Sitting of 29 November 1990

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

    BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for consideration, as amended, read.
    To be considered on Thursday 6 December.

    HEATHROW EXPRESS RAILWAY BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 December.

Oral Answers to Questions
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Farm Subsidies
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about cuts in farm subsidies; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I have received a large number of representations. Negotiations on GATT are due to be brought to a conclusion at a meeting in Brussels next week; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and I will attend.
    Mr. Thurnham: Should not we be moving away from the kind of protectionism that the Opposition want, so that Europe's farmers become less dependent on the taxpayer and more sensitive to the needs of consumers, in the widest possible sense?
    Mr. Gummer: The Community has already made a considerable offer to the GATT round, which will mean—over a period—a reduction of 30 per cent. in the support that we give. That, however, will have to be done at a pace that the farming industry can accommodate.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not it true that the figure is not 30 per cent., but a net 15 per cent. from now, and that that in no way meets the demands of the Americans taking part in the GATT negotiations, who want 70 per cent? How does the right hon. Gentleman intend to ensure that a trade war does not break out after the conference that is due next week?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not in the House of Commons to meet the demands of the Americans; I am here to defend the interests of Britain, and the European Community of which we are part. If the hon. Gentleman wants to carry
    1000
    out GATT talks on the basis that we give in to mid-western American farmers instead of defending our own interests, it is a good job that it is not his party that is responsible for standing up for Britain, because it would not do so.
    Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the increase in the suckler cow subsidy, the advance payment on the sheep premium and the drop in interest rates have been a great help to livestock farmers? Nevertheless, we must accept that prices have been substantially down this autumn and that we have a long way to go to increase profitability.
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In relation to the less-favoured areas, I have done all that I can within the rules of the Community; but world price levels have none the less fallen, which means that our livestock farmers are having a very difficult time. We shall have to continue to look for ways in which we can help.
    Dr. David Clark: Is the Minister not aware that it simply does not make sense to throw good money after bad to subsidise farmers? Will not he go to Europe and press for a fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy, using agri-environmental payments as the core of the policy, as advocated by the Labour party and all reputable conservation and farming lobbies?
    Mr. Gummer: If the Labour party began by accepting that we do not "go to Europe", because we are already in Europe, its members might get the geography right before proceeding any further. It is that attitude to the rest of Europe which will make it impossible for us to obtain a reasonable arrangement on agriculture.
    The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the present Government have obtained a better deal in Europe than any that Labour could possibly hope to obtain. Until he advances propositions that show some understanding of the common agricultural policy, he will continue to be listened to by no one, either in this country or in the rest of Europe.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the answer given to me last Thursday on this issue by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Will he assure the farmers of Northern Ireland that their special interests will be kept in mind?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I have taken a particular interest in the needs of the farmers of Northern Ireland. I have met the Ulster Farmers Union and other farming interests and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland keeps me very fully informed. I shall ensure that in the negotiations we do not forget the particular problems of Ulster.

    Hill Farmers
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what effect the recent agreement regarding subsidies to farming will have on small hill farmers.
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the present position of and future prospects for livestock farmers in the English uplands.
    Mr. Gummer: Any agreement in GATT must provide the opportunity for continued support for farmers in less-favoured areas.
    Ms. Armstrong: Is the Minister aware of the desperate plight of many hill farmers in Weardale and many other areas of my constituency who play a critical role in maintaining the enormous beauty of the area? What can he do to guarantee a future for them?
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that I have already sought to do all that can be done to help the hill farmers of whom she speaks. I hope that she also agrees that I have sought to ensure that they get the extra and special help that they need. I hope, however, that the hon. Lady will mention to them the policies of her own party, which the recent independent report showed would be infinitely damaging to them and would mean a considerable loss in terms of their existing incomes.
    Mr. Nicholson: May I pay tribute to the concern about this matter hitherto shown by my right hon. Friend, in contrast with the desultory interest shown by the Labour party, typified by the extraordinary gaffe a moment ago by the Labour spokesman on agriculture, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark). I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the problems faced by hill farmers in my constituency—those who farm on Exmoor, the Brendon hills, the Quantocks and the Blackdown hills. Will he do his best to bring forward the hill livestock compensatory allowance payments for 1991 to the earliest possible date?
    Mr. Gummer: I assure my hon. Friend that I am still considering the information given to me on the hill livestock compensatory allowance. I shall make the announcement as soon as I possibly can. My hon. Friend was right to point out that, despite remarks of a constituency nature by Opposition Members, the Labour party's policies would very significantly reduce farmers' incomes, as the Savill report shows.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of yesterday's statement by the vice-president of the European Community that at the GATT talks he is prepared to negotiate subsidy reductions amounting to more than 30 per cent. if the Community agrees to reductions amounting to more than 30 per cent., will the Secretary of State bring the proposal back to the House for consideration before Her Majesty's Government approve it?
    Mr. Gummer: Over the years, I have learnt that leaks during negotiations in Brussels or anywhere else are better not commented upon until we know the realities. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman has found me wanting in defending United Kingdom interests. I shall continue to do so.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my right hon. Friend agree that milk quotas have been an outstanding success in directing taxpayers' money throughout the EEC to the producers rather than to the storers and in preventing subsidies from going to exported surplus commodities? Why can he not see that the same system could be applied universally, thereby preventing the depopulation of the countryside without excess expense to the taxpayer?
    Mr. Gummer: There are very grave difficulties about extending quotas to the whole of the agricultural industry. It would cause the end of the growth in new technology, a
    1002
    wholly quotaed system would remove the interest in the market and young people would be deterred from entering agriculture. Moreover, agriculture would not change. That would be extremely damaging and I certainly would not propose it.
    Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister acknowledge the particularly important role that hill livestock compensatory allowances play in the uplands? Is he still alone in the Council of Ministers in resisting the tiering of HLCAs? Does he not accept that if tiering were introduced it would prove to be a particularly effective method of targeting support on the small upland family farms, which are most in need of that help?
    Mr. Gummer: Throughout my time as Minister I have shown interest in HLCAs and sought to use them as effectively as possible. Also, Britain has sought to green the HLCAs and has permission from the Community to do that. I hope that we shall be able to spread that elsewhere. The HLCAs are an essential way of keeping people in the hillsides to look after the land. Without them, the land would not be properly cared for.

    Small Famers
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to protect small farmers from unfair competition.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): We seek to ensure fair competition for all British farmers.
    Mr. Steen: It is not just hill farmers who are facing difficulties. Livestock farmers in the lowlands are also facing severe difficulties, many of them to the point of bankruptcy. Can my hon. Friend the Minister see his way to doing something about the cheap imports of meat from eastern Europe which are coming through east Germany? That is having a terrible effect on the meat regimes of the small lowland farmers. Also, will he look again at quotas, because that may be a way of helping small farmers to deal with the most intolerable conditions?
    Mr. Curry: I quite understand my hon. Friend's concern about small farmers. As he will recall, we sought to help them when we distributed the extra 1 per cent. of milk. We have to be careful, but any Community policy for small farmers would stand precious little chance of helping the United Kingdom, due to the different sizes. On quotas, we look at all the options, particularly in the light of GATT, but there is a danger of prices being left so high that they are marooned above consumption and we would then have a new crisis. There is the problem of the United Kingdom being pinned down where it has a competitive advantage. We could do with more milk, but we cannot produce it, because of the quota system and there is a major problem of young entrants. We are not aware of meat coming into the United Kingdom from east Germany, but east Germany can circulate products throughout the entire Community and we will exercise the strongest supervision over that.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that small hill farmers will not survive without financial aid from the Government? To restore confidence, will the Minister give an assurance that he will do his utmost to

    1003
    ensure that no further subsidy cuts will be made in the next four or five years? What immediate plans has he to help farmers in need?
    Mr. Curry: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the hill farmer. I agree also that the hill farmer will not survive without some support from the public purse. We have extended a large addition to the subsidy going to the beef and sheepmeat sector in particular. We keep the matter under review. We have a series of programmes relating to how we can help environmentally, but we cannot reverse what is happening in the marketplace. We will do our best to help and we recognise the importance of those producers.
    Mr. Marland: As my hon. Friend is aware, many dairy farmers, both small and large, depend on the purchasing ability of the milk marketing board. Now that the future of the board is in the public domain, will my hon. Friend consider a role for it as a possible buyer of last resort for milk?
    Mr. Curry: The future role of the milk marketing board is a matter for the board itself. We are anxious for the board to make proposals for the future of dairy marketing in the United Kingdom. There is no Government-prescribed plan for that. We are obviously discussing various options with it, but it is for the board to decide where it wants to go. It started the debate—not the Government—and now that it has been started it must be carried through to a sensible conclusion.

    Research and Development
    Mr. Murphy: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he last met the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists to discuss the future of research and development.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): December 1989 was the last occasion when the IPMS approached this Department on research and development and the matter was dealt with by correspondence.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that public confidence in his Department was severely shaken by the closure of the Institute of Food Research in Bristol? Flow does he intend to restore public confidence in his Department when he intends to sack 40 food scientists at Norwich and Reading?
    Mr. Maclean: Quite simply, by pointing out the full facts. Although Bristol closed, the laboratories at Norwich and Reading are being expanded and there are four other research associations. My Department operates labora tories at Weybridge, Torry and Weymouth. Seventy of the scientists who gave up their posts at Bristol will transfer to Bristol university and we shall increase research expenditure from £13 million to £17 million. Food safety research is being increased, not cut.
    Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the level of research in this country is the envy of Europe?
    Mr. Maclean: I do. For example, in respect of the jobs at Norwich which were mentioned, we are transferring the £750,000 that was being spent at that laboratory on near-market projects such as robotics, meat handling and
    1004
    processing, to diet and nutrition, health and safety, salmonella, listeria and BSE research—which is the right priority for Government.
    Mr. Morley: The Minister's answer is not good enough. In a written answer from his Department dated 25 October, he announced a cutback of 38 research projects. Thirteen of them relate to fish refrigeration, shellfish, smoking and safety. The Minister knows that the fishing industry is facing a crisis, so how does he expect it to pick up the vital research projects that he is cutting back, thereby undermining the industry's viability?
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. Food safety research has increased from £13·2 million to £17·1 million this year. It is right that the taxpayers' money should be spent on basic, strategic and food safety research, and for the industry to concentrate on near-market projects involving food techniques and processing, which it is better able to understand and to fund.

    Rhizomania
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements there are in place to monitor his Ministry's voluntary code of practice on protecting farms from rhizomania.
    Mr. Curry: Our guidelines to civil engineering contractors on precautions against the spread of animal and plant diseases emphasise the need for the plant health and seeds inspectorate to be consulted from the planning stage of all major works affecting agricultural land.
    Mr. Coombs: Given the appalling devastation that rhizomania can mean for sugar beet farmers, because the sterilisation of affected land can last for 25 years, will my hon. Friend listen sympathetically to the demands of the National Farmers Union, which is seeking a statutory system of compensation for consequential losses for growers of sugar beet affected by rhizomania and a code of practice to protect sugar beet farms from the coercion of contractors, in particular?
    Mr. Curry: There is no provision for payment for consequential losses even in the animal sector, let alone the plant sector. If I were to suggest that such compensation would be likely to be introduced, I should be telling my hon. Friend something that is not the case. As to contractors, we plan to reissue our guidelines in the new year. A statutory basis would not make sense and would be bureaucratic and almost impossible to enforce—but we shall certainly be ready to intervene where there are difficulties. I am prepared to review the controls that we impose in respect of rhizomania, to ensure that, within the requirement to be absolutely strict about preventing the spread of the disease, we are as intelligent and flexible as possible.

    Hill Farming
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next plans to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union to discuss British hill farming.
    Mr. Gummer: I met representatives of the National Farmers Union on 23 October to discuss the economic conditions in the hills and uplands. I met other representatives of those areas yesterday.
    Mr. Griffiths: The Minister mentioned in an earlier reply his defence of the hill livestock compensatory allowance. Can he explain why, since 1987, it has been cut by £12·5 million in real terms? When the Minister met NFU representatives, did he give any indication that he is thinking of restoring the value of the allowance in real terms, perhaps to the 1986 level, as that could prove vital to hill farmers?
    Mr. Gummer: I have increased hill livestock compensatory amounts, as the Government have done on several occasions. The hon. Gentleman may like to explain to his hill farmers why the independent Savill report suggests that if Labour party policies were adopted there would be a 17 per cent. drop in the typical farmer's profitability.
    Mr. Hunter: What is my right hon. Friend's reaction to the NFU's suggestion that the way forward for hill farming and, indeed, all United Kingdom farming is through the introduction of strict supply management?
    Mr. Gummer: I do not believe that supply management is the answer to agriculture's problems. We need to get nearer the market, make our support more environmentally oriented and ensure that we do not overproduce. If we were to quota the whole of agriculture, we should do considerable harm to the industry.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given that the maintenance of the hill sector is particularly important to ensure the viability of our rural economy and given that in Scotland 90 per cent. of hill farming lies in the less-favoured areas, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when he expects to be able to make a clear statement on the future level of HLCAs? Many of our farmers have reduced incomes because of a drop in the price of calves and lambs.
    Mr. Gummer: As I said in answer to an earlier question, I shall make that announcement as soon as possible. I have already extended the suckler cow premium in the LFAs to the maximum amount available. A ewe supplement is to be paid to sheep farmers in the LFAs in 1991. The green pound devaluation will be effective from 7 January. Assistance to the beef and sheep sectors is now worth about £330 million more than in the previous year. There is already a considerable amount of extra help. We are certainly looking at the possibilities of what we should do in terms of the HLCAs, but much has already been done, as I believe that the hon. Lady would acknowledge.
    Miss Emma Nicholson: I know that my right hon. Friend has the future of the small family farm in mind. With the freer markets that we expect from within—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about hill farming. The next question is about family farms.
    Miss Nicholson: I know that my right hon. Friend has the future of the small family hill farm in mind. Will he make an early statement on term tenancies, which may be the only way in which sons and daughters of small family hill farmers can enter this important industry?
    Mr. Gummer: I have already made it clear that I shall publish a paper on alternatives to deal with tenancies. That paper will protect the rights of present tenants. I very much hope that we shall look for a radical change in the system so that more land comes forward for letting.

    Family Farms
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the financial position of family farms at present.
    Mr. Curry: It is our policy to foster an efficient and competitive farming industry and to ensure its continued viability.
    Mr. Taylor: I am interested to hear that the Minister wants to foster an efficient and competitive farming industry. Does he know how strongly farmers feel about the fact that, as the prices that they receive fall, making them uncompetitive and unviable and forcing them out of business, supermarket prices for the food that they produce continue to climb? How is it that the Government manage to preside over the worst of both worlds?
    Mr. Curry: I thought that the hon. Gentleman, who represents a party which is supposed to be in favour of free market economics, would realise that if there is a surplus of supply it is difficult for incomes to rise at the same time. However, we can try to help farmers to overcome the worst of their problems. They will do that by being more competitive. That is our policy and there is no other sensible way of going about it.
    Mr. Boscawen: Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to persuade the banks to be more accommodating towards some of our small farmers? When the Labour Government were in office, those farmers were encouraged to produce all that they could at any cost, so they were borrowing—in some cases, overborrowing—from the banks.
    Mr. Curry: In general terms, the level of borrowing by British farmers is about 25 per cent., so many have not overborrowed. I recognise that some small farms are in serious difficulties and that is why we try to pay our grants to them as quickly as possible so that we can help the cash flow. I will bear in mind my hon. Friend's suggestion that the banks could be helpful when they consider individual cases.
    Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: The Minister will agree that family farms and the farmers in them make a great contribution to maintaining the fabric of rural life and that one of the main problems resulting from the financial pressures facing them this year is that their way of life is very much under threat. What further plans can the Minister announce to enhance rural society and to ensure that that fabric is maintained into the next century?
    Mr. Curry: I am perfectly aware of the part that hill farmers play in maintaining rural life, because my constituency has characteristics similar to the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Government policies cannot maintain farming family life as such, but we can ensure that we give the necessary assistance, especially for the uplands farms, to enable them to get through difficult economic circumstances, which we all understand. Where

    1007
    we are able to give further help, especially assistance to farmers who look after the environment as part of their food-producing function, we shall take the initiatives that are open to us.
    Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend take it from me—and indeed from every hon. Member who represents a rural constituency—that this time round, the farming community and the National Farmers Union are not crying wolf when they speak about the real pressure on farming? My hon. Friend spoke about helping the environment. Will he and my right hon. Friend look sympathetically at the possible extension of the environmentally sensitive areas, especially for Penwith in my constituency?
    Mr. Curry: We shall certainly examine the possibility of adding to our policies for helping environmental enhancement. We understand the NFU's point about farmers being in difficulties and our experience is that it would be foolish to deny it. However, I hope that the NFU will not say merely that the answer is yet another multiplication of public subsidy. That is not an answer. If the NFU comes up with sensible proposals that are costed, effective and targeted we shall listen.

    Small Farmers
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received from small farmers and hill farmers.
    Mr. Gummer: I have received a number of representations about the position of small farms and of farms in the hills and uplands. I shall continue to keep the position under review.
    Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister recognise that, despite his words this afternoon in reply to similar questions, small farmers and hill farmers will judge the Government not by their words but by their actions? The Minister may find it necessary in the next few weeks to visit Ribble Valley and the Trough of Bowland. If he looks at the balance sheets of the farmers in those areas, he will find that they are now receiving less in real terms for their livestock than they were receiving a few years ago and that they are facing bankruptcy. They expect action from the Government. When will they see it, or will they be allowed to go out of business?
    Mr. Gummer: If the hon. Gentleman talks to those farmers, he will hear from them that the suckler cow premium has been increased to the maximum allowable in those areas; that is action. He will hear that this Government have brought forward the payment of the ewe premium both for the first and for the second instalment; that means action. He will hear that the Government have done so much for the livestock industry that they are now spending almost £800 million a year in support of that industry; that means action. The farmers will then turn to the hon. Gentleman and say that all that the Labour party speaks of is to reduce farm incomes by its policies. Labour's only action would be to cut incomes during these difficult times for farmers. The hon. Gentleman must not come to the House as poorly prepared as that.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's actions for those who farm in
    1008
    less-favoured areas, is not he concerned by the letters that I have sent to him from members of the High Peak Livestock Society, representing farmers in the villages of Wildboarclough, Wincle, Langley, Rainow and Kettleshulme? Those farmers are deepy concerned about their future. Does he accept that hill farmers are essential to the maintenance of the countryside, which is a matter of great environmental importance?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend asks a constituency-based question and shows that he understands his farmers' problems. His question stands in sharp contradistinction to the previous one.
    My hon. Friend will know that I agree with him entirely. Without farmers, the countryside will not be cared for, and farmers need the support of society to enable them to look after the countryside. They cannot do it unless they earn enough to meet the costs.

    Farm Subsidies
    Mr. Allen: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the progress made by his Department in securing a reduction of the European Commission budget spent on agricultural subsidies since 1979; and if he will outline any current proposals which the Government have for further reductions.
    Mr. Gummer: We have had a sustained and progressive reduction in the real level of agricultural support prices since 1984 and we are committed to achieving a sustained reduction in the level of support in the current GATT negotiations.
    Mr. Allen: I do not blame the Minister personally, as he has not been in the job very long, but the Government have had 11 years in which to reduce the level of subsidy, and it still costs the average family about £15 a week throughout the year to sustain high food prices. Now that we have a Prime Minister—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. What is the hon. Gentleman's question?
    Mr. Allen: We now have a Prime Minister who may be less supportive of the United States, but will he continue to guarantee that the position of the United States in seeking freer trade in agricultural products will be sustained by him and by the Government?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's figures are utterly wrong; they simply do not stand up. If there were no subsidies, world food prices would rise considerably and the consumer would have to pay more. The £15 figure that he cited has no basis in any sensible fact. I note that he supports United States farmers against United Kingdom farmers. I hope that his hon. Friends will realise that he would like to reduce farm incomes even further and I hope that farmers in constituencies round his will know exactly how to vote when the time comes.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the so-called renegotiation under the previous Labour Government, the common agricultural policy was totally out of control when the Conservative party came into government back in 1979? Does he agree that only the resolve and determination of this Government and of my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister brought some sense into the bloated budget?
    Mr. Gummer: The lovely countryside of Nottinghamshire would be destroyed if the policies supported by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) were adopted.
    Dr. David Clark: Will the Minister confirm that spending on agricultural surpluses has got out of hand? Will he confirm that there has been a 68-fold increase of skimmed milk powder, a fourfold increase of beef and a doubling of the amount of butter in intervention? Will he further confirm that he will have to spend an extra £1 billion in the next few years to support that? When will the Minister go to Brussels and start fighting for the British consumer?
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman betrays his lack of knowledge both of the common agricultural policy and of the negotiations that are taking place. This Government have fought more effectively than any previous Government for the British consumer and the British farmer and this Minister will continue to do that in the GATT round. It would help considerably if the Opposition would stop slagging off Britain and start supporting its farmers.
    Mr. Gill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever form agricultural subsidies or support for the countryside may take in the future, it is vital that the regime should be universal in the Community so that we may have an open and fair market?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The Government are fighting for fairness among the countries of the European Community and between the Community and the other countries of the world. That is why I wish that the Opposition would stop promoting American interests and start supporting European interests.

    Farm Incomes
    Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the prospective future trends of farm incomes.
    Mr. Gummer: It is not my practice to forecast future levels of farm incomes.
    Mr. Davies: Will the Minister confirm that 80 per cent. of current farm subsidies go to the richest 20 per cent. of farmers? As the Minister is so anxious to reduce the overall level of farm subsidies, will he tell us what proposals he has to ensure the more equal distribution of the subsidies that will remain?
    Mr. Gummer: The policies of this Government are to make sure that subsidies will continue to be paid on the basis of production, where they are production subsidies, and that other subsidies shall increasingly be paid for environmental purposes.[Interruption.] We are determined to make sure that British farmers get a fair share of those subsidies and that they are not distorted so as to help other countries disproportionately.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to listen to these questions. This is a rare opportunity and there are only six minutes before Prime Minister's Question Time.
    Mr. John Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the spirit of the agreement in the Agriculture Council with regard to the reduction of agricultural support in the
    1010
    GATT round relates only to support that aids production and has not stopped the British Government or any other European member state Government supporting the environment? Does he agree that the proposed expansion by 36,000 hectares of less-favoured areas will be a great boost? Will he announce soon exactly which areas are included so that farmers will receive extra income?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. The present arrangements suggest that we will be able to continue the help that we are giving for environmental purposes while we reduce that which relates to production. However, there is still much to be fought because the United States is proposing something that would enable it to continue direct support and thus reduce the costs of its exports. We must stop that.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways of assisting farmers is to ensure that they get a good price for their product in the marketplace? Will he consider releasing surplus food from intervention stores to assist the Russian people at this time and thereby increase market demand for British produce?
    Mr. Gummer: I am not sure that the answer is as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We are looking at all sorts of ways of improving the market, but, in the end, the tone of the market will be upheld only if supply and demand are much more closely correlated.

    Agriculture (Profitability)
    Mr. Hunter: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a further statement on the current level of profitability in United Kingdom agriculture.
    Mr. Gummer: Farming, particularly in the livestock sector, is going through a difficult time. The Government are determined to ensure its continued viability.
    Mr. Hunter: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to put firmly on record his awareness of the problems caused by a lack of profitability and reassure the House and United Kingdom farmers of his belief in the ultimate success of his strategy?
    Mr. Gummer: I will reassure my hon. Friend that we continue to stand extremely strongly behind the British farming community. I hope that, with me, my hon. Friend will pay tribute to the success of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in ensuring that the British knacker industry is no longer stopped by the European Community rules. It will remain as it is at least until 1995, and thereafter there will be a review. That will make sure that the environment is protected because of the important job that that industry does.
    Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the great problem in British farming is the gulf between profitability and subsidies and between the grain barons of East Anglia and their huge profits and the hill farmers of Wales and elsewhere? Does he agree that the answer to the real problems of hill farming is to redistribute subsidies towards hill farmers?
    Mr. Gummer: What the hon. Gentleman says is absolutely untrue. Our arable farmers are also under a considerable squeeze. Many of them are finding it very

    1011
    difficult to make profits. Unless they are profitable, they, too, cannot look after the countryside. The hon. Gentleman does the farming industry no good by trying to drive a wedge between different kinds of farmers.

    Milk Marketing Board
    Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the future of the milk marketing board.
    Mr. Curry: I have received representations on this subject from a range of individuals and organisations representing milk producers, processors and consumers.
    Mr. Bennett: Although I recognise that the present system cannot remain unreformed, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the position of small family farmers in far-flung areas such as Pembrokeshire, who fear that if the national system is broken up into as many as 30 different co-operatives, they will be seriously disadvantaged in relation to dairy manufacturers?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right, but the greatest threat to the small farmer would be to do absolutely nothing and wait for the scheme to collapse under the weight of its problems. The answer is to find a sensible alternative and to get a move on with it.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Roger King: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 29 November 1990. The first question to a great new Prime Minister, Sir.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major)rose—
    Mr. Skinner: Resign!
    The Prime Minister: Now wait a while.
    This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    This evening I shall attend a longstanding engagement in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery).
    Mr. King: May I preface my question by asking—
    Hon. Members: No.
    Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be more helpful if the hon. Gentleman encompassed it.
    Mr. King: In congratulating my right hon. Friend on becoming Prime Minister, may I assure him of the total and united support of my constituency and every constituency in the country?
    May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the latest round of national health service cuts in the South Birmingham area—a cut of 17 per cent. in the past 15 months in the number of people awaiting an operation and a cut of 26 per cent. in the past five years in the same group? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the national health service continues to make such cuts?
    The Prime Minister: That is certainly the intention of our reforms, our management and our financing of the
    1012
    national health service. I congratulate South Birmingham health authority. It has made good use of the extra resources that it had last year and I expect it to continue to do so in the future.
    Mr. Kinnock rose—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am anxious to call as many hon. Members as possible.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I offer my personal congratulations to the right hon. Gentleman on becoming Prime Minister? As the right hon. Gentleman says that he was bounced into the poll tax, does he now intend to abolish it?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome to the Dispatch Box. I look forward to our discussions over the forthcoming years. On the community charge, I have made it perfectly clear what the position will be. We have decided that we shall look again to see what further refinements may be necessary to ensure that the community charge is accepted throughout the country.
    Mr. Kinnock: May I offer some help to the right hon. Gentleman—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."] It is well intended. He could save himself a great deal of time and trouble and the British people a great deal of money by accepting Labour party policy and abolishing the poll tax now.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will take forward a very thorough, constructive and fundamental review of the community charge. In doing so, he will take account of the points made by my hon. Friends both north and south of the Scottish border before we reach conclusions. On this side of the House we believe in examining matters before reaching conclusions.
    Mr. Kinnock: Everybody, including the right hon. Gentleman, knows that there is only one fundamental, efficient and fair thing to do with the poll tax and that is to scrap it.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman forgets the alternative, to which he has decided to return. Was not it he who, in 1980, said that
    "the most unjust of all taxes, local rates, take most from those who can afford least"?
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend accept the special congratulations and welcome that he will receive from East Anglian Members of Parliament and their constituents, particularly as he is an East Anglian Member of Parliament, representing Huntingdon? Will he confirm that shortly he will meet President Bush to discuss the Gulf and other matters of common concern so as to continue the Government's correct policy on these issues?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that to my hon. Friend. The date has not yet been fixed, but I hope that it will be this side of Christmas.
    Mr. Ashdown: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Britain's Prime Minister? The whole nation will wish him success in the difficult task ahead—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak for yourself."] For the sake of the nation, we wish the right hon. Gentleman success.
    If in two weeks' time at the intergovernmental conference all 11 of our European partners say that they can accept the right hon. Gentleman's hard ecu proposal, provided that he will accept that it could be used as a transitional mechanism towards a single currency, perhaps by the end of the decade, will he agree?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome, which I appreciate. There will be a wide range of matters to discuss at the intergovernmental conference and we need to discuss them with great care before we proceed. The Government's position on the imposition of a single currency is clear: it is not acceptable.
    Mrs. Peacock: After the recent turmoil and my right hon. Friend's uniting of the party, does he agree that his objective of a classless society in the future will be better served by a Conservative Government led by him than by the socialism offered by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to agree entirely with my hon. Friend about that. We need to continue to build on what has been achieved in the past 11 years to make this an open society of opportunity. The Government propose to do that.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Prime Minister in his recent meteoric rise has shown great dignity and pride in his humble origins. What priority will he now give to the problem of homelessness which he inherited from his predecessor? In particular, will he look at the issues of cardboard cities, people who live in damp homes and those who have no hope of a roof over their heads?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone is entitled to dignity and pride. The Government's policies will endeavour to ensure that they can attain them.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Coombs: May I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box?
    Given the record rate of growth in the economy over the past 10 years, and as my right hon. Friend was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who relieved 6 million non-taxpayers of the need to pay tax on their savings at source, does he agree that the next decade of opportunity crucially depends on further tax reductions and further savings incentives of exactly the sort that have so reinvigorated the country in the past 10 years?
    The Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that I certainly favour further tax reductions when they are affordable and it is prudent to make them. I am extremely keen to see the growth of savings for two reasons: first, to provide the base from which the investment we need in the
    1014
    1990s will come and, secondly, for the security and independence that savings give individuals and their families.
    Mr. Blunkett: Earlier this week, the right hon. Gentleman's former boss, the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), described the poll tax as unworkable and politically catastrophic, whereas his predecessor as Prime Minister said that we had already had a fundamental review of the poll tax. Which of those two conflicting opposites has the Prime Minister advised the new Secretary of State to adopt in the new fundamental review of the poll tax to which he referred earlier?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) made it entirely clear on a number of occasions from this Dispatch Box that when any new charge of this sort was introduced, it would need to be kept under review. That is what we are doing.
    Mr. Shersby: At the commencement of his Administration, will my right hon. Friend declare continuing support for the police in their difficult task of maintaining law and order?
    The Prime Minister: The police do a magnificent job in this country, often in difficult circumstances. I have no hesitation whatever in assuring my hon. Friend that I have the greatest admiration for the way they behave.
    Mr. Patchett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Patchett: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, he is his own man, may I ask him to say in what way his policies will differ from those of his predecessor?
    The Prime Minister: I am my own man and on that basis I see no need to beat my chest and tell the hon. Gentleman. Let him wait and see what we do.
    Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Hicks: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend as Prime Minister. May I invite him to take some advice from a female colleague in relation to inner cities? Does he agree that to achieve his aim of a classless Britain, which is highly commendable, the Government need to give the highest priority to inner cities? Will he afford me the honour as soon as possible of coming to Wolverhampton and giving me the opportunity to demonstrate our success and illustrate the contraints of municipal socialism, which continues to deny choice and opportunity?
    The Prime Minister: I find that an irresistible invitation. I am familiar with the problems of the inner cities. I regard them as a matter of great importance and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will bend his formidable energies to that problem.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: With regard to the Prime Minister's desire for a classless society and social mobility, will he explain why there are no women in his Cabinet, or is the only woman in his Cabinet the back-seat driver?
    The Prime Minister: In recent years, in all aspects of life in this country, women have been taking a higher profile: in the law, in commerce, in the civil service, in industry and in politics—[Interruption.]—and that will continue. As those women would wish it to be, they will reach the top on merit—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: Oh yes, and if the hon. Gentleman is patient, he will find women aplenty in top positions in my Government. Indeed, if he had waited awhile, perhaps even to the end of today, he would not have asked that question.
    Mr. Gill: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gill: I endorse the congratulations of my west midlands colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks). My right hon.
    1016
    Friend the Prime Minister will know of the tremendous support that exists for him in the west midlands. When my right hon. Friend visits Ludlow next July, will he take time to visit the Lady Forester memorial hospital in Much Wenlock, where Mrs. Major was born? He will find local people working hard to take over the management of their local hospital for the benefit of the local community.
    The Prime Minister: I am certainly looking forward to visiting Much Wenlock. It is true that my wife was born at that hospital, so I have a good reason for looking forward to visiting it.
    Mr. Radice: As a member of the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, may I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on becoming Prime Minister? Now that he is Prime Minister, can he say whether the British economy is in recession?
    The Prime Minister: As I have told the hon. Gentleman in the past, if he takes the classic definition of recession, it is never possible to determine whether we are in a recession until after the figures are available. As I have told the House more than once, I expect a small downturn in output for a brief period, but we shall be back in a growth pattern during the passage of next year, with inflation well down.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business of the House for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 DECEMBER—Second Reading of Community Charges (Substitute Setting) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill.
TUESDAY 4 DECEMBER—Motion to take note of EC documents relating to the 1991 EC budget. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the debts of Overseas Government (Determination of Relevant Percentage) Regulations.
The Chairman of Ways and Means will name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER—Opposition Day (1st Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Abolition of the Poll Tax".
Motion relating to the National Health Service (Local Health Councils) (Scotland) Regulations.
THURSDAY 6 DECEMBER—There will be a debate on development in the European Community on a Government motion.
FRIDAY 7 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 10 DECEMBER—Second Reading of Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill.
[Tuesday 4 December
Relevant European Community documents

(a) COM(90) 121

Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Communities for 1991

(b) 8182/90

Draft General Budget of the European Communities for the Financial Year 1991

(c) 9865/90

The European Parliament's proposed amendments and modifications to the Draft Budget

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 11-xxxi (1989–90), para 6

(b) HC 29-i (1990–91)

(c) No report.]

Dr. Cunningham: I congratulate the Leader of the House on maintaining his place in the Cabinet, and I look forward to working with him on matters pertaining to the House of Commons.
Has the Leader of the House seen the alarming reports in today's press about large scale redundancies in British Aerospace? If the sad reports are confirmed, and given the devastation to employment that the redundancies will cause, may we have an urgent statement next week from Ministers responsible for the aerospace industry?
Has the Leader of the House had the chance to reflect on the commitment made by his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), and the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that there would be a full day's debate this autumn on economic and monetary union before the intergovernmental conference? Are the Government now reneging on those commitments to the House and to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee? If not, when
1018
do the Government propose to provide the second day for that debate, since the debate next week is about political changes in the Community?
Finally, I urge the Leader of the House to discuss with the new Chief Whip the possibility that, when we table a motion to abolish the poll tax next Wednesday, his right hon. and hon. Friends may have a free vote.
Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's remarks about co-operation on matters relating to the House of Commons. As I told him only a short while ago, I look forward to working with him on all matters relating to reforms and other issues of concern to the House, taking into account the various reports that we receive from various committees. I am grateful for his approach to these matters.
The hon. Gentleman's remarks about British Aerospace are a matter for the company. If there are changed market conditions, it is for the company to decide how to react to them. But I have noted what the hon. Gentleman says and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
I am not sure that there was a specific commitment to a debate on European economic and monetary union, but if it is agreeable to Mr. Speaker it will be possible to refer to some of these matters in next Thursday's debate. I accept, however, that there should be a full day's debate on the subject; when it is held is a matter to be discussed through the usual channels.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that Conservative Members will be united in the position that they adopt in next Wednesday's debate.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to speak to the Foreign Secretary about the tantalising thoughts that he expressed about reforming the business of the House if he were to become Prime Minister? While that is still fresh in his mind, may we begin to examine the timetabling and office accommodation of this place—and all the other aspects that make it an inefficient organisation and not an organisation for the 1990s?
Mr. MacGregor: I am aware of various reports on these matters. Progress is being made on accommodation; as my hon. Friend will know, Bridge street phase 1 is proceeding and I am keen that it should keep on target. A number of reports on matters concerning the House are before us at the moment and I am anxious to pursue them. The Government's position will be made clear in due course. The hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and I are keen to ensure that we make progress on matters that are the responsibility of the House of Commons Commission as well. I cannot say whether it will be possible to reach agreement on all of them, but I intend to take them forward. I pay tribute, as I did in the Queen's Speech debate, to my predecessor for all that he did in the cause of House of Commons reform.
Mr. James Molyneaux: The Leader of the House will be aware that yesterday a Foreign Office Minister said that the Department was looking into reports of a speech made by the first secretary at the British embassy in Washington to a meeting in Boston in which he seemed to contradict at least five separate points of Government policies toward Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore ensure that there is a

1019
statement to the House, in view of the detrimental effects of that speech on confidence and on the prospects for investment by America?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall certainly look into the matter and discuss it with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: When will the Government announce the repeal of the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend knows of my interest in these matters. I think that it will be a beneficial Act, so the answer, as far as I am concerned, is that it will not be.
Mr. James Wallace: Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to welcome the report published yesterday by Sir Robin Ibbs and to announce a debate on the welcome prospect of the House being able to take control of the building in which we work?
Tomorrow is St. Andrew's day and marks the publication by the Scottish constitutional convention of its blueprint for a Scottish Parliament, so will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the new Secretary of State for Scotland to come to the House next week with his response, and to show a welcome change of heart by the Government? Without such a change of heart, his party's policy is liable to be the one that leads to the break-up of the United Kingdom.
Mr. MacGregor: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's second point, and I therefore see no need for a statement. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the Ibbs report; because of other events this week, it did not receive much prominence in the press, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will read it and let us have their views. I think that it has important implications for the future administration and financing of the House, as I have already made clear in a written answer, and I hope that we shall be able to debate the report when the process is complete.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right. hon. Friend aware that, as one of those who voted consistently against the community charge on Second and Third Reading of the legislation, I strongly welcome—as do many of my colleagues—the Government's new commitment to review the charge fundamentally?
Do not both my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) agree that the House should be able so to manage the politics of this country that we can find a method of local government finance that has nothing whatever to do with party politics and reaches across the political divide? Will my right hon. Friend at least give me an assurance that he will try to achieve that objective?
Mr. MacGregor: I see little chance of that; but my hon. Friend knows what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just said about further consideration of the community charge. He will also know that we have already spent a great deal of time reviewing the charge, and that measures are in the pipeline. There will be a number of opportunities to debate those matters next week.
Mr. Jack Ashley: Will the Leader of the House tell us whether, with the change of Prime Minister, there is any change in the prospects of
1020
haemophiliacs who have contracted the AIDS virus through contaminated blood products in the national health service? Is this not a wonderful opportunity to end the legal battle and to seek a fair and honourable settlement? May we have a statement next week, please?
Mr. MacGregor: As I have told the House before, we have always accepted the strong moral argument in favour of the haemophiliacs, which is why we have made £34 million available for ex gratia payments and promised to keep that figure under review. I should stress again, however, that the Government do not accept liability, and will resist any settlement that implies admission of negligence.
Sir Alan Glyn: Following yesterday's statement about the Gulf, will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to arranging a full-scale debate on that subject before Christmas?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend has said, a statement was made in the House yesterday. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would wish to come to the House in the event of any developments that required further statements or other methods of discussing the matter in the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Energy to make a statement about industrial relations in the coal mining industry? Is he aware that, since the end of the strike, the National Union of Mineworkers—which is the largest trade union in the mining industry—has been refused permission to negotiate with British Coal? If the Government are talking about equality of opportunity, surely it is high time that a directive was issued by the Secretary of State allowing negotiations to take place.
Mr. MacGregor: I do not think that that is a matter about which I should ask my right hon. Friend to make a statement next week.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Further to the matter raised by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), is the Leader of the House aware that the statement attributed to the first secretary to the British embassy was most damaging and has done great harm in the United Kingdom in relation to business investment in Northern Ireland? For the secretary to say that the Government were pushing the Fair Employment Agency to bring sacrificial lambs to the altar was an insult to every employer of labour in Northern Ireland.
Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Foreign Secretary makes a statement to the House on this vital subject?
Mr. MacGregor: I have not seen the statement so I do not know what was said and do not wish to comment on it. However, as I said earlier, I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend.
Ms. Mildred Gordon: Will the Leader of the House set aside time at an early date for a full debate on the condition of the voluntary sector social services organisations? The Government are always praising them. This week, however, three groups—the Hornsey centre, which provides conductive training for children with cerebral palsy, the Royal National Institute for the Blind's braille service and Tower Hamlets advanced technological

1021
training centre, which does wonderful work in an area where there is 25 per cent. unemployment—are all in serious financial trouble. The latter organisation receives funding from the European social fund. As the regulations have been changed, the cheque has to be processed by the Department of Employment. It has already waited for 11 months but has still not received its money.
Mr. MacGregor: The Government have constantly drawn attention to and supported the work of the voluntary sector. Moreover, there has been a substantial increase in funding for a large number of charitable bodies and voluntary sector organisations. Significant tax changes have also greatly increased the amount of money that flows from voluntary and corporate giving to the voluntary sector. Ours is a record of strong support in ways other than just making statements of support. We provide material support as well.
I know that there is a problem about braille. Nevertheless, having looked at the demand on resources that is faced by the Department which funds braille, and having taken into account the fact that the Royal National Institute for the Blind has been successful in raising funds, it did not seem to be a priority to continue to fund that operation as it had been funded in the past. There does not seem to be a case, therefore, for a debate on the subject next week.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend do his utmost to ensure that we have a debate as soon as possible on a motion of confidence in the Government to tempt the Leader of the Opposition back to the Dispatch Box? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the more exposure the Leader of the Opposition gets the better it will be for Conservative Members? Does he not also agree that, judging by the looks on the faces of—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not the purpose of business questions.
Mr. MacGregor: I can see why my hon. Friend is tempted, but we recently held a debate of that kind which resulted in a resounding victory for the Government.
Mr. Dave Nellist: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about the need for a debate on British Aerospace's disgraceful announcement today of 4,500 redundancies. In that debate we ought to be able to question the Ministry of Defence on the need for alternative work and contracts so that defence workers do not have to pay the price of defence cuts. In preparation for such a debate, may I ask the Leader of the House to read an article in the last edition of the Sunday Times in which remarks were made by Professor Roland Smith, the chairman of British Aerospace? He said that, unless Government policies were changed, by the end of next year 10 per cent. of United Kingdom plc would be in receivership. Who is responsible for that—the former Prime Minister or the former Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already dealt with the business of the House on that matter, but I think that the hon. Gentleman is completely hypocritical in his approach to this matter. From the rumours that I have heard, it would
1022
appear that if there were to be changed market conditions they would relate to the fact that, with the ending of the cold war, there was not need for the same degree of expenditure on defence. That is the problem that will face the company, if it goes that way. Given all the hon. Gentleman's remarks about defence, he really cannot have it both ways.
Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to get my bit in first.
Mr. Nellist: Policies can be hypocritical, not people.
Mr. Speaker: Of course policies can be hypocritical, not people; the hon. Gentleman is quite right. However, the purpose of business questions is to ask the Leader of the House whether he will consider making time available next week for a debate or for a statement. It is not the purpose of business questions to make speeches that might be made if that debate were granted. It takes up a lot of time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am sure that the Leader of the House did not call the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) a hypocrite.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall,North): He did.
Mr. Speaker: If he did, will the Leader of the House withdraw it, please?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall certainly withdraw on that point. Perhaps I can phrase it more accurately: attitudes to policy can reveal hypocrisy.
Sir Dudley Smith: In view of developments in the Gulf crisis and further to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn), will my right hon. Friend guarantee time for a debate, when it is appropriate and as things evolve, if only to allow hon. Members on both sides to stand up and be counted?
Mr. MacGregor: We had better wait and see what happens. It will be a matter for discussion through the usual channels, if the need arises.
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Leader of the House aware of the negotiations taking place between Yorkshire Water and York health authority about the possibility of transferring pathology services from the health authority to the water authority? Will he arrange for the Minister responsible to investigate that and put an end to this crazy system? May we have a statement about it next week?
Mr. MacGregor: I am not sure about a statement, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if he wishes to bring that issue before the House, there are other opportunities for doing so.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend look more urgently into the speech made by the first secretary in Washington? It was reported in the British press on Monday and I drew it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the same day. If it is correct, surely it should have been the subject of an immediate statement to the House because it represents a

1023
change of Government policy. If it was not correct, it should have been disavowed immediately. Why has there been no action until now?
Mr. MacGregor: I have already explained the action I propose to take. In addition, I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the extraordinary lack of balance shown by the media during the past two or three weeks? Is he aware that night after night we have been bombarded with Tory Back-Bench Members, many of whom we have never seen before in the House? They have been able to make a three-week party political broadcast. The Leader of the House might think that his party was a recipient during that phase, but it is unhealthy in a democracy. It does not make for good debate when the Opposition are not even allowed to appear on television. In the interests of democracy, I should have thought that the Leader of the House would agree that we needed to look at the question of balance.
Mr. MacGregor: It is for the media to decide what they regard as important news events. If the hon. Lady feels so strongly about it, there is a remedy open to her.
Mr. Kenneth Hind: My right hon. Friend has been urged to announce a debate on the community charge. As one who voted for it, may I press him to do that? Clearly, as our new Prime Minister has said it needs to be looked at fundamentally, I am sure that many voters in the north of England would welcome an opportunity for it to be reconsidered.
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made our position clear this afternoon. We shall be spending two days next week debating community charge matters.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement next week on the serious condition of Polaris submarines? There are cracks in the cooling coils of the pressurised water reactors that operate them and they may be causing potential damage to the crew. In spite of a Ministry of Defence cover-up upstairs in Committee, we do not at present have a nuclear deterrent. As the Government are keen on supporting the United Nations these days, will they support the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty, withdraw Polaris and scrap the Trident programme?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman knows that there is no question of that. Our view on submarines has been made clear. No submarine would be allowed to visit a civilian or a naval port or go to sea if it were considered unsafe to do so.
Mr. Michael Jack: Further to my right hon. Friend's reply to the first question put to him by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about British Aerospace, 6,500 of my constituents will be worried about the company's announcement on Monday; but they will recognise also that it must decide its commercial future. If a statement is thought appropriate, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it contains a full reference to the many billions of pounds that the Government have already spent with British Aerospace, the support they are giving to
1024
export contracts, and the context in which British Aerospace views its future in terms of Britain's future defence policy?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a number of relevant points, and they would certainly be for consideration in any statement or exchanges in the House.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement on the enormous profits announced yesterday by the north-west water authorities, showing that they enjoyed a 667 per cent. increase in profits on the payments made by my constituents and others? Is it not disgraceful that taxpayers' money should be used to subsidise private companies in that way?
Mr. MacGregor: Consumers, shareholders and everyone else will benefit from the privatisation of the water industry, including from an environmental point of view.
Mrs. Dunwoody: But not consumers.
Mr. MacGregor: Consumers too; I made that clear. I see no likelihood of a statement being made on that subject next week.
Mr. David Porter: In the light of the statement made yesterday by the European Commissioner responsible for fisheries that the EEC fishing fleet ought to be reduced by as much as 40 per cent., particularly in the North sea, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a statement to be made next week so that we may ascertain whether the British Government will move on the issue of decommissioning?
Mr. MacGregor: I understand my hon. Friend's concern. As he knows, I had ministerial responsibility for such matters for a number of years, and I well understand the situation. We are concerned about the decline in fish stocks, particularly in the North sea, and I am sure that my hon. Friend acknowledges that it is important to avoid overfishing. It is in the industry's long-term interests that that issue should be addressed.
We have taken the lead in the Community in pressing for improved conservation, and we understand that the Commission has just issued a communication identifying major problems in the Community fishing industry. However, we have no proposals yet, and that is relevant to whether or not there should be a statement next week. The Council of Fisheries Ministers will address the prospects for 1991 at a meeting on 19 December. Although the volume of fish landed this year is lower, its total value is higher. I cannot promise a statement next week, because it is important that we should have something to consider. Nevertheless, I agree that the House ought to debate the matter before the Council meeting on 19 December.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we have an early debate on Leicestershire health authority's intolerable decision to stop supplying free incontinence aids to elderly people in residential homes? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that decision has been denounced by Leicestershire Members of Parliament of all parties? Although I fully understand the problems that confront the health authority as a result of the Government's wicked cuts in the county's health provision, does not the Leader of the House agree that its decision is mean, nasty and cruel?
Mr. MacGregor: We are already spending some £30 billion on the health service, and an additional £3 billion will be spent next year. There have been massive increases in health service funding in recent years, so I reject the hon. and learned Gentleman's overall charge.
As to the particular issue that he raised, I cannot promise a statement next week because it is fundamentally a matter for the health authority. However, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just shown, there are other ways of raising the matter in the House.
Mr. James Hill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the tragic event that occurred in my constituency when a 17-year-old girl died from overdrinking in an illegal drinking den, known as shabangs? Will he find time for the House to debate the prosecution of such clubs, even to the extent of confiscating the property that they occupy? It is difficult for the police to prosecute drinking dens because the proprietors move from place to place, but we must at long last get to grips with this problem.
Mr. MacGregor: I am very sorry to hear of the incident to which my hon. Friend refers. He will know that a Bill relevant to the points that he makes is to come before the House, and it may be appropriate to raise such issues during its Committee stage. Meanwhile, I shall certainly draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I see no opportunity to debate that subject in Government time next week.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As there is to be a major debate next week on the poll tax, is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to establish through the office of the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for the Environment or the Secretary of State for Scotland exactly what refinements the Government have in mind? For example, will there be a facility for a 100 per cent. rebate? Surely it will be important in that debate for us to balance, if not the exact details, then the general thrust of the Government's policy on this matter against whatever variation on the rates to which the Labour party may be adhering at the moment and against the local income tax philosophy propounded by my party.
Mr. MacGregor: We have already announced several changes to the community charge, some of which still have to go through and require parliamentary action. We are taking action on two matters on Monday next week. If there are any further changes, I am sure that they will be announced at the appropriate time. Quite a lot of measures are already going through the House concerning a review of the community charge.
Mr. Rupert Allason: When my right hon. Friend announced the business for next week, he omitted to mention a debate on tourism. Does he agree that such a debate is long overdue? Although many people, particularly those in my constituency, appreciate the greater weighting given to visitor bed nights in the new calculations for the standard spending assessment, does he not think that it is high time that we had such a debate? Will he assure the House that there will be a debate before the Christmas recess, bearing in mind that this important industry is now the largest earner of foreign currency for this country?
Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the industry's importance and the great successes that it has had under the Government. There is a great deal of business for us to do between now and the Christmas recess—next week's business shows that—and I cannot see any prospect of a debate on that subject in Government time.
Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Leader of the House allow a discussion next week in Government time on security and safety at Pinderfields general hospital, in my constituency? On Monday this week, two doctors were murdered in their office at the hospital. It will be difficult to replace them, in their homes and in the service. As my request for a statement could not be agreed to, may we have a discussion on security and safety? If that cannot take place in Government time, will the right hon. Gentleman prevail upon the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement to the House on the question of security and safety at Pinderfields general hospital?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the whole House shares my horror at what happened to the two consultants and would wish to offer sincere sympathy to the relatives of both. I cannot say that I can find time for a debate in Government time next week on these matters. I shall have to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health whether a statement in that case would be appropriate. Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows that there are other ways in which he can raise these matters.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on housing finance so that the House can consider the serious abuse of the housing budget by the former Ealing Labour council which is forcing unwarranted rent increases on council tenants in Ealing? This is happening because the Labour council totally abused the system, as has been proven. This matter should be brought before the House so that such abuses by the Labour party can be fully examined at local level in Ealing before there is any danger from it at national level.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend has made his point effectively. I know that he will find other opportunities to make it effectively at local level and national level and to draw attention to any lessons that are to be learnt. I regret that the business of the House is pretty full next week, and I do not see much prospect of debating the matter then.
Mr. Derek Conway: Before Wednesday's debate, will my right hon. Friend have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and ask him to place in the Library a comparative chart showing, by local authority area, total spending this year as against last year and comparative manpower levels? That will enable the House to see for itself that the level and unpopularity of the community charge are related to local government overmanning and over expenditure, principally in areas such as Shropshire that are controlled by Labour councillors.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The vast bulk of overspending takes place in Labour local authorities. I will draw my hon. Friend's suggestion to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

British Aerospace Factory, Preston
4.4 pm
Mrs. Audrey Wise: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the projected closure of the major British Aerospace factory at Preston, with enormous job losses of the order of 4,500."
The matter is specific because it relates to one company which is of unique importance to the local economy of the Preston area. If the closure and the redundancies go ahead, it will put a specific blight on my area. Preston borough council calculates the local unemployment could rise from 8 per cent. to as much as 15 per cent. as a direct effect. In addition, there would be a massive indirect effect on many other jobs, including retailing and all the service sector.
The matter is important for all those reasons and for the message that is given about British manufacturing when the largest British manufacturing company resorts to closures and to redundancies. The company should instead ensure continued work by making a transition from an over-reliance on arms production to civil aircraft and to other peaceful products, and the Government should help it to do so. It is important that the end of the cold war should be seen as an opportunity to expand civil aircraft production, for example; it must not become a disaster for my area. The matter is also important because British Aerospace is a reservoir of skills which must not be dissipated.
The matter is urgent because the House should express a view immediately, before decisions become irrevocable. There is an urgent need for the Government, the company and the unions to come together to find a constructive way forward. The unions would do that, but will the company and the Government? Until now the Government have refused to accept any responsibility for reductions in defence employment. A debate would give them the chance to take a new direction, although it is probably over-optimistic to expect them to do so. For the people of Preston, this is a matter of the utmost urgency. They will expect this House to debate the matter immediately.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that she believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the projected closure of the major British Aerospace factory at Preston, with enormous job losses of the order of 4,500."
As the hon. Lady knows, I have to consider the criteria of Standing Order No. 20. I have listened with care to what she has said, but I do not consider that the matter that she has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20.I hope that she will have other opportunities to bring the matter before the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1990 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Orders of the Day
  Development Board for Rural Wales Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  Development Board for Rural Wales Bill
    Clause 1

