for his brother who was killed by the security forces for being a terrorist? What sort of society do we have that allows that?
  We must have emergency regulations, but the ones before us are not strong enough. But consider the policies of the Labour party. I cannot believe what it says. All it is concerned about is the rights of people. Let us consider the Labour party amendment. It condemns the Bill for
  "refusing to remove internment without trial from the Statute Book and failing to introduce the video-taping of interviews with terrorist suspects".
  It also calls for
  "the 'certifying in' of scheduled offences … an ombudsman to consider the operation of complaints … and a statutory duty for the Commission of Human Rights to supervise the operation of the statute".
  What does the Labour party think is going on in Northern Ireland—Butlin's holiday camp, a tea party or a dance at the Ritz on a Saturday afternoon? I did not hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mention responsibilities once; he just spoke about the rights of this, that and the other. Does he not realise that rights and responsibilities represent two sides of one coin? One cannot talk about the rights of a terrorist or a potential terrorist without that terrorist accepting

  91
  responsibility for the society in which he lives. Opposition Members have expressed their concern about those in prison, but those prisoners gave up the right for any consideration the minute they refused to accept their responsibility to act in a decent and humane fashion on the streets of Northern Ireland.
  The Labour party has also called for an inquiry into the wonderful job the SAS did in Gibraltar and for an inquiry about the young lads who pinched a car and tried to get through a police road block. If someone gets into a car for a joyride in Northern Ireland and does not stop at a police block, he should expect, and should get, exactly what is coming to him.
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose——
  Mr. Dicks: I am sorry, but time is short and I will not give way.
  Other Labour Members have written a letter to The Cork Examiner. Their message to the southern Irish Government was clear—do not send anybody back here because they will not get a fair trial. That is the policy followed by the real Labour party.
  In the past four years the Labour party has stood on its head about virtually every policy, but it has remained consistent in voting against the regulations. If I have not said enough about the present Labour party, let me tell the House about the type of person it has selected to fight me for Hayes and Harlington at the next election. That man, when he had a seat of power at the Greater London council, invited Sinn Fein and IRA members to visit at ratepayers' expense. He invited them over to talk about their problems—no doubt it had something to do with the troops out movement and all the rest of it. The Labour party has allowed its local constituency party to select such a person to fight the next election, but the Opposition spokesmen claim that they abhor terrorism and are opposed to it. I wish that their mealy-mouthed words could be heard by more people, as they represent their two-faced hypocrisy.
  What action should be taken to get things right? We must consider the regulations in their proper context. My Government should tell the southern Irish Government to remove from their constitution articles 2 and 3, which threaten to take over the six counties in due course. If the Government believe that we should take tough action, they should tell those terrorist lovers in the south to get rid of those articles from the constitution to show that they mean business.
  What about the wonderful Anglo-Irish Agreement which I voted against five years ago? We were told that that would provide all the answers to the problems of Northern Ireland, but, as the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has already said, acts of terrorism have increased since its introduction. It is a disgusting agreement and a sop to southern Ireland. It has not improved the situation in Northern Ireland and it is a disgrace to this country and my Government. Before we talk about further regulations we should take real action by getting rid of articles 2 and 3 in the Irish constitution as well as the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
  The situation in Northern Ireland is one of war. It is not an issue about rights and wrongs or playing fair. The terrorists' basic rule is that we should play ball with them,
  92
  but they will stick the bat up our rear end. It is about time we told the IRA that this is a battle. The IRA calls itself an army. We need not recognise that, but we should say that we will take it on wherever we must. If that means that we and our security forces must get down in the gutter with them to win, so help us, we will. To sit here and say that we are doing our best when, in a few days, we shall hear about more innocent people being killed and more terrorists getting away with it is unbelievable. What with that and people being put up overnight at a cost of £3,000 and terrorist prisoners going home for Christmas, the British people cannot believe it.
  The sorrowful thing for me is that I had to sit here to listen to such a moving speech from my friend the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. If nothing else happens, I hope that hon. Members were moved by that speech and that the Secretary of State will have second thoughts about what needs to be done about Northern Ireland. We must take tough measures and we must beat terrorism; lovely platitudes expressed in the Chamber will be no help at all.
  8.57 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I am surprised that hon. Members think that we are legislating for terrorists. We are not. We are legislating for the entire people of Northern Ireland, which is an important difference. The Bill will apply not only to the terrorists of Northern Ireland, but to every citizen, good bad or indifferent. For that reason, we must be careful, when withdrawing a right or imposing a burden or liability on a person, to ensure that that person has the full protection of the law.
  I wish to address the Bill in its broadest sense. Each year we have a debate similar to this, whether it concerns the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 or the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Each time, another chunk is bitten out of the normal rule of law. Let us be clear: we are referring not to the normal rule of law, but to its withdrawal. As was pointed out earlier, it is important that when that happens there is full justification for every item that withdraws that rule of law.
  For instance, earlier it was said that capital punishment would be a deterrent. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) referred to the Ellis case and the ending of a hunger strike. However, he seems to have quickly forgotten a lesson. The Provisional IRA encouraged and deliberately let die eight of its own members, one after another, in a protracted public-relations exercise of the most horrible kind. That is not fear of the final punishment, but a use, or abuse, of it. That is why I do not think that capital punishment should be a consideration; but, although it is not included in the debate tonight, it leads me to my next point.
  We reach a stage at which the withdrawal of the normal rights of the rule of law becomes an oppression in itself. I do not know where the dividing line is; I am not a lawyer, only an observer. In support of my case, I do not propose to draw on the deaths of members of the police, members of the UDR and innocent people from both sides of the community in my constituency. I do not wish to base my arguments on them, but propose to state my view on the basis of my own experiences and observations.
  I was challenged fairly directly by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), who said that he could not understand my misgivings about, for instance, the UDR. He himself said that, if the UDR did

  93
  not exist, he and his fellows would have to create such a force for the Protestant people. I could refer to an example from my constituency, where a person was murdered by two serving members of the UDR and somone who had just ceased to be a member. But that is not the point: the point is that there is an element of distrust, which is endemic and must be addressed. We cannot wish it away. That instance—along with several others—is an indication of the problem.
  Mr. Maginnis: I know that I spoke for a long time, and I do not want to take up the hon. Gentleman's time, but I must correct him. I never suggested that, if we did not have an Ulster Defence Regiment, we would need a Protestant force to protect us. I said that, if we did not have properly constituted forces of law and order to stand between us and the terrorist, the community would have a responsibility to protect itself. I stand by that.
  Mr. McGrady: I stand by what I originally said. as it is on the public record.
  The more that rights are withdrawn, the more it is seen as oppression, and the more credibility is given to the terrorists' arguments and to those whom we are all trying to defeat. In his introductory remarks, the Secretary of State said that there was nothing startlingly new in the Bill. If I may use my own words, it is more or less a regurgitation of what has gone before. That is not true. There are new and troubling restrictions of individual rights, and also some important omissions that could be corrected to make the package more viable and cohesive.
  The proposal that will probably give the most trouble is the possibility that otherwise innocent articles in a person's possession may, merely on the suspicion of an investigative officer or Army personnel, be deemed to be a contribution to an intended act of terrorism. That, without any collaborating evidence, would constitute a grave abuse or crime warranting a severe sentence. That is one of the most alarming parts of the Bill, and the Government must take a close look at its practical implications.
  I shall draw attention to only one or two of the missed opportunities, but certainly not to the suggestion that we should introduce phone tapping because there is quite a bit of that in Northern Ireland at present. A matter of grave concern to most people is the absence of the right to silence. The Secretary of State's arguments about non-intention were weak and apologetic when he said that taped video recordings of interviews and interrogations could not and would not be made available.
  It is evident that in many disputed sectors of the application of law, based as they often are on confession and statements made without a great deal of, and sometimes no, collaborating evidence, it would be absolutely invaluable in upholding the law and ensuring that it was just that video tape recordings should be made available. It is no argument to say that such recordings would expose the interrogating officers or personnel to threats to their lives or intimidation. As has been said, modern technology allows the appearances of such people on television to be blurred.
  The Bill includes a section on searching and finding written matter that may be deemed to be of some use to terrorists. The subject is far reaching and I ask the Minister of State and the Government to take a close look at it. It reminds me of the broadcasting ban in a different guise. I argued against that strongly at the time and it has since
  94
  become the total nonsense it was predicted to be. All of us have watched television and heard interviews where a dubbed voice is heard over a photograph of the subject matter or the person speaking. One of the ironies of that is that it prevents political debate with people making propaganda on behalf of terrorism. It prevents us challenging face to face the so-called arguments put forward to justify terrorism.
  Mr. Maginnis: The hon. Gentleman failed to do that for 18 years before the ban.
  Mr. McGrady: If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, he should ask me and I shall let him. I am constantly picking up his voice, much to my distraction.
  Were it not for the broadcasting ban, we could have a political onslaught of verbal dialogue that could not be won by the terrorist propaganda of today.
  We are dealing with a broad spectrum of people in Northern Ireland. Many of the Bill's powers apply to ordinary people, not terrorists. I know that the Minister will be aware that whole communities can be held to ransom by the application of a security measure. Livelihoods can be lost overnight and homes and businesses made non-viable simply because physical structures are erected as security measures. Many of the operations are ill-conceived and the case for them is badly argued. The Bill will make such action easier and will be less effective than it should in combating terrorism and discouraging sympathy for it.
  Let me refer to propaganda. Every time the Government introduce a Bill such as this and include new provisions, they create an image of repression and suppression, and good use is made of that for propaganda purposes. That beguiles those who do not support terrorism and deludes them into thinking that there is justification for some of the horrific deeds that are done. As many hon. Members have said, the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland support law and order. They do not support terrorism. They want to live normal lives, just like everybody else. By introducing more and more repressive legislation—withdrawing people's rights under the normal rule of law—we are playing into the hands of the terrorists.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will take on board the concerns that I have expressed, not because I have any sympathy at all for terrorism—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have stood up against all forms of terrorism in my constituency—but because the protection of people is just as important as the suppression of terrorism.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: One of the objectives of the terrorist is to provoke overreaction, and one of our concerns this evening must be that even the title of the Bill plays, to some extent, into the extremists' hands. We must all be concerned about introducing legislation specifically for the Province of Northern Ireland. Anybody who has any experience of Northern Ireland—and a large part of my family lives there—knows that one must try to strike the right balance between the rights of the vast majority of the community and the desire to combat terrorism.
  The measures in the Bill would be greeted with widespread dismay if anyone even tried to suggest that they should be applied to the mainland. We are talking

  95
  about the principle of dealing with Northern Ireland quite separately from the rest of the United Kingdom. Yet, strangely, I think that some of the measures in the Bill could usefully be applied to the whole of the United Kingdom. Pressure has been brought to bear, for example, for the registration of private security firms—a subject on which I have been in touch with the Home Secretary. It has always been a mystery to me that the Government should consistently say that they are not prepared to legislate for that on the mainland but are perpetuating the existing orders relating to almost exactly the same set of circumstances in Northern Ireland. I find that truly astonishing.
  I should like to explore some of the matters dealt with in Lord Colville's report. Two of them in particular concern me. The first relates to the video-taping of interviews. Some years ago when I was serving in the Metropolitan police the prospect of an audio tape trial was greeted with some alarm by my colleagues. It has now been proved to be a great asset to the police and the police are pleased with many aspects of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 relating to that trial and its perpetuation.
  I urge the Government seriously to consider the introduction of video-taping for trials in Northern Ireland. We know from the noble Lord's report that that is perfectly practicable. We also know that a certain amount of video-taping is already taking place in the holding centres. However, like everything else in Northern Ireland, that is no black-and-white issue because there is then the problem of access to those tapes.
  I do not want to reopen the Stalker affair, but we must all be perfectly familiar with its circumstances. At the final hurdle it boiled down to who should, or should not, have access to an audio tape that was alleged to contain the recording of what had taken place immediately prior to an incident in Northern Ireland. The tape had been collected clandestinely by the Security Service and at one stage the police wanted access to it. However, it was never made available, and that became the brick wall that John Stalker came up against.
  Although video-taping is easy and I advocate its introduction, one must be concerned about access to the finished tape. If somebody in a holding centre decided to volunteer information, perhaps to become a supergrass or to undertake a role as an undercover informant, his longevity could be severely threatened if the video-tape were subsequently seen by certain people.
  Unquestionably, many parts of the Bill are repressive. As I said, if it were presented to the House as a measure for the rest of the United Kingdom, it would be greeted with widespread dismay. But, of course, the circumstances in Northern Ireland are quite different. In one respect, the Secretary of State is quite correct. There is a sign that at long last we are getting the upper hand in the intelligence war in Northern Ireland. There has recently been considerable success against INLA, the Irish National Liberation Army, and that is welcome. There has also been a series of successes against the Provisional IRA.
  In most walks of life failure is an orphan and success has many fathers. Intelligence is no different. The paradox in the intelligence world is that success cannot be proclaimed from the roof-tops. We do not know the
  96
  circumstances or the background that led to the successful interception of the INLA attack. We shall probably never know, and that is as it should be. The key to counter-terrorist operations in Northern Ireland and everywhere else must be good intelligence. Part of good intelligence is the confidence of the community about being able to volunteer information to the authorities.
  The noble Lord Colville said in his report that the Army and police respond quickly and well to complaints. Last year an Act was passed to allow ordinary citizens some indirect access to Security Service files. A tribunal was established and a commissioner appointed to deal with complaints. However, we are debating a Bill that specifically declines to go down that avenue in the face of a proposal from the noble Lord Colville. That seems strange. Several of those issues are mentioned in the Opposition amendment, but that amendment goes far too far.
  The Security Service tribunal and its function in this country is a model that could be applied on a broader scale in Northern Ireland. One would have simply to substitute for the title, "Security Service commissioner", "Security Service ombudsman". That would command great respect in Northern Ireland and might improve the level of information being volunteered by the community. There are two problems with the way in which the system works in England. First, there is undue secrecy surrounding the entire system. When we debated the Security Service Act 1989 in the House last year, it was my belief that ordinary citizens would have an opportunity to make a complaint, the complaint would be pursued by the commisioner and there would be an element of redress for the complainant. Unfortunately, it turns out that the tribunal has declined to pursue any complaints relating to matters that occurred before 18 December 1989. That is against the spirit expressed in the House when we debated the Act.
  The second problem is that, when I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary how many complaints had been received by the Security Services tribunal and how many of those complaints had been investigated by the tribunal, I was told that both answers are secret. It seems crazy, when we are trying to restore public confidence in the security authorities by creating such a mechanism, not to allow an opportunity for the public to judge the effectiveness of that measure. I am disappointed that the issues are still secret, because that runs contrary to what I believe that the House intended last year. In Canada, those affairs are dealt with differently, and if an annual report were published here, that would be helpful for the public.
  Such a report would also be of great benefit to hon. Members. Unfortunately, although there is an opportunity for the Security Service commissioner to write such a report, we do not know whether it would ever be published. In Canada, when the report is published, it includes case histories, and that is a marvellous example of how security authorities can explain to the public and to the taxpayer how the system works, and what the challenges are to the authorities, and give a few graphic examples of the terrorism and subversion, and in this case espionage, which have to be dealt with every year. We already have a precedent for such an ombudsman and to introduce such a system would be of benefit to the people of Northern Ireland.
  Two of the Bill's provisions will be widely welcomed in Northern Ireland by anybody who knows anything about

  97
  the border country. The new offence of going equipped for terrorism will be of great benefit to the authorities in Northern Ireland. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Mr. Jim Marshall.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I cannot claim that I am aggrieved at not having been called to speak in the debate, because I understand the circumstances, but hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies often complain—I complain with them—about the lack of interest shown in their affairs by hon. Members representing constituencies in Great Britain. However, if they talk at great length in debates, that means that the rest of us do not then have the opportunity to be involved in Northern Ireland debates. Six Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have spoken and the average length of their speeches has been 35 minutes.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is an interesting point of order, but it is not within the authority of the Chair to control the length of speeches.
  9.24 pm
  Mr. Jim Marshall: We have had a long debate this evening, and at times it has seemed longer than the normal span for such a debate. It is of regret to me—I am sure that it must be also to other hon. Members who attend these debates regularly—that no new argument has been advanced this evening.
  With one exception, the debate has been a rehearsal of all the old arguments that we have heard on so many previous occasions. The exception was the contribution of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), who, perhaps alone among Conservative Members, sees some credit in the Opposition's amendment. He thinks that the amendment goes too far, but at least he is open minded enough to accept that there are faults in the proposed legislation and that where faults arise they should be corrected.
  I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for adding further credibility to the Opposition's argument that the proposed legislation is repressive and that if such legislation were introduced into the remainder of the United Kingdom it would be met with dismay and widespread outrage. It is for that reason that we continually say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said at the beginning of his speech, that any deviations from the normal rule of law must be justified when they are introduced and on every other occasion when Parliament discusses them. If we are not faced with the norm, we must justify deviations on every possible occasion.
  It is no criticism of the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I say that I regret that no other Labour Member apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Kinston upon Hull, North and myself has been called to speak in this debate. The Chair will have heard repeated attacks on Labour party policy from 3.30 pm and it is a source of regret to me—I think that it will be to my party as a whole that no Labour Members, with the exception of the
  98
  Opposition Front-Bench speakers, have had an opportunity to refute the malicious slurs and allegations that have been made against the Labour party.
  I thank the Secretary of State for taking us so clearly and concisely through the contents of the Bill. I agree with his objective that the Province of Northern Ireland must be cleansed of the abomination of violence. I do not think that anyone in the House would disagree with that primary objective. I agreed when he said—I think that he reinforced the Labour party's policy on this issue—that modifications to our ordinary law must be justified whenever they are made. Having congratulated the right hon. Gentleman, it is a matter of great regret to me and my party that, in introducing once again the proposed emergency legislation and making great play of the report and recommendations of Viscount Colville of Culross, he has found it unnecessary to introduce the viscount's recommendations in the Bill.
  The Secretary of State said that the Government are still thinking about a possible complaints procedure against the security forces. The right hon. Gentleman expressed the hope that he or the Government would be able to return to the procedure during the progress of legislation. I ask a question to which I hope the Minister of State will be able to respond: do the Government intend to introduce clauses setting out a complaints procedure while the Bill progresses through this place or another place? I should be glad if the Secretary of State could give some sign of the time scale that the Government have in mind.
  The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made an interesting speech. It came as no surprise that, once again, he used this occasion to go through his ritualistic condemnation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He then rhetorically asked whether there was any hope for Northern Ireland. He said that there was, but that that would require further steps, and claimed that he had already outlined those steps.
  I listened closely and carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but I did not hear one positive statement about how the progress towards normalisation in the Province could be attained. I merely hope that, on just one occasion, the hon. Gentleman will be a little more positive and outline the steps that he believes should be taken to counteract and diminish the impact of terrorism in the Province.
  I carefully followed the long speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). He made great play of there being no possibility of any change in the structure of the political system in Northern Ireland. It is incredible that he should think that any discussions about political changes are wrong and, perhaps, immoral. I fail to understand the basis of his proposition. No political structures are immutable and only a fool would suggest otherwise.
  The shortest speech in the debate—and perhaps it is a model that we should have followed—came from the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). His substantive point was that the British people and their representatives will never give in to terrorism. I think that the hon. Gentleman spoke for every hon. Member.
  I accept without reservation the propostion of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that what terrorists fear most is normality, and that they thrive on abnormality. Whether Government or Opposition Members, we must ensure that a semblance of normality returns to the Province as quickly as possible.

  99
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, said that the Secretary of State's refusal to remove internment from the statute book was a political decision. I agree with that conclusion. The Secretary of State is afraid to remove internment from the statute book because, despite all the evidence, he thinks that he might be accused of being soft on terrorism. He does not need to prove that he is tough on terrorism; everybody knows that he is. He should have had the courage to accept Lord Colville's recommendation, and that of all reasonable people, that internment should be removed from the statute book.
  The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks)—I wish that he was in the Chamber—said that he wanted the security forces to take stronger and further action. I am never quite sure what hon. Members mean by that. Do they want British soldiers and members of the RUC to go out on covert operations and kill people, whether or not they are in possession of weapons? If that is what Conservative Members want, they should come clean and tell the House and the British people that that is so. On not one occasion have they enunciated the policies and strategies that they want the RUC and the British Army to follow in Northern Ireland on our behalf. Until they do, they should be quiet and support the present activities and policies of the RUC and the British Army in the Province.
  The House is united in its determination not to allow violence to succeed, and to ensure that the security forces should have the resources necessary to both combat and suppress terrorism. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that force alone will not defeat the terrorists and that political progress is also required. Most of us acknowledge that the seeds of violence will not be removed until all members of the Northern Ireland community, irrespective of their traditions, feel that they have an equal part to play, not only in the economic and social life of the Province but its political life.
  I am sure that it has occurred to the Government, as it has to me, that it is no mere coincidence that there has been an upsurge in the IRA's activities recently, just at the time that the Secretary of State is seeking to start talks between all the constitutional parties on a consensual political settlement. That is the last thing that the terrorists want, because once a consensual political settlement is achieved it will remove at a stroke the IRA's whole raison d'etre and exclude it—for ever, one hopes—from the political process. I hope also—but perhaps it is a forlorn hope—that that realisation will provide a further incentive for the Province's constitutional parties and the British and Irish Governments to discuss again the possibility of talks aimed at reaching a political settlement.
  All reasonable people who have witnessed the anguish and suffering of the Northern Ireland community accept, however reluctantly, that in the Province there must be deviations from normal police powers and accepted judicial processes as they apply in other parts of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we must not shrink from enacting legislation that seeks to protect the interests of suspects in custody, however much we may dislike doing so and however distasteful that may be. No matter how heinous
  100
  may be the crimes of which suspects may be thought to be guilty, we have a duty and responsibility to introduce legislation of that kind also.
  To distinguish ourselves from the terrorists, we must never forget that our methods are not those that they use. Not for us the false confession; not for us summary justice. The security forces are there to protect human rights, not undermine them. The security forces are there to enforce the rule of law, not abuse it.
  All this may seem a cold political exercise to those suffering at the hands of terrorists and it may not offer the immediate comfort of calls for internment, more draconian security tactics or the death penalty. But to do otherwise would not only hand a propaganda victory to the terrorists but expose as a sham our claim to be defending a better and more desirable set of values.
  The Government can take credit for removing many of the social and economic grievances on which terrorists thrive, but it is to their discredit that they have not shown the same courage and conviction by accepting Lord Colville's suggestions for change in the legislation before us.
  Lord Colville is no starry-eyed radical. Anyone who has read his report must be struck by its deeply conservative view. He is in no doubt that the emergency legislation must continue. It is against that background of certainty about the legislation and its continuity that he makes recommendations for change which are neither radical nor revolutionary. Whether by accident or by design, they would make a package of legislation more acceptable to the community and protect the security forces' reputation against malicious allegations.
  The Government have lost an opportunity to show that they are prepared to listen to reasoned argument. Unfortunately, they have succumbed to the argument produced from various quarters this evening that any change might be misinterpreted as being soft on terrorism. It is a missed opportunity, and I think that the Government will come to regret it sooner rather than later.
  The refusal to repeal the legal basis for internment is unbelievable. The provisions have not been used since 1975 and no one can foresee any circumstances in which they would be reactivated. I do not need to call in aid the Labour party—all the Tory Members who have been reading out the brief from Conservative party central office this evening will recognise that as an argument which is put forward by their own research department at Transport house. It is unbelievable.
  Mr. McNamara: Smith square.
  Mr. Marshall: Yes, at Smith square—perhaps that was some sort of Freudian slip about our policy review.
  The Labour party's position is quite clear. We believe that, as a practical solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland, internment is of no value. Even if the Government cannot accept the Labour party view or that of Tory party cental office in Smith square, they should at least accept Lord Colville's point of view. His conclusion is that internment is widely condemned in other countries and that the provisions should not be re-enacted. To seek to justify the retention of such provisions, on the basis of some unforeseen circumstances in the future, when Parliament might be in recess, stretches the bound of credibility too far.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope)rose——
  Mr. Marshall: If the Minister will allow me, I shall take two more minutes. I am sure that he will recognise that a Conservative Back Bencher exceeded the recognised time by two or three minutes.
  Lord Colville accepted that there could be problems with video recordings, but that they could be resolved. He suggested some practical ways in which they could be resolved. I hope, even at this late stage, that the Government will accept that suggestion and introduce videos in holding centres.
  Finally, for these reasons, and for those that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North advanced at the beginning of the debate on behalf of the Opposition, I hope that the House will support our amendment. If it fails, I hope that hon. Members will join us in the Lobby to vote gainst the Second Reading.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate about politics and about theology. In response to several hon. Members, I must say that the Bill needs to be seen in its context. Defeating terrorism is not only a matter of security policy but involves political, economic and social policies.
  A considerable amount has been said in the debate about victims. The whole of Northern Ireland falls victim to the terrorist threat. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and others reminded us of a few of the victims who are the background to our discussion today. The hon. Gentleman referred movingly to the death of Mr. Albert Cooper—just one of the many victims to whom he referred. I met one of Mr. Cooper's close relatives a few days ago, along with some prison service widows and their families, and I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman means. I know the story well.
  I wish that I could promise the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the whole House that this or any other piece of legislation would wipe terrorism and terrorists off the face of the earth. Of course, the Bill will not do so by itself—that is a much bigger job—but I believe that it will make a contribution. However, it will take much more—a combined legal, security, economic, social and political effort—to eradicate terrorism. Above all, we must get through to the terrorists the realisation that what they are about is futile and that democracy will win.
  Tonight we are looking solely at the law within which the security forces make their vital contribution to the defeat of terrorism. The Bill is partly renewal, partly consolidation—perhaps not in the technical sense in which the House uses that word, but in the general sense—and partly novel. The novel parts are, in fact, much the smallest aspect of the Bill.
  Our first job is to justify the necesssity for the renewal of powers such as are in the Bill. In general terms, that is, sadly, an easy job. Terrorists from both groups—republican and so-called loyalist—continue to kill and maim, to shoot and bomb. These last few murderous weeks have emphasised again the necessity for powers such as these.
  We shall review all the detail in Committee, although I shall cover as much as possible in a moment. If the security forces are to have the chance of catching the men of terror,
  102
  and if the law is to have a proper and fair opportunity to judge, convict and sentence those criminals, extra powers within the law are essential because the paramilitaries use the extra power of ruthless terror to silence witnesses, to negate juries and to threaten the life and work of everyone engaged in maintaining the rule of law—policemen, judges and the rest.
  However, the powers are exceptional emergency powers, which none of us likes to see. That is why the House gives them only a limited life and that is why we are renewing both the powers and the safeguards. I wish—I am sure that all other hon. Members wish—that we could relax the emergency provisions and begin the process of bringing the law back to normal, but given the problems of catching and convicting these criminals, we cannot reduce the power of the police and the law to achieve prosecutions in the appallingly difficult circumstances in which they have to operate. We face a highly organised criminal conspiracy and society must protect itself against that.
  Lord Colville's principal recommendation in his review of the Acts was that the main emergency provisions remain necessary and, obviously, we agree. The consolidation aspects of the Bill flow from recommendations also made by Lord Colville and others. They do not go quite as far as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) wanted, but they go in the direction that he wanted. The Government recognise the widespread desire that the legislation to deal with terrorism, both in Northern Ireland and in the United Kingdom as a whole, should be as simple and as coherent as possible.
  When the Bill is enacted, there will still be some overlap between the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 and the emergency provisions legislation, but, as Lord Colville recommended, the Bill brings together the two emergency provisions Acts and part VI of the prevention of terrorism Act, which applies exclusively to Northern Ireland. That makes for rather a long Bill, but it is the right thing to do and will make life easier for all those who have to deal with the legislation and put it into practice.
  As I said, the novel aspects of the Bill will be discussed in detail in Committee, but I shall mention some now. The Government believe that, taken as a whole, the Bill represents a proportionate response to the current terrorist threat in Northern Ireland. It contains the measures that we consider necessary to combat terrorism. It continues to strike the careful balance that was called for in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) and others, between providing additional powers for the police and the armed forces to tackle terrorism and safeguards for those accused or suspected of terrorist crimes. I do not apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) or to anyone else for the safeguards. We must avoid the alienation of the innocent.
  The Bill's provisions will be subject, in the normal way, to annual renewal by both Houses of Parliament. The Bill will have a fixed five-year life. There will, therefore, be further opportunities for Parliament to consider the legislation.
  Many hon. Members have referred to executive detention or internment. Having considered Lord Colville's report and the wide range of other opinions expressed on the issue, we came to the view, contained in the Bill, that we must retain that option while the terrorist

  103
  threat remains so acute. We, like the Republic of Ireland, regard it as a weapon that we must keep in our armoury. The possibility of reintroducing it will be kept carefully under review. To do away with the power would be to rule it out for all time. One cannot use the power if one gives notice of it. To give notice of the intention to introduce a Bill to bring it in at some time, when one wants to use it, is to warn everyone concerned and to give them the opportunity to disappear. That is why we believe that surprise will be an important element in its initial effectiveness. That would be lost if new legislation were required to bring it in at the time.
  The position at the moment is that an order to introduce detention would require affirmation by both Houses of Parliament within 40 sitting days. Our intention is to keep it that way. If the power were used, Parliament would wish and would have the opportunity to discuss it urgently at that time. We are not cutting out parliamentary discussion, but we are saying that we need to introduce the power first and then to confirm it in Parliament within 40 sitting days, because the element of surprise is essential.
  Another aspect to which much attention has been drawn during the debate is the video-recording of interviews with terrorist suspects. After long and careful consideration, our conclusion is the same as that of the Bennett commission, which comprehensively reviewed the safeguards for terrorist suspects during interrogation in its report that it published in 1978. These are not ordinary criminals or suspects with whom we are concerned; they are men and women caught up in terrorist organisations. Among other things, the Bennett report said:
  "the evidence of our police witnesses, and our own impression, is that some suspects need to be allowed certain room for manoeuvre in what story they tell afterwards if they are to be frank with the police at the time when they are interviewed".
  We have taken the view that the knowledge that an interview was to be recorded would in many cases seriously inhibit the willingness of suspects to co-operate with the RUC in the interview. It would thus seriously jeopardise the usefulness of the interview process. That process itself remains crucial to the RUC in its efforts to deal effectively with terrorism.
  The reality is that the members of the paramilitary organisations, both so-called loyalist and republican, are not free agents, by the nature of the organisations to which they belong. Those organisations seek to maintain tight discipline over their members, to prevent the disclosure to the police of any information that might assist them to prevent terrorist attacks or to apprehend or convict offenders. Neither the police nor the terrorist suspect could be certain that in future there would be no circumstances in which a video-recording of an interview might get into the hands of a terrorist organisation. That uncertainty would be a powerful deterrent to terrorist suspects considering offering assistance to the police. Moreover, video-recording of the interview in the interview room would not by itself be sufficient to prevent complaints from those who are determined to discredit the investigation process. The focus of such allegations would simply shift to elsewhere in the process.
  We have also heard a good deal about complaints against the security forces. I was asked about the matter specifically. Lord Colville describes the existing procedures
  104
  comprehensively. It is clear from that that the Government and the security forces—both the police and the Army —attach serious importance to complaints procedures and their effectiveness.
  The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) seemed to attack by implication the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland. But I recommend that everyone with an interest in the subject should read the report of the commission. That should reassure them about the police side of the complaints procedure.
  With regard to complaints about the actions of members of the armed forces, I say to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—or I would if he were here—that harassment is wrong in principle and dangerous in effect. We all accept that. We also recognise that there is a feeling that the system for dealing with complaints against the Army is not wholly satisfactory. I shall not go into it in detail now, but it is set out at length in the report. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, we shall return to discussion of the system at some point during the passage of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) also asked about it. It seems unlikely that improvements will necessarily require changes to the law, but we must find a way of introducing the discussion in Committee.
  A related aspect is the question of lay visitors. The Police Authority for Northern Ireland is introducing lay visiting arrangements. They have been extended to take in all the 15 police stations designated under the Police and Criminal Evidence Order 1989 for the purpose of detaining arrested persons. To date, all the lay visiting has been done by members of the police authority itself, but it is intended to make the visiting groups more representative of the community.
  At present, neither persons detained under the emergency legislation nor the three holding centres are included in the lay visiting scheme.
  Mr. McGrady: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Cope: No. I am sorry, but I have insufficient time.
  The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster raised the possibility that a suspected terrorist might receive £3,000 for spending one night in a cell on suspicion of involvement in terrorism. I did not catch the source of his information, but under section 14 of the prevention of terrorism Act
  "a constable may arrest … a person whom he has reasonable ground for suspecting to be a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".
  In those circumstances, there would be no grounds for any form of compensation.
  I was asked other specific questions, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell). Research into the right of silence is being carried out, but it will necessarily take some time. Electronic developments are high in the priorities of the RUC and, indeed, the Army. They keep them under careful review and have our full backing in doing so.
  We all hate the necessity for the Bill, for it flows from the murderous attempt to replace democracy by terror. In their amendment, the Opposition make no mention of the terrorist menace. They talk only of confidence. But I am sure that every Member of the House, which, after all, stands for democracy, wants to see terrorism beaten and the rule of law prevail. Without powers such as those

  105
  contained in the Bill, neither the courts, the police nor any aspect of law enforcement could work and the public could not be protected. All we democratic politicians should ensure as our first duty that the rule of law can prevail over the rule of terror. That is what the Bill is about and everyone should support it.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 240

  Division No. 5]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Janner, Greville

  Allen, Graham

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Anderson, Donald

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Lambie, David

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Lamond, James

  Battle, John

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Beckett, Margaret

  Lewis, Terry

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Livingstone, Ken

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Benton, Joseph

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Bermingham, Gerald

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Blunkett, David

  McGrady, Eddie

  Boateng, Paul

  McKelvey, William

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McNamara, Kevin

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  McWilliam, John

  Buckley, George J.

