Sitting of 14 February 1991

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
MIDLAND METRO BILL (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Thursday 21 February at Seven o'clock.
CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Monday 18 February at Seven o'clock.
AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL (By Order)
Read a Second time, and committed.
CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL (By Order)
HOOK ISLAND (POOLE BAY) BILL (By Order)
LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (LEWISHAM, ETC.) BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL, (By Order)
KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)
LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)
LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)
MIDLAND METRO (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
REDBRIDGE LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Thursday 21 February

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Tourism
    Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tourists visited Northern Ireland from the Republic in 1990; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): An estimated 364,000.
    Mr. Paice: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me those figures. Does he agree that there are considerable opportunities for job creation in the tourism industry in Northern Ireland? What efforts is he making to promote Northern Ireland by portraying the proper image of much of it—that of a place with tremendously beautiful scenery and vistas which can attract tourists and make for an enjoyable holiday for all?
    Mr. Needham: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments about the beauty of our Province. We intend to increase our expenditure on attracting people from the Republic to the north. About twice as many people from the north go to the south. A recent survey showed that some 73 per cent. of the people of the south had not been to the north, and some 72 per cent. said that they had no intention of visiting it. However, of the 27 per cent. who had been there, some 98 per cent. said that they had thoroughly enjoyed it and would like to come back. Our message to the people of the south is therefore, "Come north and enjoy yourselves."
    Mr. John D. Taylor: Now that the Dublin Government have complied with the European Community's request for the removal of restrictions on the movement of visitors from the Republic into Northern Ireland, what positive steps to promote tourism have the Government taken in respect of Dublin and the Republic?
    When the Minister next meets Ministers from the Republic, will he request that the Southern Irish tourist board, in its offices abroad, carry tourist literature from Northern Ireland and recommend those who come to the Republic to visit Northern Ireland as well?
    Mr. Needham: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We are spending some £800,000 jointly with Bond Failte and we have together arranged a programme of marketing to attract more people from abroad to go north when they visit the island of Ireland. As the right hon. Gentleman probably knows, some 60,000 visitors to Northern Ireland go to the Republic first.
    We have extended and improved our office facilities in the south and we believe that this year particularly, when many people may not be thinking of travelling abroad, there will be opportunities for us to cash in not only on people from the south but on people from Great Britain. We believe that we now have the facilities and the product —and we know that we have the people and the countryside—to make a success of it.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: How do the figures that the Minister has given compare with those for the past five years? Is the money that he is spending really producing the goods?
    Mr. Needham: We have not yet started to spend the money in any great quantity. The number of visitors to Northern Ireland is increasing, from some 900,000 in 1988–89 to, we hope, some 1·6 million by 1994. The 1990 figures will show an overall increase of some 6 per cent., but a 20 to 25 per cent. increase in the number of people coming purely for holiday purposes. The total number is up to some 1·3 million.
    Those are not very substantial figures, but if we improve our ability to attract visitors, we could create some 20,000 or 30,000 new jobs in the north over a period of years. None of that is helped by the image created by violence or, occasionally, by those who report on that image in a way that is not entirely balanced.
    Mr. Mallon: In anticipation of an influx of visitors, especially from the Republic of Ireland, can the Minister suggest which roads they should use so that tourists, who are very sensitive to terrorism, will not be immediately faced by lookout posts and checkpoints of an inordinate nature? If tourists come to a checkpoint and find the road closed, does the Minister envisage that they will continue their journey into Northern Ireland by using other roads or that they will return to the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. Needham: As the hon. Gentleman knows all too well, the reason for the checkpoints is the continuing level of paramilitary violence. If tourists have to go through hideous-looking checkpoints, I accept that it does nothing for our image or our ability to attract people to Northern Ireland. We are considering what can be done to make checkpoints easier on and more pleasant to the eye. Nevertheless, the security of people travelling from one side of the border to another is paramount.

    Trust Ports
    Mr. Janman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to privatise Belfast and other trust ports; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Needham: I intend bringing forward a draft Order in Council that will have regard to the provisions of the Ports Bill. This will provide the necessary powers to enable any of Northern Ireland's trust ports—Belfast, Coleraine, Londonderry and Warrenpoint—to come forward with privatisation schemes.
    Mr. Janman: I am very pleased with my hon. Friend's answer and 1 congratulate him on his clear commitment to allow those ports to go into the private sector. May I suggest, however, that both he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have discussions with our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on whether privatisation of those trust ports can be included in the Ports Bill. That would send a clear signal to the IRA, Sinn Fein and others that Ulster is part of the United Kingdom and that there is no need for separate legislation for Ulster. When Ulster is affected by legislation, it should be debated fully on the Floor of the House, as debate of the Ports Bill on Report would allow it to be.
    Mr. Needham: Of course Ulster is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so as long as the majority so wish. However, this is a transferred matter and the view of many is that such matters should, if it is possible at some time, be capable of being decided by the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland. I repeat however, that we intend to introduce an Order in Council early in 1992 and to have it on the statute book by the end of that year. Then we shall consider what ports can be privatised. In the meantime, a substantial investment programme in those ports is taking place and I am delighted to say that most of them are expanding rapidly.
    Mr. Beggs: I have much sympathy with the observations of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). I regret that the Minister has announced today that this is to be done by means of another Order in Council. Does the Minister agree that the unparalleled record of growth and development of Larne harbour and the excellent working relationships there suggest clearly the opportunities that will arise for Belfast port and the other trust ports after privatisation?
    Mr. Needham: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. A large percentage of Larne's business comes from the south. The amount of business at Warrenpoint has doubled in the past five years and business has increased by 40 per cent. at Belfast. Larne is an example to any port of how to be efficient, productive, competitive and successful.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend go a little further and give an undertaking that when the Order in Council is introduced it will allow management and employees to opt for a management-employee buy-out?
    Mr. Needham: We shall consider that question most carefully. We are already following what my hon. Friend and his colleagues are suggesting here.
    Mr. Stott: It is clear from the questions to the Minister that there is a great deal of interest in the proposal. The Ports Bill is in Standing Committee, where Members of Parliament can table amendments, scrutinise the Bill and interrogate Ministers. How do the Government propose to allow Members of Parliament from the Province and others to give equal consideration to these very important Government proposals? Does he not think that it is unacceptable to privatise a major sector of Northern Ireland's economy by means an Order in Council, which allows debate for only an hour?
    Mr. Needham: I repeat that it is a transferred matter. The Government are constantly looking for ways to create systems that have the agreement of the whole House on how Northern Ireland affairs can be conducted. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) never misses an opportunity to criticise, but he has not yet put forward a proposal that is acceptable to the majority of hon. Members.

    Terrorism
    Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures he proposes to introduce to compensate those persons who have suffered damage or loss, either in their businesses or occupations, as a result of security measures taken against terrorism.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): There is provision under section 28 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 19'18 for the payment of compensation where, under the Act,
    "any real or personal property is taken, occupied, destroyed or damaged, or any other act is done interfering with private rights of property".
    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for his answer, but surely he can inform the House more adequately that there is no provision for compensation for people who suffer loss of business, loss of jobs or loss of homes because of legitimate and proper security measures. The only way to get compensation is to suffer direct damage as a result of explosion or other terrorist activity. Surely the people who are in the front line and subject to economic and social deprivation because of the necessary buildings and fortifications which destroy businesses are entitled to be compensated for their losses on behalf of the community.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out that the problem is one of security and caused by the activity of paramilitaries who engage in terrorist activity at the expense of the whole community. The community pays a price for that. I accept that there is genuine hardship in some cases. Ex gratia payments are available to some people in Northern Ireland, depending on the circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind he might contemplate some of those activities.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister aware that there are four men in Maghaberry prison who lost their jobs because of terrorism? They also require compensation. Will he compensate those men—known as the Armagh Four—with a retrial?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me. He also knows that these are matters which are presently under review.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that every citizen in Northern Ireland has, directly or indirectly, suffered loss and damage at the hands of terrorists? Does he accept, or is he aware of, the perception that there are occasions when the terrorist is compensated rather more generously than the victim? Does he agree that all hon. Members and those of us who serve on councils have a duty to support the forces of the Crown in eradicating terrorism from whatever quarter it comes?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree wholeheartedly with the first and last points made by the right hon. Gentleman. As for the second point, I should be sad if such a perception existed. The right hon. Gentleman knows that anyone who claims compensation in Northern Ireland is treated under the law without any particular favour, and certainly with no particular bias towards those who may in some way have been involved in terrorist activity.
    Mr. Allason: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best measures against terrorism would be the introduction of video cameras during interrogation? That would increase the chances of conviction because it would be more difficult for the suspects to withdraw the confessions that they had made before the camera. As that measure has been recommended by Lord Colville, does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a satisfactory measure to take now?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The matter referred to by my hon. Friend was a matter of considerable debate when Standing Committee B was considering the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. My hon. Friend may find the arguments deployed in that debate of some interest.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: Will the Minister remind his hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) that that hon. Gentleman was himself a member of that Committee and actually voted against the proposal to introduce video recordings in such cases?
    Does the Minister accept that he told the Committee that schemes existed for making ex gratia payments in such areas? Does he further accept that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and that what we really require is a statutory scheme so that every claim can be treated on its merits and every settlement can be seen to be fair?
    Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will remember that we debated the matter at some length in Committee. He advanced certain arguments, and so did I. I made it clear that the Government, with some reluctance, had reached the view that it was not possible to take the steps urged on us in Committee. I remind the hon. Gentleman that I also said that I would reflect on what had been said in Committee—without any commitment—and that we would consider the arguments that had been deployed. I am happy to reaffirm that, without any commitment, we will certainly reflect further on those arguments.

    School Sport
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on sport in schools in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Physical education, which embraces sports activities and games, presently forms a common but voluntary element of the primary and secondary curricula in Northern Ireland. From next September, physical education is to become a compulsory part of the Northern Ireland curriculum. My right hon. and noble Friend the Paymaster General is currently considering advice from the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council on the content of the programme of study for this subject.
    Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the fact that physical education and games are to become a compulsory part of the curriculum. Can he assure us that such activities will be suitably geared to the ability of each individual boy and girl, and can he say how well Northern Ireland schools are doing in out-of-school games and physical education on Saturdays and in the evenings?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments and for the constructive interest that he takes in these matters. Physical education is obviously geared to the abilities of the individual child. My hon. Friend asked about games out of school hours. He will know that Northern Ireland schools have a proud record of sporting activity and achievement. Although I do not have the figures to prove it, I would guess that, given the size of the population in Northern Ireland, we probably produce greater sporting excellence than any other part of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Trimble: May I direct the Minister's attention to another aspect of training and education and ask him to

    987
    consult the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to see what steps can be taken to retrain the 140 workers at C. S. Brooks—a factory in my constituency—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is about sport.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, as has my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, but the question is about sport in schools.

    Constitution
    Mr. Stanbrook: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations with the political parties on the constitutional future of Northern Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): I continue to seek agreement on a basis for formal talks which could lead to a comprehensive political accommodation satisfactory to all relevant interests and addressing all relevant aspects of the matter. I regret that it has not yet proved possible to bridge the gaps between the various parties' positions. I remain convinced of the powerful case for transferring political power, authority and responsibility to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland, provided this can be done on a basis enjoying widespread support.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend give up his honest and brave attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable and will he eschew all new political initiatives involving the so-called Irish dimension and concentrate instead, with the political parties in Northern Ireland, on providing a decent system of local government and firm and fair central Government and, to coin a phrase, on "extirpating the IRA"?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the tone of his question. But I am determined to pursue the process on which we are engaged until it is absolutely clear that the positions of the various parties are incompatible. On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I will consider any workable proposals for changes in the role of local government in Northern Ireland if they seem likely to command widespread acceptance.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Secretary of State say what are the inherent defects of the Anglo-Irish intergovernmental process which inhibit Ministers from responding positively to British suggestions and recognising Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom? A week ago today the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition united in opposing terrorism and seeking to maintain democracy. Does the Secretary of State recognise that that would demand retrospective restoration of democracy to Northern Ireland? Will he take steps speedily to restore it?
    Mr. Brooke: If the hon. Gentleman had listened closely to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), he would have heard me say how anxious I was to effect the transfer for which the hon. Gentleman asks. In terms of the context of the hon. Gentleman's question, political parties from both sides of the community want any talks to cover matters which must necessarily involve the Irish Government.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Will the Secretary of State comment on the recent Dublin proposals? Does he agree that whether or not the talks fail, a considerable amount of goodwill has been generated by them and that it would surely be a tragedy if efforts were not made to build on that goodwill at either an official or an unofficial level?
    Mr. Brooke: I have received some further proposals from the Irish Government. I believe that they have merit and will keep us in play, but I do not know whether they offer us the opportunity of reaching our goal. They are further evidence of the Irish Government's desire to contribute to bridging the gap. I concur with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the goodwill that has been engendered by this process, but, as we come to what I think will be the conclusion of this part of the process, I think that it will be necessary in the closing stages for there to be considerable political will to make sure that we bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion.
    Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that in the summer of last year the Social Democratic and Labour party presented to him a written position which opened the way for full talks and negotiations? Will he further confirm that last week the Irish Government presented a written position paper to him which held out the prospect of moving forward to those real negotiations? Does he expect at any stage a written position from the Unionist party which might hold out some hope of moving towards the type of negotiations that we want?
    Mr. Brooke: The hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says about both his party and the Irish Government, but he will be aware from the conversations in which we have been engaged mutually that there have been sticking points in all parties' proposals about how we proceed. We have sought to accommodate those in the decision that we reach. In response to the hon. Gentleman's question about the Unionists, he will recall his reluctance to engage in direct conversations and negotiations until we had reached an accommodation as to the basis of such talks. Therefore, he must find a way of putting that question to them by some other means.
    Mr. Amery: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the House has been patient with him over the negotiations? We were led to believe that we would be given some statement by Christmas, yet we are now deep into February. That is frustrating. If the Secretary of State cannot make a statement yet, will he discuss with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House whether we could have a debate in which we can discuss all the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook)?
    Mr. Brooke: I am grateful for the patience of both my right hon. Friend and the House. The only time when we had hoped that I could make a statement was at the time of the renewal of powers debate last year. I understand the anxiety of the House to see progress in these matters. I believe that they are coming to a conclusion. I hope that in the aftermath of that, it will be possible for us to debate them.
    Mr. Hume: Let me put the Secretary of State right on his recent mistaken remark. The position of the SDLP, long before the right hon. Gentleman became Secretary of State and since he has held that office, is that my party will

    989
    sit down tomorrow with the Unionist parties to discuss any subject under the sun without any precondition. The Unionist parties chose to follow a process whereby they will talk to us only through the Secretary of State. Throughout that process I have seen written positions from the right hon. Gentleman and the Irish Government, and I have put the written position from my party. However, I have never seen a written position from either of the Unionist parties.
    Mr. Brooke: I do not want to get into an altercation with the hon. Gentleman about this. He is slightly misremembering the process in which we have been engaged in the past 13 months if he does not believe that he has occasionally raised a point that has caused us to pause in that debate.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that the first position paper ever given to the Government was given by the united Unionists when we engaged in talks with his predecessor? Will he also confirm that at the last meeting that he had with Unionist leaders a position paper was given to him and that we have given him other position papers during the talks? Will he now please confirm to the House the definition that is now accepted by his Government of widespread support`' Is he saying to the House that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was given widespread support, or that that widespread support does not come from Ulster but that it is widespread as long as Dublin goes with it, because Dublin stopped him from making a statement in this House on 5 July?
    Mr. Brooke: In the terms of the first two questions put by the hon. Gentleman, I so confirm what he said. Position papers were put to my predecessor and myself by the Unionist parties. I reiterate, however, that I do not believe that we shall be able to reach a constitutional framework in terms not only of Northern Ireland, but of relations with the Government of the Republic arising therefrom unless there is a broad support for it across the community.
    Mr. McNamara: Last week the Secretary of State spoke about putting up the shutters on the negotiations and today he anticipated that they would come to a conclusion. However, last week, having received the proposals from the Irish Government, he seemed to show a degree of greater optimism, but I am not quite sure how one measures the degree of greatness. Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman was unable to give, for reasons we well understand, those proposals to the Unionist leaders last Thursday, but he has said that he is prepared to test the present procedures to destruction. May I inform the right hon. Gentleman that the Opposition would prefer him to continue to test and probe and that we hope that all the parties concerned will consider the seriousness of the consequences should the talking cease? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he hopes to meet again the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties and representatives of the Irish Government as that will give us a better picture of what has been going on in the past 18 months?
    Mr. Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the support that he gives to the process in which we are engaged and for urging us to continue with it. I have already said that I believe that matters are likely to come to a conclusion in the reasonably near future. By
    990
    definition, that will not be a unilateral or arbitrary act on my part and it will involve, of course, conversations with all the others concerned.

    Rural Towns
    Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his Department's proposals for the regeneration of small rural towns.
    Mr. Needham: In March last year the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland and the International Fund for Ireland joined together in a £16 million initiative specifically aimed at the regeneration of Northern Ireland's disadvantaged smaller towns. Assistance has been approved for Coalisland and Castlederg and a number of proposals for other small towns and villages are well advanced.
    Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Unfortunately good news rarely hits the headlines. Can he say how many towns and villages are likely to benefit under this excellent scheme?
    Mr. Needham: A large number of towns and villages in Northern Ireland need to benefit and will benefit. Established throughout Northern Ireland are a large number of community projects, including Armagh, Newry, Carrickfergus, Strabane and the Tyrone development association, all working together cross-community. The projects involve councillors, usually Members of Parliament, community groups and voluntary groups, all trying to bring success and regeneration in the face of a long history of violence and an image of terrorism. Anybody going to those towns will see the determination of the local people to get together to find a better future. It is being shown physically in the towns that I have mentioned.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: While the urban development grants are welcome, does the Minister recognise that generally they are restricted to smaller towns and villages in the western part of the Province? Does he recognise that many small towns and villages in counties Down and Antrim in the eastern part of the Province are being denied grants and feel that they are being discriminated against? Will he look into the possibility of extending urban development grants to smaller towns and villages in the eastern part of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Needham: It is possible for disadvantaged towns or areas of towns to come forward under the CRISP initiative with plans and programmes. The areas that have worked together, often with the support and backing of the local Member of Parliament, have come much further than the others, which do not have the same degree of consensus. The concept that we are adopting is the same in principle for all towns throughout Northern Ireland. Clearly, we are making sure that we deal first with the most disadvantaged.

    Community Relations Officers
    Mr. Moss: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many district councils have agreed to use Government funds to appoint community relations officers; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Mawhinney: All 26 district councils have been invited to submit proposals to improve community relations in their areas. The proposals should include the appointment of a community relations officer and programmes to develop cross-community contact and increase mutual understanding and appreciation of cultural diversity.
    To date, 10 district councils have appointed community relations officers and eight others are expected to appoint officers in the near future. Discussions about policy and programmes are continuing with a further five councils.
    Mr. Moss: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the development of community relations is a major help in defeating terrorism through the promotion of better understanding between communities? How does his Department propose to help in the funding of district council community relations officers?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for his comments. To the extent that people understand each other better and misunderstanding and mythology are removed, so communities have greater cohesion and greater common ground. On funding, the budget for the programme for next year is about £1 million and the Government will pay 75 per cent. of agreed costs.
    Mr. A. Cecil Walker: In congratulating Belfast city council on maintaining its proposed rates in line with inflation, does the Minister agree that it would be better to employ community relations officers directly and second them to the city council and to the district councils? Would not that be a better solution to rate increases?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that 10 councils have already accepted funding on the basis that I outlined and eight others are about to do so. I can see no reason why Belfast should be treated differently. Given the behaviour and some of the debates that have taken place in Belfast recently, community relations still have some way to go within the council chamber, never mind outside it.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister find it strange that his proposal for the appointment of community relations officers has found great acceptance among Provisional Sinn Fein in local government? Does he also find it strange that in Magherafelt district council recently, Provisional Sinn Fein voted for the appointment of community relations officers under the Minister's scheme, yet at the next meeting, after a bomb which was designed to destroy and mutilate the residents of Magherafelt, Provisional Sinn Fein would not condemn the IRA for its action? Is that the sort of community relations office that we shall have in the future?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I repeat what I said when I paid a visit to see that bomb damage in Magherafelt—that I was pleased that Magherafelt council had unanimously voted to accept the proposal. That is the best of all cross-community support. I think that there is some merit in the hon. Gentleman's comments about Sinn Fein.

    Social Security Fraud
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the detection and prosecution of social security fraud in the province.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The Government are giving high priority to detecting and prosecuting social security fraud. More staff are now engaged and we are up to 107 in the Province; more cases have been uncovered, with 1,000 people prosecuted last year; and greater savings have been realised, of over £6 million this year. We shall maintain our efforts against fraud in the interest of all, but we must also encourage anyone entitled to benefit to claim.
    Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware of the scathing Public Accounts Committee report on this issue which was discussed in the House in 1987? If not, will he ask the present Secretary of State about it, as he was the Paymaster General at the Treasury when the matter was debated? Is it not a fact that the Government are unable to inquire into the extent of social security fraud in Northern Ireland because of gangsterism and because the Conservative party is tolerating much higher levels of abuse than it would tolerate in the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hanley: I am pleased to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is talking absolute rubbish. We are completely in tune with the normal ways of trying to combat social security fraud. We understand entirely the sensitivity of the issue, and that makes the job much more difficult to tackle there than in Great Britain. We have restructured the Department, extra staff are deployed, we give them extensive training and we give them very good guidance indeed. They perform an extremely courageous task. New computer systems have been installed to help detection and staff have been deployed where the risks are greatest.
    Mr. Clifford Forsythe: We congratulate the Minister on looking after the public distribution of public money. Has he considered looking at the situation where some fraudulent claims are made out of need as opposed to those that are made out of greed?
    Mr. Hanley: Claims should never be made out of greed. There are plenty of allowable parts of the social security system that allow those in need to claim. Indeed, we encourage people to claim. We have information and advice centres and a free line telephone system, so people should not go without.

    Coronary Disease
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what new intitiatives he is proposing to combat coronary heart disease.
    Mr. Hanley: The "Change of Heart" coronary prevention programme launched in 1986 has been at the forefront of the strategy to reduce preventable illness and death and will be further developed in the coming years by the recently established Health Promotion Agency for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Coombs: My hon. Friend will be well aware that Northern Ireland has the highest incidence of heart disease

    993
    in the world. Does he agree that this is a serious situation which calls for a major campaign of education in diet and health? Does he feel that the general practitioners of Ulster have a part to play in teaching people how to look after themselves and thereby reduce the incidence of heart disease in the Province?
    Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend's knowledge of this matter is well known, but I am pleased to say that the figures he has given are not quite accurate. Northern Ireland no longer has the worst record in the world. Over the past 10 years, the number of deaths from heart disease has fallen by about 25 per cent., and now stands at about 4,500 a year. Following the introduction of the new general practitioner contract last year, there are encouraging signs that GPs are taking a much more active role in promoting health through the establishment of health promotion clinics and centres.

    Kilroot Power Station
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current position regarding the construction of phase II of Kilroot power station.
    Mr. Needham: Construction of phase II of Kilroot cannot begin until decisions are taken on whether the station is to be coal/oil-fired or gas-fired. The provision of a supply of natural gas to Northern Ireland for use in power generation is being urgently explored.
    Mr. Foulkes: Has the Minister checked his files? If he has, he will realise that I have been raising this matter year after year after year. There is an empty shell at Kilroot, and Northern Ireland Electricity wants to build phase II there. We in Ayrshire have low-sulphur coal, which is ready to be shipped to Northern Ireland. Why is the decision taking so long?
    Mr. Needham: Because, as the hon. Gentleman knows, Northern Ireland is one of the poorest parts of the United Kingdom and, whatever we do, we must ensure that energy prices are as low as possible. If we were to have coal-fired generation at Kilroot phase II it would require flue gas desulphurisation, whereas gas generation would not. We want to try to get a gas supply into Northern Ireland.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Sir Hal Miller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Sir Hal Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that reductions in interest rates following a fall in inflation will sharpen the already competitive position of our motor industry which increased exports last year by 18 per cent? Are not rising exports, rising investment and increased skill levels proof positive that we are achieving what Labour claims to want, and that we should stick with our policies, rather than cut and run?
    The Prime Minister: I can scarcely disagree with my hon. Friend. The motor industry has a very impressive export record, which is a tribute to good design, increasing competitiveness and the increasing work rate of employees in the industry.
    Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to explain to the 110,000 people who lost their jobs in the course of the last month that they did so as a direct result of his incompetent economic policy?
    The Prime Minister: It is interesting that during the 40 months in which unemployment fell, month after month after month, the right hon. Gentleman made no mention of this matter. I regret the rise in unemployment, but the right hon. Gentleman will have to concede that the level of unemployment in this country, at 6·6 per cent., is not only well below the European Community average but very well below the average levels of most of our European partners.
    Mr. Kinnock: Today's figures show the biggest January rise in unemployment since 1981—the time of the last Tory slump. When the Conservatives have done this twice in a decade—regardless of who has been the leader, or who the Chancellor—is it any wonder that they will always be known as the party of unemployment?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman may find it difficult to explain the following unemployment rates: 9 per cent. in France, 9·9 per cent. in Italy, 9·3 per cent. in Canada, and 6·6 per cent. here. He may also have overlooked the fact that there has been a considerable rise in the number of job vacancies.
    Mr. Kinnock: Perhaps the Prime Minister—who is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, not of France—will explain why, if Tory policies are to work, hundreds of thousands of people have to stop working.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's track record on such predictions is simply not good. He will recall predicting that mass unemployment of 6 million was inevitable. It was not, and his predictions now are wrong.
    Sir Anthony Grant: When my right hon. Friend reflects today on the position in the Gulf, will he consider that a dictator like Saddam Hussein, who has been unscrupulous enough to murder his own people over several years, will probably have no scruples about allowing innocent people to suffer in a bombing raid for propaganda purposes?
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tragic event in Baghdad and the sad loss of life should not mean that a single allied soldier should be put at risk by a premature land assault?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, we shall consider very carefully when it is right to launch a land assault. The position in that regard remains as I have described to the House in the past. Everyone regrets the death of civilians, particularly in the tragic circumstances of the past few hours. But the United States has explained why it attacked that particular site: it did so on the basis of an assessment that showed that it was a legitimate military target, which played a part in the Iraqi war effort.
    Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister agree that, in considering the lessons of the terrible tragedy that took place in Baghdad last night, we should not forget that Saddam Hussein has, not through inadvertence, but

    995
    through acts of deliberate policy, killed more Muslims than any other living person? Does he also agree that, as the terrible toll of the war rises, so should our determination to build a just and durable peace to follow it?
    Will the Prime Minister answer the question that I fear he dodged last week and say whether he is prepared to give the United Nations, in whose name we are fighting the war, the lead role in building the peace that follows?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with the observations that the right hon. Gentleman made at the outset of his question. To avoid doubt, I shall repeat the point that the allies are not targeting civilians, unlike Saddam Hussein, who continues to fire missiles wholly indiscriminately at built-up population centres. On the subject of the United Nations, clearly we must consider with all our colleagues in the allied forces, particularly the Arab states upon and around whose lands the conflict is taking place, how to proceed at the end of the conflict.
    Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on his successful visit to Germany on Monday? If he will forgive the pun, far from being a "brugeing" experience, it was a successful visit, both bilaterally and in terms of the resuscitation of European solidarity?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is important to ensure that we play a leading part in the centre of the Community, which means that we have the closest possible bilateral contact with all our European partners.
    Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if the will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Nellist: Was yesterday's massacre of women and children in Amiriya a good example, under the 1977 Geneva protocol, of precision targeting of the right or wrong target? Was not the burning and lasceration of those children's bodies, to correctly use a military euphemism, the degrading of nobody in Baghdad but of those in whose name that slaughter took place?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman puts the matter with his customary bad taste and inaccuracy. As I explained a moment ago, there has been precision bombing, and that site was bombed because there was legitimate reason to believe that it was a military target.
    Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the concern at the advertising and the unsolicited temptations to borrow pursued by banks and other lenders in recent years, for which many businesses and many individuals are now paying a painful price.
    As interest rates come down, will my right hon. Friend use his influence as Prime Minister, as former Chancellor
    996
    and as a former banker to impress on the banking industry the need for responsible lending—and will he consider what role the Government might play in that?
    The Prime Minister: I have done as my hon. Friend suggests. My views on this subject are well known. I am very glad to see that the banks and building societies are addressing the issue of the marketing and provision of credit. As the banks have freely acknowledged, the code that they have covers only banks and building societies. That is why, in December, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry issued a consultative document proposing a number of specific changes to tighten the law on consumer credit. These measures will have a wider field of application than just banks and building societies.
    Ms. Armstrong: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Ms. Armstrong: Did the Prime Minister notice the figures published yesterday that show that the top 20 local education authorities providing nursery education are Labour, and the bottom 20 are Tory? Given the abysmal performance of Tory authorities, when the Secretary of State for Education and Science two weeks ago abandoned any commitment to the expansion of nursery education, did he have the Prime Minister's approval?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady should look at the whole provision of education services throughout the country, and if she is looking at lists of the top and the bottom authorities she should also look at the authorities with the highest community charges.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to send a message of congratulations to the voluntary bodies and statutory agencies that have worked so hard during the past few days to provide shelter for the homeless in London? Will he note the comments of the deputy director of Shelter, who said the other day that the arrangements made were magnificent and excellent?
    The Prime Minister: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those involved—particularly the voluntary organisations that have co-operated so willingly with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning. As a result of that swift response there should be no need for anyone to sleep rough on the streets of London during this period of extreme bad weather.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: What is the Prime Minister going to do now that John Yates, the highly respected NHS management consultant appointed by the Government to advise on reducing waiting lists, has resigned, describing

    997
    the Government's policy, of spending £100 million to find out that waiting lists have increased, as a total waste of money? Would not it be better to sack the Secretary of State for Health and keep Mr. Yates?
    The Prime Minister: As it happens, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health invited Mr. Yates to see him to discuss the reduction in waiting lists. Mr. Yates refused.
    Mr. Hague: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hague: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to reflect on the successful expansion of higher education under this Administration? Are not the one in five school leavers going into further and higher education, compared with the miserable one in eight when Labour was in power, a crucial part of building a better trained and educated workforce? Are not this Government providing the resources for that?
    The Prime Minister: Indeed they are. My hon. Friend is right and I entirely agree with his remarks about the importance of higher education—both universities and polytechnics—and the role that they are playing in trying to equip our young people for a better start in life.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Is the Prime Minister truly aware of the crisis facing agriculture, with farm incomes at their lowest in real terms since the second world war and record numbers leaving the industry? Why then is the Ministry of Defence supplying Argentine and Uruguayan beef to British forces in the Gulf when British cold stores are jam packed with intervention beef, subsidised and paid for by British taxpayers? Will the right hon. Gentleman assist taxpayers, the armed forces and agriculture by sorting that out?
    The Prime Minister: It is because of such absurdities that we are keen to see a proper reform of the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made it clear that that is a top priority for us and we shall seek to negotiate it with our colleagues in Europe.
    Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that today's problems of homelessness have been caused, first, by the way in which the private rented sector has been regulated almost out of existence and, secondly, by the incompetence of many local authorities, mainly Labour controlled, which have more than 100,000 vacant council houses up and down the country? [Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to confirm that the Government will take the necessary radical action to free and deregulate the private rented sector in order to bring many hundreds of thousands of empty flats and rooms back on to the market?
    The Prime Minister: Nothing could better have illustrated the Opposition's hostility to the private rented sector than their activities while my hon. Friend asked his question. It was absurd that the private rented sector was declining and properties were left empty because of rent control. We have introduced to the subsidy arrangements all sorts of incentives to encourage local authorities to bring properties into use. We continue to examine further ways to stimulate the private sector.
    Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: What does the Prime Minister have to say to the record number of 40,000 home owners who had their homes repossessed during the past 12 months as a result of his high interest rates policy? What advice does he give those people?
    The Prime Minister: All repossessions are a tragedy for those who are involved. The hon. Gentleman should bear it in mind that repossessions account for less than one fifth of 1 per cent. of home owners and that the overwhelming majority of those are as a result of marriage breakdown.

Librarian (Retirement)
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have received a letter from the Librarian indicating his wish to retire on 5 July this year. I will arrange for the text of his letter to be published in the Official Report.
Dr. Menhennet has worked in the Library for some 37 years and has held the office of Librarian during the past 15 years, a time of dramatic development in the range of Library services and the demands made upon them. I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House will join me in thanking Dr. Menhennet for his distinguished service to the House and, at the same time, will acknowledge the incomparable help provided to us by the Library as a whole. I have appointed Mr. Dermot Englefield, the Deputy Librarian, to succeed. Dr. Menhennet from 6 July.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I should like to associate the whole House with the tribute that you, Mr. Speaker, have paid to the Librarian and with the thanks that you have expressed to the staff of the Library working under his leadership.
During his nine years as Deputy Librarian and his 15 years as Librarian, Dr. Menhennet has overseen extensive development of the Library in many ways. He is well respected by fellow heads of Department, staff of the House, his own staff and, of course, by hon. Members and our staff. On behalf of the House, I should also like to convey our sincere gratitude to him for all that he has done and to wish him well for a long and happy retirement.
Dr. John Cunningham: I associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with your thanks, Mr. Speaker, and those of the Leader of the House to the Librarian.
David Menhennet has been not only a great servant of the House but a friend to many hon. Members. He has guided the Library through many important changes, wide extensions of services to Members, and huge improvements to the information and resources that are available to us all. He deserves our thanks and congratulations on his tremendous effort and on the way that he has carried out his duties in the interests of the whole House. We thank him warmly.
Sir Bernard Braine: Having been in this place for 40 years, may I, on behalf of the generality of
1000
hon. Members, say how much the service provided to Members by the Library staff has improved and is improving? We readily acknowledge the influence that the Librarian has brought to bear during his term of office. For that, I say on behalf of my colleagues, "Thank you."
Mr. A. J. Beith: My right hon. and hon. Friends wish to be associated with the tribute that has been paid to Dr. Menhennet and with the good wishes that have been expressed. His quiet competence, objectivity, and readiness to serve Members personified the qualities of the Library itself which we have come to admire so much.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: As the Chairman of the Library Sub-Committee for the past nine years, I associate my Committee and the Services Committee with the tributes that have been paid to the service of Dr. Menhennet. For the past 15 years, the Library has been headed by a remarkable duo who have seen through the tremendous changes to which you, Mr. Speaker, made reference.
As Dr. Menhennet leaves, I can think of no finer successor to welcome to the post of Librarian than Mr. Dermot Englefield.
Following is the text of the letter:
Dear Mr. Speaker
I write to inform you of my wish to retire, later this year, from the office of Librarian of the House of Commons which I have had the honour to hold since 1 July 1976. I therefore place my office at your disposal with effect from 6 July 1991.
I have had the great privilege and pleasure of working in the Library for some 37 years, and of seeing its services to the House and to Members develop and grow, just as the needs of Members themselves for better information and research services have grown. First as Deputy Librarian and then as Librarian, I have had the great good fortune to be associated with those developments. Such growth could not have taken place without the support, friendly interest and encouragement of Members on all sides of the House, and the advice and guidance of the Library Sub-Committee of the Services Committee. As a member of the Board of Management since it was first established, I have also been very conscious of the goodwill and understanding of my colleagues, both inside and outside the Department of the Library.
For all that, but most especially for the honour of serving the House as its Librarian during the last 15 years, I am and will remain deeply grateful.
Yours sincerely
David Menhennet
Librarian

Business of the House
3.35 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 FEBRUARY—SeCOnd Reading of the Maintenance Enforcement Bill [Lords].
Committee and remaining stages of the Ministerial and other Pensions and Salaries Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
TUESDAY 19 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (7th Allotted Day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition motion entitled "The Impact of the Poll Tax".
Afterwards there will be a debate on another Opposition motion entitled "The Impact of Government Policies on Manufacturing Industry".
WEDNESDAY 20 FEBRUARY—Progress of remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill.
THURSDAY 21 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (8th Allotted Day, 1st part). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Gulf War Aims and the Restoration of Peace in the Region". The debate will arise on an Opposition motion in the name of the Scottish National party.
Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
FRIDAY 22 FEBRUARY Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 25 FEBRUARY—Conclusion of remaining stages of Criminal Justice Bill.
Dr. Cunningham: I begin by congratulating the Leader of the House on his 54th birthday—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is that all?
Dr. Cunningham: —and wishing him many happy returns to the Opposition Benches.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the House will have a debate on Welsh affairs as close as possible to 1 March, which is St. David's day, so that we may have the traditional annual debate on all aspects of affairs in the Principality?
Whilst affairs in the Gulf have understandably overlain many other issues, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on important developments in countries in central and eastern Europe, with particular reference to the assistance given to them by Britain and the European Community? That is a very important issue in European terms, and I hope that time can be found to debate it.
When may we debate the Government's public expenditure White Paper? We understand the Government's continuing reluctance to provide time for such debates, given the deepening crisis and the widening and damaging economic recession—highlighted again today by a dreadful increase in unemployment and appalling figures for the reposession of houses because people are no longer able to keep up their mortgage payments. There is widespread concern, particularly on this side of the House, about the continuing failures of
1002
Government policy in that area. We are entitled to a debate on the public expenditure White Paper, and I hope that we shall have one soon.
Mr. MacGregor: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind good wishes on my birthday. For the first time in my life, I found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), when he remarked from a sedentary position, "Is that all?" in relation to the number of years.
I confirm that it is our intention to have the traditional debate on Welsh affairs at around the time of St. David's day.
European Community aid to the Soviet Union is, I agree, a very important matter. As I have said on other occasions, I hope very much to find a suitable opportunity for us to consider it before long.
There is absolutely no "continuing reluctance" on the part of the Government to arrange a public expenditure debate. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say that, given that we had a full debate yesterday on the economy and the various matters that he has raised—the debate on the autumn statement. I agree, however, that a further debate should replace the traditional White Paper debate, and we intend to organise one. Given that we no longer have the original public expenditure White Paper, I think that the arrangement and timing of any such debate is best left to the usual channels.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me again remind the House that this is an Opposition day, and that many hon. Members wish to participate in the debates on agriculture and fisheries. I ask hon. Members to confine their questions to next week's business rather than raising more general matters, and to speak briefly.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend pay some attention next week to the results of the first two sittings of the European Standing Committees? He has promised to review them at the end of the year, but other matters have arisen relating not to procedure but to the workings of the Committees—papers have not been available, for instance, and it is felt that not enough time was provided. It would be very helpful if my right hon. Friend referred to a letter that he will have received from the Chairmen of the first two Committees, and decided whether it would be possible to deal with those criticisms as soon as possible.
Mr. MacGregor: I said last week that, given that the European Standing Committees are a new experiment, teething troubles would be likely, as well as the need for a review at the end of the summer. I am therefore prepared to consider issues that arise in the early stages.
I have seen the letter that my hon. Friend mentioned, and will respond. I am considering the points raised in it. The Standing Committees will not be sitting next week, partly to ensure that we can make all the papers available. I cannot guarantee that that will always be possible, however, because they frequently arrive fairly late from the European Community. Certainly I am anxious to do all that I can to make the new experiment a success.
Mr. James Wallace: I am sure that the Leader of the House is aware of the evacuation of the Tartan Alpha platform earlier this week, which is a