      INCREASE OF FINANCIAL LIMIT
      4.9 pm
      The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): I beg to move, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      The purpose of this single-clause Bill is to raise the present financial limit of the Development Board for Rural Wales from £100 million to £175 million.
      During our Second Reading debate last night, there appeared to be some confusion in hon. Member's minds about the precise meaning of the words "financial limit". The function of the financial limit is to limit the public funding of the board so that the scale and nature of its activities can be re-examined by Parliament at regular intervals. The limit has been increased on two occasions—most recently in 1981 to £100 million under section 2(3) of the Industry Act 1981, which amended section 12(2) of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976.
      I should explain that section 12(2) of the 1976 Act set a limit of £25 million. That was raised to £40 million in 1980 and increased to its current level of £100 million by the Industry Act 1981. The financial limit established by the 1981 Act has remained in place by virtue of the fact that some £33 million of the board's national loans fund debt, which at one time counted towards the limit, was written off in 1986. Similar action was taken at the same time in respect of the English new town authorities.
      At the current rate of expenditure, the financial limit of £100 million will be reached during the financial year 1991–92. Board expenditure counted against this limit comprises grant in aid, housing subsidies, advances from the national loans fund and other borrowing to finance the board's activities.
      When raising a financial limit, it is customary to provide an increase that should suffice for five years. We therefore propose to raise the DBRW's limit from £100 million to £175 million.
      The Bill specifies a single new limit rather than a two-stage limit with power to implement the higher figure by affirmative order. The latter approach was adopted in the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, but the Industry Act 1981 removed the higher limit in the 1976 Act on the ground that further financial needs should be provided for in primary legislation rather than by order. The Government regard it is desirable to maintain consistency in this matter.
      The main activities of the board are to provide financial assistance to business in the form of grants and loans, to provide sites and premises for industry, to assist in the marketing of the area for tourism and industrial purposes and in product marketing, and to provide advisory services and training. Assistance is available to enterprise in the land, food, craft, manufacturing, tourism and science sectors. In addition to its economic development activities, the development board supports a wide range of social development projects, including the provision of support

      1029
      for the Welsh language and its culture and for the construction of houses for letting under the New Towns Act 1965 as amended in 1981.
      Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister is kindly fleshing out some of the matters that we discussed last night. Let me ask him a question related to the announcement by the Secretary of State yesterday. He may be able to answer it now. If not, perhaps he will ensure that it is answered later. Is the extra £1 million for the special rural action programme in 1991–92 included in the public expenditure White Paper for 1990 and, if so, under what head?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall certainly try to clarify that point. Last night my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was speaking about the new money—Opposition Members are fond of talking about new money—amounting to £1·4 million which is to be available on top of this year's figure for the board in the coming year.
      Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: We agreed all this last night. My advisers agreed with the Secretary of State's advisers that it was new money. The official Opposition could not work it out.
      4.15 pm
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas). It is no wonder that we are such good neighbours. If it will bear repeating, there has been an increase in Welsh Office support for the Development Board for Rural Wales from £.12·7 million to £14·1 million. I hope that that at least makes everything clear. There is no doubt that the development board has achieved considerable success in many of its activities. On Second Reading we covered many matters both inside and outside the board's remit.
      There are no financial or manpower implications in the Bill. It will simply provide cover for the board's receipt of Government funds and for its borrowing. No change will be made to the board's powers and there are no implications for the European Community.
      Mr. Barry Jones: Last night the Secretary of State skirted rather gingerly over the problem of housing. There is some classic evidence of the build-up of an intolerable situation. The problem is exacerbated by the emergence of the poll tax. For instance, in Brecon there are 601 applicants on the housing waiting list. On 3 October 1980 the housing stock was 3,962. In 1990 it is only 2,660, which is a 35 per cent. reduction. The others have been sold under the right-to-buy scheme. Up to 50 per cent. of housing stock where the right to buy applies has been sold.
      The sale of council houses has been quicker in villages. There are some villages in which 100 per cent. of the stock has been sold. One example in the area is Tretower. It also has 55 housing applications.
      Some of the houses that have been bought under the right-to-buy scheme are now being resold as holiday homes. If housing associations built 50 new properties a year, it would still take 12 years to house those presently on the waiting list. At present rates of new build becoming available, it will take 18 years to house those on the waiting list.
      Mr. Richard Livsey: The hon. Gentleman is referring to my constituency. I have not heard him mention development board houses. In Tretower almost half the conventional housing stock are second homes. There are no development board houses in Tretower. Does the hon. Gentleman know how many DBRW houses there are in Brecknock? There is an inadequate number. The hon. Gentleman is talking about local government housing stock. He is quite right. Fifty per cent. have been sold off, but we need to stretch the remit of the DBRW housing stock to give it more flexibility.
      Mr. Jones: I am certainly more than willing to listen to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, who knows the area well.
      The local authority says that if it could use all capital receipts, it could build 120 new houses. There is little chance of young people who live locally owning their own home, even with a 20 per cent. discount. I am told, and evidence has been submitted to the Select Committee, that in Crickhowell 61 per cent. of the houses have been sold out of a total of 216 and that 84 houses remain. It will be lucky if one house a year is available to be reallocated to people on the waiting list. Apparently there are six homeless families in temporary accommodation and four potentially homeless families in the area.
      Housing in rural Wales is an issue of prime importance. Everyone is aware of the problems and of the impact on young marrieds and ordinary people who are really up against it. It is relevant to put it to Ministers that they have not yet tackled the problem effectively. Many tenants do not qualify for housing benefit because of restrictions. I am told that there is no prospect of any new-build accommodation in the borough, that credit approvals are not sufficient and that the authority still needs capital receipts for improvements and repairs.
      The health authority in the area previously had houses to rent. That is no longer the case because it has sold them off. It is also said that Powys county authority has a policy of selling its properties in the same way.
      The conclusion of the minutes of evidence to the Select Committee was, first, that there was a great need for affordable housing for both rent and low-cost purchase—a need which has increased—and, secondly, that the supply of both rented and low-cost housing had diminished. Thirdly, it was concluded that the Tai Cymru rural initiative and the provision of free or reduced-value land either from the local authority or through the planning process would help, but that the key must be recognition of the need to provide funding by subsidy to provide new dwellings.
      I hope that Ministers will respond to the serious problem of housing. It is a problem which they have not solved and to which they did not appear to address themselves during yesterday's proceedings. They left the problem largely to the board, which has its problems.
      The Secretary of State's speech yesterday contained three essential points. First, he endorsed the board's strategy. Secondly, he acknowledged that the board's finances had been neglected. He bowed to pressure and stumped up the extra £1 million. He said that it was new money. It was gratefully received. Thirdly, the Minister ducked entirely the chief problem in rural Wales today—agriculture. Nowhere in the Secretary of State's speech did I hear a sense of either strategy or urgency. The

      1031
      National Economic Development Council recently published a report entitled "Work in the Countryside", which predicted a fall of over 9 per cent. in the number of people engaged in agriculture in the United Kingdom during the next 10 years. It estimated that that would mean a loss of over 3,000 jobs in Wales. Some say that the number will be between 3,000 and 7,500. Already Ministers know and I know that the National Farmers Union in Wales is beating tracks to the door of the Secretary of State to tell him that it is deeply worried. No one can gainsay that. There is a sense of crisis in farming, particularly in the upland communities. Yesterday we did not have a response to that problem.
      In Scotland a Minister for rural affairs has been appointed. Has such an appointment been considered by the Welsh Office? There is no doubt in my mind that the Secretary of State has a fine professional staff at his disposal. They are good. Some I know well and some I have worked with. Are there enough of them? Given the challenge facing the rural areas of Wales is not there a case for Ministers to devise a strategy and to come forward with some proposals that will show the people of Wales, the upland communities and those who live in rural Wales that the Government mean business? I want Ministers to consider seriously some initiatives. As I said last night, there is a call for more leadership in this sphere.
      Mr. Geraint Howells: If the clay comes when the hon. Gentleman holds the reins at the Welsh Office, will agriculture be included in the remit of the Development Board for Rural Wales? Can he give the farming communities and the people of Wales that assurance?
      Mr. Jones: I will not make policy on the hoof. The hon. Gentleman knows me too well for that. Nevertheless, I take the emphasis of his intervention. He knows that soon his party, mine and others will have to present their manifestos to the electorate. That is the moment of truth for Ministers as well as for Opposition parties.
      I draw to the attention of Ministers the existence of a report by the Institute of Welsh Affairs. I commend it to them. It deals with the impact of inward migration, low birth rates, some heavy unemployment, low incomes and housing demand, which will be increasingly heavy towards the end of the century. It says that a strategy is needed. It wants plans to cope with the significant levels of housing demand. It says that priority should be given to raising low incomes. Ministers should study the report and I hope that it will help them to come to conclusions and to take initiatives.
      Will the Minister of State promise to read the recent speech in another place of Baroness White of Rhyrnney, that distinguished ex-public servant who is respected and admired? The Minister will know that some years ago Lady White held the post that he now holds. She may be right to doubt whether Ministers can seriously influence Whitehall and European institutions about rural Wales. My conclusion is that Ministers do not have sufficient influence. They cannot. They are showing that they are overstretched and they may be showing that they are tired. I am saying that they are not giving sufficient leadership in this sphere, though the Minister must not take that as too serious a thrust today.
      We recognise the importance of the increase in the financial limit to allow the current plans for funding the
      1032
      Development Board for Rural Wales to go ahead. That is agreed. We also recognise that an increase in the financial limit does not in itself provide any guide to the future level of expenditure for Government funding.
      We are greatly worried by the Government's record on financial support to the development board. Its gross expenditure has fallen dramatically in real terms over the past decade, despite growing social and economic challenges in mid-Wales. Gross expenditure has fallen by nearly 15 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. According to the 1990 public expenditure White Paper, gross expenditure, after taking inflation into account, is planned to fall by 8 per cent. this year. That is an example of short-sighted penny-pinching at the expense of the people of rural Wales.
      Yesterday, I heard the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) express concern about Trawsfynydd. I appreciated why he felt it necessary to make those remarks, but the Minister seemed laid back in his response. When the nuclear power station closes, the loss of high status jobs there will have serious consequences. Now is the time for the Government to plan for the future of Trawsfynydd. Will the Minister consider setting up a task force, or at any rate doing something now, long before the closure takes place? The Government should be preparing to take action now, rather than waiting until the closure, and only then giving the impression of animation and preparation. The consequences of closure will be considerable. The Minister must make preparations now.
      Trawsfynydd lies amid some wondrous scenery, but not for miles around is there certainty of alternative work. A task force or similar body could consider also the needs of Blaenau Ffestiniog, which is still struggling to come to terms with the consequences of the loss of its staple industry, slate.
      4.30 pm
      Dr. Thomas: In presenting the case for Trawsfynydd, it would be helpful for everybody if the hon. Gentleman would spell out in greater detail what he would do were he sitting on the Government Front Bench.
      Mr. Jones: The former Labour Government had a good record in these matters. The development agency and the development board stand ready to help communities such as Trawsfynydd and Blaenau Ffestiniog. I am urging the Government to show intiative and to give leadership. Matters in rural Wales are not as good as the Government imply. A town such as Blaenau Ffestiniog, at nearly 1,000 ft above sea level, with about 60 in of rain a year, isolated and with poor communications, requires urgent action. The same applies to other communities in rural Wales.
      Rural Wales has been let down by the Government, with the freezing of child benefit, the breaking of the link between pensions and earnings, the cut in housing benefit, soaring mortgate costs, the hated poll tax, the loss of jobs in the Laura Ashley company and the plight of hill farmers. It is fair to say that rural Wales has had enough of the Conservatives, who do not care. A Labour Government will be elected and will restore the fortunes of rural Wales.
      Mr. Livsey: There is little that I wish to say because much was said last night, but a number of points come to mind as a result of one or two matters mentioned this afternoon.
      The Bill is narrowly drawn. I had hoped to be tabling an amendment now to increase by statutory instrument the funding available to the development board, but I am told that the Bill is so tightly drawn that we cannot table amendments to that effect. It would be good if in future one were able to do that. I hope that that proposal will be considered.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman heard my opening remarks when I explained the two-tier system of raising the financial limit which pertained before 1981. It was decided that it would be good practice to require primary legislation to raise the limit, rather than being able to do so by order. I think that the hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House will agree that what we now propose—using primary legislation—is better practice than that previously pursued.
      Mr. Livsey: The Minister explains the position precisely. Although we can use that procedure and have a debate, the matter is almost a fait accompli; we cannot change the board's remit.
      Many speeches have been made outlining the desirability of giving the board other functions, such as those relating to agriculture, which are important. I hope that in future legislation can be brought in to give the development board more wide-ranging functions. Although we have had a sympathetic ear from the Secretary of State and the Minister, we cannot change the board's remit to include agriculture. We should have that opportunity in the future.
      The Minister also mentioned tourism, over which the development board has only limited powers. If this had been a wider-ranging debate, I should have liked to table an amendment to give the board clearer functions in relation to tourism. I understand that those powers are fairly limited at present. In future, will the development board be able to assist in building hotels, which could be leased to local entrepreneurs in various parts of Wales to raise the standard of tourist accommodation? That subject could do with our attention. Tourism is a massive industry in rural Wales and should be stimulated. I believe that the development board might well have the ability to do that.
      The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) referred to housing, particularly in my constituency. The problems involved when young people try to find housing for rent are legion. The Government have ceased giving local authorities the ability to build houses for rent. Mid-Wales does not have an adequate housing association to provide sufficient housing to meet the demand. There is a Mid Wales housing association but it is extremely small, can obtain few resources and is thus unable to build adequate housing.
      One of the development board's functions is to provide houses for key workers but, as I said last night, those houses are often empty for long periods in districts where the demand for rented housing is very great. It seems unsatisfactory that housing for key workers should be empty. That accommodation does not amount to a great deal of housing, and is but a drop in the ocean compared with the demand, yet even those few houses are empty.
      1034
      I should like more flexibility. The development board should be able to let some of its housing not necessarily to people coming in from outside the area but to people working in the area. There are families in my constituency who have to live with their parents in council houses because the council housing stock has been largely sold off. Sometimes parents and a son and daughter-in-law and perhaps two or three children have to live in a three-bedroomed council house. That is unsatisfactory, especially since those people work in the local economy. The development board, with the Welsh Office, should be able to create a larger housing association in mid-Wales—if that is the way the Government want to finance housing for rent—to try to satisfy the insatiable demand for housing.
      This enormous problem is causing the outward migration of some of our youngest and most able people.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: Like my colleagues, I welcome the increase in the borrowing limit from £100 million to £175 million and the extra finance—it will rise from £12·7 million to £14·1 million.
      The annual report of the development board and the evidence that it has presented from time to time to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs show that it is doing excellent work. Both the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Welsh Development Agency are interventionist agencies set up to stimulate new jobs—
      Mr. Paul Murphy: By a Labour Government.
      Mr. Williams: Indeed. The agency was set up to stimulate new jobs and enterprises and to provide a stronger backbone in rural areas.
      Last night we heard the Secretary of State say that the development board's budget of £12 million a year serves to generate more than 1,000 new jobs or to safeguard old ones. That works out at about £10,000 per job, which is remarkably good value for money—the more so since the multiplier effect means that other jobs live off the salaries created by the new jobs.
      Unfortunately, my constituency, despite being the second largest in Wales and very rural, is not included in the board's boundaries. The development board covers 40 per cent. of Wales, but large parts of Gwynedd, Clwyd and Dyfed are not included. My predecessor as Member for Carmarthen, Dr. Roger Thomas, felt strongly about this. I remember going on a trip in the mid-1980s with the then shadow Secretary of State for Wales, Alec Jones, who was the hon. Member for Rhondda, and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson). We went to Newcastle Emlyn to point out to the shadow Secretary of State that Carmarthen district and the Dinefwr borough exhibit similar geographical features and should be included. Why is Lampeter included, but not Llanybydder? Why is Llandysul included, but not Newcastle Emlyn? Why are not Llandeilo and Llandovery included when Llandrindod and Llanwrtyd are? These are all similar towns, but, by being excluded from the areas of the development board, they are missing out on some of the benefits it can offer.
      The WDA does excellent work in our area, but the development board has a broader remit. It is allowed to spend more of its money on social improvements and tourism facilities. I should like the board to have both

      1035
      more money and broader boundaries. I hope that any future Labour Government—and even this Government—will consider redrawing those boundaries.
      4.45 pm
      In the past 10 years the problems of rural areas have become immeasurably worse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) said earlier. Rural depopulation presents a severe problem. Young people are leaving our countryside and looking for work in the towns—sometimes not even in Wales but across the border.
      We hear a great deal about inward migration in Welsh-speaking Wales, but that is only the other side of the coin. I was brought up in the countryside outside Carmarthen where it was taken almost as a fact of life in the 1950s and 1960s that small farms had to amalgamate, that jobs would be lost and that people would move into the towns. The Welsh language suffered as a result of that emigration. This downhill slide became a haemorrhage during the recession of 1979 –81, when masses of manufacturing jobs were lost in rural areas and unemployment reached a peak of more than 20 per cent. in Dyfed. Between 1983 and 1988 unemployment there averaged 16 per cent.—that is what led to the haemorrhage of young people.
      These people have been replaced and our population is growing, but it is different. I welcome retired people and people with new skills in craft industries, but that sort of population brings its own problems with it, particularly for the Welsh language.
      Government policies in the past 10 years have hit rural areas disproportionately hard. There have been cuts in public spending on transport and road building. Not enough has been invested in road improvements or the surface of roads. There are terrible housing shortages. Rural villages contain run-down, unfit housing and there are acute problems of homelessness. We need far more public spending on housing, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) said.
      The poll tax has hit rural areas disproportionately hard, too. Small villages have few services, so they generally have low rateable values and contribute less to local government finance. In a sense the poll tax subsidises towns and penalises rural inhabitants. A gentleman in Llansawel wrote to me 12 months ago pointing out that his rates bill was just £80. He is a pensioner and he and his wife now have to pay poll tax of well over £300—yet they will enjoy no new services in their remote rural village. They have a very low income, but it is not low enough to qualify for a rebate.
      Last night, several hon. Members mentioned low pay. The problem is at its worst in rural areas. I have here some information from the Low Pay Unit—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but last night's was a Second Reading debate and therefore much wider. We are now on clause stand part, and low pay does not relate to the clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his remarks relevant.
      Mr. Williams: Thank you, Miss Boothroyd. I stand corrected. I was, however, trying not only to make general points about rural areas, pertaining to my constituency in
      1036
      particular, but to explain how the development board's work helps to counter the problems and why it should be given more money.
      Average male earnings in my county—Dyfed—are lower than those in any other British county and the Government have, as a matter of policy, halved the staff of the wages inspectorate in the past 10 years. More interventionist policies are needed: the Government must take much more direct action to help rural areas.
      Spending on roads has also been cut. My constituency desperately needs a road linking the M4 to Ceredigion; as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) will know, the road to Llandyssul, Aberaeron and Aberystwyth has hardly been improved at all in the past few years.
      I have already mentioned the mass emigration of young people from Wales, and the inward migration which is proceeding apace. Although I welcome the arrival of people who contribute to the local economy and enrich the life of the area, it has caused serious problems for the Welsh language. I am, of course, very pleased when new arrivals choose to learn Welsh, but the only real way of retaining the language is to keep young people in our Welsh-speaking heartlands.
      Dr. Thomas: I do not wish to stray out of order, and I am well aware that the development board does not spend money on an education policy connected with language; it does, however, spend money on a bilingual initiative programme to develop enterprise and business expertise. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that programme would be supported much more effectively in Dyfed and other parts of mid-Wales if he and some of his hon. Friends desisted from undermining the local education authority policy for bilingual teaching there?
      Mr. Williams: I am not undermining it; I am seeking—I fear that I am out of order now—to modify it to allow room for choice, and equal opportunities for the Welsh and English languages in rural schools.
      I welcome the increased allocations announced in the Bill, but far more needs to be done. Rural areas have had a very rough time over the past 10 years, but, unfortunately, there will need to be a change of Government before there is a change in their fortunes.
      Mr. Paul Flynn: Let me comment briefly on the latter remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams): obviously they were in order, Miss Boothroyd, or you would not have allowed him to proceed. Let me tell my hon. Friend—as gently as possible—that some of the recent controversy in Carmarthen has been very destructive. Communities have been divided quite unnecessarily on the subject of the language. My hon. Friend may realise in retrospect that emotive words like "Stalinist" are not appropriate when applied to Dyfed county council.
      We all realise how explosive the language issue is in Wales. Welshmen are not divided on religious or ethnic grounds, but the language division is very sharp, and we must not be shy to promote its use or to come to its defence.
      Yesterday afternoon, a Conservative Member—talking as English people often do about their language—suggested that it was less important to extend the BBC World Service's Romanian, Hungarian and Bulgarian sections, which I consider crucial, than to extend English

      1037
      language broadcasting. He received little support for that view, which typified the arrogance sometimes displayed by English speakers. If I were to start speaking Welsh now, Miss Boothroyd—as I have in the House on a number of occasions—I would be called to order; although other Parliaments can manage quite easily to deal with nine or 10 languages, in this Chamber the Welsh language has the same status as riotous behaviour, and I would be thrown out if I persisted in using it. This is now the only Parliament that Wales has, but perhaps the position will change when we have our own Parliament.
      The people now migrating to Wales are different from those of my generation. In 1851, my forebear Morris Flynn and his family were stoned by the locals on their arrival in Wales. That was the greeting given to him and his family of five—three had been lost in the potato famine—as they walked down Bute street in Cardiff. As far as I know, there is no potato famine in Burton-on-Trent, and I do not believe that the Securitate in Guildford is persecuting the people and forcing them into Wales. People are coming to Wales looking for a better life, although many are leading a good life already. They are attracted by the beauty of the countryside and the lack of pollution.
      None the less, we have the right to stand up and fight for our language. We remember what the old man of Pencader said about "this corner of the world", and we know that we are the only people who can defend our unique language. It is a shame that we should react with such venom to a foolish thing said by a frail, elderly visionary who gave so much to our country—although he certainly went too far. We should look to our visionaries, and to those who have the soul of our nation at heart, rather than indulging in the spiteful and petty controversies that have marred this last summer.
      I hope that people in Carmarthen can come together, recognising the need to protect the Welsh language. The English language is not threatened; it is used throughout the world. Welsh, however, is in the perilous state in which all minority languages find themselves when all their speakers also speak a majority language. We must not be reticent; we must boldly defend the Welsh language.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen spoke of the poverty in the area covered by the development board. We hear very little about rural poverty. Let me briefly mention two issues. One is child benefit, which was recently increased. It is a shock to realise that at least 10,000 of the most .deserving families in Wales will not receive the extra £1 because they happen to have suffered a bereavement or serious illness: that is in addition to the 192,000 families throughout Britain who will not receive the benefit because the Government will claw it back. The Government's was an extremely mean act.
      The last great ruler who took an interest in the first born, King Herod, was a Thatcherite of the old school. One would not, of course, expect even the present Government to employ the measures that he adopted to save public expenditure.
      As we emerge from the dark age of Thatcherism, I hope that policies to help families with children will emerge. The most deserving cases are being cheated outrageously by being deprived of child benefit. Rural housing is a continuing scandal. For the past 40 years, all Governments
      1038
      provided a wedge of housing in every village throughout the Principality that was cheap to rent. Council houses have disappeared altogether in many villages. Council housing, by providing the choice of cheap housing, led to a balanced economy.
      5 pm
      My local authority, when it was Labour-controlled, provided council houses in order to create stable, mixed communities. Now, however, it is not run by altruistic people who want to solve problems; it is run by Conservative ideologues whose minds are obsessed with a few simple ideas that drive them on—in many cases, beyond all reason. There are no houses for rent at a reasonable price in some Welsh villages. When they change hands they are sold. Villages are therefore deprived of local labour and they become villages for stockbrokers—already so common in the south of England.
      The farming industry faces a crisis. It has to compete with all the development board's activities. The decision that we take on the clause will have an effect on the farming industry. At Question Time today the farming crisis was referred to as a genuine crisis. Nobody is crying wolf. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said, rightly, that the crisis does not face the whole of the farming community. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food accused me today of trying to split the farming community. It is already split. The grain barons of East Anglia cultivate grain on huge prairies that provide them with huge profits and, in the case of farmers in south Wales, if there are large harvests, they receive huge subsidies. I believe that my hon. Friend said that 80 per cent. of the farming subsidies go to very rich farmers.
      Farmers have become the victims of the policies of all parties. We told them that the country must rely on its own resources. They have been provided with subsidies to grow more food. That resulted in this crisis. The medicines of the past have become the diseases of the present. The answer is not to increase subsidies generally but to ensure that they are distributed fairly. Many of the subsidies that now go to rich farmers should come to Wales. The farming industry faces many crises. I commend the Labour party's policies. They would provide an answer to the farming crisis. Production should be scaled down, where necessary, and voluntary agreements should be entered into with the farmers—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a very good run. I must ask hon. Members to remember that we are considering clause I stand part and the functions of the board. It is a narrow clause. This is not a Second Reading debate. The clause relates not to farming and agriculture but to the financial limits of the board.
      We have had a good debate; I have been tolerant in allowing hon. Members to range widely, both on Second Reading and, so far, today. Now, however, I must bring it to a halt. In future, hon. Members will not be allowed to range as widely as they have done so far in this clause stand part debate. The hon. Gentleman must, of course, finish what he wants to say, which must be relevant.
      Mr. Flynn: That is very kind of you, Miss Boothroyd.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I am not at all kind.
      Mr. Flynn: On reflection, I must admit that some of my comments were tangential to the main purpose of the clause.
      As for the money devoted by the development board to planning purposes in Wales, the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales published recently a splendid report. Newport suffers from a particular problem, in that we have a pushy neighbour called Cardiff. Its urban sprawl is spreading like a stain across the fields towards Newport. It has come right up to Newport's border. If Newport had been as permissive as Cardiff over its planning permission, it would no longer have a green ring around it. It would be possible to walk from the civic centre in Newport to the city hall in Cardiff without crossing a field and seeing a blade of grass.
      I urge the Welsh Office to consider introducing green belts around our towns. Strangely enough, we do not have them in Wales. Such a ring around our towns would make them much more attractive. That would represent a very good use of the money that is provided for in the clause. We must provide a better future for development board areas and for every other rural area in Wales.
      Dr. Thomas: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the generosity that you have shown towards hon. Members.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: It has come to a halt.
      Dr. Thomas: I am aware of that. I do not intend to make another Second Reading speech today. One of the reasons why it has turned into such a wide-ranging debate is that we have so few opportunities to debate on the Floor of the House matters relating to Wales. I wish that we could have more such opportunities.
      I agree with the Minister of State that it is good to hold primary legislation debates on the Floor of the House, during which we can consider the work of the development board and other agencies. I only wish that the Welsh Office could introduce additional primary legislation, including legislation on language policy. That brings me to the language issue, though in relation to the development board's work, not in relation to Dyfed's education policy. Nevertheless, I commend what was said by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about the activities of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams).
      The development board has deliberately focused cultural spending on language policy on business courses, business advice and bilingual handbooks. That has generated a good response in the western communities of Wales. The board's policy is to recruit, as members of staff, bilingual business advisers. The board has used the existing enterprise agencies to carry out work for it on a contract basis. It is therefore able to stimulate the development of an enterprise culture. That is an important part of our overall language development, conservation and enhancement policy.
      The Welsh language is spoken by about 500,000 people. It is a minority language. I hope that it will become the language of business activity as well as of cultural activity, as well as being the language of all traditional forms of expression in culture and religion, as well as the language of the schools throughout the national curriculum. The language would then be able to survive in the complex world within which small cultures have to function. I pay tribute to the work of the development board, which
      1040
      stimulates the enterprise culture through the medium of the Welsh language. That is a very important part of its work.
      Housing expenditure by the development board is limited to providing houses for key workers. The development board is not a general housing agency. Housing agencies have taken over the work of the previous new town development corporations. However, they have been giving their houses away. Houses in new towns have been sold rapidly. That creates housing problems. We need to match the decline in the role of local authorities throughout Wales and the decline in the role of the development board as the new town housing agencies' role is matched by the activities of Tai Cymru.
      The Government need to look at the overall Welsh Office housing budget to ensure that the decline in available rented sector property is matched by the work of the housing associations. We need to look at the relevance of the clause to housing policy. There is a relevance to key-worker housing. That is a concept which can be seen to relate to a particular view of development. In the early years of development agencies, not just in mid-Wales but in other areas, activity seemed to be centred on in-moving large capital investment. That is important but it can sometimes be a diseconomy in terms of its effect on the existing network of local businesses. Incoming industries on a large scale can lead to a loss of jobs in the self-employed and small business sectors. We have seen that in some aspects of the development board's work.
      Over the years, there have been positive critics of the board looking at supporting an economic, development strategy and at aspects of the strategy which might he improved. Those critics have stressed that the overdevelopment of Newtown and the growth town strategy has sometimes resulted in the appearance of overdevelopment in some areas and underdevelopment in others—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) agrees with me and I am sure that he will want to develop that.
      I have mentioned Antur Dwyryd and Antur Teifi so I must mention Antur Penllyn and the activity in Bala. There we have a local authority and local entrepreneurs who are already successful on their own patch working with the development board to establish an atmosphere in which small local businesses can thrive. It creates an atmosphere in which young people can produce ideas for new enterprise, discuss their business plans and find support throughout the development of their business with the assistance of local banks, and so on. Many of us have argued for several years for that type of small scale networking enterprise and it is good to see the board pursuing it.
      On Second Reading I received a firm answer from the Secretary of State about the future of the board. He made it clear that there would be no messing about between the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. There will be a clear understanding that both authorities have a statutory responsibility and will have to work together. It was helpful to receive such a statement. However, I should like the Minister to deal with the possible privatisation of some of the board's activities. Concern has been expressed to me by those who follow the board's activities that there may be an intention to privatise existing complexes, industrial sites or other consultancy or development activities that the board has undertaken directly in the past. That may result in the

      1041
      officers responsible for such activities being less directly accountable. There have recently been internal management changes to the structure of the board.
      Some of us are concerned that the social development aspect of the board's work is not receiving the high profile that it received in the past. We want an assurance from the Minister about the broad spectrum of spending. The social development money stands alongside the various directly enterprising schemes, building schemes and infrastructure schemes. We want an assurance that the social development money has the same value in terms of the board's policies as in the past. We have discussed that with the chairman and officials of the board and we shall have an opportunity to do so again fairly soon when the board will be visiting the House and giving us a presentation. However, I should be happy to have the Welsh Office view. It is important to emphasise the entrepreneurial and commercial activity of the board, but the social profile is also an important part of integrated rural development and we want it to be maintained.—[ Interruption.] I am pleased to see that my hon. Friends the Members for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) and for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) agree with me.
      5.15 pm
      I want to deal with the board's spending in the northern Meirionnydd area and its relevance to Trawsfynydd. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) for raising that issue again today. I want to see the Welsh Office taking a longer look at the issue in consultation with the Department of Energy and Nuclear Electric. None of us wants to see premature closure of a functioning plant. However, that plant can function as a Magnox nuclear power station only within the tightest possible constraints and controls on environmental policy as governed by the nuclear installations inspectorate. We do not want an artificial extension of the life of the plant. Therefore, as I said last night, as a result of the closure we shall be facing the loss of 400 to 500 jobs directly. Obviously, that has a multiplier effect and there will be about 1,200 job losses overall in the local economy.
      The response to that is not to look for another major utility of that sort because the economy of north-west Wales—Gwynedd—has been dependent upon major construction projects and big utilities in cycles. That is not necessarily good for the economy in the long term. We need to look for a resource-balanced economy in terms of its ability to sustain itself internally and have a good relationship with surrounding economies and regions. The answer is to take further the approach already adopted by the development board in the way in which it has ensured the development of in-moving new capital investment and encouraged grass roots networking enterprise within local communities. We need to match that with adequate funding. We want to ensure that the development board becomes the lead agency in replacing job losses at Trawsfynydd. The board is able to do that. The WDA and Welsh Development International are important. We are hoping for further international investment beyond Clwyd and into Gwynedd as a result of the Wyn Roberts memorial expressway that is about to be completed.
      The Development Board for Rural Wales has as members representatives from local authorities and works closely with local authorities. As we know, the
      1042
      Meirionnydd and Gwynedd districts do not have the resources necessary for industrial promotion in the same way as the board, which is a central Government agency. I should like the Welsh Office to tell us that they are entrusting the task of the lead agency in providing jobs in the Trawsfynydd and northern Meirionnydd area to the board and that the funding will be there to match it.
      I was hoping to have teased some new ideas from the Opposition. Unfortunately, I have failed yet again. In the past we have suggested several different models and if Opposition Members have any ideas I am happy to give way.
      Mr. Alun Michael: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was a Labour party idea in the first place. It would be better if he were less petty in his remarks.
      Dr. Thomas: I do not wish to be drawn into the history of the development board, but it is well known that it was announced as an idea in 1970 by Viscount Tonypandy, who made that speech at a particular juncture in a general election campaign when Labour was looking for votes in west Wales. I have nothing against that, but we should put the record straight.
      I am concerned now not about the future of the board but about finding new ideas from the official Opposition on how jobs can be replaced at Trawsfynydd. I offer the official Opposition that opportunity, but I hear nothing from them.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: When a nuclear power station reaches the end of its life, there follows the enormous task of decommissioning it. We are only just beginning to grapple with that problem in Berkeley. Nuclear experts say—this is why the City took fright when the Government tried to privatise nuclear energy—that that task is many times more difficult than was ever imagined. The budget involved is anything from £300 million to £1 billion, and for 10 years after the closure of a nuclear power station—perhaps even for decades—hundreds of jobs will be involved in its decommissioning.
      Dr. Thomas: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because nuclear energy is one of the few issues on which we see eye to eye. The cost of decommissioning is unlikely to come within the budget of the Development Board for Rural Wales, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that decommissioning will provide a certain number of jobs. From my discussions with Nuclear Electric and its predecessor, the Central Electricity Generating Board, my understanding is that decommissioning would not require the same number of people as are required to run a station, and that the specialised and dangerous work of decommissioning would perhaps require only 150 to 200 people—so 300 to 400 jobs would still be lost to the local economy, with the multiplier effect that I mentioned earlier.
      Parallel models are available in the form of the British Steel Corporation—in Shotton in the constituency of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), and in areas of south Wales such as Ebbw Vale—and British Coal in the mining areas. In those cases, the existing utilities became agencies for replacement jobs.
      The post-privatisation commercial structure of Nuclear Electric does not permit it to serve as such an agency, so we should look for ways of providing equivalent funding.

      1043
      I want the northern Meirionnydd steel area to be treated as though it were an area subject to coal mining closures. Steel is a similar size of industry, and a comparable utility. I want the Welsh Office to signal tonight, or at a later stage, that it will respond positively to local activities in that respect. Recently, working parties reported to the district council, and the Antur Dwyryd agency produced its own plans for the 1990s which take account of the impact of decommissioning. We want an assurance from the Welsh Office that funding will be available within the development board's allocation to provide alternative jobs.
      As for the current state of Welsh Office and development board crafts policies, had I not been participating in this debate, I would have joined a delegation to the Secretary of State on that very issue. However, I thought that it would be appropriate to be here instead, just in case Members on the Labour Front Bench tried to get at me again when my back was turned—[ HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—as is their usual procedure.
      Can the Minister say whether the crafts initiative or agency role by contract performed by Craft Consultants (Wales) Limited will continue in one form or another? There has been conflict between the crafts council for Wales and the DBRW and WDA as to who does what in promoting crafts. The former secretary of State produced a craft initiative as one of many that he devised, but I am not sure that its progress is as satisfactory as it might have been.
      Competition of a kind that is not always useful exists in the provision of services to individual craft workers, as between the WDA and DBRW. Many of us are concerned about providing the right framework for all kinds of crafts development, very often in isolated locations, and some of us have had the privilege of visiting crafts persons on remote hillsides, where they produce items which end up being sold in Harrods. That is not always a test of quality, but at least it shows how widely Welsh crafts are now marketed. I want an assurance that there will not be an end to the crafts initiative and that a further attempt will be made to bring together the WDA and crafts workers so that they can co-operate more closely. The crafts council, through the agency work that it performs on behalf of its members, provides a voluntary support service.
      We should not always look for clean lines to be drawn in our dealings with the rural economies, nor look just at the work of the WDA or DBRW—thinking that the only way to promote small businesses is through official bodies. We should consider also ways in which voluntary membership agencies such as the crafts council can undertake promotional and other work on behalf of its members, alongside and without duplicating that of public sector agencies. I shall be grateful if the Minister, having referred to the crafts sector as having a part in this debate, will make a response.
      Mr. John P. Smith: I welcome the additional money that is to go to the development board, as does the whole Committee. My right hon. and hon. Friends in particular welcome it, because the DBRW was Labour's brainchild. We introduced it, together with many other successful Welsh institutions, such as the Welsh Development Agency. We are glad to see extra money made available to tackle some of the well-understood and
      1044
      well-established problems that confront rural mid-Wales—in particular, those associated with maintaining the rural economies and stopping depopulation.
      I want to sound a note of caution in respect of the way in which the money is to be spent. I represent a Welsh constituency that is predominantly rural and which—unlike many others in Wales—has significantly benefited from the kind of money that, under the clause, is intended for other parts of Wales. I want to highlight some of the problems that can be associated with successful development if it is not properly handled.
      Two themes have been taken up by other hon. Members. First, we need to know exactly what the additional money will be spent on. Secondly—this point has come up repeatedly—it is necessary to co-ordinate the development board's work with the work of other agencies such as the WDA, local authorities and British Rail, to mention but a few in the public sector, and the private sector, which will play an important part in these developments.
      Unless we are careful about identifying the needs that go with new investment in jobs and industry, we will create great problems. That may sound like a contradiction, but it is an important political issue for the House to consider in relation to the Bill. Since I have been the Member for Vale of Glamorgan, the area has managed to attract a disproportionate amount of inward investment, totalling £1·1 billion. That is one of the highest concentrations of inward investment in the world and is certainly the highest in western Europe.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: It is all to my hon. Friend's credit.
      Mr. Smith: I refuse to take all the credit, but I am delighted by that investment. I recognise the role played by the economic development committee of the county council and the WDA, not to mention one or two by-elections. We welcome that investment and hope that there will be more, but it is creating problems and pressures in the rural part of my constituency. The three points of the economic triangle of success are Cardiff Wales airport, with the massive British Airways investment in precision engineering jobs—which we want to see in mid-Wales as well—the huge investment in the Ford plant in the north-west of my constituency, totalling almost £500 million, and the investment at Bosch, which will create nearly 1,300 new jobs.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will now relate his comments to the clause. Although his constituency is extremely important to him, it does not lie within the board's area.
      Mr. Smith: Absolutely, Miss Boothroyd. I am glad that you have drawn my attention to that point. We must get across the point that, in spending this money, we must not make the mistakes that were made in the past. The development board should learn from past lessons and ensure that there is no repetition of previous mistakes.
      Investment of this size will create a problem in the local labour market. We must ensure that there is trained, skilled labour to fill the occupations created in the rural areas or we will do one of two things: we will poach skilled people from existing employers in rural Wales or, worse still, we will add to the migration problem by encouraging

      1045
      skilled labour from outside to go into the rural areas. Some people believe that that is already happening in our area. The development board should recognise the fact that, unless the training challenge is met, the problem will get much worse.
      We must also consider the impact of investment on transport. I have personal experience of this in my area and I know that the problem will affect the area covered by the development board. I warn the Minister that, if we are successful and we attract investment, it will result in huge pressures on our transport network. Because of the new investment in Ford and elsewhere, it is dangerous and almost impossible to attempt to cross the road in the little village of Llysworney. The high volume of traffic and number of large stone-carrying and goods-carrying vehicles going through the villages make a bypass necessary. A bypass is needed also in Dinas Powys. The main trunk road through that local area, the A4050, needs to be upgraded. In addition, the rail line through the rural part of my constituency should be reopened.
      Those are the transport needs of an area that has been successful in attracting development and investment. When considering the allocation of moneys and the encouragement of investment, the development board should ensure that it first has an integrated transport policy, or it will create problems like those in our area. The effect of investment on the local labour market and on transport is of considerable concern.
      Housing is another important matter in rural areas. The depopulation problem in mid-Wales results largely from the inability of the indigenous population to purchase houses, in the absence of low-cost houses for rent, because of low incomes and lack of employment. The development board should bear it in mind that that can also be a problem in areas of considerable developmental success. People may be amazed to hear that, although we have been successful in attracting investment, in the rural vale—where the population is increasing—there is an acute housing shortage. Because we have had so much success, property prices are high. The indigenous community in relatively well-off communities, particularly young people, cannot afford to stay in their villages, although they may have good jobs in Cardiff to which they commute daily and their parents may be reasonably well off and live in rather expensive houses. The capital values of property in the rural part of my constituency are among the highest in Wales, but there is an acute housing shortage. The development board should carefully consider the impact of disproportionate investment concentrated in certain areas—a matter to which the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) referred.
      We need a housing strategy to provide low-cost rented housing for people in rural areas on low incomes and those who are out of work and for people in areas of success. My area is a popular place in which to live—
      Mr. Derek Conway: Under the Conservative Government.
      Mr. Smith: No, under a Labour Member of Parliament. The problem in my area is the opposite of the problem in some rural areas. The region is so popular that, I admit, some parts of my constituency are referred to as the filing cabinet of England. Civil servants who come down from
      1046
      Whitehall to the Welsh Office, the Royal Mint or the Inland Revenue know that my constituency is a nice place in which to live.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is an excellent place in which to live, but he should get back to the geographical area that we are debating.
      Mr. Smith: I will get back to the important point at issue. We have referred to the pressure that investment places on the labour market, to the effect on the transport infrastructure and to the importance of having a transport policy if we are to attract investment. We have also referred to housing. Another important point is that once we succeed in attracting investment to an area, we must ensure that it is followed by balanced development.
      Other hon. Members have referred to the pressure on planning, to intrusions into the green belt and to the destruction of the countryside. In my constituency, there is a planning application for a golf course, for a new town, for a ski slope or for a race track on almost every open site and on almost every green field. Yet people have paid to live in this area because they want to enjoy a certain quality of life. The irony is that it is an area where such plans and development are not wanted, while we are crying out for development and investment—and doing what we can to attract it—in nearby conurbations.
      I hope that the Minister will bear it in mind that when the board seeks, through strategic intervention, to attract investment and rural industrial activity, such development cannot be left to the free market. If we are to have economic and industrial growth, we must have the corresponding infrastructural changes to ensure that the quality of people's lives is not destroyed. There is a danger of that happening in my constituency, which is predominantly rural, and the environment will be under threat unless we get our act together. I am confident that, with institutions such as the Development Board for Rural Wales, we can do that.
      Like other hon. Members, I want to draw the attention of the House to the importance of agriculture in the development areas. Some hon. Members seemed to imply—I am sure not intentionally—that the agricultural crisis in Wales is restricted to the hill farms and to the family farms which are typical of the catchment area of the board. I must remind hon. Members that the crisis goes beyond that. It affects the livestock and dairy farmers in some of the richer and more influential farming areas such as the Vale of Glamorgan. I can assure the House that the crisis in livestock prices and high interest rates affect all farmers.
      Other hon. Members have said that only some sections of the farming community benefit from the huge farming subsidies, but that is not quite the case. By and large, it is not the farmers, but the retailers—and especially the five large supermarket chains—who do well out of the subsidies and they often fail to pass on the benefits to the consumer.
      I hope that, as the Development Board for Rural Wales goes from strength to strength with its additional expenditure, it will take steps to meet some of the problems to which I have referred. I hope especially that the board will tackle those problems in rural areas, such as the one that I represent.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Win Griffiths: In the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith), we have heard more analogies than there are sidesteps in a rugby match. I am sure that he will be known as "Smith the Analogy" as he wove his story so well. I could almost imagine that the Vale of Glamorgan had been transferred to mid-Wales.
      Although my constituency lies outside the area covered by the Development Board for Rural Wales, I speak with an interest in mid-Wales because I was brought up in the town of Brecon, which is now in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey). My family history illustrates the need for the board and for the welcome increase in the money that it has available to finance the promotion of economic activity and, thereby, the social well-being and prosperity of mid-Wales. My parents had seven children; five of us are currently employed outside mid-Wales. The interesting point is that the two sisters who still live in the town of Brecon are married to men who came from outside mid-Wales.
      Last night, the Secretary of State referred to the fact that, in the past decade, the population of the area has increased: inward migration has exceeded outward migration. That is only the beginning of a reversal of the trend that has been seen for generation after generation. It is important for the board to have its funds increased, because it will have to make up for generations of lost population and lost economic activity.
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: I noted that my hon. Friend said that he was one of seven children and that only two of them now live in his home town, which is in a rural area. I am in an identical situation. I, too, am one of seven children and only two of us now live in Carmarthen. The other five now live far away—some outside Wales. That is at the heart of the problem of rural depopulation and the result is the decline of the Welsh language. Once people move away, they and their children will no longer speak Welsh, so the language goes.
      Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention because it strengthens the case for the activities of the board to be extended in mid-Wales. My hon. Friend mentioned the Welsh language and the difficulties that it faces after years of decline. I believe that the board uses part of its budget to support the Welsh language. When I read the annual report of the board, I could not see just how much money went to support the Welsh language and I hope that the Minister can tell us.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: If the hon. Gentleman looks at section 26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, he will find that it enables the Secretary of State, rather than the board, to devote money to social purposes, one of which is the promotion of the Welsh language. Under that section, the Welsh Office supports some of the activities in connection with the Welsh language.
      Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that intervention. I was referring to the development board's annual report which mentions support for the Welsh language. I was brought up in Brecon, which is an English-speaking town, although in the 1950s Welsh was still to be heard in farming communities 10 miles west of the town.
      Mr. Livsey: It still is.
      Mr. Griffiths: Yes, it still is, in places such as Trecastle. Steps should be taken to help families with children who go to bilingual schools but who do not speak Welsh at home. Our children managed magnificently until the age of 11: our friends told us that, had they not known that my wife and I were monoglot in English, they would have assumed that our children were from a Welsh-speaking home. But our children had distinct problems after the age of 11 simply because there is not enough literature in Welsh to enable children to be educated easily in the subject at secondary level. When my daughter had to do a school project on Mozart, she had to read everything in English and then write everything in Welsh. The Development Board for Rural Wales could kill two birds with one stone if it made it its job to support printing in the Welsh language because it could then provide the books that are needed in Welsh schools, which are not available at present.
      Dr. Thomas: The development board has assisted Mozart on a number of occasions. It has sponsored various concerts, including an excellent one at Llangollen international eisteddfod.
      Mr. Griffiths: I am pleased to hear that, although I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the development board could become actively involved in the provision of Welsh books for primary and, particularly, secondary schools. They are desperately needed.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have heard of the Welsh Books Council, which receives £400,000-plus from the Welsh Office and whose main concern is the publication of Welsh language books. Other organisations supported by the Welsh Office are also concerned with the production of educational textbooks.
      Mr. Griffiths: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I beg him to examine the possibility that, as part of its activities in supporting the Welsh language, the development board could become more involved with the other bodies in Wales that are producing Welsh language books. That could improve matters greatly.
      I do not want to go over the ground that has already been covered on the need to provide housing at reasonably low cost in rural areas. Instead, I want to emphasise the need for rented accommodation. The Minister will know that the Government's mortgage-for-rent scheme has not had a very high take-up in mid-Wales. There are two reasons for the low take-up of what, on the face of it, looks like a bargain. First, despite all the inward investment that has taken place, despite the flourish of activity that surrounded the establishment of the development board and despite the fact that it is to be provided with the extra money that it needs for its activities, the feeling still prevails that the rural economy is fragile. We need to do more, not just through the development board, but through all apsects of Welsh Office policy, to promote the rural community in Wales.
      Secondly, we must bear in mind the fact that many of those living in rented accommodation were not prepared to take the step of buying because they feared that they would not be able to sell if they wanted to move to another job. That emphasises one of the difficulties caused by high housing costs and high interest rates, which are bedevilling the expansion of the economy. Next year we shall have a

      1049
      downturn in economic activity which will make the work of the board more difficult and the rural economy more fragile.
      Some hon. Members seem to have set on one side as almost irrelevant the work of the board in agricultural support, saying that there are other ways of supporting agriculture in Wales. It seems to me that a vital part of the board's work is in promoting agricultural production—finished and new products that can be made on the farm or off it—thus making a significant contribution to the income of the Welsh farmer. It is obvious that it will become more and more difficult for Welsh farming families to make sufficient money out of farming alone. That is why the board's activities are crucial in the provision of agricultural support—in the promotion of the production of new cheeses or whatever. There is so much that can be done. That is why I welcome the increase in the limit on the board's expenditure.
      I am pleased that a Government who opposed the creation of the board should have recognised the usefulness of its activities in mid-Wales and I hope that the board will continue to flourish, because it will be needed for a long time to come.
      Mr. Martyn Jones: We are discussing the increase in the board's financial limit from £100 million to £175 million. On Second Reading, hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledged the good work that the board and its staff have done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said, it is somewhat ironic that Conservative Members should now be supporting intervention in industry. They could not have done that in the past—at least, not openly—and one wonders for how long they will continue to do it. Nevertheless, it is nice to know that they support intervention as it is so obviously necessary to the rural areas of Wales.
      Much of the money that will be made available under the Bill will be spent on maintaining jobs and blunting the effects of the recession which is hitting the areas of rural Wales covered by the development board. Such help would also be extremely valuable elsewhere, outside the development board's area. Had such help been available in my constituency, Biddulph's might not have been closing its factory in Denbigh this week, with the loss of 50 jobs. We could be maintaining jobs in an area which is just as rural as most of the board's area. In terms of rurality, the Vale of Clwyd and Glyndwr within Clwyd are little different for Brecon, Cardigan and other areas within the board's remit.
      6 pm
      On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that he would look at the boundaries in 1991. Obviously, that will require more money. I urge him to try to extend the boundaries into Clwyd, Glyndwr and Gwynedd within this year, which means that the £175 million is probably inadequate and that we should vote for more money tonight. I urge him also to give development area status of some kind to those regions so that we can attract Euro-money, which would get him out of the financial hole in which he would find himself if he extended the boundaries before 1991.
      1050
      The Secretary of State said that he was seeking every way in which to strengthen rural communities. That is probably best done by supporting agriculture, by removing the effects of the deregulation of bus transport, which is a major problem, and by encouraging rather than discouraging post offices in villages. That cannot be done by market forces—it can be done only by state intervention. As I have said, hon. Members are, in effect, supporting state intervention by their support of the Development Board for Rural Wales. That is an encouraging trend and I hope that it will continue.
      Mr. Murphy: This has been a wide-ranging debate on a simple Bill. The clause would extend the financial limit of £100 million, which was set in 1981, to £175 million. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware that that limit is not a limit of grant and that it also covers borrowing from the national loans fund, as well as Treasury guarantees.
      Opposition Members welcome the extension of the limit to £175 million. It interests me in particular because, at one time, my constituency had within its boundaries the Cwmbran development corporation. At that time it was the only institution of its type within Wales, and the new town development corporations sprang directly from the one in Cwmbran. Many engineers, architects and others went to mid-Wales to set up the interesting experiment. My hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) and for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) rightly referred to the need to extend the boundaries of the Development Board for Rural Wales into Carmarthen and Clwyd. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board and report back to us.
      According to its annual report, the objective of the Development Board for Rural Wales is to encourage the creation of a self-sustaining economy in its area, which, together with housing, is a crucial matter in mid Wales. My hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) referred to the important aspect of the board's work, which the £175 million will cover, in the creation of housing in mid-Wales.
      When I again read the report of the Development Board for Rural Wales I was surprised to note that it states that housing continues to cause difficulties in rural Wales. That must be an immense understatement. Hon. Members have referred to the importance of the development board in tackling that problem. They rightly referred to the problem of the affordability of private housing within the area covered by the development board. For instance, last year about 1,300 new private starts were made in that area. However, the average Welsh house price is about £45,000, there are high interest rates, rural incomes are lower than their urban counterparts, and house prices are about 20 per cent. higher. The problem of getting a private house for people who live in those areas is becoming worse day by day.
      Of course, the development board has to work alongside local authorities. There are six district councils within the area. All six of them have been losers in the battle involving the poll tax and the unified business rate. Local authorities suffer that burden and the loss of their position as housing suppliers in Wales. I should have thought that that responsibility would rest with the development board. The hon. Member for Brecon and