  Madden, Max

  Caborn, Richard

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

  Mallon, Seamus

  Campbell-Savours, D. N.

  Marek, Dr John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Michael, Alun

  Clay, Bob

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Clelland, David

  Morley, Elliot

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Cohen, Harry

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Corbett, Robin

  Mullin, Chris

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Murphy, Paul

  Cousins, Jim

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Crowther, Stan

  O'Hara, Edward

  Cryer, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Pike, Peter L.

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

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dixon, Don

  Prescott, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Eadie, Alexander

  Redmond, Martin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Reid, Dr John

  Fatchett, Derek

  Richardson, Jo

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Rogers, Allan

  Flannery, Martin

  Rooker, Jeff

  Flynn, Paul

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Foster, Derek

  Sheerman, Barry

  Foulkes, George

  Short, Clare

  Galbraith, Sam

  Skinner, Dennis

  Galloway, George

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

  George, Bruce

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Soley, Clive

  Gordon, Mildred

  Stott, Roger

  Gould, Bryan

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Turner, Dennis

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Vaz, Keith

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Grocott, Bruce

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Hardy, Peter

  Winnick, David

  Henderson, Doug

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hinchliffe, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Allen McKay.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Amess, David

  Alexander, Richard

  Arbuthnot, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Allason, Rupert

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  106

  Ashby, David

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Atkins, Robert

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Atkinson, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hunter, Andrew

  Beggs, Roy

  Irvine, Michael

  Beith, A. J.

  Jack, Michael

  Bellingham, Henry

  Jackson, Robert

  Bellotti, David

  Jessel, Toby

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Benyon, W.

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Kilfedder, James

  Boswell, Tim

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Bottomley, Peter

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bowis, John

  Knapman, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Bright, Graham

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Knowles, Michael

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

  Knox, David

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Burt, Alistair

  Latham, Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Cash, William

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Chope, Christopher

  Lightbown, David

  Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)

  Lilley, Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cran, James

  McCrea, Rev William

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

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Durant, Tony

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Evennett, David

  Maclean, David

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Maclennan, Robert

  Fallon, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Favell, Tony

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Madel, David

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Maginnis, Ken

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forman, Nigel

  Mans, Keith

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Maples, John

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Marland, Paul

  Forth, Eric

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Franks, Cecil

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Gale, Roger

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Gardiner, George

  Mates, Michael

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gill, Christopher

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mills, Iain

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Gregory, Conal

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Moate, Roger

  Hague, William

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hannam, John

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Harris, David

  Mudd, David

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Needham, Richard

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Neubert, Michael

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Norris, Steve

  Holt, Richard

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  107

  Page, Richard

  Summerson, Hugo

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  Portillo, Michael

  Thorne, Neil

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Price, Sir David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Raffan, Keith

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Tracey, Richard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Trimble, David

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Trippier, David

  Riddick, Graham

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Viggers, Peter

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Walden, George

  Ryder, Richard

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Sackville, Hon Tom

  Wallace, James

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Ward, John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Watts, John

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Wells, Bowen

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Shersby, Michael

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Wilkinson, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wilshire, David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Squire, Robin

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Yeo, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stern, Michael

  Stevens, Lewis

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mr. Sydney Chapman and Mr. Timothy Wood.

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
  The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 113.

  Divison No. 6]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Butterfill, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

  Allason, Rupert

  Carlisle, John, (Luton N)

  Amess, David

  Cash, William

  Arbuthnot, James

  Chapman, Sydney

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Chope, Christopher

  Arnold, Sir Thomas

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cope, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Robert

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, David

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

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Durant, Tony

  Batiste, Spencer

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  Evennett, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas

  Bellingham, Henry

  Fallon, Michael

  Bellotti, David

  Favell, Tony

  Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Benyon, W.

  Fishburn, John Dudley

  Blackburn, Dr John G.

  Fookes, Dame Janet

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Boswell, Tim

  Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Franks, Cecil

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Gale, Roger

  Bowis, John

  Gardiner, George

  Brazier, Julian

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Bright, Graham

  Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

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

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Burt, Alistair

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  108

  Gregory, Conal

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hague, William

  Moore, Rt Hon John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Morrison, Sir Charles

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)

  Hannam, John

  Moss, Malcolm

  Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Harris, David

  Needham, Richard

  Hawkins, Christopher

  Neubert, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hayward, Robert

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Norris, Steve

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

  Hind, Kenneth

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

  Paice, James

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

  Patnick, Irvine

  Howells, Geraint

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Portillo, Michael

  Irvine, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Jack, Michael

  Price, Sir David

  Jackson, Robert

  Raffan, Keith

  Jessel, Toby

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Johnston, Sir Russell

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Kilfedder, James

  Ross, William (Londonderry E)

  King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Ryder, Richard

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Knapman, Roger

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Knight, Greg (Derby North)

  Shelton, Sir William

  Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

  Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

  Knowles, Michael

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Knox, David

  Shersby, Michael

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Latham, Michael

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Squire, Robin

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lightbown, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lilley, Peter

  Stern, Michael

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Stevens, Lewis

  Luce, Rt Hon Richard

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

  McCrea, Rev William

  Summerson, Hugo

  McCrindle, Sir Robert

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Macfarlane, Sir Neil

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Maclean, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maclennan, Robert

  Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Thorne, Neil

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Madel, David

  Thurnham, Peter

  Maginnis, Ken

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tracey, Richard

  Mans, Keith

  Trimble, David

  Maples, John

  Trippier, David

  Marland, Paul

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Viggers, Peter

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Walden, George

  Mates, Michael

  Walker, Bill (T'side North)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Wallace, James

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Waller, Gary

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Ward, John

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Miller, Sir Hal

  Watts, John

  Mills, Iain

  Wells, Bowen

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Mitchell, Sir David

  Wiggin, Jerry

  109

  Wilkinson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Wilshire, David

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. Tom Sackville and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

  Wood, Timothy

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Allen, Graham

  Janner, Greville

  Anderson, Donald

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

  Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

  Lambie, David

  Battle, John

  Lamond, James

  Beckett, Margaret

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Lewis, Terry

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

  Livingstone, Ken

  Benton, Joseph

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Blunkett, David

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Boateng, Paul

  McGrady, Eddie

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McKelvey, William

  Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Buckley, George J.

  McWilliam, John

  Caborn, Richard

  Madden, Max

  Campbell-Savours, D. N,

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Canavan, Dennis

  Mallon, Seamus

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Marek, Dr John

  Clay, Bob

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Clelland, David

  Michael, Alun

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Cohen, Harry

  Morley, Elliot

  Corbett, Robin

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Mullin, Chris

  Cousins, Jim

  Murphy, Paul

  Crowther, Stan

  O'Hara, Edward

  Cryer, Bob

  Patchett, Terry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Pike, Peter L.

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

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Dixon, Don

  Prescott, John

  Dobson, Frank

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Eadie, Alexander

  Redmond, Martin

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Reid, Dr John

  Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

  Richardson, Jo

  Fatchett, Derek

  Rogers, Allan

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Flannery, Martin

  Sheerman, Barry

  Flynn, Paul

  Short, Clare

  Foster, Derek

  Skinner, Dennis

  Foulkes, George

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

  Galbraith, Sam

  Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)

  Galloway, George

  Soley, Clive

  George, Bruce

  Stott, Roger

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Turner, Dennis

  Gould, Bryan

  Vaz, Keith

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Winnick, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Hardy, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Henderson, Doug

  Hinchliffe, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Mr. Frank Haynes and Mr. Alien McKay.

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill [Money]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Mr. Sackyille]
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I shall not detain the House for long. I wish to speak against moneys being provided under this Act for the expenses of the Secretary of State. Paragraph 1·12, on page 4, of the Colville report says:
  "There is universal agreement that the struggle to eradicate terrorism in Northern Ireland must be conducted with the widest possible support from the community if it is to be successful. That is said by those, like the Workers' Party, whose recipe would include abolition of the emergency powers Act."
  I adhere to that position in opposing money being spent in connection with the Bill and therefore oppose the measure itself. In no sense am I opposed to the community taking action to eradicate terrorism from its midst.
  In a sense, a democracy is obliged to fight terrorism with one hand tied behind its back in terms of its policing and Army activities. It is the extent to which those limitations should be imposed that concerns us. A democracy is fully compensated for its limitations by its ability to operate by compensating techniques and extra authority. Instead of spending money in these areas, we should spend money in Northern Ireland on such things as instigating devolved government for the Province so that many of the measures that come before us for inadequate discussion can be more fully discussed in Northern Ireland itself. Because of the problems that that is liable to create in terms of majority rule, which has often trampled on minority rights in Northern Ireland, a Bill of Rights to guarantee social and political rights for all citizens is essential. Democrats have always argued that education is an important element in developing—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman knows that he is going very wide of the motion.
  Mr. Barnes: I am suggesting that it is inappropriate for money to be spent in relation to the Bill and that it would be far more reasonable if money were spent in various alternative areas which I am trying briefly to identify.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate those alternative areas. He may refer to them, but he cannot debate them.
  Mr. Barnes: I was merely referring to them in passing.
  I suggest that one of those areas is integrated education involving the two communities. That could develop through the teachers' training colleges, which seem to be the first possibility of an area in which we should move. More important than the spending of money is the expression of attitudes that need to develop in society so that nowhere is there any ambivalence about the right to life of people in Northern Ireland. All those who are bravely willing to stand up in Northern Ireland and advocate that that is a basic provision that should operate

  111
  in a democracy should have the support of politicians. Rather than being involved in measures such as this, and the spending of money involved in the resolution, politicians should be speaking out on behalf of such people.
  These brave people include Nancy Gracey of Downpatrick, who has organised a group called Families Against Intimidation. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) spoke of Catholics facing execution, kneecappings and other action by the IRA. Nancy Gracey's son was kneecapped by the Provisional IRA for joyriding. She has bravely been on television to express views that all hon. Members should wish to associate themselves with.
  Recently there was another peace train initiative, with people travelling on trains between Belfast and Portadown that had been subject to disruption by paramilitary organisations from both sides of the sectarian divide. New Consensus, which operates throughout Northern Ireland, offers considerable hope for the future, and a body will be meeting in a Committee Room of the House on 27 November to try to extend its activities to Great Britain, so that there will be a support group standing for peace, democracy and progress throughout Ireland.
  These groups require the oxygen of publicity. The Bill will deny the oxygen of publicity to Sinn Fein, but when Nancy Gracey appeared on a television programme to give her cause publicity, the Sinn Fein advocates used absolute nonsense to justify its activities. They have nothing proper to speak about, and their arguments can be countermanded by alternative arguments, and that should be part of the democratic process. Unfortunately, far too little attention is given to the people who stand out for peace, although they are arguing and advocating in their communities.
  There are high hopes in the island of Ireland because of developments in the Republic of Ireland. The open hand
  112
  of friendship has been offered by Mary Robinson, the new President, and has not yet been spurned by the different communities in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman again that what he is saying, whatever its merits, has little to do with the motion.
  Mr. Barnes: I am suggesting that these avenues for expenditure are rather more appropriate than those suggested in the money resolution.
  The repeal of articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution, which would further some of these developments, has been suggested by several hon. Members, and strong forces in Ireland, including Mary Robinson and Proinsias de Rossa, the leader of the Workers' party, have advocated such a course.
  10.33 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Cope): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) thinks that the money spent under this resolution and the Bill would be better spent in the way that he suggests, not because I do not commend at least some of the organisations that he recommended spending it on but because the main expenditure made as a result of the resolution will continue to be for compensation—the biggest chunk of money— and payments for legal aid for bail applications. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would want to take money from either of these sectors, even to spend it on the good causes that he mentioned.
  We know about Nancy Gracey and the peace train, and I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said. I am sorry that he failed to speak in the earlier debate, but he has now made his points.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Private Rented Housing
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
  10.34 pm
  Sir Ian Lloyd: From time to time most of us receive representations from constituents which, though they describe a grievous personal situation, raise matters of general principle and application which demand urgent attention from the legislature or the Government
  Although the debate has been termed the "private rented sector", it should be described as the case of Miss Hayward and another. Miss Hayward, who is one of my constituents, has no objection to my disclosing all the details of this appalling case, all of which have been sent to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment. That is because I hope that the Government will conclude, when they have considered the matter, as I have done at some length, that a society in which events such as these can occur is one which should set about redressing a general imbalance in the law, and not because I expect him to be able to do much for Miss Hayward. That redress is what my constituent sought when she came to see me. No personal redress was possible, and I believe that she was fully justified in seeking it.
  I do not propose to name the other party. It is not necessary to do so, and I shall refer to her as Miss X. If the owner of an occupied dwelling is to be described by that medieval term "landlord", we must accept now that there are about 14 to 15 million landlords in the United Kingdom, the majority of whom own one house which from time to time they wish to let in whole or in part, entering into a freely negotiated contract with a tenant who finds it convenient to rent that accommodation, generally for a short period of a few years. I am advised that the majority of such tenants are under 24 years of age. In 1985, one in five households in that category was in rented furnished accommodation.
  My constituent, Miss Hayward, purchased a small semi-detached house in 1988, and within months she and her fiancé were posted to Dubai in the Gulf. Meanwhile, she had arranged a mortgage, which cost her about £320 a month. It seemed sensible for her to rent the property for a fixed period to two nurses for £360 a month. It was essentially fully furnished.
  Shortly after that arrangement had been made, one of the two tenants decided to leave. The other became pregnant, left her job and went on social security, leaving the rest of my constituents to pay her rent. On hearing this, Miss Hayward flew back from Dubai, took legal advice and negotiated a new contract with her tenant for six months. At the end of this period Miss X refused to leave, ceased to pay the agreed rent and put what is described as a fair rent assessment on the property. The effect of this was that my constituent was paying her tenant effectively £120 a month to live in her property. My constituent also had to find the arrears of her mortgage, which was a substantial sum, thus reducing her standard of living in Dubai. She had also to pay the rates and the insurance because no one else would pay them.
  At this point my constituent took further and different legal advice. She negotiated a new six-months contract with her tenant, which included two-months' notice to quit as she was about to return from Dubai and naturally wished to reoccupy the house. But the tenant had no
  114
  intention of moving. She, too, was taking legal advice, but at the taxpayer's expense. She was told to stay put. My constituent was advised that the second legal contract was worthless. She took yet further legal advice and started court proceedings. On 11 July of this year the court granted my constituent a possession order and costs. Neither Miss X nor her solicitor put in an appearance.
  Worse was to follow. Miss X's solicitors had the effrontery to advise my constituent's solicitors that they were not aware of the court hearing and appealed to the court, which set another date for the tenant's case to be presented. When that date arrived, no case was presented and my constituent was informed that the tenant would voluntarily leave—voluntarily is the word that I emphasise —when a £500 deposit had been surrendered by my constituent.
  After negotiations between the two firms of solicitors, that bribe—for that is the right term to describe it—was reduced to £120, and thus at that stage my constituent, to regain possession of her home, had paid out several thousand pounds in mortgage payments, rates, insurance and, of course, legal fees. So, too, had the rest of my constituents who were subsidising the other party through legal aid.
  The payment to regain possession was conditional on the surrender of the keys of the property, but as the solicitor concerned handed over that sum to the tenant without obtaining the keys, the saga ended with my constituent and her fiancé having to break into their home to regain possession. I have since been shown photographs of the scene of utter devastation that awaited them. I would place an estimate of at least a couple of thousand pounds on the cost of restoring their property to some sense of normality.
  Even then, the saga was not finished. Apparently the tenant had taken most of the furniture, most of the carpets and much personal property. She had left large, unpaid bills from the gas and electricity boards, British Telecom and others. When that was reported to the local police, I regret that they apparently did nothing, although the tenant's whereabouts must have been known. The whole house will have to be redecorated and refurnished.
  This appalling saga raises a number of serious questions. First, is it in the least surprising that the private rented sector, which my hon. Friend the Minister recently said comprised some 600,000 empty properties, has declined, and is continuing to decline, when the law, despite all that my right hon. and hon. Friends have done, not merely permits but appears to subsidise such a state of affairs?
  Secondly, I have ascertained from the latest Government statistics what the chances are of a private householder recovering his or her property from a tenant via the courts. In the year 1986–87, the most recent for which I have figures, resident private landlords took to court 7,986 cases for repossession. Their fate is both interesting and relevant. Some 2·2 per cent. were refused; 5·3 per cent. were told to wait two weeks; 66 per cent. were told to wait up to a month; 5 per cent. were told to wait up to eight weeks; and 8 per cent. were told to wait more than eight weeks. The statistics do not reveal how many were awarded costs, but I suspect that they could be numbered on the fingers of one hand. The figures for what are described as absentee landlords—my constituent was probably described as such, although I prefer the term absentee householder—are broadly the same. While that

  115
  position persists, defended by the current law, there is not a snowball's change in hell of the privated rented sector recovering as the Government would wish it to recover and make its much-needed contribution to the housing market.
  The third conclusion is that as there were some 165,000 such cases in 1987—up on the previous year—the country is suffering the grotesque waste of about £165 million per annum in futile and unnecessary court proceedings simply because the system—aided and abetted by local authorities' definition of homelessness—encourages tenants to break their contracts and stay put. That £165 million would buy a great deal of property and a great deal of accommodation.
  My fourth conclusion is that the application of a so-called fair rent in such circumstances is wholly inappropriate and devastatingly unfair. There were some 474,000 registrations in 1987, and the trend is rising. That, too, will not encourage the revival of the private rented sector.
  What is to be done? There is not the time to deploy a detailed analysis of the possibilities. My hon. Friend, who has seen the papers, may well have some excellent ideas. I am absolutely certain that the present state of the law and the manner of its enforcement are seriously inhibiting the contribution that can and should be made by one of the most flexible and effective segments of the housing market. In effect, the law is arbitrarily forcing the private householder to undertake the responsibilities of the social welfare apparatus of the state, often in circumstances where the income of the householder is less than the income of the tenant. It is also unfair to the many thousands of responsible and fair-minded tenants who would observe their contracts but who at present cannot find rented accommodation because the house owner, for the best of reasons, is not prepared to risk the virtual loss of his property or the vast expense of recovering it.
  It is high time that the balance was redressed and a proper sense of equity restored to the housing market. One thing can be done straight away. I hope that my hon. Friend's Department will issue a directive to all local authorities as soon as possible saying that the Government will not tolerate the present policy of advising tenants in private accommodation to break their contracts in order to have themselves legally evicted and declared homeless. That would be a good start. We should then move on to the vexed question of rent registration, and devise a policy that will ensure that a case such as that which I have described this evening cannot happen again.
  10.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert Key): I noted that in the debate on the Loyal Address my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) said that it would be the last, or perhaps the second last, such debate in which he would participate. This is my second Adjournment debate at the Dispatch Box, and the first in which I have to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant. I hope that it will not be his last debate, because he raised an important topic, and expressed his concerns very clearly on behalf of his constituents.
  116
  I was sorry to hear of the problems that my hon. Friend's constituents have experienced with repossessing their property. He will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to say how the law should have applied to their particular case. Nevertheless, I can offer general comments on the law and about our policy on private landlords and tenants.
  Resident landlords who share with their tenants accommodation that is not self-contained no longer need a court to obtain possession, which is some progress.
  From the details of Miss X's tenancy, it appears that she was a regulated tenant under the Rent Act 1977. Regulated tenants cannot be made to leave their home unless the landlord first obtains an order for possession on one of the grounds laid down in schedule 15 of that Act.
  The grounds for possession, known as cases, include where the tenant is in arrears with rent or has damaged property or furniture. Provision was made in the Act for an absent landlord who lets his home with the intention of returning to live there again to claim possession under case 11 of schedule 15. Before the tenancy began, the landlord had to give a written notice saying that he might in future apply for possession under case 11. With the Housing Act 1980, we relaxed the repossession rules for absent landlords, by allowing them to let under protected shorthold tenancies. That guaranteed repossession of the property so long as the tenant was given three months' notice in writing.
  Regulated tenants have the right to a fair rent registered by the rent officer. In assessing a fair rent, rent officers must follow the rules laid down in the 1977 Act. If either party disagrees with the rent officer's assessment, it can apply to the rent assessment committee, which, like the rent officer, is, by law, independent of Government. The committee will consider each case afresh and, applying the same rules, will reach its own assessment of a fair rent. That could be higher, lower or the same as the rent officer's assessment.
  We are aware that levels of fair rent have been generally inadequate to provide many landlords with a reasonable return on their investment, or in some cases even to cover the cost of maintenance. There is no doubt that that has been a key factor in the decline in both the quality and supply of rented accommodation in recent decades.
  The measures that we brought forward in the Housing Act 1988 were designed to stem the process of decline that we have seen throughout the century, and to bring private renting back into the mainstream of British housing. The 1988 Act created a statutory regime that could be seen as a sensible investment proposition rather than, as it appeared for so long under earlier legislation, an act of commercial lunacy.
  The new regime rests on three fundamental propositions. First and foremost, the landlord must be free to charge a genuine market rent. Secondly, the landlord who cannot commit himself to letting long-term must be sure of an exit route at the point that he needs it. Thirdly, to the extent that the lettings market must operate within a statutory framework, it must be kept as simple as possible and must maintain an equitable balance between the interests of landlord and tenant.
  Lettings by non-resident private landlords, granted on or after 15 January 1989, take the form of either assured or assured shorthold tenancies. Both types of letting take place on the basis of open market rents.

  117
  Assured tenants have indefinite security of tenure with the landlord being able to regain possession only under the grounds laid down in schedule 2 of the 1988 Act. Again, there is provision under ground 1 in schedule 2 for the absent landlord to claim repossession by serving notice in writing that it is his home, and that he intends to live there again.
  The assured shorthold tenancy is designed to give the landlord far greater flexibility in letting his property. As a basic rule it must be granted for a fixed term of at least six months, and before the tenancy starts the landlord must have served a prescribed notice on the tenant, stating that it will be an assured shorthold. When the shorthold fixed term comes to an end, the landlord will be able either to offer the tenant a further fixed term, or let him remain in occupation on a longer-term basis under a statutory periodic tenancy. In the latter case, the landlord will have a continuing right to repossession at any time, subject to giving the tenant two months' notice.
  When we introduced the 1988 Act, we decided that existing regulated tenants should retain their rights in respect of rents and security. I realise that that will be of little comfort to my hon. Friend's constituents. Many people, particularly the elderly, have lived in their accommodation a long time, and we considered that it would be wrong to remove the protection established for them under previous Acts. As I said, landlords of regulated tenants are not without legal means of repossessing their property. I recognise that my hon. Friend's constituents have attempted to pursue these avenues since their return from the Gulf. There is, of course, a procedure for dealing with complaints about the quality of legal advice through the Solicitors Complaints Bureau.
  Although the 1988 Act made it easier and quicker, in a number of ways, for a landlord to obtain possession, it did not remove the general requirement on a landlord to seek possession through the courts. A requirement that the rights, duties and actions of both parties are examined in law is, we believe, a necessary precaution—given that people's homes are at stake—against the possibility of harassment and illegal eviction by unscrupulous landlords. Nevertheless, it is clear that court procedures should, wherever possible, offer a speedy and sure recompense for landlords taking action against unsatisfactory tenants. The Lord Chancellor's Department is introducing from next April a simpler and quicker procedure for claiming rent arrears, which will no longer require full legal representation for either landlord or tenant. That should help landlords faced with non-payment of rent, who at present often have to resort to full possession proceedings.
  I recognise that going to court for other matters, such as repossession, can be a lengthy and expensive business. I can assure my hon. Friend that, in consultation with the Lord Chancellor's Department, we shall continue to give the fullest consideration to any other improvements in legal procedures which could be made for the benefit of a healthy private rented sector. I shall draw the attention of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to the difficulties experienced by my hon. Friend's constituents in taking the necessary legal action against their tenant.
  It must be said that, as with all commercial debtors, it is not always possible to legislate against the very worst tenants. For new Housing Act tenancies it is now right that
  118
  market rents can reflect the costs of wear and tear, and indeed the costs of insurance against the possibility of damage to the property.
  As I said, the 1988 Act has also greatly improved landlords' rights to repossess their property, although balancing the interests of landlord and tenant has never been simple.
  Last month my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning launched a new booklet designed to draw the attention of property owners to the 1988 Act. It outlines the advantages of the new measures on rents and security of tenure, and advises on some legal precautions that landlords might need to take, such as serving the correct notices for assured shorthold tenancies. In this, as in any business, it is best to adopt a professional approach, and the landlord with only one property may find it advisable to use a reputable managing agent with experience of housing legislation, who will also be able to check on the suitability of prospective tenants, and may well advise obtaining a security deposit to be held against the possibility of loss or damage.
  I realise that this problem affects a large number of people. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there were 165,000 cases in 1987 alone. It is clearly a growing problem if we wish to see the revival of the private rented sector, which we most certainly do. One area that we in the Department of the Environment are pursuing is precisely why we think that this country has all the answers to the problems of a subsidised housing sector. That attitude is not shared by people in other countries of the European Community, or beyond. I have had to ask myself why, right at the beginning of this century, this country decided that the answer lay in municipalisation. Since then, there has been a steady decline in the private rented sector.
  If we can find the right answers to those problems, we can begin to find the answers to bring about the revival of the private rented sector, which is so very important. We tend to forget that only in the past 25 years or so has it become uncommon for many young people to start their adult lives in private rented accommodation. I cannot speak for my hon. Friend the Member for Havant, but I began my married life in private rented accommodation, when that was regarded as perfectly normal. I expect that many people of my generation would agree with that.
  What has gone wrong? The facts that my hon. Friend outlined give us some of the answers. One problem lies in the approach taken by people wishing to rent out their own property. I have noticed that there is a dearth of information, expertise and professional advice for people in the situation of my hon. Friend's constituents. People often take it upon themselves to find tenants for their properties. They cast their eyes around and light on the sort of person whom my hon. Friend described. That may, of course, lead to tears, as in this case.
  So, what is to be done? Not everybody will immediately consult a professional for advice. People often fear the financial consequences of doing so. Perhaps they will not seek the advice of a professional managing agent. We have been involved in discussions with the National Federation of Housing Associations and I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend that some housing associations are now likely to be prepared to provide a managing service. That is a great step forward. Although it will be of little comfort to my hon. Friend's constituents, I hope that it will be widely welcomed when we are able to announce that such a

  119
  scheme is up and running across the country. I am grateful to the housing associations for the positive stance that they have taken.
  As I said earlier, I have every sympathy with the case that my hon. Friend raised, but, on the face of it, it does not seem to have arisen as a result of the new legislation, which has been a great improvement. It is hard to see how, under the new legislation, the situation that he described would have arisen. The case appears to raise more general
  120
  questions about the process of the law and we shall want to consider that further. As I said, I shall make representations to my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.
  I am sure that the measures for deregulating the private rented sector in the 1988 Act have gone a long way to redressing the unnatural balance that favoured difficult tenants in the Rent Acts, and thereby to encouraging people in the future to let out more property, to the mutual advantage of both landlord and tenant.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  George Kenyon
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Attorney-General what information he has regarding the decision of the Crown prosecution service not to proceed with the case against David Holt for the alleged manslaughter of George Kenyon on 24 May 1988.

  The Attorney-General
  The decision not to proceed with the case against David Holt for the alleged manslaughter of George Kenyon followed a review of the case against him after the case was committed for trial. The Crown prosecution service accepted the advice of leading counsel that there was not a realistic prospect of satisfying a jury beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. Holt was guilty of

  1. Cases1 considered by Immigration Adjudicators

  Thanet House, London

  Harmondsworth2

  Birmingham

  Leeds3

  Manchester

  19864

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  n.a.

  1987

  3,092

  1,392

  1,046

  905

  749

  1988

  3,335

  2,016

  1,181

  926

  778

  1989

  5,934

  2,760

  2,368

  1,628

  1,271

  19905

  6,112

  2,437

  1,416

  1,049

  824

  1 Figures are only available for cases, which can consist of more than one appellant. Figures relate to cases allowed, dismissed and withdrawn.

  2 Includes hearings at Belfast and Cardiff.

  3 Includes hearings at Glasgow and Edinburgh.

  4 Immigration Adjudicators disposed of 8,483 cases in 1986, but a breakdown for the individual centres is not readily available.

  5 January–September

  2. Cases1 considered by the Immigration Appeal Tribunals2

  No.

  1986

  1,004

  1987

  1,127

  1988

  1,029

  1989

  706

  19903

  614

  1 Figures are only available for cases, which can consist of more than one appellant. Figures relate to cases allowed, dismissed and withdrawn.

  2 The Immigration Appeal Tribunal sits at Thanet House, London.

  3 January–October.

  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General what provisions exist for bringing forward the dates of appeal hearings when there have been significant delays by foreign embassies in forwarding appeal papers for the immigration appellate authorities.

  The Attorney-General
  The immigration appellate authorities give full consideration to all applications made to them from either party for the early hearing of any appeal.
  2
  manslaughter. He was, however, prosecuted and convicted for the offence of operating a machine after a prohibition notice had been served.

  I have written to the hon. Member with fuller details regarding the decision.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Attorney-General whether he has received any representations regarding the case against David Holt and Norman Holt for the alleged manslaughter of George Kenyon on 24 May 1988; and if he will make a statement.

  The Attorney-General
  Prior to receiving the hon. Member's question, I have received representations in correspondence from two hon. Members regarding the case against David Holt and Norman Holt for the alleged manslaughter of George Kenyon.

  Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list the immigration appellate authorities in the United Kingdom, together with the numbers of appeals considered by each of them in each of the past five years for which figures are available.

  The Attorney-General
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Multiple Share Applications
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) what representations he has received from(a) the Metropolitan police, (b) the Serious Fraud Office and (c) sponsor Departments for further computer runs to detect illegal multiple share applications in the privatisation of (a) British Gas, (b) British Airports, (c) British Airways, (d) British Steel and (e) the 10 regional water and sewerage companies;

  (2) when he expects to see completed all inquiries into illegal multiple share applications in the privatisation of (a) British Gas, (b) British Airports, (c) British Airways, (d) British Steel and (e) the 10 regional water companies.

  The Solicitor-General
  The fraud investigation group of the Crown prosecution service has worked in liaison with the Metropolitan and City police commercial fraud squad to identify and investigate possible criminal offences arising out of multiple applications submitted in the course of the issue of shares for British Gas plc, British Airways plc, Rolls-Royce plc, British Airports Authorities plc and the 10 regional water companies. In each case they have had the assistance of a report by the auditors appointed for the issue by the sponsor Department. It is accompanied by
  3
  computerised data. The majority of cases arising from the earlier issues have been concluded; most of those relating to the water privatisation issues remain outstanding.

  It is, however, the practice of the CPS and the police when considering suspect cases relating to the water issue to examine all available data relating to earlier issues to ascertain whether any previous dealing by the suspect is revealed which may be relevant to either the evidential or public interest aspect of the decision whether to prosecute. The computerised data are held by the police and are freely accessible by them.

PRIME MINISTER

  Community Charge and Electoral Registration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what is her estimate, to the latest available date, of the total numbers of persons in(a) Scotland, (b) England and (c) Wales who have not registered their names in connection with the poll tax; and if she will make a statement;

  (2) what action has been taken to warn people in Scotland, England and Wales of the implications of failure to register for poll tax purposes for the appearance of names on the electoral registers.

  The Prime Minister
  The community charges register and the electoral register are separate entities and are compiled with reference to different criteria and for different purposes. There is no question of anyone being denied the right to vote simply because their name does not appear on the community charges register. I refer the hon. Member to the full answer being given today to him on this subject by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) on 15 November 1990 at column 703.

  Malaysia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister if she will list all visits of Government Ministers or officials to Malaysia, with dates, since 1979.

  The Prime Minister
  I have visited Malaysia in April 1985, August 1988 and October 1989. Other ministerial visits, in the period since May 1979 are as follows:

  1979

  June Mr. Parkinson, Minister of State, Trade and Industry

  June Lord Carrington, Secretary of State, FCO

  1980

  January Mr. Blaker, Minister of State, FCO

  March Mr. Blaker, Minister of State, FCO

  March Lord Carrington, Secretary of State, FCO

  1981

  January Lord Trenchard, Minister of State, Ministry of Defence

  February Lord Ferrers, Minister of State, Agriculture

  April Mr. Baker, Minister of State, Trade and Industry

  September Mr. Rees, Minister of State, Trade and Industry

  October Mr. Nott, Secretary of State, Defence

  1982

  February Lord Carrington, Secretary of State, FCO.

  1983

  Nil

  1984

  February Mr. Luce, Minister of State, FCO.

  4

  May Mr. Baker, Minister of State, Information.

  August Lord Bellwin, Minister of State, DOE.

  1985

  July Mr. Channon, Minister of Trade.

  September Mr. Lee, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, MOD.

  November Mr. Heseltine, Secretary of State, MOD.

  1986

  February Mr. Lee, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, MOD.

  June Mr. Lee, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, MOD.

  June Mr. Renton, Minister of State, FCO.

  September Mr. Patten, Minister of State, DOE.

  October Mr. Jopling, Minister of Agriculture.

  1987

  March Mr. Younger, Secretary of State, MOD.

  April Lord Hailsham, Lord Chancellor.

  September Mrs. Chalker, Minister of State, FCO.

  1988

  March Mr. Younger, Secretary of State, MOD.

  April Sir Geoffrey Howe, Secretary of State FCO.