1003
reminder of the fact that working in the offshore oil industry is still a very hazardous occupation. Can he assure us that not much more dust will gather on the Cullen report before the House has an opportunity to debate it?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have accepted all Lord Cullen's recommendations and conclusions, and are acting to implement as many as possible with all practicable speed. I am sorry that we have not so far been able to find an opportunity to debate the matter. As is clear from the number of important issues that hon. Members are raising, it is difficult to fit them all in, but I still intend to arrange a debate on this topic as soon as I can.
Mr. Robert McCrindle: As the Government have now become deeply embroiled in the aviation dispute with the United States stemming from the application of United Airlines of the USA to take over the Pan Am routes, should not the Secretary of State for Transport report next week on the current state of the negotiations? Would it not be a good idea for him also to mention that some of us are becoming rather tired of the nonsense whereby Governments intervene in decisions relating to the level of transatlantic air fares? We feel that such decisions should be left to the marketplace, and should relate to what the airlines believe they can charge, subject only to predatory action.
Mr. MacGregor: I am bearing in mind what you said, Mr. Speaker, about the anxiety of many hon. Members to speak in the following important debate. I shall therefore confine myself to procedural points and will not deal with any policy points raised by my hon. Friend or any other hon. Member.
We must consider when it would be appropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to inform the House of the state of the negotiations, and I shall discuss that with him in the light of what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Tony Benn:: Does the Leader of the House recall that, when I asked last week about Government statements on the Gulf, he assured us that such statements would be made as necessary? This week there have been the horrific casualties in Baghdad and the British Government's decision to try to make the Security Council meet in secret so as to stifle criticism of what is happening. There have also been crucial discussions in America, in which the Secretary of State for Defence took part, about the timing of the land war, which might lead to many casualties among British troops.
Is it not clear that the Government do not wish the House to discuss these matters? Were it not for the fact that the Scottish National party has tabled a motion this week, is it not clear that the Government would have had no intention of involving Parliament in something that concerns the lives of many thousands of people, including our own troops and their anxious families waiting at home?
Mr. MacGregor: No, that is not the case. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there were questions to the Foreign Secretary yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I review regularly when there should be a
1004
debate or a statement. Certainly we are open to representations from Members in all parts of the House about that. I welcome next week's debate, which will give the House another opportunity to discuss these matters. I shall continue to review carefully when further statements should be made.
Sir Dudley Smith: Does it not strike my right hon. Friend as bizarre that British correspondents and cameramen are in the very heartland of enemy territory pumping back information which is almost wholly in favour of Saddam Hussein and his evil intents? Does he not think that we ought to address that matter next week?
Mr. MacGregor: I know that many of my hon. Friends and hon. Members generally, as well as members of the public, feel strongly about that issue. Representations have been made to the broadcasting authorities along those lines. That, of course, is a matter that can be raised in next week's debate.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is it not extraordinary that, in the week that is to follow the announcement of the awful unemployment figures, there is to be neither a debate nor any other opportunity to discuss the catastrophic effect that unemployment is having on the lives of our constituents? Does the Minister not realise that, while he and his colleagues have their jobs, those of everyone else are at risk?
Mr. MacGregor: We had a full debate on the economy yesterday.
Mr. John Marshall: When does my right hon. Friend expect to reintroduce the War Crimes Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: I cannot give a precise date, but we have given a clear commitment to do so.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Notwithstanding the fact that later today there is to be a debate on the fishing industry, can the Leader of the House assure us that the prayer which has been tabled against Statutory Instrument 139 will be debated in the near future, given that four Opposition parties have tabled prayers against the statutory instrument and that amendments to the statutory instrument have been tabled before we have even discussed it?
Mr. MacGregor: I do not wish to give an absolute assurance now; we must see how today's debate goes. However, I shall certainly consider the matter after the debate.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Leader of the House consult the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and ensure that next week the Secretary of State makes a statement on the new evidence that has emerged about the imprisonment of four Ulster Defence Regiment members who are serving time in Armagh prison for murder? Will he draw the Secretary of State's attention to the fact that the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which has been engaged in forensic tests of the so-called confessions, has now got the results of those confessions but will not release them? Will he ensure that the results of the forensic tests are released?
Mr. MacGregor: I shall draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Leader of the House will remember that yesterday I asked whether a statement would be made today on that very subject. In the light of the Secretary of State's earlier comment—that there should be debates in which Northern Ireland Members of Parliament could participate—he ought to bear in mind that this is the only place where representatives of Northern Ireland can deal with such issues. Should there not be a statement next week on an issue that affects servants of the Crown?
Mr. MacGregor: I note that the hon. Gentleman has also raised this point. I can only repeat that I shall discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to see early-day motion 459 on the talks on the general agreement on tariffs and trade and on the British textile industry?
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to press for the early re-opening of the GATT talks; and calls upon them to recognise the vital importance of the British textile industries, both regionally and nationally, which will be undermined unless there is an orderly transitional period of at least 10 years into the new system of international trade which must include effective anti-dumping measures.]
I am sure that he is aware of the great importance of the industry to many areas of the country, not least to my own constituency. May we have a fairly lengthy debate on those matters in the very near future?
Mr. MacGregor: I well understand my hon. Friend's interest in the matter and I am also well aware of its importance. On the GATT talks, informal discussions are taking place under the auspices of the GATT director-general and they are continuing with a view to restarting formal negotiations as soon as possible. We must see exactly how they develop. I will bear in mind the point about a debate. However, I must stress that we have a heavy programme. Many subjects for debate have been raised and it will not be possible to accommodate them all.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is Mr. Bill Pinkney going to buy the transport section of the Crown Suppliers? I have repeatedly asked the Leader of the House to arrange for a statement.
Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add at this stage to what I said last week.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Could my right hon. Friend arrange to have a debate very soon on the "Options for Change" in the defence review? May we discuss especially the facilities for training for our armed services? It has been demonstrated in the Gulf conflict how good our training has been. Hon. Members of all parties would like to express their views on many of the facilities in West Germany that are now to be withdrawn or that are under threat in constituencies such as mine—I refer to the Portland naval base in south Dorset.
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, we have normal arrangements for debates on defence matters and
1006
for services days. I cannot give a date now for when those debates will be, but that will, of course, be an opportunity to raise the points that my hon. Friend has in mind.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: In view of early-day motion 468, may we have from next week more regular ministerial statements if necessary daily, about the conduct of the Gulf war?
[That this House condemns the barbaric slaughter of innocent men, women and children in Baghdad, which was caused by bombing.]
When was the last time that a British Government were collectively responsible for the massacre of 500 innocent civilians and then sought refuge in a secret session of the United Nations Security Council in an effort to avoid adverse publicity and public scrutiny? Will the Leader of the House next recommend secret sessions of Parliament in case the public find out the truth about that senseless and destructive conflict?
Mr. MacGregor: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister answered questions on large parts of those points.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is concern that the Iraqi embassy may have been storing arms and ammunition, and that some of Iraq's friends may be coming into the country with arms and ammunition in the diplomatic bag? As there is a legal right under the Vienna convention to go into the premises of a former mission and inspect it, and to inspect electronically the diplomatic bag, will my right hon. Friend invite the Foreign Secretary to come to the House next week to reassure us by making a statement that in no circumstances will any embassy or any ambassador's staff be allowed to bring into the country, or to store, arms and ammunition that might be used for terrorist purposes in Britain?
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. and learned Friend knows of action that has already been taken in many ways in relation to the embassy here. I will discuss his point with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Tom Cox: We are to have a debate next week on the Criminal Justice Bill. Is the Leader of the House aware of the utter revulsion of hon. Members of all parties and of the general public about a decision by the Court of Appeal this week to free two people who had been convicted of brutality towards a young child that led to that child's death? They were released because of a loophole in the law. Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with the Home Secretary to ensure that no other child abusers who are now in prison will use the same legal loophole to get their freedom as that used by the two who have just been released?
Mr. MacGregor: I have not had a chance to study that case in full to see whether it points to a gap in the law, although, on the face of it, it looks as though it may not do so. We are to devote two days to the Criminal Justice Bill—one day next week and the following Monday—because of the importance of that Bill and the numerous issues to which it gives rise. I hope that during those two days it will be possible to deal with all aspects of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has raised a separate point, and I cannot say now whether there is a case for a statement to be made or for action to be taken.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer to the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? Surely it is extraordinary that we should not be given a full day's debate in Government time at a time when we have huge forces committed in the Gulf and serious matters that need to be discussed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and on which strong views are held. Above all, will my right hon. Friend take it from me that the Government's apathy over the reaction of our constituents to the grotesquely disloyal reporting of the war by ITN and the BBC needs airing in the House?
Mr. MacGregor: On the latter point, I said earlier that representations had been made to the broadcasting authorities and some of my right hon. Friends have made clear the views that have been expressed to us. I very much share the thinking behind my hon. Friend's point. I am prepared to look for an appropriate opportunity for another full day's debate. We are to have a half day's debate next week, and I am certainly prepared to continue to examine the matter through the usual channels.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Foreign Secretary be making a statement tomorrow on the Security Council meeting? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the British delegates called for the meeting to be held in secret? Can he also tell us what plans are being made for humanitarian aid to be given to hospitals in Kuwait and Iraq, bearing in mind the fact that many of them are without electricity, water and medical supplies? Who will speak on Thursday on the Government's behalf about the war aims, given that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the war aims of the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary are contradictory?
Mr. MacGregor: I reject absolutely all the hon. Gentleman's points about policy. I cannot say whether there will be a statement tomorrow, as we judge these matters by the day.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: As my right hon. Friend seemed to suggest that a saint's day was the right day for a debate on Welsh affairs, may I suggest that he carries that precedent further and makes the other United Kingdom saints' days days for debates on the affairs of Northern Ireland, Scotland and England?
Mr. MacGregor: We have other opportunities to discuss the affairs of each of the other home territories. My hon. Friend has made an ingenious suggestion, but, given the many other demands on our time, I am not sure that I can give him an absolute guarantee that I shall entertain the idea.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: In view of the dramatically worsening unemployment figures that are hitting Wales—and probably the regions of England—is it not time that we had a statement and a debate on regional policy, especially in the light of the changes taking place in the European Community and the development of relationships between the regions and EC institutions? Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made at an early date and for a debate as soon as possible?
Mr. MacGregor: We have recently had rather a lot of debates on economic and industrial matters, and they affect regional affairs. I have already told the House that we are to have another debate on public expenditure and
1008
that will clearly also involve the discussion of regional affairs. There will also be an opportunity for such discussion in the debate next Wednesday.
Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: Given the events of last week and the IRA attack on Downing street, will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether a review has yet been undertaken of the security of this House and the other place? Could any news of that be given to us next week?
Mr. MacGregor: Yes, indeed. Fairly regular reviews take place and the House will know that, some time ago, a considerable number of extra steps were taken to tighten security. Some of them are fairly open and manifest and obvious to hon. Members. It is perhaps not best practice to refer to all the measures that have been taken, but I can assure my hon. Friend that a considerable programme of further measures—on top of all that we had before—has been undertaken.
Ms. Diane Abbott:: Is the Leader of the House aware that many people, both pro and anti the Gulf war, believe that the time given in this Parliament to open discussion of the war compares unfavourably with the United States Congress and its committee system? Will he make time for a full debate on the United Nations? Some of us believe that the role of the United Nations in this war could bear examination and that the use of the United Nations to front the military mobilisation is a perversion of the United Nations' aims.
Will the right hon. Gentleman note that, whereas the Prime Minister constantly uses resolution 678 to justify an invasion of Iraq, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who ought to know, when challenged, says that he cannot say whether an invasion of Iraq would be in line with the resolutions? If the Secretary-General of the United Nations does not know, how can the Prime Minister be so sure?
Mr. MacGregror: The hon. Lady's question raises matters of policy, not procedure. On procedural matters, I have not yet seen the motion for next Thursday's debate, but it would seem from the title that some of the matters to which she referred could be raised then.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate next week on the policies of the Labour Lambeth council, which seems to want deliberately to cause homelessness? First, it has yet to issue planning permission for a major hostel project into which millions of pounds of Government money have been put. Secondly, over a long period it has denied housing benefits which are due to existing hostels, thereby putting the hostels' existence in jeopardy. If that is a policy of seeking to cause homelessness, we should know it.
Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend raises briefly some important points. I hope that he will find opportunities to raise them further in the House because I agree that they are important. However, I cannot promise him a debate in Government time next week.
Mr. David Trimble: In view of comments made during Northern Ireland questions this afternoon, which made it fairly clear that the so-called initiative of the Secretary of State is about, in his words, to arrive at a conclusion, will the Leader of the House agree that there

1009
is no excuse for not giving effect to the views of the Procedure Committee on the establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland? Does he further agree that it is wrong for a Department to be allowed to block the creation of a Select Committee?
Mr. MacGregor: I am sorry that I could not be present during questions, so I do not know what was said. I have no further progress to report on the Committee.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this month is the 50th anniversary of the Air Training Corps and that many thousands of young men serving in the Gulf with the Royal Air Force are former members of it? Is he aware that there are 36,000 young boys and girls in the corps? May we have an early opportunity to debate the fact that young people in Britain have come forward during the past 50 years to volunteer to serve Crown and country?
Mr. MacGregor: I am glad to pay my tribute to the work of the corps and all those who have served in it. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to make his point even more fully in our debates on the armed services.
Mr. Harry Cohen: May we have a debate on Thames Water and the failure of privatisation? I think, for example, of the failure to restore water supplies in St. Stephen's house, where many staff are having to work in virtually insanitary conditions. May we have an early debate, or at least some action on the matter?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the note sent to the occupants of St. Stephen's house. He will realise that there are difficulties at present with the water supply in central London. I do not see that it is possible to have a debate.
Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Surely we need to have a debate on the disastrous state of the GATT talks as soon as possible. Is my right hon. Friend aware that import controls, which now cover a range of products, from steel to cars and food to shoes, cost the average British family more than the poll tax? Therefore, should we not pay more attention to the issues in the House, especially bearing in mind our position as one of the major trading nations?
Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government greatly regretted the suspension of the GATT negotiations in December. We are doing all that we can to ensure that the valuable progress which has been made up to that point is not lost. I fully agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the matter. The need to reach a conclusion to the GATT round is very important.
There is a difficulty about holding a debate as we need to know at what time it would be right to have the issue raised again in the House. We need to know what progress has been made and to hold the debate at a time that is appropriate in that context.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 449?
[That this House welcomes the mission to Iraq being jointly organised by the United Nations Children's Fund and the World Health Organisation for the delivery of emergency medical supplies for children and mothers and, more generally, to assess health needs; believes this mission to be firmly within the spirit of the provisions of the Geneva
1010
Convention of 1949, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Declaration of the World Summit for Children which states that 'the essential needs of children and families must be protected even in times of war and in violence-ridden areas' and goes on to ask that 'periods of tranquility and special relief corridors be observed for the benefit of children, where war and violence are still taking place'; recognises the high proportion of young children in the Iraqi population; and further hopes that once the mission has visited Baghdad it will make every effort to inspect the conditions of children and mothers in other centres of war, including Basra and Kuwait.]
This week UNICEF and the World Health Organisation are taking medical supplies to Baghdad for women and children and they will be examining health conditions in Iraq. Given the bombing that took place yesterday and the horrendous scenes we have been shown from Baghdad, would it not be particularly appropriate for us to discuss the subject?
Mr. MacGregor: We welcome the proposal to send a World Health Organisation and UNICEF mission to Iraq to deliver emergency medical supplies. Experience from similar ICRC—International Committee of the Red Cross—missions shows that satisfactory arrangements can be made for such missions without organising pauses in hostilities or relief corridors. This is another issue that could be raised next week.
Mr. David Wilshire: I urge my right hon. Friend to find time next week to debate early-day motion 448.
[That this House notes with great concern the establishment of a secret society within the Parliamentary Labour Party called The Supper Club; notes that its objectives appear to be distancing Front Bench spokesmen from official Opposition policy, campaigning for a new leader for the party, undermining support for British troops in the Gulf and weakening the authority of United Nations resolutions; and calls for an early debate so that club members can clarify their policies and their preferences for a new leader.]
Conservative Members would find a debate absolutely riveting because the motion, which stands in my name, concerns the revelation of the existence of the parliamentary Labour party's supper club.
The need for a debate is urgent and serious for two reasons. First, we discovered yesterday that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen do not have any economic policies, so if we had a debate next week it might enable the supper club to tell us its economic policies. Secondly, the matter is urgent because it appears that the club is planning to change the leader of the Labour party and we would like to know its candidates.
Mr. MacGregor: I have seen the early-day motion, but my hon. Friend will know that I have no responsibility for the matters referred to therein. It was certainly noticeable in the debate yesterday that there was a total absence of any Labour policies for the future, and I believe that that will become clear in other debates as well.
Mr. William McKelvey: I am sure that the Leader of the House, who keeps a keen eye on such matters, has seen that I have tabled a ten-minute Bill for consideration next week. The object of

1011
the Bill is to extract additional money for the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Will the right hon. Gentleman support the Bill?
Mr. MacGregor: Since the hon. Gentleman knows that I have no further progress to report on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, and as I have not studied his Bill in detail, it is unlikely that I would want to support it next week. I have already made clear the position in relation to the Select Committee.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the reply that he gave earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn)? Will he ensure that, as urgently as possible, the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary make a statement to the House on the horrific civilian casualties now occurring in Iraq and what plans they have to negotiate a ceasefire so that the carnage that has been wrought upon the people of Iraq and Kuwait can come to an end? That would mean that all the problems of the region, none of which will be solved by the war, can be addressed in a peaceful, political way rather than with the barbarism that is being used in the region now.
Mr. MacGregor: I know that the hon. Gentleman shares the views of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn); but I also know that there are not many other hon. Members who do so.
Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a debate on railway transport and, in particular, the Department of Transport's guidelines that require British Rail to lengthen a large number of station platforms, without any additional money, to conform with the new rolling stock that has been introduced? That is causing British Rail and the travelling public great concern, because in west Yorkshire, for example, many believe that small useful stations will be closed on health and safety grounds when the real reason is that the Government are forcing cuts on British Rail. This would be a useful subject for debate, because it is important that we have an expanding rail network and not one that is continually circumscribed by Government cuts.
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. British Rail is expanding in terms of investment and rolling stock; there are not cuts. British Rail's investment is at the highest level in real terms for 30 years. The hon. Gentleman mentioned additional rolling stock. Since 1983, Ministers have approved about £1·8 billion of investment in passenger rolling stock and nearly £400 million in locomotives. So that there is much investment, and the basis of the hon. Gentleman's argument falls. However, if he wishes to raise particular local points, he knows that other means are available for him to do so.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House bring forward next week an up-to-date statement on the efforts of the Government to cadge money from other Governments in order to prosecute the Gulf war? If the Irish nationalists are condemned for raising money in America in order to carry out their wishes regarding Irish nationalism, what is the difference between that and the
1012
British and American Governments running around the world touting for money for this American-led mercenary war?
Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman must know that there is the world of difference. The conflict in Iraq is being undertaken under the auspices of a United Nations resolution, and a large number of Governments are participating. The position is totally different. On the issue that he raised about a statement next week, I suggest that he reads yesterday's debate where he will see that the matter was referred to in the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: The Leader of the House mentioned that there would be opposed private business on Monday between 7 o'clock and 10 o'clock, as though it had nothing to do with him or the Government and was purely a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means. If that is so—the measure concerned is the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill—how does the right hon. Gentleman explain the existence of a document, a copy of which I have seen, from the Government Chief Whip instructing all Ministers to be present for the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill and the business which follows it, and telling them also to procure the presence of their Parliamentary Private Secretaries? How does he reconcile that with the reply that the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) in respect of Government whipping on the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill on 5 February, when he said that individual members of the Cabinet vote according to their individual wishes?
Does the Leader of the House agree that the documentary evidence we have shows clearly that private Bills are being passed through the House under the flag of convenience and that they are, in fact, Government measures? Will he agree to refer the matter to the Select Committee on procedure?
Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, whipping is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary.

Business of the House
  BILL PRESENTED
    COLD CLIMATE ALLOWANCE
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing, supported by Mr. Dafydd Elis Thomas, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Alex Salmond, Mr. Andrew Welsh, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Jim Sillars and Mr. Dick Douglas, presented a Bill to provide for more equitable heating allowances to reflect the increased costs of domestic heating in colder climates; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and order to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the Questions on the five motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered.
That the draft Electricity Generators (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Scottish Hydro-Electric plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Scottish Nuclear Limited (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Scottish Power plc (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Income Tax (Building Societies) (Annual Payments) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Opposition Day
  6TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Agriculture
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate in the debate. I have no authority to limit the length of speeches in a half-day debate, but it would be helpful if hon. Members tried to limit their speeches to 10 minutes and if the Front-Bench spokesmen, of whom there will be four, exercised a self-denying ordinance on the length of their speeches.
    4.13 pm
    Mr. Geraint Howells: I beg to move.
    That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for presiding over a crisis in agriculture which has seen 6,000 farmers leave the industry in 1990, real farm incomes fall to their lowest level since the Second World War and farmers' debt increase by £400 million in two years; believes that this crisis already threatens the social and economic structure of rural areas and the livelihoods of many farmers; regrets proposed changes in the Common Agricultural Policy; arid calls on Her Majesty's Government to bring forward proposals to protect the agricultural industry by moving support from overproduction to direct support aimed at social and environmental goals by the introduction of countryside management agreements across the country, by enhanced payments for achieving environmental aims, in particular extensification of food production, by marketing initiatives, and by reformed systems of direct support targeted in particular on family farms.
    We are debating a serious issue. The purpose of our calling the debate is to try to restore confidence in an ailing agricultural industry. I forewarn the Minister that I will not attack him personally. I hope that during the debate I shall be able to advise him a little, from my farming experience, on the mistakes that his party and his Government have made over the last 12 years. It is to be hoped that the introduction of our 10-point policy, which I trust that the Minister has read, will enable us to go forward and improve the nation's agricultural industry.
    I have had the pleasure of representing a rural constituency in west Wales for the last 17 years. The majority of my constituents are self-employed farmers, many of them on small family farms. I hope to have the pleasure of continuing to do what I can to help them for many years to come.
    Never during the past 50 years has the future looked so bleak for British farming, an industry which has rightly prided itself on its efficiency. It is sufering from a crushing loss of confidence that has driven, and is continuing to drive, many farmers from the land. Over 6,000 workers, 4,000 of them full-time, left the land last year. How many more will leave the land this and next year? Let us hope that something can be done in the short term to stop the decline.
    Unfortunately, farmers' debt amounted last year to £7 billion, compared with £3 billion at the beginning of the 1980s. Interest alone is now costing the industry £1 billion annually. The high interest rates that have prevailed for the last couple of years have caused increasing problems to an already overstretched industry. The reduction

    1015
    announced yesterday has come too late for many and is too little to save many hundreds of others from financial ruin in the next few months.
    Let us make no mistake about the fact that all farmers are suffering in the current situation, including the large farmers of East Anglia, the dairy farmers of Devon and the south of England and the hill farmers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But those who stand to lose the most are the smaller family farmers, of whom there are many in every part of Britain.
    When I refer to family farms, I am speaking of farms that are looked after by the husband and wife and perhaps son and daughter, all earning a living from their parcel of land. It is important to do all that we can to preserve that type of farming, of whose record we should be proud. The livestock producers, the descendants of farmers who toiled on upland farms in the less-favoured areas over the centuries, have helped to weave the fabric of rural Britain, of which we are proud.
    Some may ask why, in a time of recession, agriculture should be picked out for special treatment. We Liberal Democrats believe that agriculture has a vital role to play in the United Kingdom economy and in maintaining the structure of rural Britain. It deserves support as an efficient industry which has increased production, until today we are 75 per cent. self-sufficient in food. We must maintain a thriving agriculture so that we can carry on producing high-quality, reasonably priced food for the consumer. We also need the farmer as the guardian of the countryside, a responsibility which he has successfully carried out since time immemorial.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, faced with the present crisis, we in rural Wales are concerned not just with agriculture directly but with the whole of the rural economy? Village life depends on the farms that are under threat. If farming goes, the whole infrastructure of large areas will disappear.
    Mr. Howells: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency similar to mine and encounters problems similar to those that I encounter. I am sure that the Government will take heed. We need the farmer as the guardian of our countryside—a responsibility which, as I have said, he has successfully carried out since time immemorial.
    Last, but not least, we recognise that if our rural communities are to survive, the farmer, his or her family and related industries and services must be encouraged to stay in the countryside. That may be difficult at times, but we have to do our best. A Conservative Member shakes his head. I wonder whether he is against such a policy.
    Mrs. Ray Michie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the crofters and farmers of the islands, particularly the Scottish islands, contribute to the local community and are very valuable to the countryside? The agricultural development programme that was instituted for the islands was very welcome, but people now find that they are unable to keep up their payments, and we shall have to seek an extension. Many of these people are too proud to ask for help. This is the sort of thing that makes life very difficult for the farmers of the islands.
    Mr. Howells: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who cares so deeply about her people in Scotland. As I have told her many times, I refer to her as "Miss Scotland". I hope that the Secretary of State will take note of what she has just said. We need the part-time farmers and crofters in many parts of Scotland. [Interruption.] I am sure that she is proud to be called "Miss Scotland"—if only because of the record of her father, who played so often for Scotland.
    We must not leave the industry at the mercy of naked market forces, as the Government seem intent on doing. They are willing to allow free market forces to take over completely, and quite content to allow the structures that have been developed since the second world war to encourage British farming to wither away.
    Mr. Alex Carlile: My hon. Friend has just mentioned the Government's willingness to allow market forces to run riot. I know that he is aware that the Government seem willing to allow that in relation to agricultural tenancies, too. Does he agree that the policy that the Government have offered in their recent consultation paper—that agricultural holdings should be subject only to negotiation in the free market—is unrealistic? Bearing in mind the inequality of bargaining power between a young applicant for a tenancy and an experienced land agent, does he agree that a free market in tenancies is likely to wreck the strength of the agricultural rented sector? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way to ensure that there is a reasonable supply of farm tenancies is to give fiscal incentives to both landlords and tenants?
    Mr. Howells: That is my hon. Friend's speech done. As a poor hill farmer, I must listen to my colleagues at length. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will advise the Government. If my memory serves me well, he has until 31 March to express his views. I am sure that he has already drafted something and that it is on the way to the Minister. The point that he has just made is very valid and constructive.
    Our parents and grandparents saw unfettered market forces in action in the 1920s and 1930s. At that time there was even greater desertion of the land. Rural communities were dispersed, and the production and distribution of food were inefficient and inadequate.
    During their 12 years in office, the Government have signally failed to provide the necessary encouragement for an industry which surely deserves better. Therefore, they are failing not only the farmers, but the consumers and rural community of which farmers form the backbone.
    I shall give a little bit of advice and a little history lesson to the Minister. I do not think that he was here in 1973—[Interruption.] He indicates that he was here then. Just to remind him—the Tory Government of 1973 decided to do away with the deficiency system for beef cattle. Within 12 months, the beef industry had hit rock bottom, calves were left at the market throughout the country and could not be sold. We could not sell our beef cattle.
    In 1974, I was elected to the House. I am sure that the Minister will agree that the late Fred Peart made a wonderful job of saving the beef industry in that year. It was a lesson for every one of us, and makes me wonder whether the agricultural industry of Britain will survive in a free market economy without safeguards for the produce of this country.

    1017
    I listened to the Minister with interest at the annual meeting—
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He spoke well.
    Mr. Howells: He spoke quite well, but he made a point about the future of the milk marketing boards about which I am a little worried and perturbed. I remember the days before the war when we had a free market economy. During the past 50 years, the forefathers of hon. Members on both sides of the House have fought hard to establish the milk marketing boards. It all started in Cardiganshire in west Wales in the early 1930s. During the past 50 years, the boards have served producers well and dairy farmers are still farming in every part of Britain.
    I do not think that the Minister was responsible although I may be wrong, when the Government decided in 1988 to do away with the guaranteed price for wool. This year, the farmers will be paid that guaranteed price of between £1·15 and £1·25 per kilo, but next year they will not have the guaranteed price, and our sheep and wool producers will lose about £30 million next year because the Government have done away with the financial agreement.
    The decision was taken unilaterally and had nothing to do with the European Community. It was a Government decision and a big mistake. On behalf of the sheep producers of this country, I say—I am sure that hon. Members will agree—that we should bring pressure to bear on the Government to reintroduce that financial agreement for another five-year period until we are out of our present crisis. If the will is there—I hope it is—that can be done.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says about the critical position facing family farms throughout the United Kingdom. To go back to his history lesson, do farmers in Ceredigion and Pembroke, North agree with the view expressed to me by many farmers in Scotland, that agriculture always does better under a Labour Government? Would he like to speculate on why so many of them persist in voting Conservative?
    Mr. Howells: I will not follow that line, but I will say that most farmers in Britain will vote for us next time, because we have a good policy to help them out of this crisis.
    The Government made a big mistake in the early 1980s when they persuaded our farmers to expand, to spend more, to invest more and to produce more. That continued for four or five years. I respect the Minister's views, but now, five years later, he is trying to persuade farmers to produce less. I honestly believe that the Tory party has misled and mismanaged agriculture during the past 12 years—
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Going back to an earlier passage in the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the milk marketing board, is the House to understand that he is advocating the retention of the board with no change in it? If so, can he explain how he reconciles that with the requirements of the European Community, which I believe his party supports?
    Mr. Howells: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know from speaking to dairy farmers in his constituency—I spoke to many of them at their annual general meeting
    1018
    this week—that more than 90 per cent. of them favour holding on to the milk marketing board with its present statutory powers. That is food for thought for the Minister. Given the will to do so, he may be able to persuade his counterparts in Europe to keep the present system.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I respect the hon. Gentleman's views on these matters, but I wonder whether he will help me. At present, 35 per cent. of the milk sold in this country is of the skimmed or semi-skimmed variety, which does not come under the present marketing arrangements. There is also the problem that the movement towards standardised milk will have serious effects on those arrangements; and there is the further problem that this country has so far not been able to produce the quality of product at the top end of the market, so, even though we are less than fully supplied with milk, we are producing milk for intervention products such as butter.
    All three aspects mean that, as the milk marketing board has itself said, the board should start thinking of moving towards a voluntary co-operative. How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that with his views that somehow we can stay exactly as we are?
    Mr. Howells: I advised the Minister a few minutes ago that the Government made a big mistake with one of our statutory boards—the British Wool Marketing Board—in 1988. He should not make a similar mistake in 1992. We have learnt the lesson the hard way, so I hope that the Minister will not let our dairy farmers down after 50 years of stability.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of the milk marketing board is under threat from the views of the Dairy Trade Federation, and that it is having to bend to the federation's views? Other Ministers have protected the milk marketing board's position in the past and this Minister is duty bound to do the same now.
    Mr. Howells: My hon. Friend's views are always sound; but I must add that I shall not give way any more today.
    One of the problems is that there has been no consistent agriculture policy; instead, there have been sudden switches of tactics which cannot entirely be blamed on the Government. In the early 1980s, the cry was for increased production—and as fast as possible. Farmers were urged to invest in equipment and buildings, and then suddenly there were cuts and quotas. Little wonder, then, that agriculture has been so unnerved. From one year to the next, farmers have to change their plans and have little opportunity to form long-term strategies or to invest sensibly. They must be given the chance to plan ahead.
    The Minister is right to criticise the current MacSharry proposals, but he is wrong to lay the blame for all the industry's ills at the door of the common agricultural policy. The Minister has so few positive proposals that we wish to make some constructive suggestions of our own. The industry would benefit from a 10-year strategy aimed at assisting farmers during transition. It would encourage them not to resist inevitable changes and would ensure that they compete on equal terms with other European farmers.
    We have a 10-point plan and some of the points are especially relevant. First, we have said that resources must

    1019
    be switched from supporting over-production to direct support for farm incomes, and that payments must be specially targeted on medium and small family farms. Secondly, as agriculture underpins the social fabric of rural Britain, it follows that direct support must concentrate on social as well as environmental objectives. Thirdly, the future of the European family farm should not be sacrificed in any attempt to bring the GATT negotiations to a conclusion. If a reduction in some support for agriculture can be justified, it must be gradual and sensibly phased.
    We say that less-favoured areas and environmentally sensitive areas should be extended, and the system used to sustain local farming communities and to encourage environmentally friendly farming and the preservation of the countryside. In case some Conservative Members think that this attack on the Government is only by Liberal Democrats, let us hear the view of the National Farmers Union. I am delighted to see that the new president of the NFU, David Naish, is here listening to the debate. I wish him well in his new office and thank the ex-president, Sir Simon Gourlay, for the services that he rendered to British agriculture.
    According to the NFU the MacSharry proposals strongly discriminate against British farmers. The NFU states:
    "Although rebuffed on first outing by Council of Ministers, these proposals are likely to come back in some form in some very tough EC price proposals due to be announced soon".
    The NFU says that the
    "Minister be left in no doubt that he must not come back from Brussels without having removed the discriminatory aspects of the package."
    It says that the cut in interest rates is welcome, but that there is a pressing need for the Government to go further, and soon. It states:
    "Unless urgent action taken soon we shall see the demise of the small family farmer in British agriculture, together with his role in the rural community and management of the countryside."
    The Farmers Union of Wales states that it
    "recognises the threat to Welsh agriculture of a revised CAP favouring the 'Allotment' farmers of Europe".
    The Minister understands that quotation. The FUW continues:
    "however it is undeniable that 80 per cent. of EEC support goes to 20 per cent. of farmers—and that 60 per cent. of farm support does not get through to the farming community"—
    that is most important—
    "Preliminary estimates suggest that this waste—the proportion of consumer and taxpayer expenditure on current farm support which does not get through to farmers—is about 60 per cent. on average. While public dissatisfaction with the growth in this spending is almost all directed to agriculture only some 40 per cent. is actually benefiting farmers."
    We are concerned that the Government are presiding over a gradual decline in agriculture. It has been starved of support and resources and, as a result, it is fighting for its future. I fear that it may already be too late to reverse that trend. Time is not on our side. We face the consequences of further cuts in support, the open market of 1992, and greater access to the European market by iron curtain countries. Urgent and effective action is needed to ensure that farming survives as an effective force. We hope that
    1020
    this debate will make a turning point in public and Government perception of a once great industry, which came to the country's rescue in two world wars.
    In the last century, a prominent Englishman, George Borrow, travelled through Wales, from north to south—and his book, in which he describes his experiences, is very interesting. When he came to my area of mid-Wales, he wrote:
    "This is an area where crows will die and men will live."
    I hope that the day will never come when only crows will live in mid-Wales, and there will be no men there to farm the hills and uplands.
    4.40 pm
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
    "welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to negotiate in Brussels so as to secure changes to the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community which make it more market-oriented, thereby giving an incentive to efficiency, reduce surpluses, thereby lessening tensions in international trade, keeping spending within the agricultural guideline, avoid discrimination against United Kingdom interests, and integrate environmental considerations more firmly into the Policy; and recognises that such a stance is necessary to take proper account of the interests of taxpayers and consumers while offering a realistic prospect of a successful future for British farming.".
    I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) for the courteous way in which he moved his motion, and for reminding the House that he and I have, on a number of occasions, fought side by side when we have found ourselves at odds with the majority of the Opposition—not least, when the hon. Gentleman bravely supported the Government's efforts to back the safety of British beef, when it was so deeply undermined by the official Opposition. If I am critical of the views held by the hon. Gentleman's party, I hope that he will not take my remarks personally.
    The hon. Gentleman described, quite rightly, the serious position of agriculture throughout the European Community and emphasised the problems of the United Kingdom in general—and of the Principality and his own constituency in particular. However, perhaps it would have been more sensible for the hon. Gentleman to begin by admitting that, as more than 80 per cent. of spending on agriculture comes from decisions made in Brussels, the nature, future and activity of the common agricultural policy is central to what happens. If one examines only that amount being spent by the British Government, one sees that the figure has risen constantly. The argument that agriculture is starved of funds comes oddly from the hon. Gentleman, who knows that only this week I announced another £17·5 million for the poorest farmers in the most difficult areas—many of them in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency.
    Although we share the hon. Gentleman's concern—and I hope that no one doubts my personal commitment to the role of the farmer as the custodian of the countryside, as well as a producer of food, and belief that it would be wrong to take the present period of plenty as necessarily the pattern for the future, and therefore that it is absolutely necessary to maintain our ability to produce food at home and to have farmers and farm land available for that purpose—the hon. Gentleman did not seem

    1021
    prepared to face up to the real choices and problems that confront us. He prefers merely to state the problem, without proposing any solution.
    I invite the House to examine the motion carefully. It states that the Liberal Democratic party
    "regrets proposed changes in the Common Agricultural Policy".
    I am glad that the Liberal Democrats are not representing this country, if all that they could say to Mr. MacSharry is, "We regret what you are doing." If that had been clone, Mr. MacSharry would be doing it still. There would have been no possibility of getting the group of nations and strength of feeling behind the United Kingdom that we did, if all we had said about Mr. MacSharry's proposals was that we regretted them. To regret would have been to allow to pass.
    We start by saying that we oppose Mr. MacSharry's proposals. We hate them. We condemn them. We do so in the terms expressed in a letter to The Times from the editor of a farm newspaper. He needed to write to The Times because that newspaper is not always clear about the needs of British farming. That correspondent asked why is it acceptable to put the farmer in Dyfed—perhaps the farmer in Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—out of business because he has 50 cows, but to keep the farmer in Sligo in business because he has 40 cows. The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North must accept that the MacSharry proposals are extremely damaging to European farming generally, and especially damaging to British farming—and to Welsh farming in particular.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: The right hon. Gentleman could not have been listening, because I said that I supported him for opposing the MacSharry proposals—but that whether it be in six months' or 12 months' time, Mr. MacSharry's proposals will have to be accepted by the British Government, even though I hope that they can be amended.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: No!
    Mr. Howells: The hon. Lady can shout as much as she likes, but if the Minister is not in favour of the MacSharry principle, or of the amended version within the next two years, I am certain that he will not have an alternative policy. Perhaps the Minister will say what are his alternative policies.
    Mr. Gummer: I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will make it clear in agricultural constituencies throughout the country that it is the Liberal Democrats' official policy to accept the inevitability of Mr. MacSharry's proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I base that not only on the hon. Gentleman's remarks but on the Liberal Democrats' proposals in the document "A Thriving Countryside", which I read most carefully. 1t is a better document than that which I had cause to discuss with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), which promoted, among other things, a national statutory pig-weaning period. Such was the nature of the proposals that we once received from the Social Democrats.
    Those who carefully record the signatories to Opposition motions will have noted that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is not a signatory to today's motion. I suspect that is because he, and others who have not put their names to the motion know of the deep division among Liberal Democrats
    1022
    between those in the countryside, who want to appear that they are in favour of a continuation of the present system, and those in the towns, who want to suggest to the taxpayers that there are great sums of money to be saved.
    I am not in favour of the proposition that one can have a free market in agricultural products. How can one use that argument when, in the first place, the market would not be free? The United States is a major supporter of its agricultural producers. Japan, the world's other large exporter and a major proponent of better trade, is not prepared to do anything about the fact that it is an even bigger supporter of its agricultural producers than we in the European community. It would be entirely wrong to suggest that anyone is proposing a free market. What Conservative Members are saying is that, if our farmers are to be given a chance to compete, blocks must not be placed in their way.
    Let me take head on, as it were, the point raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North about the Milk Marketing Board. I remind the House that he said neither that he was in favour of its reform nor that he was against it. That position is reflected in the answers given by Liberal Democrats from platforms all over the country: when it is convenient, they will say that they are in favour, and when it is inconvenient they will say the opposite.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No. I wish to finish what I have to say: it is of crucial importance.
    Who has suggested the reform of the Milk Marketing Board? The board itself. Why? Because it believes that, to defend the producer's interest, it must face the present reality. I am all for a history lesson, but I know of no other industry that would consider it sensible to argue that what was good 60 years ago must inevitably be good now. Such a proposition demands a certain amount of questioning. After all, 60 years ago we had a closed milk market: people were not importing milk or milk products to any significant extent, and if they had we could have stopped them. Today, we have a free market, and we must ask ourselves, "Can the British producer expect a fair deal within the present structure?"
    The Milk Marketing Board has said that it fears that that will not be possible. For several years, the British milk producer has received less for his milk than any other producer in the European Community, while the consumer has paid more for her milk than any other consumer in the Community. Ideal though it was in earlier circumstances, the Milk Marketing Board must be changed to suit the consumer.
    Let me make a commitment to the hon. Gentleman. M y concern is to ensure that the producer can obtain a fair return for his work, and I do not believe that the present system will enable him to compete effectively with those whose products will enter this country in the Common Market of 1992. The reason is clear. Three of the food-producing companies that have performed best over the past 10 years are producers of yoghurt; they are based in France, and are selling high value-added products on our market. I do not mind that—indeed, I am in favour of it—but I know of no similar British companies that are selling similar products on the French market, gaining for the British producer the margin that I wish him to have. I

    1023
    want a system that will return to the industry the innovation that it has lost, and only a reform of the Milk Marketing Board will make that possible.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: There is only one way to find out who is right and who is wrong. Will the Minister give the country's dairy producers an assurance that he will hold a referendum to establish what percentage of those dairy farmers are in favour of retaining the Milk Marketing Board with its present statutory powers?
    Mr. Gummer: I can give a better assurance than that. I have told representatives of the industry that I want them to present their own propositions for their Milk Marketing Board, and I am now waiting for their answer.
    Whatever happens, I have a duty to protect the ability of British milk producers to compete with others. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to comment, but no one will remember that he has said what he has said. Everyone will remember if I turn out to be the Minister of Agriculture who fails the country's milk producers. I am not going to do that, because I am committed to them, and that means that I must tell them plainly that 34 per cent. of today's liquid milk sales are outwith the scheme.
    We cannot view the scheme as unchangeable, when the whole question of standardised milk is becoming central to the discussions in the Community. We cannot discuss the scheme as it is now without taking into account the terms under which the Community originally accepted it, and the dangers that it now holds as our liquid milk consumption falls. It is bilking the issue to cast general aspersions, and not to accept the Milk Marketing Board's own statement that it may well need to change if it is to do its job for the producer.
    The hon. Gentleman bilks the issue in another respect. Having listened to the question asked by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), he remarked how valuable his hon. and learned Friend was, as a lawyer, and assured him that he would take heed of his requests relating to agricultural tenancies. Who has asked us to change the law on agricultural tenancies? It was not the landowners but, primarily, the young farmers, who said that they needed a change if they were to have an opportunity of acquiring tenancies. It is a curious Liberal approach to suggest that I should be condemned for issuing a public consultation document seeking to persuade the industry to face the realities.
    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, who has now left us, said that he wanted us to continue statutory controls on tenancies. Perhaps the industry proposes such an arrangement in one way or another—and this is a consultation document—but I must ask whether a sensible tenancy system can be achieved if the system is cast in a way that encourages people to get around it with fake arrangements for share farming and special deals, all of them on a very short-term basis and most putting far more power into the hands of the landlords than the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery suggested would result from the kind of open system that is proposed in the consultation document.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Gummer: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who has been waiting for a long time.
    Mr. Christopher Gill: Is not the point at issue in regard to both tenancies and the Milk Marketing Board our belief, as a party, in a demand-led rather than a command-led economy? The agricultural position in both western and eastern Europe shows where a command-led economy has taken us. The only apparent difference is that, whereas in the west the command economy has led to surpluses, in the east it has led to deficiencies. To that extent we are better off, but many of the problems affecting our agricultural system are caused by the fact that it is commanded by the state and by politicians, rather than being exposed to market forces.
    Mr. Gummer: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, but I suggest that there is another connection between the two issues. In both cases the Liberal Democrats will say whatever suits their audience at the time. When it comes to discussing tenancies, they will do what they have been doing in every agricultural constituency in the country: they will say to those they think would like to have tenancies, "Yes, of course we want reform." They will say to those they think would not like the new tenancies, "We oppose them." Opposition Members do not want to intervene because that is an incontrovertible statement. The Liberal Democrats have 650 separate policies, one for each constituency. Those policies break up by ward when it comes to local government elections.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I must continue with my speech, in view of what Mr. Speaker said.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman please give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No, I must continue.
    Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman ought to give way, because no Labour Member of Parliament has been allowed to intervene.
    Mr. Gummer: We are debating the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and I want to complete my reply to him.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No, I have already said that I do not intend to give way.
    Mr. Foulkes rose—
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The Minister has made it clear that he does not intend to give way.
    Mr. Gummer: I realise that some Labour Members of Parliament wish to speak in the debate, and I look forward to their contributions. I want the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to explain to British farmers why the Labour party supports Mr. MacSharry's policies. On 24 January the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) asked:
    "Has the Minister noticed the uncanny resemblance between the recently leaked proposals from the Commission