      1051
      Radnor rightly said that the development board should take over the functions of housing associations and work closely with them in mid-Wales. That is not happening.
      Last year in the development board area, 801 local authority and housing association houses were sold and only 222 starts were made. Unquestionably, that has given rise to homelessness in the area. Also, 329 families were officially homeless in the middle part of Wales. Tai Cymru, to be fair to it, instituted research into what should happen with housing in mid-Wales. It came up with the inevitable result: there is much hidden homelessness in mid-Wales and the waiting lists with local authorities and the development board are probably much higher than the official figure of 6,000 people. As the Minister is aware, district councils in Wales have said that 6,000 more homes should be built within the Principality and many of them in the area of the development board.
      Mr. John P. Smith: My hon. Friend has rightly referred to losses to Wales and losses in Wales. Will he take this opportunity to agree that the tragic loss this week of one of my constituents, Mr. Cliff Jones, arguably one of the greatest outside-halves to come from Wales—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the clause stand part debate. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat.
      Mr. Smith rose—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. This is a clause stand part debate relating to the financial limitations of the board. The matter to which the hon. Gentleman was referring does not relate to that subject.
      Mr. Murphy: I take the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan.
      Whole communities are breaking up because of the lack of affordable housing in mid-Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend referred to new housing development by the board which, in a sense, was used as a guinea pig by the Welsh Office and by the Government in respect of the rents-into-mortgages scheme. My hon. Friend told us that that has flopped and that, out of 1,400 tenants of the development board in Newtown, only 35 applications have been received. In Scotland, out of 123,000 tenants of similar boards, only 42 have applied. The Government's idea, which was to finish off all sorts of public housing in the centre of Wales, has flopped.
      Section 18 of the Development Board for Rural Wales Act 1976 refers to housing subsidy. At the Conservative party conference, the Minister for Housing and Planning referred to the withdrawal of housing subsidy from local authorities and from new towns during the next few years. I hope that the money that we are discussing will not mean that subsidies for tenants in the mid-Wales development area will suffer as a consequence of what might or might not be Conservative party policy in the months and years ahead. Local authorities, the development board and Tai Cymru—Housing for Wales—should try to arrest the crisis in Welsh rural housing.
      For instance, they should consider the problem of second homes, which has been mentioned several times in the past two days. They should also consider the planning laws and ensure that planning permission for second homes is carefully examined. Development land should be designated to house local people, not to make property
      1052
      developers richer. They should set up housing help centres in mid-Wales. They should have a crash programme on homelessness and certainly should ensure that the capital receipts that local authorities and the DBRW receive from the sale of local authority houses go back to them so that when houses are lost through the right-to-buy scheme they are replaced with new houses for people in the centre of Wales who look to the board to house them.
      We have highlighted some of the problems in mid-Wales. We welcome the increased resources that have been allocated to the board, but we are convinced that the extra £175 million would be put to best use by a Labour Government, as a Labour Government set up the board in the first place.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate. In all, 10 hon. Members have spoken in this clause stand part debate. If there is an excuse for the wide-ranging character of the debate, it is that, as I understand it, we propose not to have a Third Reading debate.
      I begin by dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I seriously suggest that he reads again what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at column 936 of Hansard about the funding of the special rural action programme. Similarly, at column 967 my right hon. Friend dealt clearly with the interest taken in the problems at Trawsfynydd. The problems are some years ahead but the north-west Wales training and enterprise council, although only recently established, has begun exploratory discussions.
      Dr. Thomas: I appreciated what the Secretary of State had to say about the training and enterprise council, but there is also a role for the development board and for additional funding to meet head-on the crisis that will emerge in the area in the next five years.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: We certainly expect the efforts of the training and enterprise council and other agencies such as the Development Board for Rural Wales to provide alternative jobs to be intensified in the intervening period.
      The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said that the gross expenditure of the DBRW had declined. He chose some curious years as examples of its expenditure. He chose 1978–79 and 1979–80, when there was exceptionally high expenditure at Newtown, but taking the period from the board's inception one sees that there has been an increase of some 15·4 per cent. in real terms in the board's gross expenditure. Similarly, from 1980–81 to 1990–91 there has been a 20 per cent. increase in real terms in the board's gross expenditure.
      Several hon. Members talked about housing. Indeed, it would be easier to name those who did not refer to it. The Welsh Office has been aware for some time of the problems faced by people in rural Wales in securing affordable homes. I am glad to say that several measures are being taken. Although housing is an ancillary responsibility of the development board, hon. Members will be aware of the growing role of Tai Cymru, or Housing for Wales. It has directed about £25 million—no less than a quarter of its resources—to be spent by housing associations in rural areas this financial year. This year we have made available additional allocations or credit approvals totalling £2·8 million to rural district councils with severe second home problems to enable them to buy dwellings for rent or resale or to purchase land for housing development. To help

      1053
      mitigate the effects of inward migration and second homes, public sector landlords in national parks and certain designated areas may impose conditions on the resale of dwellings sold under the right-to-buy scheme. I did not agree with the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), however, when he implied that we should deny the right to buy because houses bought under the scheme are somehow lost to the housing stock. He knows as well as I do that that is not the case.
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Murphy: The Minister completely misinterprets what I said about the right-to-buy legislation. I did not imply that the right to buy would not continue or that it was not a good thing. I said that the receipts from the sale of those houses should go back to the local authorities or the development board so that they can build new houses for those on the waiting lists in mid-Wales, who number over 6,000.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: Unless things have changed drastically, the current year's receipts from right-to-buy sales can be used by the authorities to which they are paid.
      Within the next few months we shall issue planning advice on land for low-cost housing in rural areas following consultation last year. Last year, Housing for Wales launched a rural housing initiative to assist local people, especially young people, to find suitable homes which they can afford in their own communities. The initiative is being run on a pilot basis in 31 villages across rural Wales. The majority of homes are being provided on shared ownership terms with a pre-emption right eventually to return the home to the relevant housing association.
      More significantly, as the hon. Member for Torfaen mentioned, earlier this month Housing for Wales published the results of two vital research projects on the nature and extent of the need for housing in rural Wales. The second of those reports, which dealt with the importance of affordable housing for young people in determining their decision to remain in their home communities, goes further than housing issues. Housing for Wales intends to call a working conference early in the new year to discuss the findings of both studies. It will draw on the expertise of organisations with an interest in the quality of rural life.
      You will probably not allow me to stray far on the community charge, Miss Boothroyd, but it is perhaps worth noting that within the development board's area some 29,000 chargepayers are obtaining transitional relief averaging £27 per person. The House will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to say this afternoon about a review of the community charge.
      Many references have been made to agriculture but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out on Second Reading, agriculture is the direct responsibility of the Welsh Office agriculture department. Of course, we recognise that it is not an easy time for Welsh livestock producers. That is why we have introduced measures to deal with the position. Again, Miss Boothroyd, you will not allow me to stray far into what we have done for the beef sector by way of intervention. Neither would you
      1054
      allow me to say much about the way in which we have brought forward the two advance payments of sheep annual premium, and so on.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: You will recall, Miss Boothroyd, that I raised the issue of agricultural support. In the development board's annual report there is a section entitled "Support for Agriculture". The point made in the report and the reason why we raised it is that, while we recognise that direct income support for farmers is entirely another part of the Welsh Office, the development board has a responsibility to promote the industry and income for farmers by other means. That is why we should like to hear something from the Minister about that.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: Perhaps, Miss Boothroyd, you will allow me to say a little about some of the income which is flowing into the rural community as a result of the measures to which I have referred. Intervention in the beef sector alone is costing the Government some £11 million a week. Welsh sheepmeat producers have a cash flow benefit of nearly £25 million from the decision to bring forward the two advance payments of sheepmeat annual premium. Obviously, there are other developments in the livestock sector. The hill livestock compensatory allowance payments alone total some £33 million.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister is trying to be helpful to the House, but he is going too deeply into agriculture. I am looking at the report and he is taking us too far into another Department's responsibility.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I am seeking to say—
      Mr. Win Griffiths: On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I am grateful for your intervention. As you pointed out, the Minister was exceeding his role. However, I asked what the Development Board for Rural Wales was doing to support farmers. It has a remit to support them. That is what I want to know.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair to resolve.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point. I was simply prefacing my answer to him by pointing out how much money was being poured into agriculture. The HLCA payments alone are worth some £33 million. Apart from all that, agricultural grants and subsidies, excluding intervention and so on, are worth some £100 million a year to Welsh farmers. Against that background, hon. Members are well aware that the role of the development board is to encourage industries and activities which are ancillary to agriculture. It is not a function of the board to administer grants and subsidies. That is the responsibility of the Welsh Office. Many of the activities covered by the development board are ancillary to agriculture and, indeed, life in general in the rural community which they serve.
      Tourism has been mentioned—
      Mr. Alan W. Williams: May I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) about agriculture and the responsibilities of the development board? There is a crisis in agriculture, particularly regarding lamb and beef. Even worse are the 30 per cent. cuts in export subsidies being negotiated in the general agreement on tariffs and trade round. We are

      1055
      talking about small farmers. What is the Minister doing and what more can we do by using the development board to help and sustain the rural economy? Small farmers are critical to the rural economy. Is there not a case for a massive expansion of the hoard's role in supporting small farmers?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: We all sympathise with that point. Indeed, I began my statement with an appreciation of the situation in agriculture. I also said that the administration of support for farmers in Wales was the prime role of the Welsh Office agriculture department, as in England it was for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is a role for the development board. Its function is not to provide grants and subsidies direct to farmers—there is separate administration for that—but to encourage and promote businesses ancillary to agriculture and life in rural areas. I am sure that that is where its main thrust should be.
      Mr. Geraint Howells: The Minister's positive approach has been welcome, in mid-Wales by the western initiative drive which has taken place in the past few months. It will bear fruit in the months to come. May I suggest that area offices should be opened in Ceredigion, Meirionnydd, Brecon and Radnor—the development board has opened a new office in Machynlleth which has been a great success in Montgomeryshire—so that young entrepreneurs and small business people who are keen for advice can go to a local office under the jurisdiction of the development board?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I note the hon. Gentleman's point. He will know that those offices cover rather more than the interests of farmers. Nor would it be appropriate for the development board to have specific powers that are not available to assist farmers in other parts of Wales. I am sure that the board will also note his point.
      I was about to say a word or two about tourism. Although the development board has a role in tourism, it recognises that the main role belongs to the Wales tourist board. There is collaboration between the two boards. The section 4 scheme administered by the Wales tourist board began operating in 1971 and has greatly assisted tourism throughout Wales. Since then, in the development board's territory alone, nearly £8 million worth of grant and loan assistance has been provided, supporting more than 420 projects with a capital cost of £38 million, creating or safeguarding about 1,550 jobs.
      On Second Reading last night, and again today, the hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Clwyd, South—West (Mr. Jones), to name but two, made a plea for an extension of the board's area. I can only think that that is prompted by a lack of full awareness of what the Welsh Development Agency is doing. It plays an active role in furthering the economy of rural Wales and that part of rural Wales which comes under its jurisdiction. The effectiveness of the WDA's activities in rural areas is demonstrated in a variety of ways. It has 1·7 million sq. ft. of factory floor space, providing jobs for more than 5,000 local people. More than £4 million in private investment has been secured since the launch of the rural buildings conversion grant scheme, resulting in the creation of more than 1,000 jobs. The DRIVE scheme has generated substantial private sector interest, leading to private investment in excess of £2 million.
      1056
      I could expand considerably on the work of the WDA in areas outside the remit of the DBRW. However, I shall resist that temptation, mentioning only one point that has been raised in the debate—the support that the WDA gives to Menter a Busnes, the initiative to encourage enterprise among Welsh speakers. There is close collaboration between the board, the WDA and the Wales tourist board.
      6.30 pm
      The hon. Member for Carmarthen referred to the availability of the social powers in the DBRW area. It is important to recognise that there is no legislative gap. The Welsh Office has the power to assist social development schemes throughout Wales, and some £3 million was spent on such measures last year. We have already referred to the Welsh language and the support given to it under section 26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, but that section gives the Secretary of State power to support the Welsh language in Wales. I know that that will interest the hon. Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Bridgend, both of whom referred to the matter.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: Does the reference in the annual report of the DBRW to measures to support the Welsh language include initiatives taken by the Welsh Office rather than by the board itself?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: Like many other organisations in Wales, the board is quite capable of doing—and has the power to do—whatever is appropriate in connection with the Welsh language. I am sure, without specific knowledge, that both the WDA and the DBRW would support a business venture with the language at the core of its operations.
      Dr. Thomas: This is an initiative within the board, strongly supported by the WDA. It has been effective in obtaining a response within the bilingual community in western Wales and from a broader base of opinion.
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to the hon. Member, who referred to the craft initiative and asked for further information on it. The three-year period of the initiative comes to an end at the end of the financial year. If none of the parties to the agreement gives notice, the agreement allows for the current funding arrangements to continue. An early evaluation of the initiative is under way, at the request of those involved, and talks are also taking place about what support might be offered to the craft industry in the next financial year.
      The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside foolishly accused the Welsh Office of not having a strategy. Who does he think is behind the board? It is not for us to second-guess it, but its policy is clear, as the hon. Member for Torfaen said. The objective of our policy for mid-Wales is to create a thriving, self-sustained, market-based rural economy. We have witnessed a major improvement in the climate allowing private enterprise to flourish. The development board's policies complement the work of the private sector.
      The development board can be viewed as a facilitator acting in a catalytic role for manufacturing industry and helping to create jobs, reduce unemployment, encourage growth, improve the balance in population and achieve higher income. Its key objective is directed towards the expansion and diversification of the economy of mid-Wales. Its focus is on encouraging and strengthening the private sector within its area. I was delighted to hear

      1057
      the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) that we should privatise as much as possible of the board's activities.
      Our policy has helped to create an environment in which young people can find new jobs in manufacturing industry, in tourism and in the service industry, providing a much greater diversity of employment opportunities. Achievements in this help towards the creation of a much-improved quality of life for local people as well as attracting inward investment. All this helps to create a new confidence in the region.
      To those who have pressed me for an extension of the board's work, I can only say that it has a full agenda already. It has wide-ranging specific powers on property development, business advisory services and the provision of finance for social and economic purposes. Its specific aims are to develop a flourishing enterprise culture within mid-Wales.
      Mr. Win Griffiths: What consideration has the Department given to the activities of the board against the background of what is now admitted to be a recession in the coming year? What estimates has the Minister made of the rates of employment and unemployment in the area covered by the board?
      Sir Wyn Roberts: I am coming to that.
      The second aim of the board is to assist the private sector in building better businesses and creating the jobs necessary to sustain and diversify the base of local economies.
      The third aim is to provide for the people of mid-Wales, with their unique social and cultural heritage, the
      1058
      opportunities to stay and prosper in mid-Wales. The fourth is to improve the quality of life in mid-Wales by improving the number and quality of social facilities and access to them.
      The board's operational objectives relate mainly to the creation of viable jobs and the retention of the region's young people by providing the kind of social and economic opportunities that they require. Job creation is inextricably linked with economic, social and demographic structural improvement.
      I was asked about the relationship of mid-Wales with the state of the economy. This and last night's Second Reading debate are about the only debates that I have heard for some time in which the unemployment figures were not mentioned once. There is a good reason for that. I am the first to mention the figures because the average rate of unemployment for October 1990 in the DBRW travel-to-work areas was 4·1 per cent. compared with the Welsh average of 6·7 per cent. That is a clear sign of the success of the DBRW, which has been acknowledged on both sides of the House.
      The debate has been wide-ranging because it has represented an effort on the part of the Opposition to extend the debate beyond the remit of the development board. The new financial limit proposed under the Bill will provide the board with the headroom it needs to pursue the tasks that I have specified, not only now but in the years ahead. There is no question but that it has been a success and that it will be a success in the future.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Bill reported, without amendment.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Import and Export Control Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
6.40 pm
The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is short and technical; my speech will be short but I hope not too technical.
The Bill repeals section 9(3) of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. That subsection provides that the Act will expire when an Order in Council is made declaring that the emergency that was the occasion of the Act's passing is at an end. By repealing the subsection, the effect of clause 1 is to make the 1939 Act permanent. I do not think, in the circumstances, that I need dwell on the purpose of clause 2.
The 1939 Act is the last major piece of the emergency legislation introduced at the beginning of the second world war which remains in use, although, perhaps not surprisingly, it is not the only one remaining on the statute book. While preparing this Bill, we have initiated a review of other emergency legislation with analogous provisions to section 9(3), notably the Compensation (Defence) Act 1939 and the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Act 1939 and the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Act 1942. Whilst the review is not yet complete, we have reached the preliminary conclusion that the powers provided by these Acts are no longer necessary.
The Import Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 gives powers to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make orders prohibiting or regulating the import or export of goods to or from the United Kingdom, and enabling licences to import and export goods to be granted. It also provides for the forfeiture of goods imported or exported contrary to an order.
The power to control imports and exports has been, and remains, essential to implement a wide range of important Government policies. The powers to control exports have for many years been used to restrict trade for strategic reasons—for example, with the Warsaw pact countries and the People's Republic of China. The continuing need for such powers, even in a more peaceful world, is only too obvious. Other examples of the use of the powers are to implement international treaty obligations, such as the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and to give effect to our other non-proliferation policies aimed at preventing countries from developing a chemical, biological, missile or nuclear capability; to prevent certain exports which could be prejudicial to national security, such as encryption equipment; and to prevent the export of goods likely to be used for terrorist purposes or for internal repression.
The powers of the Act are used to prevent exports of antiques and other items which are considered to be an important part of the national heritage. We also use the powers of the Act to implement the voluntary restraint agreement on steel exports.
The powers to control imports are equally important in relation to safeguarding public security, such as firearms, and to support foreign policy objectives, although they are used mainly to enforce internationally agreed trade protection measures, including restrictions on imports of textile and clothing products within the framework of the multi-fibre arrangement. The Act is also used to regulate the import of bananas, although, contrary to some
1060
popular opinions, that is not to help the Government to avoid banana skins but to help protect our traditional suppliers in the Commonwealth Caribbean.
The powers in the Act to control exports are implemented by the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, which specifies the goods the export of which requires a licence from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is for exporters to determine in the first place whether a particular product needs an export licence. In the event that advice is required, my Department stands ready to assist. Licence applications are submitted to the export control organisation within the DTI. To minimise the burden of export controls on exporters, a number of open general and open individual export licences have been introduced covering many industrial dual-use goods. Those remove the need to seek prior authorisation from the DTI before making a shipment.
Imports are controlled under the Import of Goods (Control) Order 1954, also made under the 1939 Act, which prohibits the import of all goods. Since there is no reason to restrict the entry of most goods, an open general import licence has been introduced which permits goods to be imported without the need to apply for an individual licence, with the exception of those goods specified in a detailed schedule. Goods in that schedule can be imported only under the authority of an individual import licence, for which importers apply to my Department's import licensing branch.
The powers have been used regularly by every Government since the war. Nearly 200 orders or amendments to orders have been made since the end of the war, averaging more than four each year. That is a clear indication of the continuing need on the part of successive Governments for powers which enable new items to be brought under control when that is judged necessary in response to a perceived threat or technological change.
Equally, controls which have become unnecessary can be removed. For example, the major relaxation in controls, introduced in the light of developments in eastern Europe, which was announced in July by COCOM partners, has been implemented under the powers of the 1939 Act. I hope that the present negotiations on a "core list" will lead to further relaxations in export controls early next year.
The powers are therefore tried and tested. Experience has shown that they work efficiently and effectively without placing unnecessary burdens on business. The 1939 Act enables us to react quickly and flexibly in response to each situation as it arises. The importance of the power has been highlighted by the present Gulf crisis.
I emphasise that the Bill is essentially a technical measure. It does not affect the exercise of powers under the Act, or the import and export licensing systems which have been established and which are familiar to importers and exporters. However, I am sure that the House will agree that it is no longer satisfactory to control imports and exports under powers derived from an Act which
"shall continue in force until such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council declare to be the date that the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of this Act came to an end"
We should now make the Act permament.
The Bill does not in practice change anything. The powers conferred by the Act have been operating

1061
satisfactorily for many years, and it is important that they continue to do so in the future. The Bill simply has the effect of putting them on a permanent legislative footing.
6.48 pm
Ms. Joyce Quin: I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation. The Opposition do not object to the Bill, as it makes sense in the light of events. In view of the reunification of Germany and the fact that the allied powers now have no role in Berlin, it is patently absurd to suggest that any part of the emergency circumstances of the second world war exist today. In any event, the Government have made clear statements to that effect, in answer to parliamentary questions and in documents, for example, in the Government's observations to the fourth report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in which they referred to the treaty on the final settlement. It says that the treaty settles
"between the parties…definitively matters arising out of the Second World War."
If the 1939 Act were unamended, we should be in the strange position where it would presumably be possible for exporters and companies to challenge the legal validity of any measures taken under the 1939 Act.
When I first looked at the Act and the proposed Bill, my first impressions were of alarm and surprise. My alarm stemmed from the fact that the 1939 Act is couched in the language of war. That was not surprising because it was clearing the way for the conditions of war and the trading embargos and restrictions that were going to operate during that period. I was alarmed at the wording of the Act, which still pertains today, and I was surprised that the Act should be the legal base for so much of the export and import control adopted by Governments of different political complexions since 1939. Therefore, our willingness to accept the Bill does not mean that we accept that the 1939 Act should be the basis of such controls for ever and ever. It might well be sensible for a future Government to introduce a modern Bill, not couched in the language of 1939, to allow, for whatever reason, necessary restrictions on exports and imports.
I am glad that the Minister gave us some details of the way in which the 1939 Act continues to operate and some reasons for existing export and import restrictions. Will the Minister confirm that, while he referred to political reasons, there may be other reasons, such as health reasons, for the control of exports and imports allowed by the Act?
How effective is our import and export legislation? Let us look at the so-called Iraqi supergun incident. I do not apologise for raising that matter now, because the Opposition have repeatedly asked the Department of Trade and Industry to make a statement in the light of the dropping of charges in the Iraqi supergun affair. Following that affair, we are concerned about the effectiveness of our export and import controls.
When the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was first asked about the so-called Iraqi supergun, he said that it was not possible to reveal the full details because of the possibility of criminal proceedings being instigated. Now that charges have been dropped, we feel that we have a right to certain answers and are still perturbed that there seems to have been a failing within the Department of Trade and Industry to appreciate the
1062
warnings given to it by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and others about the export of that equipment to Iraq. Why was nothing done to act on the information, which has been available since July 1988, on the specifications and contracts surrounding the order, the detailed information on changes made to the order and the knowledge that existed about the involvement of the Space Research Corporation of Dr. Gerald Bull?
Will the Department state what has happened to the equipment already sent to Iraq? Are the reports that some of the equipment is involved in test firing accurate? What is the military assessment of its potential uses?
An alarming report in The Independent stated:
"Somewhere in Iraq, the 90ft long barrels of three British-built guns may be trained on allied forces 750 kilometres away in Saudi Arabia."
That is a matter of grave concern to all hon. Members.
Why did the Government fail to uphold the arms embargo against Iraq? We want full information about other possible breaches of the embargo. Companies need to know where they stand on export and import restrictions. One company involved was apparently told, in a telephone conversation with the Department of Trade and Industry, that it did not need a licence, but the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), subsequently said at Question Time that the company should have applied for an export licence. That effectively changed the nature of the application system and put a different onus on the companies involved. If companies are to be held responsible for every possible end use of equipment or products, they need a great deal more assistance and effective response from the Department of Trade and Industry than was evident in that case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said.
Considerable concern was expressed on both sides of the House when statements were made by Ministers in March and April this year on the Iraqi supergun affair. Many of the questions asked then are still unanswered. Surely it is time for the Government to come completely clean on that issue. It is simply not good enough for the Department to say that any statement made on the judgment made to drop charges should be made by Customs and Excise—a full statement to the House of Commons by the Department of Trade and Industry is necessary.
The Opposition do not object to the Bill which, as the Minister said, is a technical measure and a necessary amendment to the 1939 Act if that Act is to accord with reality. But we urge the Government to improve their export-import procedures. In the long term—if the Government have a long-term future, which I doubt—will other legal vehicles be brought forward to achieve the control of exports and imports which are more appropriate than the obviously dated 1939 Act?
6.57 pm
Mr. Sainsbury: With the leave of the House, I shall reply. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has expressed her support for the Bill, for which I am grateful. I note what she said about the long term—she used the expression "for ever and ever." I certainly would not suggest that the 1939 Act should remain the basis of legislation for ever and ever, but it is a matter for later consideration whether it would be appropriate to change it. In practice, very few people have occasion to look at the

1063
original Act and would look at the orders, with which the hon. Lady is familiar and which are set out in more modern language, not in terms of dealing with the enemy.
With regard to the Iraqi supergun, as I hoped I made clear in my introductory remarks, it is for those seeking to export items to satisfy themselves whether a licence is required. The mechanism for controlling the export of military equipment and components from this country is the licensing regime administered by my Department, under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, made under the 1939 Act. It is for exporters to take reasonable steps to find out what they are making and disclose all relevant facts when asking about the need for a licence. A licence would have been needed to export components for a long-range gun to any destination, and would not have been granted for export to Iraq. In 1988 exchanges took place between Government Departments and industry in which advice was sought about the need for licences in relation to certain tubes. No basis was found for advising the companies that the tubes were subject to licence, and industry was accordingly informed that no export licences were required.
In the light of the Iraqi supergun case, the relevant Departments have reviewed their procedures. The hon. Lady asked about the effectiveness of those procedures. Some improvements have already been made and others will soon be made. The aim of the improvements is to remove any scope that may exist for misunderstanding between inquirers and Departments and ensure that all information available to the Government, which might be relevant to particular export proposals, is taken into account when deciding whether a licence is necessary and, if so, whether it should be granted. I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured by what I have said.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]
Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Weapons
7 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10074/89 and 8836/90, relating to controls on the acquisition and possession of weapons; and endorses the Government's view that any Directive must preserve the right of Member States to make those checks that are necessary for public security and public safety and that any additional burden on business should be kept to a minimum.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this important draft directive on the Floor of the House. The Commission has proposed the directive as part of the plan to complete the single market. This proposal, advanced in November 1989, was revised in October this year to incorporate those amendments suggested by the European Parliament which the Commission had decided to accept. It is the October 1990 text, document No. 8836/90, on which recent negotiations in the Council have focused.
Firearms issues are nearly always controversial, but there is wide agreement on the two fundamental principles on which our domestic firearms legislation is based. First, and of paramount importance, is the need to ensure public safety. Second there is the need to safeguard the legitimate interests of those who use firearms in pursuit of their work or sport, subject always to the primary consideration of public safety. These two principles have guided our approach to this draft directive.
One of the directive's objectives is to increase security throughout the Community by the partial harmonisation of member states' firearms law. The directive sets a minimum standard of firearms control, to which all member states must adhere. This is intended to improve the safety of the Community's citizens. The admittedly modest degree of levelling up involved in this directive is something to which the Government can give wholehearted support.
Under the directive, in article 3, member states are left free to adopt more stringent controls in their domestic legislation. So there is no levelling down in domestic law, and it is important to keep that in mind when looking at the proposal. It guarantees that those standards of control which we consider necessary to protect public safety are unaffected.
The House may agree with me when I say that this has proved a complex and difficult text to understand, but the main aim of the directive is simple: it is to put in place sufficient compensatory measures to enable member states to abstain from controls on the possession of weapons at internal borders after 1992.
Underpinning these compensatory measures is the principle stated explicitly in the directive that the movement of firearms across Community borders is forbidden unless the rules of the directive are met. Perhaps the most important of these rules is that weapons prohibited under domestic legislation by a member state may not be brought into the territory of that member state. So, for example, the prohibition of some categories of weapons introduced by the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 is unaffected by the directive.
The primary compensatory measure proposed in the directive is the notification and information exchange system—in articles 11 and 13—which requires that member states are notified of every permanent transfer of

1065
firearms to their territory. Under article 11.4, member states can insist that the transfer may not take place without their prior consent. The result for firearms dealers in this country would be a system similar to that currently operated whereby dealers, duly authorised under the Firearms Acts passed between 1968 and 1988, may receive an open general import licence which places no restriction on the quality of firearms imported.
For travel with personal firearms within the Community, the directive introduces a European firearms pass—article 1.4. But in general the pass will not itself convey authorisation to travel with firearms. The pass holder will still have to obtain prior authorisation from the member state to be visited—article 12.1.
However, there is an important exception to the status of the European firearms pass in relation to sportsmen and marksmen. Under article 12.2, sportsmen and women would be able to take their personal firearms freely to other member states on the basis of a European firearms pass without prior authorisation from the member state to be visited. This provision causes us particular concern, as it conflicts with our domestic controls on visitors.
The British visitor's permit scheme, set up under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, allows overseas visitors to come and shoot here with the minimum of fuss and bother. But—and this is the fundamental point—the scheme requires visitors to obtain our prior authorisation for their visit.
Our concerns on this issue have been made clear both in official working group discussions and in the Council of Ministers. It has been gratifying that there has been a sympathetic response from our European partners, who have recognised the difficulty that this provision presents for the United Kingdom. The likelihood is that we shall be able to secure either an amendment to article 12.2 on the lines proposed by the European Parliament or a waiver from its provisions. In either case this would allow us to continue to operate the British visitor's permit scheme.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: What is meant by the abolition of controls on weapons at international frontiers? We are grateful for what the Minister said about traders having to register and about new passes and licences, but if these controls are abolished, will that mean that people are not searched? Which controls will be abolished?
Mr. Lloyd: The directive means that at an internal frontier there will be no regular system of inspection for weapons. We retain the right to make searches and checks as we believe them necessary for our national security. I refer my hon. Friend to article 36 of the treaty, with which he will be familiar, as the basis on which we may retain that right. If the directive is adopted there will be no regular inspection of everyone coming in from the Community, but we retain the right to make such checks as we think necessary to maintain our security.
Mr. James Hill: Will my hon. Friend confirm that a customs officer will still present to a passenger arriving in this country a list which will state clearly that firearms are not allowed and must be declared?
Mr. Lloyd: A Community traveller crossing an internal boundary will require prior permission and certification,
1066
but it will be perfectly legitimate for him to bring firearms across the border. It will not be legitimate for him to do so without the permit and authorisation. If the directive comes into force, we shall no longer inspect everyone or regard firearms as goods that may not be imported. Anyone crossing the border with a gun, however—or already in the country—is legally required to have the appropriate permit; and, if any agent of Government believes that a weapon is being carried and that the appropriate permission has not been granted, or is not in the individual's possession, he will of course take appropriate action, as he would have done in the past.
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I think that we are making rather heavy weather of this. The fact remains that anyone wishing to import a firearm, whether permanently or temporarily, requires special documentation under the 1988 Act. There is no question of this directive's overriding that Act. That should allay the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—and I think that I am right in saying that any of our own legislation that is more stringent than the directive will apply.
Mr. Lloyd: Yes: our provisions relating to what can legitimately be possessed in this country will still apply, and it will not be legal to bring in a firearm from another Community country without documented permission.
Mr. Hill: This strikes me as exactly the same old system. It has not been improved at all.
Mr. Wiggin: What about the 1988 Act?
Mr. Hill: Will my hon. Friend kindly not interrupt? I am trying to put my argument together. After all, Southampton—part of which I represent—is a very important port, employing many customs officers who do a tremendous amount of work. I am trying to establish that their vigilance will not be diminished by the availability of a certificate. What about the people who have no certificate, and do not declare what they bring in? I hope that the customs officers will not shelter behind a European directive which may make them think that everything is under control.
Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that our customs officers will want to shelter behind anything. The law—the rules—will provide that no obligation will be placed on someone coming into this country to declare a firearm if that person has the correct permit. Of course, customs officers, police and all agents of Government will have a duty to take the appropriate action if they suspect that a weapon is being brought in without the correct authorisation.
Mr. Michael Colvin: Am Ito take it that a visiting sportsman with a rifle entering the port of Southampton, which is near my constituency, with a firearms certificate from the Community country of which he was a national—if that was required by that nation—and a European pass enabling him to travel round Europe with his gun would still have to have a visitor's permit? Will he really need three separate documents?
Mr. Lloyd: He may have all three documents, but what we insist on is the British visitor's permit: that is already the case.
Mr. Hill: What about the visiting terrorist?
Mr. Lloyd: The trouble with visiting terrorists who bring in weapons is that they do not declare them to customs officers, even at present.
As currently formulated, the directive suggests that member states must abstain from all checks on the possession of weapons at intra-Community frontiers : that is in article 15, and is what we have been discussing. We accept that other measures in the directive, which I have outlined—the ability to maintain prohibitions, the requirement for notification or prior authority and the information exchange system—provide sufficient safeguards to enable us to refrain from systematic checks on the possession of weapons at internal borders. We believe, however—as I told my hon. Friends a few moments ago—that we must retain the right to make checks that we consider necessary to safeguard public safety and security. We hold strongly to the validity of the general declaration annexed to the Single European Act, which states:
"Nothing in the provisions of the Act shall affect the right of Member States to take such measures as they consider necessary for the purpose of combating terrorism, crime and the traffic in drugs."
We shall continue to press for recognition that the rights affirmed by that general declaration, and by article 36 of the treaty of Rome—to which I referred earlier—remain unaffected by this directive. The United Kingdom is not alone in this approach, but has the support of some other member states.
We are, of course, concerned that any new requirements on business should be kept to the minimum consistent with providing for public safety. Careful consideration has been given to the implications of the directive for firearms dealers. We have had useful discussions with representatives of the trade; they asked for some minor but important alterations to the timing of the notifications on transfers of firearms which they would be required to provide under articles 11 and 13. Following concerns expressed by ourselves and other member states, the necessary changes have now been agreed. Given those modifications, the trade's view is that the directive will impose no new burden on their business.
I now propose to say a few words about some of the important definitions and technical details of the proposals, and how they affect our own domestic controls. I know that the definitional problems, which always arise in connection with firearms legislation, caused widespread concern in the shooting community when the directive was first published. Further concern was caused by some of the amendments proposed by the European Parliament. We have been glad to take full account of the views expressed by the representatives of the British Shooting Sports Council, which is co-ordinating the response of the sporting interests in the shooting community. Their concern, and ours, has been to obtain some major improvements to the original text. I am glad to say that, thanks to the vigorous and expert input from the United Kingdom and other member states, a number of improvements to the classifications and definitions of firearms have been achieved.
For example, in the category of prohibited firearms, the imprecise term
"firearms usually used as military weapons"
is to be replaced by "automatic firearms". Hollow and soft-point ammunition, which is widely used for hunting and target shooting, is not to be prohibited as originally
1068
proposed but will be available to those with the appropriate authorisation. That is in line with our current domestic controls on such ammunition.
Following the firm expression of views by us and by other member states, it is now expected that the proposed minimum age limit of 18 for the possession of certain firearms will not apply to sportsmen and target shooters: that will allow youngsters to continue to participate in shooting sports, and will leave our domestic controls unchanged.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend add to that a clear statement that no further restrictions will be placed on disabled persons who wish to take part in shooting activities?
Mr. Lloyd: I was coming to that. My hon. Friend is right to raise the point, and we too have been concerned about it.
Similarly, the mental and physical capacity requirements proposed for possession of firearms, which may have been seen as discriminatory—indeed, I think that many of us thought them so—are expected to be dropped as they relate to many people who play an active part in shooting.
Sir Hector Monro: It is terribly worrying for hon. Members who have prepared for the debate by reading all the necessary papers to find that all the measures that we have come here to complain about have been overturned. What, in fact, are we discussing?
Mr. Lloyd: I hoped that my hon. Friend might be pleased that we had made some progress since the last formal document was issued. Some of my hon. Friends may wish to make additional points; if my hon. Friend was indeed hoping for the change that I have announced, I can only say that I am sorry that he has been deprived of the opportunity to make a convincing speech, or, at least, found it unnecessary. I nevertheless hope that he will be gratified that the endeavours that he intended to make have already borne fruit.
Mr. Stuart Randall: I am annoyed that we have before us a document dated 3 October 1990. It is called a consultative document. I assume that it is the current document. It says explicitly:
"Without prejudice to Article 3, Member States shall allow the acquisition and possession of firearms classified in category B"—
which is what we are talking about—
"only by persons who have good cause and who…are 18 years old or more".
It is infuriating that we are debating out-of-date documents. That is not the way to run Parliament. I want an explanation from the Minister.
Mr. Lloyd: Discussions are held continuously. When I know that progress has been made, I report to the House at the first opportunity. I am sorry that the document represents the position as it was some time ago. I understand the hon. Gentleman's irritation if he wished to make a speech about changes that he wanted to be made but that have already been made.
Mr. Randall: The Minister's explanation is not good enough. There is no excuse why the House should be debating a document in respect of which a change has been made, about which the Minister has notice but not the House. That is unacceptable. We ought to have had an

1069
explanation. It could have been given by letter. There are all sorts of ways in which it could have been explained. It is unacceptable that we should have out-of-date documents on policy matters that are important to both sides of the House.
Mr. Lloyd: I understand the hon. Gentleman's ire. We are debating the latest text that has been provided by the Commission. There has been agreement on certain matters, about which I hope the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied. They have not been written up but I am taking the first opportunity that I have to let him know about them. Our obligation is to discuss texts provided by the Commission. The fact that I am able to add to that should be helpful to hon. Members. It is better for me to do that rather than to conceal that there has been further agreement.
Mr. Randall: I accept that the Commission publishes documents at various times. However, the Home Office also publishes documents on European matters. It provides explanatory memoranda. There is no control whatsoever over the Home Office when it comes to publishing explanatory memoranda. Something could have been produced in time for the debate. Although changes have taken place, there is a mechanism that would have allowed that to happen. It has not happened. The Minister and the Home Office have let down the House. I do not see how we can continue the debate, since we are not sure what other changes have been made. It makes the quality of the debate dubious, to say the least.
Mr. Lloyd: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand his exasperation. We are debating a text published by the Commission with which we were not satisfied. I regret, in a way, that we were successful in further negotiations sufficiently early for me to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman verbally here, without having been able to provide that information in writing and without the Commission having been able to provide a new text.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I dare say that there have been developments since the Home Office document of 25 October which was published by the Minister. Naturally, we are interested in those developments. However, we are debating documents that have been published. The status of the assurances from the Minister is by no means clear. He says that agreements have been reached. Agreements with whom—with all the member states, or with the Commission? What reliance can hon. Members place upon such assurances if we do not know the nature of the agreements that are alleged to have been made? The Minister seems to be trying to pre-empt the discussion by bouncing the House in a wholly unacceptable way.
Mr. Lloyd: The House cannot be bounced at this point. It is making no decision other than to adopt the Government's general stance in the negotiations. The fact that I was able to say that it looks as though on some points we have been more successful in the negotiations than we were when the document was published in no way bounces the House. In fact, it ought to bring some cheer to hon. Members.
Mr. Wiggin: I very much welcome the Minister's announcement. In many respects it deals with our worries. However, having gone to great trouble to change an important international engagement in order to be here tonight, I have to complain to the Minister that the debate need not have been held in its present form. The major points have been dealt with, but there may still be need for further debate. To conduct the debate on the basis of the document that is before us is no longer sensible. I thank my hon. Friend for the negotiations that he has carried out and I congratulate him on his success, but may I suggest that we ought to adjourn the debate and return to it later, if there are outstanding points still to be considered?
Mr. Lloyd: I hear what my hon. Friend says, but the motion before the House is to approve the Government's negotiating stance.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked about the status of the improvements. Agreements are reached in the Council's official working group. They have the general approval of the representatives of the other member states.
I understand the irritation of hon. Members, because we have been more successful, and more quickly successful, than some of us might have hoped. I shall reflect upon the machinery that is available to make sure that the very latest position is communicated to hon. Members before a debate is held. When, however, negotiations are taking place not just at regular and predictable intervals but all the time, there is a problem. I shall reflect upon how the House ought to be informed of these matters, but it is not primarily a Home Office matter. It is for the appropriate Committees of the House to consider the machinery whereby European directives and documents can be debated by hon. Members.
Mr. James Wallace: We are not just being asked to endorse the Government's stance; the motion also asks the House to take note of documents that patently are out of date. I understood the Minister to say that the provisions relating to disabled people are expected to be dropped. "Expected to be dropped" is somewhat different from saying that already there is an agreement. That highlights our problem. We are not sure what parts have been agreed, what parts might be agreed and what likelihood there is that they will be agreed. Will the Minister explain what he means by "expected to be dropped" and whether that differs from an agreement?
Mr. Lloyd: That was the tenor of the agreements in the working group. We believe that the wording will be changed in a wholly satisfactory way. The motion before the House is to approve the Government's negotiating stance; it is not that the House should approve any particular wording. What is useful about the debate, which has not been welcomed as much as I hoped that it would be, is that I have been able to inform the House about agreements that have been reached in the working group. Moreover, it enables me to take on board—because the discussions are continuing—any other points that hon. Members wish to impress upon the Government, since we believe that they ought to form part of our negotiating stance.
Mr. Randall: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like your advice. If we divide the House, will we be voting on the EC document before us or on the

1071
Government's negotiating stance which has been presented orally by the Minister? It is crucial to know that because the motion before the House is a take-note motion and it refers to a document. If we vote on the motion, we have to accept that the words of the EC document are extant on the technicalities. The Minister has just said that if we were to vote we would be voting on the Government's stance in the negotiations that have taken place since the publication of the documents as well as the Home Office internal memorandum.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I can help the House. We are debating the motion on the Order Paper. There are two key points in the motion. It says that we should, first, take note of certain European documents and, secondly, endorse the Government's view as expressed in the motion. Therefore, were there to be a Division, we would be voting on the motion with those two aspects in mind.
Mr. Frank Haynes rose—
Mr. Lloyd: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Haynes: I should think that the Minister would give way. That is what we are here for. We are here to discuss the document. I am sick of being kicked around by the Government, and that is what is happening. The Minister is ducking about all over the place. He does not know where he is and nor do we. I had a document dated 2 October. That is what is on the Table.
I do not accept what the Minister has said. He is bringing a verbal report to the House which is not satisfactory. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) is right in saying that we should have had a report from the Home Office so that we can consider the matter properly. I have had a going over about these proposals by my constituents in Ashfield. I am here representing the people who have given me a going over and I am not satisfied with the Minister's explanation.
I agree with the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) that we should adjourn the debate until we have all the information necessary to discuss the matter properly. As I have said, I am sick to death of being kicked around by the Government. They think that they can do what they like because of their large majority, but I am afraid that they cannot. We are all here because we are not satisfied with the way things are going.
Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman is protesting far too much. Nobody would dream of kicking him around. I always find it illuminating to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but that was one of his less illuminating interventions. If he has points to make on behalf of his constituents, he is welcome to make them if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Haynes: Do your job properly.
Mr. Lloyd: We have done our job so well that I am able to tell the House that we have achieved in negotiations some of the things that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) and other hon. Members would be pressing us to achieve in the next few weeks. The hon. Member for Ashfield is sad because the Government have already done some of the things that he was going to ask us to do.
In case the hon. Member for Ashfield did not notice, the document before the House is the latest text provided by the Commission, and it is our duty to bring it before the
1072
House. When I came to the debate I was pleased to bring some good news. Perhaps on future occasions I should suppress such news. However, that would be unfair and unreasonable and I would do no such thing.
I want to touch on two other matters. The first I mention for clarification and the second for its legal significance. The House will have noted that, although the scope of this directive extends not only to firearms but also to weapons such as knives and crossbows, the compensatory measures proposed relate only to firearms. In effect, the domestic law on such weapons is left unchanged by this directive.
Lastly, I draw the House's attention to the question of the legal base of article 100A proposed by the Commission for the directive. We doubt whether that is appropriate, since it seems to us that one of the main aims of the directive is to facilitate the freedom of movement of persons carrying firearms as personal baggage. In our view, article 100 or article 235 may be more appropriate for the legal base. We have put our views to the Council Legal Services which is still considering the matter. Its formal opinion is expected to be delivered shortly. We will need to look carefully at what it says before we can reach a final conclusion on the matter. We shall continue to work constructively within the Council to reach a directive which maintains public safety and which is workable and legally acceptable.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is it the case that, unless the Council agrees unanimously to the Government's point that it should not be article 100A, nothing can happen? If the Council does not agree with the Government's point of view, what can they do about it?
Mr. Lloyd: We could determine whether we believed that the base chosen would not stand up in law and whether the European Court would direct that it was wrong. Before we did that, we would have to consider carefully all the arguments and whether we were likely to win them. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is very knowledgeable about these matters. We have said that we believe that the Commission has proposed the wrong case. We are seeking to persuade the Commission and our colleagues in the EC that it should be article 100 or article 235. The Commission is due to provide us with a formal response to our arguments, but we have not had that yet. When we receive it, we can consider more sensibly and effectively what course is open to us, unless, of course, the Commission agrees with us.
Mr. Taylor: I want to clarify this point because none of us knows the answer. If, despite the Minister's splendid points, the Commission says, "We are sorry but we think that it should be article 100A", does its view stand unless there is unanimous disagreement? My understanding is that that is so. There must be a unanimous rejection of the Commission's view and if, for example, Portugal or Greece thinks that it should be article 100A, that is it.
Mr. Lloyd: Luckily, I can tell my hon. Friend that the answer is yes. Unanimity is required to change the legal base.
Mr. Wiggin: The Home Office memorandum says clearly that the Council shall act by a qualified majority. Therefore, there is a difference of opinion.
Mr. Lloyd: On the legal base proposed by the Commission, the operation will be by qualified majority. Under the articles we are suggesting—article 100 or article 235—it will be by unanimous agreement. I was answering my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East about how the base is determined. His fear was correct. As I said earlier, it is theoretically possible for us to challenge that on legal grounds and that would be a matter for the European Court. I would not like to hold out too much hope that that would be an avenue that we would think it wise to go down. If we did, I do not know whether it would be successful. However, it is a possibility.
I have taken more time than I intended in bringing good news to the House, so I will now commend the motion. I will listen carefully to any changes, strengthening or alterations that right hon. and hon. Members propose, because discussions on the directive continue.
7.39 pm
Mr. Stuart Randall: The House has discussed the status of the document before us, and I want to add one further comment about that before beginning the main part of my speech. As the officials in Brussels have already reached agreement on allowing young people aged 14 and above to use firearms, why was there not sufficient time to produce an additional explanatory memorandum to explain that?
Mr. Colvin: Is the age limit really being lowered to only 14? I thought that it was to be lowered to 17 years of age. Perhaps I misheard my hon. Friend the Minister.
Mr. Randall: I shall deal with that point in detail later. However, there is concern that children of 14 who, under current British Law, and under proper supervision, can fire pistols or rifles will not be able to do so under the directive.
The purpose of the measure is to harmonise the acquisition and possession of weapons within the European Community as part of the progress towards a single unified market. However, it will provide only partial harmonisation, because each member state can operate independent firearms legislation, provided that it meets certain minimum standards. In practice, the directive will mean that arms traders, sportsmen and others, will be able to move freely within member states with their own firearms provided that certain limited conditions are met.
I support the development of the so-called single European market, because I believe that Britain's future is firmly linked to the EEC's development. I want to see the Community thrive, for the sake of not only the people of Britain but the people of the other member states.
Despite the need for degrees of harmonisation, we must remember that the commodity covered by this directive is not wine, cheese, or computer technology but firearms, which deserve special consideration, given that public safety is at stake.
The Commission must not full steam ahead in such a way that it could prejudice public safety. If that happened, such innovations by the Commission and the Council of Ministers would be strongly resented by the British public. There is a balance to be struck between harmonisation as part of developing the single market and protecting public safety. Where there is any doubt, public safety must always receive top priority.
The thrust of the directive seems reasonable in attempting to make it easier for responsible sportsmen and
1074
those who trade in shotguns and other weapons to travel with their firearms within the EEC. However, to achieve that objective, the Commission is proposing the abolition of internal border checks. At the same time, it is proposing weak compensatory measures. The net effect will be an unacceptable threat to public safety.
There is at issue a broader question than trade, and it is one for which the EEC is not responsible. I refer to national security. The removal of border checks between the United Kingdom and other member states could be regarded as a charter for terrorism. With the help of a few forged documents, members of all kinds of terrorist organisations would be able to move freely within the EEC with various weapons, to plant bombs, and to cause havoc. It is vital that internal border checks remain, especially for Britain, because of the problems that we have with the IRA. Accordingly, the availability of good intelligence and a policy of targeted checks at internal as well as external borders are crucial ingredients in combating terrorism.
Mr. Wiggin: The legitimate owner of firearms has always made the argument that, while legislation, documents rules and controls are made to apply to honest, straightforward people, the terrorist will never obey any law—however comprehensive it may be.
Mr. Randall: That point is central in my thoughts. The Commission is directing its attention to the legitimate users of firearms to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, but in removing internal border controls, it will also allow terrorist threats to emerge. I am not privy to internal Government security policy, and rightly so, but, as that aspect is part of the directive, it must be raised. I shall refer later to sportsmen, targeters, and others. My point is that Britain's national security is not within the competence of the EEC, and once border checks are done away with, threats would emerge.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman that the directive will create additional security problems and greater dangers for the British public. What does Labour think we should do about that? This measure will probably be passed by a majority vote next week and, whether we like it or not, will become the law of the land. I should love to know what the Opposition think we should do about that. It is a genuine question.
Mr. Randall: The hon. Gentleman is pre-empting my speech, but he asked a reasonable question. The measure is totally flawed and concerns a matter that is outside the competence of the Commission. Certain national considerations are beyond the scope of the document, so I am inclined to vote against it.
Any measure that will help sportsmen and other genuine members of the public to move around Europe with their firearms more easily is entirely laudable and acceptable, provided that it does not imperil public safety. We can let the Commission know in the strongest possible terms that we oppose the basic structure of this document by voting against it—that is all the power we have as parliamentarians. That is why we will suggest that there should be a Division.
These are security matters. It is necessary to have intelligence and targeted checks at borders. There will be immense problems in Britain because of the number of people who will go through the channel tunnel, but we must also be vigilant in dealing with terrorism.

1075
In proposing the abolition of internal border checks, the directive advocates the introduction of several compensatory measures. The first is to toughen external border checks. On its own, that seems a reasonable proposal. However, as Britain is on the periphery of the EEC and forms part of the external border, and as we have special problems with the IRA compared with other member states, it is exceedingly unlikely that the proposal in the directive to strengthen external border checks will result in much change—certainly not along the external border of Britain—because our authorities will almost certainly have taken the necessary steps to combat terrorism in that way. The directive's proposal will not add anything in particular. Anything that helps to restrict terrorists' ability to import weapons to the EEC via other external borders is clearly welcome.
A second compensatory measure is the proposal that firearms legislation throughout the Community should meet certain minimum standards. Ours goes well beyond what I would envisage to be the minimum standard. If certain member states wish for their own reasons to have firearms legislation that goes beyond those minimum standards, it is a matter for those member states to decide. In practice, this means that there will be disparities between various member states, in terms of not only legislation but the border controls that the firearms legislation determines. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 resulted in the British visitor's permit, which allowed personal firearms to be checked at borders for compliance with the scheme. It should be noted that removal of the controls would result in the British visitor's permit scheme becoming inoperable. It seems, from what the Minister said in response to an intervention by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), that the opportunity for spot checks will disappear. Those powers which exist at the moment to carry out such spot checks will cease to exist because of the directive.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I said that the Customs controls that exist at present will cease under this directive, but a central part of our stance in the negotiations is opposition to controls for internal borders—certainly ours. We want targeted checks based on intelligence, and I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees. They will remain essential They are the means by which firearms brought in illegally are found now. We intend to maintain the use of intelligence and checks as our security dictates, although the directive would mean that blanket checks at a normal, old-fashioned international border may not be maintained between Community countries.
Mr. Randall: These are matters of security and I am not an expert on them. I should have thought that, the greater the belt-and-braces approach in security matters, the better. We have seen many examples of the way in which IRA arms stores have been found purely by chance and by spot checks. I should regret any weakening of those powers.
A third compensatory measure proposed in the directive for the removal of internal border checks is the establishment of an information system, the purpose of which is to provide data for member states describing which firearms have crossed their internal borders and entered their countries. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House—I am confused about this—whether the Commission proposes that a centralised records system
1076
should be set up for the whole of the EEC. Will he tell the House exactly what the functions of the system will be? How will this system compensate for the loss of border controls? Who will control it? As we have centralised police forces, does it mean that every police authority in Britain will have to interact with this system?
If I understand the system properly, it is a bureaucratic nightmare. Instead of that nonsense, I would rather our police were on the streets dealing with crime. That is what this country needs. I should be grateful if the Minister would give detailed answers to those points, because I am sure that the House wants to know the details.
It is important to recognise that the problems of terrorism, particularly the IRA, extend to other member states, rather than being associated only with the United Kingdom. That can best be illustrated by an article in The Times dated 18 June 1990 and entitled "European police forces co-operate in fight against terrorism". It is about the co-operation between the Dutch and Belgian authorities in arresting a suspected IRA terrorist on 16 June 1990—the Donna Maguire affair. I shall quote a little of it because it is enlightening. The article states:
"Interior ministers across the European Community are fully aware that the latest IRA bombing and shooting campaign against British bases and army personnel in West Germany and the Netherlands represents the most serious terrorist threat on the Continent since the wave of anarchist class warfare in the 1970s…
The IRA challenge is in some ways greater. As customs and immigration checks in the European Community (EC) becomes more relaxed due to increased economic integration, Irish republican terrorists find it easier to move across borders.
Last April…the head of West German's Federal Police, warned that a single Europe would make his country an even more tempting target for the IRA and other terrorist groups. IRA units have exploited this openness, striking at British bases and personnel and escaping in minutes across a border…
In response, European police forces have increased their co-operation…European Community interior ministers…agreed to streamline the exchange of information on terrorist groups, including the establishment of a European Common Information System. This will involve setting up a data base."
It seems odd that, with so much going on, the Commission is attempting, through the draft directive, to relax border controls on people and firearms. It does not make much sense.
The directive is based on the Schengen agreement, which has resulted in the lifting of certain border restrictions between the Benelux countries and Germany. What may be desirable or necessary for some EC member states on border controls may not apply to us.
It is surprising that the Commission has produced a draft directive that does not seem to take into account the disparity in firearms legislation and border controls between member states. The genuine concern of member states about their national security should have been taken into account in earlier drafts of the directive. National security is not a negotiable matter, so I hope that the draft, which is badly flawed, will be amended to take vital matters into account before it finally goes to the Council of Ministers.
We debated the matter of age earlier. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the present feeling is in Brussels. I presume that the officials are negotiating those matters. Is there movement or is there likely to be movement on relaxing internal borders?
Why is the Commission suggesting that the directive be approved by majority voting rather than by unanimity?