  October Mr. MacGregor, Minister of Agriculture.

  October Mr. Sainsbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, MOD.

  October Mr. Forth, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, DTI.

  November Lord Glenarthur, Minister of State, FCO.

  1989

  February Mr. Atkins, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, DTI.

  March Mr. Atkins, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, DTI.

  April Mr. Younger, Secretary of State, MOD.

  October Mr. Howard, Minister of State, DOE.

  October Mr. Major, Secretary of State, FCO.

  1990

  January Lord Brabazon, Minister of State, FCO.

  February Mr. Maude, Minister of State, FCO.

  A record of visits by officials is available only at a disproportionate cost.

  Sub-post Offices
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for decisions as to the rules governing liability of sub-post offices to the uniform business rate.

  The Prime Minister
  Policy on non-domestic rating, including the valuation hypothesis used in determining rateable values which is set out in the Local Government Finance Act 1988, is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The assessment of rateable values is undertaken by the Inland Revenue valuation office, responsibility for which rests with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

ENERGY

  Electricity Companies
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what arrangements he has agreed for cost recovery by the electricity distribution companies for actions undertaken by them in response to directions from him under section 96 of the Electricity Act 1989 in connection with the outbreak of war in the Gulf;
  5
  (2) what discussions he has had with the Director General of Electricity Supply regarding the formal arrangements for cost recovery by the electricity distribution companies for complying with directions from him under section 96 of the Electricity Act or the Energy Act 1976 in the event of the outbreak of war in the Gulf.

  Mr. Baldry
  My Department has had discussions with the Office of Electricity Regulation on the subject of cost recovery in the event of electricity supply emergencies. I see no connection with the possibility of war in the Gulf.

  There are no formal arrangements for cost recovery in the event of directions under the Energy Act 1976 or section 96(1)(b) of the Electricity Act 1989. The director general has said that in the event of such directions being given there would be a strong case for considering favourably a request from any company or companies affected for suspension or modification of particular licence requirements to allow them to recover costs necessarily incurred.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what policy considerations led him to conclude his agreement with the leading underwriters in the privatisation of the electricity distribution industry to insert a force majeure clause relating to the risk of war breaking out in the Gulf.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend decided that the satisfactory underwriting of the sale of shares in the 12 regional electricity companies required specific arrangements to deal with the particular risk of hostilities in the Gulf causing a fall in the market during the offer period. Failure to make such arrangements would, at best, have adversely increased the cost of underwriting and reduced the proceeds from the sale.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will insert a Gulf war risk warning on the advertisements for the flotation of the electricity distribution companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  The purpose of the advertising campaigns is to publicise the offers for sale of the 12 regional electricity companies. All such advertising contains a warning that shares can go down as well as up and the public should consult an appropriate professional financial adviser if they need advice.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what assessment he has made of the impact of a direction under section 96 of the Electricity Act on the profitability and cash flow of the 12 regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the 12 chairmen of the area boards to discuss emergency arrangements arising from a possible outbreak of war in the Gulf and its impact on electricity costs and prices and their companies' cash flow and profitability.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the regional electricity company chairmen from time to time to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Fuel Security Code
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met or next expects to meet the Director General of Electricity Supply to review the cost recovery and audit mechanisms in the fuel security code.
  6
  Mr. Baldry
  I have not met, and have no plans to meet, the Director General of Electricity Supply for this purpose.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what discussions he has had in the last three weeks with the National Grid Company regarding the implementation of the fuel security code and of directions under section 96 of the Electricity Act.

  Mr. Baldry
  None.

  Electricity Appliances (Retailing)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what discussions he has had with the 12 chairmen of area electricity boards regarding the sale of their appliance retailing chains and Government participation in the receipts thereof;

  (2) what policy considerations led him to exempt sales of the appliance retailing chains from the property clawback arrangements in the privatisation of the electricity distribution companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  The regional electricity company—REC—prospectus includes relevant information on the retailing businesses including the directors' view of the prospects for those businesses. I expect to get appropriate value for the taxpayer for all parts of the RECs' business on flotation and see no reason why the Government should expect to participate in any subsequent disposal of the retailing business as a going concern.

  Coal Supply Contracts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he anticipates receiving a letter of comfort from the competition directorate of the European Commission regarding the exemption of the coal supply contracts between British Coal, National Power and PowerGen from article 85(3) of the treaty of Rome.

  Mr. Baldry
  The coal purchase contracts between British Coal and National Power and PowerGen were notified to the European Commission by British Coal. British Coal has received a letter from the Commission's directorate-general for competition indicating that it is preparing a draft decision for the Commission to exempt these agreements under article 85(3) of the treaty of Rome.

  South Wales Small Mines Association
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) when he next expects to announce the commencement of enhanced prices for coal produced by the members of the South Wales Small Mines Association, pursuant to his conditional letter of offer to the association dated 24 October;

  (2) what response he will be making to the comments dated 30 October of the director of the competition directorate of the European Commission on his letter of offer of enhanced coal prices dated 24 October to the South Wales Small Mines Association.

  Mr. Baldry
  The offer made by National Power and British Coal to the South Wales Small Mines Association was set out in a paper handed to the association on 24
  7
  October at a meeting in my Department. The European Commission's view of the terms of this offer was conveyed in a letter dated 30 October addressed to the solicitors representing the association. I understand that members of the association have voted to reject the offer. It will now be for the Commission to reach a decision on the complaint made by the association which gave rise to the recent negotiations. My Department stands ready to provide the Commission with any further information or assistance it may need.

  Sizewell B
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he last met and next expects to meet the chairman of Nuclear Electric to discuss the contract with the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency on behalf of the regional electricity companies for purchasing electricity from the Sizewell B nuclear power station.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is a commercial matter and I have no plans to discuss it with the chairman of Nuclear Electric.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the Director General of Electricity Supply to discuss the Director General of Electricity Supply's study into the environmental impact of renewables projects, pursuant to page 46 of the pathfinder prospectus for the flotation of the electricity distribution companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  The Director General of Electricity Supply's study of the environmental impact of renewables projects was made in the context of a review of the draft contracts submitted to him by the 12 regional electricity companies, and preparatory to advising the Secretary of State on the appropriate level of the first renewables order. As I informed the House on 30 October,Official Report, columns 443–44, my right hon. Friend set the level of the renewables order—SI 1990 No. 1859—in accordance with the director general's advice. In these circumstances my right hon. Friend has no plans further to discuss the director general's advice with him.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he expects to make a further non-fossil fuel obligation order in respect of projects involving renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend intends to bring forward the first additional renewables tranche of the non-fossil fuel obligation next year.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next intends to introduce an order under the Electricity Act in respect of permitted generating capacity from renewable energy sources.

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend intends to bring forward the first additional order for the non-fossil fuel obligation in respect of renewables next year.

  Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what action he is taking to review the basis on which the Director General of Electricity Supply determined the inclusion of particular schemes in the non-fossil fuel obligation.
  8
  Mr. Baldry
  The object of the director general's review of the schemes submitted to him was to assess whether they were likely to be capable of being qualifying arrangements, under the provisions of section 33 of the Electricity Act 1989, for the purpose of the renewables order that the Secretary of State proposed to make. The Government have no plans to amend those provisions.

  Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he next expects to meet the 12 chairmen of the regional electricity companies to discuss a strengthening of the role of Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency, pursuant to page 135 of the pathfinder prospectus for the flotation of the regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Baldry
  The NFPA is the agent of the 12 regional electricity companies, and this is therefore a matter for them.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the life expectancy of Calder Hall and Chapelcross nuclear power stations.

  Mr. Baldry
  This is an operational matter for British Nuclear Fuels plc—BNFL—subject to any safety requirements stipulated by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate—NII. In the report on British Nuclear Fuels plc's long-term safety review of Calder Hall and Chapelcross, published by the Health and Safety Executive on 23 April, the nuclear installations inspectorate concluded that the stations would be safe to operate until each reactor is 40 years old, subject to British Nuclear Fuels plc's completing a programme of work and to satisfactory results from the regular test and inspection programme required under the licensing system enforced by the nuclear installations inspectorate. The oldest reactor will reach 40 years in 1996, the youngest in 1999.

  I understand that it is British Nuclear Fuels plc's policy to continue to operate Calder Hall and Chapelcross as long as the stations remain safe and it is economic. The company believes continued operation beyond the 40 years assumed in the present nuclear installations inspectorate assessment could be economically justified. It will consider a further major safety review to support this view at the appropriate time.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Prison Officers
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women prison officers working in prisons in England and Wales hold the rank of principal officer; and if he will list the prisons.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  There are 40 female principal officers, serving in the following prisons:

  Askham Grange

  Bullwood Hall

  Cookham Wood

  Drake Hall

  Feltham

  Full Sutton

  Garth

  9

  Hatfield

  Hindley

  Holloway

  Leeds

  Low Newton

  The Mount

  Nottingham

  Risley

  Rochester

  Styal

  Wetherby

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the action that his Department has taken in any prison in England and Wales for which he has received a report from the inspector of prisons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Since 1980 Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons has made more than 130 reports to my right hon. and learned Friend on prison establishments in England and Wales. Information about action to implement the recommendations in these reports on individual establishments is set out in the statement we issue when the report is published, copies of which are placed, with the reports themselves, in the Library. Each one is followed up by prison service operational directors and subsequent developments are reported to the chief inspector.

  Police Complaints Authority
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the numbers and types of complaint to the Police Complaints Authority in 1989 which relate solely or primarily to Waltham Forest.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The London borough of Waltham Forest lies within the Metropolitan police No. 1 area. Table 5 at appendix C of the Police Complaints Authority's 1989 annual report, a copy of which is in the Library, gives an analysis of the numbers and types of complaints dealt with by the authority in relation to No. 1 area. Figures which relate solely to Waltham Forest are not available.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are serving on the Police Complaints Authority; how, and on what basis, they are appointed; and whether any are(a) women, (b) from black and ethnic minority communities and (c) people with disabilities.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Police Complaints Authority currently comprises 15 members, including the chairman and two deputy chairmen. All the members, aside from the chairman, are appointed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary following a careful selection procedure. The chairman is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. The normal term of appointment is for three years in the first instance.

  Of the 15 members, two are women, three are from ethnic minority backgrounds and none is disabled.

  Sentences
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which areas have(a) the greatest and (b) the lowest percentage of people sentenced at magistrates
  10
  courts to receive prison sentences; what are the percentages in each area; and what is the pecentage in Waltham Forest.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is given in the table.

  This information is published annually in volume 5 of the criminal statistics, England and Wales, supplementary tables, copies of which are in the Library.

  Petty sessional divisions with the highest and lowest percentage of persons sentenced to immediate custody 1989

  Petty sessional division

  Highest percentage

  Ardudwy-uwch-Artro1

  21

  Ashton-under-Lyne

  21

  Waltham Forest

  8

  Petty sessional division

  Lowest percentage

  Brigg1

  0

  Buckingham1

  0

  Bulmer West1

  0

  Caistor1

  0

  Carmarthen North1

  0

  Crickhowell1

  0

  Cricklade

  0

  Cullompton

  0

  Diss1

  Eccleshall1

  0

  Everley and Pewsey1

  0

  Gilling East1

  0

  Gogledd Preseli1

  Hailsham

  0

  Hallikeld1

  0

  Hang East1

  0

  Holme Beacon1

  0

  Howdenshire1

  0

  Ilminster

  0

  Isles of Scilly1

  0

  Lambeth1

  0

  Llandrindod Wells1

  0

  Llanidloes1

  0

  Lutterworth1

  0

  Machynlleth1

  0

  Malmesbury1

  0

  Mansion House Justice Room1

  0

  Market Rasen1

  0

  Marlborough1

  0

  Middle Holderness1

  0

  Newtown

  0

  Plympton

  0

  Rhayader1

  0

  Rutland

  0

  Ryedale1

  0

  Saxmundham

  0

  South Holderness1

  0

  South Molton1

  0

  Stow

  0

  Swaffham

  0

  Talgarth1

  0

  Tisbury and Mere1

  0

  Usk1

  0

  11

  Petty sessional division

  Lowest percentage

  Westbury

  0

  West London (Walton Street)

  0

  Whorwellsdown1

  0

  Wincanton1

  0

  Witon Beacon1

  0

  1 Fewer than 50 people sentenced at the magistrate's court.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the membership of the Animal Procedures Committee, indicating which members have previously held licences to conduct animal experiments, and which have previously been or are currently employed by organisations which undertake such experiments.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The membership of the Animal Procedures Committee as at 15 November 1990 is as follows:

  Lord Nathan, MA Hon. LLD (Chairman)

  Dr. Michael Balls, MA DPhil—Reader in Medical Cell Biology, University of Nottingham; Chairman, Trustees of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments (FRAME).

  Mr. Edward Bernard, FIAT—Chairman, Serotec Ltd.

  Professor Margaret Brazier, LLB—Professor of Law, University of Manchester.

  Professor Barry Bridges, BSc MD—Professor of Histology, Queen's University, Belfast.

  Dr. Roger Brimblecombe, PhD DSc FRCPath FIBiol— Consultant, Smith Kline and Beecham Laboratories.

  Dr. Fiona Broughton Pipkin, MA Dphil—Reader in Reproductive Physiology, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham.

  Mr. Henry Carter, MRCVS—Senior Vice President, Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.

  Professor Anthony Dayan, MD FRCP FRCPath FIBiol —Professor of Toxicology, St. Bartholomew's Hospital.

  Mr. Roger Ewbank, OBE MVSc FIBiol MRCVS—Director, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW).

  Dr. Judith Hampson, BSc PhD—Consultant in animal welfare.

  Mr. Clive Hollands-Secretary, Committee for the Reform of Animal Experimentation (CRAE).

  Sir Andrew Huxley, OM FRS—Past President, Royal Society.

  Dr. Susan Iversen, MA PHd—Director of Behavioural Pharmacology, Merck, Sharp and Dohme Research Laboratories.

  Professor John Ledingham, DM FRCP—Professor of Medicine, University of Oxford.

  Dr. Brian Newbould, BPharm FPS PhD MCPP—Director, International Research Affairs, ICI Corporate R and T.

  Professor Onora O'Neill, MA PhD—Professor of Philosophy, University of Essex.

  Professor Thomas Pilkington, MD FRCP—Emeritus Professor of Medicine, St. George's Hospital Medical School.

  Professor Lord Soulsby, MA PhD DVSM AM DSc MRCVS—Professor of Animal Pathology, University of Cambridge.

  Professor Michael Spyer, DSc—Professor of Physiology, Royal Free Hospital Medical School.

  Professor Peter Venables, BA PhD DSc FBPsS—Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of York.

  For the reasons set out in my reply to a question from
  12
  the hon. Member on 12 November at columns 37–38, it is our practice not to provide information which could identify those involved in animal procedures.

  Affiliation Orders
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many affiliation orders have been granted in each of the last three years.

  Mr. John Patten
  Affiliation orders ceased to be made from 31 March 1989 and orders for financial provision are now granted under the amended Guardianship of Minors Act 1971. Information for the period before such orders were abolished is given in the table.

  Affiliation orders granted

  Year

  Number

  1987

  10,580

  1988

  11,410

  19891

  3,570

  1 1 January 1989 to 31 March 1989.

DEFENCE

  Service Men
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide for each year the number of service men who leave the armed services and subsequently return, the time lapse and the reasons, where known, for leaving and returning in each case.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Apart from the figures provided in the table for non-commissioned male personnel who rejoined in the last 10 years, having previously served in the armed forces, the information requested is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Year of re-entry

  Royal Navy1

  Royal Marines2

  Army3

  Royal Air Force4

  Total

  1980–81

  339

  74

  1,052

  167

  1,632

  1981–82

  128

  29

  98

  44

  299

  1982–83

  130

  17

  48

  41

  236

  1983–84

  104

  8

  155

  146

  413

  1984–85

  53

  15

  179

  84

  331

  1985–86

  50

  17

  186

  108

  361

  1986–87

  82

  15

  213

  103

  413

  1987–88

  121

  14

  213

  105

  453

  1988–89

  70

  9

  254

  95

  428

  1989–90

  81

  7

  376

  138

  602

  1 The Royal Navy count as re-entrants only personnel who could complete 22 years pensionable service.

  2 The Royal Marines count as re-entrants only personnel who could complete their engagement of 9, 14 or 22 years, as appropriate.

  3 The Army count as re-entrants only personnel with existing reserve liabilities ie "rejoining reservists".

  4 The Royal Air Force count as re-entrants only personnel who were in the Service on full duty in the 5 years prior to rejoining.

  Nuclear Weapons (Germany)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what agreements exist with the German Government covering basing arrangements in Germany for present and future nuclear weapons.
  13
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The 1954 "Presence of Foreign Forces Convention" (Cmd 9617) provides the legal basis for the presence of all British forces in Germany, apart from Berlin.

  Cascaded Equipment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will give details of the costs to the NATO infrastructure fund of transporting cascaded equipment; and what the United Kingdom proportion of this will be;

  (2) if he will give details of the NATO cascade programme of equipment limited under the prospective CFE treaty;

  (3) what is the cost to Britain of cascading equipment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on 14 March 1990 at column 290. The alliance is still examining the opportunities for transferring surplus equipment to other nations and the extent to which the costs incurred can be met from NATO common funding. No decisions have been taken and we do not yet know what costs, if any, may fall to the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom currently contributes 12 per cent. of the costs of the NATO infrastructure programme.

  Air-to-Surface Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the agreements in START differentiating strategic from tactical air-to-surface missiles have any relevance to United Kingdom policy on TASM; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) if the United Kingdom will limit the range of its proposed tactical air-to-surface missile so that it will not be defined as strategic according to current START rules.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The START negotiations are bilateral between the United States and the Soviet Union; British nuclear forces would, therefore, not be included in any agreement. Our choice of a TASM will be guided by the need to retain a credible and effective deterrent capability.

  Trident
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there has been any change in the Government's financial arrangements for the leasing of Trident D5 missiles.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  The United Kingdom is not leasing Trident D5 missiles; it is purchasing them outright. The financial arrangements for their purchase remain unchanged.

  HMS Challenger
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the 85 tonne crane installed in. HMS Challenger, including structural alterations to the ship.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  A 30 tonne crane was fitted into HMS Challenger in September 1990. The acquisition and installation costs are commercial-in-confidence.

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why a new 85 tonne crane was installed in HMS 14
  Challenger a few weeks before the ship was to be sold to commercial interests; and whether the cost of this crane and its installation will be fully reflected in the price being sought from prospective purchasers.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The crane had been bought some time before the decision was taken to decommission HMS Challenger. The Ministry of Defence will naturally endeavour to obtain the most competitive price possible for the ship from prospective purchasers.

  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he will take to ensure that the decision to dispose of HMS Challenger at the end of the current year will not adversely affect the security of the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The disposal of HMS Challenger will not adversely affect the security of the United Kingdom's strategic nuclear deterrent.

  HMS Churchill
  Mr. Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent to date on refitting HMS Churchill at Rosyth dockyard and over what period of time; and how much work would have to be done to allow the submarine's return to the active fleet.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on 15 November,Official Report, columns 195–98.

  Malaysia (Equipment Sales)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates on which all contracts for sales of military equipment from Britain to Malaysia were signed since 1979 and the date on which the exports were authorised.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  It has been the consistent policy of successive Administrations not to provide details of defence exports to specific countries.

  Forces in Europe Treaty
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the limits imposed by the conventional forces in Europe treaty on the United Kingdom's holdings of treaty-limited equipment.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The CFE treaty imposes ceilings on the holdings of certain types of equipment by each group of states. It obliges the members of each group to agree a division of these collective ceilings among themselves, and to notify the other parties. The allocations thus agreed for each nation can thereafter be increased with the consent of other members of the same group. As a result of consultations with our alliance partners, we have agreed the following allocations for the United Kingdom, to apply once the reductions necessitated by the treaty have been completed:

  Number

  Battle Tanks

  1,015

  Artillery

  636

  Armoured Combat Vehicles

  3,176

  15

  Number

  Combat Aircraft

  900

  Attack Helicopters

  384

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give details of the numbers and types of United Kingdom equipment covered by the conventional forces in Europe treaty and their location.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Type

  United Kingdom

  Elsewhere1

  Total2

  Battle Tanks

  Chieftain

  244

  508

  752

  Challenger

  44

  364

  408

  Centurion

  11

  27

  38

  Total

  299

  899

  1,198

  Artillery

  M107

  4

  33

  37

  M110

  1

  15

  16

  M109

  8

  101

  109

  FH70

  68

  —

  68

  Abbot

  18

  133

  151

  105 Lt Gun

  167

  13

  180

  5·5" Howitzer

  9

  —

  9

  Pack Howitzer

  52

  —

  52

  MLRS

  6

  8

  14

  Total

  333

  303

  636

  Armoured Combat Vehicles

  FV432

  180

  1,060

  1,240

  FV432 Rarden

  1

  12

  13

  Humber

  274

  39

  313

  Saracen

  121

  45

  166

  Spartan

  254

  278

  532

  Saxon

  291

  11

  302

  Saladin

  1

  12

  13

  Scorpion

  173

  115

  288

  Warrior

  115

  211

  326

  Total

  1,410

  1,783

  3,193

  Combat Aircraft

  Buccaneer

  62

  —

  62

  Canberra

  50

  —

  50

  Harrier

  94

  30

  124

  Hunter

  34

  —

  34

  Jaguar

  136

  —

  136

  Lightning

  1

  —

  1

  Phantom

  97

  28

  125

  Tornado

  214

  96

  310

  Total

  688

  154

  842

  Attack Helicopters

  Gazelle

  128

  65

  193

  Lynx

  56

  53

  109

  Scout

  66

  —

  66

  Total

  250

  118

  368

  1 Almost entirely Germany, but some small numbers in Belgium, Gibraltar and Cyprus.

  2 Includes equipment deployed to the Gulf area.

  A copy of the full United Kingdom CFE data declaration has been placed in the Library of the House.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Polly Peck International
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has now decided to request a report on the affairs of Polly Peck International; whether he will investigate the role of the Serious Fraud Office in this matter; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: My right hon. Friend is in touch with the Serious Fraud Office and with the administrators of Polly Peck International plc both of whom are conducting investigations. If matters come to light in the course of those investigations or otherwise which need investigating under the Companies Act rather than by the Serious Fraud Office, he will not hesitate to investigage them.

  The Serious Fraud Office is accountable through its director to the Attorney-General and to Parliament.

  Trade Barriers
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent EEC or national trade barriers of all types relating to products from eastern and central Europe have been reduced in the last 12 months.

  Mr. Lilley
  [holding answer 15 November 1990]: The signing of bilateral trade and economic co-operation agreements between the EC and the USSR, GDR, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania over the last 12 months, following earlier agreements with Poland and Hungary, completed a framework for commercial co-operation with the countries of central and eastern Europe. Agreements include a timetable for the elimination and suspension of quantitative import restrictions by the EEC on industrial and some agricultural imports from these countries. Import arrangements on MFA and ECSC products are covered by separate bilateral arrangements.

  The liberalisation measures provided for in the co-operation agreements have been accelerated on the initiative of the EEC under its aid programme for central and eastern Europe—PHARE. As a result the following measures have been taken by the EEC.
  With effect from 1 January 1990, all quantitative import restrictions were liberalised or suspended for products from Poland and Hungary and limited duty-free access was granted by conferring general system of preferences status on these countries for five years:
  With effect from 1 October 1990 all quantitative import restrictions which discriminated against products from state trading countries were suspended for Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia.

  The PHARE programme also provides for increased exports to the Community of MFA products from Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland. In December 1989 a bilateral textile agreement was signed between the EEC and USSR which provided for greater access for Soviet textiles to Community markets.

  The bilateral arrangements on exports of ECSC products from central and eastern Europe have been relaxed as part of the process to phase out progressively these measures by March 1992.

  All EEC trade restrictions which applied to GDR goods were liberalised as part of the German unification process.

  Advanced Technology
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if his Department has been invited to contribute to the symposium on European collaboration in advanced technology, organised by the Institute of European Trade and Technology, to be held in London on 16 November.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 16 November 1990]: Yes. My Department has regular contacts with the Institute of European Trade and Technology and an official from my Department addressed this symposium on European opportunities for United Kingdom industry.

  ESPRIT
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what contribution was made by his Department to the conference on the European Communities ESPRIT programme, organised by ECCO at the Brussels congress centre from 12 to 15 November.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 16 November 1990]: The ESPRIT conference in Brussels was organised by the European Commission and provides an opportunity for existing and potential participants in this European Community research and development programme to obtain information on ESPRIT. My officials took part in the conference and will continue to bring opportunities for participation to the attention of United Kingdom industry.

  Cosmetic Products
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to ensure that all cosmetic products have their ingredients listed in full on the pack aging in order to protect people with skin allergies.

  £,000

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–911

  Gross renovation of local authority dwellings

  59

  101

  54

  275

  444

  500

  Gross renovation grants to the private sector

  377

  665

  526

  461

  713

  1,173

  1 Local authority forecast.

  Passengers
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the numbers of passengers per annum carried by(a) bus, (b) rail, (c) private car and (d) aircraft in Wales in each of the years from 1985 to date; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is given in the following tables:

  Passengers carried, by mode of transport

  (a) Bus and coach1

  Passenger journeys (million)

  1985–86

  209

  1986–87

  196

  1987–88

  209

  1988–89

  215

  Source: Welsh Transport Statistics.

  1 Data available by financial year only.
  18
  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 16 November 1990]: The European Commission is about to publish proposals for full ingredient labelling of cosmetics throughout the European Community. I will consider them when they are published.

  Cellacast
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will take steps urgently to investigate the health implications of the use of Cellacast; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have been asked to reply.

  A research assessment of splinting materials of this kind was carried out for the Department by a team from Salford university who reported in 1989. Their conclusion was that synthetic bandages are unlikely to cause a problem to either operators or patients unless cast removal is being performed for protracted periods in a particularly confined and unventilated environment. In the latter case, use of dust extraction equipment must be considered prudent.

WALES

  Housing, Dwyfor
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total expenditure in Dwyfor district on housing renovation and repair of(a) local authority housing stock and (b) private sector accommodation, in each of the past five years; and what is the projected expenditure level recognised by his Department for 1990–91 and 1991–92.

  Mr. Grist
  The information requested is given in the following table. Information for 1991–92 is not yet available.

  (b) Aircraft

  Passengers handled at terminals1

  1985

  388,651

  1986

  489,385

  1987

  632,339

  1988

  621,046

  1989

  697,800

  Source: Welsh Transport Statistics.

  1 Includes all arrivals at and departures from Welsh terminals except transit passengers.

  Current information is not available for rail or private car passengers, but a national travel survey conducted in 1985–86 by the Department of Transport showed that the numbers of journeys made within the Principality per person per week were as follows:

  19

  Number

  Rail

  0·15

  Bus and coach

  1·21

  Car and taxi

  9·31

  Other

  3·16

  Total

  13·83

  Food Industry (Training)
  Mr. Geraint Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he is proposing to improve the training of those involved in the food industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  A consultation document on hygiene training for food handlers was issued in December 1989 and the comments received are currently being assessed. The Government intend to issue the relevant regulations in due course.

  Retail Sales
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has on the percentage change in retail sales in Wales for each of the last four quarters; and if he will make a statement.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Information is not available in the form requested.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, further to his reply of 13 November,Official Report, column 106, whether he will review his policy with regard to the appointment of special advisers who have previously been parliamentary candidates; and whether he will make a statement on the operation of his current policy.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Gentleman on 13 November.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  EC Measures
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list to the most recent available date the number of measures agreed by the EEC and not yet passed into legislation by each of the member states, in rank order.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Figures on the records of individual EC member states in implementing all EC directives are unfortunately not centralised. However, the Commission keeps centralised figures on the implementation of the proposals contained in the original White Paper for a single market. The latest Commission report, produced in October shows that of 107 measures due to be implemented by end 1990, the following measures remained unimplemented in the member states:

  number

  Denmark

  15

  United Kingdom

  18

  Germany

  20

  20

  number

  Portugal

  20

  Spain

  27

  France

  28

  Ireland

  31

  Belgium

  32

  Netherlands

  33

  Luxembourg

  35

  Greece

  44

  Italy

  62

  Further details are given in the Department of Trade and Industry's document, "The Single Market: progress on Commission White Paper", which is available in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Salmon
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate(a) the number of salmon available for sale in the United Kingdom in (i) 1970, (ii) 1980 and (iii) 1989 and (b) for each of those years, what percentage of salmon were (i) river caught, (ii) caught in offshore waters and (iii) from fish farms.

  Mr. Curry
  The information requested is not available in the level of detail sought. The total amount of salmon available for sale in the United Kingdom comprises wild, farmed and imported fish of a variety of species—Atlantic, Pacific, and so on. It is not possible to estimate reliably how much of the total domestic—Atlantic—catch may be offered for sale; further, records of imported salmon are not subdivided by number or species.

  Comprehensive statistics of wild Atlantic salmon reported as caught by rod, net and trap are published annually by the Fisheries Departments and copies are available in the Libraries of the House. From these it is possible to provide an estimate of the inland and coastal catches of Atlantic salmon. These are:

  Inland (tonnes)

  Coastal

  1970

  1,191

  968

  1980

  934

  684

  11989

  817

  555

  1 provisional figure

  Figures for estimated United Kingdom farmed Atlantic salmon production are:

  (tonnes)

  1970

  nil

  1980

  600

  1989

  29,000

  Figures for the total United Kingdom imports of fresh, chilled and frozen salmon—all species—are:

  (tonnes)

  1970

  4,700

  1980

  5,112

  11989

  7,095

  1 provisional figure

  Bananas
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates are available of the number of bananas from the Windward Islands and Jamaica that would be bought in the United Kingdom if no trade preferences for those countries existed.

  Mr. Curry
  None. Our objective is an effective preferential arrangement after 1992, which will enable a continuing flow of bananas from the Caribbean, in line with the Community's commitments under the Lomé convention.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when a decision is likely to be taken in the European Community on trade arrangements for bananas after 1992; and by whom.

  Mr. Curry
  We cannot say when a decision will be taken as no proposals have yet come forward from the European Commission. The decision will be taken by the Council of Ministers.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals have been put forward by the European Community Commission on preferences for imports of bananas from the Windward Islands and Jamaica after 1992.

  Mr. Curry
  None.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether the United Kingdom's position on trade preferences for imports of bananas from the Windward Islands and Jamaica after 1992 has changed since Her Majesty's Government's discussion paper was produced.

  Mr. Curry
  The Government continue to believe that the framework set out in that discussion paper provides the best means yet identified for balancing the different interests that would be affected by common arrangements for bananas. Discussions of the best way forward continue with all interested parties.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Exports
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the annual figure for exports of goods and services, expressed in current price terms, as a percentage of gross domestic product since 1979 and for the first half of 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information relating to the export of goods and services—current prices—as a proportion of gross domestic product can be found in table 1.2 of the 1990 edition of the CSO's "United Kingdom National Accounts" publication—the Blue Book—and in table B of the CSO's quarterly "Gross Domestic Product" press notice. Copies of both are available in the Library of the House or alternatively the data can be found on the CSO database which can be accessed through the Library.

  Debt
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any representations to assist banks and finance houses in respect of increased indebtedness resulting from property prices; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maples
  My right hon. Friend receives representations from various sources about a range of subjects in the run-up to the Budget.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has on the levels of(a) personal debt and (b) company sector debt in 1988, 1989, 1990 and estimated for 1991; and what assessment he has made of the reasons for the changes in level.

  Mr. Maples
  Figures for the debt or financial liabilities of the personal sector and industrial and commercial companies are available up until the end of 1989 only. These data are set out in table 12.2 and 12.3 of "United Kingdom National Accounts"—the CSO Blue Book, 1990 edition.

  Revenue
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list for each year since 1979(a) the total tax revenue and (b) the total of all income to the Exchequer since 1979; and if he will also list it on the basis of (i) 1979 and (ii) 1989 prices.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Information as is readily available is included on the CSO database in the following series—identified by their database code:

  ATAB:

  general government: total taxes (excluding community charge) and royalties.

  ATAF:

  general government receipts.

  DJDT:

  implied GDP (at market prices) deflator.

  The database can be accessed on line by the House of Commons Library.

  Taxation
  Mr. Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the

  Exchequer if he will make a statement setting out (a) the changes in policy which would require to be made by Her Majesty's Government, (b) the restrictions on the freedom of action in tax decision making and (c) the impact on the tax levels and on the zero rate if the various proposals relating to indirect tax harmonisation and Community statistics were approved by the Council of Ministers.

  Mr. Ryder
  (a) The policy implications of the European Commission proposals covering indirect tax harmonisation and intra-Community trade statistics are detailed in the explanatory memoranda submitted by HM Customs and Excise and the Central Statistical Office respectively. Copies of the memoranda are available in the Library of the House.

  (b) The proposals would require approximation of both VAT and excise duties; this would of course constrain our fiscal decisions.

  (c) The Commission's revised VAT approximation proposals suggest an unspecified minimum standard rate

  23
  and a reduced rate of 4 to 9 per cent; for excises there are various proposals according to product category, for minimum rates or rate bands to be applied from 1 January 1993, and target rates to be achieved thereafter. The proposed rates would have a significant impact on United Kingdom rate levels and revenue; details are again given in the explanatory memoranda.

  With regard to zero rates, the Commission's revised thinking of May 1989 accepted that these could be retained under certain circumstances; although the present VAT technical proposals do not include an arrangement to carry forward the legal base for zero rates after 1992. We would not, of course, agree to any proposals which would restrict our ability to retain a zero rate.