    1025
    for the reform of the CAP … and of the Labour party, which are … virtually indistinguishable from those proposals?"—Official Report, 24 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 449.]
    I look forward to hearing how the Labour party intends to explain to British farmers why 99 per cent. of the cuts in the sheep market should affect the United Kingdom while the rest of the Community will suffer only a 1 per cent. cut.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Even someone as thick-skinned as I is well aware of the fact that the Minister does not intend to give way. The hon. Gentleman must therefore resume his seat. The Minister has made his position quite clear.
    Mr. Foulkes rose—
    Mr. Gummer: We are debating a Liberal Democrat motion. I want, therefore, to refer to the motion that is before the House.
    Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have never known a debate, albeit on the motion of a minority party, in which an Official Opposition Member of Parliament has not been allowed to intervene during a ministerial speech. The Official Opposition represents 220 constituencies. I represent a rural constituency.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for me. If the Minister is allowed to make progress, I am sure that I shall be able to call other Opposition Members.
    Mr. Gummer: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is worth pointing out that more Members of the Liberal Democrat party are in the Chamber at the moment than Members of the official Opposition—a fact which may be commented upon in many constituencies.
    The positive part of the motion restates my words o the National Farmers Union the day before yesterday. That part of it which deals with the environment is largely a straight crib from Conservative Government policies, so I do not need to argue against them. I know that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North agrees, because he did not refer to that in his speech. He knows that we agree with many of his proposals, although not all.
    I do not agree with the suggestion that we should look after the countryside according to the diktat of local authority committees. I am not sure that farmers would want to manage their land according to the diktat of the chairman of the planning committee of Ceredigion district council. I suspect that farmers would prefer to have greater control over the future of the countryside which they created and which they manage.
    I must refer to the desperate danger that is implicit in the last sentence of the hon. Gentleman's motion, which reads:
    "and by reformed systems of direct support targeted in particular on family farms."
    If we were to suggest that some farms in Britain are family farms and that other unspecified farms are not, we should be saying to Mr. MacSharry, "Your policies are absolutely right." Almost every farm in Britain is a family farm. Some family farms consist of husband and wife, son and daughter working one farm together. Others consist of father and son working two separate farms. On some farms, cousins, aunts and others play their part in running a family farm.
    1026
    The danger with the MacSharry proposal is that a family farm with mother, father and three sons fully active is less of a family farm than one which is divided among four different families. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not mean that, but if he suggests that there is such a distinction, his words will be used by our European Community foes in our negotiations on these matters.
    The document "A Thriving Countryside"—rather ominously referred to as Federal Green Paper No. 18—refers constantly to small farms. If that were taken to mean that farms in Dyfed would receive special, uncovenanted extra support, the hon. Gentleman would be misleading the public. In Britain, there are no small farms, by European standards. There may be sufficient small farms to count as one vote for each Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, but that is about all. For his own electoral good, the hon. Gentleman ought to realise that he should never refer to small farms when dealing with agricultural matters, since the European Community might remind him that 90 per cent. of the farms in Portugal consist of less than 5 hectares and that in Italy the average farm is a holding of 14 acres.
    Mr. Geraint Howells: What is wrong with that?
    Mr. Gummer: If aid is directed to those small farms, there will be none left for the farmers in Dyfed. If he wants resources to be transferred from this country to Portugal, Italy, Greece and Ireland, he should tell the electors of Ceredigion. No one in Ceredigion would support him. In those circumstances, he ought to stand for election in Portugal, Italy, Greece or Ireland.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
    Mr. Gummer: I must not give way to my hon. Friend, or the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will feel justifiably hurt.
    The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North and I agree that the common agricultural policy needs to be fundamentally reformed. Environmental support must be the driving force if we are to ensure that our agricultural industry is provided with a firm foundation for the future. We must ensure that British farmers are able to look after their land and produce food. We agree about those issues. However, it does the hon. Gentleman no good to pretend that that can be achieved by any British Government on their own. It has to be achieved within the European Community, of which we are a member. His party rightly supports our membership.
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Gummer: No, I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    It is not right for the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North to pretend to the farming population that there is a tenable small farms European Community policy that will not result in the devastation of British agriculture. Any party that makes such a proposal does so for electoral reasons that will be found to be dishonourable.
    I shall conclude by repeating the points that I made in my speech to the National Farmers Union about how to change the common agricultural policy to enable it to deal with a time of surplus as it was able to deal with a time of

    1027
    shortage. First, we must change it to bring the farmer closer to the market, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North agrees, but at a pace and speed that farmers can accept. That is necessary and we know that. No amount of enthusiasm for the interests of consumers can hide the fact that they would be a great deal worse off if they could not go into a countryside cared for by farmers or buy food produced by British producers.
    Secondly, we must ensure that there is a better way to help farmers to care for the countryside—
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: But the Minister has not told us how he is going to do it.
    Mr. Gummer: I shall send the hon. Gentleman a copy of my speech which describes in great detail how we should proceed. We must convince the Community.
    We are the European leaders in environmental improvement and our environmentally sensitive areas policy has now been copied by France, Germany and Denmark. Our nitrate-sensitive areas policy is now seen as a model for the rest of Europe. Our countryside premium is a successful pilot scheme in the east of England and I hope that it will be the basis for extension elsewhere. We are proposing environmentally satisfactory set-aside with a different structure which would enable us to improve farming incomes and, at the same time, to provide better land protection, preservation and conservation. As we are the leaders, I suggest that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) reads my speech which sets out in detail and clearly the environmental direction that we hope that the European Community will take.
    There is no way in which we can achieve that unless we can defeat the MacSharry plan and replace it with the sensible common agricultural policy that we want. I beg the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North not to say the type of things that may sound all right on the hustings in British constituencies, but which would enable the Community to make changes that would destroy the livelihoods of the people whose votes he seeks to attract.
    Mr Robert Maclennan: Intellectual vacuity.
    Mr. Gummer: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is good at making sedentary comments. He has not stood up to try to intervene. He may comment on the intellectual content of my speech, but I remind him that he is the creator of the compulsory pig-weaning system. He suggested that we have pig police to check that pigs are not weaned earlier than they should be. He did not realise that pigs farrow sequentially and that if they farrow at midnight, the ones born later would have an extra day before they were weaned. That is the intellectual base of his agricultural knowledge, so it is not surprising that he addresses the House from a seated position. If he were to stand up, he would be knocked down. The hon. Gentleman must not help us in that way.
    The motion is a means by which the Liberal Democrats seek to hide the fact that they have no alternative policy and it uses language that they hope will win one or two votes. In case anybody believes it, I shall quote some facts at random. These are the figures for the north-western region, which includes Lancashire and the dales. I hope
    1028
    that the Liberal Democrats will explain to people there that there are 7,937 active milk producers, 58 per cent. of whom would suffer cuts of 10 per cent. in their quotas if the MacSharry proposals were accepted. By talking about small farmers, the Liberal Democrats are determined to undermine the Government's intention to fight the proposals. That fact should be known by every farmer not only in Ceredigion and in Brecon and Radnor, but in the Lancashire dales in case they have an opportunity to ensure that that party is no longer represented in this House.
    5.14 pm
    Mr. Elliot Morley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) on his able speech. I have a great deal of respect for his experience and I enjoyed listening to what he said on behalf of his constituents and farmers in general.
    The Labour party recognises the pressures that farmers are facing in the present circumstances. This year is perhaps one of their worst for a long time. Their problems are not all caused by the European Community, as has been mentioned, but, so far it has not been mentioned that one of the worst pressures facing farmers is crippling interest rates and the Government's general mismanagement of the economy. Like other businesses and industries, large or small, farmers are hurt by the economic climate.
    The Opposition wish to make it clear that we agree with the Government that the CAP must be reformed urgently. There must be movement towards the general agreement on tariffs and trade with other countries. It is intolerable that subsidised food surpluses from the European Community are dumped on to the world market and then hinder other countries, especially developing countries and third-world countries, in developing their own agricultural industries. In many cases those industries are the only ones that they have to sustain their economies.
    Following the Minister's comments, I wish to put it on record that the Opposition accept that the MacSharry proposals discriminate against the United Kingdom in particular. The Minister was unfair to my hon. Friend the Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Jones) who referred to the "future harvests" proposals of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and said that the MacSharry proposals on the environment—not all his proposals—were in line with Labour party proposals. At that time, the MacSharry proposals had not been made public.
    Mr. Gummer: I know that the hon. Gentleman has not had time to refresh his memory. The question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Clywd, South-West (Mr. Jones) referred clearly to the impact of agriculture on the environment. However, in his supplementary question he asked:
    "Is he aware also of the policies of the National Consumer Council and of the Labour party, which are also virtually indistinguishable from those proposals?"—[Official Report, 24 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 449.]
    He meant the proposals of the Commission, which refer not to the environment but to the proposals for reform of the CAP. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) must accept that his hon. Friend said that the Labour party favoured the MacSharry proposals.
    Mr. Morley: I am giving the official Labour party line on the proposals, which is on record as opposed. To clear up the matter, I shall quote my hon. Friend's full supplementary question. He asked:
    "Has the Minister noticed the uncanny resemblance between the recently leaked proposals from the Commission for the reform of the CAP and CPRE's excellent document. `Future harvests'? Is he aware also of the policies of the National Consumer Council and of the Labour party, which are also virtually indistinguishable from those proposals? Will he now change his approach to the problem?"—[Official Report, 24 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 449.]
    By any standard, that is not an endorsement of the MacSharry proposals.
    We recognise that the MacSharry proposals would increase the cost of the CAP. That in itself is a cause for concern, given its enormous cost to the taxpayer and to the consumer. In all fairness, Mr. MacSharry was trying to tackle the problem of the CAP. His proposals will discriminate against many British farmers and may fall disproportionately heavily on the United Kingdom, but he was making a genuine attempt to do something about the CAP. He does not deserve the abuse that he has received, especially from the Minister, for his proposals. Some of his arguments in defence of small farms are not unreasonable, either here or abroad.
    Many members of the farming community are concerned about the Minister's attitude. Let me quote the opinion of The Scottish Farmer:
    "Mr. Gummer, on the other hand, is unequivocal … Small farms should be helped to restructure, he said. If that was not possible, they should be prepared to move out. And that cannot be a warning just for the so-called inefficient farmers across the Channel. It must also be of great concern to many farmers on this side, highly dependent on EEC and government support, which is undoubtedly set for continued decline."
    That is not my opinion but the opinion of the farming press, expressed in a newspaper which I imagine speaks for a great many farmers and their concerns.
    Mr. Gummer: Let me make this clear. I said that, in EC terms, there were no small farms in this country. Many small farms in the British sense—family farms—are economically viable and, if the Community were properly organised, would be perfectly capable of producing an adequate income for their owners and workers. On the continent, however, many farms are so small that in no sense can they produce an adequate income. Surely one can make the distinction between sensibly sized farms and the farms to which some have referred as allotments. Even such an eminent source as The Scottish Farmer must see that that distinction is clear. We need restructuring where farms are so tiny that they cannot be sensibly worked. Britain has already undertaken such restructuring and I do not see why we should pay for other countries to do the same.
    Mr. Morley: I do not disagree that some farms on the continent are so small that their viability is called into question, but we should also bear in mind the fact that many European farms are better for the environment because they have not been amalgamated in the damaging way in which many farms in this country have been amalgamated over the years.
    Small farms may be economically inefficient, but we are talking about supporting people on the land. The EC spends £24 billion on the common agricultural policy, the bulk of which goes on the storage and disposal of
    1030
    surpluses. If the EC can do that, I see no reason why it should not have a coherent policy to support small communities and small farms and to keep people on the land by providing them with income and helping them to protect the environment in desirable ways.
    I would point out to the Minister that certain areas and practices are extremely important in ecological terms. I cite the traditional grazing practices used in Spain, and the cork forests. If we are to spend money on the CAP anyway, I would rather see my money and my taxes being spent on supporting small communities and on protecting the environment than on the disposal of food mountains.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is not my hon. Friend saying something slightly different? Is he not suggesting that we need rules to allow us to abandon the rubbish of the CAP, which is destroying agriculture, and to look for alternative ways of directly affecting the environment? That will not happen if we support the MacSharry proposals.
    Mr. Morley: My hon. Friend makes a helpful suggestion, very much in line with the Labour party's green premium, which would direct support to farmers in ways beneficial not only to communities but to the environment generally.
    We have talked about the move towards larger farms. I listened carefully to the Minister's speech at the National Farmers Union annual general meeting and there was much in it with which I would not necessarily disagree. Having said that, I believe that he placed too much emphasis on the need for larger farm units, although perhaps I misinterpreted his remarks. I do not believe that the amalgamation of small farms into larger farms is necessarily the best way forward for British farming. It deprives many young people of the opportunity to go into farming, and concentrates power in the hands of a few people. I do not see anything particularly efficient about one large farmer receiving lots of subsidies as opposed to more small units receiving a share of the support.
    The Minister also appears to view in black and white the environmental impact of small and large farms. There are good and bad farms in both categories.
    There are some very well run large farms but in many cases, larger amalgamated units have uprooted hedgerows and chopped down woods to get ever larger machinery on to the land. I am not sure that we should want to pursue that route. In the end, circumstances may arise in which even the farms that are large and efficient by present standards may not be able to compete and they will still need a measure of support. I refer to the uncertain future in farming, to the likely move towards world prices and to the unknown impact on farming of the developments in eastern Europe. I do not disagree with the Minister that the move towards world prices and towards greater freedom in terms of produce ought to be gradual.
    Many farmers in the less-favoured areas and uplands do not seem to fit the Minister's criteria for the future of farming. I think that there is room for traditional small farms, and I disagree with the Minister that there are no small farms in the United Kingdom. Has he not heard of crofts? Do not they fit into his analysis of small farms? In my view, crofts deserve some support.
    A balance should be struck between the need for efficiency and for larger units and an international free market for their produce to allow a fair share for

    1031
    third-world and developing countries. We need to give financial support and to provide a safety net and to improve our environment through the continuation of policies that we have supported, such as environmentally sensitive areas, and policies that we advocate, such as the green premium. We need to build upon those achievements. We need to look at the use of set-aside, and I welcome the enhancement of set-aside payments to allow its use for conservation purposes. That is a great step forward in a policy about which I have grave reservations none the less.
    We need far more research and development of alternative crops and farmland uses. I was interested to read Sir Derek Barber's comments about the use of farmland that is suitable for the growing of phragmites to clean up sewage and dirty water. It is an exciting and radical proposal. I have read scientific papers on the use of phragmites in wetlands. It is one way of recycling and of cleaning up emissions. It is useful and enhances the environment.
    I was disappointed in the Minister's comments to the NFU about biomass experiments, even though I accept that they may not be especially economic at present. I have seen them in Sweden and I have seen the experiments that are being funded in Northern Ireland, and I would not rule out such a radical approach to the provision of alternative crops and farmland uses.
    At a time like this, farmers need to be encouraged and supported by the Government. I took the Minister's comments that he was not advocating a free market approach but that was not the impression I had from his speech and his undue emphasis on larger units. A balance must be struck if we are to move towards orderly change and the reform of the CAP. The Government must face up to their responsibilities for research and development, structural support and environmental policy. Above all, they must give some thought to their disastrous economic policy which has been responsible for pushing so many farmers, who were already teetering on the edge, over the brink. The responsibility lies with the Government. I accept that these days much farm policy is directed by the EC but it is in the Government's hands to change and improve the economic policies under which farmers operate, and they should give some serious thought to that.
    5.29 pm
    Mr. Paul Marland: It would be wrong to say that farming was not in difficulties at present, because there is no doubt that, like many other businesses, it is. But many factors other than Government policy affect the future and the success of farming. After all, farming is a cyclical business. For example, recently the great difficulty of the snow has made the job of the farmer a great deal harder. Before that, last summer, there was a serious drought in this country. It is all too easy for Members of Parliament, working in the environment here, to forget about that. The drought had a serious effect on the livestock farmers in my constituency.
    The amount of fodder that farmers could produce last summer was greatly reduced because the lack of rain meant that the grass did not grow. By the middle of October, a great deal of the fodder for feeding dairy cows
    1032
    had been used up. I have a friend in the forest of Dean who has over 100 milking cows and is having to spend £1,000 a month on concentrates to feed his cows and keep the milk flowing. Of course, that is having a dire effect on the profitability of his enterprise, as, indeed, is the tremendous drop in the price of calves. In the year 1989–90, my friend was receiving £155 per calf. In 1991 that price has fallen to £45. That again has a tremendous impact on the man's profitability. Along with static cereal prices, levies and stabilisers, that has a serious effect on the income of all farmers.
    But things would be much worse if Mr. MacSharry had his way. I make no apology for returning to some of his proposals. First, the proposals would increase the cost of the common agricultural policy, rather than reduce it. They would do nothing for the environment. They make no mention whatever of consumers or the farmers' customers. The proposals would make European agriculture non-competitive and non-innovative. The farmer will be told that, if he has a small dairy herd or a few beef cattle now, he will be supported to continue to farm in that way for the rest of his life. Of course, some small farmers in Europe would very much welcome such a proposal.
    Opposition Members may be interested to know that 80 per cent. of the milk consumed in Portugal comes from dairy herds of three cows or fewer. Those are the herds which Mr. MacSharry proposes to support. Equally, one cannot help but wonder why Mr. MacSharry wants to give small Irish farmers with herds of only 40 cows extra money to keep them in business while their larger partners in Wales with 50 cows are put out of business by the proposals.
    Under Mr. MacSharry's proposals, 85 per cent. of United Kingdom production of milk would suffer a cut, whereas only 32 per cent. of the production in Europe would suffer a cut. There is a temendous slant against the United Kingdom. In cereals, 58 per cent. of United Kingdom area and revenues would be cut by up to 27 per cent., whereas 56 per cent. of EC area and revenues would be increased by 5 per cent. There would be no reduction in the support prices of sheep for our 11 partners in the EC. All reductions would fall on the bigger flocks in the United Kingdom. Matters would be a great deal worse if Mr. MacSharry's proposals were seen through.
    I am extremely glad, as are most British farmers, that we have such a strong Minister to stick up for the interests of British farmers. He showed that by his spirited performance at the annual general meeting of the National Farmers Union earlier this week. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food deserves congratulation and recognition for what he has been able to do for British farmers. It is important to remember, as he said, that 80 per cent. of European support money is dished out by Europe and only 20 per cent. is provided by domestic Governments.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Would the hon. Gentleman support a move to ask the Government to abandon the CAP and return to national Governments the right of support? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Does he agree that that would allow individual small farmers to have a proper income and that it would benefit taxpayers?
    Mr. Marland: The hon. Lady has obviously struck a chord with some of my hon. Friends. But as we are a partner in the European community, I do not see how we could possibly come out of the CAP.
    As I said, the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister should be recognised. He has done a good job in seeking more money from our Treasury to support farmers in difficult and disadvantaged areas. The 14 per cent. increase that he announced earlier this week will go down well in all districts.
    I notice that the Liberal party's motion calls for more money for environmental projects and works and more assistance to farmers for marketing, but grants are already available. Grants are being slewed towards encouraging more environmental work, under the countryside stewardship and other schemes. Tree planting and care of trees once they are planted is being encouraged. I hope that soon we may see a system whereby farmers are encouraged to take care of existing trees and woodlands and given some small recognition for doing so.
    Grants are available for new projects which farmers want to launch and for feasibility and marketing studies. Although set-aside is a controversial matter, in marginal cereal-growing areas it is widely welcomed. It is an alternative for cereal growers. The money goes direct to the farmer, rather than into storage and disposal, about which so many people have already expressed their displeasure today.
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would make more sense and be more popular among farmers if more effort were put into a programme of extensification, rather than set-aside, which can promote more intensive farming methods on the land still in use and is unpopular with the farmer and the consumer?
    Mr. Marland: I shall come to efficiency and intensive agriculture in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me.
    Another of the many alternatives being suggested to farmers offers a way in which they can improve their business and their cash flow. My right hon. Friend the Minister has asked local authorities to ease planning permission on projects put forward by farmers to make use of redundant farm buildings and other rural projects. Farmers should be congratulated on drawing up such schemes. Perhaps another letter from my right hon. Friend the Minister to local authorities reminding them of that request would not go amiss.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: How can m y hon. Friend seriously say that set-aside is a success? He must know that we have spent a fortune paying people for not growing cereals, yet the amount of land used for cereal production has increased by 212,000 hectares. How does that make economic or common sense?
    Mr. Marland: The extra ground which has come into production may well have been balanced to some extent by the amount of ground that has been taken out of production. We do not seek to dictate to farmers exactly what they should do with their land. We seek to give them a menu of alternatives while telling them—the majority accept it—that we are not prepared to continue financing increased production indefinitely.
    The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) spoke earlier about proposals for bringing more
    1034
    land for letting onto the market. He may be interested to know—I hope that one of his colleagues will relay the message to him—that some of us on the Conservative Back Benches had the Tenant Farmers Association to see us earlier this week, which welcomed with open arms my right hon. Friend the Minister's proposals. Again, my right hon. Friend should be congratulated.
    We have never wavered from backing efficient production. We have said a firm no to the theory of supply management, which is not the right way forward. Furthermore, it is a myth to imagine that small farmers are more environmentally conscious than large farmers. In my experience, small farmers need all the money they can generate on their farm in order to survive. They cannot leave money aside to invest in promoting and succouring wildlife.
    I am not keen on the endless move towards smaller farms, nor the assistance given to them at the expense of larger ones. In this connection, I am talking about either the farms that we describe as small ones, or the allotments in Europe that are regarded as small farms.
    I have a friend in south-west Scotland, in Wigtown, who farms some of the most difficult land in that country. He has 1,100 suckler cows and he employs 14 men. He also employs members of those men's families, and together they have created a worthwhile and solid agricultural unit. It is wrong that that efficient farm should be penalised so that support can be given to smaller, less efficient family farms. His family farm is much respected by everyone who lives in the district.
    As we move into a more competitive world I am glad that my right hon. Friend has asked the Milk Marketing Board to make some suggestions as to how it can become more appropriate for today's market. Apparently the announcement on that will be made on 6 March and I hope that the board will offer some constructive suggestions for the way forward. A lot has changed in 60 years—the board fulfilled a much-needed role then, but not today.
    It is not right to deride the dairy trade industry because it is seeking to change the board. Of course it is, because it wants the right product so that its members can obtain maximum value from what they are seeking to produce. Some yoghurt producers want low butter-fat content milk, but they cannot get that from the Milk Marketing Board. It is right that the board should be asked to modernise so that more money can go to the farmers. I hope that Bob Steven, the chairman, will get solid support from the 15 farmers who also serve on the board.
    It is a competitive world in the EC, and I hope that the Minister will do something to improve the lot of our farmers regarding salmonella. The Select Committee on Agriculture held an inquiry into salmonella and the Ministry responded by introducing a system for slaughtering chickens infected with salmonella. That system has done a fantastically good job of cleaning up egg production in the United Kingdom, but what about the eggs that are imported? Few of them are ever checked for salmonella. That process takes five days and I know that random checks are undertaken, but by the time the salmonella infection has been proven, the rest of the eggs in that batch will have been eaten. Often imported eggs are repacked and the box carries the message "packed in England", so some of our less well informed housewives

    1035
    think that they are English eggs. That is causing great difficulties for our egg producers, and I hope that Ministers will do something about it.
    I am sceptical about the attempts to improve animal welfare. I am a farmer and I do not want anyone in the House to think for one minute that I am against animal welfare. I am glad, however, that the Ministry has set an eight-year lapse before dry sow stalls and tethers are to be abolished. I hope that that abolition will promote happy pork, produced in the United Kingdom, so that people do not choose imported pork. However, we still eat a lot of white veal and pate de foie gras that is produced abroad, and those processes show scant regard for animal welfare. That has not dried up the demand for those products.
    Mr. William McKelvey: Such products should be banned.
    Mr. Marland: Those processes have been banned here, but not on the continent. Such matters should be taken up vigorously by our vigorous Minister. I am sure that that will happen.
    A year ago, the price of a calf stood at £155; now, it is £45. I understand from a reliable source that imports from eastern Europe have depressed the calf price in this country. Those calves are smuggled over the border into what used to be known as East Germany, and they are then released on to the market. Those calves are being imported by the lorry load—30 lorries a day—and, as they are sold in the EC market, they attract extra grants and subsidies. That is having a serious effect by depressing the price of beef in this country. I know that other hon. Members have heard similar tales. I hope that the Minister will take steps to bring that practice to an end.
    Fallen stock used to be picked up by the knacker men who made money from it by turning it into tallow. However, the market for tallow has dropped and farmers are now being asked to bury their own dead or fallen stock on their premises. It is quite a big job to bury a cow, and the only alternative is incineration. We know that there is not enough incineration capacity in this country and we have all seen pictures in the press of open pyres with bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected cattle being burnt on them.
    What is the Government's attitude to the establishment of more animal incinerators? Someone in my constituency wants to build such an incinerator and, believe me, that is a controversial issue. No one wants such an incinerator near their house or village. I should be interested to learn the Ministry's attitude towards incinerators and whether it has in any way encouraged the building or development of such incinerators.
    Sir Hector Monro: I have been pursuing the problem of fallen stock for the past 15 months. Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be a good idea to have on-farm disposal pits or an incinerator system? Those suggestions deserve a 50 per cent. grant under the farm improvement scheme or some pump priming from the local authorities.
    Mr. Marland: That is a useful suggestion. I raised that very issue in the hope that Ministers can enlighten me
    1036
    about it. I understand that the Governments in some other EC countries take a positive role in providing incinerator facilities for fallen stock.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Incinerators and animal processing units should be built as far away as possible from any village, farmhouse or populated area. They must be built near motorways and provided with a decent motorway exit, but they must be well away from all inhabited dwellings. My constituency has suffered this problem for the past 20 years, and it does not go away.
    Mr. Marland: Thanks for the warning. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says about that when he replies.
    Agriculture is going through a difficult stage now, but it is a cyclical business and it would be wrong to lose sight of our objectives in the reform of the CAP. We have a spirited team of Ministers to look after the interests of our farmers in Europe, their attitude is enormously to their credit. I recommend to my hon. Friends that we should throw out the Liberal Democrat motion with little ceremony.
    5.47 pm
    Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) raised specific issues relating to fallen stock and farm size and I hope that the Minister will respond to those issues.
    I shall not deal with the specific aspects of the current crisis facing agriculture, but I shall outline the general problems that confront farmers throughout the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
    Agriculture is in a crisis which is affecting almost every sector. The range and diversity of the problems make it difficult to know where to start to provide solutions, but those solutions—be they long-term or short-term—are desperately needed. The problems are clear. Farm incomes are now at their lowest level in real terms since the end of the second world war. Farmers are also facing difficulties because of high interest rates and increased input costs. A record number of farmers have left agriculture—I believe that, in the past 10 years, 80,000 farmers have left farming: that fact speaks for itself.
    The crisis is affecting every sector of agriculture. In the beef sector, store prices have tumbled. The dairy sector has been affected. In sheep farming, there has been a 30 to 40 per cent. fall in lamb prices over the past two years alone. Cereals, too, have been affected. The result is falling farm incomes. That means that there is no money for investment and that further trouble is being stored up for the future.
    Looming ominously over all this are the GATT talks and a disastrous CAP, both internally within the European Community and externally in its relations with the rest of the world. The European Community, with its common agricultural policy with massive surplus production, also happens to be the world's leading agricultural importer and the world's second largest exporter. Its common agricultural policy is a recipe for trouble unless it is sorted out.
    The question is: how will it be sorted out and in whose interests? Scotland's problem is that our farmers listened to Governments and followed their policy directions, backed up by the world's finest agricultural research organisations. The very products of Scottish agricultural

    1037
    success—larger, efficient units, top-quality production allied to massive investment in machinery and farm improvements—are threatening the livelihood of farmers throughout Scotland who have followed Government policy up to now.
    It would be easy to catalogue the problems facing the industry—the livestock disaster threatening the hills and uplands, the annihilation facing Scotland's magnificent soft fruit industry because of short-term eastern European bulk imports, the poultry and beef sectors rocking back under recent health scares, and so on. It is more important to ask the Government what they intend to do positively about the problems. The Minister did not address that earlier. He spent much time attacking the Liberal Democrats but very little addressing his answer to the current problems.
    It is not much use telling us that we should have attended the NFU meeting. Surely it would be better for the Minister to be in the Chamber, stating positively what he will do to answer the MacSharry proposals. We are entitled to ask the Government to spell out clearly what they intend to put in place of the unacceptable European proposals. We need a clear statement of the long-term proposals for the industry. Agriculture by definition requires longer-term planning if it is to survive and prosper.
    The bane of agriculture has been a series of short-sighted, short-term solutions which have stored up the present problems. "Food From Our Own Resources" is a historical document, but it was the nearest that any United Kingdom Government ever got to a general, integrated, co-ordinated plan for agriculture. The more is the pity. Instead of clear thinking and a stable set of policy guidelines, we have witnessed a series of manoeuvres, wheezes and sticking plaster solutions.
    For farmers that has meant a series of changing roles. They are now custodians of the land, with a range of changing products and income bases from farm shops to golf courses, from afforestation to raising red deer and llama, and chasing the bed-and-breakfast tourist trade, as well as income substitute schemes, such as set-aside. All this has happened rapidly and is simply a survival mechanism against falling agricultural income. That is where the Government should concentrate their minds. They should consider how to get money back into the rural areas of Scotland and into the pockets of the people to allow them to live and prosper in their rural communities.
    The reality is an industry turning cartwheels because it does not know what it has to do to survive. Only Governments, who take the decisions, can tell farmers. That is what the Minister must do. It is no use attacking MacSharry and getting his first NFU round of applause for years. The Minister must state his positive proposals to give stability, income and a future to the agricultural industry.
    What is the Government's view of agriculture in 10 years' time or even in five years' time? Where do the Government want the industry to be? What do they want the industry to produce? What is the Government's attitude to rural areas and communities? Do they really want the hills and upland areas to be cleared of population? That is exactly the direction in which Government policies are taking the hills and upland areas in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
    Agriculture has shown its adaptability and its immense capacity for efficiency and change, but it needs a set of
    1038
    guidelines about where it is expected to go. Leaving structural changes to be decided by the brute forces of bankruptcy and unfettered temporary market forces is an abnegation of responsibility by the Government.
    While appreciating the necessity to cut production and export subsidies, the SNP believes that the cash saved by the cuts should be redirected into the guidance section of the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund to finance structural programmes to assist the rural economy. The Scottish Office should press for structural programmes for all the less-favoured areas in Scotland to include support for quality-assured schemes, diversification of farm activities into such areas as farm woodlands and new forms of quality production, as well as general support for social, commercial and small-scale industrial activity throughout the rural economy.
    It is not in the interests of Scottish or European consumers and taxpayers to see agricultural production slashed through farm bankruptcies and economic hardship throughout remote rural communities. The Commission's proposals to concentrate farm support on small farms ignore the serious financial problems facing so-called large Scottish hill farms in marginal areas, where farm incomes may be considerably less than on many small farms.
    The British Government led the Council of Ministers in the demand for cuts in production subsidies to aid the GATT talks. The Government must now lead a campaign to ensure that the application of the Commission's new proposals does not lead to a new wave of clearances from the land.
    Scotland is capable of self-sufficiency in all aspects of food production associated with a temporate climate. It is the SNP's policy to maintain that position and to ensure that production above that level is aimed at high-quality foods for export. It is also our intention, which I recommend to the Government, to ensure that agriculture remains a mainstay of the rural economy and that, where practicable, it should be organised around units of viable family farms.
    I remind the Minister that agriculture is proportionately far more important to the Scottish economy than it is to the United Kingdom economy. We believe that Scottish agriculture would benefit massively if Scotland had independent representation on the Council of Ministers and on the European Commission, and increased representation in the European Parliament. All that the Minister and his colleagues have done in Europe has convinced me more and more of the truth of that statement.
    We seek a system that allows stability in price, in markets, in Government policies and in income levels, and with a clear goal for the future structure and production levels of agriculture. Agriculture is by nature a long-term activity; it must not be allowed to be gutted by short-term factors.
    6 pm
    Mr. David Nicholson: I assure the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) that I appreciate the way in which the farmers of Scotland have suffered in recent weeks because of the weather conditions. My farmers on Exmoor and the Brendon hills have been coping with snow up to 1½ ft deep.

    1039
    The considerable difficulties which farmers in Somerset and the west country face were summed up in the Somerset Farmer, reporting Professor John Webster of Bristol University as having told the NFU county annual meeting in Taunton a few weeks ago:
    "We are no longer lovable in the eyes of the consumer, and we are poor as well. To be rich and unloved would be bearable. To be poor but lovable would not be so bad. But to be both poor and unloved, as we are, smacks, as Oscar Wilde put it, of carelessness."
    Despite that plight, we can boast certain success stories. We have the success of Liscombe research, launched by the Minister in another place about two years ago. That is happening on Exmoor. Also, increased interest is being shown by the farming community in Somerset and the west country in marketing their produce, summed up in Somerset Farmer for February of this year as follows:
    "Quality not quantity should be the aim if farmers are to regain both their popularity and profit over the years ahead."
    I hope that the Ministry will continue to support in every way possible Taste of Somerset, which helps to market the foodstuffs that we produce. I commend greatly our excellent Somerset brie, which is equally as good, probably better, than the French product, and while my constituency is well known for Taunton cider, produced by the very successful company of that name, the real cognoscenti, when it is not Lent, partake of Sheppy's farmhouse cider, and I am delighted to see on the Government Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) who visited Sheppy's about this time last year. I cannot remember whether it was Lent.
    I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) referred to the need to check on unhealthy imported eggs. On 31 January, as reported in column 615 of Hansard, I received an excellent written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Health in which he listed all the dates on which infected imported eggs had been found, with the countries of origin. I regret to say that the country of origin was usually Holland. I hope that that problem will be tackled.
    Having heard much in recent years of NFU criticism of Her Majesty's Government, I am delighted to quote from a resolution that was passed on 28 January by the Somerset and South Avon county branch of the NFU which, unlike the Liberal party and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howell), was unequivocal in its view of the MacSharry proposals. It said that it
    "condemns commissioner MacSharry's proposals for reform of the CAP as being deeply damaging and discriminatory against United Kingdom agriculture as a whole and against full-time family farms in the United Kingdom in particular."
    The Minister will be encouraged by the next part of the resolution, which
    "fully supports the Minister of Agriculture in his opposition to the proposals, calls for the package to be scrapped and insists that the EC Agriculture Commissioner goes back to the drawing board and produces proposals which address the problem of rising support costs and falling farm incomes without damaging the interests of any particular group of farmers or any particular EC Member State."
    The county branch estimated that, for a dairy producer with 85 cows, which is not a large herd, returns under the MacSharry proposals would be down by nearly 20 per cent. The Department has produced similar examples.
    1040
    We congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his firm commitment to the farming community and the wider interest of the nation, the countryside and food production that he has shown in recent months. At Bournemouth last year, he said:
    "If farmers cannot earn a living then they cannot look after the land."
    He said much the same in his speech to the NFU conference in London. He set out the issues clearly. He exposed the ghastly term "modulation," which sounds like an expression used in music teaching—I suppose that we are being made to suffer an Irish music lesson—and the extraordinary proposals there.
    I am glad that the Minister mentioned in his speech to the NFU conference what appears to be a tobacco scandal. Apparently, nearly £1 billion is going into subsidising the production of quite low-grade tobacco, which I believe is exported to third world countries and does immense harm to the health of the people there. I have received letters from my constituents on the subject. I hope that the responsible Departments, whether the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of Health, will tackle this matter.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement this week of a 14 per cent. increase in the hill livestock compensatory amounts, which will be welcome to my hard-pressed sheep producers, and in responding on Tuesday to the interests of young farmers in producing his tenancy proposals.
    I am constantly reminded by farmers in my constituency that we must have a policy to replace the generation of farmers approaching retirement. The statistics show that many farmers now in work are relatively old and are approaching retirement, and it is difficult to know who will replace them, as so many sons of existing farmers are not interested in taking on even family farms. I hope that the tenancy proposals will help with that state of affairs.
    At the same time, I warn Ministers of the danger of encouraging farmers or intended farmers to get into debt. I make no apology for raising this matter, which I raised earlier with the Prime Minister—the contribution of the banks and other lending institutions to business indebtedness in recent years. I have particularly in mind the effects on farmers, because an important factor that reduces the overall net incomes of British farmers, who are larger-scale and more efficient than continental farmers, is the indebtedness into which they have got in recent years. I welcome the Prime Minister's sympathetic comments on that matter.
    I again press the Minister to bring forward as soon as possible more comprehensive and co-ordinated schemes to help the environment and countryside. We have many small schemes which are excellent—including environmentally sensitive areas, less-favoured areas, the farm woodlands scheme and so on—but the farming and environmental community want more co-ordination between the various schemes.
    In that respect, my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) and for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and I supported the giving of LFA status to parts of the Blackdown hills in our constituencies. The Department took proposals to that effect to Brussels, and, although they were good proposals which encompassed

    1041
    the parishes on the Blackdown hills in my constituency, they were turned down on what we thought were spurious statistics.
    There is now a proposal from the Countryside Commission to give the area outstanding natural beauty status. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and I support that, but emphasise that it must be accompanied by environmentally sensitive area status, which includes grants and produces incomes for the farmers involved. We must have co-ordination between the various schemes, and I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment will work together to achieve that.
    I shall not spend time today on the proposals of the Liberals, much though I respect the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North, because he and his hon. Friends will get nowhere near governing this country. But some of our farming constituents might be considering the prospect of a Labour Government.
    On that basis, it is worth while reminding them of two comments made by Labour's senior agriculture spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clarke). He is not in his place for the debate, and I note that the Labour party is rather diminished in its Back-Bench support. In Farming News of 1 June 1990, he was reported as having said about agriculture:
    "We have no strategy and we won't have until the general election."
    I hope that farmers will see through that. At a recent Question Time in which I participated, he asked:
    "Is the Minister not aware that it simply does not make sense to throw good money after bad to subsidise farmers?"—[Official Report, 29 November 1990; Vol. 181, col. 998.]
    Farmers will remember that as we approach the next general election. They will see through the Labour party's blandishments in trying to coax support front the countryside.
    6.9 pm
    Mr. Martyn Jones: Last November, I was unlucky enough to come second in the ballot for private Members' motions. I chose a subject almost identical to the one that we are debating today, though I limited it to the future of Welsh farming, since it is areas such as mine in Wales that are being hit hardest by the conditions created in agriculture over the last 10 years. I believe that such areas throughout the United Kingdom will suffer a decline of catastrophic proportions if farming is subjected to the continued pressures of dropping prices, crippling interest rates, high inflation and the vagaries of the weather, compounded by badly handled food scares and, in the sheep sector, French protectionism.
    Farmers, especially small farmers, are in a vice. On the one hand, to maintain incomes they must intensify and modernise. That threatens the industry's long-term sustainability and can harm the natural environment, the social structure in rural areas and even, possibly, public health. On the other hand, current methods of farm support are discredited by consumers and taxpayers alike; they do not even support farming, which is their stated aim.
    Farmers in areas like mine will not be able to continue in agriculture and also continue to protect the visual and amenity value of the countryside if prices keep declining. Last October, draft ewes were selling for £15. In 1989, they made £27, and the year before that, £35. The
    1042
    Government's own figures bear this out. They show that farm incomes in Wales were cut by more than £12 million last year, on top of a fall of over £20 the previous year. If prices continue to decline and price support is cut also, farming will have little future on the hills of Wales.
    This drop in prices alone would be bad enough, but when it is coupled with higher prices for machinery and inputs, huge rises in interest rates, the poll tax, reduced services in rural areas—bus services have been decimated in my area since deregulation—it makes the rural situation dire. The list does not stop there. Water connection charges have quintupled since privatisation and telephone connection charges, too, have risen. Post offices are being forced to close, and small shops are becoming non-viable. The rural environment in Wales and elsewhere is under serious threat.
    If farmers are driven off the land—it is happening already—whole parishes will become wastelands. In my constituency, farmers with family farms feel powerless. They see lamb on sale in Tesco's for the equivalent of £70, when they have received possibly £25; they see their bills rising remorselessly; they see capital tied up in equipment that they cannot use because they cannot afford the staff to operate it.
    Faced with this depressing scenario, what are the Government doing? They have given a small increase—14 per cent.—in hill livestock compensatory amount payments. That is very welcome indeed, of course, but it must be remembered that farmers' total incomes have fallen by 22 per cent. in the last year alone. If the HLC'A payments are adjusted, in real terms—that is, taking account of 1990–91 prices—the £142 million that is to be spent this year is approximately the same as the amount paid in 1988, and is less than that paid in 1987.
    The Minister, quite rightly, rubbished the proposals for reform of the CAP that Commissioner MacSharry published recently. I am afraid that the Minister also attempted to score a cheap debating point when I put a question to him on 24 January. That was deplorable because, as he must know, I do not speak from the Front Bench, and therefore could not reply.
    My question related to leaked proposals, which, so far as I was aware at the time—the Minister may have had other information; for all I know, he himself may have leaked the proposals—related to a reduction of expenditure on intervention and to support for small farmers. When it turned out that Mr. MacSharry's detailed proposals contained a definition of "small farm" that excluded the kind of small family farm in my constituency and in most other parts of Great Britain, it was clear that the results of the proposals would be quite different from their aims.
    It is true, however, that the document of the Council for the Protection of Rural England—"Future Harvest"—is very similar to the Labour party's policy, and not very different from that of the National Farmers Union. Mr. MacSharry's proposals certainly would not help British farming at all. They seem designed to help the tiny, inefficient farmers of southern Europe, while creating large areas of wasteland out of the efficient family farms of Wales.
    While, as I have said, the Government rightly criticised Mr. MacSharry's proposal, they seemed very reticent about coming forward with anything of their own. I suppose that, as their entire philosophy is based on slavish adherence to the free market, this is hardly surprising. A

    1043
    free market, which even the Minister acknowledges does not exist, would mean our farmers having to compete with world prices determined by levels of subsidy, both hidden and overt, paid to farmers elsewhere.
    People in Britain want to enjoy the countryside as well as its produce. They do not want it to decline into a derelict industrial site. However, what can the Government do? We on the Labour side believe that there is a viable future for British farming, but it requires an alternative approach that would be very distasteful to avowed free marketeers. We support the payment of direct income aids to farmers who need support most. Furthermore, we believe that the objectives of the CAP should be broadened to embrace qualitative aspects of food production, including the provision of safe, wholesome food at a reasonable cost, the sensitive management of agricultural land and the maintenance of rural communities. Green premiums would be introduced—farmers would receive a payment for managing their farms according to agreed criteria to encourage less intensive farming methods.
    I am sure that the farmers in my constituency, especially those who wish their families to continue in farming, would welcome the opportunity to farm in such a sustainable way, to be able to plan for a future and to perform their very real role as custodians of the countryside.
    6.17 pm
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I begin by declaring an interest: I am a farmer.
    I read the Liberal motion with some astonishment. Of all the parties in this House, the Liberals are the most fanatically pro-Europe. They know perfectly well that agriculture is a European policy, and that 80 per cent. of agricultural expenditure is authorised by the EC, yet their motion ignores that fact. They dismiss it in precisely eight words, in an extremely lengthy motion.
    The Liberals know, too, that, ever since the Conservatives took office in 1979, our Ministers have been trying ceaselessly, in season and out of season, to change the CAP. For years they came up against a brick wall. They were the only Ministers trying to change the policy; all the others were in favour of it. But now even the most bigoted can see that the CAP is leading to disaster, and our Ministers are at least getting some support from the others—and not before time.
    No one now pretends that the situation is other than serious. The future is uncertain, but it is at just such a time that we need a tough Minister who will fight hard for us. We certainly have just such a friend in the present Minister. He is a jolly good chap to have in our corner, but he has certainly got a fight on his hands.
    The greatest problem is the wholly biased and unrealistic attitude of the European Agriculture Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry. It is incredible that someone who has such a romantic, nursery-rhyme concept of agriculture should have been appointed Agriculture Commissioner in the first place. If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. He equates small with good, and his proposals weight the scales against efficient farmers, in favour of small farmers—just because they are small, not because they are good. His idea of a family farm is a tiny, heavily subsidised smallholding—possibly somewhere in
    1044
    Eire or in Germany—where the husband works in a car factory during the day, works on the farm part-time and lives off subsidies. This is certainly not in the interests of consumers, who want to see food produced as efficiently, not as romantically, as possible, at prices they can afford.
    The words "family farms" in the Liberal motion send shivers up my spine. The Liberals use that term at their peril, because their idea of a family farm and the continentals' idea of a family farm are poles apart. It would be crazy so to arrange farm prices that only farmers with fewer than 40 cows could make a living; 60 per cent. of British milk producers would suffer savage cuts, compared with only I per cent. in Greece, Spain and Portugal.
    The farmers in my constituency will have noted with interest the Minister's observation that in north-west Lancashire and the Dales, out of 7,937 active milk producers, 58 per cent. would suffer a 10 per cent. quota cut if the MacSharry proposals were to be implemented. His proposals will cut cereal support prices by 40 per cent., but farmers with under 30 hectares would be fully compensated, and twice as many continental farmers as British farmers would be compensated. Under the proposals, 20 per cent. of United Kingdom cereal areas would have to be taken out of production but only half that amount in the EC. He also wants to reduce the headage rates for sheep, which would affect us more than any other country. This would be utterly disastrous for farmers in my part of the world.
    The proposals are absolutely idiotic because, by encouraging the least efficient farmers—Mr. MacSharry always refers to them not as inefficient farmers but as family farmers—Mr. MacSharry would leave the world markets wide open for the United States, Australia and New Zealand exporters. The United Kingdom would be driven from the world markets. If farming is to survive as an economic activity in this country, the proposals must be defeated. The Minister devotes much energy to ensuring that they are defeated and to building up coalitions in the European Community. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) will know that, in the European Community, we have to build up coalitions in order to achieve anything. However, we need to replace those proposals with ones that will be less costly to the taxpayer and will go directly to the farmer, while improving and maintaining the environment.
    If support prices are to be reduced, they must be reduced fairly throughout the EC and in the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) seems to be more interested in the incomes of those in the developing world than the incomes of our farmers. I am very interested in the developing world and have served on committees and delegations that have been there.
    Mr. Morley: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I shall give way in a moment.
    Farmers in the developing world can grow a great many crops that we cannot grow and they should concentrate on them. If we must take cuts in support for our products, we must insist that support prices for wine, olive oil, tobacco and cotton are also reduced. It must not pay southern European farmers to produce for intervention, as they