1077
What derogation can the United Kingdom obtain on the ground of national security if majority voting is applied? Although those matters are complex and legal, I should be grateful if the Minister would give a detailed answer.
Paragraph 8 of the explanatory memorandum dated 25 October says:
"The Directive also introduces a European Firearms Pass…for EC nationals wishing to travel with firarms within the Community. In general the EFP does not in itself convey authorisation to enter another Member state with a firearm, but is intended to facilitate it".
The memorandum then lists the exceptions. What is the real purpose of the pass? Who will be the issuing authority? The Minister answered the question about the British visitor's permit. It seems that we shall run the two in parallel. Will the Minister confirm that? Will Britain take part?
We had a discussion about article 5 and there is still concern about it because it has not been finalised. The directive restricts the acquisition and possession of weapons to those who are 18 years of age or more. As we know, at present in the United Kingdom, 14-year-olds can shoot with pistols and rifles if they are supervised in doing that. I regretted very much that that restriction was in the directive. It showed a lack of contact by the European Commission in understanding what goes on in this country. I am sure that the Minister realises that, if the restriction were put into practice, the effect of so limiting young people would be disastrous for Britain's future Olympic hopes in shooting events. Young people would not be able to train in their sport and that would be a serious problem. Unless there were a serious threat to public safety, the Labour party would have strongly opposed that part of the directive tonight. However, I am delighted to hear from the Minister orally that there has been a change in that provision.
The Labour party also opposes parts of article 5 because they could impose restrictions on paraplegics. Unless there are good public safety reasons for those restrictions, we should reject them. It is important that people with physical disabilities are not unnecessarily discriminated against and that they are free to pursue sport in the way that they wish.
It is important to note that the safety record of sportsmen in Britain is one of the best in Europe and, indeed, the world. The Labour party, therefore, believes that firearms sportsmen should be free to pursue their interests without having petty and unnecessary regulations imposed on them, whether by the Commission, by the British Government or by the other institutions that are involved in firearms. However, that freedom must be based on the unstinting concern by sportsmen for public safety. If they have such a concern, they will always receive the full support of the British Labour party.
We are appalled by the quality of the document. It is flawed and it is not up to date. We will demonstrate our opposition to the way in which this business has been handled, and our support for young sportspeople and sportspeople in general by dividing the House on the directive.
8.5 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I only wish that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) had been speaking for the Opposition from the Front Bench during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988. I believe that there can be harmony in this matter. In the course of his introductory remarks, my hon. Friend the Minister said several times that firearms matters were troublesome. The last thing in the world that those of us who are fond of shooting want is to have troublesome relations with the Government. There is no need to have troublesome relations with the Government if—I repeat the principle that I enunciated earlier in an intervention—it is recognised that the law-abiding sportsman is not the person on whom the force of law should descend. He does not commit the crimes; he does not have the illegal weapons. At the time of the 1988 Act, we were carried away, quite illogically, by the Hungerford incident and I do not want to refight those battles.
I must tell the House that I have an interest in the matter as I have recently been elected chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council—a post which is, sadly, unpaid. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for acknowledging in his opening remarks that the council had given some professional expert advice on this highly technical matter to the Home Office. I can assure my hon. Friend that so long as I am chairman, the best possible relations will be established between that body and the Home Office in the hope that we can come to sensible solutions. I am sorry that we should always be considered to be a troublesome section of the community. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people get a great deal of innocent fun from shooting in all its forms. It is not right that there should be a conflict of interests between their hobby and our Government.
I was immediately concerned to find that the word "firearms" had been dropped from the heading of the directive and that the word "weapons" had been used. The word is used because weapons other than firearms are covered by the directive. One mission that the Government might care to pursue in Brussels is to differentiate between firearms and all the other offensive weapons in which I have no interest and which I appreciate the need to control.
We must examine the purpose of the directive. I see it as being to establish an internal market in which the free movement of goods and services is secured, to provide for harmonisation as far as possible in national laws of member states and to ensure that member states consent to or are aware of the import of weapons into their territories. Many people in continental countries can go shooting across a national border 50 miles down the road and those countries' attitudes are, of course, quite different from those pertaining in our island state. I suspect that the civil servant who drafted the directive is a continental gentleman living close to one of the national borders near Brussels.
In the view of the shooting organisations, the directive should be primarily concerned with the question of open frontiers rather than with attempts to impose further restrictions on legitimate pursuits merely because they involve the possession of firearms.
The progress of the directive has been long and convoluted, and it has been complicated by differing

1079
understandings of some of its technical details which have arisen from the different use of language as well as from the different languages used in the official papers. Such is the confusion surrounding the directive—this has been confirmed tonight—that even allegedly the most up-to-date edition is likely to have been superseded already. I welcome the Minister's remarks and I understand the dilemma. As a result of masterful negotiations, concessions have been obtained in Brussels and from the other Community states, but it has not been possible to reorganise the debate. The House is well attended, given the subject that we are debating. I should point out, too, that many of us have changed our engagements and come a long way to attend the debate, and organisations have gone to a lot of trouble to prepare for it. It might have been better to wait a few weeks until the matter was set in concrete so that the few questions that remained in dispute could have been debated. Instead, we may have to make some points that have, in part, been conceded.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here on Monday when the matter first came before the House. A couple of us tried to stop the directive being debated this week. We suggested to the Leader of the House that he should take it off and bring it back at a later stage because there was some argument about the Standing Orders and other matters. Perhaps it would be as well, even at this stage, to take the business off and bring it back at a more appropriate time. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is a typical Common Market cock-up?
Mr. Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman conducts his own permanent campaign on these matters and is most assiduous. But I am interested in the subject that we are debating tonight.
It now appears that, whatever its eventual form, the directive will place less emphasis than it should on the primary intention of moving towards the freer markets envisaged for 1992 and is unduly concerned with imposing grater restrictions on ordinary people, even though there is little—if any—evidence to suggest that it is not safe for them to possess or transport weapons. Some of the very people on whom the directive will have the most impact are individuals who have established their reputations as people of the greatest integrity and have achieved fame and honour for this country as its representatives, at international level, in a whole range of shooting disciplines.
Much of the concern of the shooting organisations is centred on the confusion which continues to reign in respect of technical errors and imprecise—at times even unintelligible—translation. One could go through the directive chapter and verse, nit-picking one's way through a confusion of ideals and intentions. A number of aspects have been identified as particularly significant. The Minister mentioned age, in respect of which a concession has been obtained, but I think that my hon. Friend should examine carefully the endless debates that we had during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act about the desirability of allowing properly supervised young people to shoot or to practise target drills at a much earlier age than 18. There is no reason why that should not be allowed; indeed, many of us in the House enjoyed those privileges in our early teens. There is no question of our
1080
having a disastrous record in this matter. Very few young people have been involved in firearms accidents. We must examine the facts before jumping to conclusions.
A restriction on the possession and use of semiautomatic weapons would have serious consequences for certain sports. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that a number of Olympic and world shooting disciplines involve the use of semi-automatic weapons.
I had the feeling that my hon. Friend the Minister had dealt with the question of military weapons, but simply to prohibit a weapon because it was once put to military use or considered to be of military calibre is a clumsy and heavy-handed way of dealing with a problem which, so far as I know, does not exist.
Some of the proposals in respect of trade appear to run counter to our supposed commitment towards open borders and would be guaranteed to cause confusion. Going beyond trade interests alone, any injudicious legislation runs two risks. The first is the risk of avoidance. The other is the risk of incurring a financial commitment in terms of compensation. Following the introduction of the 1988 Act, only 4,000 semi-automatic weapons were surrendered when the compensation scheme was introduced. At that time, the Government estimated that there were 20,000 such weapons in private possession. One can only guess at the whereabouts of the balance.
Hon. Members have mentioned the requirement for "mental and physical capability". That could lead directly to many disabled sportsmen being barred from following what is often regared as a therapeutic pursuit and would directly affect such events as the Paralympics.
The Government will need to keep in mind the effect that the proposals would have on income generated by visitors from places such as America and eastern Europe who come here specifically for the shooting. I am told that in Scotland alone the income from that source is estimated at £52 million a year.
Sir Hector Monro: It is more than that.
Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend says that it is more than that; it is certainly a very considerable sum and one would not wish to discourage such visitors.
Some of the European officials concerned seem to be intent on using the directive as an opportunity to deny individuals the right to possess weapons of any nature. I am happy to say that our Government repeatedly stated, during the passage of the Firearms (Amendment) Act, that that was not their intention and that they sought merely to ensure that weapons in private hands neither fell into criminal hands nor were used to harm the public at large. All the shooting organisations share that sentiment.
The shooting population in this country is already subject to some of the most stringent safeguards and is still absorbing and coming to terms with the effects of recent legislation. It does not believe that it would be helpful or pertinent if the side effect of a measure intended to achieve a reduction in border controls merely led to yet more restrictions, uncertainty and expense for legitimate shooters, especially as there is little evidence to suggest that they bear any direct responsibility for lawlessness, the illegal use or possession of weapons, or any activity against the interests of the state or the wider European Community. The shooting community would point out

1081
the contribution that shooting disciplines have made to greater harmony between the European states by way of international co-operation and friendly competition.
There are minor examples such as the possession of airgun pellets, although the Minister intimated that that point had been dealt with. The directive also requires the address of the holder to appear on a passport or identity card. There is no address on a British passport and I hope that we are not envisaging an identity card for firearms use.
I hope that the Minister will ensure that the British Shooting Sports Council's wisdom and enormous knowledge are used to the benefit of the nation and will acknowledge that our laws are already sufficiently severe without our allowing the nonsense in the directive to override them. I believe that the whole country is willing to co-operate with many of the directives which come from Brussels provided that they are sensible measures involving the harmonisation of trade and economics, but when they stray into social matters and matters of practice and habit—when, like this one, they represent sheer interference—we rather resent them. We hope that the Government will carry that message to Brussels forthwith.
8.18 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I begin by taking strong exception to the manner in which the debate has been initiated. Even without the Minister's speech and its revelations of developments of which the House had not been informed, I should have raised some questions about that. Certain matters should have been put before the House but we have not had the benefit of considering them.
In particular, I refer to the advice of the firearms consultative committee, to which the Home Office document refers but is not before us, and to the desirability of an update of the evidence of the police in this matter. From the Minister's document of 25 October it is apparent that he has received advice from the Association of Chief Police Officers, but the latest advice that I have been able to obtain is the copy of a letter that was sent to the Home Office in February which expressed great concern about the legislation. That letter, which is dated 20 February, spoke of the
"revocation of existing legislation or its supplementation by European controls being, in the view of ACPO, extremely costly in all its collective forms, financial, administrative and, most importantly, the loss to public safety."
Does ACPO's concern persist in the light of the amendments on which the Minister has reported to the House? It must be admitted that that concern was expressed in the most general terms, but it is material to considering whether we should welcome the legislation.
If we approached the debate with uncertainty about the views of the police and firearms experts, our confusion was worse confounded by the Minister who clearly has had important negotiations on matters that were giving rise to concern among the shooting fraternity, about which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) spoke so eloquently. I am bound to say that the Minister, not just as a matter of courtesy but as a matter of enabling the House to participate in an informed debate, should have taken steps before this evening to tell hon. Members of the developments prior to the debate to which he alluded. My
1082
right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) wrote to the Minister on 13 November raising this matter in general terms, and he might reasonably have expected a reply before the debate, but no reply has been forthcoming.
I am bound to say that the debate procedure is extremely important in offering the House the opportunity to make an informed comment and possibly even assist the Minister in his diplomatic deliberations. We know the limits of our powers in matters flowing from the operation of the Single European Act, but it does not limit our capacity—
Mr. Skinner: You voted for it.
Mr. Maclennan: I have no regrets about having done so, but it renders our power of advice almost less than useless if we are unable to speak about an up-to-date situation in an informed way. The procedure seems to be severely weakened and rendered rather a mockery by the Minister's manner—almost in the sense that he was scoring points off the House by being in a position to announce matters of which we did not know. That is unfortunate.
There is another fundamental question about the Minister's approach that I must also raise. I refer to the Government's policy in respect of challenging the legal basis of this draft directive. It is strange that he should have such substantial doubts about the basis on which the draft directive is being brought forward by the Commission and that those doubts have not been resolved even now. The Minister has no intention of seeking to have them resolved before the negotiations are concluded. In answer to an intervention from one of his hon. Friends, he said that he thought that it would have been proper to have such matters dealt with under article 165, but that he was not prepared to challenge the matter and to take it to the European Court. One is bound to question whether he attaches any significance to the little dispute about the basis of the draft directive.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: We attach great significance to the argument. I clearly told the House—if the hon. Gentleman consults the record he will find that it is so—that we are waiting for the Commission's legal advisers to come back to us on the basis of the paper that we have given them arguing that the article base that the Commission is recommending is the wrong one. We have pressed our argument and we are waiting for the definitive reply.
Mr. Maclennan: I do not find that very convincing. The draft directive has been in circulation for about two years. Is it really beyond the influence of Her Majesty's Government to obtain an answer from the Commission's legal advisers in all that time? There has been a lot of argument about the substance, but surely the base must be a question to be resolved before issues of such substance and detail are determined. If the whole thing is flawed, a great deal of effort is being unnecessarily expended by this Government and other Governments. I question whether it is sensible to wait for legal advice for about two years. As vital national interests are involved and touch our national security, if the Government have serious doubts about the legal base, those doubts should have been resolved before the debate.
I now move from extremely important procedural issues to the substance of the draft directive. I start from

1083
much the same base as the Minister started, by attaching the highest importance to the security issues that the draft directive raises. It is clearly of great importance that no legislation that is passed by the European Community should in any way weaken the effectiveness of our controls over firearms acquisition and possession in this country. I have mentioned my uncertainty about the attitude of the police to the directive. I hope that the Minister may have something to say about the attitude of the police.
The difficulty that we face in considering security is that it plainly is an adjunct to the central purpose of the directive, which is to effect the single market and to enable people to travel more freely across boundaries whether or not they are carrying arms. As we know, the Schengen group of countries attaches much less importance than we do to border control. Therefore, these matters have been handled in a rather different way in the Schengen group. The Minister's letter of 25 October refers to the uncertainty of the attitude of other member countries—the southern member states of the Community and France in particular—to the very purposes of the directive. Perhaps he could say whether those countries have maintained Her Majesty's Government's position in the deliberations.
I doubt whether it makes sense to operate two sets of controls in this sphere within this country. There is one aspect in particular in which that appeared to be the outcome of what is happening with the proposals to introduce a European firearms pass in addition to the existing system for the British visitor's permit. I confess to some difficulty in understanding how those two systems of control over visitors will operate side by side. Perhaps the Minister can explain.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: Many European countries have asked for no more than the European firearms pass. That is required by the directive, and the Schengen group of countries in particular look for no more. We look for more than that. We require the British visitor's permit in addition, to provide us with the extra security winch we believe that we need.
Mr. Maclennan: That helps greatly to explain the position, but I am not entirely clear whether visitors to Britain would be required by Community law to carry one pass while Britain required an additional pass that would make the movement of, for example, those engaged in sporting activities within the Community even more difficult than at present.
It is right to emphasise that for practical reasons one does not wish to put barriers in the way of visiting sportsmen. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned the reasons. My information is that the value of shooting to the Scots is even higher than the £52 million suggested by the hon. Member. In February this year the Fraser of Allander Institute said that it was worth £78 million to Scotland alone. That is not an insignificant contribution to the Scottish economy, particularly as a great deal of it is spent in the less-favoured and sparsely populated areas where alternative employment is sometimes extremely hard to come by. We are not anxious to see that income lost.
I noted the opposition of sporting groups, at least at an early stage, to the provisions of article 11 of the draft directive. Article 11 would tighten control over entry from third countries into Britain. A great many Americans, east Europeans and others are interested in Britain's sporting
1084
facilities. We should not wish to make it unnecessarily more difficult for them to come here. I do not know whether the anxieties about article 11 were dealt with in the negotiations in a way that meets our needs. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that.
The minimum age limit provisions and the professional competence requirement for firearms dealers aroused the greatest anxieties among the sporting fraternity. The Minister seemed to say that those difficulties had been removed in the working group. If that is so, a considerable step has clearly been taken in removing the anxieties of those who rightly take the view that young people should not be debarred—indeed, they might reasonably be encouraged—to enjoy the sporting opportunities of shooting at targets. Young people, especially those living in rural areas who are trained in the use of firearms for vermin control on farmland, should not be inhibited in acquiring skill and competence in handling firearms at an early age. Country people throughout Britain attach great importance to such matters. We must have absolute clarity on them, not merely an assurance that the Government believe that they have got it right. It would have been better if the Government had come to the House with a firm statement in writing to enable us to be clear about the matter.
It would be appropriate for the Minister to tell us whether his view has changed from that expressed on 25 October when he said:
"It is difficult to see how partial harmonisation can achieve the establishment and functioning of the internal market."
That goes back to the legal question that I raised earlier but it is also a policy question. If partial harmonisation is not strictly necessary and will not bring about the establishment of the internal market, why are we doing it? That is a serious question. The Minister may have told us of the advance that he has made in eliminating difficulties, some of which I referred to, but that does not solve the problem that I raised. Perhaps the principle of subsidiarity should have operated in this case. It was not strictly necessary for this draft legislation to be considered. As the Minister and the House are aware, I am a strong supporter of the operation of the internal market and the development of the European Community's institutions. But I am not in favour of meddlesome legislation that gives rise to widespread anxieties about security.
I shall be delighted if the Minister can put his hand on his heart and say that disabled sportsmen will not be precluded from participating in paraplegic sporting activities as a result of changes which may or may not have been agreed in discussions. Let him be in no doubt that the majority of hon. Members would regard it as preposterous if, by a side wind, the disabled were deprived of that opportunity. It cannot be sensible and it cannot be the purpose of the legislation.
The draft directive is of considerable importance. I acknowledge that it is difficult to reconcile the interests of the various communities that have an interest in it. Plainly, some people would like to see the controls greatly relaxed. Others, particularly the police, would like to see perhaps even greater and tighter national control. Then, of course, there is the European Community dimension. I understand what the Minister is trying to do. He is probably broadly on the right lines, but if the House is to participate in ensuring that he gets it right, he will help us

1085
considerably by making available the relevant information prior to the debate. That is perhaps the message with which I should like to leave him.
8.37 pm
Sir Hector Monro: I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that what we really need at the end of the day is clarity about exactly where we are. My hon. Friend the Minister certainly helped us greatly tonight, but I wish to clarify several points with him because his speech was interrupted so often that he never made a firm statement on some important issues.
I begin by seeking to clarify the distinction between weapons and firearms. I caused some consternation at Edinburgh airport yesterday when I brought a skean-dhu with me to wear with my kilt at a St. Andrews night dinner tomorrow. However, it all arrived in one piece.
We seek to achieve a common denominator and harmonisation within Europe on firearms. Helpful as my hon. Friend the Minister has been, he must realise that many voluntary organisations and governing bodies such as the National Small-bore Rifle Association—of which I happen to be the president—the National Rifle Association, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the British Field Sports Society and the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association have all worked in recent weeks to produce intricate briefs for Members of Parliament for the debate. If they had been aware of the information that my hon. Friend the Minister would deploy early in his speech, it would have saved many people a great deal of time.
Those organisations had to go into the matter because, naturally, those who are interested in shooting are suspicious of the Government. In recent months the Home Office and the Department of the Environment had the shooting world in some turmoil over the birds directive which was to put pests on a special list. That would have been most unreasonable and, fortunately, the Government changed their mind. We are anxious to keep a close eye on what the Government are doing about shooting.
The 1988 Act, in which many hon. Members who are present were involved, showed how the Government, for the right motives, reached wrong solutions. The Act makes sporting shooting more difficult to enjoy than it should be. Many chief officers of police have different interpretations about firearms and shotgun certificates and make life difficult for legitimate sporting enthusiasts. I hope that the consultative committee set up by the Home Office will smooth out some of the continuing problems which are not going away.
Because we have already had so much detail in this debate, I can skip over some of the issues which I wished to raise. I want to be clear on where we stand on three important issues. My hon. Friend the Minister said that he was dealing with the age 18 restriction. Can he say whether, under this directive, those aged 10, 12 or 14 will be able to shoot under supervision?
Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend on the agreement of an age limit. Our domestic law should apply to those who come from abroad and wish to shoot here. Provided that they have the right papers and a British visitor's permit, they are permitted to come.
Sir Hector Monro: That is helpful. In other words, the British shooting public of any age can shoot under supervision without any problem, for example, at clubs and in school competitions such as the Ashburton.
Mr. Lloyd: I tried to explain in my opening remarks that British domestic firearms legislation would not be modified by this directive. What has changed is the Community rules for movement from one Community country to another. Our legislation remains as it is.
Sir Hector Monro: That is helpful. We are getting a useful collection of Government statements which I hope that the Minister will put together so that the firearms world may know where it stands. When he produces that document, I hope that he will be clear about the legal meanings of the words, "use", "own", and "acquire" because the firearms world seems to be in some doubt about where it stands on them.
Can the Minister tell us whether air rifle pellets will be illegal? As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, that is important, as are questions about soft-nosed bullets which are used in deer stalking. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) asked about weapons usually used as military weapons. Most rifles and pistols commonly used in target shooting have a military use or originally had one. Therefore, that is not a good definition for dealing with firearms.
My hon. Friend the Minister was interrupted when he spoke about disabled people. Will he be a little more explicit about mental and physical capacity? He said that Europe would give way on that, but I am not sure how far. Who is to judge mental capacity—the chief officer of police? Who is to judge physical capacity? During the passage of the 1988 Act the Government were not sympathetic towards disabled people and paraplegics.
I remember having to divide the House on an amendment because they refused to allow disabled people to use self-loading rifles, which is essential for those who cannot withstand the normal recoil of an ordinary bolt-action rifle. The Government did not help the disabled in that instance. Will disabled shooters have problems using a rifle in this country in future? If so, it would be a harsh decision for people who get great enjoyment from this form of sport. One of our paraplegic shooters is a world record holder and it would be unfortunate if we restricted his opportunities to participate in competitions. I hope that the Minister will be explicit about where disabled sportsmen stand. Shooting organisations would not have raised that with us in such detail if they were not gravely worried.
I am particularly interested in those who come here from without the European Community. We have British visitors permits and now we are to have a European certificate. I do not want to see controls intensified for those who come from beyond Europe to enjoy our sporting facilities. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland spoke about encouraging sportsmen to come here to enjoy our shooting facilities, particularly those in Scotland. As the hon. Gentleman rightly claimed, the Fraser of Allander Institute conducted a detailed survey and published a report this year showing that it is worth £78 million to Scotland. A large proportion of that sum comes from overseas visitors. It is immensely important for the Scottish rural economy, particularly for

1087
hotels, restaurants and estate staff, that visitors come to shoot. Anything that prevents overseas sportsmen from coming to put money into the Scottish economy, or the English or Welsh economies, would be gravely resented. I hope that the Minister will not build up a bureaucratic licensing system for these visitors.
We are talking not only about visitors who come for sporting facilities, but about those who come for target shooting. Sporting shooting developed from the old Commonwealth. Many of our visitors come from beyond Europe to participate at Bisley and elsewhere. Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians are at the heart of the visiting shooting community. We do not want to build up a whole host of problems for them because we are harmonising a system of firearms certification within Europe.
I hope that the Minister realises that the directive has caused a furore in the shooting world, particularly in sporting and target shooting. Although what he has said shows a substantial step forward, until we have it in black and white we shall be worried that some points will again be changed in Europe. He must fight as hard as possible to help those who are interested in this legitimate form of recreation.
8.49 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend the Minister will have noticed that most of those who have spoken tonight have found the proposals highly disagreeable. Some have said that they will cause inconvenience to the shooting sport, others that they will cause damage and danger to the general public. Whichever way we look at it, hon. Members have spoken of the new proposals as being unnecessary, dangerous, bureaucratic and costly nonsense.
What worries me is that it is purely accidental that we have had the benefit of debating these proposals at a reasonable hour. My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the circumstances that led to the directive being debated here today rather than in one of those anonymous Committees to which the Whips send safe people to discuss such matters so no one will notice them. We also have an obligation to the Welshmen, who did not take so long today as they usually do.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was greatly exercised about the use of article 100A, but that is nothing new. The EEC Commission has been deliberately and systematically using article 100A for a variety of measures which have nothing to do with free trade. The Minister said that he has raised, and will raise, the matter with the Commission, but what we are discussing is not just a problem which may affect sportsmen or marksmen but something affecting the basic democratic rights of the House.
I am sure that the Minister will recall, as he took an interest in these matters at the time, that the then Prime Minister assured us that under the Single European Act majority voting powers would be used only in matters concerning free trade, rather than for irrelevant nonsense. The Minister may recall reading the report of the Select Committee, which sought the advice of Speaker's Counsel on one directive and was advised that if the Commission used majority voting on this directive, it could use it on anything.
1088
I see the Minister sitting with letters from the shooting organisations and taking a great interest in them, but what can he do? We can make a complaint, but unless every member state agrees with our complaint, we have had it and the Commission will decide. If the Commission wants a majority vote, it stays a majority vote unless Portugal, France, Italy and Germany and all the others say that it is wrong. I have done some careful checking and, so far as I can discover, that has never happened, so there is a constitutional problem that we cannot ignore. While hon. Members hope for great things from 1992 and free trade, we should be aware that we are not getting free trade. For example, we are not getting it in insurance or any other sectors which count and which would help people and jobs, but we are getting piles of harmonisation on silly issues such as this, which have no real relevance to free trade.
I hope that the Minister will accept that this is a dangerous measure which could cost lives. We know that people are constantly trying to get weapons into the country—from the Republic of Ireland, but far more regularly through Belgium and other European countries. To stop this, we need regular checks, but the directive will not allow us to have those regular checks. The Minister said that we shall still be able to have target checks. If Customs and Excise have reason to suspect certain people because they look funny or because they are carrying big bags, they can make checks, but the regular checks on which we depend to find weapons and save lives will not be allowed.
The people of Northern Ireland have gone through agonies for a long time, but people throughout the country are concerned about guns and their uses, as we should be. I telephoned the Police Federation today to find out its view on this. I am sure that the Minister will know that it has strong views, and I am sure that his excellent officials will be able to tell him what it thinks. I also know what the Association of Chief Police Officers thinks, and I am sure that the Minister's officials will have had its advice. I know that it does not think that this is a grand idea. It is a dangerous idea.
I appeal to the Minister, to the Labour party and to all other parties to say what we can do about the situation. We know that the directive is illegal because the Commission is using article 100A when it should not and is taking over policy from the House of Commons. I am not being anti-European—I am anti the abuse of EEC powers by the Commission. We must do something about this, because unless we do, we shall find that in all areas of policy—even on shooting magpies, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said—the EEC will decide to do something and get it through by majority voting. That is illegal and against the rules. Speaker's Counsel said that it is not just a question of interpretation. Some of the officials who go backwards and forward all the time know exactly what is happening. My hon. Friend the Minister is one of the honest ones, and he knows what is happening. He knows that huge areas of policy are being taken away illegally, and we can do nothing about it through the rules. We have to get everyone to agree that something illegal is being done, but nobody ever will, so what on earth are we going to do about it?
Mr. Maclennan: The Minister said that it would be possible to take the matter to the European Court. The oddity is that he has not done so already.
Mr. Taylor: The Minister will be able to confirm that, until a determination is made by the Council, one cannot go to the court, and if one goes to the court, the case will take two years. In which case, has the court turned down a request for extra authority for the Commission? It never does. The European Court is not a legal court. Understandably, it is a political court, biased in favour not of political parties but of taking more and more power and authority for the institutions of the Community. Any hon. Member who doubts that should consider the case of the Spanish fishermen, which led to a huge area of power being taken away. For the sake of people whose lives will be put at risk by this directive, should we not say what the House of Commons can do? We can do nothing under the existing rules, but something has to happen—something has to be done.
Regular inspection is not just about guns. I am sorry that the Minister did not make this point. Without regular inspections, other objects will come in as well, such as flickknives, knuckledusters and swordsticks, which cause great offence. My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare will be glad to know that we still have our British law which says that such objects are illegal, and the Common Market cannot touch that British law, but without regular inspections those items will still come in, as will guns. I assure the House that the police and the Department have said that without regular checks there will be an increase in the number of such objects coming in. All of that is set out in the Select Committee report.
Sadly, as always happens when we debate anything to do with the EEC, although it is vital to our democracy, the Press Gallery is empty. All the bright twits who represent The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Independent and who say that they are concerned about people and their rights are interested in everything except the EEC. That is a threat to democracy, but ideologically they think that it is the best thing since sliced bread.
Mr. Colvin: Does my hon. Friend agree with what was said the other day about the EEC—that if the European Community applied to become a member of the European Community, it would not he admitted because it does not, as an entity, conform with the democratic principles enshrined in the treaty of Rome?
Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. The European Community is not democratic in that sense. It is not as though we are transferring powers from this House to another democratic body. These are non-elected bodies. That is one reason why the previous Prime Minister, whatever the views of her people, did a fantastic job in telling the people of Britain, "We must look carefully at the whole issue of economic control by a central bank." We may or may not want it, but we in Parliament do not want to talk about it. Nobody wants to think about it. Our former Prime Minister did a great job in forcing people to say, "These matters must be examined."
There is nothing we can do about the directive at this stage, even if the Government were to describe it as scandalous and shocking. It will probably be passed by a majority vote, and there is nothing we can do about that
1090
either. We cannot do anything about the use of article 100A because, as we know, the Greeks and all the others will never agree to our proposals.
Although we can do nothing in that context, we can try to find some procedure by which we can restore to this House the rights which legally we should still possess. I accept that we have surrendered power to the EC. We may describe that as sad or otherwise, but we must find some means of drawing the line. The Minister knows that this is an illegal document in relation to article 100A, but no one has any chance even to argue that it is legal. He knows that is a dangerous document which could cost lives. It is a bureaucratic and costly document which will involve a whole new lot of controls, computers and civil servants, and all of that effort will be unnecessary. Indeed, it is a dangerous load of rubbish. We must consider how we can prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future.
9.1 pm
Mr. Peter Griffiths: I congratulate the Minister on his opening remarks and I do not agree with those who have said that there was something undesirable or improper in his providing the latest information, beyond that given in the written documents. I admit that I did not come to the debate with a carefully prepared speech, because I gathered that we would listen to the Minister's explanation first and then respond on the matters of interest to us. That has been the procedure and, to that extent, the Minister's comments led us forward in the debate.
Because some hon. Members have been cross with the Minister, they have overlooked the fact that not only did he give us the information that many of us had come to the House to obtain, but he invited us to point out to him those points on which it would be desirable to make further progress in the working party, through officials or through Ministers. We should be grateful for the progress that has been made, and the Minister was able to remove most of the fears that law-abiding shooters in my constituency have been putting to me in recent weeks.
I trust that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) is not seriously thinking of dividing the House on the issue. If he does, he will be behaving like Henny Penny. She had every right to be cross when an acorn fell on her head, but she grossly exaggerated matters when she set out to tell the world that the sky had fallen in.
It would have been nice to have all the information when preparing our remarks for the debate, but the Minister did us the courtesy of providing the latest information. Not only has it been important for us to have that knowledge, but we should do nothing that might discourage Ministers from providing information in future simply because it had not appeared earlier in written documents.
The key factor is that the directive was designed to improve the flow of trade and the movement of people across EC frontiers. I regard that as an excellent idea, but I accept the point made by the Government that we must ensure that that does not disadvantage those concerned with legitimate matters of trade.
Out of tonight's debate has come the almost unanimous feeling that we must not damage the interests of legitimate, law-abiding shooters. Although we frequently use the

1091
phrase "law-abiding shooters," it should be unnecessary for it to be used. Shooters, almost by definition, are among the nation's most law-abiding people.
A constituent wrote to me this week saying that he was particularly careful in all matters concerned with shooting, even with parking and driving lest the constable with whom he happened to clash visited his home to inspect his firearms storage and security arrangements.
We must also remember that those who engage in shooting are not just passively concerned with security, as most of us are for most of the time, but are actively concerned with it—the law provides that they should be. However, they go beyond the requirements of the law and recognise that the very nature of their sport, be it target or rough shooting, could create a danger to security; they are greatly aware of that.
A misunderstanding has arisen during the debate about the security of people entering this country. Nothing in the directive will make any difference to the security checks that airlines carry out. They are conducted on the basis not of EEC directives but that people cannot board aeroplanes unless they are prepared to accept security checks, and that will continue. We have never searched every motor car coming into this country, and the idea that we have always checked everything in the past and are suddenly going to stop doing so is nonsense. Motor cars that could carry all sorts of goods come into the country and it would be physically impossible to check every one.
When intelligence suggests that an operation may be being undertaken, be it to do with drugs, weapons or people using false papers to enter this country, checks take place. That is the point at which the process of careful checks on papers, people and their property takes place, and there is no reason why that should not continue in future. As the Minister said, it will be possible to carry out security checks if there is a specific reason for doing so in an individual case, which is exactly the same as at present.
Presumably, the Minister could increase security by introducing far more checks. Border checks between Scotland and England might stop criminals with weapons moving from Glasgow to London, but nobody is suggesting that that is a desirable feature. We must appreciate that we live in a world in which people move more frequently and easily than in the past and national borders must facilitate the movement of people and goods. We need compensatory measures to ensure that there are careful checks on those coming into the EEC from outside and that we improve our intelligence networks with countries both inside and outside the European Community.
We should welcome the way in which the Government have developed the debate since the original directive was put forward. Has the Minister noted that the Vice President of the Commission responsible for the original directive was Mr. Bangemann? I do not know whether he considers that to be relevant, but I wanted to be the one to read that fact into the Official Report.
9.8 pm
Mr. Michael Colvin: It is often said that, when bad news comes, one should not shoot the messenger. The Minister came to the House this evening with news that we all wanted to hear, containing points that we were to raise in some of our speeches. He came with good news, but I have seldom known such a
1092
messenger to meet such a fusillade of shots. The reaction he received had less to do with the content of the draft directive and much more to do with the messy way in which the House deals with European legislation.
It seems pretty weird that the draft directive has been around since July 1987, yet the final amendments to it, which are so crucial and which the Minister has set out to us this evening, were not known until a few days ago. That is a strange way of proceeding.
The news that the Minister brought us, to use yet another sporting analogy, has shot our foxes. He made the very points that we were going to ask him to note before the Secretary of State went to the Council of Ministers arguing the toss on this country's behalf.
The Minister said that this debate and the directive would be of great interest to marksmen and sportsmen. I must declare an interest: I am both marksman and sportsman, and thus I am a member of a fairly large lobby. It is not often appreciated that a great many people in this country have firearm and shotgun certificates—about 1·1 million of them in all. That is 2 per cent. of the population; averaged out, it means that each of us represents about 1,300 constituents with such certificates. That is a significant lobby and it becomes vociferous when it feels that its rights are threatened.
Sportsmen and marksmen are the first to recognise the need for adequate controls on all firearms. The United Kingdom cannot be accused of not being a good European, as our regulations are probably the most stringent in Europe already. We are concerned that our rules and regulations should not be diluted by these proposals.
The firearms laws of this country had a good airing during the debate on the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988, so there is no need to go over them again this evening. We were worried, however, that under this directive visiting sportsmen might be able to enter the United Kingdom with weapons issued to them under less stringent controls than obtain here. The Minister has reassured us to some degree about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) mentioned the importance of shooting in Scotland and its contribution to the Scottish economy. In February this year a report was published by the Fraser of Allander Institute, of Glasgow university, showing that shooting in Scotland produced £78 million income, of which almost 25 per cent. was said to come from overseas visitors. About 12,000 jobs in Scotland come directly or indirectly from shooting—a considerable contribution to the British economy.
I was pleased to hear from the Minister that the age limits—probably the aspect of the draft directive that worried us most—are to be changed and those enshrined in our domestic law are to prevail.
Two of the provisions of the directive have not been fully covered by my hon. Friends and need further explanation from the Minister. The first has to do with the technical difficulty of categorising weapons. As drafted, the directive could have the effect of banning rifles and pistols which are of service issue—but those weapons are the mainstay of target shooting.
The other point that worries me is the condition in the directive that possession of a firearms certificate will depend on
"the necessary mental and physical capacity"

1093
of the applicant. Who will decide that? Are disabled people to be barred from taking part in a sport in which they can compete on equal terms with the able-bodied? That would be a disgrace, given the large number of paraplegic members of shooting clubs.
I recently saw in The Times a photograph of Prince Charles shooting while he had the use of only one arm. I assume that the directive would disallow him from possession of a firearms certificate. Incidentally, I seem to remember that the picture appeared just above a headline reading "How the Cabinet assassins struck"—but that, of course, is all history now.
We should also consider the difficulties involved in administering the provision. At present, chief constables are responsible for issuing certificates, and will not do so if they consider that the applicant is of unsound mind or unfit to be entrusted with a firearm. Will that system remain under the directive, and will the right of appeal also remain? I think that we need to know that.
Much has been said this evening about the provision of the additional firearms passes to be used in Europe under article 1(4). I feel that it will lead to much more bureaucracy, which should be avoided at all costs.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to listen to the views of the firearms consultative committee, under the chairmanship of Lord Kimball. The committee was set up specifically to examine and report the views of experts, who are best qualified to come up with a constructive line. I understand that the committee is to meet next week to discuss the proposals; it is a pity that it did not meet before the debate. I only hope that the documents available to the committee are more up to date than those before us tonight.
I trust that my hon. Friend will take note of what we have said this evening, and that it will strengthen his arm or those of other Ministers when they go back to Europe to discuss the matter further. Debates like this go right to the heart of the question of sovereignty. There is no doubt—if sovereignty means having control over one's own affairs—that, within the European Community, certain aspects of sovereignty are strengthened if our sovereignty is pooled with that of our partners.
I have no objection to a majority vote on what are essentially European Community matters involving all member states; however, I have the greatest possible objection to the majority vote being used to pass a directive that would impinge directly on the domestic laws of this country. I will not accept that such a vote should dictate whether we should shoot pigeons or magpies, whether it is legal for us to eat the British banger or whether a carrot is a fruit or a vegetable. Such matters are best left to our Parliament and our domestic law makers.
I believe that we have made a very good job of drafting and agreeing firearms legislation in this country—after, I may say, a good deal of agonising and debate. I think that the firearms laws that prevail here now should be left as they are, and should not be interfered with by our European partners.
9.18 pm
Mr. James Hill: I have no axe to grind. I am not the chairman of a sporting club. I have never fired a gun on a rifle range. Therefore, I speak with
1094
the great authority of those who know little or nothing about the taking of sporting weapons from one country to another. It is almost unnecessary to go into that question. However, national security matters have crept into the debate. This important debate will be one of a series on the effectiveness of our future border controls.
If the impression is given that the Commission is slackening off on border controls, our customs officers may begin to say to themselves, "We've been told that this particular pass is all right. As a lot of work is involved, we won't, therefore, go into it as rigorously as we did in the past." Terrible problems of that kind will arise time and again while European legislation pours through the House. I hope that much of it will be picked up in the new European Standing Committees and that we shall be able to ask questions that will clarify the position for the Minister. He will not then have to come back from meetings in Europe and tell us what he can remember of his last conversation in Brussels. I praise my hon. Friend for telling us about these facts. The Opposition want it all to be put down in black and white, but it has to be translated in a form that meets with the agreement of the other member states. It is extremely difficult to package such agreements.
I think that we all agree that the debate has focused on the wrong issue. I understand that 14-year-olds will be able to take guns, under supervision—I presume under the supervision of their parents—across borders. I suppose that they will be able to obtain permits. Nevertheless, I doubt it. The ages that were mentioned this evening varied greatly.
We must ensure that the message goes out from this place that at this time Customs and Excise must be extra vigilant. That applies to drugs, immigration and almost everything else. The Commissioners must adopt our standards. I am sufficiently non-European to be able to say that, although I am pro-European on practically everything else. We had this problem with the European driving licence. When these matters are raised, we must be able to argue the case with the maximum information before us. Our sovereignty must not be defended to an absurd degree—over such questions as the sausage—but when it comes to national security our sovereignty must be defended. This is probably the only member state of the Community that is under particular threat from acts of terrorism.
9.23 pm
Mr. Ken Hargreaves: As my speech has been wrecked by the assurances that the Minister has already given, I shall be brief.
I welcome the Minister's announcement concerning articles 5(a) and 5(b). They relate to the age limits of the physically and mentally handicapped. I congratulate him on his achievement.
I know very little about firearms, but one of my constituents, Mr. Derek Waterworth, is secretary of the north-west region shooting association. I wish to voice certain concerns of behalf of the association. I am glad that the Minister has already dealt with them. Mr. Waterworth, however, makes two further points. The letter states:
"Annex 1, Category B. The need for authorisation to possess soft-nosed or hollow projectiles used in pistol ammunition.

1095
Most target pistol shooters use projectiles…made entirely from lead alloy often with a flat nose and a hollow base, this being the most accurate configuration for a slow moving projectile over short distances. Many pistol shooters also mould their own bullets."
Mr. Waterworth asks whether it is realistic
"to make the moulding of lumps of lead the subject of legislation. The proposal is aimed at copper jacketed ammunition with a flat or hollow lead nose of the type used for hunting game but this is not made clear. The directive also seeks to ban the use of military arms by civilians. Unlike some countries on the continent there has been a long tradition here of using military arms for sporting purposes. Not to mention clay pigeon and game shooters, there are over one hundred target shooting clubs in the North West Sports Council Region. Members of these clubs have personally invested considerable sums of money in their equipment."
Mr. Waterworth said that they are worried by the directive.
Mr. Waterworth and his members will welcome the Minister's announcement. Perhaps when he replies he will give us further reassurance on the final two points.
9.25 pm
Mr. Peter Lloyd: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply.
This has been a considerably longer debate than we would have had if it had started at the usual time after 10 o'clock. I make no complaint about that because I know that the subject raises considerable interest and concern among hon. Members ranging from the rules as they affect shooters to the effects on national security. Both are important. I have made long lists of the points that have been raised. If I move fairly rapidly, I hope to be able to respond to all the substantive points that have been made.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) asked about age limits, as did many of my hon. Friends, most notably my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). The agreement on age limits reached in the working party is that existing law shall prevail. No change will be made for age limits on shooting sports and target practice. I hope that that is sufficiently clear and that it satisfies hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked what documents would be required by shooters coming from other EEC countries. Under the directive, shooters will need licensing documents from their own state, which will be issued according to the law of their country. They will need the European firearms pass, which will also be issued by the particular country and is available to all those who have proper documentation and licences. We are insisting that we maintain the requirement for the British visitors permit. As hon. Members will know, that is issued only after there is a proper letter of information from a sponsor making clear the purpose of someone bringing in a gun for sporting use. It must also say what the sporting occasion is and where the gun will be used.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West asked about the pass and what it would cover. I think that I have dealt with that already. The European firearms pass is issued by member countries to those who ask for it and legitimately hold weapons under their national law.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the information system. It will provide a record of arms movements. Each member state will appoint a national authority. It may be the national police or the country's Interpol bureau. An information exchange system under a Council of Europe
1096
convention on weapons already exists, and is said to work well by the states that have ratified it, including Germany and Italy.
Concern was expressed by a number of hon. Members about security, and several emphasised the need for intelligence if we are to ensure that firearms are not to be moved across the continent and over borders for terrorist and other criminal purposes. The rules and regulations will be an essential part of that intelligence exchange between European countries. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West referred to the danger of excessive bureaucracy. We want the minimum possible, but in achieving the ends that the hon. Gentleman asked us to address it will be essential to exchange information between countries.
I was reminded by both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that at present we do not stop everyone entering the United Kingdom and search their baggage. Many arrivals pass through the green channel. In fact, the number of people using it is increasing. The Community aims at phasing out customs controls. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was also worried about security, yet it would appear from his speeches that he shares that objective. However, he apparently desires that frontier checks should continue ad infinitum. We do not have full checks now, and under the Community proposals that he supports we will not have them at all.
Mr. Maclennan: I did not make that point, and would not have done so for the reasons that the Minister gave. The hon. Gentleman knows my views on that issue. However, I am interested to know the views of the police.
Mr. Lloyd: Both the Association of Chief Police Officers and its Scottish counterpart are concerned that we should maintain the controls on visitors provided by the British visitor permit scheme. That is why we believe it is not only essential to maintain the visitor permit requirement but that we should have the right to make essential checks at our own border. On both issues, the police and the Government are at one. Achieving those conditions is part of our objective in the continuing negotiations.
Mr. Hill: Does my hon. Friend take the view that more money needs to be spent on the customs service to provide up-to-date equipment for scrutinising baggage? At present it is a question of catch as catch can, and it is not working very well. Once in a while a load of drugs is detected, but when it comes to detecting weapons surely customs halls should be equipped with more high-tech equipment.
Mr. Lloyd: Improved technology as well as improved intelligence can help. It is a constant battle to stay ahead and to detect and catch people who bring weapons into the country for illegitimate purposes.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland asked whether the negotiated directive will touch on movements to and from non-EC states. It will not, except in so far as it implies a strengthening of checks on visitors from countries outside the Community. The same question was of concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), albeit from a different point of view.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) mentioned the firearms consultative

1097
committee. We have kept the committee up to date with developments. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary relies upon this small but important committee for advice. It will meet next week, and no doubt will give us the benefit of its informed views.
I must take issue with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland about the treaty base. He seemed to believe that this should be settled first in the negotiations. As he is interested in EEC matters, I am surprised that he had not yet come across the practice whereby a directive is negotiated and, although a treaty base may be in mind, it is not finally determined until what should go in the directive is agreed. As this directive has taken shape, we have made clear our opinion on what the base should be. Some countries, particularly Ireland, share our views.
Mr. Maclennan: I have, of course, come across this procedure before, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, because it was raised by the Government in the debate on enfranchisement of foreign nationals from European Community countries. I am surprised that this practice continues. To reach a detailed agreement before deciding whether it has been established on a proper legal basis is to put the cart before the horse. This is not a matter with which the Minister can deal unilaterally, but it is open to the Government to challenge it and to seek an advisory opinion of the European Court.
Mr. Lloyd: We have been challenging it, but discussions go on in parallel. That is why our arguments about the treaty base of the emerging directive were made before completion of the directive. The directive has not yet been agreed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare raised several specific and detailed points. The semiautomatic weapons element of the draft directive has been dropped. It would have caught self-loading pistols used by, for example, target shooters. The military calibre ban has also been dropped. We expect new and better wording to be included that will not affect target and sporting shooters.
My hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare and for Dumfries asked about airgun pellets. That aspect is not affected because the domestic law on sales to young persons and possession by prohibited persons which we already have still applies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries was worried about intensification of controls at external borders to which the directive referred, and I mentioned that point in responding to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland. The fears that this provision will damage the tourist industry are unjustified. The article is simply intended to improve public safety in Europe as a whole. It does no less than require that all non-EEC visitors who wish to bring firearms into the Community for sport or competition should first obtain the certification that member states think is proper.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries will find that the directive requires us to demand no more than we demand already of visitors who come here for shooting, which is such an important part of the industry of some parts of Scotland. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel reassured because the directive does not present any threat in that area.
1098
My hon. Friend also referred to paraplegic shooters and to disabled shooters in general. We expect that in the new directive the limitations on the disabled will be wholly removed. We do not believe that such limitations are necessary. The working party agreed, and when the Commission publishes the next directive the limitations should not be included. I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who are concerned about that point. However, I must stress for the sake of accuracy that certain minor limitations in existing firearms legislation—and my hon. Friends knows them better than I do—will continue to be in force. I stress again that our domestic law governs the rules in this area.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the military weapons ban, which has now been dropped. The definitions that we expect to be in place will not ban normal rifles and pistols; they will ban only automatic-firing military weapons. My hon. Friend also referred to age limits, but I have dealt with that in replying to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was very worried about the treaty base. I understand what he says and he will understand, not least because I responded to him and to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland earlier, that we share his concern. We believe that the Commission is proposing the wrong treaty base. I can do no more that to repeat that we have put our arguments and that we expect a formal response. Until we have that response, it would not be useful to ask me how we shall decide to respond to it. Our response will depend on how strong we think the arguments are.
Many hon. Members referred to checks for security purposes. It is essential that we have rules that enable us to feel as secure as possible, and it is essential that in future we are no less secure than we are now. Within Europe, the old-fashioned customs checks are being reduced. Most travellers go through the green channel, and we have to rely on intelligence work and on the other ways of gathering information so that we can target our checks on the baggage and documentation on which our information suggests that we should most efficiently concentrate. That is how we now secure our frontiers against weapons and against undesirable elements such as drugs or other contraband. We do not secure our frontiers by having the right to challenge people who are going through the green channel.
I cannot stress too strongly that we believe that the necessary parts of the directive are those criticised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West for being bureaucratic. They will help to ensure that intelligence information, especially information on the movement of arms consignments, is available to the authorities. We also believe that it is essential that the British visitors permit should continue to be required. That is a central part of the argument that we have still to make in the working party.
Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but can he tell the House how much that information system will cost?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not know. We must consider that carefully and sensibly. I suspect that, even without the present directive, we should want to establish and expand such an information exchange. The system may not cost much more than we should anyway have spent—possibly

1099
no more. The agreements which have already been ratified and which are in force in Germany and Italy seem to work well.
I think that I have answered most of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside. I understand his argument that matters which seem to have been hanging fire for years suddenly move at great speed. Whether we like it or not, that is the way in which negotiations appear to be carried on in the Community. When an issue such as this comes to the forefront, we may move very fast on it in a series of meetings. That is why I shall say little about the fact that I was able to give the House what I knew was good news. With fast-moving negotiations, it is difficult to ensure that the House is kept fully informed, and I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House who came to the debate with well-prepared speeches only to find that the very argument that they had intended to press on me already seemed to have been conceded by our colleagues in Europe.
Mr. Wiggin: I am sure that we all accept that the Minister acted in good faith. Will he reaffirm, however, that the basic purpose of the directive is to ease trade across national frontiers?
Mr. Lloyd: That is part of the argument. The Community argues that the directive is intended to ease trade across frontiers and that is why it has chosen the present base, although the choice may have been influenced by the fact that it is a qualified majority base. We argue that the directive concerns the free movement of people who happen to be carrying weapons with them and that is why we are arguing for a different base. Both arguments concern ease of movement, whether it be of people or of goods.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) for his helpful and constructive remarks. It was good to hear at least one hon. Member say that he wholeheartedly welcomed my remarks.
I think that I have answered the two additional questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves).
I am grateful for the wise remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), who knows well how the Community works, having himself been a member of the European assembly.
I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will not advise his hon. Friends to vote against the directive. It would be a pity if he did, because I think that he agrees with the general tenor of the Government's approach. We want this debate to be read and we want it to be understood within the Community, and if the Opposition voted against the directive it would look as though part of the House was not anxious for the Government to continue to press the points that we are determined to press. Having said that, I know why the hon. Gentleman argued as he did. As I said, I understand that hon. Members would like to have the most up-to-date information before a debate. With a fast-moving negotiation, that is not always possible, but I shall certainly speak to those who are responsible for these matters, for providing background papers and for the way in which the business is managed. Hon. Members' remarks will be drawn to their attention to be carefully considered.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 15.

Division No. 15]

[9.49 pm

AYES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Knapman, Roger

Amess, David

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Amos, Alan

Lawrence, Ivan

Arbuthnot, James

Lightbown, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Bowis, John

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Brazier, Julian

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

Mans, Keith

Burt, Aiistair

Maples, John

Carrington, Matthew

Mates, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Monro, Sir Hector

Colvin, Michael

Neubert, Michael

Curry, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Dorrell, Stephen

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Dunn, Bob

Paice, James

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Patnick, Irvine

Fishburn, John Dudley

Portillo, Michael

Forman, Nigel

Redwood, John

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Sackville, Hon Tom

Fox, Sir Marcus

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Freeman, Roger

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Gale, Roger

Stanbrook, Ivor

Goodlad, Alastair

Stern, Michael

Gorst, John

Stevens, Lewis

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Sumberg, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hague, William

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Tredinnick, David

Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)

Viggers, Peter

Harris, David

Waller, Gary

Hawkins, Christopher

Warren, Kenneth

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Wells, Bowen

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Widdecombe, Ann

Hill, James

Wiggin, Jerry

Hordern, Sir Peter

Wood, Timothy

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

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Irvine, Michael

Jack, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Janman, Tim

Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Kirkhope, Timothy

NOES

Bellotti, David

Pike, Peter L.