  The Government have always made it clear that they do not consider centrally determined tax approximation to be necessary for the completion of the single market or desirable for the differing economic circumstances of member states. As adoption of the Commission proposals would require the unanimous agreement of member states, the United Kingdom's position is safeguarded.

  Coinage
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the old 5p coin will be demonetised following the introduction of the new 5p coin.

  Mr. Maples
  The old 5p coin will be demonetised and cease to be legal tender after 31 December 1990. Although it will not be possible for the general public to spend old 5p coins after that date, it will still be possible to return them by paying them in through the high street banks for a limited period.

  Ministerial Advisers
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what general guidelines are issued for setting the salaries of personal ministerial advisers;

  (2) whether the salary guidelines in connection with the appointment of ministerial personal advisers include annual uprating by reference to the retail prices index;

  (3) whether he will review the guidelines for the salaries paid to personal ministerial advisers to ensure earnings as advisers do not exceed earnings in previous employment;

  (4) what are the guidelines for setting salaries for Ministers' personal advisers, where those appointed were previously self-employed.

  Mr. Ryder
  [holding answer 16 November 1990]: There is a pay spine for ministerial special advisers. The starting point on that spine for each adviser is assessed primarily by reference to the individual's recent normal earnings: this is taken as evidence of the "market rate". There is flexibility to go above this exceptionally if there is evidence that an individual's recent earnings have been less than his or her normal market expectation or that the individual could have expected to increase his or her remuneration in the near future if they did not accept the appointment. These guidelines apply to all advisers, including those who were previously self-employed and I have no plans to revise them. The pay spine is revalued annually in line with the general increase in civil service pay.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what energy efficiency steps have been taken in the House since 1 January.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Improving energy efficiency in the House is being achieved in three ways—by specific energy conservation projects, better housekeeping, and by incorporating energy conservation measures in the design of new facilities and major replacement programmes.

  Members' Working Conditions
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will pay a visit to the west cloisters in the Palance of Westminster to inspect working conditions for hon. Members.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I shall visit the west cloisters as soon as possible.

  EC Standing Committees
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement concerning the establishment and operation of the new Standing Committees appointed to consider documents originating from the European Community.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Standing Order No. 102, as amended by the House on 24 October, provides for the establishment of three European Standing Committees from the start of this Session. These Committees will each have 10 members who will be appointed by the Committee of Selection for a whole Session. I hope that the nominations will take place shortly and that the European Standing Committees will be able to begin holding debates on EC documents as soon as possible thereafter.

  Scottish Select Committee
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received regarding the nomination of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

  Mr. MacGregor
  I have received a number of such representations.

  Members' Lounge
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what steps have been taken to replace the former Members' lounge adjacent to the Library corridor now occupied by the Labour party.

  Mr. MacGregor
  Although relocation of the facility provided by the room in question did not form part of the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee's deliberations when approval was given for a change of use, it is understood that it will be considered in the context of accommodation becoming available in the House as a result of moves to phase 1 of the new parliamentary building.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Schools (North Yorkshire)
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science (1) what is the 1990–91 North Yorkshire education authority capital budget for furnishings and equipment in North Yorkshire schools;

  (2) what is the 1990–91 North Yorkshire education authority capital budget for building work in North Yorkshire schools.

  Mr. Fallon
  North Yorkshire local education authority received annual capital guidelines in 1990–91 for education expenditure on schools and further and higher education of £4–1 million. This represents no more than the minimum level of suggested capital spending on education. LEAs are free to spend whatever they think fit from whatever overall resources are available to them for capital spending. I understand that North Yorkshire LEA's capital budget for 1990–91 is in the region of £5 million.

  National Curriculum Council
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the cost of the carpet in the foyer of the National Curriculum Council's new building in Skeldergate, York.

  Mr. Eggar
  There is no carpet in the foyer of the National Curriculum Council's new building in Skeldergate, York.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many staff work in the National Curriculum Council's new building in Skeldergate, York.

  Mr. Eggar
  The number of staff currently working in the National Curriculum Council's new headquarters in York is 83. The building is also used for meetings of NCC's council, curriculum committees, task groups and conferences.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the cost of the lease of the National Curriculum Council's new building in Skeldergate, York.

  Mr. Eggar
  The annual rent of the National Curriculum Council's new headquarters is currently under review, but is likely to be in the region of £250,000 plus VAT.

  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the capital cost of equipment and furnishings for the National Curriculum Council's new building in Skeldergate, York.

  Mr. Eggar
  The cost of the fixtures, fittings and furnishings of the National Curriculum Councils new headquarters is likely to be £560,000.

  Assisted Places
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the schools involved in the assisted places scheme, with the total number of places and the number of assisted places in each school.

  Mr. Fallon
  The latest information available is in respect of the 1989–90 academic year as follows:26

  Assisted places scheme Academic year 1989–90

  Name of school

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Abbey School, Reading

  920

  66

  Abingdon School

  732

  86

  Ackworth School, Pontefract

  456

  5

  Aldenham School, Elstree

  370

  32

  Alice Ottley School, Worcester

  670

  77

  Alleyns School, Dulwich

  921

  198

  Ardingly College, Haywards Heath

  482

  5

  Arnold School, Blackpool

  800

  75

  Ashford School, Kent

  700

  42

  Bancrofts School, Woodford

  710

  80

  Bath High School GPDST

  590

  109

  Batley Grammar School

  631

  252

  Bedales School, Petersfield

  408

  6

  Bedford High School

  1,034

  98

  Bedford Modern School

  1,200

  161

  Bedford School

  1,120

  100

  Dame Alice Harpur School

  1,030

  153

  Belvedere School GPDST, Liverpool

  550

  170

  Berkhamsted School

  800

  27

  Berkhamsted School for Girls

  557

  28

  Birkenhead High School GPDST

  948

  260

  Birkenhead School

  990

  252

  Bishop's Stortford College

  360

  39

  Blackheath High School GPDST

  570

  91

  Bloxham School, Banbury

  369

  4

  Bolton School (Boys)

  1,000

  246

  Bolton School (Girls)

  1,095

  242

  Bootham School, York

  315

  5

  Bradfield College, Reading

  530

  2

  Bradford Girls Grammar

  900

  57

  Bradford Grammar School

  1,146

  212

  Brentwood School

  1,080

  93

  Brighton and Hove High School GPDST

  744

  141

  Brighton College

  498

  100

  Bristol Cathedral School

  461

  139

  Bristol Grammar School

  1,203

  270

  Bromley High School GPDST

  693

  97

  Bromsgrove School, Worcestershire

  555

  3

  Bruton School for Girls

  580

  116

  Burgess Hill School for Girls

  578

  3

  Bury Grammar School (Boys)

  750

  180

  Bury Grammar School (Girls)

  1,120

  245

  Canford School, Wimborne

  530

  27

  Carmel College, Wallingford

  290

  85

  Casterton School, Cumbria

  380

  40

  Caterham School

  720

  122

  Central Newcastle High School GPDST

  780

  117

  Charterhouse, Godalming

  700

  9

  Cheadle Hulme School

  1,000

  134

  Cheltenham Ladies College

  840

  3

  Chigwell School

  617

  63

  Christ's Hospital

  825

  5

  Churchers College, Petersfield

  460

  110

  City of London School

  850

  138

  City of London School for Girls

  660

  108

  City of London Freemens School, Ashtead

  649

  2

  Clifton College, Bristol

  700

  69

  Clifton High School, Bristol

  752

  44

  Colfes School, London SE12

  860

  178

  Colston's School, Bristol

  341

  83

  Colston's Girls' School

  660

  154

  Coventry School

  2,748

  262

  Cranleigh School

  570

  40

  Croham Hurst School, Croydon (9/89)

  590

  5

  Croydon High School GPDST

  1,040

  94

  Culford School, Bury St. Edmunds

  710

  47

  Dame Allans Boys School, Newcastle upon Tyne

  440

  121

  Dame Allans Girls School

  424

  131

  Dauntseys School, Devizes

  588

  50

  Denstone College, Uttoxeter

  360

  119

  Douai School, Reading (9/89)

  295

  2

  Dover College (9/89)

  310

  3

  Downe House School, Newbury (9/89)

  460

  1

  27

  Name of school

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Dulwich College

  1,430

  282

  Durham School (9/89)

  378

  5

  Edgbaston C of E College for Girls (9/89)

  470

  4

  Edgehill College, Bideford

  502

  140

  Ellerslie School, Worcestershire (9/89)

  250

  5

  Eltham College, London SE9

  700

  83

  Emanuel School, London SW11

  760

  278

  Epsom College

  645

  24

  Exeter School

  675

  168

  Farnborough Hill School

  520

  167

  Feixstowe College (9/89)

  320

  5

  Felsted School, Dunmow

  500

  51

  Forest School, London E17

  445

  132

  Francis Holland School NW1 (9/89)

  360

  5

  Friends School, Saffron Walden

  265

  75

  Giggleswick School, Settle (9/89)

  296

  0

  Godolphin School, Salisbury (9/89)

  320

  4

  Godolphin and Latymer School, London W6

  700

  172

  Greshams School, Norfolk

  480

  10

  Guildford High School for Girls (9/89)

  580

  3

  Haberdashers Askes School, Elstree

  1,300

  216

  Haberdashers Askes Schools for Girls, Elstree

  1,096

  115

  Haileybury and Imperial Service College (9/89)

  689

  4

  Hampton School

  200

  183

  Harrogate College

  400

  19

  Headington School, Oxford (9/89)

  680

  0

  Hereford Cathedral School

  603

  225

  Highate School

  298

  36

  Hulme Grammar, Boys, Oldham

  860

  212

  Hulme Grammar, Girls, Oldham

  585

  185

  Hurstpierpoint College, Hassocks (9/89)

  565

  3

  Hymers College, Hull

  865

  164

  Ipswich High School GPDST

  595

  123

  Ipswich School

  626

  75

  James Allens Girls School, Dulwich

  850

  158

  John Lyon School, Harrow

  490

  103

  Kent College, Canterbury

  646

  88

  Kimbolton Schools, Cambridgeshire (9/89)

  685

  5

  King Edwards School at Bath

  685

  114

  King Edwards School, Birmingham

  775

  251

  King Edward VI High School, Birmingham

  560

  158

  King Edward VII School, Lytham

  645

  230

  King Edward VI School, Norwich

  761

  109

  King Edward VI School, Southampton

  944

  237

  King Edwards School, Witley

  523

  76

  Kings College School, Wimbledon

  650

  83

  Kings High School for Girls, Warwick

  985

  152

  Kings School, Bruton (9/89)

  333

  3

  Kings School, Chester

  560

  89

  Kings School, Macclesfield

  1,043

  154

  Kings School, Rochester

  438

  51

  Kings School, Worcester

  856

  166

  Kingston Grammar School

  567

  149

  Kingswood School, Bath

  484

  42

  Kirkham Grammar School

  510

  80

  Lady Eleanor Holles School, Hampton

  810

  55

  La Sagesse Convent School, Newcastle upon Tyne

  340

  139

  Latymer Upper School, London W6

  1,030

  308

  Laxton School, Peterborough (9/89)

  148

  2

  Leeds Girls High School

  946

  102

  Leeds Grammar School

  1,184

  197

  Leicester Grammar School (9/89)

  550

  5

  Leighton Park School, Reading (9/89)

  360

  5

  Leys School, Cambridge

  375

  35

  Liverpool College

  700

  171

  Lord Wandsworth College, Basingstoke

  440

  82

  28

  Name of school

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  Lorento Convent Grammar School, Altrincham

  819

  60

  Loughborough Grammar

  880

  125

  Loughborough High School

  520

  88

  Magdalen College School, Oxford

  500

  119

  Malvern College Group

  600

  58

  Manchester Grammar School

  1,460

  262

  Manchester High School

  965

  171

  Marist Convent Senior School, Ascot (9/89)

  500

  1

  Maynard School, Exeter

  530

  155

  Merchant Taylors, Liverpool

  769

  203

  Merchant Taylors Girls', Liverpool

  811

  170

  Merchant Taylors, Northwood

  700

  68

  Mill Hill School

  540

  55

  Monkton Combe School, Bath

  340

  35

  Mount Carmel School, Cheshire (9/89)

  589

  5

  Mount St. Mary's College, Sheffield

  283

  52

  Mount School, York (9/89)

  288

  5

  Newcastle Under Lyme School, Staffordshire

  1,350

  466

  Newcastle Upon Tyne Church High School (9/89)

  607

  5

  Northampton High School

  765

  162

  North London Collegiate School, Edgware

  850

  83

  Norwich High School GPDST

  835

  168

  Nottingham Girls High School GPDST

  1,054

  184

  Nottingham High School

  830

  134

  Notting Hill and Ealing High GPDST

  768

  118

  Oakham School, Rutland (9/89)

  986

  3

  Old Palace School, Croydon

  760

  184

  Oxford High School GPDST

  650

  94

  Pangbourne College, Reading (9/89)

  330

  5

  Perse School for Boys, Cambridge

  486

  62

  Perse School for Girls

  710

  66

  Plymouth College

  695

  187

  Pocklington School, York

  714

  130

  Polam Hall School, Darlington (9/89)

  465

  5

  Portsmouth Grammar School

  1,020

  178

  Portsmouth High School GPDST

  675

  135

  Prior Park College, Bath (9/89)

  386

  3

  Putney High School GPDST

  825

  16

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar, Blackburn

  1,200

  244

  Queen Elizabeth Grammar, Wakefield

  975

  153

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital School, Bristol

  480

  166

  Queen Mary School, Lytham

  700

  242

  Queens College, Taunton

  610

  64

  Queens College, London W1

  400

  60

  Queens School, Chester

  578

  71

  Ratcliffe College, Leicestershire

  424

  61

  Redland High School, Bristol

  631

  73

  Red Maids School, Bristol

  475

  163

  Reed's School, Cobham (9/89)

  346

  5

  Reigate Grammar School

  870

  99

  Rendcomb College, Cirencester (9/89)

  275

  5

  Repton School, Derby

  559

  45

  Rossal School, Fleetwood

  476

  45

  Royal Grammar School, Guildford

  800

  107

  Royal Grammar School, Newcastle

  1,130

  271

  Royal Grammar School, Worcester

  874

  257

  St. Albans School

  666

  121

  St. Albans High School for Girls

  685

  59

  St. Ambrose College, Altrincham

  640

  85

  St. Anselms College, Birkenhead

  850

  184

  St. Bede's College, Manchester

  866

  220

  St. Bees School, Cumbria

  367

  82

  St. Benedict's School, Ealing

  585

  75

  St. Catherine's School, Bramley

  615

  35

  St. Dunstan's College, Catford

  830

  153

  St. Edmund's College, Ware

  463

  59

  St. Edward's College, Liverpool

  850

  402

  St. Felix School, Southwold (9/89)

  355

  4

  St. George's College, Weybridge

  600

  27

  St. Helen's School, Northwood

  880

  27

  29

  Name of school

  Number of pupils on roll

  Number of assisted pupils

  St. John's College, Southsea

  860

  173

  St. John's School, Leatherhead

  460

  14

  St. Joseph's College, Ipswich

  738

  72

  St. Joseph's Convent, Reading

  534

  102

  St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate (9/89)

  360

  5

  St. Margaret's School, Bushey (9/89)

  460

  1

  St. Margaret's School, Exeter (9/89)

  450

  4

  St. Mary's College, Crosby (9/89)

  804

  244

  St. Mary's Convent, Cambridge

  552

  98

  St. Mary's Hall, Brighton

  386

  52

  St. Maurs Convent, Weybridge

  470

  57

  St. Paul's School, Barnes

  640

  82

  St. Paul's Girls School, Hammersmith

  634

  55

  St. Peter's School, York

  480

  125

  St. Swithun's School, Winchester

  406

  0

  Salesian College, Farnborough

  450

  68

  Scarborough College (9/89)

  389

  5

  School of St. Helen and St. Katherine, Abingdon

  520

  80

  Sedbergh School, Cumbria

  495

  36

  Sheffield High School GPDST

  683

  81

  Shrewsbury High School GPDST

  570

  67

  Sir William Perkins School, Chertsey

  490

  93

  Solihull School (9/89)

  976

  5

  South Hampstead High School GPDST

  670

  58

  Stamford School

  950

  71

  Stamford High School

  1,006

  83

  Stockport Grammar School

  1,270

  252

  Stonyhurst College, Blackburn

  433

  30

  Stowe School, Buckingham

  608

  4

  Streatham Hill and Clapham High GPDST

  500

  156

  Surbiton High School (9/89)

  600

  5

  Sutton High School GPDST

  821

  68

  Sutton Valence School, Maidstone

  413

  60

  Sydenham High School GPDST

  650

  109

  Talbot Heath School, Bournemouth

  597

  133

  Taunton School

  585

  51

  Tonbridge School

  660

  3

  Tormead School, Guildford (9/89)

  545

  1

  Trent College, Derbyshire

  614

  129

  Trinity School of John Whitgift, Croydon

  800

  143

  Truro School

  863

  115

  Truro High School

  500

  53

  University College School, London NW3

  770

  68

  Upton Hall Convent School

  600

  171

  Ursuline Convent School, Kent (9/89)

  330

  5

  Ursuline High School, Ilford

  410

  120

  Wakefield High School

  760

  139

  Walthamstow Hall, Sevenoaks

  532

  72

  Warwick School

  985

  136

  Wellingborough School

  830

  59

  Wellington College, Berkshire

  829

  32

  Wellington School, Somerset

  798

  196

  Wells Cathedral School

  587

  75

  West Buckland School, Barnstable

  534

  71

  Westholme School, Blackburn

  951

  5

  Westminster School

  600

  37

  Whitgift School, Croydon

  900

  109

  William Hulme Grammar School, Manchester

  790

  220

  Wimbledon High School GPDST

  700

  68

  Winchester College

  659

  21

  Wisbech Grammar School

  566

  281

  Withington Girls School, Manchester

  560

  68

  Wolverhampton Grammar School

  635

  260

  Woodbridge School, Suffolk

  542

  112

  Woodhouse Grove School, Bradford

  410

  5

  Wycliffe College, Stonehouse

  329

  39

  Yarm School, Cleveland (9/89)

  417

  5

  30
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list the fees charged in those schools involved in the assisted places scheme.

  Mr. Fallon
  Schools participating in the assisted places scheme charge assisted pupils the same fees as other pupils. Fee structures are related to pupils' age groups and differ considerably from school to school. Full details of schools' fees can be found in the directories published by the independent schools' associations, copies of which are held in the Library.

  Research Councils
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are his reasons for not publishing the 1990 report of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. and learned Friend considers that the advice that the board offers as part of the public expenditure survey should be confidential, as is normal for similar advice from other bodies such as the Universities Funding Council and the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. He recognises that the board may wish to make its views on some matters, including priorities for United Kingdom science, more widely available and will be discussing this with the chairman of the board.

  Universities Funding Council
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what policy the Universities Funding Council is required to adopt to ensure that grant aid which has been allocated by it for specific developmental projects is not diverted to other purposes, such as the reduction of general college deficits.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  Under the Education Reform Act 1988, the Universities Funding Council is empowered to attach conditions to its grant to universities, including repayment of grant if the conditions are not met.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Redundant Buildings
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what steps are being taken by the Church Commissioners to make redundant buildings available to alleviate the problems of the homeless.

  Mr. Alison
  Some 13 redundant churches have been appropriated to use as night shelters or day centres or sold or leased to local authorities or housing associations, while more than 100 of the sites of demolished redundant churches have been disposed of to local authorities or housing associations.

  Ordinations
  Mr. Speller
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners, what representations he has received on the subject of the ordination of women ministers.

  Mr. Alison
  I have received no representations on this subject.

SCOTLAND

  Civic Government
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete the current review of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

  Mr. Lang
  The current review of the 1982 Act has been delayed by pressure of other work but it should be completed shortly. Thereafter we intend to publish in the course of next year a consultation paper setting out our proposals for changes to the Act.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Mozambique
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representations he has received calling for the United Kingdom to help fund the shortfall in the United Nations Mozambique emergency appeal, to help relief and resettlement of refugees and displaced persons; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Chalker
  In addition to early-day motion 1417 of 17 October and questions from the hon. Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) some 40 letters of representation have been received on this issue. The position remains as stated in my replies to the hon. Members for Bradford, West and for Cynon Valley on 19 October, at column 938, and 13 November, at column 99, respectively.

  Rain Forests
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of the Minister for Overseas Development's visit to Brazilian and Amazon rain forest projects for Brazilian-British co-operation in conserving rain forests.

  Mrs. Chalker
  My visit was valuable in giving me a closer understanding of the issues involved. I am convinced that our environmental co-operation programme with Brazil is on the right lines and that we should press on with developing our programme in both the urban and the rain forest sectors. I am pleased to have been able to sign agreements on projects in both areas.

  I also look forward to new project proposals emerging as a result of the Anglo-Brazilian environmental conference, which I opened in Brasilia.

  Human Rights Abuses
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for which countries, other than the Sudan, Her Majesty's Government have stopped British development aid, on the ground of human rights abuses.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We have stopped British development aid to Burma and project aid to Somalia. We are at present running down our project aid to Sudan in response to the human rights situation there. We have also delayed implementation of a pledge of programme aid to Sri Lanka pending improvement of the human rights situation there.

  West Indies
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance the Overseas Development Administration is giving the Windward Islands and Jamaica to diversify into exports other than bananas over the next decade.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Assistance for economic diversification to reduce dependence on bananas has been a significant part of our aid programme to the Windward Islands for many years. Current commitments to agricultural diversification total £3·5 million, and this will be an important area for future aid allocations.

  Our Jamaica programme focuses on other sectors, though we are providing a grant of £500,000 for the rehabilitation of smallholder coffee following hurricane damage.

  The aid programme also helps with diversification into tourism, through improvements to supporting infrastructure such as roads and water and electricity supplies, and with training.

  Investment by the Commonwealth Development Corporation—CDC—supports the growth of the coffee industry in Jamaica and tourism and processing of local production for export in the region as a whole. The CDC is also assisting the banana industry in Jamaica to increase its productivity and thus to improve its competitive position in the European market.

  Malaysia
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all offers of aid to Malaysia, with the date the offer was made and the date the aid agreement was signed, since 1979.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The information requested cannot be provided in the form requested by the hon. Lady, but I can confirm that offers of aid have been made to the Government of Malaysia since 1979 in respect of the following aid and trade provision—ATP—projects and, where aid agreements have been signed, a date, if known, has been added:

  Offers made for ATP projects and date of aid agreement (only six offers have so far resulted in an aid agreement)

  Sungei Ahning Dam—28 December 1984

  Cross Braced Rail Bogies—31 July 1986

  Rural Water Schemes—28 August 1986

  Sandakan Power Station—4 March 1989

  Nucleus Hospitals—13 July 1990

  View data-date not readily available

  Pergau Hydro Electric Station

  Connaught Bridge Power Station

  Sibu Airport

  Utora University

  Digital Multiplex Equipment

  Labuan/Sabah Submarine Cable

  Load Despatch Centres

  Locomotives

  Railway Braking System

  Air Navigation Equipment

  Peninsular Gas

  Optical Fibre Telecommunications

  Sarawak Transmission

  Sungai Piah Hydro Electric Station

  Transmission Switchgear

  33

  East-West Malay Submarine Cable

  Indoor Substations

  Offshore Gas Development

  Gas Turbine Generators

  NEB Consultancy Port Klang Power Station

  Bersia/Kenering Hydro Electric Station

  Submarine Telecommuncations

  Switchgear for NEB

  Bataing AI

  Paka Power Station

  Circulating Water Plant

  3KV Transmission Switchgear

  Communications Equipment

  132KV Transmission Switchgear

  Submarine Telephone Cable

  Peninsular Gas Phase II

  Offers made for ATP/Technical Co-operation Projects and Date of Agreement (only six offers have so far resulted in an aid agreement).

  Airport Study—19 August 1980.

  Privatisation Programme—23 June 1988.

  Ulu Jelai Feasibility Study—March 1985 (exact date not readily available).

  Liwagu Hydro Electric Study—16 September 1987.

  Rural Water Supply Supervision—11 September 1987.

  Medamit 2 Study—15 October 1990.

  Railways Double Tracking.

  Meteorological Study.

  Hill Resort Road.

  Islamic University Master Plan Study.

  Islamic University Socio-Economic Study.

  Peninsular Gas Phase II.

  Selangor Pipeline Rehabilitation Study.

  Air Traffic Control Consultancy.

  Aluminium Smelter Study.

  Copper Complex Feasibility Study.

  Engineering Complex Feasibility Study.

  Nenggiri Hydro Electric Consultancy.

  Power Generation Feasibility Study.

  Rail Training.

  Transformers for NEB.

  Urea Plant Consultancy.

  In addition to ATP activities we have provided various technical co-operation inputs under our regular aid programme for Malaysia. The major elements in the regular aid programme are provision of experts and volunteers and training for students and other trainees.Information on the total number of man years for each of these categories is given in the table.

  Year

  Experts and Volunteers (man years)

  Student and Trainees (man years)

  1979

  97

  164

  1980

  56

  171

  1981

  46

  100

  1982

  43

  76

  1983

  33

  89

  1984

  29

  114

  1985

  34

  86

  1986

  42

  100

  1987

  35

  103

  1988

  33

  105

  1989

  33

  110

  Sahara
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what relief aid has been given to the Saharans who are currently living in camps in Algeria having fled from western Sahara following its invasion by Morocco.
  34
  Mrs. Chalker
  We are not providing any relief aid to the camps in Algeria.

  Aid Focus
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the evidence on which the Minister for Overseas Development based her statement of 8 November that British aid is focused on the poorest sectors and people within poor countries.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 16 November 1990]: In my speech to the Refugee Council annual conference on 8 November, I said that the Government were focusing their growing assistance on the poorest countries, on the poorest groups within those countries, and the most vulnerable. In 1989 over 70 per cent. of our gross bilateral aid went to the poorest 50 countries compared with 63 per cent. in 1986. The report of the Public Accounts Committee published on 18 June 1990 recognised that the ODA's efforts to engage in direct poverty alleviation projects were yielding results. In India alone, our commitments to poverty alleviation activities now amount to £130 million with a further £60 million under consideration.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out the evidence on which the Minister for Overseas Development based her statement of 8 November that British aid is becoming more and more project orientated.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have no recollection of using the words quoted by the hon. Member.

  Brazil
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions were held on human rights abuse, particularly of Yanomani people, with Brazilian officials during the visit to Brazil of the Minister for Overseas Development.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 16 November 1990]: We have consistently made clear to the Brazilian authorities our views on human rights abuse. During my visit I took the opportunity to discuss with Foreign Minister Rezek the concerns of both Governments about securing a viable future for indigenous peoples including the Yanomani. We understand that the Brazilian authorities are instituting measures which should be helpful in safeguarding indigenous rights.

  Aid Expenditure
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the decision was made that poverty, population and environment are the top priorities for British aid; what proportion of aid was spent on each of these in 1989 and the current year; and how the decision will be reflected in aid expenditure in 1991 and in future years.

  Mrs. Chalker
  [holding answer 16 November 1990]: The alleviation of poverty has been a major aim of the aid programme under successive Governments. Recently we have been giving increasing priority to growth and addressing environmental issues. I see these as interrelated issues requiring increasing attention.
  35
  In 1989 a total of £17·3 million was spent on activities directly related to population concerns, a 72 per cent. increase in real terms compared to 1981. In addition most mother and child health and women's education programmes contribute to reducing population growth.

  On poverty, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave her on 26 June, at column 125. On environment, ODA procedures now rightly require that the evaluation of all projects takes account of environmental considerations. The increasing priority given to the issue is reflected in the fact that whereas in 1988 the Government were financing around 80 forestry projects at a cost to the aid programme of £45 million, we currently have in place or in preparation over 200 projects at a cost of some £165 million. Figures for 1990 and future years are not available.

TRANSPORT

  Fuel-Burning Trains
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what powers his Department has to control and issue guidelines to British Rail regarding the use of fuel-burning trains in urban areas.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  Operational aspects of motive power are a matter for British Rail. Enforcement of controls under the Clean Air Act 1956 on emissions of dark smoke is by local authorities. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, railway engines other than steam locomotives could become subject to statutory nuisance action by local authorities or individuals.

  British Rail
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will approve British Rail's proposals for new class 159 vehicles for the Waterloo to Exeter route.

  Mr. Freeman
  The passengers who use the Waterloo-Exeter route are currently getting a service which is below the standard they are entitled to expect, in spite of the best efforts of Network SouthEast managers and staff.

  The replacement of the old and unreliable trains on the line has been a priority for both British Rail and the Government.

  British Rail put to me a sound case for 69 class 159 vehicles to be introduced on the Waterloo-Exeter route, most of which will be converted class 158s, and I approved its proposal today.

  It means that passengers can look forward to a modern, reliable and comfortable service at least a year sooner than would otherwise have been possible.

  Disabled People (Vehicle Excise Duty)
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many disabled people in 1989 applied successfully to claim a refund of vehicle excise duty or exemption from the payment of vehicle excise duty.

  Mr. Chope
  During the period April 1989 to March 1990 there were approximately 22,000 successful first-time claims by disabled people for refunds of vehicle excise duty. There are currently over 350,000 disabled persons claiming exemption from vehicle excise duty.

  Rolling Stock, Kent
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his policy with regard to the supply of the new Networker rolling stock for use on commuter lines serving north-west Kent; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  I fully support Network SouthEast's programme of investment in the Kent Link lines. A total of 400 Networker trains were approved in August 1989 at a cost of over £290 million with approval for a further 276 in principle. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has endorsed the 12-car Networker strategy for Kent Link routes. Infrastructure improvements at a cost of over £120 million are going ahead and more rolling stock is likely to be ordered. I understand that the first class 465 Networker is due for delivery to Kent Link in September 1991.

  Tachograph Charts
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to reach a decision about the serialisation of tachograph charts.

  Mr. Chope
  I hope to be able to announce a decision soon.

  Warwick Gardens, Peckham
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the Minister of State will visit Warwick Gardens in Peckham.

  Mr. Freeman
  It is, of course, for British Rail to propose a route for a new rail link between the channel tunnel and London.

  However, I intend to visit Warwick Gardens, which are in the Dulwich constituency, at a time of convenience for my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Bowden).

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Enterprise Ulster
  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff of Enterprise Ulster are to be declared redundant in 1990 and 1991; and how many of these are remunerated within the range £7,000 to £12,000 per annum.

  Mr. Needham
  Fifty, of whom 49 are likely to be in the £7,000 to £12,000 per annum wages or salary range. The precise position will not be known until after the present offer of voluntary redundancy to all staff closes on 27 November 1990.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what kinds of material used by Enterprise Ulster have been conveyed to the private homes of staff members for the purpose of material testing; how long the testing lasted; and when reports on the test results were submitted and to whom.

  Mr. Needham
  The only known material conveyed to a member of staffs private home, for the purpose of material testing, was Colfix bitumen emulsion. This was in December 1980, with the results of the experiment published in January 1981 and circulated to line management.
  37
  The Colfix bitumen and the small quantity of stones used were paid for by the member of staff.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff of Enterprise Ulster whose remuneration is in excess of £12,000 per annum are to be transferred to other work in the Government service; how many are to be retained in Enterprise Ulster; and how many are to be declared redundant.

  Mr. Needham
  Enterprise Ulster is a statutory body established in 1973. As such, there are no arrangements in place which allow its staff to be transferred to other work in the Government service. Of the up to 50 staff being made redundant in 1990 and 1991, it is likely that there may be one whose remuneration is in excess of £12,000 per annum.

  Mr. Kilfedder
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what projects were undertaken by Enterprise Ulster in 1988 and 1989; and what was the total cost of each, showing separately the amount contributed by the client or sponsor and the value placed on unused materials returned to Enterprise Ulster depots.

  Mr. Needham
  In the 1988–89 financial year, Enterprise Ulster undertook 385 projects at a total gross cost of £2,083,124 to which clients contributed £419,663. In 1989–90, a total of 312 projects were undertaken at a total gross cost of £913,446 to which clients contributed £219,881. No record is kept of unused materials which were either returned to the client or on agreement, transferred to another project of the client or if purchased by Enterprise Ulster, returned to its depots.

  Details of the projects undertaken in the two years, along with Enterprise Ulster's expenditure and income from clients have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Energy Connections
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in establishing whether provision of(a) a natural gas pipeline and (b) an electricity connector between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is likely to be feasible; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Needham
  The technical and economic feasibility of using gas for power generation is currently being assessed. Several possible routes for a pipeline from Great Britain are being examined and sea bed surveys have been completed. Initial discussions have been held with a number of natural gas suppliers.

  On an electricity interconnector, discussions are continuing between Northern Ireland Electricity and Scottish Power.

  Saltwater Bridge, Kircubbin
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many traffic accidents there have been in each of the past five years and in the first 10 months of 1990 in the vicinity of Saltwater bridge, Rowreagh road, Kircubbin, County Down; how many persons were injured; how many persons were killed; and what proposals he has to improve road safety at this location.

  Mr. Needham
  Recorded accidents at Saltwater bridge, Rowreagh road, Kircubbin, are as follows:38

  Year

  Number of accidents

  Number of persons killed/ injured

  1985

  0

  1986

  0

  1987

  1

  11

  1988

  0

  1989

  1

  11

  3 1990

  1

  21

  1 Injured.

  2 Killed.

  3 To date.

  A minor road realignment scheme which will enhance road safety at this location is due to commence towards the end of the next financial year.