    1045
    were doing until quite recently. They must also be obliged to obtain an increasing share of their income from the market.
    Set-aside may reduce surpluses in the arable sector, but the countryside must not be left looking ugly. It must be environmentally cared for and financed. We must be certain that, if we set land aside, other EC countries do not increase their production to fill the gap. For centuries, the British have taken it for granted that farmers do not merely produce food, but care for the appearance of the countryside. After all, they had the biggest interest in doing so, as their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren would inherit that countryside. That was easier to achieve when labour was cheap and plentiful, but it takes much training, skill and time to maintain the dry stone walls and lay hedges, which are so beautifully maintained in my part of the country, and which townspeople will drive many miles to see.
    If urban dwellers want farmers to care for the countryside, farmers should be paid a fee—not a subsidy—for maintaining our hedges and walls in the traditional way. There is much more mileage in the environmentally sensitive areas scheme, which benefits farmer and visitor alike. The cost of caring for the countryside should be an integral part of the common agricultural policy and should be paid for, not just tacked on at the end.
    Farmers are fiercely individual, and the huge, and economically powerful food processors and chain stores take advantage of that fact to cut prices to farmers. Ten years ago, milling wheat cost £105 a tonne and the housewife's loaf cost 34p, of which the farmer received 8·5p. Now, milling wheat costs about £110, and a loaf costs 50p, of which the farmer receives 9p—just ½p more in 10 years. The remainder is gobbled up by the processors and retailers. There should be a fair balance between what the farmer receives and what the consumer pays, and the middleman should not skim off all the cream.
    A substantial fall in interest rates would help farmers most. Yesterday's 0·5 per cent. fall is welcome, but a further 0·5 per cent. cut in the near future could make the difference between survival and failure for many farmers. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for the 14 per cent. increase in the hill cow subsidy and higher-rate ewes announced on Monday, and his efforts to have payments made more rapidly, to which my farmers attach much importance.
    I shall close as I began. When things are tough, one must know who one's friends are; I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is a friend of agriculture and will fight hard in Europe for British farmers and housewives.
    6.25 pm
    Mrs. Sylvia Heal: Opposition Members have often criticised the Government's economic policy, highlighting its disastrous impact on industry, commerce and families. Among the many groups who have been adversely affected are the farming community. They do not always have a good public image. Perhaps in the past they have cried wolf too often, but this year there seems to be a great deal of substance to their claims that they are facing difficulties.
    Farming income is at its lowest for 40 years and, according to the National Farmers Union, farmers' bank debts have soared to £7·3 million. That combination spells disaster and hardship, for behind every stastistic there is an
    1046
    everyday story of country folk who face difficulties. High interest rates have been one of the major factors, and the 0·5 per cent. drop announced yesterday, although welcome, is by no means enough to solve the problems. The farmer who owns his own farm, has no overdraft and no hired labour may be able to weather the storm if he draws in his belt, but far more typical is the tenant farmer who has an overdraft and employs farm workers. He faces several problems. He also faces the justifiable demands of the farm workers, who are seeking to earn a reasonable living wage as they too try to cope with additional financial pressures.
    Farmers whom I have met in my constituency are aware of the need to meet those demands, but they regard them as yet another pressure on them. For that group of farmers, there can be no light at the end of the tunnel. The National Farmers Union says that farmers' debts for 1990 were five times as great as their income, which dropped by 15 per cent. that year. I have spoken to farmers whose income is unsufficient to service their overdrafts. One Mid-Staffordshire farmer has shown me his bank statements over a 10-year period. His overdraft has increased by 800 per cent., his standard of living has declined considerably, yet he is working as hard in 1991 as he was in the 1980s—if not harder.
    Some farmers have solved that problem by selling parts of their farms—providing that they can find buyers. In addition to high interest rates, farmers are struggling with falling crop and livestock prices. Many farmers in Mid-Staffordshire rely on members of their families to provide the extra labour required to manage the farm. That extra pair of hands is often provided by their wives, who not only help on the farm but may even run bed and breakfast to help supplement the family income. Farmers with children express concern and disappointment that their children no longer work the family farm, not necessarily because they do not want to, but because they are offered much better-paid jobs elsewhere, perhaps with perks and conditions with which the farmers cannot compete. The income from farming cannot support the family unit.
    Farmers are worried not only about the loss of a pair of hands, but about the future of farming and rural communities. The nature of the industry is such that when farmers are planting crops or breeding and buying livestock they need stability to help long-term planning—and that has been missing. Farmers also need a Government who will respond quickly to their need for advice or compensation when faced with crises such as salmonella or BSE. They want reforms in the CAP, so that most of the budget does not go on disposing of surpluses which are both inefficient and morally wrong.
    Perhaps British farmers have been the victims of their own success at improving efficiency and productivity. The subsidy must help both the supplier and the consumer. If reforms do not take place, we are likely to be left with some large ranch-type farms at one end and small part-time farms, like many in Europe, at the other.
    In the past we have relied on the farmers to manage the countryside so that we can all enjoy the benefits of their good husbandry. The farmers, however, will not be able to continue to be the caretakers of the countryside if they are short of money. That is why a policy like that of the Labour party, which offers green premiums to help farmers to protect the countryside and grow food using fewer chemicals, is attractive to them.

    1047
    Tomorrow morning, more than 52 million people will require breakfast, and most of the ingredients of their breakfasts will be supplied by the British farmer. Will that still happen in 10 years' time, or will we rely even more on imports from the rest of the world?
    As a Member representing a farming constituency, and as a consumer who wants the security of knowing that we have a stable home agriculture, I declare an interest in the future of farming. This debate has been about the crisis in farming, and, to judge from what I hear from farmers in my constituency, they believe that the Government cannot solve their problems in that crisis.
    6.32 pm
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Northern Ireland has a unique place in agriculture in the United Kingdom because agriculture is its main industry. More than a third of its exports come from the agriculture sector, which provides more employment in its ancillary industries than any other source of employment. Therefore, Northern Ireland is interested in and shocked by what is happening in agriculture today.
    I believe that it would be in the best interests of farmers if the common agricultural policy were scrapped and we returned to national Governments looking after their own farmers. I heard the Minister saying that he hates the MacSharry proposals and that he was going to fight them and defeat them; but I want to ask how he proposes to do that. Under the new voting arrangements in the Council of Ministers, opposition from the United Kingdom, even in concert with one or two other states, would not be enough to block any package supported by the other member states. What is happening in agriculture, as the Parliamentary Secretary well knows, is politics. It has nothing to do with good farming or good production. That is why Portugal, Italy and Ireland—and Mr. MacSharry—are involved. The sooner the House faces up to that, the better for everyone concerned.
    The Parliamentary Secretary has been in Europe and he knows what is happening there. He has been a Member of the European Parliament. I asked in a parliamentary question recently what consultations the Commission has had with Her Majesty's Government about the proposals for the compensation of the small family farmers of Northern Ireland. I was not referring to farmers with two or three acres; I was talking about farmers with an average 50 acres. That is the size of the average small family farm in Northern Ireland. In any event, I was told in a written answer that there had so far been no specific consultations on this question between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Commission. How do farmers feel about that? I am sure that the House would like to know what substitute or alternative proposals there are—what strategy the Minister intends to pursue.
    Farming is in crisis, and more so in Northern Ireland because of our special position. People in Britain buying cereals do not have to pay extra transport costs for them as we do. Every farmer in Northern Ireland is at a disadvantage from the start. Now they will be at an even greater disadvantage; they will be pushed off the land altogether.
    The Minister would help us all by telling us tonight what his alternative strategy is and how he intends to call
    1048
    on the EEC to reject the MacSharry proposals and replace them with proposals that will help throughout the Community. Does he have alternatives; can he sell them and find the necessary support to defeat the proposals? There is a political coalition in the EEC which is not interested in farming. It is interested in the EEC purse and in how deeply it can put its hand into that purse.
    These are the facts as I see them, as a Member of the European Parliament.
    6.36 pm
    Sir Russell Johnston: This has been a debate about a serious issue. Agriculture unquestionably faces its worst crisis since the war. I welcome the Minister's presence throughout the debate, but I regret the absence of the shadow Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the absence of any Scottish Minister.
    After the war, we first had a long period of relative stability, ushered in by Tom Williams. It is right to pay tribute to him for what he did. Then we joined the European Community and had a relatively short but enormously successful period of expansion and increased production and productivity, during which, through the common agricultural policy, we achieved a 75 per cent. self-sufficiency rate.
    Many Members have rightly said that the CAP is in desperate need of reform—but we must remember two things: first, that it produced self-sufficiency where before there was shortage; and secondly, that when there began to be over-production, the European Commission, which is often vilified, repeatedly brought the problem to the attention of the Council of Ministers, with proposals for rectifying it. It was the political failure of the Council of Ministers to tackle these matters which lies at the root of our present problems.
    I notice the Minister nodding happily, and that is all very well; but, for example, the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, went down to the west country weeks before milk quotas were introduced urging farmers in the west country to adopt the solution of producing more and more. So we share our part of the blame for that.
    There is uncertainty, and lack of confidence and of a sense of a clear way ahead—and we tax the Government with all those things.
    The Minister provided us with a sort of low-grade entertainment show—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) was perhaps a little better. I want to quote a letter from a constituent, Mrs. Mary MacKenzie of Newtonmore, written on 12 January:
    "We all know that the British Government are able to increase HLCA payments, but not only will they not announce an increase, they have not even sent out the application forms yet."
    The letter was written in response to a letter that I had sent to the Minister of State in the House of Lords with responsibility for Scottish agriculture. It continued:
    "In any other year our completed form would be being processed by now and we would be awaiting the cheque a good proportion of which (£2,900—last year) would be used to pay the farmer who winters our hogs and gimmers. He says"—
    that is, the Minister in the Lords—
    'the French farmers have been 'especially hard hit'. When I first wrote to you we were very despondent, having just sold our calves with much reduced income, but worse was to come

    1049
    when we sold the sheep and lambs. In 1989 our income from the autumn sales of sheep, cast ewes, claves and cast cows was £25,784 and 1990 that income was £19,032·10."
    That is a very large drop. I accept that the HLCA has now been paid, but neither the Minister's speech nor his record impresses people who are struggling with debt.
    The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), who led for the Opposition, delivered a sensible and constructive speech and was right to attack the Minister's obsession with size. The hon. Member for Gloucester, West (Mr. Marland) helped us with a useful critique of the figures proposed by MacSharry. He was quite right, of course, but if the figures are changed, matters could also greatly change.
    For example, the NFU calculation on milk shows that, if 200,000 litres is used as a definition of a small milk producer, cuts in Germany will be 3 per cent., in France 5 per cent., in Denmark 17 per cent., in the Netherlands 30 per cent. and in the United Kingdom 50·4 per cent. Plainly, that is totally unacceptable. What difference would it make if the base were 300,000 or 350,000 litres? We must discuss this, not just in terms of the proposed figures, but in terms of what we are trying to do. I shall return to that. Existing milk quotas in European Community countries, except for the United Kingdom, are too high and are resulting in overproduction of approximately 14 per cent.
    Mr. McKelvey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Russell Johnston: I am pushed for time, but I shall give way and hope that the hon. Gentleman is brief.
    Mr. McKelvey: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, when those figures are adjusted for Scotland, they will mean a 75 per cent. cut for Scottish farmers.
    Sir Russell Johnston: That is a good point, and I accept it.
    The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) drew attention not only to the livestock crisis in the hills, but to the difficulties faced by soft fruit growers. If the amendment that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) tabled had been selected, we would have supported it. He was right about the absence of forward thinking.
    The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) spoke about indebtedness and the consequent impact of interest rates, as did the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal), who was also properly concerned with farm wages. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) spoke knowledgeably about the erosion of the rural environment in Wales. The hon. Member for Lancaster felt that food should be produced economically and not romantically, but she favoured well-maintained dry stone dykes. Perhaps we are closer than the furious torrent of her words suggested.
    The hon. Member for Antrim, South—
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Antrim, North.
    Sir Russell Johnston: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I am sure that he is always north of most of us. He rolled out in his thunderous way and rightly asked the Minster what on earth he proposes for the future. That is the key to the whole debate.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) was polite and over-fair to the Minister. Sadly, the Minister was himself—smooth tongued and glib and, as always, eager to make party
    1050
    politics and to obscure the principal issues in a plethora of words. He was much more anxious to spend time trying to make political capital than to address issues. The Minister cannot tell me or any of my hon. Friends that we have an easy time in politics or that we play at pretend politics and do not care for our constituents. I am a tolerant man and I am prepared to listen to his arguments, but I am not getting the chance to hear them. He should do me and my hon. Friends the decency of listening to us.
    There is a considerable surplus in butter and beef. I am told that about 45 per cent. of the beef surplus is directly attributable to the customer response to BSE, mad cow disease.
    Mr. Gummer indicated dissent.
    Sir Russell Johnston: It is all very well for the Minister to shake his head, but that is what the NFU tells me, and that is the only criterion that I can use. The Minister did not mention mad cow disease, but if it is responsible for about 45 per cent. of the beef surplus in the Community, it is a substantial matter. What is being done about it, how much more is being spent on research and are we making any progress? That is an important and grave matter.
    We have to contain production, reduce surpluses and, naturally, we have to contain public expenditure. We must enable rural economies to survive, and that will mean redirecting income, which is what MacSharry talks about. We must find a way through the GATT negotiations. As the hon. Member for Taunton perceptively observed, those things have to be done at a time when agriculture is less politically popular than it used to be. It is more under assault than it used to be and finds it more difficult to get a resonance from the public.
    We do not pretend that the problems are easy to solve; nor do we say different things in different places. I should like to think that we are reasonable politicians and, as such, we should like to see a sensible, staged policy for the future. I accept that the MacSharry proposals are unacceptable, not just in the north of Ireland but in that other place which the hon. Member for Antrim, North would not normally mention.
    The problem that MacSharry addresses will not go away. Extensification, set-aside and rural management schemes will all help, but there must be some transfer of income from the big to the small to maintain rural life while retaining the market spur. MacSharry has the right idea but the wrong figures. The Minister said about the MacSharry proposals:
    "We hate them. We condemn them".
    Those are not the words of a rational negotiator.
    This has been a good debate and hon. Members have shown a deep concern for agriculture. The Government have not given agriculture sufficient priority in their thinking; nor have they been sufficiently clear about where they are going, and that is what farmers want to know.
    6.47 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Almost all hon. Members agree that many farmers face difficult times. We know that that is true and that there is no point in pretending otherwise. Few people have given the reasons for that. A biblical plague of locusts has not descended from the sky. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) has said, the basic structural problem of over-production still exists

    1051
    in the Community. In many respects, there is over-production also in the world market. Until we tackle that, we will not put farm incomes right, because we cannot maintain everybody on the land producing food that people do not wish to eat. Until supply and demand can be brought closer together, it will be impossible to maintain incomes from the marketplace. If that cannot be done, little can be done to maintain incomes other than by aid and subsidy.
    It is not the policy of this Government or any hypothetical Government to allow farmers to become the recipients of perennial social security payments merely because they are farmers. That would be wrong for this or any other Government. I have mentioned overproduction, but we also know that there have been fundamental changes in patterns of consumption. BSE has been a problem in this country, but throughout the Community there is a decline in beef consumption. It may be a sociological trend, but it exists, and it started well before the BSE problem started in the United Kingdom.
    There have been specific problems such as BSE, the drought, and early marketing of lambs because of the mild winters that we enjoyed until recently. There were problems also in the French and Irish markets, and because of the Gulf war, with the closing of middle east markets. In addition, output has been increasing, and this time there is not the blessed drought in the United States that helped us so much for a couple of years. World prices are declining, and the catastrophic fall in the value of the dollar has had an impact on the Community budget.
    Neither farmers nor Governments can do much about those factors. Instead, we can only try to cope with them in the context of the Community. Where we can help, we do. That is why we increased the HLCA, and why it was so well received. We targeted it specifically at the most difficult sector—the uplands and the hardy breeds, which also received an increase last year. The forms were delayed because we were compelled to adopt a new scheme, which we opposed but which was forced upon us by the Community. Until we did that, we could not proceed to issue forms—but they are now all on their way. We will do the maximum we can to get payments to farmers as quickly as possible, because we know the urgency of the cash flow problems they face. I freely give that undertaking.
    We also increased the suckler cow premium to the maximum, and developed a whole series of schemes to assist farms where possible. However, we must still apply a test of value for money. I repeat that we are not, and cannot be, in the business of turning the farmer into a recipient of social security purely because he is a farmer. That is at the heart of our objections to the MacSharry proposals—for it would have that effect on a whole category of farmers.
    I admire the struggle of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) in trying to decide what parts of the MacSharry proposals he liked or disliked. But he said that he was trying, and we all like triers. We are all reasonable people on these Benches, and we have never abused Mr. MacSharry. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] We may have said one or two marginally critical things about his proposals, but there is a distinction to be drawn between Mr. MacSharry—the personality with whom we
    1052
    have to deal, day in, day out, and with whom our relations are impeccable—and his proposals, which we think are pretty bad for the United Kingdom.
    My right hon. and hon. Friends and others reiterated their objections, and it helps us to know that the House is united in its opposition to the proposals. We need that influence and certainty in Brussels in arguing why we think that MacSharry's proposals are unfriendly to the United Kingdom. One reason is that they are fundamentally anti-commercial and anti-economic. One cannot engineer a flight from the marketplace. The quotas and controls implicit in the MacSharry proposals move away from the marketplace, and that does not make sense for farmers. Agricultural needs are best met by a policy that is organised around commercial operations that can survive in a market place. The proposals would also be expensive to implement. Curbing excessive expenditure by a large-scale programme of adding to the budget seems to us somewhat perverse.
    The proposals also discriminate against the United Kingdom because of the price-tagging restraint that would have to be observed by United Kingdom farmers, and because they are selective in the product range that they cover, whereas the products of others that are seriously in surplus in the Community are not even touched by the MacSharry proposals.
    The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned small farms. We should not romanticise about them. Many people are getting out of farming on the continent, where there is a problem of diversification. We do not have that problem in the United Kingdom, as I know from my own constituency. I will take lessons from no one on the problems of small farmers and farming. The problem in my Pennine constituency is not farmers trying to get out, but people trying to get planning permission to convert the barn and to live in it.
    We object also to the attempt to keep pocket farms in existence beyond any reasonable test of viability. We are not opposed to the small farm. When we had 1 per cent. of milk quota to distribute, my right hon. Friend the Minister and myself decided to give a little over the odds to the smaller farmer to help him to survive. We sought also to introduce a new entrants scheme to help people who wanted to move into the industry. We have introduced our proposals on tenancies to help the smaller or younger farmer to get into the industry.
    We will not take it from anybody that we have an ideological hostility to the small farm. Instead, we believe that the small British farm should not pay for the pocket farm elsewhere. That is not only wrong, but a futile policy. A farm of 40 cows, which will produce roughly 200,000 litres, is a fairly small one for the United Kingdom and for other parts of the Community. Even some people in the Republic of Ireland would regard it as a small-scale farm. The small or family farm would undoubtedly be hit by the MacSharry proposals, and there would be precious few beneficiaries in the United Kingdom from the pocket farm approach that appears to be at the heart of them.
    It is true that we must work to find allies in the Council, and that we must respond to its proposals. The Commission has the sole right to initiate legislation, and we realised from the start that coalition building is the name of the game. We have been very successful in that. We were at the heart of the rational opposition to the MacSharry proposals because we managed to persuade others to come to our side.

    1053
    Despite much of the rhetoric surrounding small farmers, when they were faced with the choice of opting for the commercial farm capable of delivering to the market place or for the nostalgic concept of peasantry, they decided that their national interests were best served by the commercial farm concept. That was the day when the bluff was called.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Marland) made an important speech. He will excuse me if I refer to the intervention made in his speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), who I think was disappointed not to be called. He referred to the cereal acreage increase and to set-aside. British cereal acreage fell by 173,000 hectares in one year, and by 30,000 hectares the previous year. Since we introduced set-aside in Britain, there has been a decline in the cereal acreage. That philosophy has not been applied with anything like equal vigour on the continent.
    The set-aside may turn out to be one of the pivotal ideas in the reformed MacSharry proposals. One of our pivotal ideas is to ensure that, whatever new law the Community makes, it becomes the law for everyone. Laws should apply equally across the Community, and burdens should be fairly shared.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: The Minister has explained why he does not like the MacSharry proposals, and the right hon. Gentleman said why he does not like our proposals. Nor does the Minister like the NFU's proposals on production control. In what direction do the Government want to go?
    Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, and if I have time, I will give him that explanation. The Government have set out their ideas on changing the CAP. They embrace a wide concept, but the essence is that there must be a move closer to the marketplace.
    Mr. Morley: The hon. Gentleman does not say how.
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) spoke of slavish adherence to the free market. Anyone who has to run a part of the CAP will find it slightly curious to be accused of that. We would like to see a little more slavery from the rest when it comes to a free market. The hon. Gentleman said also that there should also be direct income aid. That is a horrendous proposition, if one multiplies it across the Community. There followed a series of happy little phrases, one of which was sensitive management. That was not very specific in helping farmers to comprehend the prospects of a Labour Government.
    We think it important to operate closer to the market place. We see a role for specific aid for farmers—well tested and well costed—when there is a countryside function for them to preform. We see a role for certain restraints on output, which we may well find ourselves obliged to observe under the GATT. That is an important element for our farmers as well as all the others; the alternative is an horrendous trade war.
    Those are coherent and long-standing policies, which remain valid and which we will defend. The Liberal motion is woolly, wordy and worthy, and is not worth a row of beans. I am disappointed to learn that the great party of Gladstone has surrendered to dirigisme and bureaucracy. I regret it, and the party will regret it, and I ask the House to reject the motion.
    Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 46, Noes 141.

    Division No. 66]

    [7 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    McKelvey, William

    Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

    Maclennan, Robert

    Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

    Madden, Max

    Beggs, Roy

    Marek, Dr John

    Beith, A. J.

    Michael, Alun

    Bellotti, David

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

    Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Campbell-Savours, D. N.

    Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

    Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

    Morley, Elliot

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    O'Hara, Edward

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Cox, Tom

    Salmond, Alex

    Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Foster, Derek

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Foulkes, George

    Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Hardy, Peter

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Haynes, Frank

    Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Wallace, James

    Howells, Geraint

    Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

    Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Wilson, Brian

    Johnston, Sir Russell

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Kennedy, Charles

    Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

    Livsey, Richard

    Mr. Ronnie Fearn.

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Freeman, Roger

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael

    Gale, Roger

    Amess, David

    Gill, Christopher

    Arbuthnot, James

    Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Arnold, Sir Thomas

    Gregory, Conal

    Ashby, David

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Grist, Ian

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Ground, Patrick

    Benyon, W.

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Hague, William

    Blackburn, Dr John G.

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Body, Sir Richard

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

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Harris, David

    Boswell, Tim

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

    Bowis, John

    Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

    Bright, Graham

    Hind, Kenneth

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

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)

    Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

    Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

    Buck, Sir Antony

    Jack, Michael

    Butler, Chris

    Janman, Tim

    Carrington, Matthew

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Carttiss, Michael

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

    Chapman, Sydney

    Kilfedder, James

    Chope, Christopher

    King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

    Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)

    Knight, Greg (Derby North)

    Clark, Rt Hon Sir William

    Knowles, Michael

    Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

    Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Lord, Michael

    Cran, James

    McCrindle, Sir Robert

    Curry, David

    Macfarlane, Sir Neil

    Davis, David (Boothferry)

    Maclean, David

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Mans, Keith

    Dunn, Bob

    Marland, Paul

    Dykes, Hugh

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Evennett, David

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Favell, Tony

    Miller, Sir Hal

    Fishburn, John Dudley

    Mitchell, Sir David

    Forman, Nigel

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Morrison, Sir Charles

    Fox, Sir Marcus

    Moynihan, Hon Colin

    1055

    Neale, Sir Gerrard

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Sims, Roger

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

    Nicholson, David (Taunton)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Norris, Steve

    Speed, Keith

    Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

    Speller, Tony

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Page, Richard

    Stevens, Lewis

    Paice, James

    Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Summerson, Hugo

    Patnick, Irvine

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Pawsey, James

    Thurnham, Peter

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Viggers, Peter

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Waller, Gary

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Rathbone, Tim

    Wheeler, Sir John

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Riddick, Graham

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Rowe, Andrew

    Wood, Timothy

    Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

    Sackville, Hon Tom

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Mr. Neil Hamilton and

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

    Shelton, Sir William

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 300 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes Her Majesty's Government's intention to negotiate in Brussels so as to secure changes to the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Community which make it more market-oriented, thereby giving an incentive to efficiency, reduce surpluses, thereby lessening tensions in international trade, keep spending within the agricultural guideline, avoid discrimination against United Kingdom interests, and integrate environmental considerations more firmly into the Policy; and recognises that such a stance is necessary to take proper account of the interests of taxpayers and consumers while offering a realistic prospect of a successful future for British farming.

Fishing Industry
7.12 pm
Mr. James Wallace: I beg to move.
That this House condemns Her Majesty's Government for presiding over a crisis in the fishing industry which threatens the economic and social fabric of fishing communities throughout the United Kingdom; condemns in particular the compulsory tie up scheme and the Government's continuing refusal to promote structural support through the implementation of a well targeted decommissioning scheme; and calls upon the Government to pursue, with greater vigour, measures to combat industrial fishing and technical conservation measures including the adoption of square mesh panels, and to enter into discussions with representatives of the fishing industry for the purpose of devising a decommissioning scheme which will lead to a managed reduction in fleet capacity.
Those who take an interest in the fishing industry will have little doubt about the serious crisis of confidence in the industry. The eight-day tie-up may have given fishermen and their representatives a focus for their wrath and frustration, but even if the Minister were to surprise us greatly and announce this evening that he intended to renounce the scheme, I am sure that he would agree that the fishing industry's problems would not go away. This debate provides us with an important opportunity to discuss the serious issues that face the industry.
No fishing industry debate has taken place since the vital Council of Ministers meeting in December. The industry is vital in economic terms to many coastal communities, particularly in those areas where other opportunities for employment are in short supply. Therefore, my right hon. and hon. Friends thought it appropriate to bring on to the Floor of the House our great concern about the future health of the fishing industry. We are conscious of the damage that could be done to the social and economic fabric of fishing communities if the malaise is not adequately dealt with. We do so, too, in the hope that Ministers, who have it in their power to improve matters, will listen to the debate and respond to it.
The Minister will no doubt draw attention to the fact that at the Council of Ministers meeting in December he managed to obtain continued recognition of the United Kingdom's claims under the Hague preference and improved flexibility with regard to taking our western mackerel quota east of the 4 deg W line. The Government ought to be congratulated. I have no quarrel with those aspects which are referred to in the Government amendment.
I suspect that we shall also hear from the Minister, as we did from Fisheries Ministers throughout 1990, that although catch opportunities and total allowable catches have been reduced, the price of fish landed has increased and fishermen's income has not necessarily declined. That ought to be put in its proper context. Even in 1990, in absolute terms fishermen's incomes were below those in 1987. In real terms, they were even further below those in 1987.
The price that a fisherman gets for his landings is only one very small part of the tale. We should also consider the return that he is or is not getting on his capital and the high rates of interest he has to pay on his borrowings, due to the Government's failed economic policies. In recent months, he has also had to face the increased cost of fuel, after oil

1057
prices rose so sharply following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. In Fishing News of 1 February there was a report that already there are signs of landings prices beginning to fall. I hope that the Government will not take refuge behind the wafer-thin excuse that they parroted throughout 1990—that prices are being maintained, or are even higher, and that therefore incomes are not falling.
We do not believe that the eight-day rule should be the be all and end all of the debate. Had it been called, I should have welcomed the amendment tabled by the Scottish National party. I hope that the debate will not be seen as a substitute for a very full debate of the statutory instrument and the prayer against it dealing with the eight-day tie-up, which will have to be amended in the light of yesterday's announcement.
Considerable wrath and ill feeling have been generated throughout the industry by the tie-up. According to recent. editions of Fishing News, in my constituency Mr. John Goodlad, the secretary of the Shetland Fishermen's Federation, has described the proposals as "unjust and unfair". On 8 February, skipper Tom Watson of Fleetwood said in Fishing News that it was the last nail in the coffin and that
"This Government doesn't want a fishing industry, that's for sure."
Skipper David Hunt of Lowestoft was reported in Fishing News of 25 January as saying:
"Many more will be forced out until there are only a few left, who will then be disregarded, and Mr. Gummer will receive an accolade from his colleagues for a job well done."
Skipper Jim Vanko of Eyemouth said:
"I wonder how MPs and officials would like their salaries to be reduced and the resultant financial savings squandered? This government has prided itself on encouraging initiative and private investment, yet every way the industry turns our feet are knocked from beneath us."
That is a selection of comments from different parts of the country which demonstrate the outrage that the proposal has caused.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the fact that the proposal will be a tragedy for Northern Ireland. Last year, the whiting catch amounted to 7,395 tonnes. That catch is to be reduced to 2,300 tonnes. The cod catch, which was 6,330 tonnes, is to be reduced to 1,200 tonnes. Northern Ireland's fishing industry entirely agrees with the sentiments expressed in the hon. Gentleman's quotations, as, I am sure, do other members of the fishing industry in other parts of the country—that, if it comes into effect, the proposal will devastate and finish off the industry.
Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman voices the concerns of his fishing constituents very well. The proposal is causing concern throughout the United Kingdom. I am pleased to see that so many hon. Members with constituencies throughout the United Kingdom are present for the debate.
During the debate on 14 December, it was clear that the Government supported the compulsory tie-up. Initially, it was for 10 days. After the Council of Ministers meeting, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) told the House that he had secured a major concession and that the 10 days were to be reduced to eight. If that is victory to the Minister, heaven help us in defeat. Many people found it a negligible concession which would not make any material difference to the fundamental problem.
There are several objections in principle to the
1058
provision. It will put pressure on skippers to put to sea against their better judgment, when weather conditions would make it far safer for them to stay in their home port. There is no guarantee that the eight days in the month during which they choose to tie up will coincide with the eight days of bad weather. The pressure to go out and to earn the livelihood that is being denied them for one third of the month will be far greater. Regrettably, too regularly in the House we mourn the loss of lives in fishing accidents. We do not want that to happen as a result of the regulations. The fishermen themselves are expressing the fear that they may have to put to sea in bad conditions.
There will be damage to the social life of the communities. I recall that, when he came back from the most recent meeting of the Council of Ministers, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told us that one of the important achievements of managing to reduce the 10 days to eight was that it would allow those who had strong religious beliefs to continue to practise their religion and not to have to go to sea on a Sunday. He will no doubt by now be in receipt of a letter from the Presbytery of Shetland which says:
"In an attempt to compensate for being tied up for eight consecutive days every month, fishermen will inevitably begin to fish at weekends. Traditional family weekend activities, including church attendance, and way of life will therefore be put at risk within many small fishing communities around the entire coast of Scotland."
I know that the Minister is a man of profound religious conviction. I hope that he will ponder the effect of the rule on many communities in Scotland, in England and in Northern Ireland.
It is also fair to point out that there must be a question mark over whether the proposal will have the desired effect. The remaining days will be used to fish ever more intensively. We may find that fishermen are going through all the agonies, dangers and disruptions to their social life for no net benefit in terms of conservation. Next year, the Government and the Commission may have to think up another new rule to try to limit fishing activity.
We also have objections of detail. Skippers may have difficulty in crewing vessels when they are unable to offer continuous employment throughout the month, especially in Grampian in the north-east of Scotland, where other industries, such as the oil industry, offer attractive terms and a greater continuity of work.
Share fishermen will also be affected. The rules of the Department of Social Security will still mean that, if the eight days overlap two weeks, share fishermen will not be entitled to claim unemployment benefit, although they have paid a special stamp. In recent correspondence, the Department has shown no intention of relaxing the rules for those circumstances.
A skipper in Westray in my constituency pointed out to me today that, if he is to land his catch at Mallaig, he cannot bring his boat back to Orkney without it counting towards his eight days, even though he may do no fishing en route. It was described to me by another representative of the industry as tantamount to a curfew rather than a tie-up. With the level of fines that are imposed, it is highly unlikely that anyone will try to fish if they want to take a boat back from Aberdeen to Shetland. Fishermen will not fish if they cannot land their catch, and the minute they have landed their catch, it will be perfectly obvious to everyone that they have broken the rules and they will land

1059
up with a hefty fine. I appeal to the Minister. If the regulations are to stay in place, I hope that some practical adjustment can be made to take account of such cases.
It has been pointed out to me that boats will tend to congregate in the bigger ports because they cannot get back to their home port. That may damage the economy of the smaller ports because there will not be work on run-of-the-mill repairs or maintenance. Log jams could occur at the bigger ports because too many boats may seek maintenance there.
Yesterday's derogation, and the concession, if that is what it is, that if vessels carry only long lines or have a net mesh size equal to or greater than 110 mm, with or without a 100 mm square mesh panel, has been welcomed by some sections of the industry. However, the Minister is over-egging it if he says that the concession has the full support of the industry. The English fishermen from the Humber and from the south and east coasts will find it a useful concession. Many of my constituents in Shetland will find it a useful concession because it will bring them a fair measure of relief. However, it does little or nothing for most of the Scottish fleet. It does little or nothing for, for example, the fishermen in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
We are entitled to ask the Minister whether he has any proposals for dealing with their continuing dilemma. Is he trying to divide the industry? The industry may already be divided within ports between the boats that are tied up under the rules and those that are not. That may not be secured by design, but it is quite convenient to have the industry divided on geographical lines. The Minister cannot do something for one part of the industry while ignoring the other. We shall be interested to hear what ideas he has for bringing similar relief to a large part of the Scottish fleet.
It is also fair to say that, although parts of the English industry welcome the concession, they do not do so gladly. It is a bit like a person who has been given a death sentence being told that it has been commuted to life imprisonment. Fishermen are worried that we are setting a precedent which could be extended to other parts of the country and to other species. The adoption of the 110 mm mesh size together with the 100 mm square panel might be seen by Mr. Marin and Commission officials as a signal of an acceptable regime to introduce at a future date. All sections of the industry would be opposed to that.
I have said that the eight-day tie-up rule is not the whole story. We have been landed with it because the United Kingdom Government have done little to take other measures to reduce the size of the fleet or to reduce catches. The Commission has been obliged to come in with measures such as this.
Mr. Alex Salmond: I want to make a point before the hon. Gentleman leaves the specifics of the eight-day tie-up. Does he agree that, although the Government appear anxious to describe the scheme as a European initiative, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the fisheries debate in the House in December, described these incredible measures as sensible?
Mr. Wallace: I always think twice before acceding to an invitation from the hon. Gentleman to agree with him, but on this occasion I must say that I do agree.
1060
All parties agree that the future of the industry depends on a conservation policy. Although it recognised the difficulties, especially after the large cut in the haddock total allowable catch for 1989, the Scottish Fishermen's Federation put forward in the late spring of 1989 a package of technical conservation measures. It included having a clean and effective minimum mesh size of 90 mm with no attachments or devices, whether legitimate or illegitimate, and a one-net rule, so that someone could not fish for white fish using a prawn net. The fishermen also suggested a ban on industrial fishing, an increase in the minimum landing size of whiting and more enforcement powers for fisheries officers on shore.
The debate tends to have become bogged down in mesh sizes. I am not saying that that is not important. The debate has also focused on the square mesh panel. However, we are entitled to ask what happened to some of the other measures. Have they been argued through at European Council meetings? Why not? What has happened to the one-net rule? Perhaps the Minister could report on how he has got on while trying to push that argument.
The objective behind all the measures, especially the square mesh panel, is to conserve stocks and to reduce the discards which many of us agree are one of the most appalling examples of waste. Fish are caught, yet cannot be landed and are dumped back dead into the sea. The square mesh panel and the different mesh size would lead to fishing for better quality and for a better size of fish, which is important for marketing.
The big hole in the Government's approach is their refusal to adopt—or even start to consider and discuss with the industry—a decommissioning policy. We are familiar with the arguments against it. We have heard—and no doubt we shall hear again tonight—that, in the mid-1980s, the Public Accounts Committee rapped the Government's knuckles. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who hopes to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that he will confirm that there was no opposition to decommissioning in principle and that the opposition was to a particular scheme.
We have also been told that a decommissioning scheme will not make any difference—that we will not be able to get the right boats out of the fleet. If the Government say that, they are giving up before they have even started trying. The industry is willing to discuss decommissioning. I am sure that it would not be impossible for Ministers to discuss the matter with the industry and to try to devise a well targeted scheme so that the fleet size can be reduced in a well managed way.
We are then told about the Fontainebleau agreement. I shall not go into the details of that, because it is rather complicated. As I understand it, although on the face of it a decommissioning scheme would involve a 70 per cent. contribution from the Community and a 30 per cent. contribution from the Exchequer, it is argued that, as a result of the Fontainebleau agreement, the contribution would amount to 30 per cent. from the Community and roughly 70 per cent. from the Exchequer. That conveniently ignores the tax implications for the fishermen. It seems that the Government are prepared to play with the figures one way but not to think the implications through.