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Randall, Stuart

Cummings, John

Skinner, Dennis

Howells, Geraint

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

Hoyle, Doug

Wallace, James

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Tellers for the Noes:

McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)

Mr. Don Dixon and Mr. Frank Haynes.

Maclennan, Robert

Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10074/89 and 8836/90, relating to controls on the acquisition and possession of weapons; and endorses the Government's view that any Directive must preserve the right of Member States to make those checks that are necessary for public security and public safety and that any additional burden on business should be kept to a minimum.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment)

  1101
  Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Question agreed to.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (SCOTLAND)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),
  That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1990, which were laid before this House on 16th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Question agreed to.

  CARAVANS (STANDARD COMMUNITY CHARGE AND RATING) BILL
  Ordered,
  That if the Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as the proceedings on any Resolutions come to by the House on Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill [Money] and Caravans (Standard Community Charge and Rating) Bill [Ways and Means] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.—[Mr. Sackville]

  St. Helier Hospital, Sutton
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackyillei]
  10.1 pm
  Sir Neil Macfarlane: I wish to raise the subject of security at St. Helier hospital in my constituency. The debate takes on an additional tragic dimension because of the double tragedy at Wakefield earlier this week, which affected hon. Members—in all corners of the House. My hon. Friend the Minister will be as shocked and saddened as I am, but our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has acted quickly to inquire into precisely what happened. It throws hospital security well on to the national health service agenda. Some guidance is essential now from the Department.
  I shall outline the circumstances of a horrendous crime committed in St. Helier hospital, Sutton. The hospital serves a wide area, including my constituency, and enjoys a considerable reputation throughout many parts of south London and Surrey. The horrendous crime was perpetrated against a constituent.
  On 14 October 1990, a young girl of only 11 years was raped and indecently assaulted in the children's ward. I am certain that my hon. Friend will share my prime concern not only about the background to this terrible crime, but about the overall security of the whole site, the buildings and the unit. I am deeply concerned about the welfare of nursing and medical staff, clerical and administrative staff, maintenance, professional and technical staff as well as the welfare of the patients.
  The father of the child wrote to me. His letter states:
  "My daughter has got a bit better physically and is now able to walk without help for over a week. She still gets very tired both physically and mentally but we hope and pray that as time goes by she will feel better."
  Nobody can describe the distress felt by the parents, the community and, I suppose, the nation at large that a defenceless child left in the care of the local hospital could have been subjected to such an outrage. None of us can imagine the anguish of the parents of the girl as they try to help her come to terms with her terrible experience. Nobody in this House or outside it can appreciate the terror felt by the child who was unable to cry for help, alone in a cubicle and unsupervised, while the two nurses on duty were grappling with an emergency admission. Tragically, unknown to them, the real emergency was being enacted only yards away.
  I emphasise that there were only two people on duty in that children's ward. I suppose that my hon. Friend and the inquiry board will query whether that level of staffing was adequate. One has to bear it in mind that the hospital and the area health authority are responsible for the girl's safety. This heinous crime should never have been allowed to happen. The fact that it did raises serious questions about staffing levels, both nursing and security, the quality of control and the direction exercised by the Merton and Sutton health authority and by the district general manager.
  I am alarmed that my constituents were not given a little more tender loving care when it most mattered. The father said in his letter to me:
  "Since they (Hospital Admin.) have found out from my wife that I am in contact with you regarding this incident their whole attitude has suddenly changed and they are now, at a

  1103
  very late stage, being extremely apologetic and diplomatic in their replies. I hope they do not give evasive answers to either you as my M.P. or to myself."
  I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to comment on a number of points that need urgent consideration and, no doubt, action. We need to know how security requirements were co-ordinated between the Department of Health and the Merton and Sutton health authority, and with the St. Helier hospital itself. We need to know what instructions or guidelines were issued by the Department and whether they were followed to the letter of the law by the hospital.
  If my hon. Friend's committee is satisfied on those points, will he consider issuing further and tougher guidelines? On 26 November, following the tragedy at Wakefield last week, the British Medical Association, through the voice of Dr. Patricia Price, a retired doctor from Birmingham, and one of the two BMA representatives on the Department of Health advisory committee on violence, said:
  "Recommendations on training, preventive measures and other aspects to help reduce the incidence of violence were made in our report and health authorities were advised to put them into effect. Unfortunately, these recommendations have only been partially taken up. We recognised that we could not eliminate violence, but in view of this sad incident I would ask all health authorities to take a fresh look at their existing procedures to see whether they need updating."
  What security system was in place at St. Helier at the time of the rape of this child? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that it was adequate? Is there any evidence of negligence by the security firm involved, or was it given inadequate and vague guidance by the hospital? Why was the child moved from the larger ward into the small private room at that time? How was and is liaison between security staff and the medical staff conducted? Is it good, and are the rules laid down scrupulously observed by all concerned? Were they observed on 14 October?
  I had a communication today from the BMA's parliamentary officer, who has highlighted something that had been expressed by its members. The letter says:
  "I understand from BMA members working at the hospital that the paediatric ward is situated at a distance from the main hospital and is somewhat cut off and also that there is no fence surrounding the hospital. I also understand that a number of female houseofficers have felt nervous about working at the hospital at night."
  It seems that there have been general site security problems at this large hospital for some time and that the public and many schoolchildren use the gate at the rear of the hospital as a short cut through the hospital grounds. I am also told that people are allowed to walk their dogs and ride their bikes in the grounds and that shopping trolleys are wheeled across a corridor which is a connection between hospital units and blocks. There appears, sadly, to be no authority to stop them, and I suspect that many other hospitals face the same difficulties.
  There are some interesting and revealing facts that the Minister may need to review in the light of this occurrence and the most recent horrendous crimes in Wakefield. Security at St. Helier until July 1989 was the responsibility of the portering staff. That in itself seems an onerous task for people who have other prime functions to perform and I find it astonishing, given the growth in crimes of violence on hard-working hospital staff in the past 10 to 15 years. One wonders how many other NHS hospitals still depend on that type of security.
  The bitter irony is that, rightly and properly, the St. Helier hospital management wanted a more professional
  1104
  approach to security and appointed Gardner Merchant to handle site security. I hope that the Minister and his officials will be able to determine where responsibility lies when a private contractor moves into an NHS unit. Does that contractor take over duties without any day-to-day involvement of the hospital staff, and how frequent is that contact?
  I have the feeling that, despite the devoted excellence of the staff in all quarters of St. Helier hospital, something is lacking in management direction. One wonders whether the reception area is manned properly at all times. I am told that hospital staff are vulnerable at weekends, especially on Saturday nights. Who supervises the security office, and what studies have been made by hospital and authority management staff of the work of the one person in the security control office? For what hours is the reception area manned?
  I fear that there is anxiety and a lack of confidence in those responsible for the management of some aspects of the hospital, but is it their fault? Is not the unit at St. Helier too large for efficient and effective day-to-day control? Is not the site disadvantageous? What is the infrastructure like from the point of view of future planning, direction and control? Much work must be done now to restore confidence and morale.
  There is another element of confusion. I received a letter from the chairman of the proposed St. Helier NHS trust saying:
  "The security at St. Helier is arguably the best in the region and has been recognised by the staff as a huge improvement on the pre-privatisation system."
  Unfortunately, the evidence at present does not point to that. He goes on:
  "No-one associated with any normal hospital can expect prison-like security."
  Of course not, and we do not want that, but we want an effective balance between the two extremes. He goes on:
  "The inquiry found no negligence, but made some recommendations as to additional security."
  Many questions must be answered. It is for the police to identify the way in which this depraved man was able to enter the hospital, and to bring him to justice, but that will not bring back this child's happy, carefree, innocent former life, probably now gone for ever. It is for the area health authority to determine whether security and nursing systems broke down, as in time they were bound to under the present administration in so large a hospital on such an unsatisfactory site; and it is for the district health authority to determine the capacity of an administrator who described this disgraceful and repulsive assault on an innocent child asleep in a hospital bed as "an untoward incident."
  It is for the Minister's Department to determine whether the hard-stretched medical services in the hospital are receiving the direction and support that they have a right to expect, or whether the Merton and Sutton health authority has been negligent. I do not point the finger at anybody, but the time has come for the investigation to he made public and for the parents of their 11-year-old daughter to be made fully aware of what took place.
  10.13 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Sir N. Macfarlane) is right to be outraged by the incident that took place in St. Helier hospital. He takes the district general manager to task for

  1105
  using the phrase "an untoward incident". While that may be national health service terminology, it certainly does not properly express the sense of outrage that any decent person would feel on reading the background to that incident. In addition, it does not express the sense of disappointment felt in the district health authority that the incident should have taken place in one of its hospitals. However, my hon. Friend should not read into that choice of words any sense that the health authority is any less concerned by the sad and tragic incident than he is or any right thinking person would be.
  I associate myself and the district health authority with the sympathy that my hon. Friend expressed, primarily for the victim of the terrible crime, whose life is at risk of being scarred by what happened, at the very least for a long time, and possibly for ever. It is right that I should also associate myself and the district health authority with the sympathy expressed by my hon. Friend for the victim's family, as it is to them that the prime burden falls of trying to rebuild the victim's confidence, and bolster her belief and desire to pursue her childhood into a full and fulfilled adulthood. To that extent, the district health authority and I share my hon. Friend's sense of outrage and his sympathy for the victim and her family.
  My hon. Friend asked me to go into some detail on the Government's attitude toward security in hospitals. As I think my hon. Friend would recognise, that is not an easy subject, particularly when set against the background of the incident at St. Helier hospital and the even more tragic incident of the murder of two people at Pinderfields general hospital earlier this week. Those are terrible crimes, which raise with a new urgency the difficult problems faced by hospital managers every day of their working lives as they try to secure a proper balance in the security policies pursued by their hospitals.
  A hospital manager has to have a clear policy and to recognise his responsibility for the security of the premises, staff and patients. An important part of his duties is to ensure that he takes the necessary steps to discharge that responsibility. Proper security precautions must be taken in hospitals to ensure that NHS property is not stolen, NHS staff are not subjected to personal abuse, physical threats and violence of the sort that we saw earlier this week, and patients on NHS property do not become victims of the sort of terrible incident that we are discussing. Those are the primary responsibilities of NHS managers in dealing with security.
  However, we must also remember that a hospital is a place of open access and it is important that we do not pursue a security policy that makes the legitimate visitor to a hospital feel that he has to get past a security guard before his condition can be treated. That difficult balance must be struck. The key of any successful security policy in an NHS hospital is the word "balance." We must meet our proper security obligations without making the visitor to an NHS hospital feel that he has to justify himself to the security guard. Many of the people who come to NHS hospitals are either suffering from a condition requiring urgent treatment, so that the last thing they want to do is negotiate their way over a security hurdle, or are emotionally upset because they are the friends and
  1106
  relatives of people who may be ill. The last thing the relative of a cancer victim wants to encounter is a stroppy security guard. A difficult balance must be struck.
  My hon. Friend has asked how the Department tries to strike this balance and to discharge our responsibilities. First, we must recognise that security in NHS institutions is necessarily and rightly the responsibility of managers of those institutions. We cannot have Ministers second-guessing routine day-to-day managerial decisions in every hospital around the country—that way lies disaster. I firmly believe that the best way of ensuring efficient and effective management of the NHS is to give managers the authority to allow them to discharge their tasks and then to support them when they make reasonable efforts to discharge them.
  That is not to say that there is no place for guidance and support for these managers. That is why in 1984 the Government supported the production by the National Association of Health Authorities of an NHS security manual, which is the reference volume that all NHS managers use to assess and develop their security policies.
  The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, as it is now, proposed that the document should be updated. In the Department's initial response we suggested that NAHAT should recover the cost of a revised security manual from the sale of the books to health authorities. I have reviewed that decision in the light of the recent events in my hon. Friend's constituency and in Pinderfields hospital earlier this week, and I have today asked for £20,000 to be made available to NAHAT to meet the pre-production costs of an updated version of the manual. I am sure that NAHAT will produce an equally valuable updated version that will take into account recent experience. I hope that that shows the seriousness with which the Government view recent incidents and my determination to ensure that the lessons from them should be learnt and applied.
  I distance myself from some of the criticisms made by my hon. Friend of the way in which the incident in St. Helier hospital was acted upon by Merton and Sutton health authority. The authority is entitled to some credit for having quickly set up an inquiry to look into all the circumstances and to learn the lessons from the incident. Merton and Sutton health authority spends £140,000 a year on security at St. Helier hospital. Clearly, that security did not work in this case, so the authority's record is not perfect, but security is taken seriously at the hospital.
  My hon. Friend suggested that part of the answer lay in the number of nurses on the children's ward. He rightly said that there were two on duty that night—but he did not say that it was a Saturday night and that there were five patients on the ward. Two nurses for five patients on a Saturday night cannot be said to represent thin staffing levels, and I do not believe that the right response to a security problem is necessarily an increase in staff nursing levels.
  More important, perhaps, is the fact that we should not try to debate specific security precautions—in a specific hospital—on the Floor of the House. I take some comfort from the knowledge that the health authority set up a proper committee to examine the issue quickly, and that that committee in turn reported within a fortnight of the incident.
  Let me quote two of the comments made in the committee's report. First, it states:

  1107
  "it is the considered opinion of the Committee…following extensive interviews and receipt of comprehensive written reports and evidence, that security arrangements at St. Helier Hospital have improved over recent years, are valued by those working within the hospital environment and have been found to be a greater level of comprehensiveness than a number of systems in comparable hospitals."
  That is not the report of a committee overwhelmingly concerned by its findings—although it went on to make a number of proposals, including some that were touched on by my hon. Friend, on such matters as the gate at the back of the hospital and the need for proper fencing round the hospital. Those proposals were considered, and recommendations were made—recommendations which the health authority has said it will take very seriously.
  Secondly, the report states:
  "It is considered that the staffing levels generally employed by Unitrust"—
  the security firm—
  "at St. Helier Hospital are adequate."
  Although the report does not say—indeed, it could not, in the circumstances—that everything in the hospital is wonderful and no improvements can be made, it gives qualified support to the security policy pursued there and makes a number of detailed proposals for its improvement.
  Let me quote from another report about the incident—by Merton and Sutton community health council, which is not always a friend of hospital management. It is on record as saying:
  "Given the timescale the Committee conducted a thorough investigation"—
  I take comfort from that.
  "The report and background evidence compiled show that St. Helier Hospital is comparable if not better than other hospitals with regards to security."
  It also states:
  1108
  "The report indicates an improvement in security since the appointment of a specialist security firm and an improvement in the security consciousness of staff".
  I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that that suggests that the health authority has taken the problem seriously. It has set up a committee to advise it on how steps can be taken to improve the position and, furthermore, the committee's report has been examined by the CHC, which has declared itself satisfied that it is a serious piece of work which makes sensible proposals about how improvements can be made.
  We are talking about a tragic incident, which demonstrates the existence of a problem to which we have not yet found a wholly satisfactory answer. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome the fact that the Government have acted today to provide additional money to ensure that the NHS security manual is fully up to date, and that all the lessons of recent experience are learnt and applied. I hope that he will also accept that the district health authority has taken action to try to ensure locally that lessons are learnt, and that at all levels in the NHS—local management and Department of Health—we shall do what we can; but, if I may return to my first point, we must recognise that security policy in NHS hospitals is properly and inevitably a matter of balance.
  It would be wholly irresponsible for any Minister to stand here and say that any steps taken by him, or any taken by NHS managers, can constitute an absolute assurance that such an incident will never happen again. Such an assurance cannot be given; the assurance that I do give is that we will try hard to learn the lessons of these incidents, and also try to stop them from happening again.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Complaints
  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints against the police in England and Wales, including the Metropolitan police, were completed, whether formally or informally, in each of the last four years for which figures are available; of those how many were substantiated and how many were unsubstantiated; how many were informally resolved and how many were withdrawn or not proceeded with: and of those complaints that were substantiated, how many resulted in criminal charges being brought, how many resulted in disciplinary charges being brought and how many resulted in advice being given.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information relating to the numbers of complaints completed, and how many of these were substantiated, unsubstantiated, informally resolved and withdrawn or not proceeded with, are given in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, for all forces in England and Wales other than the Metropolitan police. Figures are also given in the reports in relation to complaints which resulted in criminal charges, disciplinary charges, or were dealt with by other means.

  The annual reports of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis show corresponding figures up to and including the year 1987. Information in relation to complaints substantiated, unsubstantiated, informally resolved and withdrawn or not proceeded with is not given in the Commissioner's reports for 1988 and 1989 owing to a change of format, and is as follows:

  1988

  1989

  Substantiated

  184

  103

  Unsubstantiated

  2,308

  1,906

  Informally resolved

  1,121

  1,207

  Withdrawn or not proceeded with (including those where dispensations were granted by the Police Complaints Authority or which were trivial or ill-founded)

  3,321

  3,657

  TOTAL

  6,934

  6,873

  Copies of all these reports can be found in the Library.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list separately for each of the last four years for which figures are available the number of charges of which officers in England and Wales were convicted arising from(a) complaints and (b) other information in each of the offence groups (i) violence against the person, (ii) sexual offences, (iii) burglary, (iv) robbery, (v) theft and handling stolen goods, (vi) fraud
  452
  and forgery, (vii) criminal damage, (viii) perjury, (ix) corruption, (x) other indictable offences, (xi) assault, (xii) other offences (not traffic) and (xiii) traffic offences.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information relating to the numbers of officers convicted of criminal offences, to whether the investigation arose from a complaint or from other circumstances, and whether the charge was in respect of a traffic offence or a non-traffic offence, is published annually in the reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, for all forces in England and Wales other than the Metropolitan police, and of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. More detailed information on the types of offences involved is not available.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year since 1985 the number of complaints against the police completed in England and Wales in which racially discriminatory behaviour was alleged; how many of those were substantiated and how many were unsubstantiated; how many were informally resolved; of those that were substantiated, how many resulted in a disciplinary charge being preferred; what was the outcome of such charge; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The available information is as follows:

  Number of complaints

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  Recorded1

  83

  197

  180

  220

  202

  Formally investigated

  57

  142

  131

  127

  135

  Substantiated

  0

  4

  4

  5

  4

  Unsubstantiated

  57

  138

  127

  122

  131

  1 Does not include complaints which were recorded but subsequently withdrawn.

  Information relating to any subsequent disciplinary proceedings or to the number of complaints informally resolved is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all those authorities which maintain bodies of constables, other than police authorities, which have concluded agreements with the Police Complaints Authority for the establishment of procedures corresponding to those established by part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and which he has approved, pursuant to section 96 of that Act; and if he will list separately those authorities which maintain bodies of constables which have not concluded such agreements.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Agreements under section 96 of the 1984 Act have been approved in respect of the Ministry of Defence police, the British transport police, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority police, the Port of London Authority police and Port of Liverpool police. There are 22 other private police forces of which I am aware which do not have such agreements.

  The 22 forces—the list is not exhaustive—are as follows:

  Port of Bristol Police

  Dover Harbour Board Police

  Falmouth Dock Police

  Port of Felixstowe Police

  Manchester Dock Police

  453

  Milford Docks Police

  Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Police

  Great Yarmouth Port and Haven Commissions River Inspectorate

  Royal Parks Constabulary

  Royal Botanic Gardens Constabulary

  Birmingham Parks Patrol

  City of Manchester Recreational Services Departmental Police

  Barnet Dog Handlers

  Wirral Parks Police

  Brighton Parks Police

  Brent Parks Police

  Wandsworth Parks Constabulary

  Merseyside Passenger Transport Authority, Mersey Tunnels Law Enforcement

  Tower of London Yeoman Warders

  Cambridge University Constables

  Oxford University Constables

  Epping Forest Rangers

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each year from 1985 the numbers of Metropolitan police officers who were charged with disciplinary offences following a successful civil action against the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for a wrongful act by an officer; and, in respect of each charge, whether the offence was proved and what punishment was imposed.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  This information is not kept nationally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list separately for each of the last four years for which figures are available the number of police officers in England and Wales who(a) resigned after criminal charges had been preferred against them but before such proceedings were completed, (b) resigned after disciplinary charges had been preferred against them but before such proceedings had been completed, (c) were under suspension at the time of their resignation and (d) resigned while under investigation for disciplinary matters.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Information relating to the numbers of officers who resigned after disciplinary criminal charges had been preferred against them but before the proceedings had been completed, the numbers of officers who resigned while under investigation, and the number of officers who were permitted to resign while under suspension, are given in the annual reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary, for all forces in England and Wales other than the Metropolitan police. Equivalent information in relation to Metropolitan police officers is contained in the annual reports of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, except that figures relating to officers who resigned before criminal proceedings against them were completed, or while they were under investigation for criminal matters are available only up to and including the year 1987. The information for later years could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 5 July, 7 September and 19 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Z. Saleem of 5 Argyle avenue, Manchester.
  454
  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I am sorry that the right hon. Member had not had a reply to his letters. Urgent inquiries are now being made of the entry clearance officer in Islamabad about Mr. Saleem's application. My right hon. Friend will write to the right hon. Member as soon as possible.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letters to him dated 17 July, 7 September and 19 October from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mrs. Z. Mohammed of 2 Holstone close, Manchester.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I regret that the response has been delayed and my right hon. Friend will reply to the right hon. Member in the very near future.

  Seals
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he intends to provide continuing protection for seals under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, following the expiry of the two orders laid under section 3(1) in 1988.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  We have now laid before Parliament the Conservation of Seals (England) Order 1990 which provides permanent close-season protection for both common and grey seals for three years in an area stretching along the North sea coast from the border between England and Scotland to Newhaven on the south coast. This order will come into effect on 19 December, to coincide with the expiry of the orders laid in 1988.

  My right hon. and learned Friend the former Secretary of State for Scotland has also laid the Conservation of Seals (Common Seals) (Shetland Islands Area) Order 1990 to provide similar protection for common seals in the Shetland Islands for one year while population surveys are carried out.

  Both these orders have been laid following advice from the Natural Environment Research Council. The phocine distemper virus affected principally common seals in the southern part of the North sea. Because of the difficulties in identifying seals in the water, and to reduce the risk of a common seal being shot in mistake for a grey seal, the Conservation of Seals (England) Order 1990 extends to both common and grey seals.

  PACE Codes of Practice
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has held, and from what bodies he has received representations, under section 69 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act or otherwise, in respect of new codes of practice A, B, C and D since those codes were originally published in July; and whether he intends to further modify the codes as a result of these additional consultations or representations.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  Since the draft revised codes were laid before Parliament on 9 July, further representations have been received from the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Metropolitan police, the British Deaf Association, members of the Bar and several other individuals, with all of whom there had been discussions or correspondence since the original versions of the draft revised codes were published in August 1989.
  455
  In the light of these representations, additional amendments have been made to the text of the draft revised codes. They were re-laid before Parliament on 8 November and now await debate in both Houses.

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the sexual offences, distinguishing between those committed by men and women, for which the Government propose longer custodial sentences; and what is his policy in respect of imposing longer custodial sentences for non-violent sex offences.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Government's policy, as set out in paragraph 3.13 of the White Paper "Crime Punishment and Protecting the Public" (Cm. 965 February 1990), is that the Crown court should have the power to give a sentence longer than that justified by the seriousness of the offence but within the maximum prescribed for that offence to a persistent and violent offender, if this is necessary to protect the public from serious harm.

  Clause 25(1) of the Criminal Justice Bill defines the sexual offences for which it is proposed that this power should be available. Excluding offences triable only on indictment, which are not subject to the provisions of clause 3 regarding the length of sentence which may he imposed, the offences covered by clause 25(1) are as follows:

  Sexual Offences Act 1956

  (1) Intercourse with a girl under 16 (section 6)

  (2) Indecency between men (section 13)

  (3) Indecent assault on a woman (section 14)

  (4) Indecent assault on a man (section 15)

  (5) Permitting a girl under 16 to use premises for intercourse (section 26)

  (6) Solicitation by a man (section 32)

  Indecency with Children Act 1960

  (7) Indecent conduct towards young children (section 1)

  Sexual Offences Act 1967

  (8) Procuring others to commit homosexual acts (section 4)

  (9) Living on the earnings of a male prostitute (section 5)

  Criminal Law Act 1977

  (10) Inciting a girl under 16 to have incestuous sexual intercourse (section 54)

  Protection of Children Act 1978

  (11) Offences concerning indecent photographs of children (section 1)

  The offences under sections 6, 13 and 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, under section 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967 and under section 54 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 may be committed only by a man; the remaining offences may be committed by a person of either sex.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his most recent discussions with Saudi Arabia on the conditions for military intervention in Kuwait and Iraq.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  King Fand reaffirmed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in September and to my 456
  right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence two weeks ago Saudi Arabia's commitment to achieving unconditional Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait and the return of the legitimate Government. United Kingdom forces were the subject of a statement to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 22 November.

  Mr. Sherrard Cowper-Coles
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of a speech by Mr. Sherrard Cowper-Coles, first secretary at the British embassy in Washington, to the Boston investor responsibility research centre.

  Mr. Hurd
  The reports of the remarks by the British official at a seminar in Boston on 11 October have selected comments from a briefing which was being given to increase support in the United States for fair employment legislation in Northern Ireland. The official was not speaking from a text.

  I regret the offence which has been caused by these remarks. They do not reflect the views of Her Majesty's Government.

  Fish Stocks, South Atlantic
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet reached agreement with the Government of Argentina for the conservation of fish stocks in the South Atlantic.

  Mr. Garel-Jones
  Yes: a joint statement on the conservation of fisheries in the south Atlantic ocean was agreed with the Government of Argentina on 28 November and announced by both Governments on that day. Copies of the statement have been placed in the Library of the House.

  The joint statement issued under the sovereignty umbrella provides for a temporary total ban on fishing from 26 December 1990 in an area defined in an annex to the statement. It also provides for co-operation between the two Governments in the conservation of fish stocks. We regard the joint statement as an important conservation measure and a welcome development in Anglo-Argentine co-operation.

ENERGY

  British Gas
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) how many computer runs to detect multiple share applications for British Gas shares by fuzzy matching and other computerised techniques have been carried out in each year from 1986 to 1989 and in 1990 to date;

  (2) what has been the estimated average cost of each computer run to detect multiple share applications for British Gas.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Work since 1987 has been carried out by the police, not by my department. Information in the form requested is not readily available.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what factors determined the price for shares in the regional electricity companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  In determining the share price the key factor was the dividend yield to be applied to pro forma dividends disclosed in the prospectus. The offer was priced having regard both to current stock market circumstances and to the fact that the price has to be robust to movements in the stock market up till the start of dealings.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what consultations he had with the Association of District Councils or the Welsh Association of District Councils regarding profit-sharing arrangements for showrooms previously owned by municipal electricity undertakings and disposed of post-privatisation by the electricity distribution companies;

  (2) what consultations he undertook with the Association of District Councils regarding the arrangements for clawback or profit-sharing on electricity distribution company properties, previously owned by municipal electricity undertakings and disposed of for other purposes post-privatisation;

  (3) what representations he has received regarding clawback or profit-sharing arrangements with the appropriate local authorities for properties vested in electricity distribution companies, owned by municipal electricity companies before 1948, and disposed of for non-electricity related purposes post-privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have not received any such representations or held such consultations.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy on what date he was first approached by MCA Merchandising regarding the requirement for a licence fee relating to copyright for the advertising campaign for the flotation of the electricity distribution companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Her Majesty's Government have never been approached by MCA Merchandising regarding a licence fee relating to copyright for the advertising for the flotation of the distribution companies. This is a matter between MCA Merchandising and WCRS, the advertising agency.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what recent discussions he has had with the chairmen of National Power and PowerGen regarding the proposed dates for stock market flotation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The details of my discussions with the chairmen of National Power and PowerGen are confidential. I intend to float both generating companies next February, subject to market conditions.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy, further to his answer of 22 November to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras,Official Report, column 178, if he will place in the Library a copy of the preliminary view of the Energy Action Grants Agency on the scale of insulation and advice which can be undertaken in each locality using grants under the home energy efficiency scheme.
  458
  Mr. Wakeham
  The provision of information to organisations wishing to be registered as network installers under the home energy efficiency scheme (HEES) is a matter for the Energy Action Grants Agency (EAGA). I have today placed in the Library copies of the information sent by EAGA to all those organisations applying for registration, including the preliminary view taken by EAGA on the broad scale of insulation and advice that network installers might be able to undertake using grants under HEES.

ENVIRONMENT

  National Gypsy Council
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money his Department has allocated to the National Gypsy Council in each year from 1979 to 1989.

  Mr. Key
  The National Gypsy Council has received funding towards its administration costs from my Department's small grants and special grants programmes since 1978. The amounts of grant have been as follows:

  £

  1978–79

  6,300

  1979–80

  6,930

  1980–81

  7,600

  1981–82

  9,100

  1982–83

  12,000

  1983–84

  12,720

  1984–85

  13,300

  1985–86

  13,860

  1986–87

  14,300

  1987–88

  14,660

  1988–89

  14,953

  1989–90

  14,953

  Grants under the special grants programme are given to assist voluntary organisations become established or to carry out specific projects. It is not the intention to provide permanent funding and grants are normally given for a maximum of three years. In the case of the National Gypsy Council, it was felt that their work was sufficiently valuable to warrant a longer period of support, but this is now being progressively withdrawn so that they have the stimulus to become more self-sufficient.

  Empty Housing
  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the most recent figure for local authority housing empty for over one year in England.

  Mr. Key
  Local authorities report the number of their dwellings which have been empty for over one year in their annual housing investment programme returns—HIP1. The estimated total of such dwellings in England at 1 April 1990 appears in column A188 of "1990 HIP1—Regional Grossing", a copy of which is in the Library.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many private dwellings in England have remained empty for more than 12 months.

  Mr. Key
  A recent estimate is not available.

  Diesel Smoke
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations control the emission of diesel smoke from equipment used on building and construction sites; which agency is responsible for enforcement; and what action has been taken to control such emissions.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Part III of the Public Health Act 1936, to be replaced on 1 January 1991 by the strengthened and improved provisions in part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, applies to emissions which could be prejudicial to the health of or a nuisance to people in the vicinity of such equipment. Section 1 of the Clean Air Act 1968 applies to dark smoke emissions from building or construction sites. Local authorities are responsible for taking action under both measures as the need arises. The Health and Safety at Work Act., etc. 1974 and Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations apply to emissions which may be hazardous to the health of workers on building or construction sites: the Health and Safety Executive is responsible for enforcement.

  Housing Corporation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many circulars the Housing Corporation has issued between January and September 1990; and at what cost.

  Mr. Michael Spicer
  The Department does not hold the information requested. I have asked the Housing Corporation to write to my hon. Friend.

  Community Charge (Exemption Certificates)
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to review the guidelines issued to general practitioners who sign exemption certificates in respect of the poll tax to seek to achieve greater consistency in interpretation of the current rules.

  Mr. Key
  Advice was issued to general practitioners by the Department of Health and to local authorities by my Department on 2 July; there is no intention at present to issue any further advice.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list 20 per cent. of the community charge for each local authority;

  (2) if he will list the numbers exempted from paying the community charge due to severe mental impairment by each local authority in England.

  Mr. Key
  I am arranging for the available information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many pensioners have(a) ceased to be eligible for exemption from community charge as a result of SI 1990 No. 462 or (b) had to wait for receipt of attendance allowance to fulfil the conditions for exemption from community charge.

  Mr. Key
  Information is held only on the numbers of people who fall within each exempt group. SI 1990/462 460
  increased the scope of the exemption from the personal community charge for those who are severely mentally impaired by providing that the cause of that condition should be disregarded and amending the list of qualifying conditions. The inclusion of attendance allowance and constant attendance allowance for these purposes, for which entitlement continues beyond pensionable age, meant that the condition that a person should be of pensionable age was no longer required.

  London Residuary Body
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the reappointments of the members of the London residuary body.

  Mr. Key
  The following have been reappointed to the London residuary body for the period 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1993 or until the dissolution of the body, whichever is sooner:

  Members:

  Councillor Sir Peter Bowness, CBE, DL

  J Esling

  W Mackenzie, OBE

  M C Roberts

  J Wolkind, CBE

  The London residuary body has completed the bulk of its ex-GLC tasks and has already distributed £486 million in capital receipts and £184 million in revenue balances for the benefit of London's chargepayers.

  The reappointments reflect my right hon. Friend's confidence in the board's ability to discharge the new tasks which the residuary body assumed on 1 April 1990 on the abolition of ILEA.

  Dispatch Services
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce the outcome of the sale competition for the Crown Suppliers' vehicle hire business and the interdepartmental dispatch service.

  Mr. Portillo
  Discussions are continuing on the sale of the Crown Suppliers' vehicle hire and maintenance business. An announcement will be made as soon as possible. There are no acceptable bids for the interdepartmental dispatch service, which will, therefore, be retained in government.

  Local Government Economic Development
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has received any representations about the Local Government (Promotion of Economic Development) Regulations 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  The Association of District Councils and a number of individual councils have argued that it would be sufficient if local authorities that are not education authorities consulted their local education authority about the programmes of education and training that they provide for economic development purposes. We have accepted this, and the Department is consulting the local authority associations on draft regulations to replace the current requirement to obtain the consent of the local education authority to those programmes with a requirement to consult the local education authority. The
  461
  draft regulations also make it clear that the new economic development power is not intended to change the rules on the disposal of land at less than the best considered reasonably obtainable.

  Council House Sales
  Mr. Fishburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dwellings each local authority has sold under the right to buy legislation, or voluntarily, in each year since 1979; and what percentage of the total local authority stock they represent.

  Mr. Key
  I have placed in the Library two tables giving available information on local authority sales up to June 1990. Table 1 shows year by year information for each authority during the years 1979–80 to 1985–86. Table 2 shows year by year information for each authority since 1985–86 together with cumulative figures since April 1979 and the proportion of their stock sold since April 1979.

  Hostels
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money will be made available for the development of the two direct access hostels in Lambeth and Islington to meet long-term emergency housing needs in north and south London; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Resettlement Agency is committed to completing the Camberwell replacement programme including assisting with the funding of a further two direct access hostels. As there have been no viable proposals for these hostels, none of the agency's funding has been allocated for them. Should such proposals be received they will be considered by the chief executive who will weigh them alongside the rest of the agency's replacement priorities.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Attorney-General how many vacancies there are currently in the Crown prosecution service for(a) solicitors or barristers and (b) other staff.

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown prosecution service currently has 377 vacancies for solicitors or barristers, with a total of 1,674 being in post. It has 21·5 vacancies for other staff, with 2,753·5 being in post.

TRANSPORT

  A6, Higham Ferrers
  Mr. Fry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will consider the installation of a pedestrian crossing on the A6 at the market square, Higham Ferrers.

  Mr. Chope
  A request for a pelican crossing on the A6 has been received from Higham Ferrers town council and is being considered. A decision is expected by the end of the year.

  Railway Electrification
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals British Rail has put to him for extending the electrification of the Hooton to Chester and Helsby railway line.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  British Rail, together with Cheshire county council and other local councils and the Merseyside passenger transport authority, has proposed that the lines from Hooton to Chester and to Ellesmere Port should be electrified. I am examining this proposal.

  Cam Spirit
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department's inspectors are satisfied that the vessel Cam Spirit is suitable for use as a standby vessel for North sea operations.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  A standby vessel for North sea operations has to be surveyed annually if a certificate of inspection is to be issued to it under a code published by the Department. The Cam Spirit satisfied the requirements of this code when she was last surveyed by a marine surveyor in December 1989. The next survey is due in a few weeks.

THE ARTS

  Sound Amplification
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Arts if he will obtain for his office's library a copy of the recent report produced jointly by the Carnegie United Kingdom Trust and the Arts Council on provision for hard-ofhearing audiences, entitled, "Sound Off".

  Mr. Renton
  I have already done so. The report is a helpful survey of the provision of sound amplification equipment in London's theatres. It also explains how theatres, cinemas, museums, galleries, libraries and other arts venues can apply to the ADAPT fund. This fund is part funded by the Government and assists in making essential adaptations and providing facilities for people with disabilities.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Arts what plans he has to encourage increased provision for sound amplification equipment in theatres, concert halls and opera houses.

  Mr. Renton
  My aim is for the arts to be accessible to everyone. The Government have given £150,000 to the Carnegie Trust's ADAPT fund for the improvement of facilities for disabled people in arts venues. By use of challenge grants the fund aims to encourage additional, and at least equal, financial contributions from local communities. Some of the fund has been used to assist with the installation of sound amplification equipment, and applications are invited for further projects.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Private Investors
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of United Kingdom share capital was held by private investors in each year since 1979.
  463
  Mr. Maude
  Up-to-date information on the share capital held by private individuals is not yet available. Results from December 1989 survey of share registers conducted by the Central Statistical Office are due to be published in the near future.

  Current estimates of the value of ordinary and preference shares held by the personal sector, which consists of individuals resident in the United Kingdom, unincorporated private businesses, sole trader and partnerships, non-profit making bodies serving persons and private trusts are as follows:

  UK Ordinary and Preference Shares held by the Personal Sector

  End Year

  Market value of shares outstanding of which

  Total

  Personal Sector

  Personal Sector

  (£ billion)

  (£ billion)

  Percentage share

  1979

  83·5

  29·8

  35·8

  1980

  105·7

  37·1

  35·2

  1981

  115·6

  36·7

  31·7

  1982

  141·5

  43·3

  30·6

  1983

  178·3

  52·3

  29·4

  1984

  226·6

  59·1

  26·1

  1985

  267·2

  66·5

  24·9

  1986

  349·9

  91·1

  26·0

  1987

  395·8

  117·9

  29·8

  1988

  429·0

  123·4

  28·8

  1989

  550·0

  145·9

  26·5

  These figures are consistent with those to be published in table 14.5 of the December issue of "Financial Statistics".

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Prosecutions
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will prosecute Charles Church Development, and Torday and Carlisle, Prowting under section 234(3) and (7) and paragraph 5 of schedule 3 to the Companies Act 1985 for failure to specify the recipients of political donations.

  Mr. Redwood
  In accordance with its usual practice in response to specific allegations of non-compliance with statutory disclosure requirements, my Department will look into this.

  Scottish Electricity Industry
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he proposes to exlude from the application of United Kingdom restrictive trade practices legislation the contracts entered into between the successor companies to the Scottish electricity boards for the restructuring of the Scottish electricity industry prior to privatisation.

  Mr. Redwood
  Scottish Power plc and Scottish Hydro-Electric plc are required by the terms of their licences to enter into certain restructuring contracts, which are designed to give the companies access to a balanced portfolio of generating assets on a long-term basis and to govern the operation of their transmission assets. The Government intend that these contracts should, in view of their fundamental importance to the restructuring of the Scottish electricity supply industry for the purpose of 464
  privatisation, be excluded from the ambit of United Kingdom restrictive trade practices legislation. Yesterday, I therefore laid before the House an order made under section 100(2) of the Electricity Act 1989, exempting the contracts from the ambit of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976.

  For the future, the Government are proposing to introduce new legislation on restrictive trade practices, in implementation of the proposals outlined in the White Paper "Opening Markets: New Policy on Restrictive Trade Practices"—CM 727—published in July 1989. It is our intention that the exemptions granted to the Scottish restructuring contracts under current restrictive trade practices legislation should be carried forward by means of an exclusion from the proposed prohibition on restrictive agreements. The proposed legislation will be introduced when parliamentary time permits.

  Government Contracts
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement about the Government contracts preference schemes (GCPS).

  Mr. Leigh
  The Government contracts preference schemes, which apply in the development areas of Great Britain, and in Northern Ireland, have been little used in recent years. The schemes were introduced in the 1930s, and aim to give opportunities to businesses in those areas to secure public sector contracts if their bids are competitive. In Northern Ireland, though not in Great Britain, a price preference of 5 per cent. has been allowable for goods manufactured in the Province.

  In the development of a more open framework of public sector procurement rules within the Community, and in the broader approach to the single market, the Government agree with the EC Commission and other member states that it is inappropriate for public sector procurement contracts to be reserved for businesses in particular areas, even the very limited provisions of the United Kingdom's schemes.

  The Government have therefore decided that the contract preference schemes are to be terminated. Applications from businesses to be recorded as eligible under the schemes will not be accepted after close of business on 31 December 1990.

  This arrangement provides a short period of notice of termination, and is intended to minimise the effect on businesses which may have prepared, or are preparing, bids and tenders in the expectation that the schemes would be in place. It means that for prospective contracts and invitations first issued by the schemes' participating purchasing organisations on or before 31 December 1990, eligible applicants may continue to use the scheme up to the stage of tender and final contract even when the contract-placing timetables go beyond that date. However, the schemes will not apply in any respect for new prospective contracts or invitations to tender issued after 31 December 1990.

  Help for businesses to effectively compete for public procurement contracts is now being offered in a number of ways under European and national programmes. The EC Commission's initiative to help businesses in objective 1 regions prepare for the single market—PRISMA—will be available in Northern Ireland. The Commission is also examining the potential to use existing initiatives more effectively, such as the Euro info centre and business

  465
  co-operation networks, and the tenders electronic daily system, as a means of disseminating information on public procurement contracts to smaller companies.

  My Department's single market campaign stresses the importance of the European public procurement market and a "Guide to Public Procurement" booklet is being issued widely. Enterprise initiative consultancy support in marketing and other business disciplines will help improve the competitiveness of firms bidding for public contracts, and more widely. Our "Managing into the 90s" programme is also promoting good purchasing practice. In addition, regional and local government development agencies, chambers of commerce and other private sector bodies are increasingly encouraging their member businesses to pay close attention to the opportunities of the public procurement market.

  New Businesses
  Mr. Oppenheim
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new businesses have been set up in Amber Valley since 1979.

  Mr. Forth
  I have been asked to reply.

  Between the end of 1979 and the end of 1989, there were an estimated 3,400 new registrations for VAT in the Amber Valley local authority district. During the same period, there were an estimated 2,700 deregistrations, giving a net increase of 700, or 29 per cent.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Haberdashers' Aske's CTC
  Ms. Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will list all amendments and variations from the terms of the model funding agreement for city technology colleges deposited in the Library in 1989, which he now intends to include in the specific agreement to fund a Haberdashers' Aske's city technology college.

  Mr. Eggar
  My right hon. and learned Friend expects to sign a funding agreement with the Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham College Trust substantially the same in all respects as the revised model agreement placed in the Library on 31 October this year. This supersedes the version placed in the Library last Summer.

  Natural Environment Research Council
  Mr. Hanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, whether he has received the annual report of the Natural Environment Research Council for 1989–90; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The annual report of the Natural Environment Research Council has been submitted to my right hon. and learned Friend under the requirements of the Science and Technology Act 1965, and a copy is being laid before the House today.

  In the year that the Government's White Paper on the environment, "This Common Inheritance" was published, I believe that the council's report amply demonstrates the way it has been able to focus multidisciplinary research on a range of important global, regional and local environmental issues, including:

  (a) the uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans through two studies

  466

  the North sea project, from which results indicate that the physical uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans globally may be less than previously thought, the biogeochemical ocean flux study—BOFS—where work in the north Atlantic shows that the biological transfer of carbon dioxide from the surface to deeper waters is stronger than previously supposed;

  (b) the development of diagnostic tests to assess the impact of particular pollutants on key marine species, and the use of these species as "biological detectives" to monitor the impact of pollution for the ecosystem as whole;

  (c) the development of new analytical methods for the study of pesticides within river sediment, leading to the identification of reservoirs of compounds such as DDT, which have remained undetected for more than 20 years;

  (d) the development of computer-based models of changes in river quality, required for the effective management of water resources, which the council has also been able to exploit;

  (e) the successful development of efficient methods of reintroducing symbiotic fungi that help trees obtain essential nutriments from the soil, which should increase the success in replanting deforested areas.

  (f) geochemical surveys which have helped to highlight areas of the United Kingdom where

  toxic trace elements, organic compounds or soil gases for example radon, are present,

  or essential elements such as copper are lacking, with implications for human, livestock or crop health.

  I congratulate the council on these and its many other achievements and commend this report to hon. Members.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 29 November.

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a long-standing engagement in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir. F. Montgomery.)

  Statements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to make greater use of statements to the House at 3.30 pm.

  The Prime Minister
  Ministers make statements when appropriate.

  The Gulf
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss the ecological consequences of a military option in the Gulf with President Bush.

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Saudi Arabia about military action against Iraq.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) discussed the invasion of Kuwait, including the military aspects, with King Fand and other members of the Government of Saudi Arabia on a number of occasions after 2 August. My right hon.
  467
  Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and for Defence have had similar discussions.

  Government Offices and Civil Servants
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he will take to ensure that all relevant rules are followed prohibiting Government offices and civil servants from being used on behalf of any political party by Ministers in his Government; and if he will make a statement.

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 November 1990]: No special steps are necessary.

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

  Nursery

  Infant

  Junior

  Primary

  Secondary

  Total

  1979

  —

  4

  1

  4

  2

  11

  1980

  —

  5

  6

  8

  3

  22

  1981

  5

  17

  13

  9

  —

  44

  1982

  —

  13

  11

  6

  5

  35

  1983

  —

  14

  12

  9

  7

  42

  1984

  4

  14

  13

  3

  2

  36

  1985

  2

  7

  5

  18

  —

  32

  1986

  —

  1

  3

  12

  15

  21

  1987

  1

  3

  4

  10

  6

  24

  1988

  2

  3

  2

  8

  3

  18

  1989

  1

  6

  4

  8

  2

  21

  21990

  1

  8

  6

  4

  1

  20

  TOTAL

  16

  95

  80

  99

  36

  1 Includes 3 county junior comprehensive schools and 1 county senior comprehensive school.

  2 To date.

  EC Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether local authorities in Gwynedd, Dyfed and Powys have adequate matching resources to enable them to take up fully the funds available from the European Community under the IOP for those three counties; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Expected receipts from the European Community are taken into account when setting the level of public expenditure, so that spending is higher than would otherwise be the case. Local authorities within the area of the Dyfed, Gwynedd and Powys national programme of community interest benefit from increased credit approvals and reduced borrowing requirements.

  Roads
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons are currently employed in the roads division of the Welsh Office; and what was the corresponding number in 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  At 1 October 1990, a total of 160·5 staff—excluding central support services staff—were employed in the Welsh Office transport and highways divisions. At 30 September 1979 the equivalent figure was 156·5.
  468
  The Prime Minister
  [pursuant to the reply, 19 November 1990, c. 3–4.]:

  1988

  September—Mr. Hamilton, Minister of State, Defence

  1990

  March—Mr. Hamilton, Minister of State, Defence

  October—Mr. Hamilton, Minister of State, Defence

WALES

  School Closures
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many schools in Wales have been closed since 1979, by year and age group.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information is shown in the following table:

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of his Department's policy guidelines in relation to the use of the Welsh language in Wales by his Department.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Current policy regarding the use of Welsh in the internal administration of the department is based on the guidelines set out in the Hughes Parry report on the status of the Welsh language. This policy is currently being reviewed in the light of the guidelines prepared by the Welsh Language Board. I will place a copy of any new guidelines in the Library of the House once they have been finalised.

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the total Government expenditure on the promotion and development of the Welsh language in each year since 1985.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Since 1984–85, Government grants for the Welsh language made under section 21 of the Education Act 1980 and under section 26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 have been:

  Year

  Section 21 (local education authorities)

  Section 21 (other bodies)

  Section 26

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1984–85

  626,164

  378,537

  982,124

  1,986,825

  1985–86

  945,657

  372,000

  1,103,850

  2,421,507

  1986–87

  989,165

  458,890

  1,079,700

  2,527,755

  469

  Year

  Section 21 (local education authorities)

  Section 21 (other bodies)

  Section 26

  Total

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1987–88

  1,075,000

  592,025

  1,156,163

  2,823,188

  1988–89

  1,118,895

  874,956

  1,352,136

  3,345,987

  1989–90

  1,320,000

  1,348,061

  1,639,425

  4,307,486

  11990–91

  1,503,000

  2,022,000

  2,345,000

  5,870,000

  Total

  7,577,881

  6,046,469

  9,658,398

  23,282,748

  Note—1 Provisional

  Care and Repair Schemes
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he is undertaking any initiatives to extend the geographical availability of care and repair schemes in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  We are currently considering the future funding of Care and Repair (Wales) which will have responsibility for the further development of new schemes in Wales.

  Waste Disposal Sites
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up an independent environmental audit of all licensed waste disposal sites in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  No. My right hon. Friend will receive from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution regular reports of audits of each of the waste regulation authorities' operations.

  Medical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information his Department holds on successful medical negligence claims made against health authorities in Wales.

  Mr. Grist
  The legal division of the Welsh Office acts for district health authorities in Wales in relation to medical negligence claims and therefore holds relevant files. Information held by that division is subject to the usual rules of solicitor-client confidentiality. The Department also holds financial information relating to the settlement of any individual claims in excess of £30,000.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report, for the latest available date, the number of schools that have applied for grant-maintained status in Wales, separately distinguishing primary and secondary schools.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Two schools in Wales have applied for grant-maintained status. Both are secondary schools.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what statutory responsibilities health authorities in Wales have for dealing with an outbreak of food-related disease in the human population.

  Mr. Grist
  The specific statutory responsibilities duties and powers which are significant in the handling of a food 470
  poisoning outbreak are placed upon local authorities. However, Welsh Office guidance to local authorities ask district councils to ensure that they appoint, as proper officer for the discharge of functions relating to the control of outbreaks of food poisoning, a consultant in communicable disease control of the district health authority.

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 21 November, if he will place a copy of his letter to Roy Stoner, his groundwater consultant on the Cardiff bay barrage, and the subsequent correspondence with the chairman of the Cardiff Bay development corporation in the Library.

  Mr. David Hunt
  No.

  Education Vouchers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy on the use of education vouchers in the schools service in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Government's current policies for education—in particular more open enrolment and funding following pupil numbers through local management of schools—are already securing many of the objectives of vouchers. These policies extend choice and reward good schools.

  Private Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of Government money given to the private schools sectors in Wales, school by school, in each year since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 8 May 1990.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which private schools in Wales he has visited.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None.

  Truancy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give the truancy figures for each of the local education authorities in Wales for each year since 1979.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he proposes to increase local education authority funding to enable local education authority cuts in nursery school provision to be restored.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The responsibility for nursery school provision lies with local education authorities. They must determine the level of provision in line with their assessment of priorities within the education service.

  City Technology Colleges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many city technology colleges there are in Wales; how many are proposed; and if he will make a statement.
  471
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  None. I am ready to consider any proposals put forward to establish a college.

  Historic Buildings
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will give details of the total Government expenditure on the upkeep, care and protection of historic buildings and monuments in Wales in each year since 1980.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Expenditure by the Government on historic buildings and monuments in Wales, excluding presentation activities and departmental running costs for Cadw and its predecessors during the years 1980–81 to 1989–90 was as follows.

  £'000

  1980–81

  1,711

  1981–82

  2,119

  1982–83

  2,052

  1983–84

  2,663

  1984–85

  3,501

  1985–86

  3,557

  1986–87

  3,621

  1987–88

  4,075

  1988–89

  4,043

  1989–90

  5,090

  Pembrokeshire Health Authority
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what body will be responsible for procuring health services in Pembrokeshire in the event that he approves the reconstitution of the Pembrokeshire health authority as a national health service trust.

  Mr. Grist
  This matter will be considered in the light of my right hon. Friend's decision on any formal application for NHS trust status that might be forthcoming.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs in manufacturing in Wales have been lost since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 28 November 1990.

  Local Authority Expenditure
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he is making for informing Welsh local authorities of their standard spending assessments.

  Mr. David Hunt
  My officials have today written to Welsh authorities, advising them of their provisional SSAs. I am placing copies of that letter in the Vote Office and in the Library of the House. Final figures will be contained in the distribution report which will be laid before the House shortly.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Farm Wages
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what will be the increase in the national farm wages bill if the requirement to provide income for workers who are sick is shifted from the state to employers.
  472
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Under the proposals in the Statutory Sick Pay Bill, which received its Third Reading on 28 November, the amount of statutory sick pay—SSP—which employers can recover from their remittances of national insurance contributions will be set at 80 per cent. instead of 100 per cent. Also, the additional amount—currently 7 per cent.—which employers can get back as compensation for the national insurance contributions payable on SSP itself will end. Subject to parliamentary approval, these changes will operate from 6 April 1991.

  My right hon. Friend has also announced reductions in national insurance contributions worth some £250 million to employers to operate from the same date. Although the reductions will apply over the whole range of employers' contributions, they have been particularly weighted towards those employers whose employees are not highly paid.

  From April 1991 all the lower rates of contribution payable by employers in respect of employees earning up to £185 per week will be reduced by 0·4 per cent. This will be of particular help to employers of agricultural workers, many of whom earn less than £185 per week.

  The precise effect of the combined SSP-national insurance contributions package on the national farm wages bill will depend on the sickness experience and pay levels of the work force, but the contributions reductions that I outlined will go a long way towards reducing any extra costs for employers on SSP and in some cases will completely offset this.

  Bearing in mind the contribution reductions explained above and the fact that most spells of SSP are over very quickly—the average spell is three weeks and 90 per cent. are over within eight weeks—the extra costs for employers, particularly small employers, are not expected to be significant.

  Tax Benefit Tables
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the 1990 edition of the tax benefit model tables.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  Copies will be placed in the Library today.