  Poverty and Deprivation
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures the Government will introduce to reduce the level of poverty and deprivation in Northern Ireland, following the report of the Child Poverty Action Group.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government aim to provide an effective system of financial help; extra resources being targeted on those most in need. Following the reform of social security in April 1988, which gave increased levels of support to families with children, there have been other improvements, including increased help from October 1989 for disabled and older pensioners on income support or housing benefit and higher limits on savings from April 1990. There will be a general benefits uprating next April, including a real increase in the basic pensioner premium for people aged 60 to 74 on income support or housing benefit and substantial extra income support for many people being cared for in independent homes. The Government have also announced plans to improve the framework of benefits for disabled people. Additionally, the decision to set up a Social Security Agency in Northern Ireland is intended further to improve the quality and responsiveness of service to those in need of help.

  District Heating
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is taking as a result of the offer British Coal has made to assume responsibility for the improvement and operation of certain district heating schemes in Northern Ireland.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The chairman of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive has informed me that the executive has rejected the British Coal proposals in view of the high level of subsidy which the proposals required.

ENVIRONMENT

  Land Registration
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what circular or communication he has made to local authorities concerning future registration of public sector land; what categories of existing use such proposals cover; and for what purpose.

  Mr. Atkins
  My Department issued on 12 September a consultation paper which invited the comments of the
  39
  local authority associations and others interested on our proposals for encouraging the use of vacant public sector land. One of the proposals was for a statutory duty on local authorities and other public sector bodies to keep, and make accessible to the public, registers of their unused and underused land on a broadly similar basis to those requested under the code of practice issued in August 1989. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Library. The responses are now being considered.

  Part VIII of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 places a duty on local authorities to keep a register of potentially contaminated land in their areas whether publicly or privately owned. Copies of a report on the methodology for identifying such land, "Pilot Survey of Potentially Contaminated Land in Cheshire", were sent to all local authorities in July.

  Satellite Dishes
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many representations he has received in the current year concerning planning applications for the siting of satellite dishes.

  Mr. Atkins
  This information is not readily available. Virtually all of the substantial number of letters received on this subject are concerned with the environmental impact of satellite dishes erected under permitted development rights (for which a specific planning application is unnecessary). The consultation, earlier this year, over proposed changes to the permitted development rights for satellite dishes produced nearly 600 responses.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment in the light of the recommendation of the Taylor report and the separate need for a national stadium in the 21st century, what form of public financial support would be available to supplement private sector investment in such a facility in the west midlands.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Government's priority is the introduction of all seating accommodation in line with Lord Justice Taylor's recommendations. Substantial funds are being made available to the Football Trust from the reduction in pool betting duty. It is for other public authorities in the area to decide their own investment priorities.

  Limehouse Link Road
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will break down the estimated £142 million cost of the Limehouse link road into its principal components, including rehousing costs and relocation of businesses; what contracts have now been concluded for construction and associated work, with the names of the respective companies and amounts of the relevant tenders; and what further contracts remain to be concluded.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The figure of £142 million was the estimated cost of the Limehouse link road, prepared by LDDC in 1988, prior to tendering in 1989. It relates to construction costs only. The main construction contract was awarded in September 1989 at a value of £220 million to a joint venture of Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd. and 40
  Fairclough Civil Engineering Ltd. Subcontracting is a matter for the main contractors, and the details are confidential to them.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has received to the 1991–92 standard spending assessment announcements from local authorities.

  Mr. Key
  Consultations on the local government finance settlement for 1991–92 will continue until 28 November. The representations received to date from local authorities have shown that the large proposed increases in standard spending assessments are welcomed, and have also included a number of detailed comments on specific points.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what proposals he has for exempting clothing, bedding, furniture and basic equipment from seizure by private bailiffs enforcing the community charge;

  (2) what proposals he has to amend the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 to bring controls on bailiffs enforcing the community charge into line with those applying for distress for rent.

  Mr. Key
  My Department does not propose to make any changes to the Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 as regards bailiffs employed by local authorities. We have issued advice on the employment of bailiffs by local authorities which included the suggestion that authorities should issue guidelines to bailiffs on their mode of operation. I understand that the Institute of Revenues Rating and Valuation will shortly be issuing a practice note which will include details of property which it is unlawful or imprudent to distrain.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for requiring private bailiffs enforcing the community charge to show written authorisation from the local authority.

  Mr. Key
  The Community Charges (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1989 already require a bailiff to show the debtor the written authorisation he has received from the local authority if requested to do so.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish figures showing for 1990–91 the average amount in £ sterling per week and the percentage of earnings accounted for by the community charge for (i) a single person, (ii) a single-earner married couple without children, (iii) a single-earner married couple with two children and (iv) a two-earner married couple on(a) 50 per cent., (b) 75 per cent., (c) 100 per cent., (d) 150 per cent., (e) 200 per cent., (f) 300 per cent., (g) 400 per cent., (h) 500 per cent., (i) 700 per cent. and (j) 1,000 per cent. of average earnings.

  Mr. Key
  I regret that it is not possible to produce satisfactory estimates of the amount paid in community charge by households of differing incomes. The amount paid will vary according to the area in which the households live; their entitlement to transitional relief; and their entitlement to community charge rebate.
  41
  Sir Geoffrey Finsberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many people have been exempted from paying the community charge in each category of exemption in the London borough of Camden.

  Mr. Portillo
  Information returned by the authority on the number of exempt persons over 18 in the London borough of Camden at 1 June 1990 is as follows:

  Number

  Severely mentally impaired

  57

  Aged 18 or 191

  66

  Members of religious communities

  47

  In hospital or home2

  1,550

  Persons without fixed abode

  200

  Other3

  28

  1 Aged 18 who attract child benefit because they are still at school or aged 18 or 19 and on full-time courses of further, but not higher, education.

  2 People whose sole or main residence is in an NHS hospital, in a residential care home, a nursing home, a mental nursing home, a private hospital or a hostel providing a substantial level of care, and who are also being treated or cared for in such an institution.

  3 People in detention, members of visiting forces, international headquarters and defence organisations, and their dependants (including diplomats), residential care workers employed at a very low salary, and full-time students whose term time address is in Scotland or Northern Ireland. These categories have been combined because of the small numbers involved.

  Ince B Power Station
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from local authorities in Gwynedd and Clwyd concerning the environmental effects of the proposed burning of Orimulsion fuel at Ince B power station; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have received one letter about Ince power station from Gwynedd county council which was forwarded to my Department by the hon. Member for Caernarfon.

  Leybucht Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many of his(a) legal and (b) other staff will be sent as observers to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg on 5 December in respect of the Leybucht bay case;

  (2) what policy considerations led him to decide to associate the United Kingdom Government with the German Government as defendants in the Leybucht bay case brought by the European Commission for infringement of the European Community wild birds directive;

  (3) how many of his (a) legal and (b) other staff were sent as observers to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg on 16 October on the occasion of the preliminary hearing of the Leybucht bay case.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The United Kingdom intervened in case C57/89 brought by the European Commission against the German Government on two grounds. First, we believe that the Commission is not entitled to rely upon any presumption of fact and should be required to place before the court the evidence needed to support its case that a member state has not fulfilled an obligation under Community law. Secondly, the 42
  Commission interprets article 4 of the wild birds directive EEC 79/409 as imposing an absolute prohibition on any activity or development within a special protection area (SPA) which might cause significant pollution or deterioration of habitat or disturbance to the birds, with the sole exception of works which are strictly necessary to protect human health or safety. We consider this interpretation to be contrary to the wording and intention of the directive, and unacceptable in principle.

  Two members of my Department's staff attended the hearing of this case on 16 October in support of counsel together with an officer of the Treasury Solicitor's Department. The Welsh Office and South Glamorgan county council also each sent an observer. There are no plans for anyone to attend the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg on 5 December.

  Information requested relating to the total cost to public funds of the United Kingdom intervention in this case is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answers of 12 and 13 November, when he will be in a position to estimate the total cost to public funds of the Government's decision to associate themselves legally with the German Government as a co-defendant against the European Commission in the Leybucht bay case.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 16 November 1990]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him earlier today.

  Local Authority Employees
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State, for the Environment how many town or county hall employees, except teachers, are recorded as having been made redundant in each of the past 10 years.

  Mr. Key
  My Department does not collect this information.

  Interim Development Order Sites
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary State for the Environment whether he proposes to introduce any controls on interim development order sites in respect of(a) opencast mining, (b) quarrying and (c) any other purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Minerals Act 1981 provides an opportunity for mineral planning authorities to review interim development orders and other early planning permissions for mineral working and to make orders updating them where appropriate. There are no proposals to introduce further controls, but we are reviewing the operation of the Minerals Act 1981, as announced in "This Common Inheritance".

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received regarding interim development order sites; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  The Department is aware of the recent concern about interim development order permissions and has received a number of representations from those affected by them.
  43
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has visited any interim development order sites in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Atkins
  My right hon. Friend has not visited any interim development order sites in the last 12 months, but I shall be visiting a number of mineral sites during the course of next year to see operating conditions at first hand.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many interim development order sites exist in England; and if he will list full details in the Official Report.

  Mr. Atkins
  All permissions granted under interim development orders before 21 July 1943 have lapsed, but permissions applied for, and granted on or after that date and before 1 July 1948 were preserved by section 77 of the 1947 Act and by subsequent legislation.

  No records of applications made under interim development orders were required and no information about the total number of permissions granted is currently available. Such records as there are of such permissions will be held by the successor planning authority and we are discussing the information currently available with the local authority associations.

  Workplace Accidents
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the reported accidents involving lifting while working received by his Department with regard to local government employees for 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 showing distribution by age and sex, occupation, incidence rates based on population of England and place of accident.

  Mr. Key
  My Department receives no such reports.

  Mortgages
  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his latest estimate of the number of families with dependent children who have mortgages; and what was the comparable figure in 1979.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The estimated numbers of households in England with dependent children (aged under 16, or under 19 if in full-time education) buying with a mortgage, were 3·1 million in 1979 and 3·6 million in 1988. These figures are derived from the general household survey.

  Disabled Facilities Grants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what evidence his Department has of the impact of the system of contribution repayments towards disabled facilities grants, set out in circular 10/90 (paragraphs 17, 18 and 67), on the financial situation of disabled persons and their families and on the expenditure of local authorities that waive loan repayments.

  Mr. Key
  I have no evidence to suggest that the system is not working as intended, which is to ensure that the resources available tor grants are used as effectively as possible. All aspects of the new renovation grant system will however be kept under review.

  Apple Orchards
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure the protection of orchards containing rare varieties of apples; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Currently we are engaged in a wide-ranging review of tree preservation policies and legislation. A consultation exercise will be launched shortly, providing an opportunity for comments on this and other issues to be considered in that broader context. In addition, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food continues to fund the national fruit collection at Brogdale which contains some 2,300 varieties of apple.

  North Sea (Dumping)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to prevent the further dumping by oil companies of radioactive waste from oil rigs into the North sea; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Trippier
  Disposals of small amounts of radioactive waste from oil installations in the North sea are authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution (HMIP) on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment and by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate (HMIPI) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Applications are considered on a case-by-case basis and before an authorisation is issued HMIP or HMIPI needs to be satisfied that disposals will not present any significant radiological hazard.

  World Climate Conference
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what results were achieved at the second world climate conference; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Chris Patten
  The second world climate conference was a major step forward in the international response to climate change. Following a week's meeting on scientific issues, Ministers from some 137 countries agreed a declaration which called for an early start on negotiations on a framework convention on climate change, to be completed by 1992. We fully support this agreement, and will play an active part in the negotiations which begin in February 1991.

  The conference endorsed the need for a global strategy to respond to climate change, involving the participation of all nations. To enable developing countries to play their full part in this, the declaration recognises the need for financial and technological assistance from the industrialised countries.

  The declaration also welcomed the commitment of the European Community and its member states and of other developed countries to take action aimed at stabilising emissions of greenhouse gases, and particularly carbon dioxide. It urged all developed countries to establish national strategies to limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

  This conference involved 137 nations, more than at any comparable gathering, and the agreements reached will give added impetus to the work of developing an effective and realistic global response to climate change ready for the 1992 United Nations conference on environment and development.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unit Labour Costs
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give, for each year from 1974, an index of the rise in unit labour costs in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, France, the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan(a) in local currency and (b) adjusted for changes in relative exchange rates.

  Mr. Jackson
  Statistics on unit labour costs in the whole economy are not available. International com-parisons of unit labour costs in manufacturing industries are made periodically by the international monetary fund. The latest available data from this source are set out in the tables:

  TABLE 1: Manufacturing Unit Labour Costs in Local Currency

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  France

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  Index 1985 = 100

  1974

  30·7

  59·3

  35·3

  68·5

  89·0

  1975

  41·7

  63·5

  42·9

  73·1

  102·1

  1976

  46·2

  65·6

  46·5

  73·8

  102·3

  1977

  51·9

  69·4

  49·1

  78·0

  106·4

  1978

  59·6

  74·5

  53·0

  81·5

  105·0

  1979

  70·3

  82·0

  57·4

  83·7

  105·2

  1980

  85·9

  91·6

  65·6

  90·2

  104·7

  1981

  93·5

  98·2

  73·8

  94·5

  108·6

  1982

  96·6

  104·3

  82·7

  97·7

  107·7

  1983

  95·3

  101·7

  87·9

  97·0

  105·3

  1984

  96·5

  99·7

  94·2

  98·1

  101·2

  1985

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1986

  103·8

  100·8

  101·9

  105·0

  103·3

  1987

  103·8

  99·5

  101·8

  111·5

  98·0

  1988

  106·1

  100·8

  100·0

  111·0

  94·5

  1989

  110·7

  101·6

  101·3

  112·2

  95·3

  TABLE 2: Manufacturing Unit Labour Costs Adjusted for Changes in Relative Exchange Rates.

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  France

  Federal Republic of Germany

  Japan

  Index 1985 = 100

  1974

  78·7

  82·8

  91·8

  107·3

  110·6

  1975

  84·4

  74·4

  104·8

  101·0

  106·9

  1976

  76·8

  78·2

  104·7

  102·1

  107·4

  1977

  76·5

  76·0

  97·3

  108·3

  114·7

  1978

  83·0

  68·9

  97·2

  111·9

  128·0

  1979

  98·6

  68·4

  99·2

  112·2

  109·2

  1980

  122·0

  69·2

  103·9

  110·2

  93·0

  1981

  124·2

  79·3

  99·2

  100·0

  102·9

  1982

  114·9

  89·3

  96·7

  101·7

  91·0

  1983

  103·7

  92·5

  94·4

  103·1

  98·9

  1984

  99·6

  98·9

  96·0

  101·6

  101·3

  1985

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  100·0

  1986

  92·9

  77·2

  102·5

  112·5

  125·1

  1987

  90·4

  65·8

  101·4

  126·8

  125·5

  1988

  98·4

  63·2

  97·2

  125·8

  133·1

  1989

  97·9

  65·8

  94·9

  123·0

  127·0

  Source: International Monetary Fund

  Earnings
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a table showing for each year since 1970 and for the latest month the number of full-time adult males and females in employment together with the number of part-time workers distinguishing between manual and other workers and between manufacturing, other production industries and non-production industries; and if he will add figures for non-adult workers and for the self-employed.

  Mr. Jackson
  I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and place a copy of my reply in the Library.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many and what percentages of full-time employed(a) men and (b) women, and of part-time employed (i) men and (ii) women, earned less than £3 an hour in April 1990.

  Mr. Jackson
  The available information on those earning less than £3 per hour in the new earnings survey (NES) sample is published in table 20 of part A of the 1990 NES report.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will publish a table showing the numbers employed in(a) banking and bill discounting, (b) house and estate agents and (c) legal services.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is given in the table.

  Estimates for the legal services industry can be derived only from censuses of employment. The latest available census figures are for September 1987.

  Employees in Employment

  Great Britain

  Industries (SIC 1980)

  Thousands

  June 1990

  Banking and Bill Discounting

  (Group 814)

  503·9

  House and Estate Agents (Group 834)

  109·3

  September 1987

  Legal Services (Group 835)

  165·3

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if part-time chairmen of industrial tribunals have been stopped from hearing cases; what is the current waiting time for a hearing date; and to what extent the waiting time has changed in recent months.

  Mr. Forth
  Restrictions on the use of part-time chairmen were lifted on 9 November. Information on recent waiting times is not yet available.

  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how much further funding has been received by the industrial tribunals; and what plans he has to review the amount further in the rest of the financial year.
  47
  Mr. Forth
  The budget of the industrial tribunals (England and Wales) has been increased by £750,000. This will enable the tribunals to operate normally for the rest of the financial year.

  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will give for the enterprise allowance scheme(a) the number of entrants and (b) the total

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91 up to 12 October 1990

  Region

  Entrants

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Entrants

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Entrants

  Expenditure (£ million)

  Entrants

  Expenditure (£ million)

  London

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,999

  19·74

  3,897

  9·14

  South East

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,264

  17·59

  3,709

  8·12

  Western Division

  24,514

  45·04

  6,473

  13·32

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Eastern Division

  8,224

  16·19

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Southern Division

  7,450

  15·98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  South West

  11,262

  20·84

  10,344

  20·9

  7,335

  17·24

  3,015

  6·78

  West Midlands

  10,537

  19·45

  9,677

  19·15

  7,691

  17·24

  3,217

  7·29

  East Midlands and Eastern

  11,562

  20·32

  9,656

  19·05

  7,879

  17·54

  3,673

  7·6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  10,198

  18·89

  9,935

  19·26

  8,169

  17·44

  3,269

  7·6

  North West

  15,955

  30·34

  15,311

  29·82

  12,263

  26·96

  5,593

  11·92

  Northern

  5,729

  11·07

  5,938

  12·08

  4,881

  10·67

  2,142

  4·52

  Wales

  6,654

  12·04

  6,942

  12·92

  5,433

  12·41

  2,393

  5·24

  Scotland

  9,894

  17·91

  8,572

  17·62

  6,972

  14·97

  3,360

  6·89

  Totals

  106,305

  195·9

  98,522

  196·3

  77,886

  171·8

  34,268

  75·1

HEALTH

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rules govern membership of trusts and health authorities to ensure that there is no conflict of interest.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The NHS Trusts (Membership and Procedure) Regulations SI No. 1990/2024, as amended, govern the appointment of trust chairmen and directors. The Regional and District Health Authorities (Membership and Procedure) Regulations SI No. 1990/1331 govern the appointment of health authority chairmen and members. The provisions of these regulations together with general guidance issued by the Department are intended to ensure that conflicts of interest do not arise for members of health authorities or directors of NHS trusts.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether additional funds were made available to community health councils for consultation on self-governing trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Responding to consultation on the provision of health services is part of the normal function of community health councils. Additional funds have not been made available for consultation on self-governing trusts.
  48
  expenditure for each of the years 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91 and for each of the standard regions, Scotland and Wales.

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: The regional breakdown of entrants for each year is shown in the table. Because of changes in scheme administration, separate data for London are not available before April 1989. Expenditure information was produced only at national summary level up to that point. Over 95 per cent. of the programme budget went on allowance payments and estimates are included based on entrant shares.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations have been received by(a) him and (b) regional health authorities about the length of time allowed for consultation on self-governing trusts.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  A number of letters have been received. We are satisfied that three months is an appropriate length of time for consultation.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the report of the South East Thames regional health authority on local consultation about the application for self-governing trust status of(a) Guy's hospital, Lewisham hospital and mental illness services and (b) St. Thomas's hospital.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Responses to consultation are available from regional health authorities, except where those commenting have made it clear that they are doing so privately.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) which regional health authorities held public meetings as part of the consultation about self-governing trusts;

  (2) which regional health authorities mounted exhibitions as part of their consultations on self-governing trust status.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for regions together with trust applicants to determine the range of interests consulted formally and the way in which they are consulted. The methods used in consultation in each region are publicly available from regional health authorities.
  49
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce his decision about which applications for self-governing status will be granted.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  My right hon. Friend will announce his decision soon.

  General Practitioners, Trent
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fund-holding practices will be given the go ahead in the Trent region; on what criteria; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Practices which applied by 1 November this year to join the scheme will need to satisfy the conditions laid down in the National Health Service (Fund-Holding Practices) (Applications and Recognition) Regulations 1990. I understand that 28 practices in the Trent region are currently undertaking the preparatory work necessary to become fund holders. It will be for the region to decide which practices meet the criteria for recognition.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of national health service beds in use in(a) the acute sector and (b) totally in each year from 1979 to 1989; and what is the current figure.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested is given in the table. The latest available figures show that in 1989–90 almost 7·5 million in-patient cases were treated. On a comparable basis, just over 6 million in-patient cases were treated in 1979—a rise of nearly 25 per cent.

  Average daily available beds in England

  Acute sector (Thousands)

  Total (Thousands)

  1979

  149

  362

  1980

  146

  356

  1981

  145

  352

  1982

  144

  348

  1983

  142

  343

  1984

  139

  335

  1985

  136

  325

  1986

  133

  316

  1987–88

  128

  297

  1988–89

  123

  281

  1989–90

  121

  270

  Source:

  SH3 return 1979–1986

  KHO3 return 1987–88—1989–90

  Abortion
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the rate of sterility caused by infections among women who have had abortions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has concerning the number of licensed abortion agencies which currently routinely screen potential clients for chlamydia infection.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The information requested is not routinely collected. We are aware, however, that some 50
  pregnancy advice agencies test their clients for chlamydia infection prior to the insertion of intrauterine devices and in connection with infertility treatment.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement outlining the steps which have been taken by his Department to reduce the incidence of pelvic inflammatory disease and tubal blockage following chlamydia infection during abortion.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The form of treatment in an individual case is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he has given to the Brook advisory service and other abortion agencies in the last 20 years about the need routinely to screen in advance for chlamydia their potential abortion clients and to prescribe, where appropriate, a course of antibiotics; and what steps he has taken to ensure that these guidelines are followed.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Brook advisory service is not registered as a pregnancy advice bureau. No such guidance has been issued to Brook or any registered bureaux. The appropriateness of any particular test in an individual case is a matter for the clinical judgment of the doctor concerned.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice has been given by his Department to agencies concerned with the provision of drug and alcohol services with regard to the funding of residential care after 1 April 1993.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None. We are currently consulting about the specific grant to local authorities. Under the phased introduction of community care local authorities are expected to produce their plans, after consultation, by April 1992. Detailed arrangements for funding residential care for alcohol and drug misusers after 1 April 1993 have yet to be decided.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is able to take in the event of a local authority being unable to meet its duty to provide or arrange residential accommodation for elderly people in need of care and attention not otherwise available.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The provision of residential care is a local authority responsibility. They are expected to give priority to the discharge of their statutory duties. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has default powers which can be used if a local authority fails to fulfil its statutory duty under the National Assistance Act 1948 to provide residential care to people in need of care and attention which is not otherwise available to them.

  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce legislation to extend registration procedures to small residential homes.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  We remain committed to seeking an early opportunity for legislation to bring these small homes under regulatory control.

  Service Providers (Voluntary Sector)
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by his Department of the resource implications for service providers in the voluntary
  51
  sector of the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990; and what financial assistance is being made available to them by the Government.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Although grants are available from central and local government to voluntary sector provider agencies, our community care proposals urge local authorities to contract for services with voluntary sector providers. Guidance will stress the important role of local authorities in encouraging and facilitating the work of the voluntary sector. Authorities will still be able to offer grant support for non-service aspects of voluntary sector work.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his intention to issue guidelines on the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, for use of providers of services in the voluntary sector.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department will shortly issue policy guidance on community care which will be supplemented by practice advice from the social services inspectorate. Both guidance and practice advice will be addressed to health and local authorities and the Department intends that they will be of interest to all community care agencies, including voluntary and private sector providers.

  Drug and Alcohol Services
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 for the assessment of care management of clients with drug and alcohol problems where there is a need for access to a national network of services to be maintained and a requirement for the provision of funding across existing local authority and health authority boundaries.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The policy guidance which is to be issued soon will emphasise the need for local authorities and health authorities to work together. The assessment of clients with alcohol and drug problems will need to take account of the range of services provided within the area or available elsewhere.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response has been made by his Department following representations from agencies regarding the omission from the National Health Service and Community Care Act of provisions to take account of the special needs of drug and alcohol services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Section 7E of the Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970 (inserted by section 50 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990) empowers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to make specific grants to local authorities. One of these grants will be for voluntary organisations providing services for alcohol and drug misusers. The grant in 1991–92 will support expenditure of £2 million.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is the Government's intention to issue guidelines concerning the resolution of disputes between agencies over the responsibility for funding services for people with drug or alcohol problems, under the provisions of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
  52
  Mr. Dorrell
  Guidance which is to be issued soon will emphasise the need for joint working between all agencies concerned with funding community care services. There was wide-ranging consultation including voluntary and statutory authorities. Where there is dispute between health authorities and local authorities, advice may be sought from regional health authorities and the social services inspectorate.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provision is being made by his Department under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to ensure that a uniform system for the assessment of persons with drug or alcohol problems is developed across the United Kingdom in order to avoid clients facing several assessments from various agencies before being offered appropriate services.

  Mr. Dorrell
  It is not the Government's intention to prescribe the detailed assessment procedures; these will be for local authorities to develop in partnership with other agencies. In assessing the social and health care needs of their residents, local and health authorities will need to ensure that people with alcohol or drug problems have access to a range of services which may be provided within the area or elsewhere. Where a specialist service is provided by a voluntary body under contract with a local authority, it will be possible for the contractual arrangements to include delegation of the assessment function.

  King's College Hospital
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the King's College hospital day surgery block will be used for national health service patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  Yes.

  Eye Tests
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of national health service eye tests carried out between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The number of NHS sight tests paid for by family health services authorities (formally family practitioner committees) in England and Wales between 1 April 1989 and 31 March 1990 was 5·572 million.

  This figure includes approximately 1·7 million sight tests which were carried out before 1 April 1989 but paid for after that date.

  Listeria Monocytogenes
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been carried out to investigate the proposition that listeria monocytogenes, damaged by heating and growing in chilled conditions, are more infectious and dangerous than normal listeria monocytogenes.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 12 November 1990]: Research at the university of Würzburg, Germany has indicated that levels of haemolysin (a haemolysin is a chemical produced by bacteria which damages or destroys red blood cells (and other mammalian cells)) in some listeria monocytogenes (Lm) have been increased

  53
  following recovery after heat shock. The production of haemolysin by some strains of Lm has been shown to be a marker for virulence in animals and tissue culture, and is believed to be relevant to the ability of the microorganisms to cause disease in humans. However, the observed higher incidence of haemolysin following heat shock was followed by further work with certain strains of Lm. This showed no increase in virulence for animals or tissue cultures, suggesting that an increased level of haemolysin produced by the micro-organism may not be important in producing disease.

  Research by other groups has shown that Lm cultured at low temperatures appears to be more virulent in an animal model following intravenous inoculation but not more virulent following introduction into the alimentary tract, that is, oral route.

  Research continues into the virulence of this micro-organism at Würzburg and at the Pasteur institute in Paris. In the United Kingdom the public health laboratory service is embarking on work to establish virulence markers and work in this field is also taking place at the Moredun research institute in Edinburgh.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disablement Benefit Gratuities
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of disablement benefit gratuities paid to claimants in the parliamentary constituency of Greenock and Port Glasgow, under regulation 13 of the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) Miscellaneous Provisions Regulations 1986; and what has been the average amount of such payments.

  Mr. Scott
  This information is not available.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the level of child benefit for the first-born child in each of the 12 Community countries.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The table shows that the United Kingdom rate of £7·25 a week is second only to the £7·77 shown for Belgium. From next April the United Kingdom rate will be £8·25.

  Rates of child benefit in the 12 European Community states on the birth of a first-born child

  Country

  Maximum normal rates1 £

  Belgium

  7·772 3

  Denmark

  6·364

  France

  Nil4

  Germany

  3·22

  Greece

  0·982 3 4

  Ireland

  2·99

  Italy

  2·012 3 4

  Luxembourg

  6·93

  Netherlands

  5·20

  Portugal

  2·152 4

  Spain

  0·342 4

  United Kingdom

  7·254

  1 Rates quoted are weekly sterling equivalents (most EC countries pay benefits monthly) and have been converted from national currency using purchasing power parity rates. Rates quoted were correct at 1 January 1990.

  54
  2 Benefits based on a contributory principle.

  3 Benefits have an element of means-testing.

  4 Extra amounts payable to certain families, eg, single parents.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to ensure that families eligible for income support and the £1 per week increase in child benefit for the first born do not lose all the child benefit increase;

  (2) what is his most up-to-date estimate of the numbers of families with children on income support who will lose (a) all of the £1 per week in child benefit for the first born announced in the annual uprating, (b) 50p to £1 and (c) 0 to 50p.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As a result of the recently announced uprating of social security benefits, more than 99 per cent. of families on income support will see an overall increase in their total benefits from April 1991. In the course of the uprating, increases in all benefits are generally taken fully into account, including the increase in child benefit paid to about 1–2 million families on income support. Insufficient information is available to estimate the number of families whose income support will he affected by less than £1 per week but this number is thought to be very low. There are no plans for changing the way child benefit is treated in income support.

  Family Credit
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average family credit payment and what was the average family income supplement payment in 1978–79 in current prices.

  Sir Hal Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average family credit payment: and what was the average family income supplement payment in 1978–79 in today's prices.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The average amount of family credit in payment is around £30 a week. The average payment of family income supplement in March 1979 was £5·22 or £11·30 at current prices.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families benefit from family credit; and how many benefited from the predecessor scheme in 1978–79.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest available information is for the end of August when the family credit case load was 323,000. This compares with 78,000 families receiving family income supplement at the end of 1978–79.

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest figure he has for the number of families in receipt of family credit; and what was the comparable figure for family income supplement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The latest information is for the end of August when the family credit case load was 323,000. Family income supplement was in payment to 213,000 families immediately before that scheme came to an end in April 1988.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Ashley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he plans to change the gap between invalidity benefit and the take-home pay of the average worker.
  55
  Mr. Scott
  We have no plans to change the formula for uprating invalidity benefit, which is uprated in line with the retail prices index.

  Students (Income Support)
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to amend the present regulations to enable 19-year-olds in full-time relevant education to claim income support.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We have no plans to change the income support regulations in this way.

  Disabled People
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people and their carers have benefited from the Government's reforms made in the current year.

  Mr. Scott
  More than half a million disabled people and carers have benefited this year from the Government's reforms to disability benefits. Our proposals for improving disability benefits will add some £300 million to spending on disabled people by 1993–94 and will give extra help to an estimated 850,000 people. Spending on disabled people has increased in real terms by more than £4 billion since 1978–79 to a total of £8·3 billion in 1989–90.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disabled people are paying back social fund loans; how many are paying back with deductions from other benefits; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  As at 31 October 1990, 26,800 people with an income support disability premium were repaying social fund loans. Most of these will have been repaying by deduction from their benefit. A small number may have been repaying by other methods but a precise figure is not available. Since April 1990, 35,000 community care grants have been awarded to people with a disability premium. In 6,600 of these cases a grant was awarded where the application was for a budgeting loan.

  Welfare Rights Agencies
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from welfare rights agencies regarding the availability of his Department's claims forms.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  There have been no such representations since August. New contracts for the national supply and distribution of all forms have been in operation since September.

  Pensions
  Mr. Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of uprating the basic pension by £13 for a single person and £20 for a couple.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the cost to the national insurance fund of uprating the retirement pension in this way would be approximately £6 billion. Such an increase would also 56
  mean a rise in the national insurance contributions paid by an employee on average earnings of approximately £2·93 per week and £5·34 for his employer.

  Pensioners (Mortgages)
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners make mortgage repayments; and how much of next April's rise in the basic state pension is attributable to rising interest and mortgage rates in the 12 months to September of this year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) earlier today.

  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of pensioners make mortgage repayments; and how much of next April's rise in the basic state pension is attributable to rising interest and mortgage rates in the 12 months to September of this year.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As my hon. Friend will be aware, the retirement pension will be increased by 10·9 per cent. from April 1991, honouring the Government's commitment to protect fully the value of the state pension against changing prices. The corresponding September figure for the retail prices index less mortgage interest payments was 9·5 per cent. The latest information shows that, in 1987 49 per cent. of pensioners owned their own homes and 4 per cent. were making mortgage repayments.

  Residential Care Allowances
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consultations he has initiated consequently on receipt of the Price Waterhouse report on residential care allowances to charitable or other homes for the elderly.

  Mr. Scott
  The Price Waterhouse report was commissioned to provide background information for consideration as part of this year's uprating. Other interested parties provided comments or information that they wished to be considered.

  Amputees
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many amputees had their mobility allowance withdrawn or suspended in the last three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Scott
  I regret that this information is not available. The Department's records do, however, show that of the 611,000 people currently receiving mobility allowance, 8,000 are shown as having amputation of a limb as the main cause of their inability to walk.

  Benefits
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in a full year of abolishing the capital rule and deemed income and basing benefit on actual income only for(a) housing benefit, (b) community charge benefit, (c) family credit and (d) age premium for retirement pensioners.
  57
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The cost in a full year of abolishing capital limits and tariff income for the income-related benefits and basing benefit on actual income from capital is estimated to be:

  1990–91 prices £ million

  a. Housing benefit

  60

  b. Community charge benefit

  70

  c. Family credit

  2

  d. Income support

  60

  It is estimated that there would be no cost if the change was made only to income support for those receiving a pensioner premium.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1985, 1986 and 1987 family expenditure surveys. Estimates of capital holdings are uncertain because they are imputed from reported income from investment and savings. The estimated costs quoted assume particular interest rate levels and patterns of capital asset holdings.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost in a full year of abolishing the capital rule and deemed income and basing benefit on 10 per cent. of annual income only for(a) housing benefit, (b) community charge benefit, (c) family credit and. (d) age premium for retirement pensioners.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The expenditure effect in a full year of abolishing capital limits and tariff income for the income-related benefits and basing benefit assessment on an assumed interest on savings of 10 per cent. is estimated to be:

  1990–91 prices

  £ million

  (a) Housing benefit

  110

  (b) Community charge benefit

  220

  (c) Family credit

  12

  (d) Income support

  15

  1 Million saving.

  2 Million cost.

  It is estimated that if the change were applied only to income support for those receiving pensioner premium there would be a saving of £30 million. Savings arise because 10 per cent. income would be assumed on the first £3,000 of savings, whereas at present there is no tariff income at this level, and because a 10 per cent. assumed income is higher than the present tariff income in the lower saving brackets above £3,000.