1061
Hon. Members will recall that the Fontainebleau agreement was a great diplomatic triumph for the former Prime Minister. Surely it is not the fishing industry's fault if, once the details have been worked out, the agreement is not quite as triumphal as it was made out to be at the time. Why should the fishing industry be singled out for discrimination? Why should the Fontainebleau agreement be invoked to deprive them of the opportunity to receive benefits that the European Community wishes them to have?
It is important to note that the common fisheries policy has two strands—the conservative side and the structures side. It is clear that the Commission intends to boost the structures side through decommissioning and by giving assistance to areas that depend on the fishing industry to help them to cope with the reduction in stocks. What we have from the Government is the worst of all worlds. Our fishing communities are penalised by the reduction in stocks, but they are receiving very few of the benefits on the structures sides of the policy. We have never yet had a convincing answer from the Government as to why that should be.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: My hon. Friend will agree that there is an important third strand to Europe's policy on fishing, which is that it recognises national interests through the quotas allocated to the member nations in the various sectors. In that respect, the action of the Spanish fishermen in coming in to our waters and using our quota is devastating to fishermen who are struggling in all the ways that my hon. Friend has described. Certainly in my part of the world, the position that the Government adopt on that will be as important as any other element to fishermen's future.
Mr. Wallace: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's concern for his area. I know that the problem is particularly acute in the waters around the south-west, where there is already evidence of Spanish vessels coming in. If the Government had built up more credit with the Commission over the years, rather than being seen to rubbish proposals such as that for health warnings on cigarette packets, they would have been able to bat on better ground when it came to a clear issue of national interest such as this.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): Pathetic.
Mr. Wallace: The Minister may say that it is pathetic, but the Government have lost the battle and the Minister has given us no indication of how he proposes to defend the national interest. Fishing quotas are different from other aspects of Community policy. There is not a single market. National interests are identified and accepted; indeed, they are the sum and substance of quotas and TACs. The Minister will have to come up with something better than that sedentary remark. He failed to tell us his policy in the farming debate and he ought to do a little better this time.
There are signs that the Commission and those advising it see a need for further cuts in the size and capacity of the European Community fleet. The figure of 40 per cent. has been mentioned. Does the Minister recognise that figure? If the figure is to be anything approaching 40 per cent.,
1062
how do the Government intend to reduce the capacity of the British fleet? Surely it cannot be through bankruptcy and insolvency—
Mr. Robert Hughes: Of course it is.
Mr. Wallace: It is true that that is what is happening, but surely that cannot be a sound or sensible way of going about things, even if it is the Government's way. Why will not the Government face up to their responsibilities and try to find a way in which the process can be properly managed? One young fisherman told me today that he saw little chance of being able to replace his 20-year-old vessel with something better. The Government argue that they are trying to conserve stocks for the fishermen of the future. But there will be no fishing industry in future if they kill it off by the measures that they are introducing. Of course conservation is important, but so is the survival of the industry. The Minister will have to do a lot better than he has done in recent debates if he is to convince us that the Government take the survival of the industry seriously.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister but not the amendment standing in the name of members of the Scottish National party.
7.36 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'while recognising the difficulties which may face fishermen as a result of the decisions for fish conservation reached at the latest EC Council of Fisheries Ministers, endorses the need for such measures to safeguard the long-term interests of fishermen themselves by reducing the over-exploitation of certain fish stocks, welcomes the Government's continuing efforts to secure improved conservation measures and congratulates the Government on securing at the last Fisheries Council a package of measures which included the maintenance of the principle of relative stability, continued recognition of the United Kingdom's claims under the Hague Preference and improved flexibility to take our western mackerel quota east of 4° West.'
If we were still debating agriculture, I might say that I fear that we have shot the fox of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). Perhaps I should say instead that we have landed his fish. The hon. Gentleman said that he would have adopted the Scottish National party's amendment had he had an opportunity to do so, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) said the same in respect of the farming debate. Perhaps the two parties should get together and become one small party instead of two minuscule parties.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the Minister now tell us whether the Ministry will enable the House to debate the statutory instrument referred to in our amendment?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady has been in the House long enough to know that Government Departments do not determine the business of the House. Nevertheless, I am perfectly happy to debate that, or anything else, with the hon. Lady. I am perfectly confident that, following such a debate, the Government's position will be shown to be

1063
convincing and her position will be shown to be ephemeral. I should therefore be delighted to debate the matter with her.
Let me address certain specific and important issues, the first of which is the eight-day tie-up. The origin of that was the scientific advice given to the Commission. That advice was that there had to be a 30 per cent. cut in effort. I did not invent the tie-up, and neither did any of my right hon. or hon. Friends. The orginal proposal was for a 10-day tie-up, along with 120 mm nets, together catching boats 40 per cent. of whose catch comprised cod and haddock. We negotiated on that; indeed, we had no option but to do so.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I cannot follow the logic of the Minister's argument. How can the fishing effort be reduced by tying up for 10 days—now eight days—vessels that trigger the 40 per cent. rule when vessels that are not covered by it can go out as much as they like? How does that reduce the effort?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman should address his question to the Commission, because the Commission is the origin of the proposal, which we contested. We got the proposal improved. If the hon. Gentleman waits a minute, I will tell him what we have done. We managed to reduce the proposal to an eight-day tie-up.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Curry: I have given way twice already and I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman shortly so he need not fret.
We negotiated a tie-up for any period of eight days to apply to vessels which between 1 January 1989 and 30 June 1990 caught more than 100 tonnes of cod and haddock —we introduced that element for the North sea, the west of Scotland and Rockall—and whose catches of the species were more than 40 per cent. of the total landings in weight over the period. That applies broadly speaking, to 75 English and Welsh boats and about 390 Scottish boats. Collectively, those boats were responsible for about three quarters of the United Kingdom catch of the total quota of the species.
I sought from the Commission an undertaking that if we could make an alternative proposal based on selective gear, which would have the equivalent effect, it would entertain that proposal. It took a great deal of effort to get the Commission to agree even to look at such proposals. We obtained the undertaking only at the very end of the day—in the last minute of the negotiations. Since then, my officials have been working hard to put forward those proposals.
Mr. Salmond: From what the Minister says, he has no great belief in the eight-day continuous tie-up. Can we take it that he renounces the view of the Secretary of State for Scotland, expressed in the debate in December, that it was "a sensible measure"? Does the Minister accept that, although the 110 mm option may have some relevance for the English fleet and for some fleets in Orkney and Shetland, for the vast majority of Scottish boats affected by the eight-day continuous tie-up, the 110 mm mesh size is not a serious option?
Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman lives in a remarkable world. In his world, there are no conservation problems. It is a Yeatsian world, in which the seas are teeming with fish.
There is a conservation problem, and it must be addressed. Last year, we had a limitation on days of fishing. The rule was broken practically universally. We must have measures which are effective in cutting effort and are enforceable. The virtue of a tie-up rule, whether hon. Members like it or not, is that it is enforceable and cuts the effort.
Mr. Brian Wilson: Before he moves on, perhaps the Minister could clarify the matter. The Labour party does not follow the populist line pursued by others of saying that there is no conservation problem and nothing needs to be done. But the Minister must give a better answer than that which he gave to my hon. Friend the member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). My hon. Friend did not deny that there was a conservation problem, but he asked whether the tie-up would address that problem. He asked whether it was inevitable or even likely that it would lead to a reduction in effort. The Minister's response was extraordinary. He said, "Don't ask the Government, ask the Commission. It is all the Commission's fault." Is that really the Government's position?
Mr. Curry: That is not what I said. I said that the Commission was the origin of the proposals and that the British Government believed that a tie-up would be effective in cutting effort. But the 10-day proposal went too far, just as the 120 mm net proposal went too far. As I have said in the House time after time, we have two intentions. We must conserve fish stocks but we must also conserve the livelihoods of fishermen. The two are equally important because without one, we cannot have the other, we must have that double objective.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Curry: This is the last time.
Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister saying that, if the measures do not prove effective in reducing fishing effort, he and the Government will be prepared to see the number of days increased?
Mr. Curry: I am saying that we must apply the rules as they have been set by the Community for this year. As I am about to describe, we have some proposals on conservation which we believe will help the position.
We must also deal with technical conservation at a Community level. I was as disappointed as anyone else at the December Council that we could not take greater measures. For the information of hon. Members, I should say that a further Council has been fixed for 16 April to deal with our proposals and those of Commissioner Marin on capacity.
I congratulate my officials, who worked hard to construct our proposal. To be fair, the Commission officials were also helpful and constructive. As Commissioner Marin is a gentleman about whom I have had to say some hard things in the past, I also put it on record that he was co-operative and helpful on the gear option. I hope that we can maintain a constructive and

1065
civilised relationship with him. He has the job and we must deal with him and work out sensible proposals with his help. In this case, it has worked.
The gear option is as follows. Fishermen will be able to use long lines. They will have to use 110 mm diamond shape mesh size nets, with or without the 100 mm square mesh panel. We shall apply a one-net rule so that boats can carry only that net and there is no doubt about the effectiveness of the option. We shall also add rules to stop the ballooning of the cod end and ban lifting bags and topside chafers. All those are elements of the proposal from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, referred to by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). We have taken its suggestions on board and we regard many elements as extremely sensible.
I shall table an amendment to the statutory instrument within the next few days incorporating the gear option, which will apply in legal terms from 1 March. But where vessels are clearly in a position to operate under it from an earlier date, I shall be willing to see them do so. In other words, we shall be sensible and pragmatic about the application of that rule.
There was never a chance of agreeing on a gear option of less than 110 mm. Other countries are also going for the gear option. To my knowledge, they have not yet obtained it. We are the first off the blocks with the gear option. Other countries also asked for the 110 mm mesh size. It was important that we kept our act together and asked for the same thing. The co-operation that we have established with other countries has been helpful.
I do not seek to conceal the fact that some fishermen will not find the gear option advantageous. I do not pretend that it will be received with universal cries of glee. Where whiting is an important element in the catch, some boats will not take the option. For such boats, the tie-up rules must remain, because they are now the law of the land. There will be an effect on the fishing effort. I make it clear that we shall enforce those rules. In our discussions on a whole series of issues in Brussels, not least the future of the common fisheries policy, a great part of our credibility stems from the fact that we enforce the rules. In a recent communication from Commissioner Marin, only one country in the Community was not criticised for its enforcement effort and that was the United Kingdom. That is of material advantage to us in Brussels.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister take on board what is happening in Northern Ireland? I know that he is aware that the fishing industry there is small and employs only about 2,500 people. But if the quotas which are being negotiated are applied, the entire industry will be devastated. Will he consider that?
Mr. Curry: I will certainly take it on board. I shall deal shortly with certain problems in the Irish sea, in which the hon. Gentleman will be interested.
I have taken several interventions. I know that many hon. Members wish to speak so, if I may, I shall be more expeditious from now on so that I can get through my speech.
It is important that the producer organisations phase their catching over the year. That is part of the deal that we have done with Brussels. My officials will be in touch with the organisations to make sure that the fishery stretches across the year. That is also important for all sorts of sensible reasons, such as the guarantee of supply.
1066
There is a conservation problem for cod and haddock. There is a specific problem in the North sea and the west coast of Scotland. In the Irish sea there is a specific problem for cod and whiting. As I have said, the December Council was disappointing, but we have taken on board some of the work done by the fishing organisations. I pay tribute to their work. One element that was never a starter was a proposal that the net size should be 90 mm diameter with an 80 mm panel. I have made it clear in the past and I make it clear again that it was never going to carry the day. It is far too minimalist to be able to carry the day in Scotland.
Mr. Frank Doran: Will the Minister give way on that specific point?
Mr. Curry: No. I am addressing the specific point.
I have said in the past that, if one is serious about conservation, when the present rules are based on a 90 mm diameter diamond mesh, it is not credible to suggest that the principal measure of control should be a 90 mm mesh with merely an 80 mm panel. I do not deny that there would be conservation benefits, but they would not be sufficient.
Mr. Doran: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Curry: No. I am not giving way further, because I do not want to eat up other people's time.
The conservation priorities and the importance of conservation led us to contemplate unilateral action. That is why we have gone out to consultation, which will finish at the end of this week, on the introduction of a 90 mm mesh with a 90 mm panel, which will have a commensurately greater benefit. The object of that is principally to benefit haddock. There is a big year class of haddock out there and it is important to ensure that the stock is not pounded.
If people are serious about conservation, I hope that they will welcome the proposals. We are serious about conservation, and one cannot have conservation and everyone's traditional fishing patterns simultaneously. The two do not go together. It is important to be serious about conservation. We cannot wait for ever in the hope that we shall get some sort of decision out of Brussels, when we know how intolerably slow it is to reach agreement in the Council of Ministers. We cannot see our stocks simply keel over while we are still arguing about the number of boats—
Mr. Doran rose—
Mr. Curry: No, I have already said that I shall not give way. I have been generous in accepting interventions.
Some people will criticise the unilateral character of the proposals, but we have 87 per cent. of the North sea haddock stock and 80 per cent. of the west coast haddock stock. The fishery is predominantly ours, and responsibillity for conserving it is predominantly in our hands. If we decide to go ahead after the consultations, we shall probably apply the changes from 1 July.
We are also proposing a 70 mm square panel in a 70 mm mesh in the prawn and nephrops fishery, to cut the by-catch of small fish. We are out to save the small haddock, as many of them are caught in that fishery. I understand that some Scottish organisations would be willing to see a larger panel size in the nephrops fishery and we shall look at any such proposals sympathetically to see

1067
if we can go further than our current proposals. It is important to ensure that that young year class of haddock grows to maturity.
There is a conservation problem in the Irish sea. That is an area where, frankly, in the past we have invented fish for political reasons. The allowable catches have been kept too high and politics has overruled science. We are still arguing in the Council that we should take the mesh sizes from 70 mm to 80 mm. We shall continue to press for that.
There is another issue that I should like to mention, because I know that hon. Gentlemen will be interested—
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: And Ladies.
Mr. Curry: I have no doubt that hon. Ladies will be especially interested. It relates to the Irish sea fishery for cod, haddock and saithe. We have now decided on the basis of the allocation for the 1991 track records. We have concluded that the 1990 track record is not a reliable basis for the allocation of entitlement. Therefore, the allocations will be based on the track records in the years 1987, 1988 and 1989.
On the distant water fishery—
Mr. David Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Curry: Very well.
Mr. Harris: I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend has said about the track record. Does that mean that the way is now clear for the introduction of sectoral quotas in the south-west in particular? My hon. Friend will be aware that it was the unreliability of those track records—they were based on cheating by certain elements of the fleet —that impacted on the introduction of such sectoral quotas.
Mr. Curry: I was careful in the phraseology I used to explain why we had decided to proceed on the said basis. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it is much more prudent for me to retain that phraseology; I shall deal with his detailed question by correspondence so that I can give him the reassurance he seeks.
The distant water fishery will be of interest to Humberside. We shall shortly announce the allocations in the Greenland waters, which will be significantly better than the entitlements of last year. That should assist the fleet in that area, which, in all fairness, suffered most of all from the 200-mile limits and the closure of the traditional distant deep sea water fishery.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) asked about quota hoppers. He will know that we are in the thick of a European Court case on this and the pleas have been made to the Advocate-General in the Factortame case. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have fought this case vigorously and we are still fighting it. A number of European countries have supported us, and the Germans made an oral presentation in our support.
As the case is under way, I do not want to comment on it, but it is our intention that we should be able to sort this matter out on a basis that maintains for the United Kingdom, the principle of direction and control from the United Kingdom, as that is extremely important.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: There is a clear national interest involved, and Ministers have argued that in the case before
1068
the courts. I welcome the overseas support we have received. Can the Minister say whether a resolution of the matter will soon be reached?
Mr. Curry: We settled certain issues with the Spanish interests rather than pursuing those matters through the courts, because we felt that we could do so in an advantageous way for the United Kingdom. I am confident that we have a substantial case in our favour regarding Factortame that resides in the essential principles of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, and that is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has been defending in the European Court. Our case has the sympathy of a number of member states, because they recognise the problem.
It is fair to say that, when the Community devised the common fisheries policy, it intended that a major management responsibility should remain with the member states. We believe that that is by far the most sensible way in which to run the policy. We want to continue in that manner after the review year of that policy.
Let me make it clear now, as I have made it clear umpteen times in the past, that our objection to decommissioning has nothing to do with the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland knows that I have made that clear many times. Our objections have nothing to do with the Committee's criticisms of the previous scheme. I have said that ad infinitum in the past, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
We object to decommissioning, because we do not believe that it represents value for money. It is not the best way in which to tackle the problems in the fisheries. It considers the problem from the point of view of tonnage rather than catching capacity, which varies dramatically between vessels. We would not necessarily catch the vessels exerting the greatest pressure on the stocks. The motion talks about targeting, but does one target the vessels that make the least catching effort, which would be expensive, or the most effective vessels, which would be a funny way in which to run a scheme? If one took the most effective and modern boats out of service, it would be difficult to justify one's wish for a modern and effective fleet in the future.
One could take out some boats judged on capacity. If one were willing to spend hundreds of millions, one could take out a measurable capacity, but the remaining boats would then increase their efforts. Therefore, one would risk the imposition of a whole new raft of restrictions and regulations to stop that happening.
We believe that there are better ways of going about decommissioning. We should try to free up a rigid and deterministic, monolithic system in the fisheries. We have already introduced measures on capacity aggregation that will particularly help the producer organisations. We have made other proposals to the industry about the ability to amalgamate entitlements. We want a constructive and sensible debate with the industry on that. I am willing to enter such discussions, but the industry must be willing to see a freer, more market-oriented system—
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Market forces.
Mr. Curry: No, I said a "market-oriented system"; there is a deep distinction between the two.
The industry representatives cannot just say that they want a system based on decommissioning alone. We are

1069
renegotiating the multi-annual guidance programme targets at the Commission's request to move to a system of registered tonnage. It is not our idea, but everyone else has undertaken that practice. We hope to be able to reach a conclusion on that. Hon. Members who now argue that our fleet is a long way from target may have to rework some of their arithmetic when we reach agreement.
In 1990, there was a small reduction of 3 per cent. in the size of the registered fleet. We do not know whether that is a blip or a trend, but, clearly, it would be helpful if it were a trend. We have tightened the licensing rules to limit increases in the number of vessels and to prevent increasing capacity.
Mr. Wallace: The Minister has spoken about the difficulty of targeting. Does he accept that the industry is willing to discuss how an effective, targeted decommission scheme could he introduced? The Minister, in common with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, should at least have the courtesy to "rule nothing in and rule nothing out", and he should talk to industry representatives on that specific matter.
Mr. Curry: I have talked frequently to the industry on a range of matters. I think that the industry will accept that my door is and always has been open. Decommissioning is not and will not be our policy. There are better ways of going about it. I am willing to discuss those with the industry and I want to have a sensible discussion about them.
It is not all gloom in fishing. There is a specific crisis involving cod and haddock. We have to take action, and we will not shirk it. I will not fall into the trap laid by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland of saying that earnings are escalating and that there is no problem. Of course there are problems for fishermen when opportunities decrease. The position is more buoyant than that of the farming industry which we discussed in the previous debate.
Mr. Keith Mans: My hon. Friend suggested other methods apart from decommissioning to help reduce the size of fleets. If they are not effective and if we do not get decreases in the size of fleets in areas where we want to see them, will he reconsider a decommissioning scheme?
Mr. Curry: I would want to see evidence of the fishing industry's willingness to engage in a sensible discussion of the proposals that we have made. I have been asked whether I am willing to meet the industry to discuss decommissioning. I should like the industry to come to see me to discuss our proposals.
Mr. Austin Mitchell rose—
Mr. Curry: I am not giving way. I am almost at the end of my speech. I have had rather a long innings and it is my second innings of the day. Like the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), I am not getting double time.
The motion is silly. There is a crisis of over-fishing, but there is not one word in the motion about discipline or about the fact that the industry has to exercise discipline itself; there is not one word about the taxpayer, or about the marketplace, or about the reality of EC negotiations. The motion is opportunistic, weak and irrelevant. I urge my hon. Friends to reject it.
8 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the continuing crisis in the fishing industry. I appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). I was in Shetland last year, when I spoke to John Goodlad, of the Shetland Fishermen's Association. I appreciated the discussions that I had with him. I thought that his proposals and his attitude said a great deal for the responsibility of fishermen for their own industry and their concern for it.
As in the previous debate, apart from the background issues, prevailing economic policy has a bearing. Fishermen are affected by high interest rates and suffer pressure because of the markets in which they have to compete without support. The Labour party does not see the debate as a substitute for a debate on the statutory instrument which proposes the eight-day rule and which is being prayed against by the Leader of the Opposition and my hon. Friends.
The major factors facing fishermen are linked with a need for conservation. We do not disagree with the action that has to be taken to protect fish stocks and to ensure that we have a sustainable industry, but it is becoming ever clearer that conservation measures cannot be separated from structural measures in dealing with those objectives.
The Minister's recent announcement that boats will have the option, apart from the eight-day lie-up, of using 110 mm mesh may have got him off the hook, so to speak, in respect of the great injustice that was being done to boats which traditionally had larger mesh sizes, even larger than the 120 mm mesh for which the Commission was asking. I accept that boats pursuing a mixed fishery still have a major problem. I add my voice to the comments of the Scottish mixed fishery, which has suggested a series of measures, including the one-net rule and tighter control. It has acted responsibly and rationally, and it wants to work with the Ministry.
It is unfair to rule completely out of hand, as the Minister appeared to do, the proposal for the 80 mm square mesh and the 90 mm diamond mesh. That proposal is worthy of extensive sea trials. The evidence which has been collected needs to be evaluated. Although the Commission may be reluctant to consider it, I do not see anything wrong with an extensive sea trial to examine the effectiveness of the proposal and analyse it in a proper scientific way. Adjustments might be necessary, but the proposal is worthy of serious consideration and it should not be dismissed out of hand.
In the discussion in the House last December, disappointment was voiced because the Minister did not make proposals for decommissioning. I accept that we need to take an overall approach to decommissioning within the European Community, but, from what other countries are doing, it seems that only this country has set its face against a decommissioning scheme. I wonder how many times we have to come to the House to ask for a scheme and for some progress.
The Minister said that he does not believe that a decommissioning scheme is value for money. That contradicts what he has said in previous debates. It was certainly within the realms of possibility for his civil servants to bring forward a decommissioning scheme,

1071
targeted at the boats and areas which should be included in a scheme which would give value for money and would reduce the pressure on fish stocks.
Recently I met Mr. Michael Holden, who retired last year as head of the conservation unit in the European Commission's directorate-general for fisheries. He is an expert on fisheries conservation. I talked to him about conservation techniques and management. It soon became apparent from his comments that the key to conservation of fish stocks in the North sea was a reduction of effort. While we may bring in various technical measures which may be welcome and useful, it does not get away from the fact that we need to reduce effort. His opinion was the same as that of the majority of hon. Members, who believe that the only way to reduce effort in the North sea is to have a sensible and rational decommissioning scheme. The Government are completely isolated in their opposition to such a scheme.
There is grave doubt that the eight-day proposal would meet the requirements of the Government in reducing effort. What will happen is that the fishing boats which are forced to tie up for eight days will make an increased effort to make up for lost income when they go to sea. The potential for lost income is severe.
It is also worth pointing out that the vessels affected would account for only 8 per cent. of the United Kingdom cod and haddock quota over a two-year period. That makes one wonder whether such a measure is effective.
When skippers have to tie up for eight days and cannot pay their crews, it is logical that the crews will go to other boats or find other occupations. When the lie-up period is over, a skipper may have difficulty in getting a crew or in retaining his original crew. Worst of all, the eight-day rule will put pressure on skippers to put to sea in bad weather. Fishermen cannot control the weather. The eight-day rule might require skippers to tie up during good weather, which might mean that they would have to go to sea in bad weather in order to earn enough income to pay for their boats and crew.
In 1989, 22 fishing vessels were lost in bad weather, and a further 576 reported accidents were associated with bad weather. I would not want to be responsible for any measure which would put pressure on fishermen to risk their lives and the lives of their crews. I believe that the eight-day tie-up rule would put pressure on them.
I am surprised that we have not heard the argument about the way in which reduced catches increase prices. There is evidence of growing consumer resistance. The recession is partly to blame. A recent survey among household purchasers showed a decline in the last quarter in white fish purchasing.
We have seen no progress in achieving a reduction in the size of the British fleet. The recent 3 per cent. to which the Minister referred is negligible compared with reductions achieved in the fleets of other countries. As they reduce their fleets, they become eligible for grants for modernisation and restructuring, which will eventually work against the interests of our fishermen's competitiveness.
The type of decommissioning scheme that might be introduced is completely in the hands of the Government. They could structure the scheme to meet the criteria they want. For example, a decommissioning scheme could be
1072
aimed at vessels with pressure stock licences or those of a certain age and size, or by the use of other criteria. A scheme using various methods could be adopted to reduce the pressure on stocks.
One wonders how often we must raise these issues before something is done. One also wonders whether the Minister is using bankruptcy as a way of reducing effort. Is that what it is all about? Is the eight-day tie-up simply a screen to cover the fact that the Minister refuses to introduce a decommissioning scheme, so that, when he talks about the market approach, he is really talking about bankruptcy—of fishermen being forced to go out of business?
That would not of itself reduce pressure on fish stocks. When a fisherman goes bankrupt and there is a chance for someone to buy a cheap fishing boat that is lying idle in the harbour, someone will chance his arm and try to make a living with that boat. That involves the boat going out to sea again, with pressure being kept on fish stocks.
The case has been made in the House time and again for the introduction of a decommissioning scheme. We have not yet had a proper answer explaining why the Government are absolutely resolute in not introducing such a scheme. It is not as though they are having great success in dealing with the problem with their present policies. We shall not achieve progress until we link a whole package of conservation measures—the fishermen are prepared to work towards meeting the management of fish stocks, because it is in their interest to do so—because we cannot separate conservation measures from structural measures if we are to achieve real progress in reducing pressure.
There must be a decommissioning scheme. The Minister will eventually come to recognise that and put such a scheme before the House. The trouble is that by that time many fishermen will have gone bankrupt, many families will have suffered and the British fishing industry will have been put at a disadvantage compared with its main rivals in Europe.
8.12 pm
Sir Michael Shaw: I am delighted to have an opportunity to speak in this short debate. Not long ago, we had another short debate on the fishing industry. I hope that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), whom I congratulate on tabling the motion, even though I cannot support him, will achieve his ambition of a full day's debate in which we can discuss the whole scene affecting the fishing industry.
I shall concentrate on the eight-day tie-up. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was right to emphasise at the outset the importance of the fabric of the fishing communities in the various fishing ports around the country. That applies in my area, with its ports of Whitby and Scarborough, as it applies to his and the constituencies of other hon. Members all the way up the north-east coast. The effect of the new option will also benefit the north-east coast, rather than the area from the Humber southwards, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has asked me to apologise for his absence. He is in bed with the 'flu.
The timing of the debate is happy. The fishermen in my constituency, like fishermen the country over, had expressed great concern about the effect of the eight-day tie-up. Indeed, they threatened to do all sorts of things. I

1073
met them and said that, although I supported them whole-heartedly, I could not condone any action that caused an infringement of the law. They told me that that was the last thing they wanted, but I was left in no doubt about the concern they felt.
There are 17 boats in Whitby, but we must bear in mind not only the boats but the whole infrastructure of the fishing industry. Frankly, if those boats had to tie up for eight days solid, the harbour would go dead for eight days, and that would have a disastrous effect on the fleet.
I emphasise that, although they expressed great concern, those fishermen are a law-abiding community. They felt desperate about their plight. For that reason, when they heard the news this morning that an option was being given for an increased mesh size rather than the eight-day tie-up, they were delighted. That goes for the fishermen of Whitby and Scarborough. On their behalf and mine, and the fishing organisations, I congratulate the Minister on achieving a solution so quickly. I congratulate his officials and the good will of the Commission on this occasion. I had experience of dealing with the Commission some years ago, and I know how matters move extremely slowly in that circle. It is a credit to the Minister to have been able to achieve this result so quickly. It has brought great relief to Whitby and Scarborough.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was ungenerous. Even for those in opposition, when Ministers achieve a good result, with success from their efforts abroad, they deserve to be congratulated. I hope that the House will not be stingy in congratulating the Minister on his success.
Mr. Morley: I agree that credit should be given where it is due, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that boats that use large mesh and boats that fish with long lines should never have been caught up in the first place in the eight-day rule?
Sir Michael Shaw: Yes, and I am sure that the Minister would agree. But it was not his decision in the first place—[Interuption.] It was a decision of the Community. There had to be an agreement in the end. The Minister did his best to lessen the impact of the rule. From the agreement, unsatisfactory though it was, we achieved the opt-out provision afterwards. I believe that we achieved the best deal we could. We have had an assurance on the matter from the Minister, and we were indeed lucky to have had our present Ministers negotiating for us. I support them 100 per cent. and believe that they are doing an excellent job for the British fishing fleet. I accept that we have not got all we wanted, but one never gets all one wants when one has to negotiate.
Mr. Wilson: I vividly recall the hon. Gentleman taking a very critical line in our last debate about what his hon. Friends were proposing, and his finding a great deal of sympathy on this side of the House. Apparently, a solution has been found—a solution that suits his local fishermen. Can he not widen his vision once again and appreciate that a solution that deals with his local problem is not adequate to deal with the wider problem? Will he devote at least part of his speech to a more global approach to the British fishing industry?
Sir Michael Shaw: I hope that there will be such a debate very shortly, when we will be able to debate other matters. The Minister has already given us an assurance
1074
that he will continue to negotiate, and that the negotiations will include new and constructive ideas. In the end, what we need to discuss, and what I hope to discuss for a few moments tonight, is the need for conservation.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I should like my hon. Friend to reflect on the fact that what has been agreed is a conservation measure, whereas what is proposed by some sectors of the industry outside his own port is the ability to continue to fish, without conservation measures. That is what those sectors want, whereas we fought for conservation measures—measures which, by their nature, are bound to be more difficult.
Sir Michael Shaw: The last point that I made was very close to the one that the Minister has just made.
Why should my fishermen welcome the change? Undoubtedly, the increased mesh size will make fishing more difficult. That is understood by everybody, including the fishermen. However, it will allow boats to go to sea at times judged by the fishermen to be suitable. For all the reasons that I gave the last time we discussed this matter —reasons to which hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred since then—that is a great advantage. One has to bear in mind the dangers that are involved. A serious accident just this week showed what can happen in difficult sea conditions.
But, above all, the change that has come out of Brussels allows for better conservation. As I understand it, the eight-day rule does not achieve any improvement in conservation. Let me explain the situation as I understand it. Obviously, fishermen will go out in all weathers to do their best to catch their quotas. Some of them will run risks. If they do not achieve their quota, the difference will be available to other boats in their area, or, if it cannot be taken up in their area, in other areas of the United Kingdom. If that is indeed the case, the full quota will be caught one way or another—but it will be caught in the old way, and the same discards will still apply. Thus, there will be no saving.
Under the new scheme, with the bigger-mesh net, the number of discards will be reduced. Immature fish will not be caught, or, if they are caught, they will escape without damage. As we all know, the trouble about discards is that most of them die. As things are at present, too large a proportion of future years' catches are being destroyed. For a long time, my fishermen have been pressing for a change in mesh size. What would otherwise be discards will now go through the nets easily, and the fish will be able to grow for future catches. This is a great boon. It is a cause for great satisfaction to my fishermen. I hope that the Minister, in future negotiations, will be able to tackle the other problems that have been discussed.
I end by thanking my right hon. Friend for what he has done on behalf of my fishermen, and by wishing him well in the negotiations that I understand will take place next April.
8.24 pm
Mr. Alex Salmond: Like other hon. Members, I welcome this debate, but, again like other hon. Members, I think that it would be absolutely disgraceful if a debate initiated by the Liberal Democrats were to be used in any way as an excuse not to have a specific debate and a vote on the life-threatening eight-day continuous

1075
tie-up measure and the statutory instrument that imposes it. I hope that, when the junior Minister winds up, he will give us an unequivocal guarantee that such a debate will be held as soon as possible.
When the Secretary of State for Scotland wound up in the last fisheries debate, many other hon. Members and I suspected that he was not quite sure what the 10-day rule that applied then actually involved. He said:
"That seems another sensible measure which is worth considering in the context of the need to conserve stocks.".—[Official Report, 13 December 1990; Vol. 182, c. 1223.]
Many of us suspected that he did not understand the full implications of the continuous band that was being proposed.
When I read his current views in yesterday's Aberdeen Evening Express, I became absolutely convinced that, even now, the Secretary of State for Scotland does not appreciate the implications and the dangers of the tie-up regulations. The Evening Express quotes him as having said of the fishermen:
"They actually have more freedom now than under the previous system, when they were limited to a certain number of days at sea."
That is a quite extraordinary description of a regulation that inevitably constrains fishermen's freedom and their livelihood.
But on the same day, this article entitled "No Turning Back" appeared. Perhaps it was written by the junior Minister. The DAFS secretary of fisheries wrote to a constituent of mine, Mr. Bill Farquhar, who is chairman of the Boatbuilders Association, describing the regulations as
"the stricter arrangements this year whereby vessels are required to stay in port."
So, on the very day on which the Secretary of State for Scotland described these proposals as introducing "more freedom", his own departmental fisheries secretary told a constituent of mine that these are "stricter arrangements" than those that applied last year. We are entitled to know who is misleading whom in the Scottish Office. Is the Secretary of State for Scotland misleading his own fisheries secretary, or are the civil servants misleading the Secretary of State?
Even more important was what the Secretary of State for Scotland was to write elsewhere in the same article. The fishermen, he said,
"should never be forced out in bad weather, and I don't believe it will be necessary."
That betrays the most fundamental misunderstanding of the implications of the tie-up regulations for Scottish fishing. It is inevitable, under the eight-day continuous tie-up rule, that fishermen will be pushed to sea in rough weather. Of the first 90 available fishing days last year, no fewer than 38 had expected winds between gale force eight and storm force 10. The fishermen were already heavily constrained by the elements. It is inevitable that, under the eight-day continuous tie-up regulations, fishermen will maximise the remaining days and go to sea even when good fishing judgment suggests that it would be better for them to stay in port. Because of the economic pressure on themselves, their boats and their families, they will have no choice whatsoever.
But there is another aspect of the danger of the tie-up regulations that must be understood by Ministers. I am thinking of a situation that might arise when boats are
1076
actually at sea. At present, boats in my constituency and in the constituencies of my hon. Friend tend to be fishing north-east. They will be encountering rough conditions, which can arise very quickly. When such conditions are encountered, the sensible thing is for a boat to turn its head to the sea and ride out the storm. But imagine circumstances that could well arise in the next few days or weeks.
Fishermen in that position might know that they were approaching the start of their statutory tie-up period and that, unless they got back to a registered port in time, they would face a fine of £50,000 for breach of the reglations. Under such economic pressure it will be inevitable that, instead of riding out the storm, which would be the sensible thing to do, some people will make a dash for port —[Interruption.]
I see that the Minister of State, Scottish Office shakes his head. I know that he has been briefed on fishing during the past few days, but if he disagrees with my analysis, which is shared by everyone in the fishing industry, he should come to the Dispatch Box and explain why we are wrong in believing that the regulations could be life-threatening.
If the Minister of State does not disagree with my analysis, he must accept that the regulations will jeopardise the lives of fishermen at sea. No Government or Administration have the moral right to impose on fishermen legislation making their lives, which are already dangerous, even more dangerous. There is a real prospect that, if the regulations are passed unamended, people in the Treasury and the Minister with responsibility for fisheries in Scotland could end up with blood on their hands over the next few weeks and months. That must be understood.
Apart from the principle of the consecutive tie-up, the enforcement that we have seen has been vindictive. No short sea trials of repairs to engines are being allowed. No oil contract work is being allowed when a fishing boat is tied up. Fishing boats are not allowed to go back to their home ports. As hon. Members know, it is common in the north-east of Scotland for boats to land at Peterhead or Aberdeen and, a few days later, to sail back the short distance to their home port at Fraserburgh, Macduff or Lossie. Even those small trips are regarded as a breach of the tie-up regulations. They have already been described not as a tie-up but as a curfew that is being imposed on the fishing industry. If the Government impose a curfew, they must expect a fishing intifada as the industry's response.
Tie-up regulations have implications for social cohesion and discrimination against the Scottish boats. Of the boats affected by the tie-up, 400 are from Scotland and 75 from England and Wales. The regulations affect more boats from Scotland than from the rest of the European Community put together. However, the option of a regulation of under 110 mm has relevance for few if any of the Scottish boats, because one cannot pursue a mixed haddock and whiting fishery with a 110mm net. No fisherman will take up that option if he is pursuing haddock-whiting fishing.
There is a danger of a total breakdown of confidence in the relationship between fishermen and those who administer the industry. The tragedy is that the measure and configuration of nets that would provide a way out of the crisis is available, backed by the scientific evidence that has been accumulated during the past few years. The sea trials on the Sunbeam demonstrate that the 90mm

1077
diamond configuration, with an 80 square-mesh panel, is the way to balance the needs of conservation with the entitlement of fishermen to protect their livelihoods.
I see that the Minister of State is having some trouble following the debate. Perhaps he will pay attention and explain why the results of the Sunbeam trials, which show an increase of 31 per cent. in the escape of young haddock and of 46 per cent. in the escape of young whiting, do not provide adequate evidence to show that the 90 mm/80 mm square mesh configuration is the way forward. Almost a year ago, my hon. Friends and I met the Minister with responsibility for fisheries, who was then convinced that that configuration was the right one. As the scientific evidence that has been accumulated supports that configuration, what has happened in the intervening period to change the Minister's mind? Why is he now renouncing his belief in that configuration?
I understand that there are to be sea trials in the Orkney boat Keila, which will use a 90 mm/90 mm mesh configuration. Can the Minister give us a guarantee that those trials, when they start in March, will also include the 90 mm/80 mm square mesh configuration to see which net and mesh configuration is best to meet the demands of conservation, and reconcile them with the rights of fishermen to pursue their livelihoods? If the Minister does not believe in the 90 mm/80 mm configuration, why not put it to the test in the sea trials that are to be undertaken during the next few months?
The fisheries Minister argues that the 90mm/80mm option would not be supported by the rest of the European Community. He implies that, if the matter were left to him, it would be an option, but he would never get it past the beaurocrats in Brussels. There is a way to unlock the door so that that conservation option is a possibility.
In suggesting the way, I shall refer to an article by the respected commentator Tony Mackay in Scotland on Sunday on 10 February. Returning from a trip to meet European officials, he wrote:
"last week in Brussels when I met officials from the EC Fisheries Directorate on studies we are undertaking for them, it was obvious that the commission's fisheries staff are sympathetic to the difficulties facing the Scottish fishing and fish processing industries, and are trying hard to find fair and acceptable solutions to these problems. The believe that they are seriously constrained by lack of co-operation from UK Government bodies, including the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Sea Fish Industry Authority in Edinburgh."
Is it not entirely possible that, if the Government would fall into line with every other state in the European Community and adopt a positive attitude towards structural policy and decommissioning, they would find that what they see as hindrances to the technical conservation measures would suddenly disappear? If the Government could make their contribution to the European Community, would not they find that the European officials would realise that that was the way forward for the Scottish fishing industry?
Why on earth should Europe not wish to see the 90 mm/80 mm square-mesh panel? We know that haddock is an overwhelmingly United Kingdom fishery—indeed, a largely Scottish fishery. Why should there be opposition within the European Community to a measure on the haddock fishery, pursued by the Scottish fishing industry?
In previous debates, I have referred to the substantial disadvantage that the Government's negative attitude towards structural policy places on Scottish fishermen and
1078
the competitive position of our fishermen relative to other fleets. No less than £150 million has been poured into other European fishing industries over three years. How on earth can our industry compete when no financial structural support has been given to the United Kingdom and Scottish fleet over that period because of the Government's obdurate attitude towards decommissioning?
There is a substantial suspicion, not just among Opposition Members, that the basic reason why the Government have set their face against decommissioning is to save the face of the Minister of Agriculture, who had responsibility during the debacle six or seven years ago when decommissioning money was literally poured up the Humber with no controls. Instead of continuing with a refusal that jeopardises the livelihoods of Scottish fishermen and endangers the survival of the fishing industry, let us have some sensible, structural and conservation measures. We reject this dangerous, perverse, punitive and life-threatening eight-day tie-up, on which the Government seem to have set their hearts.
8.38 pm
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: It would be remiss of us to allow the debate to pass without paying tribute to the late Gilbert Buchan. He was a most distinguished former president of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, and he died two weeks ago. He was respected in the industry, throughout Scotland, the United Kingdom and Europe, and, having worked with him in European Community negotiations, I can say that I know few people who were more truly leaders or more loyal friends than he. I am sure that I speak for many in the House when I say that. I also know few people who were tougher negotiators than he was, as former Ministers will testify, but the great thing about Gilbert was that when he made an agreement he stuck to it, and one knew where one was with him at all times.
It would be remiss of me not to mention his service to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve with the minesweepers in the war, during which he was decorated for gallantry. That reminds us all of the role that our fishermen have, in a wider strategic sense, in the long-term defence of this country. I know that all hon. Members will join me in sending sympathy to his wife Jessie and members of his family.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) not only for taking the opportunity to initiate this debate but for his contribution to it, which I regarded as reasonable, sensible and based on the practical common sense of the industry.
I should like to take up two small points from the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that, following the new mesh arrangements negotiated this week, he would amend the statutory instrument on the tie-up rule, which we shall, I hope, shortly be able to debate. I was not aware that statutory instruments could be amended. Surely a new statutory instrument will be involved. Perhaps my hon. Friend will clarify that technical point for us. We want to know whether we shall have the opportunity to debate the two statutory instruments, taken together.
The second point is more substantial. I smiled wryly to myself when the Minister said that our enforcement of fishing conservation measures was the most effective in

1079
Europe. In one sense he was right to take credit for that, but I should not like to leave it at that without discussing the downside of our effective conservation measures—that they are less fair to our fishermen because our enforcement of them is more effective. We want a "level sea" in relation to competition with Europe. So let us not ignore the results of this effective enforcement.
The Parliamentary Secretary must realise that, because conservation measures are not perceived to be applied fairly across Europe, that adds to the sense of frustration and desperation among our fishermen, who see fishermen from other countries getting away with avoiding these conservation measures because they are not properly enforced. So our fishermen have more bitter experience of some of the consequences of these measures than their European counterparts.
My hon. Friend said that we needed to achieve a 30 per cent. cut in our fishing effort. I do not know whether that figure is right, but I know that we need a cut. The Scottish Fishermen's Federation made a major contribution to a number of practical and sensible measures, incorporated in their 1988 proposals, to achieve conservation that will help to limit the fishing effort. We must ask whether some of the measures introduced since the 1988 proposals are sensible or practical. If they are to be observed and sensibly enforced, we must ensure that they are practical, because only can they be effective.
I regard the tie-up rule as patent nonsense. It is utterly artificial. I said that in the December debate and I say it again now. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me. I know that an overall settlement was imposed on him, and I pay tribute to the way in which he fought against it; but now that it has been imposed on us, I hope that he will not let up in trying to have it removed or alleviated before too much damage is done to our fishing industry.
The tie-up measure wholly fails to recognise everyday practical circumstances with which fishermen have to contend, such as the weather. It is riddled with anomalies, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said: fishermen having to sail from their port of landing to their home port and being counted as having spent a day at sea. Nor should we underestimate the social and human consequences, not only for those in the industry but for their families. They have enough stress to cope with without having artificial stress imposed on them as well.
As for mesh sizes, I welcome in principle the alternative to the tie-up rule that my hon. Friend achieved in Brussels this week. I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw), because this will be a real practical help to fishermen in his area fishing for cod. However, my hon. Friend must recognise that the new measure is not a practical alternative to the tie-up rule for those fishing for haddock and whiting. That is why I said that I welcomed the move in principle—because I hope that it will reopen the debate on mesh sizes. My hon. Friend must recognise that what has been negotiated so far will not have a practical application for the Scottish fishing fleet, I urge him to negotiate something better for Scottish fishermen along the same lines.
I was a little disappointed by the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who dismissed the 90 mm net with the 80 mm
1080
square mesh on the panel at the end. I agree that the number of fish caught may be the same, but my right hon. Friend must not forget the smaller fish that escape and add to stocks in future years. That is the message to send to Brussels. This is a conservation measure that will effectively safeguard the future of our fishery stocks—if that is what we truly want, and I do.
I am glad that further consultations are being held with the industry on this matter. I hope that they will be constructive and that both sides will come to them with open minds to reach a compromise—perhaps on a 90/90mm; and that progress in Europe will be achieved. If it is, it could greatly assist the conservation effort and as such it will be well worth while—
Mr. Salmond: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman, with his ministerial experience, would support the view that there is enormous attraction in going for a conservation measure which works and which also carries the wholehearted support of the people who will have to operate it—the fishermen.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I said a few moments ago that if measures are sensible and practical they are easier to enforce and much more likely to be observed. That is why they are more effective. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support on that.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) was right in what he said about structure. We cannot separate structure from other conservation measures which are part of the overall scheme to bring about a reduction in fishing effort. To neglect or dismiss it, as Ministers often do, is like trying to fight for the industry with one hand tied behind one's back. We will not get effective conservation or build an efficient and effective British fishing industry if we do not show much more readiness to tackle structure.
The blockage in the Minister's mind arises from past scars for which the industry is having to pay the penalty. What about consistency? Is structure being ignored in the discussions on agriculture in Europe? Of course not. Structure is one of the major elements submitted by the Commission to the Council of Ministers. Structural policy is a major element in negotiations on agriculture, but our Government are the only Government in Europe who turn their back on structure in the fishing industry. It does not make sense, and it is not in the best interests of the fishing industry or Britain.
The Minister said that his opposition had nothing to do with previous schemes. I accept what he says about that, and will not try to deal with it now. The circumstances were different. I endorse what he said about tackling tonnage and fishing capacity and trying to make sure that they are targeted. Nobody denies that problems exist, but they are not beyond the wit of civil servants or Ministers to resolve. I agree that a system has to be linked to a strict licensing scheme, so that capacity is not knocked out in one place only to reappear in another. It is possible to have a disciplined structure. Fishing is a hunting industry, whereas agriculture is about husbandry. Inevitably, Governments intervene in a thousand ways, such as laying down rules about days at sea and tying up and mesh size.
I wish that we did not have a hang-up about decommissioning, because it prevents us from tackling the structure of the industry. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Scottish Office to bear in mind the