  Residential and Nursing Care
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to the statement made by the Lord President of the Council concerning expenditure on residential and nursing care,Official Report, 22 November, column 510, if he will tabulate the total expenditure in this field for the years 1979 and 1989, respectively, together with the breakdown into principal categories of cost, separating capital and revenue expenditure, and distinguishing moneys actually received by sponsoring bodies and other Government expenditure.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The available information is shown in the table:

  Numbers and Expenditure—All income support claimants in Residential Care and Nursing Homes

  Date

  Numbers of claimants (thousands)

  Annual equivalent expenditure1 (nearest £ million)

  December 1979

  12

  10

  December 1980

  13

  18

  December 1981

  13

  23

  473

  Date

  Numbers of claimants (thousands)

  Annual equivalent expenditure1 (nearest £ million)

  December 1982

  16

  39

  December 1983

  26

  104

  December 1984

  42

  200

  December 1985

  70

  348

  February 1986

  90

  459

  May 1987

  117

  671

  May 1988

  147

  878

  May 1989

  176

  1,105

  May 1990

  189

  1,270

  1 Total weekly expenditure of supplementary benefit/income support expressed as an annual figure.

  Lone Parents
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security further to his oral answer of 19 November,Official Report, column 5, about the percentage of mothers who voluntarily give information about the father, whether this refers to lone parents or single mothers who are lone parents and whether he was referring to general information which would enable his Department to pursue an absent father for maintenance.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The figure—about 75 per cent.—is based on information currently available from local offices about income support cases where the child's parents have never been married to each other. Obtaining the name of the father is the first step in pursuing maintenance in these cases.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many hospital patients are(a) exempted from community charge or (b) receiving community charge benefits.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The estimated numbers of hospital patients exempt from community charge in England and Wales are in the table.

  England

  Wales

  Persons whose sole or main residence is an NHS hospital or NHS nursing home

  42,000

  3,800

  Persons whose sole or main residence is a

  Residential care home

  Nursing home

  Mental nursing home

  Private hospital

  Hostel providing a substantial level of care, and also being treated or cared for in such an institution.

  321,000

  23,800

  Total

  363,000

  27,600

  The information for Scotland is not available.

  Information on the number of hospital patients receiving community charge benefit is not available.

  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of the cost to Mid-Devon district council of administering community charge benefit will be reimbursed in 1990–91; and what proportion of that cost will be reimbursed in his Department's plans for 1991–92 and each of the ensuing three years.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Department directly reimburses 50 per cent. of local authorities' estimated 474
  administrative needs through a cash-limited specific grant; the remaining 50 per cent. is taken into account in the local authority finance settlements. The specific grant is distributed between authorities according to a formula agreed with local authority representatives. In 1990–91, Mid-Devon's share of the specific grant was £48,538; this includes the additional money for the work arising from the capital limit changes announced in the budget. Although next year's overall totals have been announced, the distributional formula has yet to be decided. The arrangements for future years will be kept under review.

  Income Support
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on the deduction of fines from income support at source.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The Criminal Justice Bill now before the House includes provision for repayment of fines by weekly deduction from income support in suitable cases. The regulations, which are intended to provide the detailed conditions, would maintain the existing maximum overall limit on the amount that can be deducted for debts, including fines. This provides a safeguard against too many deductions being made from benefit.

  Spending Power
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish tables using the assumptions used in his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) on 19 February,Official Report, columns 560–64, but using expenditure and benefit figures appropriate for families in Great Britain, together with a column showing the extent of the differences resulting from the April 1988 social security changes.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The tax-benefit model tables which show the financial position of hypothetical local authority tenants with the head in full-time work or unemployed in April and October 1990 are available in the Library.

  The passage of time, and subsequent changes in the benefit system, have rendered increasingly meaningless any attempt to make hypothetical comparisons between what people get now and what they might have got under a system which was almost universally recognised as being riddled with anomalies and failing to target help sensibly. With this in mind, the Government no longer publish tables making such comparisons.

HEALTH

  Addenbrooke's Hospital
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning the provision of staff cover at Addenbrooke's hospital, Cambridge, on the afternoon of Thursday, 29 November, when 150 resident nurses and student nurses are due to appear at Cambridge city magistrates court.

  Mr. Dorrell
  None.

  Adoption
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information he has on the prices charged to prospective adoptive couples for home studies by(a) Surrey social services and (b) Suffolk social services, in respect of inter-country adoptions;

  (2) what advice has been issued by his Department to social services departments on pricing policies for charges for home study visits in respect of inter-country adoptions.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The level of such charges is a matter for local authorities.

  Ear Implants
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to his statement of 4 January, if he will now make a statement about the wider use of the titanium implant technique to prosthesis ears.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I announced central funding for a cochlear implant programme on 25 June including additional funds for Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham to assist with a programme of NHS provision of bone implanted hearing aids using titanium screws. The pace at which wider use is made of titanium implant techniques is a matter for health authorities to determine in the light of their assessment of local needs, priorities and resources.

  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will be able to make a statement further to that which he made on 4 January, regarding the establishment of a central fund to finance a cochlear implant programme.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I announced the names of the six hospitals selected to receive central funding for their cochlear implant programmes on 25 June. They are:

  Region and Unit

  Funding 1990–91 £

  North East Thames

  University College/Royal Ear Hospitals

  200,000

  Northern

  North Riding Infirmary, Middlesbrough

  150,000

  North Western

  Manchester Royal Infirmary

  160,000

  Trent

  Nottingham General Hospital

  160,000

  Wessex

  South Hants Hospital, Southampton

  150,000

  West Midlands

  Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham

  150,000

  Air Ambulance Services
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects his Department will complete its evaluation of air ambulance services; and when he expects the report will be published.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The evaluation of the Royal London helicopter emergency medical service and the Cornwall first air ambulance service is due to begin early in 1991. The report is expected in autumn 1994.

  High-voltage Power Lines
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department gives to health authorities on patients suffering from headache, depression, miscarriage,476
  cancer or leukaemia, who are living in the close proximity of high-voltage power lines; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The National Radiological Protection Board has a statutory duty to advise Government and others on possible hazards to health from all forms of radiation, including non-ionising radiation. Its most recent advice is contained in "Guidance on Exposure to Time-Varying Electromagnetic Fields"—(NRPB-GS11, 1989)—a copy of which is in the Library. This does not advocate any special precautions for people living close to high-voltage power lines. The board has recently undertaken an extensive review of the evidence on possible health consequences of exposure to electromagnetic fields. This will be published shortly and will form the basis of any revision to the guidance.

  Health Authority Reports
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish in the Official Report a list of the titles, together with a note summarising their purpose, of the reports which his Department receives on a monthly, quarterly and annual basis from both district and general health authorities.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 14 November 1990]: The Department receives around 100 different regular statistical returns from district and regional health authorities, mostly at the district level. A list of the statistical and financial returns required for 1987–88 and 1988–89 is available in the Library. I will arrange for an updated list for 1989–90 to be placed in the Library shortly.

EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will update the information in his reply of 24 July 1989,Official Report, columns 481–82, concerning the change in civilian employment since 1979 in the United Kingdom and European Community Twelve.

  Mr. Jackson
  Employment estimates are not yet available for many EC countries after 1988. The changes in total civilian employment for the United Kingdom and the EC as a whole between 1979 and 1988 are shown in the table.

  Changes in Civilian Employment: 1979 to 1988

  Thousands

  Per cent.

  United Kingdom

  525

  +2·1

  EC12

  4,546

  +3·7

  Source: United Kingdom (ED), Other EC countries OECD Labour Force Statistics 1968–1988.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will arrange for the hon. Member for Oldham, West to receive copies of all the answers to parliamentary questions given by the chief executive of the Employment Agency on matters related to the unemployment benefit service.
  477
  Mr. Jackson
  The arrangements in the Employment Service executive agency for answering parliamentary questions and Members' correspondence are intended to ensure that, following "next steps" principles, hon. and right hon. Members receive replies from the person who is best placed to respond promptly and effectively. If the reply is from the chief executive, it is sent direct to the Member and is copied to the Library of the House and to its Public Information Office. The reply will thus be in the public domain and is available on request.

  European Social Fund
  Mr. McLeish
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he is now in a position to make proposals about allocations from the European social fund for 1990.

  Mr. Forth
  My Department indicated in May this year the overall amounts of money likely to be available to the main groups of organisations involved in the European social fund in 1990. The individual organisations subsequently submitted project applications requesting more precise allocations of ESF assistance for 1990. These applications are currently being examined by my Department for approval. Some actual payments have already been made, and it is hoped to complete this process by January.

  Work-related Further Education
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the amount allocated by his Department to training and enterprise councils for work-related further education for the coming year and the current year; what was the equivalent for each of the past five years; what steps he has taken to ensure that in future this money will be ring-fenced; and whether such ring fencing will continue for the foreseeable future.

  Mr. Jackson
  As announced, training and enterprise councils will assume responsibility from 1 April 1991 for payment of funds under my Department's work-related further education programme. A total of £105 million will be allocated to TECs for this in 1991–92. This money is earmarked for the local education authority further education service. In 1991–92 each LEA will receive the same amount of WRFE money as it would have done if my Department had continued to operate the arrangements.

  The total expenditure year by year on the work-related further education programme by the Employment Department is as follows:

  £ million

  1986–87

  110

  1987–88

  106

  1988–89

  110

  1989–90

  102

  1990–91

  103

  Arrangements for the funding of WRFE in future years will be the subject of agreement between the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Secretary of State for Wales and myself.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Mr. Gerard Slane
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects the investigation into the murder of Mr. Gerard Slane to be concluded; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Cope
  This is a matter for the Chief Constable of the RUC. However, I understand that police investigations are continuing into the murder of Mr. Slane.

  Civil Defence
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many civil servants are currently employed(a) full time and (b) part time by his Department on civil defence; what the total costs of employing staff on civil defence duties were in 1989–90; what the total costs of employing staff on civil defence duties are expected to be in 1990–91; and whether he has any plans for these staff to be transferred to work on other duties.

  Mr. Cope
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number

  Full-time staff employed on 16 November 1990

  4

  Part-time staff employed on 16 November 1990

  5

  £

  Total cost 1989–90

  140,650

  Estimated total cost 1990–91

  147,000

  My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced on 16 October that he had initiated a review of the options for the future of civil defence arrangements in England and Wales in the light of east-west relations. When the outcome of that review is known the implications for Northern Ireland, including staffing levels, will be considered.

  Kilroot Power Station
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if Kilroot II power station is to be coal fired; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Final decisions have yet to be taken on the form in which Kilroot II will be completed.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the employment consequences to the existing and future work force employed directly in the power generation industry in Northern Ireland at Kilroot II if(a) it is coal fired or (b) other forms of generation are used; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect Kilroot II power station will have on transport jobs in Northern Ireland if it is not coal fired; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The main objective in planning future capacity is to secure the most economic and efficient means
  479
  of supply and this will he the primary consideration influencing decisions on the form of Kilroot II. Employment levels at the station will be taken into account in that context. The type of fuel to be used is unlikely to have any implications for jobs in the transport industry in Northern Ireland.

DEFENCE

  The Gulf
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of casualties in the event of war in the Gulf; and what medical treatment arrangements have been made.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The number of casualties which might result from any military action could vary considerably depending on a wide range of factors. Contingency plans for the treatment and evacuation of casualties in the event of hostilities continue to be developed. Two field hospitals and other support facilities have already been deployed to the Gulf, and further facilities will be deployed with 1st armoured division.

  RAF Macrihanish
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current operational role of RAF Macrihanish; and how many aircraft are customarily based there on permanent and temporary duty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  RAF Macrihanish is established to support United States navy maritime patrol operations in war. No aircraft are based there permanently in peacetime, although United States navy United Kingdom, and the occasional Royal Netherlands navy aircraft exercise there from time to time.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on nuclear weapons testing.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  For the foreseeable future, the United Kingdom's security will depend on deterrence based in part on the possession of nuclear weapons. That will mean a continuing requirement to conduct underground nuclear tests to ensure that our nuclear weapons remain effective and up to date.

  RAF Feltwell
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of construction of the proposed deep space tracing station at RAF Feltwell.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Construction of the deep space tracking station at RAF Feltwell is due to be completed in late 1991.

  MoD Property, Trowbridge
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what property is owned, leased or controlled by his Department in and around Trowbridge, Wiltshire.
  480
  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Department's properly holdings in Trowbridge consist of three cadet training huts, a garage block and an indoor rifle range. In addition, there are 11 married quarters and a small building plot currently in the process of being sold.

  INF Treaty
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the timetable for further withdrawals of treaty-limited items from the United Kingdom under the intermediate nuclear forces treaty;

  (2) how many of each category of treaty limited items were at (i) RAF Greenham Common and (ii) RAF Molesworth on each reporting date by the intermediate nuclear forces treaty.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The numbers of ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCM) and transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles, including spares, at RAF Molesworth and RAF Greenham Common on each reporting date required by the INF treaty are as follows:

  RAF Molesworth

  RAF Greenham Common

  Ground-launched cruise missiles

  Transporter erector launcher

  Ground-launched cruise missiles

  Transporter erector launcher

  1 June 1988

  18

  6

  100

  29

  1 December 1988

  0

  0

  100

  29

  1 June 1989

  0

  0

  100

  29

  1 December 1989

  0

  0

  52

  17

  1 June 1990

  0

  0

  52

  17

  The remaining treaty-limited items at RAF Greenham Common will be withdrawn by 31 May 1991.

  Special Safety Course
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the nature and purpose of the RAF special safety study course.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The RAF special safety study period enables participants to study the implications of a nuclear weapon accident and the procedure for responding to this extremely unlikely eventuality.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence personnel have attended the RAF special safety study course in each of the last five years.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Records are not held centrally but the following numbers of MDP personnel appear to have attended the RAF special safety study period i each of the last five years:

  Number

  1986

  0

  1987

  5

  1988

  1

  1989

  0

  1990

  0

  Over-the-horizon Radar
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department will reconsider its plans for the proposed over-the-horizon radar at St. David's and Blakehill if no appropriated funds are available for construction from the United States Government.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We have at present no reason too believe that the United States Government will not secure appropriated funds for their share of the proposed joint UK-US trial of an over-the-horizon radar in the United Kingdom. The question is therefore hypothetical.

  Ulster Defence Regiment
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how often units from the Ulster Defence Regiment make use of training facilities in the mainland United Kingdom.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Ulster Defence Regiment permanent cadre companies carry out about one week's training in Great Britain two years out of three. The part-time element of each UDR battalion carries out about a week's training in Great Britain annually.

  Flypasts
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many flypasts by aircraft of the armed services have been carried out in each of the last five years for events not organised by the armed services; what has been the total cost of such flypasts for each year; and from which subheads of which votes funds for these activities are taken.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No central records are held of the number of flypasts conducted by service aircraft during the last five years over events not organised by the armed services, and the information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost and effort. Flypasts by service aircraft are authorised only if they can be undertaken from within allotted training hours. Any additional non-operational costs arising from a flypast are recovered from the event organiser.

  RAF Aircraft
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish a list indicating how many of each type of Royal Air Force aircraft have been delivered to his Department.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The following list details the total deliveries achieved against RAF front line and support aircraft, by type, since 1979 to the end of November 1990.

  Number

  Tornado IDS

  212

  Tornado ADV

  138

  Harrier GR5/7

  67

  Phantom

  15

  Tristar

  9

  VC10 Tankers

  9

  BAe 146

  2

  HS 125

  6

  Hawk

  87

  Tucano

  48

  Chinook

  41

  Puma

  8

  482

  Number

  Sea King

  7

  Gazelle

  13

  Cruise Missiles
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many exercises to simulate the dispersal of ground-launched cruise missiles from (i) RAF Greenham Common and (ii) RAF Molesworth were carried out between 1984 and the present date.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Sixty-one such exercises were carried out from RAF Greenham Common and none from RAF Molesworth.

  Royal Scots Dragoon Guards
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his most recent visit to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend met members of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards during his recent visit to the Gulf. They are continuing to uphold the fine traditions of the regiment which will, I am sure, be familiar to the hon. Member.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on exercises carried out by his Department into the verification of the proposed chemical weapons convention.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Ministry of Defence, in co-operation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has recently completed a two-year programme of six practice challenge inspections at Government-owned facilities. The objectives of the practice challenge inspections programme were to test our ability to demonstrate compliance with a chemical weapons convention while at the same time protecting our legitimate national security interests, particularly at sensitive sites, and to draw any useful lessons on challenge inspection for the chemical weapons convention negotiations in Geneva. A paper describing the outcome of the practice challenge inspections programme was tabled at the conference on disarmament in Geneva last July by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and copies are being placed in the Library of the House.

  The paper has been widely welcomed as a further positive United Kingdom contribution to the negotiations. The United Kingdom was the first country to embark on practical work on challenge inspection and we are encouraged that others have since followed our example.

SCOTLAND

  Gaelic
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give details of the total Government expenditure on the promotion and development of the Gaelic language in each year since 1985.

  Mr. Lang
  Government expenditure consists of grant aid, under the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985, to
  483
  bodies which support the Gaelic language and culture and a scheme of specific grants to local authorities for Gaelic education.

  The breakdown of expenditure by financial year is as follows:

  Gaelic Bodies

  Specific Grants for Gaelic Education

  £

  £

  1985–86

  121,000

  Nil

  1986–87

  131,000

  250,000

  1987–88

  179,123

  300,000

  1988–89

  208,000

  500,000

  1989–90

  298,000

  850,000

  1990–91

  305,000

  1,200,000

  Unit Fines
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he will take to introduce day or unit fines in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The possibility of introducing unit fines in Scotland is being considered by my right hon. Friend as a further contribution to our programme of measures to reduce the unacceptably high level of imprisonment for fine default, but it is too early to announce firm proposals.

  Speech Therapists
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from health boards about problems being experienced in recruiting speech therapists.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No representations have been received from health boards about this matter, but it am aware that there are some localised recruitment problems.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what conclusions he has drawn about the availability of speech therapists following the staffing survey of professions allied to medicine; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  A comparison of the manpower planning advisory group's survey of the professions allied to medicine for 31 March 1990 with the same period in 1989 shows that the funded establishment for speech therapists has increased from 386 whole-time equivalents to 400 whole-time equivalents although the staff in post has remained the same. The manpower planning advisory group is to produce a report on speech therapy in the near future and I will give attention to its recommendations.

  Roodlands Hospital, Haddington
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions have been given to the Scottish ambulance service about the availability of casualty facilities at Roodlands hospital in Haddington; and if he will make a further statement on the arrangements being made by Lothian health board for accident and emergency services in the Haddington area.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 26 November 1990): Lothian health board has asked the chief area
  484
  ambulance officer for Lothian, Fife and the Borders to operate a policy that ambulances carrying trauma cases in East Lothian are directed to Edinburgh royal infirmary. The board recommends that this should apply to any patient requiring an overnight stay and/or operative intervention.

  The health board intends to introduce a treatment service to ensure that minor injuries can continue to be dealt with locally. The board is actively exploring the ways in which this can be achieved.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Surpluses
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to continue discussions with his fellow European Community Ministers on Community food surpluses and subsidies.

  Mr. Gummer
  The problems of overproduction will dominate in my discussions with Community colleagues in the coming months.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the costs of the common agricultural policy for 1990 and 1991.

  Mr. Gummer
  Total agricultural expenditure for 1990 is well within budget. Expenditure will increase in 1991.

  Productivity
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what comparable figures he has for the productivity of farms in Britain, France and Germany.

  Mr. Curry
  Comprehensive comparisons of productivity are not available. As a broad guide, however, Eurostat figures for 1987 to 1989 suggest that gross value added per labour unit averaged some £12,200 in the United Kingdom compared with £10,700 in France and £10,600 in Germany.

  GATT
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the progress of the GATT negotiations as they relate to agriculture.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) earlier today.

  Horticulture
  Mr. Hind
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the current levels of Government support for research and development in horticulture.

  Mr. Curry
  This year the Department will be spending some £13 million on horticulture R and D. A similar sum is planned for 1991–92.

  Horses (Exports)
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received regarding the live export of horses and ponies.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have received a great many letters and petitions from concerned members of the public and from welfare organisations who fear a resumption of exports of horses for slaughter. We intend to reflect this very real depth of public feeling in our negotiations on new Community legislation on the protection of animals during transport.

  Farm Incomes
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will next meet the president of the National Farmers Union to discuss farm incomes.

  Mr. Gummer
  I meet the president of the National Farmers union frequently to discuss a wide range of issues.

  Uplands Farms
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he will make to the European Council of Agriculture Ministers to secure the incomes of family farmers in the hills and uplands of the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he proposes to take to assist livestock producers in upland areas; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).

  Animal Transport
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he proposes to review the legislation relating to the transport of casualty animals; and whether he will make a statement.

  Mr. Maclean
  We have accepted recommendations made by the Farm Animal Welfare Council for changes in the legislation on casualty animals to provide additional welfare protection. The necessary order will be made as soon as possible. We are also reviewing the controls on disposal of unfit meat to see whether any changes are needed.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to improve conditions for the transport of animals for slaughter.

  Mr. Maclean
  There are European Community proposals for a Council regulation on the protection of animals during transport. In the negotiations we shall be pressing for the adoption of comprehensive Community rules setting high welfare standards for animals during all stages of transport.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the transportation for export of horses, ponies and other live animals.
  486
  Mr. Maclean
  There have been no recent discussions in the Community on the Commission proposals for a regulation on the protection of animals during transport. The Government will press for the adoption of comprehensive Community rules setting high welfare standards during all stages of transport, and for the retention of controls to prevent the export of horses and ponies for slaughter.

  Farm Subsidies
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he will be making to the European Community External Relations Commissioner to uphold the recent agreement on farm subsidy reductions at December's GATT talks.

  Mr. Gummer
  I made my support for the Community's offer very clear in the recent Council meetings which Vice President Andriessen attended. I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be attending the ministerial meeting in Brussels next week which should bring the round to a conclusion, and we will keep in close contact with Mr. Andriessen.

  Clingfilm
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the recommended uses of clingfilm.

  Mr. Maclean
  A detailed statement was issued in the Food Safety Directorate's information bulletin of 22 November, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Sludge Dumping
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the annual tonnage of sludge dumping in Liverpool bay and the Bristol channel for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Curry
  The amounts of sewage sludge deposited each year from 1979 in Liverpool bay and the Bristol channel were as follows:

  Thousand tonnes (wet weight)

  Liverpool Bay

  Bristol Channel

  1979

  1,654

  358

  1980

  1,760

  393

  1981

  1,693

  328

  1982

  1,642

  320

  1983

  1,299

  230

  1984

  1,283

  305

  1985

  1,499

  259

  1986

  1,541

  257

  1987

  1,626

  238

  1988

  1,629

  273

  1989

  1,646

  306

  Tyrrell Committee
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the Tyrrell committee last met, and what matters were discussed.

  Mr. Maclean
  The committee last met on 1 November when, among other things, it considered the progress of research and slaughterhouse practices.

  Farmed Salmon
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will announce an alternative to the use of Aquaguard in the marine salmon farming industry.
  488
  Mr. Maclean
  A number of alternative methods for controlling sea lice infestations of farmed salmon are currently being investigated through Government and industry-sponsored research into chemical substitutes for dichlorvos; into vaccines; and into the use of biological controls for sea lice such as the predator species wrasse. These studies are not yet complete.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth.

Lord Belstead: Tributes
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before we proceed to the day's business, I hope that I may on behalf of my noble friends and noble Lords in all parts of the House pay a warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the way he has conducted the affairs of this House as its Leader over the past three years. The noble Lord brought great experience to that Office because he had served in a number of departments. That became clear during his tenure, especially when he took part in our debates. In my view he has proved himself a splendid parliamentarian, with the ability to open and wind up debates on a variety of subjects and to think on his feet. However, his greatest gift was his readiness to see every point of view and to help us all to the greatest extent. I believe he is the only Leader in the history of the House who was kind enough to smile even when he lost a Division. I greatly hope that Mr. David Waddington will follow his example. We wish the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, every success in his new Office. We also wish Mr. David Waddington every success when he takes up his new Office in this House.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to pay tribute to the work that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has done as Leader of the House. It must have been extraordinarily difficult to take over from the noble Viscount, Lord Whitehead, the previous Leader of the House. I apologise to the House. I meant to say the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. However, the noble Lord certainly followed the example of the noble Viscount in one most important respect—we all greatly welcomed that— in that he has been not only the Leader of the Conservative Party in this House but also and pre-eminently the Leader of your Lordships' House. That is a tradition which noble Lords in all parts of the House are grateful for. We welcomed it and we are confident that it will be continued.
Apart from that continuation of the tradition of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has wisely handled the House in his own unique way. We on these Benches, trained by my noble friend Lord Grimond, have always considered that the primary duty of Opposition is to make life as disagreeable as possible for those on the Government Benches and for the Leader on the Government Benches. However, it has been extremely difficult to be disagreeable with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. His particular quality was that he was a great practitioner of the doctrine that the soft answer turneth away wrath. To try to pick a quarrel with the noble Lord has been quite extraordinarily difficult. He had such a
1060
great appreciation of the point of view put forward from other sections of the House that one had to agree with him more often than one wished.
We are glad and we congratulate the noble Lord on the fact that he continues to be a Minister of State. His peculiar qualities of friendliness and peacemaking may not perhaps be in immediate demand now that the Conservative Party is demonstrating brotherly love—I underline the word "brotherly"—on all sides. However, there can be no doubt that sooner or later the noble Lord's peculiar talent for peacemaking will be required again.
Baroness Hylton-Foster: My Lords, noble Lords on the Cross-Benches warmly support all the tributes that have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. We admired tremendously his constant attendance in the House, his patience and his kind way of reminding noble Lords if they were breaking the rules or customs of the House. We are grateful to him for understanding and protecting the rights of noble Lords on the Cross-Benches. The noble Lord was never too busy to listen to our problems or to give advice. We thank him for all that he has done for all of us in the House. We shall all miss the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, very much.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, I wish to add from these Benches a further tribute to those which have already been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. Other noble Lords have already paid homage to his skill as a parliamentarian. I wish to underline that skill and also to mention my own sense of great gratitude for the noble Lord's unfailing courtesy to every Member of the House. He was certainly courteous to me and to others on these Benches. We have been profoundly grateful for the way he has always taken the care and the trouble to talk to each one of us and to help us. We wish him well in his new Office.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank those noble Lords who have been kind enough to make such generous remarks about my noble friend Lord Belstead. I remember the occasion of his maiden speech back in 1964 on the subject of education. He has held office in the Department of Education and Science, the Northern Ireland Office, the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of the Environment, as Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, as Leader of the House of Lords and as Lord Privy Seal. That is a remarkable achievement. I am most grateful for the remarks that noble Lords have so generously made.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, might have put it, my noble friend Lord Belslaw followed my noble friend Lord Whitehead. Those were difficult footsteps to follow but he did so with remarkable success. As the right reverend Prelate said, my noble friend always treated the House with courtesy, charm and good humour. When events such as those we have witnessed over the past few days occur it takes me back to my childhood when one used to play a game called pass the parcel. The great thing was to make sure that when the music stopped one did not hold the parcel. In

1061
politics the reverse seems to be the case. When the music stops one has to hold the parcel, or at least a parcel.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Belstead, who has held such distinguished office, will still be a member of the Government. As noble Lords have so rightly said, he has tried to do his best for all parties in the House. The House only runs on co-operation by all parties. I should like to thank noble Lords not only on this side of the House but also on the other side for the help they gave my noble friend when he was Leader of the House.

Cammell Laird Shipbuilders
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chester The Lord Bishop of Chester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support an application on behalf of Cammell Laird Shipbuilders to change its status to a merchant shipbuilder and to allow it to receive intervention funding.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Hesketh): My Lords, the 1985 agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission on the restructuring of British Shipbuilders and the proposed privatisation of the warship yards such as Cammell Laird does not preclude those yards from engaging in merchant shipbuilding on an unsubsidised basis.
The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware of the enormous expectancy among the workforce at Cammell Laird and that Cammell Laird is very much the lifeblood of Birkenhead? Is he also aware of the back-to-work campaign in 1984, which at the time the Prime Minister called courageous, and the democratic co-operation of the workforce in Cammell Laird, the remarkable unanimity among the unions and the very high quality of work? The workforce expects some government intervention at this point to rescue the yard. Is it possible that the Government, having given the Answer about the EC ruling, are prepared themselves to intervene in this situation? I understand that the French company CMN of Cherbourg has received help from the French Government. Is the Minister aware that Cammell Laird seeks to build high speed catamarans for the cross-Channel service in direct competition with CMN of Cherbourg and that without government help the yard will not win the contract?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the agreement that the British Government reached in 1985 with regard to British Shipbuilders fell under the terms of the fifth directive on shipbuilding. On 1st January 1991 the seventh directive on shipbuilding comes into effect. The purpose of the directives is to reduce excessive merchant shipbuilding capacity in Europe. If the Government were to intervene that would be in direct
1062
contravention of the agreement that we reached with Commissioner Sutherland regarding the fifth directive.
I should remind your Lordships' House that the reduction in employment in the merchant sector of the shipbuilding industry in Europe has not been confined to this country. In France it has fallen by 79 per cent., in the Netherlands by 83 per cent. and in the United Kingdom by 86 per cent. In Sweden employment has fallen by 98 per cent.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, do the Government recognise the gravity of the problem? Two thousand jobs will be lost directly if Cammell Laird closes down and a further 2,000 jobs will be lost among contractors. That spells economic disaster for Birkenhead and the Wirral. Can the Government think of a way to go back to the Community and renegotiate the deal they made over privatisation? After all, we put enough money into the Community. Could we not get some of our money back?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, on a day when I read in the Financial Times of the Labour Party's uncontrolled endorsement of economic monetary union I find it surprising that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, asks us to fly in the face of the fifth shipbuilding directive, which was in force at the time the agreement was reached, and the seventh directive which will come into effect on 1st January.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that the shipyard is in an area which has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom and where there is very little prospect of anything to take its place? Will he give serious consideration to taking the matter to the new Prime Minister with the request that was put so well by the right reverend Prelate in his Question?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate specifically referred to an application to the Commission. I must point out to the noble Lord that there are many other examples throughout Europe. That is why I quoted the percentages involved in the reduction in numbers employed in merchant shipbuilding and why we cannot go for a reapplication.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend explain why the French have found a way to subsidise a rival firm but we in this country do not seem to be able to find a way round the regulations? Perhaps a copy of their regulations as they apply can be put in the Library. For the convenience of some noble Lords they may be translated into English. Does he believe that we can contrive to do exactly the same as the French have done in so many other ways to preserve what they believe to be in the best interests of their country?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the fact of the matter is that under the 1985 agreement with the Commission Cammell Laird was a warship yard. The CMN yard referred to is a commercial and warship yard.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm or deny the allegation that the French are subsidising that company and that it is in

1063
competition with our yard? If he becomes aware that the French are effecting that kind of subsidy, will he completely reopen the whole question? Does he agree that it is very well known that in many cases the French obey only those Community regulations with which it suits them to comply?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we keep a close watching brief on our position and responsibilities in Europe in regard to both our own activities and those of others. It is important to understand that conditions of parallel existence do not pertain in these two cases. Cammell Laird came out as a warship yard under our arrangements with the Commission, and arrangements differ from country to country on the basis of what they consider to be their priorities. The CMN yard is a warship and commercial yard; at that time Cammell Laird was not a commercial yard.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Cammell Laird's problems arise simply because we are now building extremely few warships? Is he aware, for instance, that in a few years' time we shall have only four diesel-electric submarines? Can he tell the House of any period in British history since the reign of Henry VIII when the Royal Navy has been smaller?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I do not have numbers for the Royal Navy fleet in my hand or at my disposal. It may be worth pointing out to your Lordships' House that under the Commission's directive intervention is allowed in order to preserve warship capacity if it is seen to be necessary for the defence of the realm.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, with regard to the question put by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, can my noble friend the Minister tell us whether we are playing by the same set of rules as the French?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I believe that we are. I produced the figure for the reduction of employment in merchant shipbuilding of some 79 per cent. in France to show that other countries also have had to take their share of the strain.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is one of the many reasons why the British people are disenchanted with going into Europe?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, in the light of my earlier remarks with regard to the Labour Party's commitment to EMU today, I am slightly surprised by the noble Baroness's question.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, if we are playing by the same set of rules, can my noble friend tell me whether we are both obeying them?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, I feel that I can go no further than I have already gone this afternoon when I said that I believe that we are.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say—
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not like to interrupt the noble Lord but we have been eight minutes on the first Question. After he has put his question, perhaps we might move on.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he is simply going to accept the massive rise in unemployment in Birkenhead or whether the Government have any plans to alleviate it?
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, the Government have many plans which revolve around all kinds of schemes such as for inner cities, deprivation and so on. However, the Question on the Order Paper refers specifically to an application to the Commission which would drive a coach and horses through a great European principle.

Disabled People and the Community Charge
3.24 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to assist disabled people who are disadvantaged by the community charge.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, severely mentally impaired people are exempt from the community charge, as are those with mental or physical disabilities who are resident in hospital as patients or resident in care homes, nursing homes and other hostels. For those disabled people living in the community there is additional help given over and above that given to people without disability through both the community charge benefit and transitional relief.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. But it is not the case that disabled people are hurt twice over by the poll tax? With low incomes and high outgoings they are hurt as are other poor people, but also under the poll tax disabled people have lost the rate relief on adapted buildings which 70 per cent. of them previously enjoyed. In other words, does she agree that disabled people are being penalised both for their poverty and their disability?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I seriously take issue with the noble Baroness on her second point. Rates paid on buildings no longer exist. That situation was abolished with the new system. As the new system operates, abatement is considered. It is even more generous than rate relief and the disabilities of individuals are taken into account as well.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, has the noble Baroness any words of comfort for those who look after disabled people, in particular those who live and work in residential institutions for the disabled? Is she aware that the charities which run such organisations, such as the Calvert Trust and the Richmond Fellowship, find the community charge in respect of those employees a very heavy burden? Is it not consuming charitable donations which the donors intended to help the disabled and not merely to boost public funds?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Question on the Order Paper refers specifically to disabled people. One in four people are helped to pay their community charge bills. A sum of £2 billion is made available and 9 million people receive some help.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Question raised by my noble friend is an especially poignant one? The poll tax affects many poor people and it hits disabled poor people more than anyone else. If the noble Baroness wants corroboration of that statement, will she be prepared to consider talking to the Disabled Drivers Association, Arthritis Care and the societies for helping the aged? Those associations could give all the facts. She is obviously unaware of them, otherwise she would not have given such suave answers this afternoon. Will she contact the representatives of the disabled people of this country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that nothing I have said seems to detract from the way in which I believe that we should care about the needs of disabled people. My first Answer listed the kind of help that is considered. Community charge benefits take account of the needs of disabled people. I said that there is complete exemption for people with severe mental impairment. There is also exemption for those with mental or physical disabilities who are resident in hospital, care homes, nursing homes and other hostels. For those disabled people in the community there is also additional help over and above that given to other people. I hope that I was not suave or uncompassionate in my answers on this issue.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the present Prime Minister is the first person to hold that office who has also held the office of Minister for the Disabled (as it was then) or Minister for Disabled People, as it is now? Organisations for the disabled therefore greatly hope that the Government will be more sympathetic than they have perhaps been in the past about representations from them, especially in regard to the poll tax. Will she kindly say whether representations in regard to the poll tax should be made to the Secretary of State for the Environment or to the Minister for Disabled People?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's first remark. My right honourable friend the new Prime Minister served with distinction in the Department of Health and Social Security (as it then was). He had a very good and special relationship with disabled people and their organisations. The noble Lord will be aware that there has been a review undertaken during the past year. The review will continue, as has been very publicly promised. I believe that if disabled people wish to be considered further over and above the generous arrangements that have been made for them, they could make representations to both the Department of the Environment and their own organisations.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House what steps the Department of Social Security is taking to monitor the effects of the
1066
community charge on disabled people, in particular those who come from hospital into the community for the first time?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Department of Social Security has some very sophisticated methods of monitoring the requirements of people with many kinds of special needs, not just the disabled. I have no reason to believe that those needs are not watched with great care. Continuous monitoring also gives rise from time to time to new policies.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, if the noble Baroness meets the disablement organisations she will learn that some people on mobility allowance cannot afford a car any more because of the poll tax. There is one other disadvantage which she has not yet mentioned. Disabled people who live in high poll tax areas in specially adapted units of accommodation do not have the same mobility as others in the community. They cannot move to a cheaper area because they will not obtain similarly adapted accommodation. They are therefore trapped in high poll tax areas. What is being done about them?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have detailed the number of ways in which disabled people are helped. However, the noble Lord makes specific reference to areas where the poll tax is very high. I believe that it is more a reflection on the level of the charge in those areas than it is on the level of the way in which we help disabled people.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, does the Minister not recall that when the poll tax legislation was going through Parliament the Government undertook that social security benefits would be uprated to cover the 20 per cent. of poll tax which disabled and other people on benefits have to pay? Is it not now the case that a single person has to pay £36 extra a year and a couple £76 extra a year, amounts not covered by uprating in social security benefits? Does that not apply with even greater force to those who are disabled?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that if people qualify to have the 20 per cent. paid into their social security payments, whatever they are, that 20 per cent. is 20 per cent. of the average community charge in the country as a whole. Where community charges are above the average, that reflects more on the local authority than on the system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the Minister not feel uncomfortable that a family which paid £12 a year in rates because of disability rate relief is now paying £380 a year in poll tax, and, according to RADAR, as a result cannot afford the electric wheelchair that it needs? Is the Minister comfortable about that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the amount referred to by the noble Baroness means that the family does not fall into the category of receiving some of the benefits available. If the noble Baroness says that an individual with disability is paying £380 she introduces a very different factor. If there is one disabled person he will receive all the benefits. If there are other people in the house, and if they are below the threshold for rebate,

1067
they will receive rebate. If they are above the threshold, they are deemed to be able to meet the charges.

Hong Kong: Death Penalty
3.34 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take the necessary steps to abolish the death penalty for serious offences in Hong Kong, and if not why not.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, no. There are no plans to change the present situation.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the Minister aware that since 1966 there has not been one single execution in Hong Kong and that 125 reprieved murderers are now serving life imprisonment with a further 40 awaiting commutation? At the same time, on the mainland of China hundreds of people a year are executed not only for murder but also for political and economic crimes. Would it not therefore be much more satisfactory to abolish the penalty in Hong Kong?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to say that there have been no executions in the territory for 24 years. However, as I am sure he is aware, there is a very high degree of autonomy not only for the present government but for the future government of Hong Kong under the Joint Declaration. We believe that it is most important that such an issue should be resolved within the territory rather than that resolution be imposed from outside.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is it not the case that the Legislative Council of Hong Kong has the power to abolish the death penalty in Hong Kong by way of Order in Council? Would Her Majesty's Government not advise the Legislative Council that they would support such action?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there does not seem to be a majority in favour of such action in LegCo at the moment. The present situation has worked satisfactorily. However, in view of the unique position of Hong Kong we believe that those matters are best resolved within Hong Kong.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Earl says that there does not seem to be a majority. On what grounds does he say that? Is it quite clear to the Government that there is no majority? My understanding is that a large number of people would be very glad to see the death penalty abolished in Hong Kong.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, a recent opinion poll published on 13th November showed that 71 per cent. of people in Hong Kong were in favour of retaining the death penalty for convicted murderers. That is slightly higher than the last survey in 1986. So far as concerns LegCo, in a recent poll only 17 members out of a total of 58 said that they favoured abolition.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, as the noble Earl said, is this not essentially a Hong Kong matter?
1068
Abolition is a matter for the Legislative Council. It can be achieved at any time there is a majority for it. Surely we should leave that issue to the Legislative Council. The present policy of the Secretary of State which results in automatic commutation has continued for 16 years or more. If there is a strong feeling among a majority of the executive and legislative councillors that it should be changed, presumably they would say so. Meanwhile, should we not leave the matter to them?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, with his vast knowledge of Hong Kong the noble Lord says some very wise words.
Lord Renton: My Lords, who exercises the prerogative of mercy at present? Who would exercise it or advise upon it under the proposed new constitution?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, before answering that question perhaps I may say that I know that my noble friend will take enormous pride in having represented Huntingdon from 1945 to 1979 and that the judicious timing with which he saw fit to resign his seat has been to the enormous benefit of this party and the country.
To answer my noble friend, the present situation has obtained for 24 years and the matter is in the hands of the Governor.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if there is, as the noble Earl said, a strong feeling in favour of the death penalty in Hong Kong, why has there been no protest against commutation over the past 16 years?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am afraid that I am unable to answer that question.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Earl made reference to Huntingdon and elections. He may be aware that the noble Lord sitting beside me twice defeated the present Prime Minister in parliamentary elections.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that the Hong Kong Bill of Rights of this year is defective in Article 2, which states that the death penalty may be imposed for the most serious crimes and that commutation may be granted in all cases? Is it not far too permissive?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is entirely a matter for Hong Kong.

Foreign Goods Vehicles
3.40 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many foreign goods vehicles whose weight or dimensions exceeded those permitted by British law sought to enter the United Kingdom in the last 12 months; and how many of these were permitted to enter.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, approximately 390,000 foreign goods vehicles entered the country in 1989 and 15,124 foreign vehicles were weighed in

1069
1988/89 by the department's traffic examiners. Of those, 9,565 were weighed in ports and 2,624 were prohibited from further movement until the excess load had been removed.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend stay whether it is intended to enforce British law in this respect? In view of the Answer to the first Question this afternoon, that might be an appropriate response.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it is certainly intended to enforce British law in this respect. During my researches I noticed that my noble friend asked a similar Question almost two years ago. I then said that we had weighed 5,700 foreign registered vehicles in the previous year and that we proposed to weigh 8,800 during that year. I hope that the House will be pleased that we have reached the figure of 15,100 vehicles this year and are looking for a further increase next year.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister say how many examiners there are at present and whether the Government plan to increase that number? I ask the question in view of the wide variety of obligations that examiners must fulfil not only in relation to the weights and dimensions of lorries but also in relation to condition and driving hours.
Lord Barbazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have a figure for the present number of traffic examiners. I am well aware that they have duties other than the weighing of lorries which, as the noble Lord described, they must continue to carry out. However, we propose to increase the number of weighings next year.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, it is all very well to increase the number of weighings but what happens if they are found wanting?
Lord Barabazen of Tara: My Lords, one stops the lorries from proceeding and makes the drivers unload their excess load.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, how are we progressing with improvements to our bridges so that they can take the vehicles which may be allowed by our foreign friends in Europe?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have a derogation from the 40 tonne directive until 1st January, 1999. We are continuing to survey and strengthen our bridges where necessary.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify his answer about action taken in cases where the load is excessive? He indicated that the driver would be made to unload but, if the vehicle is too large and its dimensions are excessive will it be denied entry?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in such a case, yes. However, there are few cases of excess dimensions so that seldom happens. The common problem is overloading.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the grave anxieties that have been expressed in the media by representative bodies engaged in the road haulage business to the effect that there are too
1070
many cowboys and that there is an insufficient number of testing examiners to carry out the increasing obligations that are being imposed?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, when I last answered the Question asked by my noble friend two years ago I said that 24 per cent. of lorries had been found to be overloaded. The survey now shows that only 17 per cent. are overloaded and therefore there has been an improvement during the past few years.

Statutory Sick Pay Bill
3.44 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

London Local Authorities (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Midland Metro (Penalty Fares) Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee
3.45 p.m.
The chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the order paper.
Moved, That the Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Ampthill, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Belstead, L (L. Privy Seal)

Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Denham, L.

Elton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Goff of Chieveley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Hayter, L.

Hesketh, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. (L. Chancellor)

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Nathan, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Scrota, B.

Shackleton, L.

1071

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Wigoder, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is it correct that the Lord Privy Seal will remain on the committee?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, that is not strictly so and the noble Baroness is correct. However, in the circumstances I considered that it was better to move the Motion as agreed by the Committee of Selection and return to the House at a later date with an amendment rather than postponing the Motion. A number of committees must be appointed and it would be more convenient to pass the Motion in its present form.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Privileges: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That in accordance with Standing Order 73 the Committee for Privileges be appointed and that as proposed by the Committee of Selection the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees and any four Lords of Appeal, be named of the Committee:

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Belstead, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Denham, L.

Ferrers, E.

Glenamara, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Shackleton, L.

Stedman, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wigoder, L.

—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wish to raise a point about privileges. It is no privilege to sit on this particular bench because there is a roaring cold draught—
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, in spite of the fact that many complaints have been made, nothing has been done. In order that we may become a little more privileged will the Chairman of Committees make representations to the authorities to ensure that the problem is dealt with and that we may have a little warmth?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the question is a little wide of the Motion, and I know that the situation is a good deal worse for those who wear skirts, but I shall look into the matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How do you know?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Maintenance Enforcement Bill [H.L.]
3.47 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Government wish to reinforce parental responsibility and to help lone parents. On 30th October we published a White Paper entitled Children Come First. It explained the Government's proposals for the creation of a child support agency which will assess, collect and enforce child maintenance. The proposals in the White Paper are both radical and innovative. Under them child maintenance will be assessed by a new child support agency on the basis of a formula. The agency will arrange for the collection and the enforcement of child maintenance for lone parents who are on income support and for any other parent who wishes to use the agency's services. The collection and the enforcement services may also extend to the maintenance of a spouse.
However, the child support agency, if it has Parliament's approval, will not be fully operational until the mid-1990s and we cannot ignore until then the problems which lone parents face in collecting and enforcing maintenance for themselves and for their children. That is why we have introduced this Bill today. In the magistrates' courts alone there are about 85,000 enforcement proceedings a year.
Many enforcement proceedings are avoidable, and many of them involve women who are in great distress, both financial and emotional. They often write to the Government pointing out loopholes in the present arrangements for enforcing their maintenance. Perhaps I could give your Lordships an example of what I mean. We have recently had drawn to our attention the case of a woman who obtained an order for maintenance from her ex-husband in May 1989. The order was registered for enforcement in the magistrates' court. Since then, her ex-husband has paid only irregularly, and he has delayed paying arrears for as long as possible.
When default occurs under the present law, the justices' clerk, at the request of the creditor, informs the debtor of the sum of the arrears, requests him to make the payment and, if payment is not made, he issues an enforcement summons. In this case, the man concerned pays off the stated sum of arrears only when he receives a summons. But, by this time, fresh arrears have accumulated, and the process has to be repeated. His maintenance account is therefore always in arrears. The man has simply "played the system". Since May 1989 the justices' clerk has been obliged to send the man five notifications of arrears, to issue five summons and to arrange two hearings which then had to be cancelled because payment was made.
That case well illustrates the fact that the present law provides too many opportunities for maintenance debtors to evade their legal obligations. En some cases, this may be because they are badly organised or

1073
careless. In other cases it may well be that default occurs deliberately, and out of spite. I think—and I hope—that this Bill should go a long way towards closing the loopholes which maintenance debtors can now exploit.
In introducing the Bill, the Government have been guided by two principles: first, that family responsibility should be actively encouraged; and, secondly, that it is much better to avoid default occuring than to take action once it has occurred. To the lone parent, who is receiving maintenance payments, regularity of payment can be as important as the amount which is ordered. As a result of the Bill's proposals, we hope that the consequences of arrears—time-consuming enforcement proceedings and the need in many cases for lone parents to rely on state support—will be reduced.
I am bound to admit that, for a relatively simple purpose, the Bill looks dauntingly hefty. However, I advise your Lordships not to be daunted by it. It appears complicated because the present law on maintenance is complicated and because it is distributed between a number of enactments. In the Bill, Schedule 1 in fact is larger than the actual clauses of the Bill itself, and many of the clauses repeat the same powers but for the purposes of different legislation.
The Bill's key proposals are, however, simple. The Bill will give the High Court, county courts and magistrates' courts in England and Wales new powers when they are making, varying or enforcing a maintenance order. This includes an order which is made under Section 24 of the Social Security Act 1986.
At present, the courts can order that maintenance payments must be paid either to the court or directly to the recipient. The Bill will give the courts two additional powers so that they may order that payments can alternatively be made either by standing order or by attachment of earnings. At present, attachment of earnings orders can only be made if the debtor consents or if he defaults on his payments because of his wilful neglect or culpable default.
Many maintenance orders are made in Scotland, Northern Ireland or outside the United Kingdom's jurisdiction, but such orders may be registered or confirmed in the magistrates' courts in England and Wales. That is because the debtor comes to live in this country. We have, therefore, decided that it is right that magistrates' courts should also have the power to specify the method of payment when they are varying or enforcing these orders.
The Bill provides for the magistrates' courts to have discretion as to the method of payment which is to be ordered. The High Court and the county courts will also have a discretion whether or not to order a particular method of payment. Before exercising any of their powers, courts will be obliged to have regard to any representations which may be made as to the method of payment by the parties concerned.
We think it likely that the courts will, in many cases, make use of these additional new powers to
1074
order payment by standing order. Most people now have a bank or a building society account and the use of standing orders is firmly established. Their virtue in this context is that, once a maintenance debtor has set up a standing order arrangement, then he need take no further action for payments to be made. The recipient is not dependent on the debtor taking a positive step each week or each month to pay the amount required. Standing orders have the capacity to offer the creditor greater assurance and the debtor greater convenience. They will help to reduce the scope for confrontations over money between men and women in circumstances when tensions and emotions may already be high.
Payment by standing order can obviously also be useful where a maintenance debtor is self-employed and where it is not open to the court to order an employer to attach earnings. The courts may not require the debtor to pay by standing order unless he is first given an opportunity to open a bank or a building society account, if he does not already have one. If there is a good reason why he cannot open an account—perhaps because he is refused banking facilities—the court will select some other method of payment.
The method of payment which is chosen by the court may be important. We obviously do not want debtors to be able to ignore a court's order. In the High Court and in the county courts breach of an order can be treated as contempt but the magistrates' courts have no contempt powers. The Bill gives magistrates' courts an explicit sanction which can be imposed on those who fail to comply with the method of payment which is ordered. This is in line with other powers which magistrates' courts have in similar circumstances.
We realise of course that people's circumstances may change. A maintenance creditor, for example, who may initially have wanted payment by standing order may later become unhappy with this method. As changing the method of payment is essentially an administrative act, the Bill allows any interested party to apply in writing to the justices' clerk for payment by standing order to be varied so as to allow payments to be made to the court. The clerk will have a discretion to refer any application to vary the method of payment to the court if he considers that it is inappropriate for him to deal with it. The Bill also gives justices' clerks the power to amend the method of payment when a person no longer claims income support or when he or she reclaims it if an order under Section 24A of the Social Security Act 1986 has been made.
Although the Bill is intended to reduce the scope for default, we also want to take the opportunity to ensure that, if default does occur, the courts are able to deal with it more effectively than they are at present. The majority of maintenance enforcement proceedings are taken in the magistrates' courts. At present, the justices' clerk cannot take proceedings against a defaulter until the creditor has requested that he should do so. This procedure is time-consuming. It encourages the accumulation of arrears, and it gives the wrong impression to the debtor that his

1075
non-payments go unnoticed by the court. In order to prevent that happening, the Bill makes provision for creditors, where payments are made to the court, to give the justices' clerk a standing authority to enforce arrears as soon as they occur.
This is a modest and, I hope, uncontroversial Bill. Its purpose is simply and solely to ensure that maintenance is paid regularly. By so doing, anxiety on the part of parents and spouses will be reduced, valuable court time will be saved, and state benefit payments will be reduced. I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(Earl Ferrers.)
3.58 p.m.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, to my infinite relief I am completely underwhelmed and pleasingly undismayed by the weight of the number of representations which I have received from outside bodies on the contents of this Bill. Almost no one seems to object to it root and branch. That is a pleasing state of affairs because on these Benches we welcome the general principles on which it is constructed and support the general thrust of its central recommendations.
As my noble friend Lord Mishcon said in your Lordships' House on 29th October in reply to the Statement on child maintenance:
"The principles behind the Statement—namely, that fathers, together with mothers who can afford it, should be responsible for the maintenance of their children and that the children come first—are obviously acceptable to the whole House and certainly to the Benches that I represent". [Official Report, 29/10/90; col. 1695.]
Of course, the present system of maintenance is imperfect. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described it that same day as unnecessarily fragmented and uncertain in its results. It is based largely on discretion and is operated through hundreds of courts and social security offices throughout the United Kingdom. This modest Bill is a useful first step towards achieving greater justice and greater efficiency. We shall do our best to improve it in detail and to better some of its provisions at Committee stage.
I am relieved that the Bill is comparatively modest. There has been too much talk in the media and elsewhere regarding the pursuit of recalcitrant fathers, forcing them to face up to their responsibilities and punishing the miscreants with terrible penalties. I pay tribute to the Government's decision not to impose swingeing punishments on anyone who commits an offence under the Bill. Such people—usually, though not invariably, men—are mostly inadequate and selfishly careless rather than cunning and criminal. Indeed any justice of the peace can attest that the overwhelming majority of those who default on maintenance payments either cannot pay because they have got themselves into an inextricable financial mess or conscientiously oppose what they see as the injustice of the law.
A classic case is that of the man who leaves his wife and children for love of another lady. He willingly
1076
takes responsibility for the support of that lady's existing children as well as any others that he may have with her. He may well lavish care and attention on those children so that he has no money left to provide for his own. He feels that he has done his duty. Unfortunately for him the law takes a very different view. Many of those people need to be taught more than they need to be terrified. The Bill increases the flexibility and sensitivity with which the courts can treat such offenders.
The context into which that must be set is the basic problem of failure to pay. A 1980 survey of divorces in Scotland found that no payment at all was made in one-third of cases. Another study found that 21 per cent. of magistrates' court orders were more than £500 in arrears, and another 10 per cent. more than £2,000 in arrears. Two-thirds of orders were more than seven weeks in arrears and more than one in five were over two years in arrears.
Lone parents and their children, often on extremely low incomes, cannot afford to wait for late maintenance payments. In the event of non-payment courts can order an attachment of earnings, issue a warrant of distress or, as a final resort, order committal to prison. In practice they rarely do. Indeed, courts often waive arrears, sometimes for perfectly understandable reasons. Uncertain maintenance is a choice which lone parents cannot afford and many opt for the certainty of benefit.
The Bill must be judged against that background. We have some reservations and questions. I can outline the most important under two headings: those which concern attachment of earnings orders, and those which concern other methods of payment. Attachment of earnings orders are not always as effective as they may at first appear. Although there exist provisions to prevent default, debtors are often able to evade the effect and the orders by moonlighting. It is often difficult and complex for the courts to take that element of work into account. Proposals in the Bill before us do nothing to counteract that.
On the other side of the coin we should like to see some provision made to protect the privacy of employees who have an attachment of earnings order made against them. It is not a sentimental matter of tender loving care for the bruised psyche of the defaulter; it is a practical observation that if they know their privacy will be protected more debtors will elect to pay by attachment of earnings. Those orders, where they are effective, are an efficient, predictable and reliable way of applying a maintenance order. The Bill may well be a better Bill if a little care and attention can be given to revising the provisions in that area.
Other methods of payment are described in Clause 1(5)(b) and subsequently. The Bill makes a distinction between the powers of the High Court and the county courts and those of the magistrates' courts. In the former the powers are discretionary; in the latter they are mandatory. It has been represented to me that it is not entirely clear why that distinction must be made.