  Source: Modelled using data drawn from the 1985, 1986 and 1987 family expenditure surveys. Estimates of capital holdings are uncertain because they are imputed from reported income from investment and savings.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received on the proposed changes in housing benefit subsidies for 1991–92; what were the views of the local authority associations; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the reduction from 97 per cent. to 95 per cent. in the rate of direct subsidy for community charge 58
  benefit and certain housing benefit cases from April 1991. We have received 24 written inquiries from Members of Parliament, 48 letters from individual local authorities, and a number of representations from the local authority associations which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State met to discuss the proposal on 24 September. The associations were opposed to the proposal and felt that benefit expenditure should be subsidised at 100 per cent. The Government's view is that the change is a modest adjustment in the balance between direct and indirect subsidy, the consequences of which were fully taken into account in the proposed local authority finance settlements for 1991–92.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many residents of registered care or nursing homes would have their entitlement to housing benefit ended as a result of the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1990;

  (2) what assessment has been made by his Department of the implications of the Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1990 for the residential security of those residents in registered residential care and nursing homes who were previously entitled to housing benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Under the proposals in the draft Housing Benefit (General) Amendment (No. 3) Regulations 1990, all those in a registered residential care or nursing home who were entitled to housing benefit on 29 October will retain entitlement under the current rules, as will all those who had submitted a claim for housing benefit on or before that date which is subsequently determined in their favour. In addition, residents of registered homes who are not entitled to the special rates of income support because they are in full-time work, or living in a home run by a close relative, will retain access to housing benefit for help with accommodation costs.

  Information is not available about the numbers likely to be affected by the proposed changes. The special rates of income support will continue to be available to help meet the homes' fees for those in registered residential care or nursing homes with insufficient resources of their own.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations have been received by his Department with regard to the proposal to abolish housing benefit for residents of registered care homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  We are currently consulting with the Social Security Advisory Committee and the local authority associations on the proposals contained in the draft Housing Benefit (General) Amendment No. 3 Regulations 1990. That consultation process is not yet completed. We have also received a number of letters on the proposed changes from hon. Members and others.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he last met representatives of local authorities to discuss the adequacy of social security benefits to residents of registered residential care and nursing homes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives from the Association of County Councils in April, when income support for people in residential care homes and nursing homes was discussed.
  59
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many residents of registered residential care or nursing homes in full-time employment are currently claiming housing benefit.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  This information is not available.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Wales are currently receiving, under the poll tax benefit scheme(a) family premium, (b) pensioner premium and (c) disability premium.

  Sir Ian Gilmour
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many and what proportion of(a) pensioners, (b) two-parent families with children and (c) lone-parent families with children, living in the inner London boroughs, he expects to claim community charge benefit; and how many have already done so.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The information requested is not available.

  Grants and Loans
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the cash totals spent in the current financial year to date, and the balances remaining for the rest of the financial year, for each of the DSS offices in Glasgow in respect of(a) community care grants, (b) budgeting loans and (c) crisis loans.

  Mr. Scott
  The information can be obtained from the Library.

  Mobility Allowance
  Sir David Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in the Official Report the number of people receiving mobility allowance for each year since 1979.
  60
  Mr. Scott
  The average number of mobility allowance beneficiaries for the years requested is in the table:

  Year

  Thousands

  1979–80

  140

  1980–81

  185

  1981–82

  210

  1982–83

  265

  1983–84

  315

  1984–85

  390

  1985–86

  420

  1986–87

  460

  1987–88

  515

  1988–89

  560

  1989–90

  615

  Maintenance
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of fathers who are liable to pay maintenance to their wives or former partners for their children actually do so.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Information about fathers is not available in the precise form requested. However, at May 1989, the latest date for which this information is available, 23 per cent. of lone mothers receiving income support were receiving maintenance payments.

  Benefit Deductions
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants are currently having poll tax deductions made from their benefit; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Just over 9,000 deductions for community charge arrears were being made at 31 August 1990.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

School Buildings: Condition
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current estimate of the maintenance backlog of school buildings.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, we keep no detailed information on the state of school buildings, which are the responsibility of local education authorities and governors of voluntary aided and grant maintained schools. Plans submitted by LEAs and governing bodies in connection with bids for capital expenditure on schools, to which the DES responds with annual capital guidelines and grants to voluntary-aided schools, provide an indication of needs.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware of the deep concern among the people involved regarding the deterioration in the fabric of many schools in the public sector? Bearing in mind that the city technology colleges are to receive £31 million in the current financial year for their building programme, would it not be fair and just for the local authorities to be allowed to operate under the same system? Is the Minister aware that if that happened it would substantially reduce the number of schools that require their fabric treating, which would be to the benefit of all?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not sure whether or not the noble Lord is suggesting that local authority and maintained schools should operate under the same system; in other words, that they should be allowed to raise substantial sums of money from the private sector. That is what happens with CTCs. Regarding the maintained sector, it is estimated that £2.6 billion was spent between 1986–87 and 1989–90 against deficiencies identified at £2 billion.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government have abandoned targets that they set in legislation introduced in 1981 to bring schools up to standard by 1991? Is the Minister aware that that condemns many pupils and teachers to work in appalling and squalid conditions in our schools?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness is, I believe, referring to the premises regulations that were required to be in place by 1991. They are under review for a number of reasons. One reason is that priorities have changed substantially over that time; for example, the building of changing rooms may not be a priority compared with the updating of science laboratories to conform with the national curriculum.
566
It is therefore timely to consider possible extension of the dates and to consider priorities within that extension.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that the Government are not aware of the problem of disrepair in school buildings? From my own knowledge I can say that schools have closed in Birmingham because roofs fell in and because toilets were still located outside in school playgrounds. A whole host of other reasons exist. Even when a school is burnt down through arson there is great difficulty finding the money to replace it. Surely the Government obtain information of that kind. Or are they not aware of the problems that exist throughout the country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Government are well aware that there are problems regarding the repair of public buildings. However, the rise in expenditure from £352 billion in 1989–90 to £485 billion represented a 37 per cent. increase; the rise from 1990–91 to the coming year 1991–92 is a further 11 per cent.; and the increase per pupil over a period of 10 years has been 16 per cent. in real terms. That is an indication that the Government recognise that more resources are required.
Lord Peston: My Lords, the noble Baroness quotes many figures. Has the Minister actually visited any schools recently? The best evidence is that obtained with our own eyes. Does the noble Bareness not agree that if one visits a large number of schools in our country one sees that they are desperately in need of refurbishment? Is it not also the case that that is an extremely efficient way to invest our resources? If we do not refurbish them they will fall down, and the cost in due course will be that much higher.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have visited a large number of schools over the past 14 or 15 years. I am aware of a number of matters. One is that the management of maintenance in some authorities is better than in others. There is therefore an issue of management of funds. There is also an issue regarding how those funds that are received are applied. The noble Lord criticises me for quoting statistics. The statistics I used are actual statistics; they represent real moneys going to schools to address this very problem.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in my first question I was attempting to establish the different criteria used for city technology colleges as against local authority education establishments, bearing in mind the distribution of government funds? I was not speaking of the private sector. I was suggesting that if the local authorities were financed in the same way it would go a long way towards helping them reduce the serious and adverse conditions that exist in some schools. Will the Minister plead with the Secretary of State for something to be done in that regard?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may correct something I said earlier. I believe I used the word "billions" when I should have said "millions". However, the £31 million mentioned by the noble Lord needs to be set against the £538 million which is

567
the amount put into the maintained sector. The manner in which the Department of Education and Science sympathetically considers the use of 100 per cent. of capital receipts when specific projects are presented to it for consideration should also be taken into account.
Lord Annan: My Lords, in the 'fifties, when many schools were built, they were admired by many European countries and educational officers from Europe came to see them. Are those schools in need of maintenance or does the undoubted problem very properly raised this afternoon concern only buildings erected at the beginning of the century?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there are a number of problems, not least those of poorly-designed schools built much later than the beginning of this century—that is to say, in the late 1950s, the 1960s and 1970s. There are considerable problems, particularly involving schools with flat roofs. Management resources constitute a very real issue. Some authorities have a very good record of managing resources. Clearly, buildings erected at the beginning of the century and before will be in need of restructuring.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister really believe that it is acceptable to spend as much as £31 million on buildings and repairs for CTCs, which represent a tiny handful of institutions, compared with only £500 million plus spent on every other school in the country? Does she not agree that that ratio is utterly absurd?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I do not know where the figure of £500 million comes from. The figure of £538 million incorporates restructuring of buildings and the provision of new buildings besides some refurbishment. The figure of £31 million I have not confirmed or otherwise. I simply accepted it from the noble Lord. It is not a figure that I have to hand. The amount of private money that has gone into setting up CTCs is to be commended. The noble Baroness would support a policy of taking the CTCs out of the system altogether. Where the CTCs have been established they are very popular with the local population. They are highly over-subscribed. My hope is that industry, commerce and the DES will continue to support them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm that this expenditure lies within the remit of central and not local government?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend is not quite correct. The overall allocation is distributed by central government, but the actual deployment of those moneys is very much a matter for local government. The determination of priorities is also a matter for local government.

Transport in London
2.45 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux Lord Brougham and Vaux asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action is being taken to improve the transport services for travellers in London.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the Government have authorised substantial investment in all the transport services for London. Over the three years from next April London Transport plans to invest up to £3 billion and British Rail up to £1·3 billion for Network SouthEast. It has also authorised major longer-term projects, including East West Crossrail. There is a substantial programme of road improvements and legislation is being introduced to ease traffic flow on priority routes. We are working with London Transport to see how these and other measures can help to improve bus services.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that excellent reply. Does he not agree that this Government are investing far more in London Underground than the GLC ever did?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. That is certainly true. Investment over the next three years will be nearly three times the level in real terms that it was under the GLC.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, nevertheless, looking at the most recent statistics produced by London Underground Limited, is it not the case that the number of lifts out of service due to defects is higher than a year ago and that trend is continuing at an unacceptably high level? But having said that, one must recognise that the escalator problem has improved. I congratulate London Underground on that. Nevertheless, is it not true that the lifts are in a totally unacceptable state?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his acknowledgement that the situation of the escalators has improved. That is a subject of great interest to your Lordships as I remember from previous occasions answering such questions. The target is for 86 per cent. availability by the end of March 1992. The latest figures show that 84 per cent. of escalators are already in service. Clearly, it will be even better when 100 per cent. of the escalators are working full time. It is now up to London Transport to turn its attention to the lifts.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether anything is being done to improve the condition of London Underground and to reduce the enormous number of breakdowns both of vehicles and the signalling system which almost every day causes hardship to the travelling public? Can the Minister say whether anything can be done—if necessary, by making fresh appointments—to get London Underground on the move?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, a very large amount of money is being invested by London Transport at the moment. It is not possible to deal with every line at the same

569
time. I give as an example the Central line, which will have 85 new trains and a new high technology signalling system costing over £700 million. That should alleviate the problems to which my noble friend has referred.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, notwithstanding what appears to be his encouraging Answer, London Transport is well aware of its shortcomings? It knows what a terrible ordeal it is to travel on the Northern line. London Transport is trying to alleviate the situation in order to prevent people using their cars and clogging up the roads. Does the Minister not agree that only if the Government are prepared to meet the London Transport Executive to try to understand its desperation, and also to increase the finance available, can some of the problems be resolved? Such action will have an immediate effect in reducing the chaos on London's roads and the appalling conditions under which people have to travel on some Underground lines.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord can have heard my original Answer. I made it quite clear that record amounts of money are being spent by London Transport on the Underground. Plans are also in hand for greater expenditure on the system. A very large amount of money is involved. The noble Lord may remember that during the past 10 years or so the number of people travelling by Tube has risen by about 22 per cent. That figure was reached after a long period of declining numbers.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that this serious social problem, which makes massive demands on the public purse, cannot be solved as long as one neglects a sensible and positive dispersal programme and a regional policy which will permit the better dispersal of industry and other activity throughout the country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we already have a policy which encourages regional development. Indeed, a good many civil servants have moved or are about to move out of central London. However, if this country is to prosper and if London is to remain the financial capital of Europe, it is essential that we continue to invest money in the transport services.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, what action, if any, have the Government taken to reduce the incidence of muggings on the Underground?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have the figures with me at the moment, but not so long ago I answered a Question on the number of British Transport Police on the London Underground system. That number is increasing at the moment.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that with the increased investment, which although it is too late we all welcome, the transport system in London will begin to compare with the transport systems in most other European cities? That is certainly not the case today. What do the Government propose to do about the congestion resulting from the use of private cars?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the investment in London Transport is too late. As I pointed out a few moments ago, investment under this Government is three times what it was under the GLC. I agree that it is better late than never —it would probably never have been under the GLC. The noble Lord went on to say that our transport systems in London are not as good as those in some other European capitals. I know that he probably has more experience of Europe than I have, but when I have visited other European capitals I have found congestion almost as bad, if not as bad, as one finds here in London.
Lord Birkett: My Lords, will the Government consider removing all those deeply user-unfriendly automatic ticket barriers and diverting the maintenance of them into lifts and escalators?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question is no; but the investment in lifts and escalators will go on despite that.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, is the Minister aware that he has one noble friend who entirely approves of London Transport? Does he agree that ticket barriers have been valuable in detecting fraud and that London Transport could do with a great many more? London Transport is the finest system in the world if one can use a map. In addition, London Buses has an extremely useful network. In the past few years since deregulation (which did not include London) there has been a 2.5 per cent. increase in bus usage. May London Transport, under the London Regional Transport Act passed by this Government, continue and prosper.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I heard what he said about the increased use of buses. That is something which we would wish to encourage and which will be encouraged by the introduction of red routes.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, has the Minister any comment to make on the report that London Underground had a deficit of around £100 million in the last financial year? Do not the questions asked by noble Lords demonstrate the need for an overall authority for London, which is one of the few cities in Europe that does not have an authority to deal with transport problems over the whole of the city area?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to be arguing for a return of the GLC to take care of our transport problems. The GLC was abolished about five years ago. Had it been as successful as noble Lords opposite would like to make out, we would not have the problems we have today; nor would my noble friend have needed to ask his Question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite wrong. The problems of London Transport began five years ago when the GLC was relieved of its responsibilities. Then started the agony of the Northern line. The inefficiency of London Transport dated from the end of the GLC when transport was taken over by this Government.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord may well be right that the misery of the Northern line started because the GLC did not invest enough money in the transport system.

Channel Tunnel: Benefits
2.55 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird The Viscount of Oxfuird asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures are planned to ensure that British industry benefits from the opening of the Channel Tunnel.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is for industry itself to grasp the opportunities which will be offered by the opening of the Channel Tunnel. The Government's role is to facilitate industry's tasks and that is what we are doing. The national motorway and trunk road programme is being expanded to provide for the general increase in traffic which is now forecast. The programme, especially in Kent, takes full account of anticipated growth in cross-Channel traffic, much of which will use the tunnel. And British Rail proposes to invest well over £1 billion in tunnel-related improvements to freight and passenger services.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his informative reply. Can he confirm that these increased benefits will not be confined solely to the south-eastern region of this country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords, the tunnel will bring cost savings in carrying goods across the Channel due to greater transport competition. It will offer for the first time the possibility of reliable delivery times of United Kingdom exports to the Continent. The consequent increased levels of trade with our European partners will contribute to economic growth and employment in the whole of the United Kingdom.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the South West there is great worry about the fact that the Channel Tunnel will not have any proper links into that part of the country? The freight terminal at Bristol will be the nearest one to Devon and Cornwall. There is great worry that the South West will be left out of the development arising from the Channel Tunnel.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, British Rail proposes to have up to 12 regional freight terminals. They are not all yet identified so I cannot confirm whether Bristol will be the noble Lord's nearest one. It is estimated that up to 70 per cent. of freight transport will emanate from beyond London. That should be encouraging.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although most of us hope that our exports to the remainder of the European Community will be greatly facilitated and speeded up with the opening of the Channel Tunnel, nevertheless there is a two-way traffic and that it will also speed up imports from the Continent to the United Kingdom? We are at the moment running a deficit with the rest of Europe to the tune of £8 billion per annum.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Maybe, my Lords; but exports are increasing faster than imports and therefore they will be assisted by the opening of the Channel Tunnel. Of course it will be a two-way trade; so it is at the moment with the use of ships.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, can my noble friend say which points in the northern part of this country will be directly reached by trains through the Channel Tunnel?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that the trains will go so far as Scotland as soon as the Channel Tunnel opens. I have already said that there will be regional freight depots; but the location of those has not yet been finally decided.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, the noble Lord used the word "hope". That is not very good for manufacturing industry north of Watford. It wants something a little more concrete than that. Manufacturing industry is now looking forward to exporting goods through the tunnel. Will the Government tell British Rail to decide quickly on its rail links from the capital to the South East, to the South West, to the North and to the Midlands and Liverpool?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Baroness should not have too long to wait. I understand that British Rail plans to announce the siting of the freight terminals certainly by the early part of next year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that one of the problems is that we do not have in this country an integrated transport system, and that under this Government there is no sign of one emerging? Is he further aware that notwithstanding the quasi-assurances he has given to the House today, there is deep anxiety not simply in the South West and in the Midlands but throughout the northern part of this country that there are not sufficient—nor are there likely to be sufficient—freight routes to the Channel Tunnel? That may have serious effects on British industry, particularly as 1992 approaches.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not think that that is the case. As I said, there will be substantial freight traffic passing through the tunnel. Freight trains will travel at speeds of up to 75 mph which is the same speed as trains running in France and Germany. The noble Lord said that we do not have an integrated transport system. However, no one has ever explained to me exactly what that means; indeed, it means different things to different people. We have a balanced transport system with substantial investment going into both road and rail.

Television Companies: Proposed Merger
3 p.m.
Lord Jay Lord Jay asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the proposed merger between Sky Television and British Satellite Broadcasting.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the case is

573
currently being considered by the Office of Fair Trading in the normal way. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will consider whether or not to make a reference to the MMC when he has received advice from the Director General of Fair Trading. Until he announces his decision, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this merger.
Lord Jay: My Lords, do we really have adequate parliamentary authority in these matters when it is apparently possible for one man, who is not even a British subject, to control one-third of the British press and also a large slice of the television network?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will not be surprised when I say that I am unable to comment on his allegations.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, can the Minister tell us when the Government intend to put before Parliament the subordinate legislation promised during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill which would limit newspaper owners' interests in domestic and non-domestic satellite services? The delay is causing the IBA great difficulty in dealing with BSB's breach of contract by its merger with Sky.
Further, can the Minister say how the Government intend to protect the leading role taken by BSB in developing the D-MAC technology as the European standard? This provides a much better quality picture and would prevent the domination of European television by Japan.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, as always, I am most interested in the noble Baroness's questions. However, I must point out that her questions, especially the latter one, are wide of the Question on the Order Paper, which specifically refers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not want to answer the second question I shall return to it on another occasion. However, with the greatest respect, the first question is absolutely right and to the point. Is not the subordinate legislation meant to deal with the whole question of cross-media ownership and the monopoly situation? For the Minister not to answer a question on when the subordinate legislation is due to pass through Parliament is in my view somewhat remiss.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the noble Baroness will not be surprised to learn that I do not have the actual day and specific time in this respect. However, I am reliably informed that it will be within the next 12 months.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, will the Minister accept what my noble friend said? I was in the studios of BSB on Saturday. We now have a situation where, once again, an entire staff is totally demoralised. The people do not know whether their jobs will last one week or two weeks, or one month or two months. The Government should realise that the BSB employees may well be their voters; and I can assure them that they will need some of those votes. I appeal to the
574
Government: will they move forward as rapidly as possible and deal with the subject matter of the question?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the relationship between the two companies and their employees is a matter for them; it is not a matter for the Government.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, when Mr. Rupert Murdoch met the Prime Minister recently to discuss these matters, did she say that she was in favour of the merger or did she then consult the Home Secretary about the possibility of a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister did not inform the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about her meeting with Mr. Murdoch. On the only occasion that Mr. Murdoch tried to speak to the Secretary of State, he was not available.
Lord Jay: My Lords, if the Minister cannot answer my first Question, can he say whether Mr. Murdoch in his periodical visits to No. 10 Downing Street counts as a family friend?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, a large number of people constantly visit Downing Street.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sorry, but I cannot accept the last answer given to me by the Minister. It is absurd to say that the subordinate legislation will be introduced within a year. The IBA is having to delay the decision it must make about BSB and whether it should withdraw the contract. There are many people involved in this matter. Will the noble Lord rethink his answer? A decision is expected to be taken by Parliament within the next few weeks, and certainly before Christmas. Surely he cannot really mean that it will be within a year.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I gave that answer in order to be helpful to the noble Baroness. In my first reply to her, I pointed out that her question was wide of that on the Order Paper. I was in receipt of information which I hoped would be or help to her. I can go no further than the original answer I gave.

Business of the House: Debates, 28th November
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Benson and the Lord Greenhill of Harrow set down for Wednesday, 28th November, shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate. —(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Broadcasting be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Davidson, V.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee have leave to confer on matters relating to broadcasting and to meet concurrently for this purpose with any Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House appointed by the Commons for the purpose of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and have leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any such meeting.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Strathclyde): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill has three quite distinct and major parts. First and foremost, it contains provisions for the establishment of Scottish Natural Heritage by merging the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland with the Countryside Commission for Scotland. The Bill also contains provisions to enable river purification authorities to control the abstraction of water within their areas for irrigation purposes and provisions to enable the Secretary of State to make drought orders on application by water authorities and water development boards. Both these parts of the Bill replace existing legislation. However, the Bill has one overriding purpose and that is to ensure that our natural environment in Scotland, and in particular the resources of land and water, are managed in a sustainable way to secure the inheritance of succeeding generations.
Our proposals for the establishment of Scottish Natural Heritage were first announced by my right
576
honourable Friend the Secretary of State in another place in July 1989. Since then we have consulted widely by publishing two consultation papers, copies of which are lodged in the Library of your Lordships' House. Our second consultation paper, Scotland's Natural Heritage: The Way Ahead, set out our aims and aspirations for the future management of our natural heritage in Scotland and the role we expect Scottish Natural Heritage to play. The majority of those responding to our consultation paper are supportive of our proposals to merge the newly created Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland with the existing Countryside Commission for Scotland. This was confirmed by an independent poll recently undertaken in Scotland which showed a three to one majority in favour of our proposals.
Our proposals are founded on the important work carried out by the two predecessor organisations. As your Lordships will see in the Bill, all the functions and responsibilities of the predecessor bodies will be continued by Scottish Natural Heritage. I should like at this stage to pay tribute to the work of the two organisations. The dedicated efforts of the Nature Conservancy Council officials have resulted in the conservation of a wide range of habitats and the protection of a great diversity of species, as well as the protection of features of geological and physiographic interest. Their job has not always been easy but they have carried it out with conviction.
Let me also pay no less a tribute to the work of the Countryside Commission over its two decades of existence. There is a great deal of evidence in the Scottish countryside of the commission's efforts. I should like to single out the work it has undertaken in improving the environment around our towns and cities, its initiatives in major projects in the central belt of Scotland and, more recently, its reflections and prescriptions for the longer-term management of our mountain areas. We fully intend to build on all this work in the new partnership which we propose to establish.
Your Lordships will be aware that we seek an integrated approach to our natural heritage and consider that the merger will bring about a more efficient and more effective organisational structure to achieve that. We believe that the protection of species and habitats, on the one hand, and the protection of landscape, on the other, have many characteristics in common. Perhaps not surprisingly in Scotland, those areas of greatest nature conservation significance are also those with landscapes of the highest aesthetic and amenity value. Rather than see a clash between nature and landscape conservation, therefore, there is a strong concurrence of interest. However, I would not wish to give your Lordships the impression that the new body is concerned only with conservation. Far from it. We also expect Scottish Natural Heritage to improve the appreciation of natural heritage issues by those who live and work in our rural areas as well as those who visit these areas. It will, for example, provide opportunities for greater understanding and improved access to enhance the enjoyment of those areas.

577
There were some who argued that recreational access and enjoyment of the countryside are not compatible with conservation. The Scottish Sports Council has suggested that it should take over the Countryside Commission for Scotland's recreational access and enjoyment functions. The Government stated their case against such an arrangement in the consultation paper. Such fragmentation would undermine the objective of an integrated approach to the management of our natural heritage.
Another aspect of our reorganisation proposals by which we set great store is the building up of positive partnerships between Scottish Natural Heritage and the whole range of other interests: local communities, local authorities, owners and occupiers of land, business and industry and voluntary bodies. We are intent on building up those partnerships by having a highly dispersed organisation for Scottish Natural Heritage. That work will continue in designated areas, but we also seek a much greater effort in new designated areas. We intend to build on the existing NCC office network. I fully expect that the great majority of staff in Scottish Natural Heritage will be based in regional and local offices.
There are a number of other ingredients required for the success of that operation on the ground. One of them is undoubtedly the support of applied research to increase our understanding of sustainable management and to help in the development of practical demonstration schemes and initiatives. That is why there will be a centrally managed cadre of specialists. In addition, no organisation with a great deal of delegation and dispersal of staff can operate effectively without a coherent set of policies and decision-making frameworks. That is properly the role of staff in the agency's headquarters, but they will also have another vital role; that is, to advise government or any other party on any aspect of policy or activity which they consider has an effect on Scotland's natural heritage. We expect that task to be carried out objectively, with rigour, with integrity, but most of all effectively. I can assure your Lordships' House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State looks to Scottish Natural Heritage as his adviser on the conservation, understanding and enjoyment of Scotland's natural heritage and the means of bringing that to fruition in a sustainable manner.
There were those who criticised our proposals as being unduly parochial. I hope that your Lordships will have set aside any doubts on that front from what I have already said. Scottish Natural Heritage cannot operate without proper regard to national and international considerations. It will, after all, be the responsible body for the identification, notification and protection of sites of special scientific interest, including those sites which in addition might be designated under European directives such as the birds directive and, in the longer term, the species and habitat directive. It will undertake its wider nature conservation responsibilities with its sister agencies in England and Wales, through the Joint Nature
578
Conservation Committees, and it will work within the standards, procedures and protocols agreed by the committee.
I turn now to the subject of landscape protection. The Government are committed to the continuing conservation of those of our Scottish landscapes of the highest value. How that should be done in the longer term is a matter of some debate in Scotland at present. The Countryside Commission for Scotland has produced a report on the conservation and management of our mountain areas. It contains many valuable suggestions aimed at securing sustainable use of the land and makes particular suggestions for ways of building partnerships at the local level through the establishment of land management forums. It also proposes that four areas should be designated national parks.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has not come to any conclusion on the commission's recommendations. He is waiting to see the commission's further reflections following a recent consultation exercise. However, the Government wish to move forward on a limited basis to test out the principles of integrated management. That is why my honourable friend the Minister for Horne Affairs and the Environment has announced not just the Government's intention to seek world heritage listing for the Cairngorms, but the establishment of a working party to advise the Secretary of State on the longer-term management of the area. I stress that the Government's desire to move foward on the Cairngorms is in no way meant to pre-empt the possibility of the area becoming a national park.
Existing designations are confined either to landscape purposes or to nature conservation purposes. There is at present no integrated designation. A single designation for the benefit of areas of the highest natural heritage interest will be an essential tool if the new body is to approach the management of such areas in a positive and integrated manner. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to bring forward an amendment to the Bill in another place to enable natural heritage areas to be established.
We do not intend to give, at least at this stage, any additional responsibilities to Scottish Natural Heritage. We do, however, intend to bring forward an amendment to give to the Red Deer Commission powers for the culling of deer on nature and landscape conservation grounds.
I have dwelt at some length on the principles and the expected practice which should come about by the establishment of Scottish Natural Heritage. I shall explain how we expect the Bill to achieve those purposes. Part I provides for the establishment of Scottish Natural Heritage. It will be a body with the full range of powers currently given to the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, but with the wider definition of the natural heritage and the abolition of the concept of countryside it will operate throughout Scotland.