1081
consequences of turning our back on structure. When we do that, we lose one of the major methods of gearing our fishing effort to available stocks. That is the most important benefit we lose, but we lose two others. We lose grants which are available to every other country in Europe, and I do not see why our industry should be denied such grants.
As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, other Governments and other industries are amazed at our attitude. It does not do us any good because other Governments and industries which use structural measures to reduce their fishing effort say to our fishermen, "What are your Government doing to reduce your effort?" Our fishermen know that such measures are effective in other countries and that makes them much less supportive of measures that we propose, such as 90/80 mm or 90/90 mm mesh sizes.
In a major area, we must not turn our backs on an important tool. By doing such things we deny ourselves support. Nobody knows better than I do that we cannot win battles on our own in Europe. We have to have allies, and it is stupid to deny ourselves allies to achieve some of the other good measures upon which all hon. Members agree.
I make no apology for speaking at length on decommissioning and structure. I hope that the other measures that we have discussed will work. However, as I said earlier, they are only part measures. We have to add structures, and only if we are prepared to do that will we see more effective conservation of our fish stocks and a more stable future for our fishing industry and fishing communities.
8.55 pm
Mr. Frank Doran: In the three and a half years that I have been in the House and attending fishing debates, I have noted the remarkable consistency of the subjects and the way that they have been dealt with. There is unanimity about the interests and importance of our fishing industry, but no progress seems to have been made. Confrontation hovers over the quotas, which are outwith the hands of the House and are decided in Brussels. No progress is made on issues such as decommissioning, conservation and structure that could be implemented here. That is despite our unanimity of purpose because we all want to see a thriving and safe industry playing its part in the national economy and, in my case, its important part in the economy of the Grampian region.
It is not difficult to see why we fail to make progress. The Minister repeated the standard Government position on decommissioning. It seems that they got their fingers burned once before and are not prepared to try again. The right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) put his finger on the issue much more effectively than I can, because he was a Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I was dismayed to hear the Minister dismiss so readily the ideas of the Scottish Fisherman's Federation for the 90 mm diamond mesh net and the 80 mm square mesh window. As the Minister well knows, a great deal of research has been carried out into the operation of that system. I understand that the experiments carried out by the marine laboratory in my constituency involved the Sunbeam, a Shetland-based vessel, and produced quite
1082
staggering results. For example, they showed that there is a discard rate of 46 per cent. in the whiting catch. That is phenomenal. The discard rate for haddock was 31 per cent. A video is available and I hope to see it soon. I understand that it shows exactly how the fish react to that configuration of nets. That is a positive step towards conservation.
The same scientists discovered that the 90 mm diamond net and 90 mm square mesh window were not effective—not so much from the point of view of conservation because more fish escaped—in giving fishermen a marketable catch. The industry depends on a marketable catch for its survival. The Minister suggested the possibility of consultation on the introduction of a 90 mm square net window. We must consider the consequences of that development. If the work undertaken at the marine laboratory is valid, fishermen will have to spend even more time at sea to obtain the same size of catch, and their overheads will rise accordingly—as will the size of the risk that they must take.
We do not see any willingness on the Government's part to listen to valid arguments. The way forward is for all sides of the industry, the Government and the Ministry to sit down and talk with the fishermen. Obviously, hard positions are taken by both sides. The fishermen want to catch as much fish as they can, make as much money as they can, and pay for their boats as easily as they can. The Ministry has a wider interest.
In the current state of confrontation, it is difficult to see how progress can be made without a meeting of minds, to arrive at a consensus, so that the Government can make a case for the UK fishing industry with the backing of the fishermen themselves and right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. At present, we seem only to react to what comes out of Brussels. If Commissioner Marin comes up with a proposal for a 120 mm net, we deem it to be a great victory if we achieve agreement on a 110 mm net. That is nonsense.
We are in a position to take the lead. Our fishermen want to be involved, and so should the Government. We ought to be taking the initiative. The fisheries are on our doorstep, and we have the largest interest in them, yet we are lagging behind in representing an industry that is crucial not only to the nation's well-being in terms of the food value that fish offers, but to the economy of areas such as that which I represent, where thousands of jobs depend on it.
I want to see more positive action from the Government. I would like to see them sitting down and listening rather than trying to impose their concept of the best way forward. There are many good ideas around, and the Government should be prepared to listen.
Fish processing is an aspect of the industry that is often ignored in our debates, because right hon. and hon. Members mostly represent the catching side of the industry. Aberdeen is a major fish processing centre. A report published by Grampian regional council for economic development and planning, "The Importance of Fishing to the Grampian Region", estimates that the fish processing sector provides employment for 4,500 people. It has been hard hit by the crisis in the industry and has suffered about 750 job losses over the past year, with 15 firms having closed.
The income enjoyed by fish catchers has remained relatively stable, although I know that inflation has affected them, too. However, those employed in fish

1083
processing have been forced to cope with the huge price increases that are the consequence of lower catches. Over the past year, processors have paid 8 per cent. more for 14 per cent. less fish, which has had a huge impact on their business. For haddock alone, they pay 41 per cent. more. That filters through to produce the job losses to which I referred, as well as to the housewife, who must pay huge prices for the fish she buys from her fishmonger or supermarket. It is staggering to see haddock selling at a higher price than salmon, and at almost the same price as best steak. Haddock is a healthy and clean food, and we should encourage people to buy it—but high prices make that difficult to achieve.
The Government refuse to recognise the difficulties that the fish processing industry faces. It is currently attempting to gear itself up to meet new European hygiene regulations, which requires a mammoth investment, with the support of the Scottish Development Agency, local authorities in the Grampian region, and Aberdeen district council. They recognise that the industry must be modernised to meet European standards, most of which were set by the Torry research laboratory in my constituency. We know what will be the impact of those regulations.
The fishing industry is gearing up, but it is not being helped to adjust to the difficult period it faces. There is no unified structural approach to the industry, which, if it is indeed seen as a vital, essential part of the food industry as a whole, should surely receive the same support as farming.
I know that this is not entirely relevant to the debate, but, like other hon. Members, I have been lobbied by the salmon net fishermen. In 1988, the Government reduced the number of hours during which they were allowed to fish, which has taken many of them to the edge of bankruptcy. I spoke recently to a former trawlerman who had invested £100,000 in his business—his entire capital—and now finds that it is on the verge of closure.
Mr. Wilson: What has been done to Scotland's salmon net fishing industry is, in a sense, unique. The noose has been tightened, and men have been driven out of business for the specific purpose of enriching others who are pursuing the same fish. The Government have deliberately discriminated against an industry that is rooted in centuries of tradition in many parts of rural Scotland, to the benefit of another sector. Surely the least they can do is compensate those whom they have forced out of business, and I hope that they will belatedly do something for the salmon net fishermen who have been treated so grotesquely.
Mr. Doran: I agree. The downturn in the salmon net fishing business has nothing to do with the reduction in the number of fish, investment in new technology or anything of that nature; it is a direct consequence of the reduction in the number of fishing hours, which is itself a direct consequence of the Government's legislation. Nothing has been done to help those fishermen to adjust, although, in remote areas such as Caithness and Sutherland, they provide vital, albeit seasonal, employment. Businesses are going to the wall in those areas.
1084
Fish—whether or not it is caught at sea—must be seen as a vital element of the wider industry. We want unity of approach, rather than the confrontational attitude that the Government have adopted so far.
9.7 pm
Mr. David Porter: I too am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to this important debate, as my constituency contains the major port of Lowestoft. My delight ends there, however.
I feel a good deal of sympathy with the thrust of the Scottish amendment, which refers to "crisis in fishing". Like farming, the fishing industry is sometimes accused of crying wolf too often. Some may think that the current crisis represents more of the same, but I do not agree: the industry is crying wolf for real. For those with mortgages to pay, boat loans to service and businesses and families to maintain, the wolf is at the door.
This is, as much as anything, a crisis of confidence. The common fisheries policy is at the heart of it: it has taken the freedom to regulate the British fishing industry virtually out of the Government's hands, yet the Government still have to do some of the CFP's dirty work.
I instinctively incline to the school of thought that argues that the CFP should promptly be scrapped, but I take the point made to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) in a private discussion last week. I called the CFP a dog's breakfast; he—with his many years of wisdom and experience in the House—cautioned me about the dangers of replacing a dog's breakfast with a pig's dinner.
While that may be wise, there is no doubt that the CFP's conservation measures simply do not work. It is a failed system. Every year, the extent of that failure becomes more apparent: there are still too many out-of-date boats chasing too few fish, there is still alarming scientific evidence every year, and the chasms in confidence continue. Faced with failure of the system, we bolt on another piece of machinery. This year, it is the unloved eight-day tie-up, which we have heard so much about tonight. Next year what will it be? It may be a 22-day tie-up and an eight-day fishing rule.
There are all sorts of worries about the common fisheries policy. My hon. Friend has an open door, listens well and speaks straight, but worries still linger about the even-handed application of quotas and all the other paraphernalia that surrounds the fishing industry. Any question addressed to him about the Dutch, the French, the Belgians or the Spaniards is ususally answered with the cry, "Enforcement in other countries is a matter for other national Governments." Yes, but it is all a question of confidence among British fishermen about what is happening in other countries. Can they be confident about the Spanish Government's commitment to enforcement while there is a Spanish Fisheries Commissioner? Their confidence is wafer-thin.
What hurt Lowestoft in particular was the sudden closure of fisheries before the end of the year. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food found that the full catch figures had been reached. Lowestoft's cod and sole fisheries were suddenly shut. Fishermen had been told only days before that everything was on target until the end of the year. One company alone in Lowestoft lost £333,000 due to the closure of the sole fishery. Confidence in the management of the regime is in short supply.

1085
I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I too wish to return to the question of decommissioning. The alternative is British bankruptcies. We said last month and in December that decommissioning is not a magic answer, but it must surely help. I shall not rehearse again the arguments in favour of the scheme. All I would add is that a properly administered, financed and policed scheme would, in the first instance, have to be voluntary. Many Lowestoft fishermen do not want to leave the industry. Fishermen in other ports, however, might happily leave the industry if it were made worth their while to do so —if they could pay their debts and still have something left over.
Such a scheme would make payments to boat owners and fishermen, but fish merchants and other indirect employees in the industry could be wiped out by it. Thought must be given to a whole-industry approach when it comes to restructuring it. I hope that that will be borne in mind. Fish merchants want only to keep a reliable supply of good quality fish available to the housewife. Their task in Lowestoft is made much harder when the economics of the industry frequently obliges boats to land their catch in Holland rather than in Lowestoft.
Ministers have an unenviable task. They go to Council of Ministers meetings clutching the tattered trousers of the common fisheries policy around them. Too often our European, competitors strip the trousers off them. Consequently, they return naked from those meetings. When that happens, we cannot pretend that the CFP suit of clothes is wonderful. Those hon. Members who represent fishing ports have to play the little boy to the Minister's emperor and point out that there is nothing there—that it is a sham, a charade, a pantomime, if it were not so serious.
I shall not weary the House with my objections to the eight-day tie-up. What I have had to say about the CFP, however, leads me to a list of questions and doubts which I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer in writing. Will he resist an EEC trend to amalgamate all directed fisheries in the interests of bureaucratic convenience? How are North sea fishermen and related workers—they total about 2,000 in Lowestoft alone—supposed to weather effort restriction, quota cuts and increases in mesh size all at once? What thought is being given to how these ideas relate to the real world at sea and the real world of the fish markets?
If we all recognise that limitation by quantity alone fails to tackle the problem—United Kingdom fishermen have taken major reductions over the last few years—at what point do the Government say that they are happy to allow bankruptcies to help them to achieve fleet reduction and that they are happy to let the Dutch take over the North sea? When is enough enough? No one looking at the European scene, particularly the Dutch fishing industry, foresees the Dutch retreating from the fishing scene.
We hear frequently from Scottish Members with fishing constituencies that Scotland faces serious difficulties. Those difficulties may not be exaggerated, but I am sorry to say that there is often little sympathy for Scottish fishermen in the English ports. Does not the fact that there is little sympathy for Scottish fishermen reflect the confrontational nature of the common fisheries policy? The confrontation can only get worse as the European Community grows bigger, particularly if Norway, Sweden and goodness who else joins. That confrontation governs the industry, which is already the most divided industry in
1086
Britain. I remember only a couple of years ago talking to a group of angry inshore fishermen, complete with placards and banners, outside the Lowestoft fish laboratory gates. Two years ago, things were by no means as bad for them.
The Hague preference is often quoted as a wonderful device which triggers extra fish entitlement when total allowable catches fall low. It may be marvellous for Bridlington and ports northwards, but what about Lowestoft and ports south of that line? If the cod reductions invoke the Hague preference, will East Anglia be discriminated against again? Will the French get away with special derogation on mesh sizes in the southern North sea? If we go on horse-trading and quota-swapping with plaice, for example, because Lowestoft is not allowed a fleet big enough to catch its full quota, what guarantee is there that other EC Governments will not say, "Well, you didn't need it when you swapped it, so you don't need it in the future"?
What noises are we making about the former East German fleet, which is underused, inefficient and out of date? It is ideal, surely, for scrapping en bloc without any replacement.
At a time when Europeans could and should be eating more fish, the industry is facing not only the sea, but all the dead weight of the CFP, from surveillance to the transmission of catch data, and from licensing, through bycatches to technical measures. Can one wonder that there was a howl of derision last year when Mr. Marin claimed that the CFP was "theoretically perfect". Presumably, he meant that it was "theoretically perfect" in the same way that the community charge is "theoretically perfect".
During my remarks, I have mixed as many cliches as there are species in the sea. I want to end by saying to my hon. Friend the Minister that it is the blanket policy of the CFP that is so stifling. Every port, every section of the industry, every country and every species is different. The CFP must have the flexibility to reflect that. It must have it now or the crisis will destroy the entire industry.
9.16 pm
Mr. A. Cecil Walker: As a conservationist who represents fishing interests in Northern Ireland, I am naturally concerned about the decimation of our fish stocks and their conservation, especially in the Irish sea. From a conservation point of view, I have a great interest in the long-line fishermen and believe that they have been unfairly treated under the Government's current conservation policy.
The selective nature of long-line fishing precludes almost exclusively catches of under-sized fish. As a conservation measure, the Government should encourage that type of fishing without restrictions. The problem facing the Government appears to be that there are too many boats fishing for too few fish. However, the Government should be aware that they have allowed the unrestricted building of boats of under 10 m which has considerably added to the tonnage. Many of those boats were not for established full-time fishermen, yet they are allowed to fish completely without restriction while established fishermen are losing their livelihood. A conservation policy that is directed only at certain fishermen and vessels is unfair and can never be successful.

1087
There has been much discussion this evening about square mesh panels. I support their use as a conservation measure. Experiments with square mesh panels show conclusively that they have dramatically reduced the discards of immature fish. They have also caught better quality fish with less crushing, and have saved time and effort in sorting large quantities of under-sized fish.
I understand that the Government are planning the use of 90 mm panels for white fish and 70 mm panels for prawns, but trials with 90 mm mesh in the Irish sea fishery showed a fairly substantial loss of marketable whiting. From that we may deduce that 80 mm panels would be an acceptable compromise for white fish.
The prawn fishermen have also experienced beneficial effects on prawn catches, as well as a significant reduction in discarded fish. It appears that, whatever mesh is used in the panel, prawns will not be lost, so I am concerned that the Government are opting for 70 mm panels in prawn gear. The panel is there for the release of juvenile fish—the same fish that will be caught in the white fish gear—so I suggest that the Government should consider an 80 mm mesh for both white fish and prawns.
I have great sympathy for our fishermen who go to sea in all weathers to provide the fish for our consumption. I do not have the same feelings about those who deprive our sea bird population of the means of survival. I am referring to those who send thousands of tonnes of sandeels and other fish not considered suitable for human consumption to fishmeal factories to produce protein which is readily available from other renewable sources.
It is distressing for me to see gannets and herring-gulls squabbling over offal when these beautiful birds should be hunting their own food, which has been taken from them by the over-activity of boats concerned with fishmeal fishing. Other species of bird—notably puffins, kittiwakes and members of the skua family—are now seriously at risk because they have become incapable of reproducing due to the lack of food during the breeding season.
Conservation must go hand in hand with the fishing industry. Without one, there will not be the other.
9.21 pm
Mr. David Harris: I shall be brief, as other hon. Members want to speak.
I want lo make four points. I hope that the first of them will not be taken the wrong way. This evening, I had a telephone call from a constituent who had seen on television our exchanges yesterday following the private notice question on the contingency arrangements—let us hope that it never happens—for the B52 bombers to drop their bombs unprimed in the Bristol channel. Unfortunately, some Opposition Members laughed at remarks made by Conservative Members who pointed out the possible danger to the fishing fleet. The channel is a main fishing ground. The laughter was open to misinterpretation, I am sure, but I hope that those Opposition Members who do not know the position of the fishing fleet and the dangers that it runs—there are none of them here tonight—will think again.
Mr. Wilson: Disgraceful.
Mr. Harris: I am only reporting the reaction of people in my constituency who watched our proceedings on
1088
television. I shall not labour the point, but it should be put on record because all hon. Members in the Chamber tonight know the dangers that the fishing fleet faces.
Similarly, I hope that my second point will not open old wounds between the two sides of the House. It concerns the whole of question of misreporting. I was delighted to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister said about correcting the bogus track record that certain Scottish boats had built up through misreporting. That question has been a feature of our last two fishing debates. I hope that that injustice will be put right. I was pleased that the Minister hinted—indeed, gave an assurance—that that would happen, because cheating and misreporting have undoubtedly hit fishermen in my area and in other areas of the United Kingdom.
My third point arises from the eight-day rule. There is a curious spin-off of that rule. Until today, it seemed that some boats from Scotland and the north of England that have been sold to fishermen in the south-west of England and which now operate exclusively in area 7, off the south-west, could still be caught by the eight-day rule even though they were not fishing in the areas affected by it. I was pleased today to receive a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister saying that one boat in my area would not be caught by the eight-day tie-up rule. Other boats may be affected. I know that there is one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Sir G. Neale). I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can confirm, perhaps in writing, that all boats affected in this way—there may be more—will be exempt from that provision.
My fourth point looks to the future. I look with considerable apprehension to the future on a topic that has hardly been touched on tonight—the mid-term review by the Commission of the common fisheries policy. The Commission has power to submit a report by the end of this year on the working of the CFP. I sound a warning note on that. It would be disastrous if the Commission used that mid-term review to open up the common fisheries policy in a way that is detrimental to Britain and its fishermen.
There have been two major developments since the introduction of the common fisheries policy. One is the accession of Spain to the European Community, with all the consequences of quota hopping. I welcome the remarks that my hon. Friend the Minister made on the way in which we fought the case against the Spaniards in the European Court of Justice.
Another more recent development is extremely worrying and was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter). He made passing reference to the reunification of Germany, and mentioned the position of what was formerly the East German fleet and the consequences that that will have. Again, I sound a warning that there could be wide repercussions on British fishermen if the issue is not handled properly. On that gloomy note, I shall finish and allow other hon. Members to speak.
9.26 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: The debate has been too short to allow everyone who wished to speak to do so, but the House will acknowledge that it has been a valuable debate which has allowed, representatives of no fewer than six political parties to

1089
discuss an industry whose predicament is recognised across the House. Its predicament requires exceptional measures, if it is not to be caught in a savage double bind of rising costs and contracting resources caused by falling stocks of fish. The diminution of our fishing industry will be at the expense of communities throughout our country, many in remote areas, with fragile economies which heavily depend on the fishing industry—not only fishermen and their families but the shore-based industries which service and depend on the fishing industry.
This is an important debate. It was also significant in that no disagreement was voiced during discussions between hon. Members on both sides of the House. A sharp difference of opinion was expressed with the Minister's remarks. Almost everyone who has spoken disagreed with him fundamentally, especially on the Government's attitude to the structural changes which are necessary if the British fishing industry is to survive this crisis.
The debate takes place against the background of severely increased costs for fuel, repairs and insurance and an increase in other costs which are necessarily incurred if the fleet is to be sustained, never mind replaced. One of the disturbing features of the industry is the prospect of an aging fleet because no one will be able to invest in modernisation.
I do not believe that the Government have measured up to the seriousness of the problem. They give the impression that they are running before the wind of opinion in Europe and are behind the European Commission in its attempts to tackle the difficulties of the industry. I welcomed yesterday's announcement of a modest change in the tie-up rule and the consequential change regarding the single net conservation measure that the Minister announced tonight. I am glad to learn about the new order and I hope that it will take into account some of the things that have been said in today's debate. If the scheme is not to be abandoned I hope that other changes will be made to its operation.
I particularly draw the Minister's attention to the great dissatisfaction in the fishing industry about the midnight to midnight aspect of the tie-up rule. Because of that, the eight-day period is effectively extended to nine or even 10 days. We have received representations on that, and a change should be made. If the Minister is not prepared to abandon the scheme, I hope that he will be prepared to consider a change to make the scheme run from midday to midday.
Tonight there was one monetary problem—perhaps it was a misunderstanding— when the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) referred to the mandatory tie-up scheme and said that the modification allowing the 110 mm option was a solution to the problem. It is clearly not a solution for those involved in the haddock and whiting sector of the industry. It may benefit those who fish off the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) for cod, monkfish and megrim—those catches may be a staple part of their returns.
Sir Michael Shaw rose—
Mr. Maclennan: Because of the shortage of time I have already prevented other hon. Members from taking part,
1090
so it would be sensible not to give way. However, I should happily give way to those hon. Members who have had no opportunity to make their speeches.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I shall take up that invitation. My hon. Friend has already mentioned whiting and it is important to remind the Minister that Northumberland has a winter-directed whiting fishery, but that would be prevented by the Government's 1990 proposals. I hope that the Minister will keep that in mind when he considers the responses he has received to those proposals.
Mr. Maclennan: I hope that the Minister heard that.
My right hon. Friends and I were moved to seek this debate because of the totally unacceptable nature of the mandatory tie-up scheme. I am pleased to see that the Minister of State, Scottish Office is to reply to the debate. We welcome his participation.
The tie-up scheme is ill conceived. Not only will demerits flow from it, but it is unlikely to achieve its purpose. We have been advised by the Minister that the objective was to reduce the fishing effort by 30 per cent. However, it is extremely unlikely that that will flow from the scheme. I believe that people will fish harder and longer during the two thirds of the month left to them. That will, of course, disrupt their family lives. Of course, it will also lead to their running risks which in proper circumstances they would not choose to run.
A reduction of 30 per cent. in their effort is palpably not going to happen. That is why I intervened in the Minister's speech to ask him whether, when it becomes clear that it has not happened, the Government will condone any suggestion from Brussels that the tie-up period should be extended beyond eight days in the hope that that would further reduce fishing effort. It must not be. I hope that the Minister will give a categorical assurance on that point for the future. The safety of our fishermen must be our prime concern. I am deeply concerned, like the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), about the possibility of people being caught at sea, not being able to ride out the storm, and being forced to come back because of the threat of having to pay substantial fines of up to £50,000.
The rigidity of the scheme is one of its most worrying features. In my constituency, one skipper, Mr. Andrew Bremner of Wick, found himself at the end of the first week, having stayed tied up, wanting to get out but recognising that the weather was worsening. He sought permission to leave Wick and transfer to Scrabster before his eight-day period was up—a perfectly sensible thing to do. He was even prepared to take the fishery officer with him to show that he did not intend to do anything that he should not do, but he was told firmly by the Department that it was not permissible to transfer. As a result, he lost two additional days of fishing and was tied up effectively for 10 days.
Such rigidity in the operation of the scheme is unacceptable. Because the fines are so steep, it is inconceivable that fishermen will want to run the risk of incurring penalties by doing what they are not permitted to do under the scheme. Other hon. Members have spoken of the problem of getting back to the home port, and how that too could cut down on fishing time. The scheme is riot flexible, it is not safe and it will seriously erode the

1091
economic livelihood of those in the industry. It establishes a highly dangerous precedent within the Community schemes for regulation, and it should be abandoned.
The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that proper alternatives had not been canvassed. I do not understand how he can say that, in the light of the representations that have been made by the fishing industry all around the country about what conservation measures ought to be advanced by the Government. I know of at least five proposals from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation. The Parliamentary Secretary has bowed in the direction of one of them tonight—the single net on the vessel in the context of the 110 mm relaxation of the rule. Many other proposals on conservation have been made, but they do not seem to have been prosecuted with the vigour that one looks for from a Government.
The attitude to the 90 mm diamond-shaped mesh, with the 80 mm square net panel at the end of the net, seem not to be based on any scientific belief that it would not be effective. Experimentation suggests that it would be. If the Minister says that it will not wash, is he simply saying that it is not acceptable in Brussels? If so, what work has Brussels done on it? Can the Minister of State clarify the point in his reply to the debate? On what scientific evidence are the Government resting the case against the 90 mm diamond mesh, with the 80 mm square mesh panel?
What has been the attitude of the Government to the whole question of industrial fishing? A large part of the industry believes that that should be tackled as a matter of urgency. There have been proposals for an increase in the minimum landing size for whiting and suggestions about how better enforcement in the Community might help to tackle more effectively the problem of conservation.
But those conservation methods, which have not been prosecuted since they were first advanced by the industry about two years ago, cannot of themselves tackle the great problem of the over-capacity of the industry and the impossibility of an industry of this size returning adequate rewards to fishermen in the face of diminishing stocks.
The Government have taken some comfort from the fact that prices have risen somewhat in the last year. But they are not back—or, if they are, only just—to the level that they were in 1987, and costs have risen enormously during that time. The Minister must acknowledge that prices are bumping against a ceiling imposed from outside the fishing industry by the fact that fish must compete with white meat and other forms of protein, and there is not a market situation that will allow increased pricing for a diminishing volume of fish to solve the industry's problems.
As that route is blocked, it is becoming increasingly hard to understand why the Government have not listened to the advice offered not only by the industry but by hon. Members from six parties in the House, most eloquently by the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) on the question of structure. It is not possible to tackle the problem without looking at the whole question of structure.
We are financing other countries, through our contributions to the EC, to restructure their industries—to put them in a better position to compete—and we see the seriousness of that when we examine the prospect of EC enlargement. The Scandinavian countries are now turning
1092
to the EC and are knocking at our door. Are we to face an enlarged Community with our fleet debilitated and run down as a result of the refusal of the Government to pick up what is Community policy—to make the restructuring of the fleet an integral part of their approach to tackling the problem of over-supply?
I appeal to the Government to open the dialogue properly with the industry on this issue. One constructive development in the debate occurred at the beginning, when the Minister made it clear that at least two of the old objections to a decommissioning scheme had been disposed of. It is not because the Public Accounts Committee ruled against decommissioning schemes in principle and it is not because the scheme that we had pumped money up the Humber, as it has been colourfully described. It is because the Government believe that they would not get value for money.
Can we sit around the table and discuss that? Can we discuss it—the Government, the industry and the experts who advise the industry, if necessary with people from Brussels—and have a meeting of minds on the question of value for money? Everyone wants value for money. What block stands in the way of resolving the problem? The Government will do themselves a service if tonight the Minister expresses a willingness to initiate such a dialogue. That is the least we can expect to come from this debate. I appeal to the Minister, as a person who, I know, does not want to see the industries of Scotland die around him, to open that debate with his response tonight.
9.45 pm
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I thank the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) for his welcome. This has been a very interesting debate. Bearing in mind the fact that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has gone to such considerable pains to persuade our colleagues in the European Community to reduce the number of days from 10 to eight, I was slightly surprised when the hon. Gentleman asked for an assurance that the Government would not extend the eight-day tie-up period. I think that he can be fairly safe with that assurance.
It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman is making a great error if he confuses structure—the Government agree that there is a need to look at structure—with a decommissioning scheme per se. A number of countries in the Community have begun to consider individual transferable quota schemes, for example. The Government have themselves submitted a capacity aggregation scheme. In a sense, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) confused the need to look at structure with the need to look solely at decommissioning. That is a matter to which I will return in a few moments.
The motion refers to
"a crisis in the fishing industry".
In fact, the Government are trying to conserve fish stocks with a view to preventing a real crisis in the future. The worst crisis of all for the fishing industry would arise if there were no fish in the sea. During the 1970s, the North sea herring stock collapsed because of over-fishing, forcing the closure of the fishery. Only through careful conservation has the fishery recovered. On the other side of the Atlantic, the George bank haddock stock collapsed over 20 years ago and has never recovered. In both cases, there were severe consequences for the fishermen and for

1093
the processing industries that were dependent on the fisheries. That is a matter to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran) referred. We must avoid such a collapse of our cod and haddock stocks.
Conservation measures, such as the introduction of the 90 mm square mesh panel and the eight-day tie-up, have an effect of fishermen's incomes. No one denies that. I very much regret it, but we must balance short-term needs against the long-term survival of the industry.
Tragic events towards the end of last year reminded us —if any reminder was necessary—that fishing is a hazardous occupation and that the safety of crews must be put above all other considerations. I say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that, in administering the eight-day tie-up, we shall not require fishermen to do anything that would directly put their vessels at risk. In the same way, we shall expect fishermen not to behave irresponsibly by going to sea when it is not safe to do so.
Mr. Salmond: If that is the case, will the Minister answer the substantive questions that were put to him during the debate? Does he not agree that this measure will force fishermen to sea under economic pressure? Also, what will happen when a boat that is riding out a storm runs up against the eight-day period? It will have to set sail for port when prudence dictates that it should continue to shelter. Will the Minister please answer those two specific questions? Can he explain how these things will not constitute a danger to fishermen at sea?
Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me say that the scheme will be administered flexibly. Under the scheme, as he knows, there is a requirement to give 12 hours' notice of the port where the tie-up will take place. That does not have to be the port of normal location. If it were not sensible, because of weather conditions, to make for port, we should expect the fisheries inspector to take a flexible view. No one is suggesting anything to the contrary.
I am delighted if that reassures the hon. Gentleman. If he is saying that, as a result of the scheme, people will seek to maintain their livelihood by continuing to aim for the same levels of stocks, clearly he is arguing that the scheme will not reduce fishing activity. There is no way to reduce the number of fish coming out of the sea that will not result in a loss of income, other than an approach that offers an opportunity for both positions, which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to achieve through the use of equipment that is more selective in its take-up.
Mr. Morley: I would not disagree with the Minister that those steps will lead to a loss of income. We have consistently said that conservation steps must be taken and a reduction in effort must be made. Earlier today, we discussed set-aside for farmers, which is a form of reduction of methods. In such cases, farmers are compensated quite generously through the EC Commission. The decommissioning scheme has funds, within the Commission, for compensation. Do not fishermen deserve the same consideration?
Mr. Forsyth: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's analogy between set-aside and fishing reductions is good. Set-aside has been introduced in farming to deal with the
1094
problem of surpluses and is costing a great deal for the taxpayer to maintain. In this case, we are dealing with the problem of shortages of fish stocks.
If the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the decommissioning scheme is equivalent to set-aside, a better analogy would be a lay-up scheme. The hon. Gentleman must recognise that, far from improving the position, the decommissioning scheme could make it worse, because it would put money into the industry that could be invested in vessels with a greater capacity to catch fish that were in short supply. The hon. Gentleman must face that.
If the hon. Gentleman's answer to the problem is that the Government should embrace decommissioning as a policy, he may wish to reflect that those EC countries with decommissioning schemes, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, are also covered by the eight-day tie-up rule —to which he took exception—because their decommissioning schemes have not worked and there is still a problem about their fleets' capacity to catch fish.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Forsyth: I still have a number of arguments.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Speaker: Order. One at a time, please.
Mr. Forsyth: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend, but it means that several other Members will not have their questions answered.
Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Did not my hon. Friend hear me refer to combining decommissioning with a strict licensing scheme? If the Government set the rules properly, it would not be necessary for funds used for decommissioning to be recirculated. That does not necessarily follow.
Mr. Forsyth: Far be it from me to take issue with my right hon. Friend, but he might recognise that we already have a strict licensing scheme. As for a decommissioning scheme, my right hon. Friend, in common with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) talked about a well targeted scheme that would work, but there have been few suggestions about how it would work in practice.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Forsyth: No, I shall not give way to an hon. Gentleman who has only just entered the Chamber.
A decommissioning scheme would not help to conserve stocks. It would be most attractive to the least efficient vessels, which exert little pressure on the stocks. It would result in a large inflow of capital to the industry to modernise the existing fleet, and we could end up with a smaller fleet with greater catching power. The industry needs arrangements under which, by its own decisions, it can adjust better to the operations of the market.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked why, if a boat landed in Mallaig and returned to Orkney, the transit time should not count. The answer is, because the whole point of the eight-day rule is that it is time spent in port when fishing is not taking place. Transit time certainly adds to the time not available for fishing, but the whole point of the scheme is to reduce fishing activity. That is inherent in it and it must be faced.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the gear option did nothing for some boats. I agree that it does not have something for everyone. That is why it is an option, and

1095
that is why we have made it clear to the Commission that the compulsory 110 mm mesh size is not acceptable. We need a reduction in fishing effort; the eight-day tie-up is one way of achieving it.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked what had happened to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation proposals on conservation, especially the one-net rule. We have pressed the Community to adopt most of the SFF proposals, including the one-net rule, but those proposals do not go far enough. We support the one-net rule, and we have convinced the European Commission of the need for it. For the past year we have been trying hard to persuade other member states of the need for the one-net rule, and we will continue to do so.
Mr. Wallace: The Minister does not appear to be answering my points about the square mesh panel. Why does the Parliamentary Secretary not think that there is enough evidence to justify the conservation benefits of the 90 mm diamond net with the 80mm square mesh panel? Surely trials done by the Sunbeam show that there is some evidence. Does he accept that trials to be conducted later this spring will allow further evidence to be gathered about the 90 mm net with the 80 mm square panel?
Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is being a little unfair to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. He said nothing of the sort. We are not free agents in this matter. We have to persuade our colleagues in the Community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) pointed out, the Parliamentary Secretary has done sterling work in arguing the case. The reason why the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland can explain the virtues of the system is that the work has been done in this country; and we are arguing the case with our colleagues. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to argue that we must try to reach a consensus on these and other matters within the Community.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) said that the United Kingdom was offering no alternative, but that is to ignore the capacity aggregation scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough said that, under the new scheme, some quotas would be filled but with fewer discards, and I agree. We must maintain landings but kill fewer fish unnecessarily. That goes to the root of our approach in the Community.
The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said that more Scottish boats than vessels of any other Community country were caught by the eight-day rule. Typically, he did not point out that 75 per cent. of United Kingdom haddock is landed in Scotland—two thirds of the entire EC availability. So the responsibility for achieving recovery of the stock lies with the United Kingdom, particularly with Scotland—
Mr. Salmond rose—
Mr. Forsyth: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. I have given way generously, and there are only two minutes left.
Tonight's debate has been about the future of the fishing industry. We have heard much about the need to help fishermen. The best way to do that is to ensure that there will continue to be fish in the sea to be caught. We have taken the lead in the European Community in
1096
arguing for new conservation measures. Our scientists have predicted that, if no action is taken this year, half the haddock caught in the North sea will be discarded as too small. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that that was unacceptable. Catching fish before they reach a decent size and throwing dead fish back into the sea is no way to manage a modern industry.
We continue to press for early action at European Community level to make fishing gear more selective, so that it lets small fish escape. We are also prepared to take the necessary steps at national level to safeguard the stocks in which our fishermen have an interest. The urgent need to conserve fish stocks persuaded the Government to accept the effort limitation scheme and to propose changes in fishing gear. We shall not shirk our responsibility to conserve fish stocks for the long-term good of the industry by adopting policies—
Mr. Archy Kirkwood rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 99.

Division No. 67]

[10.00 pm

AYES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Madden, Max

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute)

Bellotti, David

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Morley, Elliot

Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)

O'Hara, Edward

Cox, Tom

Paisley, Rev Ian

Dewar, Donald

Rooney, Terence

Doran, Frank

Salmond, Alex

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Skinner, Dennis

Fearn, Ronald

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Foster, Derek

Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)

Haynes, Frank

Wallace, James

Howells, Geraint

Wareing, Robert N.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Wigley, Dafydd

Johnston, Sir Russell

Wilson, Brian

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)

Kennedy, Charles

Tellers for the Ayes:

Livsey, Richard

Mr. A. J. Beith and

Macdonald, Calum A.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood.

Maclennan, Robert

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Evennett, David

Alexander, Richard

Favell, Tony

Amess, David

Fishburn, John Dudley

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Freeman, Roger

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Gale, Roger

Benyon, W.

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Goodlad, Alastair

Bowis, John

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bright, Graham

Gregory, Conal

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

Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Buck, Sir Antony

Grist, Ian

Carrington, Matthew

Ground, Patrick

Chapman, Sydney

Hague, William

Chope, Christopher

Harris, David

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Hawkins, Christopher

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney

Cran, James

Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)

Curry, David

Hind, Kenneth

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Howarth, G. (Cannock & B'wd)

Dunn, Bob

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Emery, Sir Peter

Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)

1097

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Rathbone, Tim

Irvine, Michael

Riddick, Graham

Jack, Michael

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Janman, Tim

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Sackville, Hon Tom

Kilfedder, James

Shaw, David (Dover)

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shelton, Sir William

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Knowles, Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lawrence, Ivan

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Speed, Keith

Lord, Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Macfarlane, Sir Neil

Stevens, Lewis

Maclean, David

Summerson, Hugo

Mans, Keith

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Miller, Sir Hal

Thorne, Neil

Monro, Sir Hector

Thurnham, Peter

Morrison, Sir Charles

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Moynihan, Hon Colin

Waller, Gary

Neubert, Sir Michael

Wheeler, Sir John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Widdecombe, Ann

Page, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Paice, James

Patnick, Irvine

Tellers for the Noes:

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Mr. Tim Boswell and

Porter, David (Waveney)

Mr. Neil Hamilton.

Powell, William (Corby)

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, Put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, while recognising the difficulties which may face fishermen as a result of the decisions for fish conservation reached at the latest EC Council of Fisheries Ministers, endorses the need for such measures to safeguard the long-term interests of fishermen themselves by reducing the over-exploitation of certain fish stocks, welcomes the Government's continuing efforts to secure improved conservation measures and congratulates the Government on securing at the last Fisheries Council a package of measures which included the maintenance of the principle of relative stability, continued recognition of the United Kingdom's claims under the Hague Preference and improved flexibility to take our western mackerel quota east of 4° West.

Fishing Industry

  NATURAL HERITAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  The the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by Mr. Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Wood.]

Kashmir (Human Rights)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]
10.12 pm
Mr. Terry Rooney: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to debate human rights in Kashmir.
At a time when the world's attention is focussed on events in the Gulf, it is right for us not to forget those other people who are seeking to establish their own rights and freedoms. Many right hon. and hon. Members have raised the subject of self-determination for the Baltic states, and I share their concern; but I believe that the situation in Kashmir has become a forgotten issue, and I am seeking to rectify that.
It is now some 43 years since the partition of India, but ever since then, Kashmir has been in a state of political limbo. The United Nations has passed resolutions on the region, but has failed to pursue them with any commitment—certainly with the vigour and enthusiasm that characterises more recent Security Council decisions.
The state of Kashmir is of strategic importance, bordering, as it does, Afghanistan, Russia, China, Tibet, Pakistan and, of course, India. Throughout history, it has been subjected to incursions and acts of aggression. After 2,000-odd years of strife and torment, surely it is time that the people of Kashmir had peace and stability in their lives.
Since 1947, there have been sporadic outbursts of internal conflict and strife, and peace-keeping forces have been sent into the area. Nothing that has previously happened compares with the present position. There are more than 250,000 troops in Kashmir, notionally to maintain law and order. The reality, I suspect, is vastly different.
Despite the curfews and censorship imposed by the armed forces, reports of horrific abuses of human rights are coming from the region, including the torture of protesters, looting, rape, arson and murder. While much of the evidence is inevitably anecdotal, the refusal of the authorities to allow access to the International Committee of the Red Cross to investigate these claims points to their validity and substance. Demonstrations in support of self-determination have numbered up to 1 million people. Surely such strength of feeling deserves recognition.
It is important at this stage to point out that these demonstrations are cross-cultural and multi-religious. The population of Kashmir numbers over 10 million. While the majority of the population are Muslim, there are very significant minorities of Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and other religious groups. Support for the right of Kashmiris to self-determination crosses all religious and cultural boundaries.
We cannot and should not condone violence for its own end—the pursuit of freedom. It is, alas, inevitable that when tensions are high and fear is the prevalent emotion that innocent people are maimed, injured and even killed. It has been estimated that 1·5 million people have fled from the area or are incarcerated in camps in Delhi, Amritsar and Jammu. These events are taking place in Commonwealth countries. That is why I believe that it is the duty of the House to facilitate the ending of these hostilities and atrocities.