1077
Perhaps it would be wiser to impose a consistent system unless good reasons for doing otherwise can be shown.
There is also doubt as to whether the use of standing orders or direct debits will be effective. To operate a standing order both the debtor and the creditor must have a bank account. Perhaps the debtor does not have a bank account. The Bill has foreseen that and directs that the debtor can be ordered to open a bank account. But that will only help if there is a bank which will accept him, and if the debtor puts money into the account. It may be difficult for somebody with a bad record of debt or other disabling characteristics to find a bank which will accept him. What will happen if he does not put money into the account? Some of your Lordships may know from personal experience that few things in life are more depressing to the human psyche than a bank account with no money in it. It will therefore remain both dismal and easy for a debtor to evade his responsibilities despite the existence of a court order compelling him to open a bank account.
Secondly, the power described in Clause 1(6)(b) to order a debtor to open a bank account has obvious civil liberties implications. It is likely to provoke hostility. There are those—not a few—who will strenuously affirm that it is the inalienable right of every Englishman, or Welshman for that matter, not to open a bank account if he does not wish to. There may be those citizens of this country who, for religious reasons, are conscientiously opposed to our banks and all their works.
Thirdly, and on a related topic, the procedure in a magistrates' court when a method of payment order is varied from a standing order or a direct debit to payments through the court clerk seems not to have within it sufficient opportunity for either party to object. Obviously it would be heavy-handed to hold a hearing over a minor administrative change. But it is important that both sides know about the application and are able to comment. I hope that at a later stage we may be able to propose an amendment to ensure that the clerk must be able to prove that the parties are aware of the application before proceeding with it. I hope that may be helpful.
Which things having been said—if I may conclude with an ablative absolute—we on these Benches welcome the Bill. We will help to steer it safely through your Lordships' House hoping for a calm sea and a following wind.
4.8 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, this Bill deals with a tiny area of a very large social problem which, although easy to state in broad terms, is exceedingly complicated in detail. A high proportion of marriages collapse de facto and de jure, though failure in one attempt provides only a mild deterrent—at least in statistical terms—against partners trying again either in formal wedlock or in its irregular substitute.
The victims of our by now very well established system of serial polygamy are some 1.5 million
1078
children and their mothers who live permanently or for periods as one-parent families, the majority of them as paupers compelled to live on income supplement. In theory the law imposes an obligation upon husbands and fathers to maintain their wives and children. In practice over the past two-and-a-half centuries it has never been possible to fully enforce it. The reality was that the Victorian poor law, the National Assistance Board, the Supplementary Benefits Commission, or now income support, actually provided the subsistence which was ordered by the courts but which was unpaid or paid irregularly by husbands and fathers having only one income to support two families.
By 1980 maintenance orders were producing no more than 12 per cent. of the income of divorced and separated women on supplementary benefit, the commission providing the remainder. Moreover, even if the orders had been paid regularly and in full, recipients would still have been on supplementary benefit as the orders were invariably for amounts less, and often substantially less, than their entitlements to minimum rates of benefit. Thus, receipts from court orders were marginal and payments of supplementary benefit were the chief elements in the incomes of such women. That is why one of the main recommendations of the last departmental committee to report on the subject —the Finer Committee on One-Parent Families in 1974—was the establishment of a family court, one main function of which would be to bring the private law of family maintenance into a realistic relationship with the public law of social security.
A further complication is that in England three separate systems of family law have developed over the past two and a half centuries and all three were largely intact 20 years ago. One system made provision for those who could afford access or who could obtain it through legal aid to a superior court of record with a jurisdiction to issue licences to marry again. Another gave a restrictive jurisdiction to magistrates to make summary orders to deal with the family problems of people who for cultural, social or financial reasons did not or could not utilise the superior court. The third system of family law had been embodied in the poor law and taken over after 1948 by the new National Assistance Board and its successors.
The principle of widows' pensions enacted in 1925 has never been extended to the other groups of unsupported wives or mothers who still retain both their legal right to maintenance from husbands and fathers and to assistance from the social security authorities. Accordingly, we still retain different tiers of courts with overlapping jurisdictions and different methods and machinery for collecting and enforcing maintenance. For example, the magistrates' courts alone possess a court collecting office. The normal practice is for maintenance orders of the superior courts to be registered for enforcement in the summary courts, the chief business of which remains petty crime. Again, that is why the Finer Committee recommended that what had been family laws for

1079
different social classes should be brought together in a single unified family law for the whole community, administered in a family court.
The very limited provisions of this Bill—one can see how limited they are both against that background and against the recommendations of the Finer Committee, which examined the whole area in great detail—are worth while as far as they go. They are supported from these Benches in much the same terms as they were supported by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris. Nevertheless, I should make clear that we shall be making many serious and severe criticisms of the White Paper and of the proposed children support agency. However, in terms of the detail of the Bill, it is useful that attachment orders can be made immediately without waiting for default, though it is necessary to recall that from the very beginning when attachment orders were introduced in, I believe, 1958, the promise has always been far greater than the actual performance in producing money.
Secondly, it must be remembered that the main enforcement agency, the magistrates' courts, are very short of resources even for the maintenance orders of superior courts. They are short of staff. They can no longer, as in the old days, use their warrant officers to follow up recalcitrant husbands of fathers. For example, I understand that the police now refuse to put maintenance warrants on their computer, so it is very difficult for courts to follow up the men concerned. There are similar difficulties in serving papers. I am told that very rarely a legal aid certificate may be extended to cover the costs of a professions process server, but that is by no means a widespread practice. I understand that the magistrates' courts have great difficulty in serving papers.
The results of all that is that it becomes an extremely time-consuming and difficult business for a woman, even with the willing assistance of the court, to pursue her maintenance effectively. I am surprised that the Minister, in outlining the Bill's proposals, which he did with great clarity, failed to suggest that the Government would provide additional resources to the summary courts to enable them to fulfil the further functions envisaged by the Bill.
Two questions are often asked about maintenance proceedings, either when negotiations are taking place or after an order has been made. First, people want to know whether the payments can be index-linked to protect them against inflation and to save the costs and upsets of future proceedings to vary the order. Index-linked maintenance orders were at one time thought not to be possible because the Inland Revenue would give tax relief only on payments of a "sum certain". Now that maintenance payments have no significant tax consequences following the Finance Act 1988, it is to be hoped that there will be no impediment to having index-linked orders. It would certainly be a welcome development if the Minister could offer the hope of government support for such a development.
Secondly, it is often asked whether the payments can be made by standing order or by attachment.
1080
Until now the answer had to be that a standing order cannot be imposed but can only be set up if the payer agrees. Furthermore, such an agreement can only be enforceable if the obligation is made a formal undertaking to the court. Reasonable payers tend to agree to set up standing orders without causing any problems. It is the difficult, disorganised and recalcitrant who can be brought into line by the provisions of this Bill. A standing order or a deduction from pay gives the recipient greater certainty that the money will arrive and no time. It gives the payer a good evidential record with which to meet any claim that payments have not been made or to settle any dispute about the quantum of arrears.
Obligatory payment by standing order will improve the position of those whose spouses like to use personal delivery of the weekly or monthly maintenance cheque or cash as an opportunity for a good row. Against that, if a payment which is supposed to be made by standing order is not made, either because the payer cancels the instruction to the bank or because the payer's bank will not make the payment on the grounds that an overdraft limit has been reached, the recipient may not know until up to a month has clasped and her next bank statement arrives. Meanwhile she may unwittingly get into debt with her own bank meeting payments expected to be covered by the standing order.
There are three improvements which I hope that the Minister will be willing to consider on the procedural level of the Bill. The first is to give powers to judges and registrars to make any order for enforcement that is in the court's power whenever the debtor is required to attend for examination of his means and wilful default is found. In that way accounts and assets could immediately be frozen by injunction or charged to make it more, difficult for liabilities to be evaded.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will be able to consider the removal of the anomalous unavailability of legal aid to issue a county court judgment summons. That is perpetuated in the Legal Aid Act 1988. Thirdly, it would be very helpful if the Inland Revenue could be obliged to adjust tax codings of those in default as a means of getting maintenance deducted. I ask the Minister whether the Government would be willing to require the Inland Revenue to reconsider its refusal to date to co-operate in that way in the enforcement of maintenance.
From these Benches we welcome the Bill but regard it as containing no more than very minor improvements. We shall wish to make far-reaching criticisms of the wider proposals which we shall be debating when the Bill based on the White Paper comes before the House.
4.24 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, like others of your Lordships, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his clear explanation of the Bill. I am also very privileged to follows the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, the leading sociologist in this branch of social pathology, policy and law. The noble Lord was part author of the statistical study of separated wives which was seminal.

1081
He was a leading member of the Finer Committee on one-parent families which has been referred to. The early death of Mr. Justice Finer was a great loss. It is a solace to have his lieutenant, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, to carry on and explain the policy.
The Bill is a side shoot—marginal perhaps—of the White Paper, to which the noble Earl referred, called Children Come First. But we are bound to ask ourselves: do we really mean that? Today, one-third of marriages end in divorce. That is double the figure of 20 years ago and double the figure since the passing of the deplorable Divorce Reform Act 1969. The number of divorces is rising. Of the one-third of marriages which end in divorce half of them concern children under the age of 16. If society is facilitating the break-up of such marriages, is it really putting children first? There can be no question that we have facilitated, even encouraged, people to rush for divorce which, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, aptly said, is a licence to remarry.
The first question is this: where do we place the institution of marriage in our policies and priorities? On that there is a very large consensus. It is true that there is, and always has been, an extreme radical wing which looks askance on marriage as an institution. It has lately had a very able exposition in the first document produced by the Institute for Public Policy Research which has the advantage of being chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone.
Undoubtedly the authors of that paper, quite consonantly with the tradition for which they stand, are by no means enamoured of the family as an institution; neither the nuclear family, which is father, mother and children, nor the extended family which we do not have in our law. Other systems of law have it although we have it as a matter of social fact in some grades of society. On the whole there is a consensus that the family is a valuable institution and that it is the best way of rearing future citizens. It is at best a nursery of love. Are we really doing what we can to buttress the family as an institution? The Law Commission's proposals are quite inadequate if that is the objective: in fact, they are nugatory. What are we doing to help the subsistence of marriage where the children are under 16?
One simple way would be to stipulate that there shall be no divorce where there is a child under 16. If one takes the secular view of marriage and divorce, that seems perfectly sensible when coupled, as it should be in the secular view, with divorce by consent—immediate consent—if the children are over 16. I say expressly "the secular view" because people who regard marriage as a sacrament or, as the Church of England holds, in the nature of a sacrament, will not countenance divorce by consent, although in fact the Church of England did so in supporting the 1969 Act.
Ought we not to recognise the conscientious feelings of those who regard marriage as a sacrament or as being in the nature of a sacrament by allowing them to stipulate before marriage that it is a marriage that shall not be dissolved? Certainly one would have to have judicial separation, but there would be no
1082
divorce if the parties agreed that there should be no divorce. When that idea was floated during the passage of the 1969 Act the proponents of the Act objected that it would be instituting two classes of marriage—a first class and a second class. But what a confession it is that the marriage which is undissolvable and indissoluble is a first class marriage but the marriage which is easily dissoluble, as under the 1969 Act, is a second class marriage. That is obviously a matter which we shall have to consider.
It is only after one has worked out what should be the policy there that one comes to deal with the pathology of marriage break down and the separation of parties. At the moment, as the noble Earl pointed out clearly and as was reinforced by what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord McGregor, the enforcement of remedies in that situation is most unsatisfactory.
Finally, I should like to take up what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, regarding the recommendations of the Finer Committee. I refer to the question of family courts. On the Commons consideration of the Courts and Legal Services Bill I certainly understood my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to say categorically that what was proposed in the Bill would lead to a system of family courts. If so, the White Paper and this Bill is a retrograde step. The noble Earl mentioned the proliferation of courts. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, used the word "fragmentary". At the very least we have the High Court and all the multifarious magistrates' courts. They will continue and are given new powers. Why was not their jurisdiction centred in a family court as recommended by the Finer Committee?
The same point applies to the social side. One finds in the White Paper the proposal to set up a new agency for enforcement and the collection of maintenance. Why do we need one? All the information is at the moment in the hands of the Department of Social Security. If we need a new agency, why is it not the welfare wing of the family court? Opinion has been running strongly in favour of a system of family courts each having a welfare department and an adjudicatory department in the same way as the Conseil D'etat in France in a different context has its administrative wing and its judicial wing. Matters would go for adjudication only if they could not be settled by the administrative, social and welfare sides of the family court.
Although many of the provisions of the Bill are undoubtedly an improvement and are to be welcomed in that way as making maintenance more easily enforceable. I am bound to express my grave disappointment that the main thrust of the Bill has been away from what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor seemed to promise and what so many of us have been seeking for so long.
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend the Minister for explaining the Bill to us. It is consistent with the

1083
Children Act 1989 which stated that the welfare of the child is paramount and emphasised the responsibility of parents. I wholeheartedly support the intention behind the Bill. However, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I question the way in which the Bill will be implemented. I cannot see it being implemented well in its present form.
A single parent bringing up children faces difficult problems. If maintenance to the lone parent ordered by the court is not forthcoming, the plight of the parent is even worse. If the lone parent has to go to court to seek help and legal aid to make her husband, or wife as the case may be, pay the maintenance which the court has ordered, the burden is almost intolerable.
I should like my noble friend to explain some of the provisions of the Bill. I have had a great deal to do with parents in respect of whom the court has made an attachment of earnings order. Has my noble friend facts and figures to show that this is a successful way of obtaining maintenance? My experience is that it is not. Not only is it not a suitable way of obtaining help for the lone parent without maintenance; it is almost counter-productive. If an attachment of earnings order is made, the man, even if in a good job, will leave his job as soon as he possibly can. If he is then pursued by the Inland Revenue he will move again. If he is further pursued he will move out of the town in which he lives. We need to be sure whether the attachment of earnings order procedure is working now. I find from my experience of dealing with such cases that it is not. Are we wise to pursue this line?
With regard to the next section of the Bill, I feel that I must ask the same question as that put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Morris and Lord McGregor. Why is there a distinction between the powers of the High Court and the county court, which are discretionary, and those of the magistrates' courts, which are mandatory? My understanding of the matter is not clear. Perhaps my noble friend will be kind enough to explain it to me.
I turn now to the question of a debtor having to open a bank account. I wonder whether this provision is practicable. Problems may arise where a debtor is not able to open a bank account because the bank refuses the application. In such a situation, under Clause 2(4)(b) of the Bill the debtor would not have failed to open the account "without reasonable excuse". Therefore, the court could not order a debtor to open an account. In any event, even if that were to be the case, he may not have the money; I cannot imagine any bank accepting such a person.
I have some experience of this. A young man I knew called Roger wanted to open a bank account. I took him to the bank. He had been in care and did not know how to open a bank account. The bank manager was very pleased to have another customer. However, he asked me whether I would sign the form confirming that the young man was a suitable person. I was bound to ask Roger "Do you think you are a suitable person because you know you steal and tell lies?" At that point the bank manager said that he could not allow him to open a bank account. How could such a
1084
situation be possible? Therefore, while I agree with the intentions behind the Bill, I do not believe that the way in which it is to be implemented is either practicable or possible.
I should now like to pursue the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. First, I believe that if we had family courts as recommended by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor we should be going a long way towards solving the problem. Secondly, the divorce Bill—which has not been put before the House and was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech—recommends that a couple who want to divorce must initially register the fact that they wish to do so. There must then be a period of conciliation during which the conciliation service and the probation service could help the couple; but the divorce would not be granted until the maintenance of the children and the spouse and the question of access were settled. If that Bill is introduced, we shall at least go some way towards achieving the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
In my view, we must start at an earlier stage to help divorcing parents. We should not issue a maintenance order until both parents have worked out between themselves, or with the help of a conciliator, what the agreements will be. If that process were to be followed, we would reduce the need for so much court procedure. As I have already said, I support the intentions behind the Bill but I regret to say that I do not support the manner in which it is to be implemented.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, if I had known that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was going to give us the benefit of his usual wisdom this afternoon I should have withdrawn my name from the speakers list. I agree with everything he said. In common with my noble friend Lady Faithfull, I must say that we as women are most grateful that so many of your Lordships, being of the other sex, take such an interest in the welfare of women who are perhaps left without, as they seem to think, enough money.
I have carried out a great deal of research among people as well as among organisations. I have come to the conclusion —which I do not expect to be popular with anyone—that these men are having a very raw deal at this time. We seem to be pursuing them for something which they probably do not have. They may refuse to pay for reasons which are not given to us or to the court. They may indeed be family reasons. In most cases they are being asked to leave the matrimonial home and the children to whom they are as devoted as the mothers. The result is that very often they are under a terrible emotional strain. They may be sacked from their jobs and they have no home. Moreover, they do not even have their children, to whom, as I said, they are devoted. They are often to be found on our streets. It is a very sad state of affairs and if on top of all that they are to be hounded for

1085
maintenance they will go into hiding. I agree with the noble Earl, who I think said that such men can always be found via the computer, presumably at Newcastle.
Who are these men? They are husbands who leave their wives; they are fathers who leave their wives and their children; and they are men who leave their girlfriends and the children whom they have fathered. It has always seemed to me that the break-up of a relationship—not necessarily a marriage but people living together—is two-sided. It is split 50:50. It is very rare that one can say categorically that it was either his or her fault. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that both sides are usually equally to blame. However, where there are children—and we have all decided that children are paramount—they are the ones who are hurt. Whatever anyone says or tries to do, the children in such a situation are desperately hurt.
I turn now to the reasons for the failure to pay. One of the oganisations with which I have been in touch maintains that this is the reason behind the failure to pay. A man may be willing to pay but, despite the fact that the learned judge who granted the divorce had told him, "You may have access," the mother refuses to grant access and throws him out every time he appears. He may then say, "Why should I give this woman to whom I used to be married"—or with whom he used to live—"money when I am not allowed to see my will pay?" I am assured that that is the reason for the failure to pay. That is the issue to which we should be addressing our attention and not how we can retrieve the money. We must concentrate upon why these men do not want to pay.
I can assure noble Lords that the men to whom I have talked —they represent quite a large body of people—are very willing to pay. On the whole they can pay. However, if they are unable to see their children they say, "Why should I pay?" That is an issue which we are not able to address within the scope of this Bill. We are dealing merely with how to obtain money from someone who has been ordered to pay but who will not do so. I entirely agree with the argument adequately put forward by my noble friend Lady Faithfull that it is quite absurd to put in a Bill the requirement that a man must open a bank account.
I also believe that the attachment of earnings order, which I used to make quite frequently when I dealt with such cases, is impractical. I say that because, although the man may ask his employer to help him in respect of such an order, there is a stigma attached to it. Those working in the office of the employer are bound to know that the man is in trouble and is not paying the money due to his former partner. Then, as my noble friend said, the man leaves his job and is unemployed. The state then has to pay not just him but the woman with whom he lived.
I appreciate that this is a difficult social problem. I agree with the principle that preferably both parents should always be financially responsible for the children, but when it is impossible to make the man pay I am afraid that the state, as it has done for a long time, has to pick up the bill. I do not know what we
1086
shall do with the Bill. I do not like it. It is far too long. It repeats itself over and over again. I shall be interested to see what my noble friend the Minister makes of it in Committee. I expect that we shall all table a number of amendments.
4.51 p.m.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I did not have my name down to speak but I cannot fail to support all that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said. Like her, I have always been a great supporter of the cause of my sex. I have always supported sex discrimination laws and the equality for which we have fought. Like the noble Baroness, I have all too frequently met cases similar to those she described. There has been a strange turn of events. All too often now the man suffers because the woman appears to get the best of the argument. Sadly we all know cases within our own families. As I said one day, I do not need to watch "Dallas"; I could write the script from my own family.
There is no doubt that some way must be found to deal in the Bill with the circumstances described by the noble Baroness. The matter is no longer black and white. When I sat in court we frequently made attachment of earnings orders. The trade unions found the men who were forced to pay. The climate has changed. We no longer have the simple obligation of marriage or non-marriage. People live together voluntarily. It must be a two-party thing. I hope that during the course of the Bill's passage we can table some amendments to take account of the circumstances so eloquently described by the noble Baroness.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Meakswell: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise to the Minister for entering the debate rather late and unannounced. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Phillips and the noble Baronesses, Lady Faithfull and Lady Macleod, for their contributions. They revealed a depth and breadth of understanding of the problems that unfortunately was not apparent from previous speakers. We must recognise that the problem is far more difficult than just finding a financial resolution or an easy, quick fix by the courts.
I want to concentrate on two aspects of the Bill. The first relates to its general thrust. The second relates to one minor detail, although when I come to it your Lordships will appreciate that it can be a significant detail. I am concerned that we have the Bill at all. I am afraid that it reflects the Government's philosophy and attitude to the situation that faces our society—the break-up of marriages and the results. We are doing things the wrong way round. We are saying, "Here is a Bill, which will become an Act, which will constrain and enforce, effectively, a contract that was not mutually agreed between the parties." That is one of the biggest problems with the concept of enforcement of maintenance payments. It is not as though there is a contract between two parties mutually entered into. It is a one-sided affair. The courts will be taking a view of a situation and imposing their reaction to it.

1087
The implication is that it is all very well to have children so long as you can pay for them. That draws a distinction between well-off members of our society and poor members of our society. In this day and age that is not a distinction that we can allow to continue. One or two previous speakers alluded to the fact that people often separate because one party is excluded from the home, the affections of the partner, and the ability to relate and live with their children. That is the partner whom we penalise. It is perceived to be unfair.
I do not say that the Bill is against men only or women only. One or two speakers tended to say that it is all to do with getting money out of men. That is not the situation that we face. At the moment we are already faced with the enforcement of maintenance payments against women. Heaven forbid that it should come about that my wife and I separate. However, my wife earns more than I do, and if she decided to leave and I was looking after the children I should be expected to demand money from her. We are not talking just about men.
So much for the generalities. I shall mention one detail. One of the things that has come about over the past few years is the increase in the use of direct debits in place of standing orders. With a standing order, a set amount passes from one bank account to another at a set time. It continues. On the other hand, a direct debit relates to where money is paid from one bank account into another but the amount is not determined by the person paying. It is determined by the other party, who effectively says to one's bank, "Please pay us this amount". The other party is free to vary the amount.
I recently had a dispute with BT because it has stopped accepting standing orders and will accept a direct debit only for regular payments. I refuse to pay on that basis. I and no one else shall be the person to determine what is paid out of my bank account. That is only reasonable. The Bill's Explanatory and Financial Memorandum states:
"by standing order or some similar method".
I make a plea that we ensure that in the Bill we do not give the courts power to demand direct debit payments because that would only compound the non-payment problem.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships two examples of the situation that can result from divorce and the payment of maintenance. One example is where a man was effectively excluded from his household. He loved his wife and children. He wanted to contribute to their maintenance, and he did so as long as he stayed in employment. But the very fact of separation virtually destroyed his ability to work. He lost his job and became virtually destitute. However, whenever he has any money he contributes because he still loves his family. It is an incredible situation.
There is another example about which I know. I met someone recently who, for the last 20 years, has lived in the black economy solely to prevent any earnings which he may receive being paid to his wife because of the circumstances of his separation. Surely
1088
this whole Bill is a complete waste of paper in those two situations, because we are discussing this area of social difficulty in completely the wrong way.
5.1 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for the welcome in general that you have given to the Bill and for the debate that we have had upon it. It has shown your Lordships' care and concern about what to do when marriages break down. I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, paid such a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, for what he said and for his knowledge of these matters, which is of course considerable.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, welcomed the Bill. He said that it was a modest Bill, and it is a modest Bill. We never claimed that it was anything more than that. But we thought that it sought to meet a certain area of difficulty, and that is what we have done. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, for saying that he would help this Bill through the House with a calm sea and a following wind, which I think is a nice nautical expression for which we are most grateful.
I was even grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull who said that she supported the Bill for what it intended but not for the way in which it did it. I am bound to say that if the Government ever produced a Bill with which my noble friend was wholly content, I think that I should be tempted to adjourn the House not during pleasure but with pleasure.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that a third of marriages end in divorce, which is double what it was 20 years ago. It is as well to remember those rather horrifying facts. He said that it is sometimes necessary to consider where we place the institution of marriage in our lives, and that the family is a good institution and a nursery of love. Few of us would think that the institution of marriage was anything other than highly commendable and highly desirable, but the sad part is that somehow the pressures of modern life seem designed to try to break it up.
When marriages break up they cause troubles, sorrows and endless sadnesses. It think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who said that sometimes people nowadays live together without being married. It seems the easy option. It seems the convenient thing for people to do. I merely suggest that it seldom results in real happiness, and when things go wrong it is inevitably the children who suffer as well as everyone else.
The sad part again is that like all matters which are fairly far apart there is a slender dividing line: goodness is quite close to badness; kindness is quite close to unkindness; love is quite close to hatred, although they are opposites. It is sad when people can marry and love each other that when they get divorced their love can almost turn to hatred to such a degree that, as the noble Lord, Lord Monks well, said one person can be prepared to make all his earnings on the black economy for the simple reason that he did not

1089
want his ex-wife to have any of his earnings. Of course I do not think that we shall ever get over that problem, but it re-emphasises the fact that we should do all that we can in our various spheres of life to try to bolster up the cause of marriage, and try to encourage it rather than subject it so frequently to such risk and sorrow.
In this Bill we have tried to address one area where we think it could give a little more happiness and a little more contentment. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who said that the Bill was repetitive—no, I am sorry, it was my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve. Of course she is quite right. On the face of it it appears repetitive but that is because it addresses a number of matters of a similar nature and they all have to be addressed individually. Therefore, while my noble friend may feel keen to put down a lot of amendments to make the Bill simpler, I hope that she will be hesitant about putting down too many because I doubt whether she will find that it will be all that easy to make it that much simpler.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Castle Morris, was concerned about the discretion in the High Court and the county courts. The noble Lord is correct that the approach in the Bill differs as regards the High Court and the county courts and as regards the magistrates' courts. The reason is that the magistrates' courts' powers are contained entirely in statute whereas the higher courts have both statutory and common law powers. The intention is to give the courts new powers without interfering with existing powers. The most convenient way of achieving this has been adopted in drafting the Bill in its present form.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, was concerned about maintenance law and the family courts. The law of maintenance and related issues of jurisdiction are part of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor's review of the family justice system. My noble and learned friend's department is engaged in a wide-ranging review of family law and procedure, with the objective of creating in stages a single family justice system applying a single body of substantive law.
The aims are to ensure that the interests of children are given priority; that the personal responsibility of parents for their family is emphasised; that the system for hearing and deciding family cases is improved and rationalised, making the most effective use of existing court and judicial resources, matching cases to the most appropriate level of court; and removing from the courts functions that could more effectively be dealt with elsewhere.
On the magistrates' courts' resources, about which the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was concerned, I would only say that it is accepted that enforcement proceedings can be difficult and time consuming, and can be a drain on the courts' resources. It is for this reason that the Bill's proposals should be helpful in preventing default in the first place, and the creation of the child support agency will relieve the courts of
1090
enforcement work. Instead there will be a specialist and dedicated new body to do that in place of the courts.
The noble Lord also referred to the Inland Revenue, and asked whether it was possible to adjust the defaulter's tax coding. It is not within the scope of this particular Bill to do that. Indeed, the entire system for reassessing and collecting child maintenance will be reformed by the "children come first" proposals. However, I would agree, without commitment, to give further thought to this matter in consultation with other departments. I shall try to discover whether the Inland Revenue can assist in the matter of maintenance schemes.
The noble Lord also referred to index linking. The White Paper on child support proposes that child maintenance awards under the proposed formula would be reassessed each year and would make index linking unnecessary. Orders for spousal maintenance will not be covered by this formula. However, index linking is not without its difficulties and while it will be borne in mind by the Government as they develop their policy in this field, I cannot commit the Government to any particular line on this matter at present.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, referred to family courts. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor did not give an undertaking to create family courts. However, the Government have embarked upon a review of substantive family law and related issues of jurisdiction and procedure. They will be informed by the need to rationalise the use of existing courts and resources and to match cases to the level of court or judge according to the weight and complexity of the cases. Although the review aims to create a rationalised family justice system, that does not mean that it will lead to what the noble and learned Lord has described as family courts.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull referred to the usefulness of attachment of earnings orders. There are of course circumstances where attachment of earnings orders will not work. However, I believe that frequently they are successful. The purpose of the Bill is merely to make such orders available in circumstances where they are not available at present, thereby increasing the flexibility of the courts' powers. It will of course be for the courts to decide whether to impose such an order in the circumstances of any particular case. My noble friend was also concerned about divorce and conciliation. Divorce reforms are part of the review of family law by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, as is the connected issue of conciliation. The Government are considering the Law Commissioners' report on divorce. They welcome that as a useful contribution to the debate on this important matter. The Government wish to hear views from all interested quarters on the commissioners' proposals. However, it would be premature for us to reach any conclusions on the future of divorce now.
My noble friend was also concerned about the power to require a bank account to be opened. The

1091
power is clearly not relevant to cases where a person is refused facilities by a bank. The Bill contains safeguards for the debtor. The power is needed to prevent someone who has an account in good order from closing it in order to frustrate a court's maintenance order. We do not expect the power to be used often but it is a useful deterrent. The argument that the debtor may not have any money is not a good one. The maintenance order will reflect his financial circumstances. The Bill is about the methods of payment and not about how much should be paid.
Noble Lords made a number of other points and I am most grateful for them. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, remarked that most of his criticisms were of the White Paper. I am glad to know that because I hope it means that the majority of his criticisms will not be deflected onto this Bill and that he will help to give it an easy passage. I am grateful to noble Lords for having given the Bill such a welcome.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Namibia Bill [H.L.]
5.14 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Namibia's attainment of independence and entry into the Commonwealth on 21st March this year were a great source of satisfaction to Britain. As a co-author of the UN plan for Namibian independence adopted in 1978 and a major contributor to the UN Transition Group (UNTAG), we played an important role in the independence process.
We have built up a close working relationship with the president and the new government. Our aid programme is an important element in this relationship. We have pledged £10 million over the next three years which is to be devoted to police training, education and health, and is designed to encourage good government, accountability and cost-effective use of resources. At President Nujoma's request and in addition to the £10 million package, we are also helping to train the Namibian army.
The purpose of the Bill before us today is to modify existing legislation to place Namibia on an equal footing with other Commonwealth countries for the purposes of UK law. The Bill follows earlier precedents, the most recent being the Pakistan Act 1990. It involves purely technical amendments to a number of Acts to apply them to Namibia. The Bill covers Namibia's relationship with the Commonwealth Institute. It provides for Namibian forces to be included in the definition of Commonwealth forces with implications for their legal status when visiting the UK, for example for training. It makes provision for the exercise of command and discipline when British and Commonwealth forces are serving together and for attachments of members of one force to another. The Bill also ensures that regulatory powers applying to
1092
the whaling industry will not apply to ships registered in Namibia as it is not appropriate for these powers to extend to the shipping of independent members of the Commonwealth.
Clause 2(2) of the Bill deems the Act to have come into force on 21st March 1990, the day Namibia achieved independence and became a member of the Commonwealth. There is no technical reason for this, but clearly there is a strong symbolic value in deeming the provisions of the Act to come into effect on Namibia's independence day.
I should remind your Lordships that the immigration and electoral implications of Namibia's admission to the Commonwealth have been dealt with separately by an Order in Council which came into effect on 25th August 1990. This added Namibia to the list of Commonwealth countries in Schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981. With this brief summary of the Bill, I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time. —(The Earl of Caithness.)
5.17 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are grateful for the clear explanation that the Minister gave of this small but nevertheless significant Bill. As the Minister said, the Bill aims to modify certain United Kingdom enactments in relation to the Commonwealth Institute, the armed services and visiting forces, and shipping in the light of the admission of Namibia to the Commonwealth. I, too, wish to take this opportunity to reiterate the sense of pleasure we all felt at Namibia's independence some months ago. I wish to express the high hopes we had and have that the people of Namibia will enjoy better lives now that they have emerged from the maelstrom of events which occurred in the long period of conflict which unfortunately lasted for many years in their country.
Although it is true that the eight months of independence have brought a kind of peace to Namibia, they have not, unfortunately, brought a glimmer of prosperity. It is on this worrying aspect of the extreme poverty of many areas in Namibia that I wish to comment. I wish to ask the Minister some questions about the part that Britain will play in this matter.
I believe that UNICEF is in a strong position to assess the needs of the Namibian people as that organisation drew up a country programme recommendation for assistance for Namibia for the transition period and for the first year of independence. In addition to establishing a child survival programme, UNICEF assisted in the repatriation of exiled Namibians. As many as 42,000 people were assisted in their return to Namibia.
The areas of main concern during both the transition period and the first months of independence were identified by UNICEF as, first, the larger numbers of vulnerable groups, including people who were internally displaced or had been led to migrate—they were often led to migrate to Crowded

1093
peri-urban areas—due to war and rural insecurity. A further vulnerable group includes populations in remote areas.
The second area of concern relates to the fragmentation of services and misallocation of resources resulting from the retention of several administrative authorities in different areas of the country, many of which follow their own policies and priorities. That is a legacy of the apartheid concept and remains a problem for the new country. Thirdly, a strain has been placed upon the health and education services by budget shortfalls, resulting partly from drastic reductions in South Africa's budget subsidy to Namibia but also from the internal resource allocation policies of the various administrations. A further major problem is the critical food security situation affecting poor households in northern areas due to a combination of long-term and short-term factors, including drought, displacement and income losses resulting from South Africa's military withdrawal and subsequent employment cutbacks.
Those stark facts make it clear that Namibia needs the strongest support in order to leave the launching pad and fly under its own steam. There are many ways in which the international community and the United Kingdom in particular can contribute. I should like to ask the Minister two or three questions in that regard.
First, there can be no doubt that the major unresolved question following independence is the future of Walvis Bay. The Minister mentioned it yesterday in the debate on the Commonwealth. The return of the port, which is required under UN Resolution 432, is critical to Namibia. Can the Minister tell the House what steps the Government are taking in order to influence the South African Government on the implementation of the UN resolution?
Secondly, in regard to economic aid, Namibia had hoped for a 19,000 tonnes beef quota under the European Community's Lomé Convention but the Commission recommended only a 13,000 tonnes limit. That quota has still to be ratified and therefore perhaps the Minister will say whether Her Majesty's Government will seek an increase for Namibia under the Lomé agreement. Will the Minister also say whether the Government are taking steps to ensure that Namibia receives least developed country status from the European Community, which would be of the greatest assistance to Namibia in acquiring EC aid funds?
Lastly, can the Minister tell the House when the Commonwealth Development Corporation will complete its survey of possible investment projects? Is he able to provide an estimate of the number of personnel from Voluntary Service Overseas and other agencies which are currently assisting Namibia? I should be grateful for answers to those questions, but as I did not give the Minister notice of the questions I should be equally grateful if he would write to me with the answers. I believe that that is an area in which the
1094
United Kingdom can be of enormous assistance to Namibia in its struggle to begin its independent life in better shape.
5.25 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Earl for his very clear introduction of the Bill, which we welcome. Because we support the principles of the Commonwealth we also welcome the fact that Namibia has joined the Commonwealth.
We are conscious of the fact that Namibia is an extraordinary country. In area it is much the same size as France and the united Germany but it has a population of just over 1 million people. It has had a difficult history over the past 60 years, culminating in the 1960s in the fight against a cynical apartheid regime imposed illegally by South Africa. Resistance to that regime began peacefully but unhappily ended in violence as that was seen as the only means by which the nationalist organisation, SWAPO, could continue to put pressure on the South African Government, against the disapproval of the greater part of world opinion, not to mention the United Nations and the International Court at The Hague which ruled that the South African acts were illegal.
When I was in Zambia in the 1970s, in Lusaka I met a number of the leaders of the SWAPO movement. I learnt something of the problems and their desperation about the cynical way in which their country was being used in a cat-and-mouse game. I was impressed by the quality and education of that small group of people and the reasonableness with which they faced what appeared to be a bleak future. I am pleased that Namibia is now a member of the Commonwealth. The action of the Commonwealth in paving the way for the admission of Namibia has been very encouraging, particularly with regard to education, both in Namibia itself and for those who are exiled from the country.
Before I finish I should like to welcome the aid which the British Government have put at the disposal of the Namibian state. It may not appear an enormous amount and we hope that it will be increased, but undoubtedly the quality of that aid will be excellent. We look forward to it continuing into a happy future. We wish the country well.
5.27 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, all friends of Africa and of the Commonwealth will welcome the Bill and the evidence that it gives of Namibia's adherence to the Commonwealth. I remind the House that the Commonwealth offered membership to Namibia at a time when Namibia was still occupied by the South Africans but the Commonwealth was unable to help the Namibians to achieve the independence in which the country could make its choice.
It would be inappropriate if, in a bland welcome to the Bill today, we forgot the background to the independence of Namibia and its adherence to the Commonwealth and, in particular, the debt that we in this country have accumulated by our actions or lack

1095
of action over the past 40 years. My mind turns to the valiant activities of the late Reverend Michael Scott, who was the first public figure to take a continuous, stance on the matter. He attended the United Nations year after year on behalf of what was then known as South-West Africa. He was supported by and represented the people of what is now Namibia. In his lone stance he received some support from non-aligned nations but very little support from this country.
We should remember that it was South African occupation of the country and insistence on administration, despite the fact that the United Nations regularly passed resolutions calling on South Africa to withdraw from the territory, which provoked the war that broke out in 1966 and continued for the next 22 years. The International Court of Justice pronounced on the matter in 1971. With a curious parallel to the present situation in the world, the Security Council set May 1975 as the deadline for South African withdrawal. That deadline was not met. South Africans quite openly declared that they had no intention of meeting it. What did members of the United Nations and permanent members of the Security Council do about that open defiance? Nothing at all. In fact the following year, when a call was made for an arms embargo to enforce the decision of the Security Council, it was vetoed by the governments of France, the United States and the United Kingdom. How things have changed.
Despite the atrocity of the appalling massacre at Cassinga in 1978, when 750 Namibians in a refugee camp were slaughtered by the South African forces, still no action was taken. In the same year, Resolution 435, which became the basis of United Nations policy toward Namibia, was passed. What support did it receive from the members of the United Nations? There was a Security Council resolution calling for the withdrawal of South Africa and the setting up of a Namibian Council. Indeed, one of our own number until recently, the much beloved late Lord Caradon, was appointed as the commissioner for Namibia. He never arrived there.
What support was given to the Security Council, its resolutions and its policies at that time by the United Kingdom Government or members of the Security Council? A western contact group was set up. I met its members nearly 10 years ago in Lusaka. They wandered around year by year and quickly came under the domination of the United States representative. Nothing was done to put into action the resolution or any of the policies of the United Nations.
Meanwhile, throughout this period, uranium was being mined by Rio Tinto Zinc, based in this country, in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions. Diamonds were being pulled out of the ground and sold in defiance of United Nations resolutions. The seas around Namibia were being grossly overfished in defiance of United Nations resolutions. In this country we took a part in all those activities. To its credit the Commonwealth regularly supported Resolution 435 and regularly criticized
1096
those who were breaking United Nations provisions; but not with the support of Her Majesty's Government.
I should like to pay tribute to David Owen who, as Foreign Secretary in 1978, almost reached a diplomatic agreement. I never thought that there was any chance of going through with it: in any case he never had the chance because he was out of office at a very early stage of the negotiations. I pay tribute also to the work of the churches. I single out a much beloved Member of this House, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, together with his wife, who paid a number of uncomfortable and sometimes dangerous visits to Namibia. He produced brave reports of what was going on in the country.
That is the background, and that is the debt that we have piled up to the people of Namibia. It is good to recall that when agreement on a ceasefire eventually arose, the Commonwealth immediately played an active role by sending an observer team to supervise the elections in November 1989, as had been dome in Rhodesia. I mentioned the point in yesterday's debate. It did not just send an observer team; it also sent a technical team, which in some ways was even more important, from the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. Two legal experts were provided to help work out a new constitution. Training was provided in setting up the foreign ministry and other advisers were supplied to modify and modernise the civil service. Perhaps of most importance was the help given to the Namibian extension unit, mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, to move back to Windhoek from its exile in Lusaka and Angola in 1990. That was a very important unit.
I was privileged to participate for a time in helping its training. It trained Namibian refugees to fit themselves to run an independent country, which is one, if not the most important, contribution that can be made from the outside to the growth, development and establishment of a new, independent nation. I am glad to know that the CFTC has continued to supply experts from Commonwealth countries to assist the Namibians in their nation-building.
I welcome the statement by the noble Earl about the work that has been done by the British to help training in both the police and the army. I regret that he could only announce the very meagre figure of £10 million, considering the debt I have outlined which we have built up to the people of Namibia—the amount of what one can only call loot, which has been extracted from that country ever since the war largely by the South Africans but with a great deal of British participation. I hope that the noble Earl will take the message from this House that £10 million is nothing like enough to repay the debt that we have built up.
Finally, I should like to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs with regard to Walvis Bay. Walvis Bay has a very long history in the affairs of southern Africa, going back to the last century. Walvis Bay is absolutely crucial to the future economic health of Namibia. As my noble friend pointed out, that has been recognised by the United

1097
Nations. We are entitled to ask about the attitude of the British Government, as a member of the United Nations and a member of the Security Council. What policy are they following in insisting that United Nations support for the Namibian claim on Walvis Bay is pursued so that this new member of the Commonwealth is given a reasonable chance to build up its economic strength following the rape it has suffered over the past 40 years?
5.40 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that the Bill has received in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that it was a small but significant Bill. We agree about its great significance.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, spoke of the importance of Walvis Bay. It is worth recalling that in 1978 the United Kingdom voted in favour of Security Council Resolution 432 which states that Walvis Bay should be reintegrated into Namibia. As I said in our debate yesterday, we believe that this important issue is best resolved through negotiations between Namibia and South Africa. We believe that both the Namibian and South African governments are prepared to negotiate bilaterally.
It is also right to tell the House that the Namibian foreign minister has written to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and to the United States and German foreign ministers reserving the right to revert to the Security Council. We have replied commending bilateral negotiation but offering diplomatic support if necessary.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the importance of economic aid to Namibia. The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was grateful for the contribution of Britain. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said that it was depressingly small. Let me repeat that Britain is producing a substantial amount of aid in various forms to Namibia. One must not forget also the contribution of the Community. In 1990, the Community draft budget has provided for help to Namibia of some £12.7 million. Within that there is a substantial contribution from Britain.
The noble Baroness asked about the least developed country status within the Community. I cannot tell her what it is at the moment. It is of course a matter for the Community to decide. Perhaps I may write to her on that point. I shall also write to her on the fourth point with regard to the CDC.
As to the economics of Namibia, the noble Baroness referred to poverty. It is worth saying a word about the external debt situation. Negotiations on that and other aspects of the financial and commercial relationship between independent Namibia and South Africa are now taking place. We must leave it to the independent Government of Namibia to decide how to settle those complex matters. However, I am sure that we all hope the outcome will provide a basis for a prosperous future for Namibia.
1098
The Government share the warm sentiments with which your Lordships applauded Namibia's entrance into the Commonwealth. I am glad that Namibia has so many friends in your Lordships' House. The Bill is a practical expression of our welcome of Namibia into the Commonwealth. I commend it to the House.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down will he clarify one point? He stated that the British Government have expressed willingness to give diplomatic assistance. I believe that those were the words he used. Does he mean diplomatic assistance to the Namibian Government in claiming Walvis Bay back under the United Nations resolution?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the words that I used—indeed I believe that I used them yesterday—were "diplomatic support". We have already voted in favour of Security Council Resolution 432. We stand by to help in whatever way we can to achieve a positive solution to the matter.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Education Support Grants Regulations 1990
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch rose Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these draft regulations provide for the payment of education support grants. They consolidate, with amendments, the previous 1984 regulations.
Before I explain how these new regulations differ from the old ones, it may help your Lordships if I set out some of the background and in particular the new arrangements for combining education support grants with local education authority training grants into a single co-ordinated grants programme.
When last year the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, introduced regulations to amend the previous education support grant regulations, he informed your Lordships that a scrutiny had been established under the auspices of the Prime Minister's efficiency unit to review the department's two main specific grants—education support grants and the local education authorities' training grants scheme. The scrutiny was asked to examine the administration of the two grants, to consider whether they were effective instruments for supporting the policy objectives they were intended to support, and to make recommendations for improvement.
That scrutiny reported in January. Its first conclusion was that the grants should continue. It found that the grants were broadly meeting their objectives and had exerted powerful influences for change. But the scrutiny also concluded that there was no longer a case for two separate grant systems. Instead it recommended the establishment of a unified

1099
scheme combining both grants. This was designed to improve co-ordination between training and other forms of grant support.
The reason for that is that the two schemes have increasingly covered similar ground. Both now have it as a key objective to help schools, colleges and local education authorities to implement the changes flowing from the Education Reform Act. For example, both provide funds to help put the national curriculum in place. But under current arrangements the training that is needed for the national curriculum is considered, and grants are paid, quite separately from the other forms of support that are needed for the national curriculum such as books, equipment and non-teaching staff. Both grants have also allocated funds increasingly according to formulae based on objective measures such as the number of pupils or schools in individual local education authorities rather than on the basis of competitive bids.
The Government therefore readily accepted that bringing the two grants together would make sense. Indeed the principle has received a general welcome as helping to make sure that available funds are used to best effect. The scrutiny report suggested that ideally new legislation might be introduced to provide for a single grants scheme. But it recognised that the prospect for early legislation was uncertain. Meanwhile, we shall continue to keep the two grants formally separate and paid under their respective statutes but administer them side by side so that we can gain the benefits of a co-ordinated approach. The combined programme is known as the grants for education support and training or GEST programme.
It is against that background that we have put before your Lordships new regulations governing education support grants. In practice, the regulations draw extensively on those previously in force. But they make several changes of substance. First, the schedule to the regulations allows for the various ESG activities within the proposed 1991–92 programme. It removes the activities specified in previous schedules which are coming to an end in 1990–91. It updates the descriptions of activities which began in previous years and are continuing into 1991–92; and it allows for the new activities which will begin in 1991–92. In particular, item 28 in the schedule covers the new activity which will support projects to improve the planning and co-ordination of provision for the under-fives.
Secondly, the regulations will enable the department to pay education support grant termly instead of quarterly as in the past. That brings ESGs into line with the existing practice for the training grants which have been paid on a termly basis for some time. It should help to cut down the administrative burden of the grants programme by allowing both grants to be claimed and paid at the same time.
Thirdly, the regulations give my right honourable friend powers to require information to verify that grant has been properly paid and to require LEAs to comply with requirements specified by my right honourable friend including requirements as to the repayment of grants. Both these provisions mirror
1100
requirements included in the parallel regulations governing the LEA training grants scheme. Perhaps I may assure noble Lords that the power in regulation 10 about complying with requirements is not for everyday use but is designed as a long-stop which will allow my right honourable friend to protect the taxpayer's investment. In particular, it is designed to allow him to require LEAs to repay an appropriate amount of grant when they sell assets bought with ESG funding. This is a standard requirement for grants.
In addition to these changes of substance we have taken the opportunity to bring the wording of the regulations as closely as possible into line with that of the LEA training grants scheme regulations to mirror the bringing together of the grants into a single programme.
Your Lordships may like to know more about how the combined 1991–92 programme will work. The size and pattern of the proposed programme was announced in July. We expect to support through grants total spending of £364 million. Of that, £215 million is provisionally attributed to education support grants and the remainder to training grants. But the precise sums paid under each set of regulations will be decided when all the grant allocations to LEAs for each activity within the programme have been settled.
Also in July the department issued a single draft circular to LEAs inviting them to submit bids for allocations under the combined programme. Although each activity has been separately identified as payable under ESG or training grant regulations, by grouping activities together the circular is designed to help local authorities develop more coherent responses which can treat training and other forms of support as parts of a single package. The department has now received authorities' bids and we are considering the final shape of the programme. We shall announce allocations to local authorities as soon as practicable, subject to these draft regulations receiving approval.
The Government's overriding priority for the 1991–92 programme is to help schools, colleges and LEAs to implement the education reforms. Consequently, of the £364 million total programme no less than £270 million is being targeted on different aspects of the reforms. As in previous years my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State consulted the local authority associations on the shape of the programme. Within the £270 million for the reforms some £170 million will be allocated for various elements of the national curriculum and collective worship. This includes, first, £35 million of support for implementing the new national curriculum assessment regime, helping LEAs administer the new arrangements, promote consistent assessment standards and give teachers and other staff the necessary training; secondly, £30 million of spending on information technology systems for teaching, with a particular focus on primary and special schools and on the support of children with communication difficulties; thirdly, £15 million of spending on extra

1101
books for the national curriculum; and fourthly, £16 million for other ESG support on materials and equipment for the national curriculum and the appointment of staff such as technicians to help implement it. A further £100 million will support projects to improve the management of schools and colleges primarily by helping LEAs implement schemes of local management. This includes expenditure on management training for staff, computerised management information systems and additional administrative support.
But, as in previous years, the programme will also support other priorities not directly related to the education reforms. There is additional support for projects to increase local recruitment of teachers, particularly former teachers and nature entrants to teaching. We shall continue to support projects in the areas of health education and school discipline. There will be a new activity to improve the planning and co-ordination and provision for the under-fives across the LEA and voluntary sectors. There will also be continuing support for a range of ESG activities in adult education including adult literacy, educational guidance and support for the Workers' Educational Association.
Thus far I have focused on the operation of the programme in England. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for the operation of education support grants in Wales. There too, ESGs are being combined with training grants in very much the same way as in England.
The programme in Wales will support expenditure of nearly £25 million in 1991–92. The activities to be supported closely mirror those in England in reflecting the priorities of the Education Reform Act. But in addition funds will be available to support Welsh in the national curriculum.
I believe that the value of the Government's specific grant programmes in education is widely acknowledged. The efficiency scrutiny report commented:
"The evidence we have received, from all sources, provides overwhelming support for the two schemes. Specific grants have funded important and beneficial developments which would not have happened otherwise".
It is always a pleasure to receive such a ringing endorsement. But there is more that we can do and I have tried to set out for your Lordships the approach that we are taking to ensure that ESG and training grant allocations become even more effective. The regulations currently before us will allow education support grants to continue to provide a vital margin of funding to help schools, colleges and LEAs make a real success of implementing the education reforms and to respond to other education priorities. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th November be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for taking time to explain the background to the currently complex situation in relation to grants for education support and training. I wish to make
1102
two or three general points before making two or three specific points. I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of the queries and questions that I wish to put to her.
There is considerable and justified anxiety about the loss of local flexibility as a result of the new arrangements for education support grants and local education authority training grants. The Efficiency Scrutiny Study, to which the Minister referred, was undertaken last year. It recommended that the greater flexibility that was entailed in the training grants should be applied to education support grants. However, the reverse has happened; any streamlining of the system to try to bring the two closer together has resulted in less flexibility. That is a great pity and perhaps the Minister will comment upon it.
The scrutiny study suggested that the two schemes should be properly integrated and I wish to endorse its recommendation. However, it appears that the Government have gone only half way down that route. It now appears that as regards the timetable the schemes are being run together but essentially kept separate as regards funding and bidding. That means that local education authorities must prepare two separate bids at the same time. Therefore, there is no opportunity to take into account the outcome of one set of bids when constructing the other set and there is no opportunity for local authorities to try to obtain a balance between the two schemes.
The benefits of a complete merger of the programme as recommended by the scrutiny study will not materialise. Parallel running will not achieve all the benefits and instead we shall be left with a continuing set of administrative complications. I know that the Government will say, as the Minister has already said, that the legislative position prevents total merger. Novertheless, can she say what the Government intend to do about removing the legislative technicality which is preventing complete merger? If, as she said, it makes sense to bring the two grants together, why not do so? Surely there is not so much legislation around in this Session that a fairly minor piece of legislative adjustment cannot be undertaken.
A number of important items are listed in the schedule to the draft regulations. However, the overall funding for the grant is decreasing in real terms. I know that specific grants have always been somewhat controversial in the local education authority world because local authorities prefer not to be tied down by a range of specific grants. However, we may decide to introduce them for important aspects of education provision. As the Minister said, there is great emphasis in the list on the implementation of the national curriculum. There are other important items such as the teaching of mathematics in schools; science and technology teaching and learning in primary education; the training of school governors; the provision of health education, the development and use of information technology in our schools; and the provision of open learning centres for adults in order to provide tuition in literacy and numeracy. Those matters are all vitally important areas of our