579
I shall underline particularly the general aims and purposes set out in Clause 1. They are: first, to secure the conservation of species and habitats, of areas of geological and physiographic significance and of areas of natural beauty and amenity; secondly, to secure the enhancement of our natural heritage; thirdly, to foster understanding of our natural heritage by increasing the degree of interest and the level of knowledge of everyone who has an interest in the use and management of heritage; fourthly, the agency will have the ability to provide at its own hand or to support others in providing facilities for the enjoyment of Scotland's natural heritage. Included in that important purpose are not merely built facilities but the provision for access. Finally, and of overriding concern in the Government's view, is the duty to ensure that its own actions, and by influencing the actions of others, Scottish Natural Heritage will secure a sustainable natural heritage. Schedule 1 makes provision for the constitution and proceedings of the body.
Clause 2 sets out the general functions. Clause 3 identifies a duty to take account of other matters. Clause 4 and Schedule 2 provide for amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to allow the responsibilities of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland to be undertaken by Scottish Natural Heritage. Clause 5 widens the scope of powers already available to the Countryside Commission for development projects or schemes. Clause 6 deals with powers of entry.
Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State power to pay grant to Scottish Natural Heritage and Clause 8 empowers Scottish Natural Heritage to give grants or loans in furtherance of its general aims and purposes. Clause 9 makes provision for the report and accounts of the new agency. Clause 10 enables the Secretary of State to give both specific and general directions. Finally, Clause 11 and Schedule 3 make provision for the dissolution of the predecessor bodies and take care of the transitional matters, including offers of employment to staff of the existing bodies.
I should now like to explain the provisions on irrigation. The main purpose of these modest measures is to improve the effectiveness of the present legislation contained in the Spray Irrigation Act 1964 and to widen its scope. Some years ago, a sub-committee of the former Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee was asked to investigate problems arising from water abstraction from surface and underground waters, in the context of both river purification and conservation of water resources. The sub-committee's report was completed in October 1978, following which it was the subject of consultation with interested bodies.
The sub-committee concluded that while there was no case for radical change, there was a need to improve the existing legislation. The Government have long accepted the need for such improvements on which agreement to legislate was reached in 1983 and we have since been seeking a suitable opportunity to
580
bring forward new measures. The sub-committee considered that the 1964 Act required revision in three major aspects.
First, the sub-committee concluded that procedure under the existing Act should be simplified. Under this procedure river purification authorities are required to notify interested parties of their application to the Secretary of State for an order for irrigation. This procedure has proved to be so cumbersome that only one control order has ever been applied for and made.
Secondly, having eased the procedure to make control simpler to introduce, the sub-committee advised that forms of irrigation other than spray irrigation—for example, channel, flood and trickle—might then become more attractive because they were uncontrolled. They therefore recommended widening the legislation to all forms of irrigation.
Thirdly, they found that control should be extended to abstractions from underground sources in areas where such abstractions are likely to reduce significantly the flow of a river or stream.
The key purposes of these changes therefore is to meet a longstanding commitment to replace with workable legislation relevant to present-day circumstances a piece of legislation which has been on the statute book for 26 years but has in practice proved difficult to operate. It is, after all, essential that the quality and quantity of the water in our rivers be maintained. The consequences for aquatic life, should a river or stream dry up or be reduced to a trickle, do not need explanation. In addition, where there is over-abstraction, the ability of the river to dilute and absorb pollution can be destroyed with resultant severe effects on the environment and on flora and fauna.
Drought has already had an effect in parts of England. Part III of the Bill dealing with the supply of water during drought conditions will replace provisions in the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 with provisions similar to those already available in England and Wales in the 1989 Water Act. The provisions will strengthen the powers of water authorities and water development boards to meet deficiencies in the supply of water in Scotland due to exceptional shortage of rain.
I am, of course, aware that the popular image of Scotland is not normally one of a sun-soaked landscape perennially beset with problems of drought. However, your Lordships may well recall the particularly dry spell in 1984. During the months from April to August that year, rainfall was less than 40 per cent. of the average in the period from 1941 to 1970. This had a marked, detrimental effect on rivers and streams and on the fish and plant life which they sustain. River flows were seriously affected and reservoir levels dropped considerably. As it happened, the effects of this drought were not as serious as they might have been owing mainly to the fact that there had been particularly heavy rainfall during the preceding winter months. We have also experienced

581
localised problems of water shortage from time to time. Indeed, only last year drought orders were made in both the Borders and Fife regions.
While it is true that authorities have always managed to handle such situations well, the new provisions will improve water mangement in times of drought by providing a more flexible regime for those who have to deal with the effects of drought. The new provisions will also bring water management in these situations into line with practices elsewhere in Great Britain.
Finally, the Bill seeks to make a number of minor amendments to the existing water legislation: first, to make specific provision in relation to control of water pollution to empower the Secretary of State to make regulations giving effect to international and EC obligations, and secondly, to amend the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 to ensure river purification boards are consulted by water authorities in pursuance of some of their responsibilities under that Act. Lastly, provision is also being made to supplement the powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations under the Water (Scotland) Act 1980.
The Bill in summary provides a new basis for the management of our natural heritage, building on the work of the Countryside Commission for Scotland and the Nature Conservancy Council. It opens a wide range of opportunities for Scottish Natural Heritage to achieve the general aims and purposes set out. It also provides for the regularisation of responsibilities of water authorities as far as drought and irrigation are concerned. I commend the Bill to the House; I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
3.25 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, perhaps I may first perform a pleasant duty. It is the first time that the noble Lord has introduced a major Bill—in fact it is the only Bill this year—concerning Scotland. I congratulate him on the thoroughness with which he introduced it. His survey was helpful and comprehensive. It means that our understanding of the Bill is much greater than it was: so much needed more explanation. I welcome the noble Lord who comes from close to my own part of the country.
It is not merely a criticism of this Government, although the fault is one to which they are particularly prone, when I say that I cannot understand why there are not two separate Bills. It would have been much easier to proceed on the basis of two Bills, especially as the work of the House regarding Scotland does not appear to be all that heavy. To combine a Bill of this important nature to Scotland with one which is much more technical—the repeal of the Spray Irrigation (Scotland) Act 1964—complicates matters and makes the work of those who are trying to deal with legislation, particularly the lawyers, more difficult. I have great sympathy for them.
582
I suddenly realised that the spray irrigation Act was a measure on which I spoke when it was a Bill in the other place. I have not had the courage to look up what I said way back in 1964.
There has been a slow response from outside bodies to the Bill before us. Thankfully, those bodies are becoming more aware that this important Scottish measure starts in your Lordships' House and not the other place. That may have taken them off balance. More information of a specialised nature is beginning to come in. Following the Minister's speech, the groups will know even better the effects of the Bill on their own special interests. I am sure that with the Minister's introduction and subsequent speeches today there will be quickened interest leading to a well informed Committee stage.
I wish to thank those bodies that have so far sent me valuable and well informed papers: the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Scottish Crofters Union, the Scottish Sports Council, CoSLA and the Worldwide Fund for Nature. This is not an occasion for dealing with all the points they have raised. I have no doubt that in Committee we shall deal with the nitty gritty and that we shall be able to improve the Bill.
The appointment of Mr. Magnus Magnusson as chairman designate of Scottish Natural Heritage seems to have met with general approval throughout Scotland. Although strictly speaking he is a foreigner, there must be few people—native or otherwise—in Scotland who are as thoroughly identified with all aspects and strata of life in Scotland. To adapt a phrase used in another place, I am sure that except on special occasions Magnus Magnusson will fully pass the football or rugby (Scotland) test. His appointment has been well received and I wish to add my good wishes to him in his work on the new body.
The Bill proposes to amalgamate the Nature Conservancy Council in Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland. We all hope that this will result in a more comprehensive approach to promoting the enjoyment of the countryside along with the conservation and protection of the environment. We welcome the Secretary of State's assurance that the resources needed to make the new agency a strong, viable and effective body will be provided. If the new agency is to do its job effectively, proper funding will be essential.
Achieving the right balance between conservation and recreation will be a crucial test of the new agency. It will be a miracle if it can achieve 100 per cent. balance and 100 per cent. agreement, but Mr. Magnusson's appointment has given the new body an early credibility which we hope will be buttressed by further wise and independent minded appointees to the board. We shall certainly want to discuss in Committee the kind of people we want to see appointed to the board.
The agency must provide to the Secretary of State good objective advice which the Government will feel able and willing to support. We hope they will allow action to be taken on it. The more credible the

583
composition of the board, the more hopeful we will be that the advice will be taken into account by the Secretary of State.
Local authorities in Scotland have expressed support and enthusiasm for the merger and are keen to work with the new agency, especially at local level with the proposed local offices. Local contact and involvement with local authorities will be essential. Given the integrated role of the new body it will be important for it to enable local authorities to pursue and extend the progress that has been made to date in the many innovative schemes for countryside management and protection that have been undertaken. Many important partnerships already exist at local level between authorities and the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. I hope the Minister is aware of this important co-operation and will wish to see it maintained.
I now wish to refer briefly to some specific points that have been brought to my attention. Clause 3 seems to give very wide guidance to Scottish Natural Heritage. The terms of the clause are perhaps too wide in a legal sense and could be improved by suitable amendment. The Minister provided some assistance on that clause in his explanation of it but we shall want to discuss it more fully.
We have a number of queries with regard to sites of special scientific interest. While it is recognised that these sites are of great importance, that importance has not in the past been too well explained to local people. The areas of the sites were perhaps drawn a little too widely to enable an understanding of their importance to be conveyed to local people. Therefore we think that those areas have been drawn too widely and that access for local people may not have been as easy as it should have been. I hope the Minister will pay some attention to that point. It is meant to be helpful.
I could talk for a long time on the subject of fish farms. They cause much concern to many different groups in Scotland. I know that there is considerable conflict between employment opportunities and the long-term ecological effects of fish farms. The Minister has already referred to the Scottish Sports Council. That council is concerned that the new body may not be as effective as the Countryside Commission in promoting access to the countryside. I hope that that will not be the case. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister on that point.
What will be the powers of Scottish Natural Heritage in relation to national parks? Up until now we believed that it was unlikely that national parks would be designated. I was going to suggest that protection should be given to the Cairngorms and perhaps Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. However, I am pleased that the Minister has intimated that the World Heritage listing for the Cairngorms will be pursued. He also spoke about the encroachment of towns on the countryside. This juxtaposition must be sympathetically dealt with.
584
Perhaps one of the most difficult concepts in the Bill is that of sustainable development. This matter could be debated at length. The concept has been described to me as a buzz phrase. That conveys the impression that someone had a good idea that was too difficult to verbalise and was thus open to all kinds of opportunistic one-off interpretations. I have my own concept of the matter which we can perhaps debate in Committee. However, I assure the Minister that clarification of the phrase "sustainable development" will be needed.
Government commitment to decentralisation is welcome. It will raise public awareness of Scottish Natural Heritage as well as help to establish its credibility. Local offices will, however, need the support and co-operation of local communities so mechanisms need to be developed to ascertain local views. It has been suggested that the headquarters of the new agency should be located in rural Scotland. That suggestion is worth looking at and I have sympathy for it, but I can see great problems in finding a compromise location suitable for the east coast, the west coast, the Highlands and the Islands and the Border areas. We sometimes seem to forget that the Border areas are an important part of the Scottish heritage.
With amalgamations there is always the possibility of conflict. I remember someone who always used to talk about a Dover and Chatham railway. It is always difficult to get staff to accept mergers. However, I am sure the Scottish staff will be more flexible. Staff training will be needed to develop their understanding of the new objectives of the integrated agency and to promote as their primary allegiance a commitment to Scottish Natural Heritage notwithstanding their former backgrounds. The Bill is an important Bill for Scotland. We shall welcome the Committee stage, when I hope we shall be able to seek and receive suggestions and clarification on a number of issues. In the course of discussion, perhaps we shall be able to make improvements to the Bill.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, I wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, in the congratulations he offered to the Minister. I also wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on his speech. However, I did not altogether follow his razor-sharp mind as regards water, although I understand that he was chiefly concerned with drought. I must confess that among all the evils of this wicked world drought is not high on the list for those in the far north of Scotland.
I welcome the amalgamation of the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council. That was obviously a sensible step. I also very much welcome the fact that these bodies will be controlled from Scotland. That too was an eminently sensible step. Will the co-ordinated committee always be centred in Peterborough? I hope that that will not be the case. I hope that it will be a small committee, with a small number of staff, and that it will not become an excuse for re-centralising activities in Peterborough. I

585
suggest that some of the meetings of the committee should be held in Edinburgh, Cardiff or possibly some other place in England, Wales or Scotland.
I particularly welcome the appointment of Magnus Magnusson. As the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, mentioned, he is a foreigner. He is a very good foreigner from the far north and he will bring to the quarrelsome Scots a little Nordic common sense and general calm. That is much needed in some Scottish undertakings. However, am I not right in thinking that Magnus Magnusson has also been appointed to look into the future of the Cairngorms? Has he been appointed to do so in a personal capacity or as the chairman of this new body? How much of his time will be taken up by that activity? When do these various appointments take effect?
I much object to the title of the new body. The body is not Scotland's "natural heritage". It is slovenly drafting to set up a body called Scottish Natural Heritage. I know that there are precedents but it is not something that Parliament should do.
There are also practical disadvantages. The word "heritage" is overworked and there are already several bodies which include it in their title. Furthermore, before the Bill appeared I received a letter from a member of one of the previous organisations who pointed out that such organisations tended to think that they were God. They tended to believe that there had been no landscape in Scotland until they had been formed. Such a title could encourage that mentality. It is vital that such bodies should not believe that they are God and should not be under the impression that they created the Scottish natural heritage.
What is the mischief that we are trying to cure? What is the main thrust that this body should follow? The mischief is threats to the countryside. It is very difficult to get agreement about what the countryside should be and what the threats to it are. But we know that laying down large areas of concrete, building unsuitable roads, cutting down trees and numerous other activities are thought to be detrimental to the countryside.
Who are the potential villains? Farmers, landlords, developers, government departments—in particular those which design the roads—and local authorities, which cut the verges and lay down large areas of concrete in unsuitable places. There are many sectional interests with impeccable intentions which bring about undesirable results. There is the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which is now the largest landowner in Orkney. I very much doubt whether it is a good thing that such an absentee landlord, run by bureaucrats, should own such a large area of Orkney. There is also the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which is a very reputable body. However, it is about to ruin the environment of the Broch of Gurness by building a car park for more than 100 cars and laying down a tarmac road along what used to be a rather nice piece of unspoilt coast. I could go on.
We must also remember that those are the people who made the countryside—the landlords, the
586
farmers, you and I, all of Scotland—have done an enormous amount to conserve it and so have those bodies. Therefore the new body will have an exceptionally difficult time in laying down what can and cannot be done, even by admirable bodies such as those I have mentioned.
I should like to refer to three or four matters which are now in the Scottish eye. There is the question of the new forests in Caithness. The re is violent controversy as to whether fir trees are good or bad. There is violent controversy over Aviemore. In today's Scotsman there is a picture of a track through Glen Feshie, which was probably originally created by the estate of the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton. On the back page of the Daily Telegraph there are pictures of enormous quarries in Oxfordshire. In both instances a case can be made for and against the developments. I can see no objection to the track in Glen Feshie and, as to the quarries in Oxfordshire, no doubt we have to build roads and houses, and quarries are necessary. It will be very difficult to set up a body which will be impartial and able to advise the Government on such matters.
I believe that the only way in which that can be achieved is for the body to keep its purpose clearly in mind. Its purpose is primarily to conserve. It may also educate people about the natural beauty of Scotland and advise on developments, but it is a conservation body. It is not set up to undertake research or hold conferences. I have no objection to it commissioning research, but research can be undertaken by the universities without a new centre being set up.
The new body should be as impartial as possible. Therefore I do not favour it being filled with people who are parti pris and members of some, no doubt, admirable body. I should like to ask whether, when the Bill mentions members coming from various areas of activity, that means geographical areas or areas of different skills such as agriculture or architecture. I can see arguments both ways.
One of the most difficult matters in Scotland is tourism. Noble Lords have probably not read the report by the priests of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. It is an extremely good, well written and carefully worked oat report. It concludes that the cathedral has already been ruined from the point of view of worship, which after all was its main purpose, and unless the number of tourists can De reduced it will soon be physically destroyed. It will be physically destroyed as a result of the quantity of vehicles which park outside it and the number of people who tramp through it. We know that the Cairngorms face the problem of people trekking over wild areas.
Therefore I believe that this new body should not encourage tourism. We already have a tourist board. The new body should stand apart from tourism. It is splendid that people should visit our natural heritage and sites of natural beauty but a limit may have to be imposed. Other considerations may have to be taken into account.
I should also like to say a word about ownership. When I was secretary of the National Trust for

587
Scotland we found that it was of enormous advantage for the former owners to stay in properties. They looked after the property far better than any bureaucrat. They were far cheaper and far more acceptable to local people and the people who visited their properties. Therefore I am in favour of leaving the former owners of properties in charge as far as possible.
The difficulty about that is that the former owners become very competitive. When a property is first taken over, the representative of the National Trust is taken on one side by the owner, who says "I don't want people tramping through my house and my bathroom". After a year or two he draws one aside again and says, "Old Colonel Stick-in-the-Mud is getting far more tourists than I am. I don't understand it, my house is much nicer than his. Would you mind putting advertisements in the local newspaper to encourage people to come and see it?" So continuity of ownership does not deal entirely with the problem of tourism, but I believe that as far as possible we should not go back to absentee landlords. They have a very bad reputation. The Nature Conservancy Council became extremely unpopular in Orkney because it sought to behave like an absentee landlord. We got rid of most of them in the last century. If anything is worse than an absentee landlord it is an absentee bureaucrat.
When I was at the National Trust for Scotland we entered into covenants with people such as not to shoot on land and to protect this or that. Those covenants were extremely effective.
If the Minister ever comes to Orkney I shall take him to a very beautiful historic house which is lived in and looked after by the local district nurse. She keeps it beautifully. Her family assist her and she receives grants for repairs to the roof and so on. She has been collecting furniture which originally came from the house. That relationship can only exist so long as the property does not belong to some bureaucratic body. If properties are taken over, for example, even by the National Trust for Scotland —for which I have the highest admiration—at once there have to be car parks, lavatories, an information centre and a tea room and it becomes extremely expensive.
Now I come to the question of designation. We should take advantage of the Bill to look again at the designation of sites of special scientific interest and so forth. In a way the whole landscape of Scotland, or very nearly all of it, is of interest, as is that of Europe. I remember that when the best moorland of Orkney was designated, I spoke to one of the bureaucrats and he talked of it as being an internationally beautiful place. But so are Provence, Germany and Italy, as well as most of the landscape of Scotland. One has to be very careful about this matter in that some places are more deserving of preservation than others. We might possibly discuss that point when we come to discuss the Bill in more detail.
I should like to raise one or two other questions about the Bill. Apart from the Title, to which I object, I notice that in Clause 1(3) it states that:
588
"For the purposes of this Act, 'the natural heritage of Scotland' includes the flora and fauna of Scotland, its geological and physiographical features, its natural beauty and amenity; and references to 'natural heritage' shall be construed accordingly".
That shows the dangers of specifying some things and leaving out others. Are fish a part of our natural heritage? I consider salmon to be as much a part of our natural heritage as the grouse. Are reptiles part of our natural heritage?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, if the noble Lord will turn to Clause 3, I think that he will see the answers to those questions.
Lord Grimond: But my Lords, should there be doubts there? It seems to me that even if those things appear in other places, they should appear at this point also.
Again there is the very difficult question of fish farming that was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael. I should like to return to the word "sustainable". I do not understand what sustainable means. Does it mean that one can embark on nothing if one cannot keep it going for all time? If that were the test, then Culzean Castle would never have been built. In modern times it is unsustainable except by public funds. Coal should not be mined because coal supplies cannot be sustained for ever. I do not see what "sustainable" means in the Bill. No doubt these are matters which will be discussed in Committee at some length.
In conclusion, we meet today on a Monday and I understand that the Committee also will meet on a Monday. For those who occasionally go to the far north of Scotland it is not very convenient to meet on a Monday. I ask the Government to bear that in mind. I know that it also may not be suitable for those who live in the deserts of northern England and some other places. The Government might take into account that Monday is not an ideal day to discuss a Bill which will require a great deal of consideration in Committee.
With those reservations I wish the Bill well. I believe that its main recommendations are on the right lines because above all we must ensure that this body is responsible to people in Scotland. Much as we may disapprove of the Secretary of State, he is our own man—the Under-Secretary is too. We welcome the return to Scotland of some control over what will be a most important body.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the Government on bringing forward this Bill. In particular I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on his admirable presentation. I understand how important and useful the measure will be. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, brought out some very good points and the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, went in for a great deal of detail. I shall not go into any detail at all today because I hope to do so at Committee stage. The Bill is very important. It is a very good moment to bring it forward and I hope that it will receive great support.
There are large areas in Scotland which will qualify for special environmental care. This Bill will both

589
control and help in irrigation—a matter in which I am particularly interested. It will ensure that essential water supplies are delivered and protected. Supply in Scotland should be fairly easy since in many areas the annual rainfall is high. Oddly enough a drought in the summer can have a bad effect and if there is no snow in winter the springs in the hills of the area in which I live can dry up.
One of the interesting things about the Borders, about which I am speaking, is that the water often comes entirely from springs, as it does on my estate, which is fairly large. So strong are the springs that they also supply the whole, quite sizeable village with water. I have never had to pay any water rates for the simple reason that all the water comes from my own ground. In a way that is rather curious. I do not know whether it happens elsewhere but it is so in that particular area.
It is very important, particularly in the less favoured areas of which I am speaking, that we should make sure that irrigation is protected and encouraged. As I read the Bill, it will ensure that areas of doubtful supply are dealt with in one way or another. That will be of great help to agriculture.
In the Borders, the River Tweed and the River Teviot are very strong rivers of supply, with many hill streams running into them. They are excellently managed both from the purification point of view and as regards amenities. Regulations protecting the river from careless pollution are very strict indeed. In my experience they work very well.
Scotland has 47 per cent. of the sites of special scientific interest and 68 national nature reserves. Under this Bill they will still be protected and encouraged. In some parts of Scotland there are plans for developments of different kinds, but they will all be subject to approval by Scottish Natural Heritage.
I have had some experience of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission. I feel confident that working together in one organisation will be very suitable indeed and will prove to be of great help. So often in matters concerned with local government and local areas there is too much competition from different interests. This measure will concentrate interests into one body for natural history under the Natural Heritage Bill, which will be very valuable.
I hope that in the course of the Committee stage we shall be able to add to the provisions and improve the Bill. In the meantime I support it wholeheartedly and congratulate the Government on having brought it forward.
3.58 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I too should like to offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. My only regret is that he does not appear here as the Minister of State to speak on Scottish affairs as it occurs to me that these matters have an importance that would justify that status. I recall very well (as will no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Galpern, behind me) the presence of his grandfather when we entered the Glasgow Town Council together. His
590
grandfather became a distinguished Minister of State at the Scottish Office and answered on Scottish questions in this House. It is a pleasant experience to find the young Lord, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, maintaining the traditions of his distinguished family and handling these matters with such competence.
I am delighted to support the Bill in the House today. Noble Lords may recall that there was a fairly passionate debate in this Chamber on nature conservancy being decentralised to become part of the new organisation as described in the Bill. I recall the passionate speeches made by the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Ross of Newport, in opposition. One cannot get further from the Highlands of Scotland than Haringey and the Isle of Wight. Both noble Lords stirred the House and called a Division in order to frustrate the Bill that is before us now. Therefore I congratulate the Government and their supporters on their success.
Now we have the Bill. Now we have the terms on which we shall construct this new enterprise. It will not be easy because the interests—some conflicting, some harmonising —are difficult to balance. We have had experience of the Nature Conservancy Council and its operations to date in Scotland. One of the reasons that I supported the Bill was to ensure that decisions in connection with the Scottish countryside should be made nearer the ground. In the past NCC powers have been exercised from Peterborough.
I hope that the new organisation will be more sensitive to local needs. One of the difficulties from past experience has been that SSSIs were applied without appeal in large areas throughout Scotland. Over a million hectares in Scotland today are under SSSIs. Ten per cent. of the land surface of Scotland is under SSSIs, laid down by the Nature Conservancy Council. Those SSSIs will be maintained in the new Bill. I am not sure that they have always been sensibly and sensitively applied.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, talked about the balance between conservation and recreation. Conservation and recreation come within the province of the Bill but they are not the only interests that are to be affected in the application of the powers of the new organisation. First, there is no appeal against an SSSI. If the Nature Conservancy Council says, "It is a very nice and important place for birds to rest on their way back from South Africa or Iceland, or whatever", then that is so. One Member of this House told me recently that the Nature Conservancy Council said to him, "There is a pool of water on your land to which we think we should apply an SSSI". The noble Lord went with the local representative to look at it. He observed that it was a broken drain. That was about to be designated an SSSI for the birds.
There are other considerations in the countryside than simply recreation and conservation. There are the interests of people who live and work in the countryside. I have always thought that one of the great aspects of the countryside was not simply admiring the wilderness areas of the Cairngorms but also to see people earning their living in the

591
countryside, in the saw mills, in forestry and in various other activities by which they choose to earn their living. I hope that the new body will be representative of balanced interests.
Much has been said about Magnus Magnusson. He is a folk hero in Scotland. He is highly regarded, sensible and intelligent. However, Magnus Magnusson is the president of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. That is a special interest. I received a letter from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds today. It states:
"The RSPB expressed concerns at the splitting up of the Nature Conservancy Council",
and so on. That means that Magnus Magnusson, as president of the RSPB, or his organisation, has been opposed entirely to the Bill. The organisation has lobbied seriously against the Bill. I wonder whether, if I had been appointed chairman of the new body, people would have said, "You cannot appoint Lord Taylor because he is interested in forestry and that would upset the balance". I am not seeking appointment, but I point out that we have to be extremely careful that the body that we set up is balanced and that other interests are well represented.
Local authorities—the elected representatives of the people—have a very important role to play in conservation. The SSSIs that are sprinkled over Scotland have been imposed over Scotland without a right of appeal. I hope that the new body will work closely with the elected representatives of the people. Those people are not elected. They are appointed by the Secretary of State. The local people elect their own representatives. I hope therefore that the land use strategies of the local authorities that have been developed in some parts of Scotland will be heeded when we consider the claims of recreation, conservation and other interests.
I notice in today's Glasgow Herald that the Crofters' Union is apprehensive about the powers that have been taken to impose plans. It quotes its experience also of SSSIs. I hope therefore that the Crofters' Union, the local authorities, the Forestry Commission and people of that ilk will be represented on the new body so that we have balanced judgments. Many of the judgments that are made in this field are subjective. We have to be aware that people who have a passion for a particular aspect of conservation are not unduly predominant in decisions that will require to be made by the new body.
Having said all that, I wish it well. It is a great exercise in decentralisation of authority which I support. I am sure that we shall benefit from the fact that it is Scottish-based. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, spoke of location. Anyone who has visited the beautiful headquarters of the Countryside Commission in the heart of Perthshire will probably recommend the Countryside Commission headquarters in the middle of Scotland as the appropriate place to locate this new and prestigious organisation.
4.8 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, was chairman of the Forestry Commission. I have always been prone to planting trees; my family have always planted trees. I also have always been in favour of the Forestry Commission.
I shall speak about the Western Highlands and Islands. I know Scotland very well; I could almost speak about the Western Highlands and Islands in my sleep. However, when the Forestry Commission was set up at the end of the 1930s —I may have the date wrong—it made a mistake. It planted woods for about a mile along the sea shore. By doing so it made the uplands barren in winter because the wildlife—the sheep and the deer—could not get down to the shore to eat the seaweed which is a very good diet for them.
I wish to point out that, although I have great respect for the official bodies, they are not God Almighty. They do not always have the practical experience of landowners whose families will no doubt continue to be landowners for a long time. However, I believe that Scottish Natural Heritage will be a satisfactory organisation.
Although the flora and fauna are most important, I wish to raise a point about the natural fertility of the land. During the war, in my part of the Highlands the Government introduced sheep in their thousands to the hills. Whereas there had been a great deal of wildlife and many deer, the sheep came in their thousands. Sheep, especially the Black Face breed, are close grazers. After a few years on the shallow soil of the hills where there is heavy rainfall the sheep cause a great deal of damage to the natural herbage through grazing. The heavy rainfall leaves the soil very thin and that creates a great deal of screeing. I have lived a long time—I am in my middle 70s—and I can remember parts of the hills which were grass providing good grazing, but are now scree. Such problems must be looked at most carefully.
I am happy with Scottish Natural Heritage but I am not happy with the Countryside Commission being amalgamated with that body. I am all for access by the public to beautiful scenery and for them enjoying themselves but I hope that the new Countryside Commission will not pour too many tens of thousands of people into the Western Highlands. In my opinion it is one of the most beautiful parts of the world, and I have travelled all over the world.
I have property on the beautiful Isle of Mull which I have tried to preserve. Messrs. David MacBrayne are running a new ferry which can carry about 1,000 people and 400 cars to the Isle of Mull. They run only two boats per day in the winter but six per day during the summer. The ferries are not always full but often they are packed. If 3,000 or 4,000 people per day are being ferried to a beautiful but small island—it is not as large as Skye—eventually the wildlife will be destroyed or driven away. A great deal of flora and fauna will also be destroyed even though they are protected by SSSIs.

593
I have many SSSIs on my estate because a great deal of it is geologically interesting. Many years ago I invited members of the International Geological Society to visit for about three weeks. It is a geologically important part of the world and I have always allowed learned parties, geologists and so forth to visit at certain times of the year. There are only two or three months when I do not allow this. I have an agreement with several universities and polytechnics. They have behaved well and do not send visitors at times other than the eight or nine months when I welcome them.
I wish to point out that much of the press appears to believe that landowners are wicked people. I could never understand the reason for that belief, although perhaps it is true of some of the new landowners who have made a fortune on the Stock Exchange. If it had not been for the old type of landowner a great deal of our heritage would have vanished.
I see that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy is ready to speak but I wish to make one further point. I have a large fish hatchery on my Mull estates. It supplies many of the cages around the west coast of Scotland. As a result of greed, the fish farms which we supply have been almost closed down for about three months. Disease has struck the salmon smolts, especially in the north of Scotland, and it is a serious matter. It is a result of greed because people overstocked the sea cages, did not clean them properly and so forth. I could continue on the subject for hours because I am pretty well informed about it. However, I shall now sit down and allow my betters to speak!
4.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend that I am sorry but I have to sit forward on my seat in order to be able to stand. However, I was listening to my noble friend with great interest.
I congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have introduced the Bill following the enactment of the Environmental Protection Bill. I took a special interest in Part VII of what is now the Environmental Protection Act 1990 because it foreshadowed what is now in their Scottish Bill. Towards the end of last year I was co-opted onto the sub-committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology under the chairmanship of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. I was very pleased to serve on that committee. I believe that its recommendations greatly assisted the Government in improving their original proposals for reorganisation of the NCC and Countryside Commissions.
There is one particular reason why I have supported the principle of that reorganisation as regards Scotland. The lines of responsibility had become tangled and were unclear to members of the public involved. First, let us consider the roles of Ministers. The Secretary of State for the Environment takes no decisions in Scotland. He is the Minister for England, not only on environmental subjects but also on housing, local government—for example, the community charge—water and everything else which
594
falls in Scotland to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Scottish Office. That has been so for at least 30 years, before the Welsh Office came into existence and when the Department of the Environment was called the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.
The Nature Conservancy Council has had functions in England, Scotland and Wales but has been sponsored by one Minister; namely, the Secretary of State for the Environment. It reported to him. He takes no decisions in Scotland because those are all within the responsibility of the Scottish Secretary. When controversial or difficult issues have arisen in Scotland, that paradox in responsibilities has made matters worse. Furthermore, the field of nature conservation is one in which proposals affecting particular areas need to be discussed with local people and handled with great sensitivity.
At Report stage of the Environmental Protection Bill on 17th October, I alluded to anxiety which has been felt in some areas of Scotland about the designation of vast areas as sites of special scientific interest—SSSIs. That has been mentioned already in the debate today. The word "site" has lost its meaning when hundreds of thousands of hectares are designated.
As I believe noble Lords know, I am in favour of the system. For most of my life I have been known in Scotland as a conservationist and a bird man in particular. My home is in the local authority area of the Highland Regional Council. That council has informed me that no fewer than 380,000 hectares of its area have been designated; that is about 15 per cent. of its area, which is about one-third of the whole area of Scotland.
Some residents of the Highland Region have the unfortunate impression that designation has the effect of blight or devaluation of the land. I hope that the reorganisation proposed in this Bill will change all that. Members of the Highland Regional Council are anxious that there should be an improved understanding of the system and the reasons for it.
I raised one question on this aspect during that debate on 17th October. My noble friend Lady Blatch was replying but she could not reply to that point at the end of the debate. I wrote to her immediately afterwards and she has now replied to me. The point I was making was about the question of any form of appeal or referral from decisions of the NCC as it then was. With the speedy publication of this Bill, it seems that the answers as regards Scotland should now come from my noble friend Lord Strathclyde in interpreting its provisions.
I asked whether Scottish Natural Heritage will be both investigator and final decision maker on its own proposals or whether there will be provision for referral to an independent body or a Minister when, for example, a local authority, reputable organisation or individuals fail to reach agreement with this new body.
The Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, which has just been created by the Act which we

595
passed, will now have a life of not more than a year or so. Therefore, we must look at this Bill to see what it proposes.
I see that powers of compulsory purchase are to be given to the new body, but in that case the authority of the Secretary of State is required. I believe that in Scotland the position is still that any power of compulsory purchase requires, in all statutes, the authority of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Clause 10 provides for the Secretary of State to give general or specific directions. If a dispute unfortunately arises, can the Secretary of State give a specific direction to end it, either in favour of SNH or of the other contender? Will the Secretary of State be able to use the power to call in a decision? That is a power which he can and does use in the town and country planning legislation.
Everyone concerned in nature conservation and the countryside will wish the new body good fortune and success. However, there are some who want to know if there is to be any referral or appeal procedure in contested cases arising from the new body's proposals.
I was personally delighted to hear that Mr. Magnusson had accepted the chairmanship and was the chairman-designate of the new body. Of course, he would be Sir Magnus were it not for his Icelandic nationality. I believe that he will start with much goodwill and public support in Scotland. I can add to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. I put a question to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds when it was giving evidence to the sub-committee because Mr. Magnusson's appointment had been announced only a few days beforehand. From the answers I received from the chief executive, who was against the original proposals for this merger of the two bodies, I am satisfied that there is a wide area for different opinions within that society. It has many members and I can quite understand that. The man who has been president of the society for some time is taking on this new job and is therefore accepting the reorganisation. That should be very helpful.
On the question of new bodies and new names raised in this Bill, I should like to mention again the subject of names of departments with a view to helping the public to discover what they do. Twenty years ago the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which had no functions in Scotland, was renamed the Department of the Environment. Its duties still include housing and local government and do not extend to Scotland. During the passage of the Environmental Protection Bill earlier this year I pointed out that the word "environment" is not included in the names of any of the departments of the Scottish Office which include other subjects such as home and health, education, agriculture and fisheries.
Over 30 years ago a Scottish Office department was created and called simply the Scottish Development Department. It was given that single description largely because it covered so many subjects including housing, local government, roads and electricity. Since
596
then another department—Industry Department, Scotland—has taken from it most of the subjects affecting industry and development. I believe that it would be much clearer to people in Scotland and, more important, the public outside Scotland that environmental matters should be one of the main concerns of that department. Otherwise, it is thought that it is only in favour of development and gives priority to that. Therefore, I suggest that the name should be changed to the Environment Department of Scotland—EDS—and not the Scottish Environment Department because that would have the initials SED which are the well known initials of the Scottish Education Department.
The department now called the Scottish Development Department has at present the functions which are exercised by the Department of the Environment in England. The new name would therefore help the public to identify its role and perceive that it matched its counterpart south of the Border while working under the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is anomalous that one of the ministers at the Scottish Office now has "environment" in his designation, but no department has. My honourable friend Lord James Douglas-Hamilton is designated the Minister for Home Affairs and the Environment.
I should remind your Lordships that it was I who introduced the system of designations of Scottish Office Ministers 20 years ago when I was Secretary of State, so I hope your Lordships will not mind my making suggestions about this now. Of course I recognise the inconvenience of changing names and I accept that it should not be done too speedily but over a period in order to save expense. Nevertheless I hope that the Government are seriously considering the suggestion.
I have also a question for the Opposition Front Bench which I hope can be answered, because it affects this reorganisation and the proposals in the Bill. In a recent policy statement the Labour Party announced that if it was to form a government it would institute a minister for environmental protection. Opposition spokesmen must have given some thought to how this appointment would operate. I ask: would this new minister have a co-ordinating or supervisory role, or would he have a new department? If there is to be a new department, would it cover Scotland and Wales as well as England? I ask because a similar situation arose in 1964. Before the General Election in that year the Labour manifesto stated that the Labour Party would establish a new ministry for land and natural resources. It was duly established, but it lasted only two years. In 1966 it was dismantled and packed up.
When it was being formed in late 1964 and early 1965 I put Questions to the Prime Minister of the day in another place on whether its mandate would include Scotland. The Welsh Office had not come into existence then. The replies at first indicated that this had not yet been decided. Later, when it was decided, the new ministry's mandate did not extend to Scotland.
I could understand the dilemma in that proposal because it had been ventilated widely as a new ministry