1099
The current disputes over Kashmir can be traced back to 1947 and the independence of India and Pakistan. Resolutions were passed by the United Nations on 21 April 1948 and 13 August 1948 requiring a plebiscite to be carried out to obtain the views of the Kashmiri people, with the unfortunate restriction that this was to be on whether to accede to India or Pakistan. Despite that limitation, no referendum has ever been allowed. It is to the detriment of all concerned that we have now had 43 years of inertia, of needless suffering of a proud nation and of blind eyes being turned. The convenience of politicians has been allowed to transcend the needs and wishes of Kashmir.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House have condemned the violence in Kashmir and expressed support for the concept of self-determination. Now it is time to translate that support into action. If the Indian Government are unwilling or unable to find a way forward, I suggest that the Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries of all the Commonwealth countries should be called on to mediate and prepare the ground. That must be by way of a plebiscite of the Kashmiri people, with all options on the agenda—that is, remaining part of India, joining Pakistan or forming an independent state. I favour the last, but I do not presume to impose my views on others.
In my home city of Bradford, there are more than 30,000 citizens of Kashmiri origin, many of whom have relatives still living in Kashmir. They are at the moment in complete ignorance as to the health and welfare of these relatives because of the news blackout and the poor state of information. They are denied the opportunity of visiting by the Government's refusal to issue visas. I know that there are thousands of Kashmiris in other parts of the country with the same concern. We also have a duty to them to resolve this issue as speedily and as peacefully as possible.
I believe that it is imperative to investigate the question of abuses of human rights. I call on the Indian authorities to allow Amnesty International to be given free and unhindered access to assess the situation in the unbiased and objective manner for which it is rightly renowned.
Mr. Max Madden: I congratulate my hon. Friend on initiating this debate. Does he agree that it is important that the Indian Government immedately allow Amnesty International to investigate the many allegations about human rights abuses? Will he also confirm that the scale and savagery of the brutality that the people of Kashmir have faced in recent years at the hands of the Indian security forces are comparable to anything that has occurred in Kuwait? Does he agree that it is necessary for the Government to confirm—as they have confirmed in the case of Kuwait and the Baltic states—that the people of Kashmir have a right to determine their future and the destiny of their country on the basis that he has outlined?
Mr. Rooney: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He also represents an area of Bradford. He has had an opportunity that I have not yet had to visit Kashmir. I have heard—as the House has heard—his first-hand accounts of some of the atrocities in that area. However, I understand that even he, in his mission of good
1100
will, was denied access to many areas of the state of Kashmir. Perhaps that gives us a lead to the forces at work in the region.
It is imperative that, wherever possible, we expose any abuse of human rights and any atrocities that man is capable of perpetrating on others. Amnesty International has a record which is second to none. I do not believe that anyone could doubt the integrity of such an organisation. I am worried that it is being denied access in the same way that the Red Cross is being denied access. To me, that is a sign that something extremely serious is happening there, about which the Government and forces in the area do not wish the outside world to know.
Violence is being perpetrated on an enormous scale. That is certain. Where the blame lies need not interest us especially. Blame does not bring anyone back to life, heal injuries, restore lives or give orphans parents. If we are to resolve conflict—the Baltic states and Kuwait have been mentioned, but there are many other areas of the world where conflict exists—we need to do it on a reasoned basis and on the back of sound information. If, for whatever reason, the Government and authorities of India will not allow parliamentary or similar delegations, we must press them to allow Amnesty International to assess the situation and to report back to Governments, to the Commonwealth and to the United Nations, so that progress can be made.
Self-determination is enshrined in article 1 of the United Nations charter. People must be free to determine their own Government, their own life style, their own form of democracy and their own mode of economy. That must be inherent in any civilised society. It is not for other powers to impose their will, by force, by aggression or by any other means. Self-determination must be a basic human right, and must be the basis of any freedom and any democracy. Any self-respecting politician would accept that.
We are constantly told that India is the world's largest democracy, with 1 billion people—perhaps more. There are many turmoils in India and one does not envy the President, the Prime Minister or the Parliament of India their job. Nevertheless, we must tell India that, because of its federal nature, unless it resolves conflicts such as that in Kashmir to the satisfaction of the world community, it will be in danger of tearing itself apart. That would be a tragedy for all of us—especially for all the people of India and for the region generally.
I have received many statements, depositions and reports from all sections of the community. I absolve no one from blame for the violence that is occurring in Kashmir. Some would say that it is entirely the work of Hindus against Muslims—others, vice versa. I do not think that we are in the business of apportioning blame. We are in the business of removing the violence, establishing peace and stability and restoring human rights in the area and allowing a proud people to get on with their lives in a pleasant land. We want to make it an attractive place for people to live, to give children hope for the future and the elderly peace in their last years. The situation in Kashmir has been allowed to continue for far too long —from 1947 to 1991—with little sign of any progress being made.
As part of the Commonwealth, we have a lead role to play. It is right and proper that we should use the good offices of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to impress upon India the need to bring Amnesty

1101
International in as a starting point and then to use diplomatic channels and so on to allow the people of Kashmir a plebiscite so that they can express their wishes and desires for the future of Kashmir. In that sense, they are no different from the people of the Baltic states, the people of Kuwait and the people of all the oppressed nations of the world. The difference is that tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people of Kashmiri descent have been in prison, and they think that it is about time that we took the same positive action on this difficult state of affairs as has been taken in other arenas.
Recently I received a petition carrying 3,000 signatures. I was intrigued to find that name 137 was that of one John Major. Unfortunately, he lives at Silverhill drive in Bradford, not at No. 10 Downing street.
10.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Bradford. North (Mr. Rooney) and I congratulate him on bringing the subject of Kashmir before the House again.
We share concern about the violence in Kashmir, the tension it has caused between India and Pakistan—both good friends of Britain—and the need for human rights to be respected. It is, however, important to understand something of the historical background to the problem before considering the present situation.
At the time of Indian independence in 1947, there were some 560 princely states, of which Jammu and Kashmir was one of the largest. A majority of its population were Muslim, but there was a large Hindu community, and also significant Buddhist and tribal minorities. The Maharaja was Hindu.
The rulers of all the princely states were advised to accede to either India or Pakistan. Most did, opting for the country in which their state was situated. At independence, the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir had still not opted for either country. However, an uprising among the Muslims of his western territories, supported by irregular forces from the new state of Pakistan, led the Maharaja to sign an instrument of accession to India in October 1947. Pakistan did not accept the decision, and the first war broke out between the two newly independent countries. It continued throughout 1948 until a ceasefire came into effect on 1 January 1949. In July 1949, India and Pakistan agreed a ceasefire line which passed through the territory of the former princely state. That line was subsequently redefined as the "line of control" after the 1971 war.
At the heart of the present disturbances in Kashmir is the long-standing dispute over its status. As the hon. Gentleman reminded the House, India and Pakistan originally agreed to a plebiscite covering the entire princely state, as set out in United Nations resolutions in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The issue was whether Kashmir should accede to India or to Pakistan, not independence. But apart from that, much has happened since then. There have been two wars over Kashmir. The territory of the former princely state has in practice been divided between India and Pakistan by the line of control. In 1972, India and Pakistan reached a fresh agreement at Simla. Under the Simla agreement both countries agreed
"to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed on between them".
1102
Those are words with which many hon. Members will be familiar. Both sides also committed themselves to a
"final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir".
So the earlier agreement to which the hon. Gentleman referred was superseded by the 1972 agreement.
That brief synopsis shows some of the complex background to the Kashmir problem. It also has a bearing on the present violence there. The disturbances over Kashmir which have racked the relations between India and Pakistan ever since their independence are centred on the valley of Kashmir. The Indian constitution gives special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, but the Muslim inhabitants of the valley of Kashmir have felt an increasing dissatisfaction with their situation.
We have consistently condemned those who resort to terrorist tactics for political ends. The bomb and the bullet are no substitute for the ballot box and the democratic process. We support the Government of India in their efforts to deal with the challenge from terrorist violence in Kashmir, but, at the same time, we have urged the Indian Government to try to exercise the greatest restraint in dealing with the serious threat to law and order facing them in Kashmir.
There have been harrowing accounts of what has taken place in Kashmir. We have no way of knowing how reliable such reports are, but we are confident that the Indian Government are trying to prevent such occurrences. However, even if only a small part of the reports is true, it is too much. We condemn abuses of human rights wherever in the world they occur. In relation to Kashmir, we have regularly made clear to the Indian Government our concern that human rights must be respected. In their response, members of the Indian Government have underlined the seriousness of the challenge facing them and the violence committed by the militants, which we acknowledge.
Members of the Indian Government have also assured us of their respect for human rights and their determination to do their best to ensure that human rights are not violated. The Government have instituted a special court in Kashmir to examine complaints against the police. Cases of alleged wrongdoing by the security forces are also reported to be under investigation. We welcome those concrete steps as signs of the Indian Government's intentions, but we shall continue to urge them to practise the utmost restraint in confronting the challenge in Kashmir.
The hon. Member for Bradford, North referred to Amnesty International. As I expect he knows, we welcomed the previous Indian Government's decision to allow members of Amnesty International to go to India for private visits and meetings with the Government. The previous Government of India faced considerable complaint from their Opposition for making that decision. We hope that the present Indian Government will stand by that commitment. We have always commended Amnesty International to that Government, and we hope that Amnesty will soon be able to carry out whatever investigation it has in mind.
India has often claimed that the disturbances it faces in Kashmir could be easily dealt with if the militants were deprived of the support that they receive from within Pakistan. The Pakistan Government deny that they are giving any support, except moral and political support for fellow Muslims in difficulties. Whatever the truth of that,

1103
we have also urged the Pakistan authorities to do their utmost to avoid any steps that might appear to confirm India's suspicions.
Mr. Gary Waller: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should point out to the Indian authorities that they are playing into the hands of the militants by not stamping firmly on atrocities against the population of Kashmir? Such acts only serve to cause greater bitterness. It is well known that feelings against the Indian authorities have grown much stronger as the months have gone by and little progress has been made. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if not only Amnesty International but a group from the House visited the region, with, one hopes, the co-operation of the Indian authorities, to assess the situation and report back to the House?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend's point speaks for itself. The institution by the Indian Government of the special court in Kashmir is in response to the type of argument my hon. Friend has deployed. I can inform my hon. Friend that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was to visit Kashmir with the agreement of the Indian Government earlier this month, but that trip has had to be delayed because of the conflict in the Gulf.
1104
There is some evidence that there has been a welcome reduction in the level of violence in Kashmir in recent weeks. It is a great tragedy that an area so rich in natural assets, not least the resourcefulness of the people, and outstanding beauty, with which I know that you, Mr. Speaker, and many other hon. Members are familiar, should have been plunged into such serious law and order difficulties.
To find a lasting solution to the long-running problem and bring to an end the violence which distresses us all, it will be necessary first to build up confidence between all those involved. We welcome the series of bilateral discussions currently under way between India and Pakistan about practical confidence-building measures. We also welcome the efforts being made by the present Indian Government to re-establish a political dialogue with the Muslim communities of the Kashmir valley. We hope that those discussions will contribute to the process of finding a solution to the problem of Kashmir.
The House can be assured that we will continue to watch the situation in Kashmir closely and encourage all concerned to resolve the matter peacefully. Only that will bring a lasting end to the recent violence which so saddens all who are friends of India and Pakistan, and of the Kashmiri people.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  The Gulf
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister what communications he has had with King Hussein of Jordan since 6 February concerning the situation in the Gulf.

  The Prime Minister
  We are in continuing contact with the Jordanian Government. We have made clear our regret at King Hussein's misleading description of coalition objectives and activities in his 6 February speech to his people. I last communicated directly with King Hussein on 3 January, when I met him in London.

  Saddam Hussein
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Prime Minister who was the last Minister to meet President Saddam Hussein; and what matters were discussed.

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, met President Saddam Hussein on 24 February 1988. A number of regional and bilateral issues were discussed.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 14 February.

  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.

  Central and South America
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the(a) economic, (b) scientific, (c) technical, (d) environmental, and (e) social programmes which Her Majesty's Government have supported since 1989 in (i) Argentina, (ii) Brazil, (iii) Chile, (iv) Colombia, (v) Mexico, (vi) Panama, (vii) Peru, (viii) Venezuela and (ix) Uruguay.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have no bilateral aid programmes for Argentina or Venezuela. We have technical co-operation programmes of varying sizes in the other seven countries. All these programmes concentrate on renewable natural resources (with a special emphasis on the sustainable use of the environment), English language teaching, and postgraduate training in Britain. Since July 1989 we have been building up a specifically environmental programme in Brazil.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Community Charge
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) on 28 January,Official Report, column 391, if he will publish the uprated tables on transitional grants referred to in his answer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Mellor
  These tables have now been published as tables 5.2 and 5.4 of the "Public Expenditure Analyses to 1993–94, Statistical Supplement to the 1990 Autumn Statement"—Cm 1520.

  The changes as a result of the new community charge reduction scheme announced on 17 January were not included in these tables and are as follows:

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  Great Britain

  Community charge reduction scheme 1991–92 (£ million)

  1,695

  90

  62

  1,847

  These figures replace those for transitional relief given in the published tables.

  Funding for the new scheme results in offsetting savings of some £300 million on community charge benefit.

  Bingo Duty
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Newark of 29 January, Official Report, column 466, how much of the £66 million bingo duty was paid by non-profit making members' clubs in the year ended 31 March 1990.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  In the year ended 31 March 1990, approximately £3 million was paid by these clubs.

TRANSPORT

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the principal achievements of his Department since June 1987.

  Mr. Rifkind
  My Department has ensured that Britain's growing transport needs are met with regard to safety, efficiency and with proper respect for the environment.

  Investment in transport infrastructure by both the public and private sectors has been greatly increased. British Rail's investment this year is over 50 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1986–87 and London Transport's is 85 per cent. higher; investment in national roads in England is 70 per cent. higher. Massive investment is already in progress to provide rail and road links to the channel tunnel from the day it opens. The Government's spending plans provide for further substantial increases in investment over the next few years, particularly in London Transport, British Rail and air traffic control.

  The private sector also now has a greatly enhanced role in the provision of transport infrastructure, most notably in the channel tunnel, authorised by the 1987 Act, in roads

  537
  and bridges such as the Dartford-Thurrock bridge, the second Severn bridge and the Birmingham northern relief road, and in airports such as BAA's new terminal at Stansted. The BAA was privatised in 1987 and the privatisation of the National Bus Company was completed in 1988.

  The United Kingdom Government have been in the forefront of moves to achieve greater liberalisation in the provision of transport services in the European Community, where there has been considerable progress on aviation, road haulage and shipping, in international aviation, and in Britain's docks through the abolition of the dock labour scheme.

  Transport safety is being enhanced through investment, regulation and publicity. We have approved British Rail's plans to spend £330 million for specific safety measures over the next three years—all that it asked for—and London Underground plans to invest approaching £400 million in further safety improvements over that period. Following a major review of road safety in 1987, the Government set a target of a one third reduction in road accident casualties by the year 2000. This is being implemented vigorously through legislation, including this Session's Road Traffic Bill, through low-cost road engineering schemes and through enhanced publicity campaigns under the safety on the move umbrella, notably on drinking and driving and child road safety. Numerous measures have been taken to improve ferry safety; and both aviation and maritime security are being tightened up, assisted by the new powers in the 1990 Act.

  Stringent new European limits for vehicle emissions have been agreed, and unleaded petrol is rapidly supplanting leaded. Careful environmental assessments are undertaken for all national road schemes, and new roads are now being blended into the environment through more imaginative landscaping. More stringent limits on noise levels have been introduced for both road vehicles and aircraft.

  Trust Ports
  Ms. Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library copies of the comments of the British Ports Federation submitted at the request of the then shipping minister on 9 November 1990 on the matter of trust ports privatisation and consultation.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The meeting to which the hon. Lady refers was one of a regular series of discussions at ministerial level between the Department of Transport and the federation, which are not limited to trust ports privatisation and consultation. My noble Friend Lord Brabazon of Tara did not at that meeting request, nor did he subsequently receive, a statement on these topics from the federation.

  Heathrow Airport
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if, following receipt of Civil Aviation Authority report CAP578 on 22 January, he has commissioned any research into the number of spare slots at Heathrow airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  The Civil Aviation Authority noted in the consultation document it issued in November the number of unused slots at Heathrow in a busy week during 538
  summer 1990. More generally, the authority addressed the question of spare capacity at Heathrow in its advice last year on the United Kingdom's longer-term airport needs.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has asked the Civil Aviation Authority to undertake research into the implications of the recommendations of Civil Aviation Authority report CAP578 on the number of spare slots that would be applied for at Heathrow airport.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  No. The Civil Aviation Authority has advised in CAP578 that the effects of abolishing Heathrow rules one, two and three are unpredictable, in part because they must depend on decisions which might be taken by foreign airlines on whether to seek to mount services at Heathrow.

  London Transport
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will make a statement on the financial position of London Transport.

  Mr. Rifkind
  The Government have had discussions with London Transport about the financial difficulties it has encountered in 1990–91. The Government have concluded that the appropriate course is to increase London Transport's external financing limit for 1990–91 by £55 million. At the same time, an increase of £7·55 million is necessary to cover London Transport's expenditure in the current year on east-west crossrail, and costs associated with safeguarding the Chelsea-Hackney line proposal. These increases will change London Transport's 1990–91 EFL from £448·00 million to £510·55 million. This is within the forecast outturn for the planning total published in the statistical supplement to the 1990 autumn statement.

  Urgent discussions with London Transport are continuing, about their budget for 1991–92. Pending the outcome of those discussions, London Transport's EFL and capital expenditure ceilings will remain at the levels previously announced.

  Dial-a-Ride Service
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what arrangements have been made to fund the London dial-a-ride service.

  Mr. Freeman
  I am pleased to announce that the grant to London dial-a-ride services for 1991–92 will be £10·015 million, an increase of over £1·7 million on 1990–91. It has been most encouraging to see the rapid expansion of the scheme in recent years and I am confident that this latest injection of cash will allow London Transport to increase the services still further in 1991–92 by an estimated 60,000 journeys—equivalent to an increase of 9 per cent.—and also to proceed with the first stages of their planned reorganisation.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Plant Classification
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for projects to help the consistent classification of plants, as proposed by Dr. Martin Holdgate FRS at the nature conservancy conference on 31 January.

  Mrs. Chalker
  We are studing Dr. Holdgate's proposal within the context of our overall assistance to developing countries on environmental issues, including biodiversity, and requests from them.

  Famine Relief
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria are used to determine whether Hercules aircraft are used for famine relief.

  Mrs. Chalker
  Aircraft of any type are used as a last resort in famine relief operations, due to their limited load capacity and extremely high operating costs. Where sea or ground transport cannot be used, however, airlifts are recognised as an alternative means of delivering food. In such operations Hercules aircraft have advantages in operating into short or inaccessible airstrips.

  Somalia
  Ms. Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on diplomatic relations with Somalia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  The British embassy in Mogadishu was closed and staff withdrawn in early January because of the complete breakdown in law and order. Since the United Kingdom maintains diplomatic relations with states rather than governments, there has been no breach in relations. We keep in regular contact with the Somali ambassador in London as well as with representatives of the various Somali groups.

ENVIRONMENT

  Property Services Agency
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what estimate he has of the total value of Crown business so far lost by the Property Services Agency through competitive tendering by Government Departments;

  (2) how many Crown tenders the Property Services Agency has competed for and how many has it won in competition since Crown customers were untied.

  Mr. Yeo
  The PSA has submitted competitive bids for some 200 separate commissions since Departments were untied. The extent to which these were successful is commercially sensitive information for the PSA businesses, which it would be inappropriate to disclose, but PSA has been successful in a sizeable proportion. The market testing has provided a powerful stimulus to efficiency, and Departments will have benefited from keener prices.
  540
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment by what date he now expects the Property Services Agency to operate on commercial accounts.

  Mr. Yeo
  PSA Services—PSAS—already produces, for management use, monthly income and expenditure accounts. The implementation of new commercial financial systems is well advanced and as they are introduced they are running in parallel with cash accounting for the Vote. PSAS will continue to operate on the basis of cash accounting until it ceases to be a Government Department.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the salary cost, including pay bonuses and compensation paid on termination of contract, of the Property Services Agency board members in the period January 1990 to January 1991.

  Mr. Yeo
  The salary cost of the executive members of the PSAS board for the 1990 calendar year was £680,100. The non-executive members received fees amounting to £23,904 in the same year.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many performance pay bonuses have been awarded to Property Services Agency board members in the period 1 January 1990 to 1 January 1991; and what was the total cost of those bonuses.

  Mr. Yeo
  During the 1990 calendar year three performance pay bonuses totalling £11,468 were awarded to Property Services Agency board members. The salaries of a further three board members included an element of performance pay totalling £8,538 as a result of awards made in previous years.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of Slate for the Environment whether he expects compulsory redundancies among employees of the Property Services Agency Government-owned companies.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Property Services Agency hopes to achieve most of its required manpower reduction by voluntary means, but some compulsory redundancies will be inevitable.

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list all those local authorities whose non-domestic rate poundage rose by less than 110.9 per cent. in 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90.

  Mr. Portillo
  I am arranging for copies of the information to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Rates, Kent
  Mr. Cambell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average rates bill in 1989–90 for each local authority in Kent.

  Mr. Key
  The information requested is as follows:

  £

  Ashford

  452

  Canterbury

  420

  Dartford

  402

  541

  £

  Dover

  372

  Gillingham

  391

  Gravesham

  441

  Maidstone

  433

  Rochester on Medway

  376

  Sevenoaks

  474

  Shepway

  475

  Swale

  340

  Thanet

  425

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  438

  Tunbridge Wells

  435

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the provision of assistance by his Department at the end of military conflict in the Gulf in safely packaging the radioactively contaminated rubble and radioactive waste arising from the Iraqi nuclear facilities destroyed by allied bombing.

  Mr. Trippier
  Her Majesty's Government will give consideration to provision of such assistance, if so requested, following the end of current hostilities.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the credit approvals of each local authority in England for 1990–91 and 1991–92, showing the percentage change between the two years.

  Mr. Portillo
  A list of the basic credit approvals issued to local authorities in England for 1991–92 was placed in the House of Commons Library on 4 January 1991. I am arranging for a further list to be placed in the Library giving, for each authority, basic credit approvals for 1990–91 and 1991–92 and showing the percentage changes between the two years.

  Mr. Richard Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish the annual capital guideline of each local authority in England for 1990–91 and 1991–92, showing the percentage change between the two years.

  Mr. Portillo
  Annual capital guidelines—ACGs—for local authorities in England are issued by the Secretary of State responsible for each service block. My Department is responsible for issuing ACGs in respect of the housing and other services blocks—OSB. I am arranging for two lists to be placed in the Library giving, for each authority, the 1990–91 and 1991–92 ACGs for housing and OSB respectively and showing the percentage change between the two years.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations his Department has received from the Audit Commission concerning the pursuit of non-payers of poll tax through the courts; and whether he has any plans to offer additional moneys to magistrates courts to cover such cases.

  Mr. Key
  The Audit Commission produced a report in November 1990 on the administration of the community charge. Among other things, it suggested to authorities that they should liaise closely with clerks to magistrates 542
  courts in order to ensure that community charge cases are handled satisfactorily and in appropriate numbers. We have warmly welcomed this report and strongly commended its findings to local authorities. In January the Audit Commission's paper for the local government review suggested that authorities are now able to issue more summonses but court time remains inadequate in most authorities. On the question of magistrates courts funding I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State, Home Department, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 13 February, Official Report, column 492.

  Mr. Ken Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much of the £1·7 billion funding available for the community charge reduction scheme is to be allocated to(a) Blackburn, (b) Hyndburn and (c) Burnley; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  This information is not yet available. The amount of reduction scheme grant a charging authority receives will depend on the personal community charge that it sets for 1991–92 and the number of eligible people in its area. Claims for community charge reduction scheme grant will be requested shortly.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of local authority spending on collecting the poll tax.

  Mr. Key
  The English local authorities budgeted to spend £440·2 million on collecting the community charge in 1990–91.

  Community Charge, Kent
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the average level of community charge for each local authority in the Kent area for two adult person households;

  (2) what was the average level of community charge for each local authority in the Kent area for three adult person households.

  Mr. Key
  In 1990–91 each adult, unless a student or exempted, would be liable for a full personal community charge less, depending on personal circumstances, amounts for transitional relief and community charge rebate. The following table, using information returned by the local authorities, shows the estimated average community charge and the average charge after reliefs and rebates.

  Average charge £

  Average charge after transitional relief and community charge benefit £

  Ashford

  299

  267

  Canterbury

  300

  256

  Dartford

  330

  292

  Dover

  298

  271

  Gillingham

  285

  260

  Gravesham

  294

  262

  Maidstone

  330

  308

  Rochester upon Medway

  249

  224

  543

  Average charge £

  Average charge after transitional relief and community charge benefit £

  Sevenoaks

  322

  299

  Shepway

  347

  293

  Swale

  299

  260

  Thanet

  300

  257

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  320

  298

  Tunbridge Wells

  315

  294

  Private Rented Accommodation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on progress in reviving the private rented sector since the passage of the Housing Act 1988.

  Mr. Yeo
  It is too early to assess the overall impact of the Act on private renting. Research now in progress will provide information in the course of 1991. There are, however, clear signs of increased activity in the residential lettings market. In particular, it is estimated that business expansion scheme companies have so far raised £580 million, which will provide over 10,000 new homes to rent.

  Leisure Centres
  Sir Ian Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will publish a table listing the total capital expenditure on leisure centres and swimming baths by local authorities in the last five years for which detailed information is available.

  Mr. Portillo
  Following is the information:

  Year

  Leisure centres

  Swimming pools

  1984–85

  107·914

  35·429

  1985–86

  63·998

  25·534

  1986–87

  76·687

  34·672

  1987–88

  87·783

  51·056

  1988–89

  105·223

  51·311

  Figures are shown in £ million.

  NB: For the years 1987–88 and 1988–89 the figures for leisure centres include expenditure on indoor sports and community centres; for the years 1984–85, 1985–86 and 1986–87 data were collected under the heading sports and recreation centres.

  Home Repair Grants
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the latest figures, by quarter, for the number of(a) applications and (b) approvals of the various grants for home renovation and repair (i) since June 1990 and (ii) for the eight quarters ending in June 1990.

  Mr. Yeo
  The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 changed the system of renovation grants to private owners and tenants in England from 1 July 1990. Under the new system the Department collects information about grant applications approved and final payments made. Information about grant approvals under the new system during the third quarter of 1990 are shown in the table. Figures for the fourth quarter of 1990 are not yet available.
  544
  The previous system of grants to private owners and tenants ended at 30 June 1990. Grant applications and approvals under the old system up to and including the first quarter of 1990 are shown in table 2.16 of "Housing and Construction Statistics Part 2" June 1990. A copy of this publication is in the Library.

  Renovation grants under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989

  Grant applications approved—England—third quarter, 1990

  Mandatory

  Discretionary

  Renovation grants

  144

  66

  HMO1 grants

  Nil

  Nil

  Common parts grants

  Nil

  Nil

  Disabled facilities grant

  172

  16

  Minor works assistance

  —

  3,362

  1 Houses in multiple occupation.

  Rubbish Collection
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his Department's latest estimate of local authority spending on rubbish collection.

  Mr. Key
  The English local authorities budgeted to spend £476·9 million on refuse collection in 1990–91.

  Customer Services Committees
  Mrs. Ann Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the current payment to those chairing customer services committees; and what proposals he has to increase these payments.

  Mr. Trippier
  The remuneration of the chairmen of the customer service committees is a matter for the Director General of Water Services to determine with the approval of the Treasury.

  Plant Protection
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for representation at the fourth international parks conference at Caracas in 1992, in relation to protection of areas of plant communities, as proposed by Dr. Rodwell of Lancaster university.

  Mr. Baldry
  I understand that the fourth world congress on national parks and protected areas will include discussions on the classification and monitoring of vegetation. The International union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, as organisers of the congress, is considering inviting Dr. Rodwell to participate in these discussions.

  Caravan Sites
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will respond to the Countryside Commission's proposal for certain caravan sites to be removed from heritage coastlines.

  Mr. Trippier
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is aware that the Countryside Commission published a policy statement on heritage coasts last month and that the commission intends to seek his views on it in due course.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to establish companies or trusts to run residential homes for the elderly; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Key
  Local authorities already have powers to promote the formation of societies, trusts or companies for these and other purposes under the Housing Associations Act 1985.

  Sleeping Rough
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) which voluntary organisations carried out the survey of people sleeping rough in London referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on 8 January,Official Report, column 543; and on what date the survey was conducted;

  (2) if he will provide a borough-by-borough breakdown of the 1,046 people sleeping rough in London quoted by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on 8 February, Official Report, column 543;

  (3) whether the Metropolitan police took part in the survey of people sleeping rough in London referred to by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on 8 January, Official Report, column 543.

  Sir George Young
  The estimate of 1,046 people sleeping rough in central London quoted by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary was drawn from estimates made by the voluntary organisations listed in the table. These estimates were made at the end of January in relation to seven areas in central London in which the main concentrations of rough sleepers are found. The voluntary organisations are in regular contact with the Metropolitan police but they did not consult the police on these estimates.

  The estimates for the seven areas were as follows; it is not possible to analyse them on a borough-by-borough basis:

  Number

  Strand and West End

  130

  Victoria and Vauxhall

  300

  Earl's Court and Hammersmith Broadway

  56

  The "Bullring" and Waterloo

  120

  The City

  130

  Lincoln's Inn Fields and Kingsway

  210

  King's Cross

  100

  The voluntary organisations that took part in the estimates were:

  Salvation Army

  Beacon House

  Providence Row Housing Association

  East London Homeless Primary Care Team

  Look Ahead Housing Association

  City Social Services

  St. Botolph's Day Centre

  Thamesreach

  Church Housing Association

  Roman Catholic Chaplaincy for the Homeless

  King's Cross Homelessness Project

  Camden Homeless Monitoring Group

  New Horizon

  Shaftesbury Society

  St. Mongo's Association

  North Lambeth Day Centre

  546

  De Paul Trust

  Vauxhall Action for the Homeless in the Community

  The Passage Day Centre

  St. Vincent Centre

  The Cardinal Hume Centre

  Streetwise Youth

  The Basement Project

  The Joint Homelessness Team

  —Westminster Social Services

  Arlington House

  Hornsey YMCA

  Threshold Housing Advice Centre

  St. Martin's Social Care Unit

  The London Connection

  Piccadilly Advice Centre

  Centrepoint Soho

  Bondway Housing Association

  Homeless Network

  Community Forests
  Mr. Gregory
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to establish further community forests; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Baldry
  As part of their joint initiative to develop a programme of community forests near major conurbations, the Countryside Commission and Forestry Commission have announced nine new candidate sites. The locations are Bedford, Bristol, Cleveland, Manchester, Merseyside, Nottingham, south Hertfordshire, South Yorkshire and Swindon. As the next step, the Government have authoritised the commissions to propose to their local authority partners the appointment of project teams for each area. These teams, consulting closely with interested parties, will draw up detailed plans as the basis for deciding future action. Such plans are already in preparation for three other sites: the Forest of Mercia—south Staffordshire; the Great North Forest—south Tyneside and north-east Durham; and Thames Chase—to the east of London. The further areas bring the total programme proposed to 12 forests, spread throughout England.

  US Service Men
  Sir Eldon Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will pay the grant to parishes in respect of resident United States service men, announced on 3 May 1990.

  Mr. Portillo
  Claims by parishes for a one-off grant, payable exceptionally for 1990–91, in respect of resident US service men who are exempt from the community charge have now been assessed. A list showing determinations of grant for each eligible parish has been placed in the Library.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, if he will make a statement on the recent initiatives taken by his Department to help relieve the plight of the homeless.

  Mr. Yeo
  [pursuant to the reply, 30 January 1991, c. 535]: I am today placing in the Library a list of 78 voluntary organisations to which we are offering grants for 1991–92. In all, over £4·5 million will be available for specific projects providing practical help for homeless people and for the second phase of the national

  547
  homelessness advice service coordinated through citizens' advice bureaux with support from Shelter and the London Housing Aid Centre. This represents an increase of over 100 per cent. of the £2 million available in 1990–91. The extra money has made it possible for us to help a much larger number of voluntary organisations, most of them outside London. The grants are a recognition of the vital role which these organisations play in relieving the problems experienced by the homeless and in encouraging them towards independent living.

  Urban block public expenditure £ million—outturn prices

  LDDC external financing limits

  All UDCs external financing limits

  LDDC as percentage of all UDCs

  1 Urban block total

  LDDC as percentage of block

  1981–82

  31

  38

  82

  162

  19

  1982–83

  41

  62

  66

  283

  14

  1983–84

  62

  94

  66

  325

  19

  1984–85

  58

  88

  66

  450

  13

  1985–86

  57

  86

  66

  436

  13

  1986–87

  65

  289

  73

  429

  15

  1987–88

  83

  134

  62

  483

  17

  1988–89

  116

  2234

  50

  559

  25

  1989–90

  256

  436

  59

  3760

  34

  1990–914

  333

  550

  61

  905

  37

  1 Includes for 1984–85 onwards other Government Departments' contributions to the Urban Programme.

  2 LDDC and Merseyside were the only UDCs until February 1987. Four second generation UDCs were set up in 1987 in England and the four third generation UDCs in 1988–89.

  3 Includes City Action teams, transferred from DTI during 1989–90.

  4 Current provision.

  Industrial Relocation
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans for environmental grants for new buildings to encourage industrial relocation out of residential urban areas.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: I have no such plans, but urban development corporations have powers to offer a range of grants to businesses relocating in their areas. Environmental improvement is a key element of such redevelopment.

  Refuse-derived Fuel
  Mr. Janman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Thurrock,Official Report, 29 January, columns 472–73, if he will make it his policy to (a) consult the private sector on the best use of the powers of derogation and (b) ensure that all legislation and regulations ultimately controlled by his Department encourage both the development and use of refuse-derived fuels as an economically viable commodity and do not add to its cost in the medium term.

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 12 February 1991]: As regards consultation, I refer my hon. Friend to my reply of 21 January, Official Report, column 87. The Government's policy is to encourage the recycling and productive use of waste, where possible, but I am not in a position to give general assurances of the kind sought about the effect of legislation for which my Department is responsible.

  London Docklands Development Corporation
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will indicate the total amount of public money allocated to the London Docklands development corporation for each year since 1981, at current prices, indicating for each year what proportion the figure is in relation to total allocation for urban development corporations, and the proportion in relation to the urban block.

  Mr. Portillo
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: Information on public expenditure totals is as follows:

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Parole
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to announce his decision in relation to the parole board's recommendation in the case of Dennis Stafford.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Mr. Stafford has already been notified of this decision.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many scientific procedures were carried out on animals in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland in 1989;

  (2) what response he has made to the criticisms contained within the RSPCA/FRAME report on the use of non-human primates as laboratory animals in Britain; and whether he has any plans to implement its main recommendations;

  (3) how the likely benefits of a procedure are assessed when considering a project licence application under section 5(4) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; whether any assessment is made concerning how useful the product to be tested will be once marketed; and how project licences issued for the testing of cosmetics have been justified under this section.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  I have nothing to add to the replies which I gave to similar questions from the hon. Member on 11 December, at columns 348–49.

  Refugees
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he intends to take to ensure that asylum-seekers are granted comprehensive advice on asylum procedures and information on agencies and refugee community organisations upon their arrival in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The Government provide 25 per cent. of the funding of the refugee unit of the United Kingdom immigration advisory service for the purpose of advising asylum seekers in the United Kingdom. I am satisfied that the present arrangements for informing asylum seekers of the advice available from the United Kingdom immigration advisory service are adequate.

  Public Order Act
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has completed his evaluation of section 39 of the Public Order Act 1986; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Hicks) on 6 February 1991, at column 141.

  Bail Hostels
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations were undertaken by the probation service with the residents of Elworth prior to the recent submission of an application to open a bail hostel within the village.

  Mr. John Patten
  I understand that Cheshire probation service began consultation with local residents after the planning application was submitted to Congleton borough council but before the formal planning committee meeting on 4 December 1990 when planning permission was refused.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many offences were committed by individuals resident in bail hostels at the time of the offence in the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. John Patten
  The information is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the criteria upon which potential sites for bail hostels are assessed by the probation service.

  Mr. John Patten
  Local probation services assess potential sites for bail hostels on the basis of a range of factors such as the level of unmet demand for bail places in the surrounding area; the availability of suitable properties in terms of size, price and ease of management; the proximity of amenities and public transport links; the general character of the area and the likelihood of planning consent being granted.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will visit the village of Elworth to meet local residents to discuss the proposal to site a bail hostel in the village.
  550
  Mr. John Patten
  The role of the Home Office in these matters is confined to approval of proposals that new hostels should be set up and their funding. It falls to local probation committees to choose the particular sites, negotiate purchases, consult the neighbours and apply for the relevant planning consents. I understand that Cheshire probation service is already discussing its proposal to site a bail hostel in Elworth with local residents and representatives. I hope that discussions can continue on this basis.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is given by the probation service to the proximity of primary schools when assessing potential sites for use as bail hostels.

  Mr. John Patten
  The proximity of a primary school or schools may be one of many factors which local probation services need to consider when assessing a potential site for use as a bail hostel.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is given by the probation service to the proximity of clubs and societies for senior citizens when assessing potential sites for use as bail hostels.

  Mr. John Patten
  The proximity of such clubs or societies may be one of many factors which local probation services may need to consider when assessing a site for use as a bail hostel.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is given by the probation service to local employment opportunities for inmates when assessing potential sites for use as bail hostels.

  Mr. John Patten
  Unemployed bailees can experience difficulty in finding local jobs because the average period of residence on bail is only a few weeks. In general terms, the local probation service would, therefore, look first of all for good public transport links so that hostel residents already in work could, wherever possible, retain their existing employment.

  Prisons (Farm Land)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table showing, in respect of each prison establishment listed in appendix 3 to the report of the work of the prison service April 1989 to March 1990, the acreage of farm land attached to it.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  The information is as follows:

  Establishment

  Acres

  Blantyre House

  2

  Blundeston

  15

  Buckley Hall

  76

  Bullwood Hall

  14

  Camp Hill

  198

  Channings Wood

  14

  Dartmoor

  1,368

  East Sutton Park

  51

  Erlestoke House

  12

  Everthorpe

  274

  Featherstone

  393

  Gartree

  86

  Guys Marsh

  30

  Hatfield

  606

  551

  Establishment

  Acres

  Hewell Grange

  105

  Hindley

  38

  Hollesley Bay Colony

  1,200

  Kirkham

  400

  Leyhill

  24

  Lindholme

  357

  Littlehey

  69

  Lowdham Grange

  357

  New Hall

  129

  Northallerton

  4

  North Sea Camp

  868

  Onley

  280

  Portland

  165

  Rudgate

  19

  Spring Hill

  10

  Standford Hill

  196

  Stocken Hall

  412

  Swinfen Hall

  81

  Usk

  237

  The Verne

  168

  Werrington

  32

  Whatton

  17

  Wymott

  69

  Establishments not listed have no farmland attached.

  Annual Report Costs
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Home Office annual report 1991 cost to produce and distribute.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  The costs of printing, publishing and distribution were borne by Her Majesty's Stationery Office which aims to recover its costs from sales revenue.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Higher Education
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many educational institutions had(a) not set criteria for payment of access funds and (b) not paid out access funds by 31 December 1990.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  These are matters for the institutions concerned. The information is not held centrally.

  Nursery Education
  Ms. Armstrong
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice his Department gives to those local education authorities who are considering charging for nursery education.

  Mr. Eggar
  Under Section 106 of the Education Reform Act 1988, charges cannot be made for admission to maintained schools or for education provided for registered pupils at maintained schools during school hours.

  Inner-city Sport
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the reasons for the delay in publishing a clear and comprehensive statement of the Government's overall objectives for sport and recreation in inner-city areas; and when such a statement will be published.
  552
  Mr. Atkins
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 5 February 1991,Official Report, column 131.

  Students
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science which colleges of higher education have expressed opposition to the implementation of top-up fees for students in their institutions.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The setting of fees is properly for individual higher education institutions. Information is not collected about their views on appropriate fee levels.

  Child Abuse
  Mr. Holt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon), first met Ms. Esther Rantzen to discuss child abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Anthony Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science, when he first met Ms. Esther Rantzen to discuss child abuse; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My officials and I met Ms. Rantzen on 26 November, not in October, as alleged in an article in The People, dated 10 February. She told us of some material which she thought might warrant investigation. It was not until 20 December we had sufficient material from her office to investigate. Any allegation of this kind relating to teachers' misconduct is investigated urgently and thoroughly.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Beer
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report on the supply of beer will apply to Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Redwood
  In its report on the supply of beer in the United Kingdom published on 21 March 1989 the Monopolies and Mergers Commission looked at the market in Northern Ireland. The commission noted that the markets in Scotland and Northern Ireland differed in some respects from those in England and Wales, but that in others were similar. The commission concluded that the characteristics of those markets were not so different as to warrant separate regulation. The Supply of Beer Orders made following the report therefore apply equally to Northern Ireland and Scotland as to other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Rugby
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will refer to the Director General of Fair Trading the question of interference by the English Rugby Football Union with the commercial activities of individual English international players.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no plans to do so. It does not seem to me that these matters are capable of being dealt with under the competition legislation for which the Director General of Fair Trading is responsible.

  Film Industry
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the basis used to calculate the current funding for British film screen finance.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: The current Government grant for British Screen Finance Limited—BSF—was set after discussions with the company about the level of funding required to administer its support schemes for feature film production, short films and script development. The £2 million annual grant announced in July 1989 by the then Secretary of State for three years from 1991 also took account for the loans received from BSF's private sector shareholders.

  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the name and date of appointment of each Minister within his Department who has had responsibility for the British film industry since 1979.

  Mr. Leigh
  [holding answer 12 February 1991]: The names of the Ministers who have had responsibility for film policy since 1979 and the dates on which they were first appointed to the Department are as follows:
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes (4 May 1979), right hon. Norman Tebbit (7 May 1979), right hon. Kenneth Baker (5 January 1981), Lord Trefgarne (5 August 1981), Iain Sproat (30 September 1981), right hon. Norman Lamont (30 September 1981), John Butcher (6 April 1982), right hon. Sir Geoffrey Pattie (10 September 1984), Robert Atkins (15 August 1987), Eric Forth (25 July 1988) and Lord Hesketh (23 July 1990).

  Responsibility for film policy does not necessarily coincide with the date of appointment to the Department.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his policy that advice and counselling for civil servants employed by ECGD on their future career options should be provided from sources outside that department.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 12 February 1991]: ECGD staff are able to seek advice and counselling on career matters within the Department in the usual way. They are also free to seek advice from other sources if they wish.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements he has made to provide advice and counselling for civil servants employed within the ECGD, and in particular those in the insurance services group, on their future career options in the light of Government's policy to privatise the ECGD.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  [holding answer 12 February 1991]: The ECGD has provided all its staff with a summary of their existing terms and conditions of employment, including pensions, to help them compare the terms and conditions which will be offered by the prospective owners of the privatised company. The ECGD has also arranged a series of career decision workshops to help staff in their approach to the issues involved in decisions about their future careers. When the private sector terms and conditions on offer are known, the Government Actuary's department will express a view about their compliance with the requirements of the Transfer of Undertakings
  554
  (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 and this will be transmitted to staff. All ECGD staff are, of course, able to take advantage of the Department's normal facilities for career guidance and counselling.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  NATO Science Programme
  Ms. Primarolo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much money the Foreign Office has contributed towards the NATO science programme in each of the last 10 years; and if he has any plans to stop this contribution.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The NATO science programme is a co-operative international programme for advancing the frontiers of civil science through high-level basic research. It benefits all members of the alliance. It has recently increased its links with scientists in central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Figures for the overall programme and the United Kingdom contribution in the last 10 years are as follows:

  Total NATO science programme budget in Belgian francs

  United Kingdom share in per cent, (paid by FCO)

  United Kingdom share in Belgian francs

  1980

  423,500,000

  19·50

  82,582,500

  1981

  507,000,000

  19·50

  98,865,000

  1982

  575,000,000

  19·50

  112,125,000

  1983

  712,000,000

  19·50

  138,840,000

  1984

  778,000,000

  18·82

  146,419,000

  1985

  818,000,000

  18·82

  153,947,600

  1986

  854,000,000

  18·82

  160,722,800

  1987

  871,000,000

  18·82

  163,922,200

  1988

  905,000,000

  18·82

  170,321,000

  1989

  932,500,000

  18·82

  175,496,500

  1990

  970,000,000

  18·82

  182,554,000

  We have no plans to stop the United Kingdom contribution to the NATO science programme.

HEALTH

  Embryology Authority
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects the embryology authority to assume its full powers and commence its work.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority started work when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act received Royal Assent in November last year. The authority is currently planning the arrangements which need to be in place by the time it assumes its full powers and commences licensing.

  I announced today in my speech to the Interim Licensing Authority's annual meeting for infertility treatment centres and ethics committees, that an order will be laid shortly which will enable the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to assume its full powers on 1 August this year.

  Cancelled Operations
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been cancelled in national health service hospitals during the current financial year.
  555
  Mr. Dorrell
  In the year ending 31 March 1990 provisional figures show that an estimated 315,000 operations did not take place at the originally appointed time. During that year the national health service completed 8·6 million in-patient and day-patient treatments—an increase of 3 per cent. over the previous year and 30 per cent. over 1979.