1103
educational provision. Surely we should not cut funding on those matters. And yet, that is exactly what the Government are doing.
There is an increase of £8 million over the 1990–91 figure of £364 million; in other words, in cash terms that is an increase of just over 2 per cent. In real terms, that must be a cut of around 5 per cent. if we assume inflation at 7 per cent. When local education authority budgets are already so constrained, it seems to me very odd to make such a cut if the Government regard those items to be of great importance, as we have been told that they do.
Perhaps I may now turn to the more specific matters which I wish to raise. I was very glad to see that the management and appraisal of school teachers, including training for the appraisal of school teachers, is first on the list of items in this schedule. Clearly, that is a matter of high priority but I am puzzled as to why only £9 million has been allocated to such a high priority item. I believe that the £9 million is for pilot projects but perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is the case.
I am particularly puzzled because the new Secretary of State is now saying that appraisals should be compulsory in all authorities for all teachers. Does he mean that? If so, where is the money to come from? Why has not more money been allocated for that purpose? The national steering committee on teacher appraisal estimated that some £35 million to £40 million was needed. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten the House on that matter.
I also welcome very much the inclusion in the list of improvement of planning and co-ordination of educational provision for children under five by education authorities and other bodies. I hope that that will encourage those Tory authorities which are doing absolutely nothing to expand and develop provision for under-fives. I referred to that in our recent debate on education and I hope that the Government will start to make a serious effort on that vital stage of education.
I believe that that item allows for the training of non-teaching staff working with children under five, such as nursery assistants. That was not possible under the training grant scheme which specified the training of teachers only. That must be welcomed. It is something for which the local authorities and teachers' unions have been asking, and I must compliment the Government on listening for a change. However, can the Minister explain the basis of the allocation of money under this item? Is it based on population figures in the authorities or on the number of children under five who are in the education system?
Last year there was a great deal of anxiety in the Workers' Educational Association about the transfer of funding from the association to the education support grants mechanism. Can the Minister confirm that the new method of funding is now working to the satisfaction of the Workers' Educational Association,
1104
to the satisfaction of local authorities and without any loss of funding to the WEA, particularly in those areas where WEA provision is quite extensive?
Finally, can the Minister explain why the Government have rejected the scrutiny report's recommendations on allowing virement between the various items which are listed under the education support grant regulations? Circumstances can change quite quickly and when one takes into account that bids are made over a six to 12-month period before the money is spent, it would do a great deal to cut down potential waste and bureaucracy if virement was allowed as the scrutiny report recommended. That would be very much welcomed by the local education authorities, yet it would still mean that money was being spent on the 28 items which the Government listed as of sufficient priority to justify those specific grants.
6 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to thank the Minister for her clear exposition of the changes which have been made. We notice that the ESG and local education authority training grant schemes are to be run in parallel. I must echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said. I believe that the local education authorities are concerned that they have lost the flexibility which they had when the training grant schemes were open to them for suggestion and they could work out their own projects, submit them for approval and go ahead with them. They are now confined to specific projects. That does not permit a local initiative. If we approve the existing scheme whereby education is delivered by local authorities, then they should not have their opportunities for initiative reduced in that way by central authority.
All the activities named in the new regulations are thoroughly worthwhile. However, the original idea of the 1984 Act was that money would be forthcoming from central government for specific projects on specific aspects of education. One wonders whether some of the activities named in that list can come under that heading. I am thinking of such matters as the teaching of mathematics in schools. Can the Minister explain in what way that is a specific project? The teaching of mathematics in schools is and should be carried out in any case. In what way is that an object of an education support grant? The same applies to the training of teachers in schools to improve pupils' use and understanding of the English language. Surely that too is part of the education service of the country. It does not seem to be legitimate that that should be a specific purpose of the education support grants.
I mention also a difficulty which the local authorities have as regards timing. Most of these ideas are floated by the Government in the spring. They have to be considered by local authorities during the summer and autumn. Bids must then be submitted. The work done in planning the projects and putting in the bids, which involves time and money, may then be wasted because those projects may be entirely rejected

1105
or under-funded. It is a recurrent complaint by local authorities that that can happen. There is a loss of time, money and labour because of that.
I should be interested to know if the Minister can give me any idea of the take up of some of the excellent suggestions. What sort of progress is made as regards projects to meet the educational needs of persons from ethnic minorities? Has there been a worthwhile take up and successful progress as regards the promoting of social responsibility in children? I am thinking also of item 21 —that is, the provision of open learning centres for adults in literacy, numeracy and such skills, the implementation of provision for pupils whose behaviour poses difficulties and action to improve rates of attendance in schools. Those matters are all terribly important. One wonders what success there has been and what has been the take up.
I too hope that the schemes will be merged, and that in doing so there will be full consultation with local authorities so that whatever scheme is thought of and whatever legislation is introduced will be satisfactory to all. At the moment there are anomalies and sources of inefficiency which the whole of the new scheme is designed to prevent.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like briefly to reinforce what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, about virement. It is maddening that the allocation of money, which is decided in advance of the grants, is rigid. Anyone who has had the job of administering moneys from central government knows that over time the best use of that money changes. To be stuck with the exact allocation of money that has been incorporated in the budget is extremely uneconomic. It produces very bad results and wastes money.
This plea for more virement—I know I am crying for the moon but that is what I shall do—refers to virement not simply to the different kinds of work to be done using the money but also to what happens at the end of the year. The situation is absurd. We all know that at the end of the year the people who received a grant say that they have not spent it, and if they do not do so they will not receive as much money the following year. Therefore they feel they must rush out and spend it. That is an appalling waste of money. It leads to bad administration. If there could be greater flexibility at local level both between categories of work to be done and overtime it would lead to much better results and save money.
That is not the point I primarily wished to make. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in the account she gave us of these grants spoke briefly on allocations for adult education. We who are connected with adult education know that it is the Cinderella of the education services. There is no statutory obligation on local authorities to fund adult education. When they are hard up the temptation is not to fund it. That is happening at a time when adult education needs to expand rather than contract for economic reasons as well as social reasons.
1106
I did not fully understand what was implied in what the noble Baroness said. If there is money in the schemes for adult education, will it be in some way ring fenced so that the adult education colleges actually receive the money? If it is not, and the money goes into the general pool, the temptation will always be to use it for something else. Can the Minister tell us what is intended by her reference to adult education? I should like to know how much will be expected, but the Minister probably cannot answer that. What rights over the money will the adult education colleges have?
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this was a short but useful debate. There has been a wide measure of support for the education support grants programme. Everyone will have their own view of the real priorities. It would always be nice to have more money to do things. Nonetheless, it is common ground that ESGs and the parallel training grants are having a beneficial impact and provide a key margin of funds to help ensure that the education service can respond to changing needs.
It may be easier if I start with the last matter and address the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on adult education. My understanding in regard to ESGs and training grants is that when the bid is made for them they are specifically spent consistent with the details set out in the bid. It relates to the virement point, to which I shall turn in a moment. On the one hand, the noble Baroness was saying spend it for the purpose for which the bid was made but then add flexibility to allow virement when it makes sense.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I only want virement for the concerns in which I am particularly interested.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall allow that comment to pass.
Perhaps I may deal with some of the points made in the debate, with the caveat that should I omit anything I shall write to the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord. The first point made by the noble Baroness in her introduction was: why is there less flexibility at local level? That is an issue which was considered very carefully. We recognise that the LEAs use the local priority area to fund various forms of training not covered by nationally specified priorities and that its withdrawal would require some reordering.
The heart of the matter is that the GEST funds are limited. The Government must take a view on the best way of using them and the pattern of activities which will obtain best value for money. Schools in particular have a lot of work to do to implement the education reforms. Our judgment was that the overriding priority for the 1991–92 programme must have help to implement that work. Within the limited funds available it was not possible both to continue with local priority area funding and to fund at the same time at the appropriate level all the national priorities which need support; for example, information

1107
technology equipment, information systems, books and materials, extra administrative staff, extra support staff, and so on.
It is a question of judging priorities. We recognise that some people may judge differently. However, I make no apology for the fact that the Government's judgment was that it would be absurd not to use all the levers at their disposal to give schools all possible help to implement the reforms.
There is a partial replacement for the local discretion in the new activity within the 1991–92 GEST programme which will support the overhead costs of managing INSET and spending on non-subject specific training. For 1991–92 that activity, which is to be paid for under the LEATGS, not the education support grants regulations, is much smaller than the former LPA. But we said that its scale and effectiveness will be reviewed for next year.
Finally, it is important to keep the figures in perspective. The combined GEST programme will account for some 2 per cent. of education's share of the 1991–92 local authority proposed grant settlement. While I recognise that resources are not unlimited it remains true that LEAs, schools and colleges are free to add to their GEST allocations to support particular training to which they wish to give priority. The noble Baroness referred to it being a cut in real terms. It is important to set it against the spending on education as a whole. In real terms an increase of more than 40 per cent. in spending per pupil in primary and secondary schools has taken place between 1979 and 1989. The 1990–91 local authority grant settlement allows for local education authorities in England to spend £15 billion on education, which is over 9 per cent. higher than the comparable figure for 1989–90. The proposals for local authority grant settlements in 1991–92 will allow English LEAs to spend £17.5 billion on education. That will represent a 16 per cent. increase over this year's total.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down perhaps I may pick up what she just said. Giving the overall per pupil increases in spending over the past decade is hardly relevant to this argument. If it is indeed the case that only 2 per cent. of the share of total LEA spending is allocated through this mechanism, it is particularly odd that the proportion should actually be reduced when the Government have a number of priorities that they have allocated; and many are priorities that we on this side of the House would welcome. I do not feel that I have had an adequate explanation of why there has been a cut in real terms for ESG.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the point I am making is that overall expenditure has gone up by 9 per cent. this year, and will go up by 16 per cent. next year for education spending. The local authority expenditure prescribed nationally by the Government as a proportion has gone down. In other words, the flexibility for local determination has been increased by the reduction in national prescription.
Another point raised by the noble Baroness related to why we did not complete the merger. That was also
1108
mentioned by other noble Lords. I said in my initial speech that one difficulty was the legislative one. I know that the noble Baroness asked why we did not bring forward a minor Bill. We took advice on the scrutiny suggestion that the combined programme might be paid wholly under ESG legislation. We were advised that it would not be acceptable in terms of legal propriety. Given that Parliament enacted in the Education Act 1986 that there should be grants specifically to support training, the advice we received was that it would not be proper to let that statute lie fallow and pay training grants under the ESG legislation.
The scrutiny report recommendation for new legislation is the preferred option, not only of the report but of the Government themselves. I can promise the noble Baroness that the position will be kept under review. In the meantime, rather than delay bringing these two grants together we have set in train the arrangement as set out in my original speech.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, also referred to funding. Again, I think I probably addressed that point earlier. I am measuring ESG and training funds against the education funds as a whole. The noble Baroness also asked about the basis on which we are determining ESG funding for under-fives. The ESG element of the under-five activity is being distributed to give an equal share to all local education authorities. Given what the noble Baroness said in her speech, I believe that she may actually welcome that. The training element is based on the number of pupils in nursery and primary schools.
The next point is that regarding teacher appraisal. The Government's view is that appraisal for school teachers can assist teachers to realise their potential and to carry out their duties more effectively. In September my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State issued for consultation his proposals for an appraisal scheme under which employers would have been left to judge for themselves whether to introduce appraisals. However, employers would have been able to require teachers to participate if they wished to implement that scheme.
My right honourable friend the new Secretary of State is currently considering the whole question of how best we can move forward in the light of the consultation responses that we receive. The noble Baroness is right to have exposed his current thinking on that subject, but I must say in response that the matter is being considered. The resource implications of various options will have to be considered, but no final decisions have been made. In the meantime, the appraisal moneys will be given to local education authorities on the basis of their bids and the local authorities voluntarily entering into those agreements.
I promised the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that I would deal with the point she raised about virement. The virement procedures under the LEA training grants have caused considerable problems in relation to the auditing of expenditure. Auditors find themselves unable to keep track of changes resulting from virement. Instead, we have invited LEAs, in putting to the department their bids for allocations for

1109
relevant activities, to say if they want to switch the money from one area to another; for example, from training into education support grant and vice versa. We would try to accommodate that. We believe that the new arrangements will allow LEAs sufficient scope to transfer funds. That links with the original point that when a bid is made specifically to do something, the general expectation is that that is what the money will be spent on. If voluntary virement takes place in any sense other than it being flagged up at the outset when the bid is made, then it is difficult to make sure that the money is spent for the purpose for which it was bid.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I must register a protest. The change is made for administrative convenience and not in order to achieve the best possible educational results. We should not organise matters for the convenience of civil servants who administer them. We must run them to get the best schools and colleges that we can. If there are difficulties for the auditors, that is just too bad.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I said earlier that the proportion of these moneys is 2 per cent. of the budget overall. I believe I have answered the criticism that the percentage is reducing. It is because local authorities are being given greater discretion over the moneys that they are spending. That 2 per cent. is specifically set aside for the Government to have their national priorities met and to assist local education authorities to implement, as current thinking goes, the national curriculum and the measures in the Education Reform Act.
We are saying that as far as possible we want the moneys to be spent on the purposes for which they are bid. One of the duties of the auditor will be to make sure that that happens. If the moneys are vired and there is no control over what has happened to moneys at local level, difficulties arise. Our concern is not to make the position administratively tidy, and it is certainly not to make things easier for the auditors, but to make sure that the money goes to meet the Government's national priorities and to benefit local authorities who implement the measures of the Education Reform Act.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to the WEA. The new arrangement will provide opportunities for the development of partnerships and collaborative styles of working between the local education authorities and the WEA. That has been evident from information supplied in local authority bids for 1991–92. I can say that the WEA activity is a success and the signs are that it is. We had an excellent response from LEAs bidding for funds for this year's programme. We have also had a very good response this year and will be monitoring the impact of the scheme as it operates.
I have not answered all the questions raised in this debate. If I have missed an important point I shall write to the noble Baroness or noble Lord concerned. Perhaps they will be good enough to remind me of any specific points to which replies are required. I hope
1110
that I have responded to the main issues raised. I believe that the ESG activities which my right honourable friend proposes as part of the combined grant programme for 1991–92 will provide valuable assistance to local education authorities. In particular, they will help schools which are already working hard to make a success of the education reforms to carry on their good work. The regulations we have discussed today will enable us to build on previous successes and to establish new and better arrangements for a co-ordinated grants programme. I commend the regulations to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Amendment) Regulations 1990
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th October be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1989–90].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I understand that it will be convenient to discuss the Scottish regulations at the same time.
These two sets of regulations, which have already been considered in another place, are laid under the powers respectively in Section 303 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 87 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. They amend regulations introduced in April this year for Scotland and, for England and Wales, regulations approved by this House and another place some 20 months ago which came into effect in mid-March 1989.
The main change introduced by these 1990 regulations is to provide for a general increase in the level of fees for planning applications. We have also taken the opportunity to make some very minor amendments to clarify the text of the regulations. Fees for planning applications were first introduced in 1981. Since then they have represented a contribution to the costs which the local planning authority incur in handling planning applications and reaching a decision. Applicants are charged according to the nature of the development proposed, and its size where that is relevant.
During the debates on the 1985 and 1987 amending regulations the Government's stated objective was that fees for planning applications should move to a level where they recovered about 50 per cent. of local authorities' development control costs. The 1989 regulations provided for an increase in fees of 15 per cent. across the board and the Scottish regulations introduced earlier this year made a 20 per cent. increase. Allowing for those increases, and for the steadily increasing volume of planning applications received by local authorities in recent years, we estimate that last year, 1989–90, fees recovered

1111
approximately 52 per cent. of local authorities' costs in England, and a rather lower proportion north of the Border.
The two sets of regulations now before the House provide for an across-the-board increase in fees of around 20 per cent. Subject to approval, the new fees scale should come into operation next month. The overall effect of the new fees will be to restore cost recovery to around the 50 per cent. level in England and Wales and to raise it to approaching that level in Scotland.
The House will be aware that, as proposed in the consultation paper Efficient Planning, published last year, the Government also intend that planning application fees should eventually cover 100 per cent. of local authorities' development control costs. The Minister for Housing and Planning announced in another place on 25th July that we intend to invite your Lordships' House and another place to approve further regulations over the next several years to raise fees progressively in order to achieve 100 per cent. recovery. That is also the target in Scotland.
In Efficient Planning the Government also proposed to simplify the fee regulations in England and Wales, which we believe are excessively complicated. We intend to consult publicly about this before too long.
Under the present proposals in England and Wales the basic units of fees will rise from £76 to £92, and from £38 to £46. A full application to build dwellinghouses, for example, will be subject to a charge of £92 per dwellinghouse. An outline application will be charged £92 per 0·1 hectare of site area.
The householders who wishes to extend his house will—assuming he has to obtain specific planning permission—have to pay a fee of £46, instead of £38. Applications to erect non-residential buildings, such as offices or factories, will incur a fee of £92 instead of £76, per 75 square metres of floorspace, and so on throughout the fees scale. The maximum fee in each category with a sliding scale will also be increased pro rata by around 20 per cent. This means that, for example, the maximum fee for a factory or office development will rise from £3,800 to £4,600, and the maximum fee for an application to win or work minerals from £5,700 to £6,900. Slightly lower rates of fee levels will apply in Scotland.
As I have indicated, the remaining changes we propose to make to the regulations are minor, and amount to little more than clarifying the text of the existing regulations in the light of our further experience of their operation. The Government believe that it is a sound principle that those who use and potentially benefit from specific administrative processes should meet their cost. I believe there can be no doubt that, even after taking into account the increase in fees proposed in the regulations before the House, fees for planning applications will in general continue to be modest in relations to the overall cost of
1112
the development which is the subject of the application. I commend the 1990 regulations to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th October be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1989–90].—(Baroness Blatch.)
6.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her exposition of these two regulations. They are not enormously complicated. The issue behind them is still considerably controversial. It is no secret that when fees for planning applications were first introduced in 1981 we on these Benches were not in favour of them. However, a great many things have changed since then, notably the squeeze on local authority expenditure and the introduction of the poll tax. In the light of the experience of government control of local authority finances (because that is the word we must use) over the past eight or nine years, our opposition to fees has diminished to the point of being eliminated.
In fact, when the Government state that it is their intention to increase the fee level to cover 100 per cent. of local authority costs over a period of years, I would go so far as to say that we are not proposing to object to that change. However, there are difficulties which should not be passed over in silence. Even with these regulations there have been protests which have no doubt gone directly to the Government from such bodies as the Federation of Master Builders which fears that an increase of 20 per cent. in application fees in another burden for the building and construction industry at a time when it is being hit harder by recession than at almost any time I can remember.
We must take these concerns seriously and recognise that when the construction industry is in the parlous state which now affects it, there is a case for tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. We must also consider whether it is right to continue to increase fees when the planning system itself is still subject to legal constraints which make it more expensive than it should otherwise be. However, I am pleased that these regulations are coming forward in the week when we have been considering the Planning and Compensation Bill which the Minister will acknowledge we broadly welcome.
The improvements especially in the enforcement proceedings proposed in that Bill will go some way towards increasing the efficiency of the planning system. Those improvements should enable local planning authorities to cut some costs and therefore decrease the figure which will be arrived at ultimately when 100 per cent. of the costs of applications is covered by fees. These are difficult matters. They are not issues about which anyone can be wholehearted. If the Government take our approval for these increases in planning application fees as general approval for a move towards a fee-based local authority service, they would be quite wrong. That is not our intention. It is not something that we wish to see. The universal provision of most local authority services is a prize for

1113
which we would fight hard. Planning application fees, coming as they do from those who have specific economic reasons for using local authority time, are a different matter. In this case we think it is proper that these regulations should proceed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his comments and his conversion to the recovery of costs scheme. I note his reluctance and the reasons why he takes that view. The noble Lord spoke about the parlous state of the construction industry and the difficulties that it is having at this time. We are talking about the costs being met only when application is being submitted. We are talking about the part of the construction industry which is still in work and managing to submit applications.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must say that is a bit rich! One of the reasons why there will be fewer applications for planning permission is that the total costs of construction are greater. Those costs include, even though to a small extent, the costs of planning applications. The Minister cannot get away with a policy of divide and rule concerning the construction industry.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I note what the noble Lord has said. I was saying that costs are only awarded when an application is made. We are talking about that part of the construction industry which is still submitting applications. We all wish that the construction industry was more buoyant at the moment. The noble Lord mentioned the degrees by which we are increasing the fees and that it was done specifically in order to help the construction industry.
I agree with the point he made that there is downward pressure on the local authorities to improve the planning system. The Planning and Compensation Bill will help a little in that respect. The more efficient the planning system itself becomes the less money that we shall need to recover from those who present planning applications. The Government are always ready to receive any suggestions for improvements to the fees scheme although we would prefer to avoid making it more complex. As I have said, we are considering ways of simplifying the scheme. I hope that sensible ideas to improve the fees scheme will continue to come to us from all those with an interest in the planning system.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications and Deemed Applications) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1990
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 16th October be approved [27th Report from the Joint Committee, Session 1989–90].—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am marginally puzzled by this matter. The increase proposed in Scotland is less than that proposed in
1114
England yet it is expected that this will result in a higher proportion of the development costs in Scotland being covered by fees. Is it that the planning system in Scotland is so much more effective than the system in England and Wales?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I shall give a snap answer and say that it is because the Scottish system is more efficient, but I do not know the answer to that question. I shall find out and write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Order 1990
6.40 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this order amends the Merchant Shipping (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Order 1987, which enabled regulations to be made to give effect to Annex II to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973. The order will empower the Secretary of State to amend these regulations so as to incorporate updated requirements which have been adopted by the International Maritime Organisation. It will also empower the Secretary of State to make regulations to give effect to Annex III to the convention.
I should perhaps explain that the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships—better known as the MARPOL Convention—is the principal international instrument for controlling pollution from ships. It contains five annexes dealing with oil, noxious liquid substances in bulk, packaged dangerous goods, sewage and garbage. It is revised by the International Maritime Organisation as the circumstances dictate, and this enables its provisions to keep up with newer practices and reflect current public concerns. The convention commands wide international support and it is only through its regulations that we can improve the cleanliness of the seas.
Annex II to the MARPOL Convention sets out the measures for preventing the pollution of the sea from noxious liquid substances in bulk. It categorises these substances into four groups according to their potential for pollution, prescribing for each category how it should be controlled and monitored. The list of substances is continuously assessed by internationally recognised experts and, in the light of discussion in the International Maritime Organisation, the severity rating of some substances is altered and new substances are added to the list.
Annex III to the convention deals with the prevention of pollution by marine pollutants carried in packaged form. It has been decided by the International Maritime Organisation that for convenience and good order Annex III should be implemented by incorporation into the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code. This code was

1115
developed for substances which are dangerous, rather than for pollutants. But the general precautions that need to be observed—whether a substance is dangerous or is a pollutant—are the same and indeed in transporting these substances on board ship the trade does not differentiate between the two. A completely new edition of the code has therefore been developed by the International Maritime Organisation which now incorporates pollutants and applies to them for the first time requirements on packaging, marking and labelling, documentation, stowage and segregation.
Annex III, though ratified by the United Kingdom as long ago as 27th May 1986, is not in force internationally because the number of ratifications by member governments of the International Maritime Organisation is just short of that necessary to bring it into effect. The delay is a cause for concern. The International Maritime Organisation has urged member states to implement the annex in advance of it coming into force internationally and Ministers at tending the North Sea Conference in March of this year agreed to give effect to the new edition of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code by 1st January 1991.
Regulations made under this order are being prepared to give effect to Annex III. They will incorporate broadly the same duties and responsibilities as are to be found in the Merchant Shipping (Dangerous Goods) Regulations. They will include a variety of ancillary provisions and will apply not only to ships registered in the United Kingdom but also to foreign ships while they are in the United Kingdom's territorial waters.
I feel sure that the House will appreciate the need for this order, which is intended to help make cleaner the seas and oceans around the world. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee] —(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the manner in which he introduced the order. I welcome the order very much, although one notes with some concern the dilatory process of the entry into force of so many international agreements in this field. Usually such agreements are motivated by a disaster. How much preferable it would be if the international community began to anticipate environmental problems rather than simply react to them in a costly way later on.
It has, of course, been through the International Maritime Organisation that substantial progress has been made in developing international efforts to prevent pollution of the sea from oil. But marine casualties like the "Torrey Canyon", the "Argo Merchant" and the "Amoco Cadiz" have played a major role in improving international regimes to control oil pollution. More recently the "Exxon Valdez" catastrophe on 24th March 1989, with its resultant disastrous oil spill, focused worldwide
1116
attention on the massive resources required to combat a large spill, particularly in a sensitive and sometimes hostile environment.
We are talking in a sense of a package that arises under the MARPOL convention. An exception to the delays has occurred this very day. I understand that the plenary session of the International Conference on Oil Preparedness and Response at the International Maritime Organisation adopted a convention which, when it comes into operation, will fill a major gap in the international framework of treaties dealing with marine pollution. That in itself is one of the annexes to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. By IMO standards it is something of a record that some 90 governments participated in the conference leading to the adoption of the convention. It was only in October 1989 that the IMO assembly adopted a resolution directing the IMO to convene an international conference on the issue. It is remarkable that the convention has emerged in just over a year. It would be a great example to others as well as being in the best interests of the United Kingdom if the Minister could indicate today that the Government propose to ratify the convention as rapidly as possible, so helping to facilitate its swift implementation.
Having said that, the customary situation is to wait for years to see conventions of this kind secure the necessary number of signatures and ratifications to bring them into effect. And having hailed the fact that today there seems to be something quite different, one has to remember that it was in 1973 that MARPOL was hailed as a signal achievement, regulating as it did for the very first time all aspects of ship generated pollution. Notwithstanding that, some of the five annexes, including Annexes II and III on which this order is based, are not yet in force internationally. That is a matter for great regret. Consequently, I wish to take this opportunity to stress that the United Kingdom and our European Community partners need to continue to exercise considerable diplomatic pressure on other countries to ratify IMO conventions far more expeditiously. I wonder whether the Minister would like to say a word or two about that.
As a result of the slowness in preparing for diplomatic conferences which are designed to adopt international law, and with the further delay which always follows in relation to their entry into force, the international community should not blind itself to the principal causes of marine pollution. These are much less ship based and much more land based. We support wholeheartedly the powerful efforts that have been made by the IMO over so many years to regulate various aspects of vessel-source pollution. Indeed, as a Minister, I was a great admirer of the IMO and have continued to be so since. We need to recognise that worldwide pollution from that source accounts for only about 10 per cent. of maritime pollution. The figure comes from a report by the Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution, which brings together scientists from the United Nations and various United Nations agencies.

1117
The fact remains that there is little in international law that attempts to redress the problem of land based sources of pollution. The report asserts that a wide range of land activities, either directly or via rivers and the atmosphere, contribute far more than sea-borne activities. Pollution is not confined to the Continental Shelf. Coastal waters are most at risk from the destruction of habitats, microbial contamination of seafood and beaches and, indeed, from fouling in general. That makes it clear that we need to try to encourage much greater respect for quick action by the IMO and by other environmental organisations. We can only proceed on the basis of international co-operation in facing so many of these problems.
I hope that the Government will put full force behind securing such objectives. Important through the order is—and it is important—it must be viewed against the wider perspectives which I have raised. It is to be hoped that the Government will use their best endeavours. I join the Minister in commending the order to the House.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for welcoming the order. I too welcome the conclusions of the oil pollution preparedness and response conference. We shall of course have to study and consult on the convention and naturally we shall ratify it as soon as possible if it is seen as desirable to do so. As I said in my opening remarks, we have a very good record in ratifying IMO conventions.
In talking about this particular MARPOL convention, I believe that the noble Lord said that Annex II is not yet in force. If my assumption is correct, I must point out to him that he is mistaken. That annex came into force in 1987. Annex III which is also dealt with by the order is, however, not yet in force. We hope that it soon will be. It has at present been ratified by 40 states but has not yet achieved the 50 per cent. tonnage which is required. I understand that legislative time is being urgently sought in the United States and that if that is successful it would be sufficient to overcome the impediment of ratification. I hope, therefore, that we shall see the annex coming into force before very long. I agree with the noble Lord that we need to make further progress. We shall of course continue to do so.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Charities: European Policy
6.52 p.m.
The Earl of kinnoull The Earl of kinnoull rose To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to ensure that charities in Britain will be able to play a full role in Europe and that a unified policy is adopted not only in the European Community but also including a wider Europe.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Business of the House today has covered a good range of subjects and perhaps charities is a worthy subject with which to conclude. I am most grateful to those who have
1118
indicated their intention to take part in the debate this evening. There is first the noble Lord, Lord Meston, whose father I believe was a strong charitable man, and we shall also hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, whose charitable work has few equals; her husband's work may match hers, but very few other people can equal her great success in the field. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, will also be speaking on the subject. She will be giving her second performance today. I am sure it will prove to a tour de force.
I am sure too that my noble friend will understand that, although the Question on the Order Paper may look obtuse, it has a very real relevance as we approach 1992. The British charitable movement is one of the proudest cultural jewels which we bring to the European table. No one needs reminding of how the farsighted and generous businessman of the early Tudor days set up trusts for the poor and needy, and indeed for education, and how those trusts were enshrined in the statute of Queen Elizabeth I in 1601; nor of how today our charities range from local and national organisations to the great international charities, from the mighty Oxfam and the very successful Save the Children Fund to the medical bodies whose researchers carry out such great work. There is also the work carried out in animal welfare, which forms a very active section of charitable activity all over the world. All these need to raise huge sums of money annually from generous individuals, from companies and of course from institutions.
No one in the House needs reminding that the charities in Britain are among the biggest gross businesses or industries which we have. I believe that 165,000 new charities were registered last year—some, of course, giving a certain sense of duplication. However, all are administered with care and efficiency by the Charity Commission, which is a small dedicated body of civil servants with little more than 400 people to carry out its work.
One may perhaps ask what is the fuss and purpose behind the Question. It has nothing to do with the White Paper on charities which was published by the Government a few years ago, because that did not mention Europe. I find that fact somewhat amazing and worrying. The purpose underlying the Question is that as we approach 1992 there is developing in Brussels a dangerous back of awareness about how the charitable system in Britain works. That is mainly because 10 of the 12 countries of the Community have a much narrower system. Therefore, any proposals to harmonise charities in Europe could prove harmful to the system in this country unless more is done to explain the British case and indeed our system.
There are two recent examples which will perhaps illustrate the point that I am trying to make. They cause small pinpricks of worry, but those worries are genuine. There was a case involving teddy bears. For many years they were hand made by volunteers for small charities and they created a most valuable income. However, a directive issued by the Community effectively put a stop to that kind of income and to such endeavours. There was also the

1119
case of the minibus. This is a vital source of transport to charities which help the handicapped and the elderly. Again, new rules issued by the Commission meant that drivers were apparently not competent to work for charities and so yet another considerable problem was caused. Those are small problems but I believe they ring warning bells about what will happen when the commissioners seek to harmonise—to use that terrible word—charities in Europe in 1992.
As I tried to explain, there is a large gap between what charities stand for in the 10 countries of the Community and what they stand for in Britain and Ireland. The British system, with its legal framework, its vigour and its inventiveness, is admired in Europe by those who know what it achieves. I believe that we can bring a great asset to the Community by way of this movement. It could prove to be the Community model. However, to achieve this we need a positive approach from Her Majesty's Government to educate the thinking of the Commission, of the directors general and of the commissioners. But we appear to be running out of time.
Certain dangers which have appeared on the horizon have been identified by the Charity Commission. I give praise to the commission and to its able chairman, Mr. Robin Guthrie. The main danger centres around the proposed interpretation of Article 58(2) of the Treaty of Rome. That proposal would give a more narrow interpretation not affecting the 10 member states which could lead to a very large number of large British charities falling outside the umbrella of comfort secured by Section 58, with quite damaging consequences. It could affect such charities as bible societies, museums, fee-paying schools and even the National Trust.
Therefore, what is the European Commission saying about the situation? Herr Heinrich von Moltke of Directorate General XXIII Enterprise Policy, Commerce, Tourism and Social Economy is of course sympathetic. He does not seek to be hostile. He states that the Commission's objective is to include all associations under the Economique Sociale so that they enjoy the benefits of the European single market.
The Commission sees the need to create a new European charitable statute so that a charity can operate anywhere in the Community but be liable to the laws of the parent country. That seems to be an encouraging step forward. When my noble friend replies, perhaps he will tell us whether the Government support that suggestion.
The Government need now to take positive action—a pro-active policy—and a useful start would be to second an expert from London to Brussels to advise the Commission and to help any British charities which seek advice. We should have a booklet, which we do not have at the moment, to explain how the 12 countries operate charities. We should be drafting suitable amendments to the Article 58(2) proposals while they are still at the consultative stage.
All those actions need to be taken now. I hope that my noble friend's brief is encouraging and positive. The question relates to a wider Europe. I am thinking
1120
of what assistance and support the Council of Europe can give and what role it can play. The secretariat in Strasbourg is keen to promote charity support in a wider Europe beyond the Community. I hope that my noble friend will be able to enlighten us on current government thinking and on whether they will set up discussions with the Council of Europe.
No opportunity should be lost to remind Her Majesty's Government of the acute anxiety felt by charities which benefit from the VAT concession. There is deep concern that with any 1992 harmonisation those concessions may be sacrificed for the sake of achieving a wider goal.
My noble friend would do a great service tonight if he were to reaffirm that the Government have no intention of penalising such charities. For example, the RNLI would lose £3 million a year on the concession it enjoys on the purchase of boats, launch equipment and slipways. That of course is only a single charity. There are many more with stronger arguments to make. I hope that my noble friend will use firm and resolute words to remove any lingering doubts on the issue.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, this is an opportune moment for the Question to be raised. There was nothing obtuse about what the noble Earl said or in his valuable suggestions. It has become a matter of concern that the European Commission is preparing to bring charities—that is to say, the non-profit making voluntary sector—within the ambit of the Treaty of Rome. I question the appropriateness of bringing British and Irish charities under the unfamiliar regulatory control of what is essentially an economic community.
I claim little knowledge of and no expertise in European law, but I am aware, and presume that the Government are aware, that there is a genuine question about the legality of the proposals. Article 58 of the treaty seems clearly to exclude non-profit making organisations. Autonomous British and Irish charities are different creatures from the nearest equivalents elsewhere in Europe, such as the French co-operatives and other institutions which can and do undertake commercial activity for its own sake.
To include our charities would seem to depend upon a strained interpretation of Article 58. Given the real doubts about the position, surely the legality should be tested before the European Court before matters go any further. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how far harmonisation measures have gone and whether the Government are concerned about any such measures being prepared in advance of an authoritative judicial interpretation.
The Question posed by the noble Earl is expressed in a positive fashion, and he made some positive suggestions. The matters that I have raised may suggest a negative point of view. I do not intend to be insular about this matter. It is for charities themselves to assess the benefits and disadvantages of what is under consideration and of their future in a European context with suitable assistance from central

1121
government and the Charity Commission. There clearly is concern that the valuable and hard-won VAT relief will be sacrificed to European harmonisation. I end where the noble Earl ended, by asking: what is being done and what can be done to protect the charities' zero-rated concessions?
7.6 p.m.
Baroness Ryder of Warsaw: My Lords, I am especially grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for bringing this serious matter to our attention. We are working against the clock because by 1991–92 we, the charities in Britain, may find ourselves being told that decisions have already been taken. As your Lordships are aware, Britain and Ireland have the largest number of charities in Europe. Many are unique in what they do and in the countless ways they work to relieve human suffering.
We have a long tradition going back over the centuries and we must surely be safeguarded. It is an appalling and frightening thought that we may receive orders from the Commission in Brussels. I refer as an example to VAT on donated gifts sold in the shops that bear my name. The shops aim to keep a high standard of appearance. They have four broad functions: first, to raise desperately needed funds for the foundation's work; secondly, to make better known the needs of the sick and handicapped of all age groups in Britain and overseas; thirdly, to bring together people from all walks of life; and, fourthly, to serve the local community.
The shops are the life-blood of the foundation in all aspects of its work, especially as we receive so little in government grants. For instance, it costs over £500 a week to nurse and care for a sick or handicapped individual. The foundation is lucky to receive merely £245 per week per patient on average.
I speak with some feeling on the subject, because many other countries have different traditions with charities. They also operate differently. In Germany and, I believe, in Austria, after the Weimar Republic collapsed in Germany and the Nazis took over, all forms of charities were forbidden. Today, in 1990, they have still only five to seven main charities. Their income is from individuals who pay a tax through their pay packets or pensions towards the church charity or one of the other five or six charities. They do not have our tradition of different forms of fund raising. Donations come almost entirely from that tax. That is just one example of how differently we operate here. I know from hard and long experience over 40 years how different and how difficult it is to operate in other European countries.
Those of us whose lives are spent in trying to relieve human suffering beg the Minister and the Government to appoint a representative in Brussels as soon as possible. I again stress the urgency, for we as a sovereign state cannot lose all our traditions of giving and running sound charitable foundations. It really could be a disaster for thousands of the sick and handicapped both in Britain and overseas unless suitable action is taken now.
7.11 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, all of us—and perhaps in particular those of us who have been involved with the voluntary sector and charities for a long time—will be extremely grateful to the noble Earl for bringing forward this important subject and putting interesting and pertinent questions to the Government this evening. The noble Earl said clearly how charities in Britain hold an important place in not only the life of the country but also in the culture of the country, and that there is a particular ethos attached to our voluntary sector and to our charities which is really quite different from that to be found in any other country.
One has seen how in recent years the work of our voluntary agencies has increased very much as state provision for the needs of certain sectors of society has diminished. At the same time the work of the voluntary sector has tried to replace it. This would be a good opportunity to pay our great respect to the talented and enormously dedicated people who work in Britain in those organisations. Their work is vital to the life of so many people in this country. Therefore obviously any kind of threat to the work of this particular sector is of enormous worry. It is for that reason that the points that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have made this evening are of great importance.
We have been told that the first major area of concern for charities in Britain is the definition of charities, because our charities fear that moves towards a common definition of charities throughout the EC will result in a much narrower definition than that which we currently enjoy. This is of great concern. The second major area of concern is tax approximation—namely, as the noble Earl has said, the fear that the European Commission's proposals for approximation of VAT rates will result in a loss of zero rates. We could give many examples of the difference that this would make to the fortunes of many of our major charities in this country.
I should just like to spend a couple of minutes drawing the debate a little more widely, as the noble Earl has included in his Question "a wider Europe". I should like to point out that there are now many more charities seeking to develop a role across the continent, to find partners in other countries, and themselves to operate in other countries. What they need to facilitate this process is a common legal structure. That would enable them to run integrated operations across frontiers, to offset profits and losses in different countries, and to use a single accounting system for all operations.
We welcome the ratification by Her Majesty's Government of the Council's convention on the recognition of the legal personality of international NGOs. However, it is generally thought that this does not go far enough, and what many charities, and the NCVO in particular, have requested is the establishment of a common legal structure. Perhaps I might ask the Minister in that connection, and with respect to European cross-border fund raising, whether the proposals that I have suggested are being considered

1123
by the European Commission. Could the noble Lord say whether organisations based in Britain will be able to apply for grants from other European countries' overseas aid funds? Could he also say whether a charity wishing to raise money in another European Community country would have to register? That would be an important point for them.
I should also like to ask one question of the Minister about the know-how fund. I hope that he will not think that I am going outside the debate, but the recent announcement by the Government that the know-how fund is to be increased and extended to new countries in Eastern Europe is welcome. I should like to ask the Minister whether there will be scope, within the provisions of this fund, to assist and advise governments, charities and NGOs in Eastern Europe as to how to establish legal frameworks in which their new charities can best operate. Also, can the know-how fund be extended to cover the social provision work of new charities and voluntary organisations operating in Eastern Europe? Of course they often operate in partnership with British charities.
After all, there are many people in those countries who would like to play their part in the social reconstruction of the countries of Eastern Europe. There is little doubt that this is critically needed, and surely this is an area in which Britain can help. Britain is extremely experienced in how to structure and set up charitable organisations, and this could well be done through the know-how fund.
My last point relates again to a European fund which is close and helpful to our voluntary organisations, and that is the European Social Fund. The objective of this fund is to increase training places in the United Kingdom, and the Commission has recognised the special ability of the United Kingdom voluntary sector in delivering the kind of training that the fund seeks to promote. Therefore, our agencies have been very successful in acquiring funds from the European Social Fund. Indeed, the British voluntary sector receives some £18 million from the European Social Fund, which comprises over 7.5 per cent. of the total United Kingdom budget. As I say, it is spent on vital training work, including transnational training exchanges.
However, it is the role of the Department of Employment to co-ordinate British applications, and unfortunately the Department has been doing this in a dilatory fashion, which has endangered the effectiveness of the scheme. For example, when the Commission handled co-ordination the voluntary organisations were notified by April. Now that the Department of Employment handles it, voluntary organisations are not receiving funding notifications. This has created a great funding crisis for many providers of training, and some may be forced to close down their operations. Would the Minister undertake to make changes in the European Social Fund unit in the Department of Employment to ensure that delays do not occur next year?
There is little doubt that we are fortunate in this country in possessing such a vibrant and wholly
1124
professional voluntary sector, and it is an area in which we could take the lead in Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, spoke with a voice of great authority in this debate and, as other noble Lords and the noble Baroness have said, I believe that it is important for the Government to make sure that any harmonisation should be to the level of the best possible practice. Although I am not usually a great nationalist, I believe that our practice in this country is at a very high level.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Reay: My Lords, developments in Europe offer the charitable and voluntary sector in this country a challenge. There are opportunities but there are also hazards. The Question which my noble friend has brought before us this evening affords us a most welcome chance to take a look at this challenge.
The system of charities which has grown up in this country is unique and much prized. I agree with the noble Baroness on that point. As my noble friend told us, we have a charity system of considerable scope. It has been estimated that the turnover of the charitable sector amounts to about £15 billion.
Charities are bodies whose property and income must be entirely applied for public benefit and under their constitutions no part of their funds may be distributed for private or personal purposes. Their trustees receive no personal benefit from them. Charitable property receives special protection from the law.
The Government make a considerable contribution to the well-being of charities. Charitable status brings with it substantial tax benefit. The Charity Commission protects and assists charities.
The word "charity" has a narrower meaning in other European states. It tends to be confined to bodies whose purposes are the relief of poverty and distress. There are of course bodies corresponding to the range of our charities doing comparable good in other European countries but their structure is different.
The creation of a single market in Europe has prompted the European Commission to consider how the benefits of the removal of barriers to trade may be extended to bodies in the voluntary and charitable sector. It has considered how obstacles to voluntary and charitable bodies that wish to operate in other member states may be removed. The charitable sector will, I have no doubt, learn from a greater involvement in Europe. I am equally sure that Europe can learn from the best elements of our arrangements.
We know that some charities are alive to these opportunities; indeed my noble friend participated in the seminar which the Charity Commission recently held on developments in Europe which was attended by a large number of representatives of government departments, charities and voluntary bodies.
However, the fact that charities are unique to this country means that their position under European Community law needs to be carefully protected. At present the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and the Single European Act do not cover charities

1125
specifically. There is some discussion in Brussels about the possibility of creating a statute to cover the voluntary sector. This would include our charities. Bringing voluntary bodies under Community law in this way may be a good way of facilitating operations by charities and voluntary bodies in other member states. However, it would need to protect their special position. The development of a statute is at a very early stage and thus far no specific proposals have emerged. But I can assure noble Lords that Her Majesty's Government are keeping a close watch on developments.
We have taken account of the position of charities in the context of another European Commission proposal to bring charities into the sphere of Community law; that is, a proposal to interpret Article 58 of the Treaty of Rome in such a way as to bring the charitable and voluntary sectors within the scope of Community law.
Several noble Lords referred to Article 58. That has hitherto been understood as excluding from Community law all non-profit making organisations. The Commission's proposed interpretation would exclude only those bodies not engaged in economic activity; that is only a small number of UK charities. We do not think that this is the best way to preserve the role of charities. Community law drawn up along the lines of such an interpretation may not be compatible with our charity law. We have resisted and shall continue to resist that interpretation. However, discussion on possible interpretations is still under way. We shall, of course, maintain a close involvement in that discussion.
We do not believe that the European Commission has any current legislative proposals in mind which would have an undesirable effect on United Kingdom charities. But charities may in the future be exposed to the possibility of legislation which may inhibit activities in pursuit of their objects, albeit that this may be unintentional. We are discussing this with the Commission at the moment. The Commission is, because of our representations, coming to realise that the charitable sector here should be distinctively recognised by, if necessary, special provision. The voluntary sector here and equally in other member states has distinctive qualities which, if they are to be effective, should be recognised by special provision.
We have sought also to protect our charities' position in the face of other proposals from the Commission which affect charities indirectly. We have for example worked to protect the favourable VAT position of charities and we have corrected the EC directive on driving licences to preserve the valuable role played by voluntary minibus drivers. My noble friend referred to that matter.
My noble friend's Question goes wider, however, than the European Community. I know that he plays a valuable role in the UK delegation to the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe brings the European nations together on a broader basis than the Community. In particular it provides a context in which contacts with
1126
Eastern European countries can be developed. The Council of Europe is not a law making body in the same way as the European Community, but its function in developing common standards and principles is invaluable.
British charities are not, of course, dependent on government in order to participate in Europe. There are indeed a number of networks bringing together charities and voluntary bodies in Europe to help them co-operate at a European level. This co-operation involves a desire to exchange ideas with European counterparts and has also underlined the need for the voluntary sector to be better informed as to developments in Community law. Perhaps I might mention one such network, the European Committee of General-Interest Associations, CEDAG for short. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations, NCVO, here is actively involved in this developing voice in Brussels. Indeed the NCVO representative is one of the vice-presidents of CEDAG.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge the developing role which British charities are playing in Eastern Europe. One well publicised example of that is the contribution to the Romanian orphanages. Another example has been the assistance given to the victims of the Armenian earthquake. In our view a flourishing voluntary sector is important to the development of a pluralist democracy and a market economy. However, we should not forget that we are looking at societies that are involved in great change which have their own ideas and their own traditions and to whom we can offer valuable assistance and insights.
A voluntary sector, in the sense we understand it, cannot be imposed from without, or conjured up from within. But what we can do, and what individual organisations in the UK are already doing, is to share knowledge, advice and expertise to help develop an infrastructure for the voluntary sector in Eastern Europe.
I shall try to reply to some of the questions that were put to me. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, asked about VAT. I can reassure noble Lords that we intend to protect the zero rate for charities where charities enjoy it today. I was asked whether we would consider sending an expert to Brussels to help charities in their relations with Brussels and to establish a contact with the Commission. We have a permanent representative's office in Brussels which represents our interests. However, on this specific matter we have been invited by the Commission to consider taking the step I have mentioned. We are looking for a suitable person who might enable us to take up this proposal.
My noble friend asked whether we would produce a booklet to show our charities how charities operate in the different member countries of the EC. We would be happy to consider that step in consultation with the charities' organisations which make up the European groupings. I cannot promise that we shall do this as it has resource implications, but we are happy to consider it. My noble friend also asked whether we would conduct discussions with the Council of Europe with a view to the council becoming some kind of

1127
focus for charities in their involvement outside the Community. That is what I understood by my noble friend's comments. We would be perfectly happy to discuss that with the relevant organ of the Council of Europe.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked about the know-how fund. The know-how fund does not include the voluntary sector in its remit and is obliged to concentrate on priority sectors agreed with the Eastern European governments concerned, namely, those of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia so far. The noble Baroness asked other questions but, if I may, I should like to write to her with the answers.
In conclusion, I am grateful for my noble friend's reminder that we must not be parochial in considering
1128
the interests of charities and that charities themselves should be prepared to look towards the opportunities that are on offer in Europe. The Government are engaged in active dialogue with the European Commission, as I indicated, to ensure that the special position of our charities is preserved. That will enable them to play their full role in Europe. We also watch with interest developments further afield. Although it is perhaps too soon to speak of a unified policy for a wider Europe, it is not too soon to confirm that we are working to ensure that our experience of charity law in the United Kingdom is made known to our fellow Europeans.
House adjourned at half-past seven o'clock.

  TIBET: HUMAN RIGHTS
  TIBET: HUMAN RIGHTS
  TIBET: POLITICAL SITUATION
  TIBET: POLITICAL SITUATION
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: ETHNIC ORIGIN
  LIFE SENTENCE PRISONERS: ETHNIC ORIGIN
  PRISONS: POWERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS
  PRISONS: POWERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICERS
  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1933: LOCATION OF DETAINEES
  CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1933: LOCATION OF DETAINEES
  BAIL STATISTICS
  BAIL STATISTICS
  SEALS: POPULATION
  SEALS: POPULATION
  LICENSED TEACHERS
  LICENSED TEACHERS
  DISCONTINUED VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS: DISPOSAL OF ENDOWMENTS
  DISCONTINUED VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS: DISPOSAL OF ENDOWMENTS
  AIRPORT CAPACITY: WORKING GROUP
  AIRPORT CAPACITY: WORKING GROUP
  IRAQI INVASION of KUWAIT: COST OF UK RESPONSE
  IRAQI INVASION of KUWAIT: COST OF UK RESPONSE
  THE GULF: COST OF UK MILITARY PRESENCE
  THE GULF: COST OF UK MILITARY PRESENCE
  PIPER ALPHA REPORT: LEGISLATION
  PIPER ALPHA REPORT: LEGISLATION
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND: VOCATIONAL TRAINING GRANT APPLICATIONS
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND: VOCATIONAL TRAINING GRANT APPLICATIONS
  SEA TROUT: DECLINE IN RUNS
  SEA TROUT: DECLINE IN RUNS
  SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION REPORTS
  SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION REPORTS
  INVASIVE MALIGNANT MELANOMA: INCREASE IN INCIDENCE
  INVASIVE MALIGNANT MELANOMA: INCREASE IN INCIDENCE
  SCHIZOPHRENIA PATIENTS: HOSPITAL DISCHARGE STATISTICS
  SCHIZOPHRENIA PATIENTS: HOSPITAL DISCHARGE STATISTICS
ROMANIA: POLITICAL DETAINEES
  ROMANIA: POLITICAL DETAINEES
  ROMANIA: POLITICAL DETAINEES
LEGAL SERVICES: COST MONITORING
  LEGAL SERVICES: COST MONITORING
  LEGAL SERVICES: COST MONITORING
ATTENDANCE CENTRE ORDER COSTS
  ATTENDANCE CENTRE ORDER COSTS
  ATTENDANCE CENTRE ORDER COSTS
PROBATION HOSTEL PLACE COSTS
  PROBATION HOSTEL PLACE COSTS
  PROBATION HOSTEL PLACE COSTS
DEFENDANTS: ELECTRONIC MONITORING TRIALS
  DEFENDANTS: ELECTRONIC MONITORING TRIALS
  DEFENDANTS: ELECTRONIC MONITORING TRIALS
AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RENT: LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
  AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RENT: LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
  AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RENT: LEGISLATIVE REVIEW
MOTORWAY WIDENING PROJECTS
  MOTORWAY WIDENING PROJECTS
  MOTORWAY WIDENING PROJECTS
PARKING METER REVENUE
  PARKING METER REVENUE
  PARKING METER REVENUE
LONDON RESIDUARY BODY: REAPPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS
  LONDON RESIDUARY BODY: REAPPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS
  LONDON RESIDUARY BODY: REAPPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS
PRIVATISATION OF CROWN SUPPLIERS' VEHICLE HIRE BUSINESS AND THE INTER- DEPARTMENTAL DESPATCH SERVICE
  PRIVATISATION OF CROWN SUPPLIERS' VEHICLE HIRE BUSINESS AND THE INTER- DEPARTMENTAL DESPATCH SERVICE
  PRIVATISATION OF CROWN SUPPLIERS' VEHICLE HIRE BUSINESS AND THE INTER- DEPARTMENTAL DESPATCH SERVICE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) REGULATIONS 1990
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) REGULATIONS 1990
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PROMOTION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) REGULATIONS 1990
LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING SALES
  LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING SALES
  LOCAL AUTHORITY HOUSING SALES