597
which would have wide overall responsibility for environmental subjects. For more than one-third of the land and natural resources of Britain not to be included detracted from the concept. On the other hand, to have taken away from the Scottish Office functions which it had possessed for years would have been unpopular with Scots and would have provided ammunition for the Nationalists. I want to point out that this could occur again.
One of the main reasons for its abolition only two years after its creation was the difficulty of drawing lines between departments and in particular the complete exclusion of Scotland. I must add that an important casualty was the loss of the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, Sir Freddie Bishop. He had been promoted to the job at a youthful age but with a high reputation, having been principal private secretary for some time to Prime Ministers. He then departed and went to the City, where, I understand, he has lived happily ever afterwards; but that was a loss to the public service.
I note that there is no second speech to come from the Opposition Front Bench, but I shall listen with interest to answers to these questions arising from the present proposals of the official Opposition during later stages of this Bill. In the meantime, I strongly support its principles.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, and to offer my general support for Scottish Natural Heritage as proposed in this Bill. However, I should like to put down a marker about an initiative which the Countryside Commission for Scotland is planning and which, I suppose, may be taken over by Scottish Natural Heritage in due course.
The Countryside Commission for Scotland, or the CCS as I shall call it, has produced a report entitled The Mountain Areas of Scotland: Conservation and Management, which proposes that at least four large national parks should be set up in areas of some of our finest mountain scenery. I must declare an interest, in that I own land which the CCS proposes to include in one of its national parks. I hope your Lordships will not feel that this clouds my judgment too much, because I intend to offer what I trust are some fairly objective criticisms of the CCS report.
To start with, their consultation process does not appear to have been as full as your Lordships would expect for a proposal of this importance. For example, I was certainly not consulted in any way, and nor was any other landowner with whom I have been able to discuss the project. We were not sent a copy of the report when it came out, either. The landowners and their representatives have become involved in the consultation process, but only because they went rather aggressively to meet it and not because it came, as I feel it should have done, to meet them.
This lack of proper consultation with the landowners is not surprising if one reads the report carefully. It has all the hallmarks of a document whose authors wished to reach a predetermined conclusion
598
and who were not interested in any advice they may have received along the way which did not accord with that conclusion.
It is actually quite a disturbing document. I hope I am not being alarmist if I suggest that it is capable of socialist, confiscatory interpretations. For instance, at least part of its inspiration is exposed right at the start. I quote:
"A sense of injury about land tenure continues in the Highlands today."
That is a statement which requires examination in the overall context of the Highland heritage and the Highland economy today. There is also a disturbing assumption that somehow local authorities should be very influential in the new national parks. I think that is also an assumption which requires much greater examination.
Given that inspiration, it is perhaps not surprising that the national parks are intended to have some truly draconian powers, which are of course to be found lurking in an annex. The new national parks are to have powers. Again I quote:
"to manage land and co-ordinate other land-controlling organisations; to impose land management orders, as a last resort; to purchase land, compulsorily where necessary; to introduce bye-laws to control nuisances; and to enter into management agreements to secure access."
This being so, it is not surprising that throughout the report the landowners are assumed to be responsible for everything that is alleged to have gone wrong. There is only one grudging reference to the fact that if this land is as fine as the authors suggest—and I believe it may be—the landowners themselves must deserve some credit for their management over the past 150 years or so. This grudging reference appears on page 12, when the report admits that, —and I quote:
"Estate management in the mountains has led to slow change, and this has served some aspects of the public interest."
Also significant is the admission that landowners have taken, and do take, a generally tolerant approach to public access.
So of what are the wicked landowners supposed to be guilty, apart from some general undefined lack of management in the public interest? The report identifies three specific areas of concern and, in my view, all of them could be better dealt with by an extension of existing mechanisms and powers than by the creation of national parks. Those concerns are, first, the bulldozing of unsightly hill tracks. If that is a problem—and I believe it is—it is not confined to the proposed national park areas. It is much more widespread throughout Scotland. Surely that is an activity which could be controlled through an extension of existing planning controls and/or by Scottish Natural Heritage when it takes over. National parks are unnecessary and will not deal with the generality of the problem.
The second concern is that there are too many unsightly plantations full of alien trees. That is true. But I fancy the Minister may wish to examine the role

599
of the Forestry Commission in this regard. I am sure that it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.
The third accusation is that landowners are not shooting enough red deer, particularly hinds, and these are spoiling the local ecology. That accusation may also be just. However, we do not need a national park authority to show us the solution. The Minister said that the Government intend to give the Red Deer Commission power to shoot more deer. With the greatest respect, I wonder whether even that is the solution. It may need to exist as a background power, but it is not the front line solution. It would be much simpler to alter the season during which deer, particularly hinds, may be shot, by bringing forward the hind shooting season from 20th October, when winter is fast approaching, to, say, 1st September. That change would have many other spin-off advantages for the Highland economy, which I do not have sufficient time to mention now.
An overall point I should like to make regarding deer, landowners and the Highland economy is that this is not the right moment to attack the deer interests. The deer, with the money and the employment which they bring to the Highland economy, are vital. We live in a time when the common agricultural policy is in doubt, when the grant on sheep is falling, and we, the deer managers, are struggling on, receiving only one-third of the price we received last year for our venison, without any grant at all from the Government.
At the same time, I should have thought some consideration should be given to encourage cattle onto the hill in the summer, balanced with sheep and deer, away from the practices of the past 150 years which have encouraged sheep and deer to take over entirely. Earthworms cannot live under the droppings of sheep and deer. They need cow pats.
I hope that that shows how at least some of the more important assumptions and conclusions contained in the report are seriously flawed. Another fundamental error is that the CCS does not appear to have considered—or rather I understand it considered but decided to discard—the honeypot effect of turning some of our finest landscape into national parks. Such a designation would inevitably bring more people. Large numbers of people, however much we may welcome and want them, do not fit well with delicate wildlife and natural habitats. The parallel experience in other parts of Europe proves that point. Therefore national parks may defeat the object of the exercise, if that object is indeed to preserve our finest natural heritage.
If we really want to reconcile the interests of recreation, true nature conservation and the local communities that live in our remote areas, this report is not the way to start. I hope that Scottish Natural Heritage will ignore it and start afresh with itself in the driving seat.
4.44 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, although I do not have a direct interest, I should possibly declare an indirect interest in the Cairngorms. My husband has a house in that area and my family has an estate. I had not originally intended to speak today but as the debate has proceeded one or two matters have arisen that concern me greatly.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, gave an example of the kind of arrogant disregard for owners of property on the part of the Countryside Commission which many of us have experienced in the past and about which we are worried lest Scottish Natural Heritage repeats such disregard in the future. From reading the Bill it appears that Scottish Natural Heritage is to have draconian powers with no duty to consult either the owners of property or such interested organisations as, for example, the Scottish Landowners' Federation, the Red Deer Commission, the Forestry Commission or, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said, the representatives of the people. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, would care to comment on that point.
The noble Lord mentioned in his opening speech the powers that the Government intend to confer on the Red Deer Commission to cull excess deer. Does that mean that the Red Deer Commission will simply walk on to estates and begin shooting? Or does it propose to offer assistance to owners carrying out the cull themselves?
It is perhaps not appreciated as widely as it should be that deer forests have a quota of stags and hinds which they should kill each year in order to keep the herd down to such numbers as the forest will support, with or without additional feeding in the winter. That quota is decided by the Red Deer Commission. Well-run estates take trouble to try to achieve the target. In a hard winter weather conditions may make it difficult for the estate staff to kill the necessary numbers before the end of the season.
On a well-run estate tenants are obliged to shoot old, sickly or disabled stags with poor heads. They cannot simply shoot any stag they wish; they must shoot the one indicated by the stalker. If the stalker is good and the estate is well run it will be the deformed head, the poor, sickly, aged stag that they will shoot, not the one that they fancied they could take home to Germany or Italy as a fine trophy. That is to allow the best animals to breed and improve the stock. The stalker will bear similar principles in mind when killing hinds later in the season.
Perhaps the noble Lord will say what line the Red Deer Commission is proposing to take. Will it be co-operating with the landowner or riding roughshod over him? The noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, spoke of the suggestion that certain areas, particularly the Cairngorms, should be designated as national parks. As he said, the very name "national park" acts as a magnet to tourists. The area of the Cairngorms is already approaching saturation point in that regard. Even walkers who stick to the paths, if there are too many of them, eventually erode the paths. I believe

601
that has happened in parts of the Lake District. When people ride mountain bikes either on paths or, worse still, off them, and indulge in off-piste and sometimes very far off-piste skiing—now called cross-country skiing—in winter, it does great damage not only to the paths but to the flora and fauna. I do not know how one copes with that situation. It is very serious. Designating large areas as national parks will not help.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, said that he hoped that Scottish Natural Heritage will bear in mind that people live and work in the Cairngorms and in those parts of Scotland it is so anxious to conserve. I hope that it will respect their livelihoods and the quality of life those people have enjoyed.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, also suggested that the headquarters of Scottish Natural Heritage should be in Perthshire. I heartily endorse that suggestion. I suggest that it should be in or very near Perth because that is about the only place in Scotland which can be reached in one day from any part of the country.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, according to what the Red Deer Commission has told me, it does not lay down a particular quota which it wants shot. All over Scotland—certainly in west Scotland—we have our own deer management committees. That concerns all the deer forest owners in a certain area. It is laid down how many deer should be shot including both stags and hinds.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount. I was not quite sure how the quota was arrived at. I am most grateful for his help.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, as my name is not on the list of speakers, I shall be very brief. It is obvious from the quality of discussion this afternoon and from the number of questions and arguments that have arisen that the Bill is very important for Scotland. I look forward to developing some of the arguments and answering, I hope, some of the questions at a later stage.
I have one question to put to the Minister. When we were discussing Part VII of the Environmental Protection Bill, which is the parent of this Bill, we were helped to a large extent by at least having some of the names of the people who are to run the new body. My noble friend Lord Carmichael raised the matter in his speech. I make a special plea to the Minister. I hope that he will provide during subsequent stages of the Bill at least some of the names of those who will be on the new body. That will help us to have a flavour of the kind of body it will be.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, as a sassenach and a townie, I would like to have an answer from either the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, or the noble Lady, on a matter which is of concern to me. The noble Lord referred to the hinds being slaughtered. The word "culled" is just another euphemism. Once again it is the poor old female, and I wonder why. Surely, it is the stag which does the damage. I do not follow that at all.
602
The noble Lady referred to both being slaughtered. Is there such a number of these beautiful creatures that they have to he killed just for the clearance of the woods? That is something which I find extraordinarily difficult to understand.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, the answer is yes. If there are too many of them they starve.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, perhaps I may add to what the noble Lady said. The last wolf was shot in Scotland in 1703. There are now no natural enemies of the red deer herd except for man. If those of us who have the responsibility for controlling the number of deer on our ground do not control enough of them, they die an extremely unpleasant death, usually in the late spring. Death is caused not so much through starvation but by eating the fresh grass when it comes through. I shall not trouble your Lordships with the pain and suffering that that causes. It is in those circumstances that the deer wander further and raid crops and cause other damage. It is for this reason that the Red Deer Commission feels that the estates are not shooting —I do not much like the word "cull"—mough hinds. There is not so much of a problem with the stags because they tend to be shot in September and October when the days are longer. Stags also have a much higher value to the estates, because foreigners and others come in, to the benefit of the Highland economy, and pay considerable sums to shoot them.
After 20th October the stalkers, who are the professionals on the estates, tend to be left to get on with the job of shooting sufficient hinds. Because of poor conditions, short days, and for all kinds of other reasons, in recent years the stalkers have not been achieving that sufficiency. That is why I have suggested that it might be sensible to move the season for shooting hinds further forward. That would allow the cull between stags and hinds to be more properly balanced.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I did not expect to be back in this country in time to speak in the debate. In fact, the job has been much better done by my noble friend Lord Grimond. However, now I am here, I cannot resist saying something. The debate has ranged in various directions. The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has given a very full explanation. I suggest that he should fill it out by writing to the noble Baroness so that she can understand what goes on.
I can tell her that some Highlanders think that the wolves have been replaced by landlords. That is not true. The foreigners who come to shoot also give good money which is very useful in the "Highlands. I welcome the Bill and the setting up of the body. The time is right to co-ordinate environmental protection in Scotland. Every single body is now looking at this issue. We have no less than two reports which were debated at length in this House the other day, both dealing with matters on the same lines and both concerned with what we can do to preserve and improve the environment.

603
It is admirable that the heritage body is being set up in Scotland to run Scottish affairs. Though the conservationists in England say that conservation is international, the fact is that Scottish affairs and Scottish heritage will be better looked after in Scotland by Scotsmen and Icelanders, however much the English may think they can do it better.
Magnus Magnusson is an admirable choice as chairman of the new body. I hope that he will realise that the heritage also includes Scottish people. There is a tendency on the part of some conservationists to put birds before people in the countryside. Such matters have to be taken into account by a Scottish body in order to balance exactly the concerns of the countryside and the people in it besides the wildlife. I believe that those factors will be well looked after by the new body.
Agriculture in the Highlands and the uplands needs a new look. We are no longer desperately in need of food because we have great surpluses. We are spending a great deal of money on supporting them. A great deal of that money could go to the different objective of properly balancing the environment. The noble Lord is quite right in saying that there is no question about cattle. It is not clear whether it is better to crop the grass shorter and aerate the ground or whether it is the dung patch itself which encourages the fertility of the soil and with it the worm. The cattle on the hill have to be balanced with the heather. If there is a great deal of heather, more farmers will pay money to shoot grouse. There is a great deal of balancing to be done. I hope that it will be an expert body which will advise the agriculture department on how to make this proper balance in our affairs.
I am very glad that the Scots are going to sort out their own affairs and look after the environment in Scotland. I hope and trust that the Government and the Minister, who is new, young and energetic, will see to it that they get enough money to do the job.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I listened very carefully to the debate and I have no hesitation in saying that I found it interesting. The quality of the contributions was of a very high standard. I am grateful to all those who spoke. Clearly, a great deal of thought had gone into each of the speeches. There is particular proof of that because in the gap we had three extra speakers. I am not sure whose fault it was although I thought it was that of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. That was until the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said that he had just returned to the country. It was at that stage that I heard that the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, were due to speak. I am very glad that they did.
The Government have given a great deal of thought to these proposals before submitting them to the House. While there may be some disagreement on the details there is no fundamental dispute about the merger itself. I was glad to hear the overall congratulations from noble Lords on all sides of the
604
House, particularly from the noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and from my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. My noble friend was a great battler on the Environmental Protection Act, especially on Part VII, as indeed was the noble Lord, Lord Taylor.
The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, regretted the fact that the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Ross of Newport, were not present to listen to the debate. I have to agree with him. It would have been excellent if they had been here to see what has developed out of our debates on Part VII of the Environmental Protection Act and to see the good work that has gone into creating something which I know will be workable.
Perhaps I may now turn to some of the detailed points raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, asked why we were having a single Bill rather than two separate Bills. I find myself in a difficult position. I am sure that if I had come to the House with two separate Bills the noble Lord would have asked why, as these matters concern environmental issues, we did not have a single Bill. We are frequently criticised for overloading the legislative programme. The two parts of the Bill—water and heritage—are both environmental matters and fit in well together.
The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Grimond, mentioned the word "sustainability" and asked how we would define it. In fact, there was a good deal of discussion about definition. We are the guardians of the heritage of our successors. We can do that properly only if we manage our heritage. In the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister:
"We do not hold a freehold on our world, but only a full repairing lease".
In addition, the White Paper on the environment said that we should not be sacrificing tomorrow's prospects for largely illusory gains today and that we have a moral duty to look after our planet and to hand it on in good order.
These concepts are the essence of sustainability. They do not mean preservation and not allowing things to change, but making sure that when changes occur in the use of land and water resources they do not irretrievably damage the natural environment and impair the heritage that we wish to hand on. That is what we mean by sustainability. No doubt we shall discuss that at greater length when we reach the Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, said that the balance between recreation and conservation would be crucial to the operation of SNH. The Government do not expect SNH to solve all of Scotland's environmental problems or to remove all conflict between developers and conservationists and single-handedly move the Scottish economy to a base of sustainable use of resources. Such ambitions are unrealistic. The role of the new agency will be to maintain and extend the work of NCCS and CCS, building on their existing strengths, carrying forward their existing duties and responsibilities and bringing

605
about changes in attitudes and behaviour towards the conservation and enjoyment of Scotland's natural heritage.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, asked about the name Scottish Natural Heritage. It has been chosen because it best encapsulates what we are trying to achieve—a Scottish body responsible for the conservation and enjoyment of nature's bequest which can influence positively man's use of it so as to hand it on in good heart to future generations. It is a simple, distinct name. It readily identifies the new organisation and sets out its focus of attention. Throughout the process of consultation it has been the Government's preferred option and we have received no better suggestion, though of course it will be open to the noble Lord to bring one forward when we reach the Committee stage. I looked at a list of about 25 alternative names. I felt that none was better than Scottish Natural Heritage.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, made an excellent speech. He brought together a good many different strands about the countryside, its management and the heritage bodies which currently exist. He asked what the country should be. That is the kind of question which Scottish Natural Heritage will need to answer in real situations. He also said that those organisations tend to act like God, a point echoed by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. We have no desire to see SNH turn into that kind of organisation. The major role of the organisation is to advise and to work with landowners and occupiers. That is crucial.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, also asked whether the areas of expertise for the board would be geographical or academic. Geographical representation will be taken into account and we envisage a series of regional boards. We shall have to wait before we can announce the participants on the board. It is important that there should be some continuity from the existing NCCS boards and the Countryside Commission boards.
I am glad to have heard so much said about Magnus Magnusson, the chairman of NCCS. Having met him only recently, I too believe that he is just the right kind of person to take on the very real challenges that SNH will face over the next few years and to create the foundations that such a body will need. A question was asked about his work on the Cairngorms Working Party. He has been appointed to the chairmanship of the Cairngorms Working Party in his capacity as chairman designate of Scottish Natural Heritage. The working party will operate from early 1991 to early 1992. We do not envisage it getting in the way of his work in setting up SNH itself.
Many noble Lords referred to the role of SSSIs and said that this was not properly explained, especially to local people. They also pointed out that there is no right of appeal. The noble Lords, Lord Carmichael and Lord Taylor, the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my noble friend Lord Campbell all mentioned this point. The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, spoke of draconian powers. I agree. I can understand the great concern about the SSSI system being seen not entirely
606
to have worked. NCC Scotland has therefore been asked to review its procedures and the procedures it uses within the present statutory framework. Although we do not propose to change the present arrangements, we seek a more positive approach through negotiating positive management agreements between the landowner, the land user and SNH, which will be so greatly concerned with creating a sustainable environment for natural heritage.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the new body will look at the procedures for the application of SSSIs. Will he look at the existing SSSIs, which have been imposed without right of appeal? Are they to stand without review?
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it will be up to the new successor organisation itself to see whether an SSSI should remain an SSSI or whether in the future there may be a point in changing it.
Several noble Lords referred to the location of Scottish Natural Heritage. We shall be keen not to find an urban location, which I think all noble Lords will appreciate would not be the most appropriate place for an environmental conservation body. But whether it will be just outside Perth, in the Borders or somewhere in the Highlands remains to be decided. I was most grateful to my noble friend Lady Elliot for the support she expressed for the Bill. I am very much looking forward to hearing her when we come to the Committee stage. I know that her many years of involvement in the countryside will be useful to our later deliberations.
The noble Lord, Lord Grimond, my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard and to some extent the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, talked about tourism. I believe that we need to look at two major principles in respect of tourism. The first is extending the seasonality and the second is regionalisation. In that way we shall be able to avoid the situation where tourists visit honeypot areas and thereby create the Notre Dame type problems which we have seen in Paris and which have arisen in some areas of Scotland.
Visitor management is a concept which is crucial to helping the spread of tourists around Scotland and ensuring that they see as many different parts of it as possible without ruining the environment which they have come to see. The SNH is not a tourism body, but it will have a role to play in increasing the understanding of visitors about the environment so as to prevent any damage to it.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned the role that he played in designating the names of ministers. I shall read his words most carefully and pass them on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. However, he made one important point. He referred to the Labour Party proposals for creating a minister for the environment in Scotland. He said that they had not been properly thought out. That came as no surprise to me. One has just to look at the Scottish Labour Party's proposals on the constitutional convention to see that very few of them

607
have been properly thought out. However, I am sure that the Labour Party never considered talking to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on the point.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for referring to what I said. However, as a matter of accuracy, perhaps I should point out that I was asking for information rather than suggesting that the proposals had not been thought out. In fact, I actually said that I presumed that the Opposition spokesmen had thought them out. I shall be interested to hear about this in due course.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend for not having listened to him properly in the first place. No doubt at some stage we shall hear from noble Lords opposite exactly what they envisage for the future.
My noble friend also asked about the role of the Secretary of State and whether he would act as an arbiter in disputes, as is the current procedure in respect of planning cases. SNH will be the legal adviser to the Secretary of State on all natural heritage matters. It will be for the Secretary of State to decide how to act in the circumstances of a particular dispute and to balance the advice from SNH against all the other factors which will undoubtedly arise.
I was very glad that my noble friend Lord Pearson mentioned mountain areas and the consultation exercise which has just been completed with the Countryside Commission. We are awaiting the outcome of that exercise before deciding the way forward. However, perhaps I may emphasise to him the fact that no decisions have been made by government. There is an opportunity for everyone to state their views. I understand that the Scottish Landowners' Federation has responded substantially to the proposals which have been put forward. Obviously the federation's views will be studied carefully, as will those of my noble friend. They will be read with great interest.
I am glad that there was mention of deer shooting at the end of the general debate, especially as regards the start date of the hind shooting season. We shall consider a whole range of proposals that have been put forward by the Scottish Landowners' Federation on this important issue.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying that the establishment of Scottish Natural Heritage will create better opportunities for positive action in the use and management of Scotland's natural heritage. It will also offer the chance to promote the sustainable use of that heritage. The new body will be a source of co-ordinated advice and guidance to government.
I am aware that during the course of the debate I may not have been able to answer every question put to me by noble Lords. However, I shall read Hansard most carefully and perhaps I may write to noble Lords on any issues that were left unanswered.
The Bill fulfils the Government's commitment for the creation of an effective, integrated and independent natural heritage agency. Its establishment will
608
mark the beginning of a new era in the management, use and enjoyment of our natural heritage. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Criminal Justice (Confiscation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1990
5.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Skelmersdale) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I need hardly remind you of our determination to fight the evil trade in illicit drugs. The anti-drug trafficking measures in this order will bring Northern Ireland into line with Great Britain and will provide the United Kingdom as a whole with strong and effective legislation in this area. Apart from attacking crime domestically—as much serious crime is international in nature—it will in particular clear the way for UK ratification of the United Nations Convention Against the Illicit Trade in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, known as the Vienna Convention.
The order does more than provide that convicted criminals shall be liable to have the proceeds of their crimes confiscated in certain circumstances. The House will recall that the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 was the first such measure. This of course applied solely to the proceeds of drug trafficking. Since then the law has been updated by Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to extend confiscation to other serious crime. This order comprises the provisions of both statutes for Northern Ireland.
The order will give the Crown Court and, in a few exceptional cases, magistrates' courts, the power to confiscate the proceeds of drug trafficking and other serious offences. Where a person is convicted of a drug trafficking offence the Crown Court must make a confiscation order for an amount equal to the full value of his proceeds of drug trafficking unless the defendant's realisable property is assessed to be insufficient to meet that amount. In the case of offences other than drug trafficking offences, the courts will have a discretionary power to order confiscation but only if the proceeds exceed a minimum amount of £10,000.
As the main purpose of the order is to deprive the offender of his illicit gains I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is important for the courts to have adequate powers to enforce confiscation orders. Accordingly, it is provided that such orders will be enforced in the same manner as fines, with the important exception that terms of imprisonment in default must run consecutively rather than concurrently with any other sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence.
However, to ensure that defendants do not have a choice between paying a confiscation order or opting

609
to spend additional time in prison in default, the order provides the High Court with powers to freeze the offender's assets to ensure that these are not disposed of before a confiscation order can be enforced. The High Court may appoint a receiver to seize and realise an offender's assets. The order also creates in connection with drug trafficking a number of offences relating to what is commonly known as laundering. These are regarded as serious offences and will carry a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment or a fine, or both.
The order will replicate for Northern Ireland provisions already in force in Great Britain which relate to the confiscation of the proceeds of drug trafficking and other serious offences. I am confident that it will help curb the growth of drug trafficking and other organised crime. While Northern Ireland is fortunate in that the drugs problem has been on a comparatively modest scale, there is no room for complacency. This order will ensure that the Province, together with the rest of the United Kingdom, will play its part in the fight against international crime.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his explanation of the order. Although the articles of the order do not have the merit of simplicity, its main underlying objective is simple. It is right in principle, as I am sure your Lordships will agree. That principle is that the offender should be relieved of the profits of his crime so as to remove the financial attractiveness of the offence. That principle has been adopted in recent legislation, as the Minister explained.
I am conscious that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in paragraphs 17.9 and 17.10 of this year's review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987, drew attention to the powers of courts in England, Wales and Scotland to order the confiscation of property. Those powers are to be found in the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 and Part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
Although the principle is agreed, it has proved difficult in practice to apply it smoothly. The three pieces of legislation to which I have just referred introduce three different confiscation codes, although their provisions sometimes overlap. The Minister has explained that the main effect of the order is to apply to Northern Ireland Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Drugs Trafficking Offences Act, as amended by the 1988 Act. We fully support that objective.
I want to ask the Minister one major question: will the order, with its powers of restraint, the power to impose a charge and powers of confiscation, also enable the courts to strike effectively at terrorist racketeering? Is that possible, and is it a likely consequence? The Minister will be aware that that is a matter which greatly troubles many people. The noble Viscount referred to it in his review which was published earlier this year. Does the order, directly or
610
indirectly, help the courts in their fight against terrorism? That is the major question. Other questions pale into insignificance compared to that one.
I now come to the few points of detail that I should like to raise with the Minister. First, who is the "proper officer" of the court referred to in Article 18(3)? I have looked up the definition section, but the phrase is not defined. I may have missed the definition, but it would be helpful if the Minister could give us some guidance on that point.
Secondly, why should the sum of money payable under Article 18(9)(a) be paid in to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom rather than in to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund? It has been suggested that the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund may no longer exist; but I have checked in the Library and I have seen from the Supply Estimates 1990/91 and from the Appropriation Accounts 1988/89 (the last set of Appropriation Accounts that we have) that the fund was at least in existence last March. If it is in existence, why is not the money being paid in to the Northern Ireland fund?
Thirdly, why has sequestration been omitted from Article 20(2) (a)? I ask that question because sequestration appears in the parallel provision of the Criminal Justice Act. Fourthly, will the Minister confirm that the words "High Court or otherwise" in Article 23(1)(b), include an order made by a court of summary jurisdiction? As I understand it, a court of summary jurisdiction will also have the power to make the orders. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that that is included. If it is included, it is a pity that it has not been spelt out on the face of the order.
Fifthly, will the orders to be made by the Secretary of State under Articles 26(1) and 27(1) be orders made by Her Majesty in Council as is the case under the Criminal Justice Act 1988? Sixthly and finally, why does Part I of Schedule 1 not follow the wording of Schedule 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and include the use of unlicensed cinema premises for exhibition as premises which requires a licence?
Those are the few matters that I wanted to raise with the Minister. I regret that I was able to advise him only late in the day that I intended to raise those issues. As I said, they pale into insignificance alongside the major question that I have put to the Minister.
We fully support the order's principal objective. We trust that it will work well in practice. It would be encouraging if the Minister could also assure the House that it will provide the courts with additional means to deal with terrorist racketeering, whenever that arises. That must be our principal concern as we give our approval to the order.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I propose to speak briefly. The order is entirely reasonable, dealing as it does with drug trafficking offences and the other serious crimes as defined in the Criminal Justice Act. The only problem, as the Minister will be aware, is that there is considerable anxiety about some aspects of the drug trafficking confiscation procedures in

611
Great Britain. Therefore, it may not be long before we see some proposals from the Government to deal with that matter.
The only matter that concerns me relates to the resource implications of the order. How many RUC officers will be involved in the work? Will the RUC receive any increase in establishment to take account of it? The reason I ask that question is that the resource implications of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act were wildly understated when that legislation went through Parliament. There are now several hundred police officers in Great Britain working on that procedure. It is therefore reasonable to ask what are the resource implications for the RUC, and whether it will receive an increase in establishment? That is the only point that I should like to make, and with that I say that we are entirely content with the order.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I was impressed by and am grateful to my noble friend for spelling out the provisions of this interesting order. I reiterate everything that has been said by my noble friend and by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who once again confirmed that it is necessary to take the measures in the order, above all, to help in the fight against terrorism.
I thought that much of the contents of the order was to do with drug trafficking. However, I glanced at Article 4 and found that confiscation might cover other offences. I do not believe that my noble friend will be able to answer me today, but perhaps he will write to me regarding the following point of curiosity. If he glances at page 44, he will see one measure relating to the Video Recordings Act 1984 which I should perhaps remember, but I have been unable to see what was said in those far off days. It also mentions the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. Those are three offences under Part I of Schedule 1. They seem to be far removed from the main provisions of the order on drug offences. I suspect that these three offences set out in Part I, Schedule 1, bear on the remarks which were made earlier by my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. They are necessary in respect of the order. Part I of Schedule 1 should be read in conjunction with Article 4 of the order. I am grateful for the measures set out in the order, and I commend my noble friend for so clearly spelling them out.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful for the constructive comments made during the brief debate on the order to which I shall endeavour to respond. My noble friend Lord Lyell is quite right. He has slightly bounced me and I shall have a little difficulty in obtaining an answer at the moment. However, I undertake to write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised various detailed questions—I agree that they need exploring —and what he called one major question: will the courts be able to strike effectively at racketeering by terrorists? I say straight away that this matter is not
612
only on the mind of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross but also of all of us concerned with Northern Ireland.
The proposed order provides for confiscation orders to be available in respect of almost all indictable offences and the few profitable summary offences listed in Schedule 1. Offences under Part III of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 are excluded. These offences deal with financial assistance for terrorism and are excluded simply because specific forfeiture measures are included in that Act.
The provisions of the order will form part of the general criminal law. As such they will apply to a whole range of offences such as armed robbery, theft, fraud, blackmail and intimidation. It is to be hoped that, as part of the general criminal law, the order will have some impact on these types of crime where it cannot always be proven but where there are strong grounds for suspecting terrorist involvement. In other words, it is not necessary to link these proceeds of crime with terrorism; they can be caught under the order anyway. I believe that this is most important.
As concerns the proper officer of the court referred to in Article 18(3), the noble Lord is quite right. The proper officer is not defined in the definitions article of the order. However, if he casts his eye down to paragraph (10) of the same article he will discover that references to the proper officer mean, in the case of a magistrates' court, the clerk of petty sessions and, in the case of a Crown Court, the appropriate officer of the court. He is nominated by, I believe, the Lord Chief Justice in the usual way. I understand that there are nominated officers for various purposes in the Crown Court.
As concerns the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, in the conventional sense I understand that there is only one Consolidated Fund in the United Kingdom. This is because, as the noble Lord suggested, since there is no parliament currently in Northern Ireland, it is not appropriate to have a Consolidated Fund. However, I am aware that in some circumstances the Northern Ireland block vote is referred to as a Consolidated Fund. I am not sure that that answer takes us very far. I shall obviously have to devil a lot further in order to satisfy the noble Lord.
Two other points that the noble Lord raised concerned purely bankruptcy and company insolvency. Articles 20 to 23 inclusive refer to these matters. Sequestration is a subject of which there is no concept in Northern Ireland law. If a person is declared bankrupt, his property automatically becomes the property of the court, I am advised. The words "or otherwise" in Article 23(1) (b) mean in this peculiar sense the trustees in bankruptcy or such other court officer as may be appointed for that particular purpose, either for bankruptcy or for company insolvency.
The noble Lord and I have had discussions on many occasions in the past on the most appropriate method of legislating for Northern Ireland and no doubt we shall again. He asked whether Articles 26(1)

613
and 27(10) orders will he made by Her Majesty in Council, as is the case in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The answer is no, these will be statutory rules subject to negative resolution in the normal way. Again, there is a difference between Northern Ireland and England and Wales whereby unlicensed cinema premises for exhibition do not have the equivalent stature, or equivalent opprobrium perhaps I should say, in Northern Ireland as in England and Wales. Therefore, they do not attract an exceptional level of fine. Thus it would not be appropriate for this order as currently drafted, where the proceeds have to be in excess of £10,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether the equivalent legislation in England and Wales had proved to be successful. I am advised that it is too early to assess the effectiveness of the confiscation provisions of Part VI of the Criminal Justice Act. However, since it came into operation in January 1987 the provisions of the Drug Trafficking Offences Act have been closely monitored. The Act is certainly working, I believe quite well. It has resulted in the making of confiscation orders to the value of £1 7 million. However, as with similar provisions, the effectiveness of both these new statutes is kept under constant review.
Terrorist crime is already closely monitored by the RUC. The whole point of this draft legislation is that it is a matter for the courts to determine on the facts presented to them. Therefore I do not anticipate any extra facts needing to be collected and collated for this purpose by the RUC. I believe that there will be no significant resource implications in this connection.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, if there are no major resource implications, one has to ask how effective this will be on the grounds that in London it started with a staff of three officers. There are now well over 200 officers. I am therefore surprised to hear the noble Lord suggest that there are no resource implications at all. I hope that he will look into this; I seriously question the accuracy of his statement.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I sometimes feel in your Lordships' House that my honour is being impugned. However, I shall of course make further inquiries and if my statement to the noble Lord and the House has been inaccurate, I shall enter into correspondence with him.
As I suggested at the beginning of this speech, I am unable to answer my noble friend Lord Lyell definitively and therefore I shall have to write to him. In drawing the debate on the order to a conclusion I shall repeat some of the comments I made in my opening remarks earlier this evening. The purpose of the order is to remove the financial incentive that underlies so much crime. It is hoped that the order will provide Northern Ireland with modern and effective legislation to combat any spread of drug trafficking. The order will also help to ensure that the United Kingdom as a whole is able to continue its positive role in combating organised crime at international level. Accordingly, I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before six o'clock.

  NHS STAFF NUMBERS
  NHS STAFF NUMBERS
  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS: OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS
  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS: OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS
  FISHING VESSEL LICENSING CONDITIONS
  FISHING VESSEL LICENSING CONDITIONS