  Blood Products
  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information the Medicines Control Agency has on the import of unlicensed high purity factor VIII products for the treatment of haemophilia A patients.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  Under the provisions of the Medicines Act 1968 a medicinal product cannot normally be imported for use with patients except under the authority of a product licence, a clinical trial certificate or under the clinical trial exemption scheme. The Medicines Control Agency holds licensing records in respect of all such products. There are, however, certain circumstances under which medicinal products may be imported without the above authority.

  Medical and dental practitioners may import unlicensed medicinal products in order to perform their own clinical trials. In these cases the practitioner must notify the licensing authority by means of the doctors and dentists exemption scheme. The Medicines Control Agency maintains records of all such notifications.

  A United Kingdom company may import an unlicensed product which is required by a doctor for a particular patient, under SI No. 673, the Medicines (Exemption from Licences) Importation Order 1984. The company is required to notify the licensing authority prior to each importation.

  All information concerning licence and other applications, including notifications, is held in confidence by the Medicines Control Agency in accordance with section 118 of the Act.

  Medical and dental practitioners may also import unlicenced products for administration to particular patients—"named patient" supply. Under the terms of this exemption the practitioner is not required to notify the Licensing authority. As a consequence the Medicines Control Agency does not maintain centralised records of this type of supply.

  Mr. Bellotti
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to visit the bio products laboratory; what plans he has for its privatisation; what is the cost of the laboratory to the national health service; and what charges it makes to health authorities for human blood and blood-derived products.

  Mr. Dorrell
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health will visit the bio products laboratory on 11 March. The planned visit is a routine one. There are no plans to privatise the laboratory.

  The aggregate cost of the bio products laboratory to the NHS is not separately identified. The bio products laboratory supplies products derived from human blood and the charges are shown in the table. These charges do not include any element for the freely donated blood from which the products are derived. The prices paid by the health authorities are not necessarily those shown in the table as there are volume related discounts for some product lines.
  556

  Therapeutic product prices Price list code

  Product code

  Description

  Cash list Price

  1. Coagulation Factors

  9124

  Factor VII

  25p/u

  9109

  Factor VIII (8Y)

  28p/iu

  9144

  Factor IX (with Heparin)

  25p/iu

  9125

  Factor XI

  25p/u

  9126

  Factor XIII

  25p/u

  9127

  Antithrombin III 1000iu

  £100·00

  2. Albumin

  9101

  Albumin 4·5 per cent 100m1

  £10·00

  9102

  Albumin 4·5 per cent 250m1

  £21·00

  9103

  Albumin 4·5 per cent 500m1

  £33·00

  9104

  Albumin 10 per cent 2·5m1

  £600

  9105

  Albumin 10 per cent 100m1

  £21·00

  9106

  Albumin 20 per cent 5m1

  £2·75

  9107

  Albumin 20 per cent 100m1

  £32·00

  3. Immunoglobulins

  9112

  Human Normal Immunoglobulin 250mg

  £3·10

  9113

  Human Normal Immunoglobulin 750mg

  £640

  9115

  Human Anti-D (RHo) Immunoglobulin 250iu

  £10·90

  9116

  Human Anti-D (RHo) Immunoglobulin 500iu

  £19·25

  9117

  Human Anti-D (RHo) Immunoglobulin 2,500iu

  £72·50

  9118

  Human Tetanus Immunoglobulin

  £12·50

  9119

  Human Varicella-Zoster Immunoglobulin

  £121·00

  9146

  Human Hepatitis B Immunoglobulin 200iu

  £41·00

  9121

  Human Hepatitis B Immunoglobulin 500iu

  £82·60

  9122

  Human Rabies Immunoglobulin

  £113·00

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the capital and revenue savings obtained from the running down and disposal of large-scale mental health hospitals are transferred from health authorities to social service authorities for the expansion of community care services and facilities for the resettlement of discharged patients.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The resources released by the closure and disposal of psychiatric hospitals are mainly redeployed for the development of community based mental health services. A mechanism exists for the transfer of such resources to local authorities in order to develop social care services through the dowry system described in circular HC(83)6/LAC(83)5, a copy of which is in the Library. Dowries are predominantly used for the resettlement of patients from mental handicap hospitals.

  Fluoride
  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice his Department has received concerning dangers to health arising from the use of fluoridated toothpaste in areas where the level of fluoride in the water has been raised to 1 part per million;

  (2) what advice his Department has received concerning the risk of discolouration of teeth where fluoridated toothpaste is used in areas where the level of fluoride in the water has been raised to 1 part per million;

  (3) whether his Department monitors the effect of fluoridated toothpaste and other freely available fluoride additives in areas where the level of fluoride in the water has been raised to 1 part per million;

  (4) what guidance he has given to dentists, hospitals, the retail trade and other affected groups about the sale

  557
  and use of fluoridated toothpaste in areas where the level of fluoride in the water has been raised to 1 part per million.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The total daily oral intake of fluoride from food, water and fluoridated toothpaste in those areas in the United Kingdom where the drinking water contains fluoride at 1 part per million, whether present naturally or added, is too low to have any adverse effect on health.

  A study to compare the effect on enamel formation of the use of fluoride toothpaste in fluoridated Birmingham and non-fluoridated Leeds concluded that while there was a higher level of mild fluorosis in the fluoridated area there was no evidence of an increase in the higher grades of fluorosis, and that the use of fluoride toothpaste by young children in fluoridated areas was unlikely to produce aesthetically unacceptable levels of enamel fluorosis.

  Not all toothpastes are licensed medicinal products. The EC cosmetics directive permits the addition of fluoride ion up to 1,500 ppm. No toothpaste on the United Kingdom market contains more than this and most are limited to 1,000 ppm. A voluntary agreement has been reached with the Cosmetics, Toiletries, and Perfumeries Association to include information on packaging about the amount of toothpaste to be used when cleaning teeth. A toothpaste containing more than 1,500 ppm would only be available on prescription.

  Mr. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence his Department has of a level of ingestion at which sodium fluoride becomes carcinogenic; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Department has no evidence that shows sodium fluoride to be carcinogenic at any level of ingestion.

  The Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment—COC—reviewed the animal data on the carcinogenicity of sodium fluoride in 1990. The only noteworthy finding was a statistically significant dose-related positive trend for the incidence of osteosarcomas in one strain of male rats which was observed in one carcinogenicity study. No osteosarcomas were found in female rats in the same study, or in mice in a parallel study. A further study in another strain of rats showed no evidence of neoplastic effects.

  The COC noted that all well conducted in vivo mutagenicity tests were negative; that limited epidemiological data revealed no relationship between bone cancer rates in humans and fluoride concentrations in drinking water; and that there was no available evidence that fluoride causes bone cancers in humans, even in people in whom excessive long-term exposure to fluoride has caused skeletal fluorosis. It concluded that there was no evidence for carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure to fluoride.

  Local Government Responsibilities
  Ms. Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he is reconsidering plans for the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act in relation to the roles and responsibilities of local government after April 1993; and if he will make a statement.
  558
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on 12 February at column 731.

  Staff Accommodation
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what status residential accommodation in hospitals used by NHS staff will have once Crown immunity is lifted from NHS property on 1 April.

  Mr. Dorrell
  From 1 April all lettings of National Health Service staff residential accommodation will be subject to the relevant housing legislation. Staff who already occupy NHS residential accommodation will be offered new tenancy or licence agreements as appropriate.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide grant aid to local authorities to enable them to improve residential homes for the elderly to meet the statutory requirements laid down by Parliament; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  It is for local authorities, having determined their priorities, to make provision from their annual capital guidelines—ACGs—other receipts and transfers from revenue funds for any improvements which they consider necessary to their residential homes for the elderly. For 1991–92, ACGs of £98 million have been issued to local authorities for the personal social services, an increase of £13 million on 1990–91.

  Electoral Statistics
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the total number of electors registered in each parliamentary constituency in England and Wales for 1988–89, 1989–90 and 1990–91; and if he will list the percentage changes that have taken place in each case compared with the previous year's figures.

  Mr. Dorrell
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Health Expenditure
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) total United Kingdom expenditure on health and (b) Government expenditure on health, expressing both as a percentage of GNP, in each of the last 20 years.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 8 February 1991]: The table shows total United Kingdom expenditure on health and total public spending on health since 1970. It expresses each as a proportion of gross domestic product, rather than gross national product. GDP has been used in this presentation for the sake of consistency with other sources of information on public spending such as the autumn statement and the Budget report.

  Total United Kingdom and total Government spending on health as a proportion of GDP 1970–1989

  Total United Kingdom expenditure on health

  Percentage of GDP

  Total Government spending on health

  Percentage of GDP

  1970

  2,195

  4·24

  1,896

  3·66

  1971

  2,500

  4·33

  2,158

  3·74

  1972

  2,868

  4·44

  2,493

  3·86

  559

  Total United Kingdom expenditure on health

  Percentage of GDP

  Total Government spending on health

  Percentage of GDP

  1973

  3,233

  4·36

  2,806

  3,78

  1974

  4,356

  5·20

  3,874

  4·63

  1975

  5,838

  5·52

  5,268

  4·98

  1976

  6,902

  5·52

  6,233

  4·99

  1977

  7,775

  5·34

  6,996

  4·80

  1978

  8,934

  5·31

  8,044

  4·78

  1979

  10,373

  5·24

  9,288

  4·69

  1980

  13,343

  5·77

  11,952

  5·17

  1981

  15,405

  6·09

  13,744

  5·43

  1982

  16,461

  5·95

  14,474

  5·23

  1983

  18,636

  6·17

  16,367

  5·42

  1984

  19,768

  6·08

  17,293

  5·32

  1985

  21,270

  5·97

  18,496

  5·19

  1986

  23,059

  6·02

  19,862

  5·19

  1987

  25,302

  6·02

  21,790

  5·18

  1988

  28,010

  5·98

  24,024

  5·13

  1989

  30,731

  6·03

  26,461

  5·19

  Source: CSO.

  NHS Costs
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost per consultant appointment in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 11 February 1991]: Financial returns submitted by district health authorities in England show the average cost per out-patient attendance as £24·86 for 1988–89, and £26·58—provisional figure—for 1989–90. These figures are average for all specialties, and cover direct consultation-treatment costs only.

  Health Services, Kent
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for each parliamentary constituency in Kent, what percentage of the population are(a) owner-occupiers and (b) local authority tenants according to the most recent information updated since the 1981 census.

  Mr. Yeo
  I have been asked to reply.
  560
  There is no more recent information for parliamentary constituencies than the 1981 census. Estimates of the number of dwellings owned by four sectors—local authority, other public sector, housing association and private—are provided by local authorities for their areas in the annual housing investment programme returns. These are in the Library. They do not however provide a breakdown of the privately owned dwellings between owner-occupied and rented.

ENERGY

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Mr. Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is his expectation of the rise in carbon dioxide emission levels by the year 2005 and the reasons for it; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Projections prepared by the Government in 1989 and published in 1990 in energy paper 58, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House, suggested that Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from all sources might be in the range of 178 million to 225 million tonnes of carbon—Mtc—by 2005 if no action to control them were taken. These compared with emissions in 1989 of about 160 mtc. This range reflects the assumptions used in energy paper 58 for economic growth, energy prices, and so on.

  The White Paper "This Common Inheritance" noted certain developments which had taken place since the publication of energy paper 58 which might affect emissions levels. These were a change in the projected level of new nuclear capacity, which would tend to increase emissions, and an expected increase in the use of gas for electricity generation purposes, which would tend to reduce them.

  The Government have announced that Britain is prepared, if other countries take similar action, to set itself the demanding target of returning emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels by 2005.

  Coal
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what was the tonnage of coal produced by(a) deep and (b) opencast mining for the most recent available year; and what is the projection for these figures in five years' time.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  In 1989–90 the amount of coal produced in Britain was 76·6 million tonnes from deep mines and 18·6 million tonnes from opencast. Future levels of production are for the coal industry to decide and will depend on the tonnages which can be sold on a competitive basis.

  Trawsfynnydd Power Station
  Dr. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will provide details of the ground contamination discovered near the active waste vaults at Trawsfynnydd nuclear power station around September 1990 and the source of this radioactive contamination.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  On 24 July 1990 during excavations for the construction of a new reactor fence close to the former site of a storage tank at the Trawsfynnydd nuclear power station, small amounts of low level radioactive contamination were revealed. This contamination was centred on a bolt approximately twelve inches long and associated rubble. These items are now being stored safely at the station pending their transfer to British Nuclear Fuels plc's low-level waste disposal site at Drigg. There was no radiological hazard to the work force or to members of the public as a result of this incident.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will make a statement on the principal achievements of his Department since November 1990.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My Department successfully completed the flotation of the 12 regional electricity companies in November, and plans are on schedule for the flotation of the two generating companies this month. Planning is well advanced for the transfer of responsibility for offshore safety matters to the Health and Safety Executive.

  Adviser

  Area

  From

  To

  Kleinwort Benson

  Financial

  July 1987

  Continuing

  Touche Ross

  Regulatory/accounting

  August 1987

  Continuing

  Slaughter and May

  Legal

  August 1987

  Continuing

  Professor Littlechild

  Regulatory

  November 1987

  May 1989

  James Capel

  Lead brokers

  May 1988

  Continuing

  Lowe Bell

  Public relations

  July 1988

  January 1990

  Merz and McLellan

  Technical

  August 1987

  Continuing

  Lloyds Bank

  Receiving bank/registrar

  August 1988

  May 19901

  Deloitte, Haskins and Sells2

  Reporting accountants

  May 1988

  Continuing

  Price Waterhouse

  Reporting accountants

  May 1988

  Continuing

  Peat Marwick Mclintock

  Reporting accountants

  May 1988

  Continuing

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the total cost of the advertising campaign for the privatisation of the electricity generating companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It is not the practice to give advertising costs in advance of flotations. All expenditure, including that on marketing, will be reported to Parliament in the usual way.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether at the time he appointed Smith New Court to advise on electricity privatisation he was aware they had been criticised by DTI inspectors for their conduct in the Consolidated Goldfields case.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I took all relevant factors into account in appointing Smith New Court.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether Smith New Court's appointment as advisers on electricity privatisation was the result of a process of competitive tendering.

  Mr. Wakeham
  It was agreed in 1989 that there should be the same broking syndicate of James Capel, Rowe and Pitman, Smith New Court, Cazenoves, County NatWest and Kleinwort Benson Securities for both the 12 regional electricity companies and the generating companies flotations. Each of the brokers will receive a broking fee for both issues relating to the amount of stock for which they are responsible. As Smith New Court was already a member of the broking syndicate and as no advisory fee will be payable to Smith New Court, a competitive tender would not be appropriate.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will list all the individuals and organisations who have been retained by his Department as advisers on electricity privatisation, indicating in each case the aspect on which they have advised together with the date of their appointment and where appropriate the date they ceased to be retained as advisers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The information is as follows
  563

  Adviser

  Area

  From

  To

  Binder Hamlyn

  Reporting accountants

  May 1988

  December 1990

  Ernst and Whinney3

  Reporting accountants

  May 1988

  December 1990

  Coopers and Lybrand2

  Reporting accountants

  May 1988

  December 1990

  Spicer and Oppenheim4

  Reporting accountants

  May 1988

  December 1990

  Touche Ross

  Reporting accountants

  May 1988

  December 1990

  BM RB

  Market research

  August 1988

  Continuing

  Davis Polk and Wardell

  United States legal

  September 1988

  Continuing

  Russell Reynolds

  Executive selection

  December 1988

  February 1989

  Oster Renault

  Canadian legal

  February 1989

  Continuing

  Anderson Mori and Rabinowitz

  Japanese legal

  March 1989

  Continuing

  Goldman Sachs

  United States financial

  December 1988

  Continuing

  Wood Gundy

  Canadian financial

  March 1989

  Continuing

  Nomura

  Japanese financial

  March 1989

  Continuing

  Credit Suisse First Boston

  European Financial

  June 1989

  Continuing

  Saxton Bampfylde

  Executive selection

  February 1989

  October 1989

  Price Waterhouse

  Accounting

  July 1988

  July 1989

  The VPI Group

  Marketing

  February 1989

  January 1990

  Jones Lang Wootton

  Property

  March 1989

  Continuing

  UKAEA

  Advanced gas-cooled reactor

  September 1989

  October 1989

  Nuclear Services Group

  Decommissioning

  April 1989

  April 1989

  Lamb and Edge

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  August 1990

  Grimley J. R. Eve

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  April 1990

  Gerald Eve

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  April 1990

  Knight Frank Rutley

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  April 1990

  Weatherall Green and Smith

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  April 1990

  Debenham Tewson and Cheshire

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  April 1990

  Hartnell Taylor and Cook

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  September 1990

  Connell Hallum and Brackett

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  April 1990

  Matthews and Goodman

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  March 1990

  Cook and Arkwright

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  April 1990

  Bernard Thorpe

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  April 1990

  Henry Butcher

  Property valuers

  June 1989

  September 1990

  Debenham Tewson and Chinnocks

  Property valuers

  August 1990

  Continuing

  Edward Erdman

  Property valuers

  August 1990

  Continuing

  Lloyd Northover

  Design

  January 1990

  February 1990

  Coopers and Lybrand2

  Salaries

  July 1989

  April 1990

  Williams Lea

  Printing

  April 1989

  October 1989

  Dewe Rogerson

  Marketing and public relations

  February 1990

  Continuing

  Lowe Bell

  Special marketing and public relations

  February 1990

  February 1990

  564 565

  Adviser

  Area

  From

  To

  Russell Reynolds

  Executive selection

  February 1990

  July 1990

  RL Associates

  Licence X factors

  January 1990

  Continuing

  Lincoln Hannah

  Press cutting

  March 1990

  Continuing

  Imagination

  Roadshows

  May 1990

  Continuing

  WCRS

  Advertising

  May 1990

  December 1990

  Rowe and Pitman

  Brokers

  September 1990

  Continuing

  J. Henry Schroder Wagg

  Possible PowerGen trade sale

  July 1990

  September 1990

  J. Chiene

  Pricing

  June 1990

  Continuing

  J. Henry Schroder Wagg

  Underwriting

  September 1990

  November 19905

  Company Writers

  Prospectus

  September 1990

  October 1990

  Phillips and Buck

  Legal

  July 1990

  August 1990

  Notes:

  Certain overseas lawyers have provided advice on overseas jurisdictions.

  1 Lloyds Bank were initially appointed to advise on receiving bank and registrar issues and subsequently appointed as the lead Receiving Bank.

  2 Coopers and Lybrand and Deloitte Haskins and Sells have merged and are now known as Coopers and Lybrand Deloitte.

  3 Now known as Ernst and Young.

  4 Now part of Touche Ross.

  5 Subsequently appointed as Lead Underwriter.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what will be the total underwriting fees in respect of the flotation of the electricity generating companies.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The total underwriting fees on the flotation of the electricity generating companies have not yet been fixed. The fees will only be settled once the price and terms of the offer for sale are agreed.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when he, any other Minister or any of his officials, last had discussions with any director, employee or adviser of the Hanson Group or any of its companies about electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  My private discussions with companies and individuals about electricity privatisation are confidential. I announced on 23 August 1990 that discussions with Hanson plc on a possible trade sale of PowerGen had ended.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what are the total fees paid out so far to Dewe Rogerson for its involvement in electricity privatisation.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The fees paid to advisers are commercially confidential. The full costs of the privatisation, including marketing costs, will be reported to Parliament in the usual way.

  Electricity Supply
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information is collected systematically by his Department to enable him to discharge his duty under section 3(3)(b) of the Electricity Act 1989 to ensure that electricity distribution companies promote the efficient use of electricity supplied to consumers.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Section 3 of the Electricity Act 1989 sets out various duties 1 have to take into account when 566
  exercising my functions under the Act. In granting the initial licences to the regional electricity companies, included conditions in their public supply licences requiring them to produce a code of practice for the provision of information on the efficient use of electricity and to comply with a standard set for this activity. It falls to the Director General of Electricity Supply to approve and monitor those codes and to determine the actual standard of performance.

  Electricity Disconnections
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will give the source of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary's figures on electricity disconnections of 12 November,Official Report, column 318, and publish the full figures.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The figures referred to were provided by the Office of Electricity Regulation. The total number of disconnections for the year ending 30 June, which were the latest figures available in November, stood at 62,262, representing 0–33 per cent. of domestic consumers. In 1976 the total was 125,483, representing 0·80 per cent. of domestic consumers.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information is collected systematically by his Department to enable him to discharge his duty under section 3(3)(a)(ii) of the Electricity Act 1989.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The Secretary of State's duty to protect the interests of consumers in respect of the continuity of supply was taken into account in placing conditions requiring adherence to matters such as the generation security standard, and the distribution and grid codes in the initial Public Electricity Supply and other licences granted by him under the Electricity Act 1989. Responsibility for monitoring and enforcing those
  567
  conditions lies with the Director General of Electricity Supply. The electricity supply regulations require my Department to be informed of each case of major supply interruption.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when the last quarterly figures for electricity disconnections were published.

  Mr. Wakeham
  The figures for the year ending 30 September were published by the Office of Electricity Regulation on 12 February. The total number of disconnections during the quarter ending 30 September stood at 14,189, or 0·07 per cent. of all domestic consumers. The number of disconnections for the year ending 30 September was 57,846 or 0·30 per cent. of domestic consumers. The figures for the quarter ending 31 December are expected to be published shortly.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will request the Director General of the Office of Electricity Regulation to initiate a study into the level of cut-offs and voluntary cut-offs during the current cold snap.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Director General of Electricity Supply continually monitors both the level of disconnections and the regional electricity companies' practices relating to disconnections.

  Orimulsion
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy if he will place in the Library any information held by his Department on the environmental impact of the burning of orimulsion in power stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I am placing a copy of PowerGen's environmental statement for the installation of an electrostatic precipitator at the Ince B power station and explanatory booklets on orimulsion prepared by BP Bitor in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy when his Department first knew that orimulsion was to be imported into Britain to be burnt in power stations.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Decisions on the type and quantity of fuel used in electricity generation are an operational matter for the industry. The Central Electricity Generating Board started trials involving the use of orimulsion at the Ince B power station in early 1988 when a single burner was modified to allow the burning of 200 tonnes of the fuel.

  Power Stations
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what tonnage of oil was burnt in power stations in 1986 and each subsequent year.

  Mr. Wakeham
  Figures for the quantity of oil burnt in power stations by the major generating companies in the United Kingdom are as follows:

  Million tones

  1986

  6·1

  1987

  4·8

  1988

  5·4

  568

  Million tones

  1989

  5·5

  1990

  6·7

  Interviews
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy how many interviews he has given to individual journalists since 1 August 1990.

  Mr. Wakeham
  I have given a number of interviews since 1 August 1990, individually and collectively, to journalists with an interest in the energy industries. The precise number of interviews is not readily available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Health Service
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the level of spending on the health service in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Hanley
  A total of £1·16 billion will be spent on the health and personal social services in Northern Ireland in 1991–92. This is an increase of some £127 million or 12·3 per cent. over 1990–91, and demonstrates the Government's commitment to maintaining high standards of services, able to meet the demands of the 1990s.

  Hospital Provision
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on funding for capital costs in hospital provision.

  Mr. Hanley
  Funding for capital costs in the current year amounts to over £45 million, an increase of 18 per cent. over last year.

  Schemes costing more than £1 million are managed directly by the Department of Health and Social Services, (that's about £16 million) with the balance administered by the hoards after option appraisal.

  Aircraft Industry
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the development of the aircraft construction industry in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Following its privatisation in October 1989, Short Brothers plc, which is the only aircraft manufacturer in Northern Ireland, is implementing a major capital investment programme aimed at making it a viable and self-sustaining aerospace employer.

  Extortion
  Mr. Bowis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the latest position with regard to the stopping of extortion rackets.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Action to cut off sources of terrorist finance is a vital part of the Government's strategy for ending terrorism in Northern Ireland. Recent action (led by the RUC) has been successful in curtailing the flow of
  569
  money from a number of traditional sources—including extortion. Parliament is currently being asked to strengthen the law against more sophisticated forms of terrorist financing.

  Tourism
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the development of tourism in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  The Government is confident that the strategy for tourism now being implemented should achieve sustained growth of tourism to and within Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider supporting the creation of an all-Ireland tourist authority.

  Mr. Needham
  I am satisfied that co-operation between the two existing tourist boards represents the best way of promoting the holiday attractions of both parts of the island of Ireland.

  Security
  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  Since I answered a similar question on 17 January there have been two civilian deaths arising from the security situation in Northern Ireland. The police and Army continue to make significant finds of arms and ammunition, and have in recent weeks made several arrests.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next proposes to meet Ministers of the Government of the Republic of Ireland to discuss the security situation in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Brooke
  I expect to discuss security matters with Irish Ministers at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference within the next few weeks.

  Political Parties (Discussions)
  Sir Michael McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of talks with the political parties about a local administration for the Province.

  Mr. Andrew MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent discussions he has had with representatives of the political parties in the Province.

  Mr. Brooke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).

  Cross-community Activities
  Mr. Hague
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools, youth and community groups are engaged in cross-community activities; and if he will make a statement.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Uptake under the cross-community contact scheme has grown progressively since its 570
  introduction in 1987 and today over one-third of all Northern Ireland schools—about 450 schools—and 300 youth or community groups are participating in joint programmes. The budget for the present financial year is £500,000.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest available unemployment figures for Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  At 10 January 1991 there were 98,268 unemployed claimants in the Province representing 14·1 per cent. of the workforce.

  Anglo-Irish Agreement
  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent meetings he has had with Irish Ministers to discuss the Anglo-Irish Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  Matters arising under the Anglo-Irish Agreement continue to be discussed within the framework of the regular meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference. The last conference meeting was on January 31.

  Business Expansion
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what effect terrorist destruction of businesses will have on Government plans for business expansion in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Needham
  Terrorist destruction of businesses will obviously make the promotion of Northern Ireland as an investment location more difficult in overseas markets by heightening potential investors' concern about security. This is particularly disappointing after a period when investment in the Province has been very encouraging.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the impact on the Northern Ireland agriculture industry of the recent proposed reforms of the common agriculture policy by the Commission of the European Communities.

  Mr. Hanley
  The impact on Northern Ireland agriculture cannot be assessed until the European Commission tables detailed proposals. I am not therefore in a position to make a statement at this stage.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has on the creation of small businesses in the Province.

  Mr. Needham
  Information on the number of small businesses created is not available. However VAT registration provide a useful indicator of the numbers of businesses created and in the five-year period from 1985 to 1989 an estimated 18,000 businesses registered for VAT in Northern Ireland. While VAT registration relate to businesses of all sizes the vast majority fall within the small
  571
  business category. In the same period 9,352 people became self-employed under the Training and Employment Agency's enterprise allowance scheme. Since 1986, LEDU has provided assistance to 2,009 new businesses under its enterprise grant scheme.

  Further Education
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his estimate of the number of persons in Northern Ireland in full or part-time education who will have their 19th birthday during the current school year.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The latest available figures show that for the 1989–90 school year there were 5,480 full-time and 3,407 part-time 19-year-old students.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what was the full-time equivalent staffing level in each of the further education colleges in Northern Ireland during the academic year 1989–90;

  (2) what was the full-time equivalent student enrolment to each of the further education colleges in Northern Ireland during the academic year 1989–90.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information is as follows:

  Further education college

  Staff Full-time equivalent lecturers

  Enrolments Full-time equivalent students

  Belfast College of Technology

  289

  3,017

  Belfast College of Business Studies

  138

  1,938

  Rupert Stanley College

  287

  3,866

  North-West College

  207

  2,669

  Fermanagh

  89

  994

  Limavady

  72

  752

  Omagh

  101

  990

  Antrim

  47

  529

  Ballymena

  133

  1,597

  Newtownabbey

  142

  1,561

  North Antrim

  39

  429

  Coleraine

  75

  941

  Magherafelt

  50

  593

  Lame

  59

  503

  Northern Ireland Hotel and

  Catering College

  22

  199

  Lisburn

  123

  1,247

  Down

  92

  1,049

  Newcastle

  45

  577

  Castlereagh

  107

  1,238

  North Down

  182

  1,940

  Lurgan

  69

  814

  Portadown

  124

  1,502

  Armagh

  94

  1,092

  Banbridge

  45

  528

  East Tyrone

  89

  1,019

  Newry/Kilkeel

  129

  1,502

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total recurrent budget for each of the further education colleges in Northern Ireland during the academic year 1989–90.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The information requested is not held centrally for individual further education colleges and will have to be obtained from the education and library boards. I will write to the hon. Gentleman when the information is to hand and place a copy of my letter in the Library.

  Leisure Facilities
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the district council leisure facilities in Northern Ireland from which his Department is seeking to collect rates.

  Mr. Needham
  The list set out below shows the better known council leisure facilities on which rates are collected.

  Preparation of a definitive list would be a most time-consuming exercise and could be prepared only at disproportionate cost.

  List of leisure facilities on which rates are collected for all or part of the hereditament

  Donard Ward 12 Central Promenade Newcastle BT33 ODJ

  Down district council

  Tourist centre

  Andersonstown Ward 128 Andersonstown Road Belfast BT11 2BX

  Belfast city council

  Andersonstown leisure centre

  Whiterock Ward 339–445 Falls Road Belfast BT12 6FD

  Belfast city council

  Beechmount leisure centre

  Shaftesbury Ward 30–32 Bedford Street Belfast BT2 7FF

  Belfast city council

  Ulster hall hall and flat

  Corrody Ward 20 Victoria Road Londonderry BT47 2NR

  Derry city council

  Recreation centre

  University Ward 2 University Road Coleraine BT52 1RR

  Coleraine borough council

  Marina, caravans, site and amenities

  Royal Portrush Ward 3–4 Harbour Road Portrush BTT56 8DF

  Coleraine borough council

  Leisure complex

  Hawthorne Ward 385 Doagh Road

  Newtownabbey borough council Newtownabbey

  Playing fields and outbuildings

  M1 Rogers Quay Belfast Road Carrickfergus

  Carrickfergus borough council

  Marina

  Harbour Ward M1 Quay Street Bangor

  North Down borough council

  Marina

  Drumgor Ward 2 Lakeview Road Craigavon BT64 1AL

  Craigavon borough council

  Civic centre

  Ballyhanwood Ward 111 Old Dundonald Road Belfast

  Castlereagh borough council

  Leisure centre

  Councillors
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Nothern Ireland if he will list all councillors who have been absent from council and committee meetings for more than two months since the local government election in May 1989; how many exceeded three months; how many were disqualified; and what was their party affiliation and the council to which they belonged.

  Mr. Needham
  Information about the attendance record of councillors is a matter for individual councils.

  Council Committees
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Nothern Ireland which councils in Northern Ireland conduct business through committees; and which of these councils form committees which are(a) as proportional to party strengths as is possible, (b) largely proportional or (c) non-proportional.

  Mr. Needham
  Twenty councils conduct business through committees. Information about representation in proportion to party strengths on such committees is not available in the form requested. Party representation can vary, either by design or choice, from committee to committee within some councils.

  Belfast Housing Districts

  Year

  1

  2

  3

  4

  5

  6

  7

  1979–80

  6

  —

  2

  20

  4

  —

  28

  1980–81

  30

  28

  —

  —

  31

  23

  45

  1981–82

  12

  51

  —

  19

  12

  5

  78

  1982–83

  1

  30

  —

  22

  35

  24

  62

  1983–84

  1

  64

  4

  —

  45

  17

  83

  1984–85

  —

  105

  5

  63

  15

  45

  78

  1985–86

  —

  34

  3

  —

  27

  3

  123

  1986–87

  —

  45

  22

  19

  26

  32

  149

  1987–88

  —

  81

  2

  29

  119

  24

  33

  1988–89

  —

  27

  —

  —

  26

  14

  20

  1989–90

  —

  9

  —

  1

  —

  18

  13

  1990–911

  1

  17

  —

  —

  23

  2

  21

  1 Figures for 1990–91 are for the period April 1990—January 1991

  Robberies and Burglaries
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many robberies and burglaries were reported during the month of January in and around the vicinity of Millisle village, Co. Down; how many of these incidents involved the use of firearms; and if he will make a statement on the police presence at this location.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  In January 1991 two burglaries and one robbery in Millisle were reported to the RUC. A firearm was used in the robbery. Millisle area is policed from Donaghadee, approximately two miles away. Mobile patrols cover the area on a 24-hour basis and foot patrols operate in the village.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Hume
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on discussions between the environment ministers at the recent Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

  Mr. Needham
  I had discussions with the Irish Minister for the Environment, Mr. Padraig Flynn TD, at the conference on 31 January. Among the topics on which we exchanged views were hazardous waste disposal, road improvements and the management of water resources.

  Sinn Fein
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make it his policy that Sinn Fein will not be invited to participate in any talks on the future of Northern Ireland until such time as the IRA unconditionally surrenders and dissociates itself from armed struggle and there is verifiable evidence that the IRA has laid down its weapons and destroyed its terrorist arsenal.

  Housing Belfast
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Nothern Ireland how many houses have been rehabilitated by(a) the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and (b) housing associations in each housing district in Belfast in each of the years from 1979 to 1991.

  Mr. Needham
  (a) This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive but I have been advised by the chief executive that the information is not readily available in the form requested and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  (b) The numbers of dwellings rehabilitated by registered housing associations for the period 1979–80 to 1990–91 are as follows:

  Mr. Brooke
  So long as Sinn Fein endorses violence the Government will not engage with it as though it were a normal democratic party.

  Dundonald Ice Bowl
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what values of rates have been paid in connection with Dundonald International Ice Bowl in each of the past five years.

  Mr. Needham
  The amount of rates paid on Dundonald International Ice Bowl during 1990–91 was £144,231·00. No payments were made in previous years.

  Blood Products
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people with haemophilia in Northern Ireland who require factor VIII infusions are being treated with the high-purity monoclonal products; how many are being treated with the intermediate purity concentrates; if he will break the figures down by product manufacturer; if he will break the figures down in terms of the number of units of each product prescribed in the latest year for which data are available; and if he will break down the figures for each health and social services board.

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 7 February 1991]: The available information is as follows. In 1989 three patients who were allergic to intermediate purity Factor VIII were treated with 34,210 units of high purity monoclonal products manufactured by Baxter Health Care Ltd. In the same year approximately 100 patients were treated with intermediate purity Factor VIII concentrate manufactured by the Scottish National Blood Transfusion Service (1·6 million units) and by Alphatherapeutic (UK) Ltd. (1·6

  575
  million units). As treatment for haemophilia patients in Northern Ireland is provided on a regional basis at the Royal Victoria hospital the figures for each health and social services board are not readily available.

SCOTLAND

  Clinical Physics and Bioengineering
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of Stale for Scotland if he will give the numbers on each part of the medical technical officer grade for those administered from the Department of Clinical Physics and Bioengineering, West Graham street, Glasgow; and what are the equivalent figures for those staff in Lothian, Fife, Grampian and Tayside health boards.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information is shown in the table:

  Medical Technical Officer in Medical Physics WTE at 30 September 19901

  Grade

  Glasgow

  Fife

  Grampian

  Lothian

  Tayside

  5

  5·0

  —

  —

  7·0

  1·0

  4

  12·0

  —

  3·0

  12·0

  7·0

  3

  47·6

  —

  9·0

  28·0

  8·0

  2

  30·6

  —

  3·6

  17·1

  15·0

  1

  11·0

  —

  1·3

  6·0

  7·0

  Trainee

  6·0

  —

  1·0

  1·0

  3·0

  Assistant

  1·0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  113·2

  17·9

  71·1

  1

  41·1

  1 Provisional.

  Farming
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent assessment has been made of the effect of current interest rates on the farming industry in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department estimates that in 1990 interest payments by farmers for current farming purposes amounted to £116.4 million. Details are in "Scottish Agriculture—Output Input and Income Statistics, January 1991", a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement explaining the delay in setting the levels of hill livestock compensatory allowances for 1991;

  (2) what plans he has to provide financial assistance to the hill livestock industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's reply on 11 February to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). The increase in rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances announced by my right hon. Friend will add a further £7 million to the £48 million which we pay annually to more than 18,000 Scottish producers. Every effort will be made to make these payments quickly. Other assistance is available under a range of agricultural support schemes, notably the sheep annual premium and the suckler cow premium, which together with the HLCA scheme now provide over £100 million a year to Scottish hill livestock farmers.
  576
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the number of full-time farmers in Scotland whose businesses have failed financially in each of the years since 1979.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  No comprehensive information is available relating to financial failure of farm businesses in Scotland. The only available data of relevance are numbers of farmers declared bankrupt. The annual recorded information on such bankruptcies since 1986—the first year for which the data are likely to be complete —is shown in the table:

  Number of farmers

  1986

  26

  1987

  36

  11988

  13

  11989

  17

  1 Provisional.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet his EC counterparts to discuss the future of the hill livestock industry in Scotland.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My right hon. Friend is always represented at discussions in the Agriculture Council about matters which affect livestock farmers in Scotland.

  Fishing
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Fishermen's Federation to discuss changes in net sizes; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  My noble Friend met the Scottish Fishermen's Federation on a number of occasions towards the end of last year, including at the December Fisheries Council. A number of issues were discussed at these meetings including possible changes in mesh size. We are currently consulting the industry over a package of improved technical conservation measures proposed for introduction in the North sea and west coast of Scotland this year. These measures include the introduction of 90mm square mesh panels in current demersal fishing gear.

  Nature Conservancy Council
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland who will be appointed to the four regions of the Scottish Nature Conservancy Council; who will be their chairmen; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The appointment of chairmen and members to the regional committees of the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland is a matter for the chairman and board to decide. I have asked the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library a copy of the minutes of the meeting held on 6 February in Cardiff of the three chairmen of the Scottish, Welsh and English Nature Conservancy Councils at their joint committee session; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Joint Nature Conservation Committee is the statutory committee
  577
  through which the Nature Conservancy Councils for England and Scotland and the Countryside Council for Wales exercise their responsibilities on matters of national and international importance. The JNCC is required to make an annual report on its activities and place a copy in the House. The decision whether to publish or circulate minutes is a matter for the councils.

  Small Landholders
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many claims for compensation in respect of resumptions by landlords have been made to the Scottish land court under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931 in each year since 1977.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The information requested is as follows. There have been no further claims since 1986.

  Number

  1977

  1

  1978

  3

  1979

  2

  1980

  1

  1981

  —

  1982

  2

  1983

  2

  1984

  1

  1985

  —

  1986

  1

  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many smallholdings, by district are rented under the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts 1886 to 1931; and if he will bring forward proposals to extend them the same rights and protections provided to crofters by the Crofting Reform Act 1976.

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information relating to holdings belonging to the Secretary of State is set out in the table. The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department does not hold details of holdings in private or commericial ownership.

  My right hon. Friend has no plans to extend the provisions of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976 to non-crofting tenants.

  Holdings on Secretary of State's non-crofting estates As at 30 September 1990

  Lowland estates

  Landhold

  Aberdeen

  7

  Ayr

  1

  Berwick

  4

  Dumfries

  5

  Kirkcudbright

  1

  Midlothian

  5

  Perth

  2

  (1) Expenditure in cash terms(£ million)

  (2) Expenditure at1990–91 prices(£ million)

  (3) Provision/GAE in cash terms(£ million)

  (4) Provision/GAE at1990–91 prices(£ million)

  1978–79

  709·5

  1,792·8

  645·5

  1,631·2

  1979–80

  830·7

  1,799·1

  736·0

  1,594·0

  1980–81

  1,025·9

  1,877·5

  801·2

  1,466·4

  1981–82

  1,155·5

  1,928·6

  1,021·8

  1,705·4

  1982–83

  1,241·0

  1,934·0

  1,193·8

  1,860·4

  1983–84

  1,309·6

  1,950·6

  1,237·0

  1,842·5

  1984–85

  1,350·0

  1,913·6

  1,249·1

  1,770·6

  1985–86

  1,391·9

  1,871·0

  1,297·3

  1,743·9

  1986–87

  1,491·2

  1,938·3

  1,343·3

  1,746·2

  578

  Lowland estates

  Landhold

  Renfrew

  1

  Wigtown

  2

  TOTAL

  28

  Special Needs Training
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount of Training Agency expenditure on the (i) youth training scheme and (ii) employment training scheme for trainees with special needs for each of the Training Agency regions in Scotland for each month since September 1988.

  Mr. Stewart
  This information is not collected.

  Hazardous Waste Inspectorate
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will outline the recent activities of the hazardous waste inspectorate in Scotland.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I am pleased to say that a report of the hazardous waste inspectorate in Scotland has been published today. The report, which covers the period April 1987 to December 1990, outlines the activities and findings of the inspectorate and also sets out a number of conclusions and recommendations concerning waste management practices in Scotland. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  This report will be of interest to everyone who has a part to play in ensuring that waste management in Scotland is practised in a responsible and environmentally friendly manner. The findings of the inspectorate, which have been drawn from its surveys and visits over recent years, are discussed in the report. It concludes that whilst a general improvement in waste disposal practices is evident there is still scope for further improvement.

  I welcome this report at a time when environmental issues are so high in the minds of everyone and commend its contents to the public and private sectors of the industry alike.

  Education Spending
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will produce a table, both at cost and 1990–91 prices, showing what level of expenditure local government has incurred on education in every year since 1978–79 compared to what central Government had built into their assessed need to spend on education.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  [holding answer 8 February 1991]: The information is as follows:
  579

  (1) Expenditure in cash terms(£ million)

  (2) Expenditure at1990–91 prices(£ million)

  (3) Provision/GAE in cash terms(£ million)

  (4) Provision/GAE at1990–91 prices(£ million)

  1987–88

  1,623·6

  2,001·4

  1,424·7

  1,756·2

  1988–89

  1,764·2

  2,026·8

  1,676·0

  1,925·5

  1989–90

  1,926·7

  2,080·9

  1,793·3

  1,936·8

  1990–91

  2,097·1

  2,097·1

  1,973·1

  1,973·1

  Notes:

  1. The Government no longer issue assessments of relative expenditure need and the figures for 1990–91 in columns (3) and (4) relate to grant aided expenditure (GAE).

  2. In columns (3) and (4) the figures for the years 1978–79 to 1983–84 include provision for libraries and museums as well as education in accordance with the provision categorisation provided in the rate support grant orders.

  3. Expenditure figures are at final outturn to 1988–89, provisional outturn for 1989–90 and budget estimate for 1990–91.

  4. All years have been converted to 1990–91 prices by means of the Treasury GDP deflator (October 1990).

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Family Credit
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average lapse of time between applications made for family credit and the determination thereof in the case of(a) claims made by people who have just started work, (b) renewal claims and (c) all claims.

  Mr. Jack
  For the 12 months ended December 1990, the available information on the basis requested is as follows:

  (a) Claims made by people who have just started work
  A fast-path arrangement is available for people who start work after being on unemployment benefit or income support. 88 per cent. of claims dealt with under this arrangement were cleared within five working days. Claims from those people who have just started work can not be identified separately from those of other claimants who have been in work for some time when they make their first claim. The average clearance time for all new claims was 21·5 working days.

  (b) Renewal claims
  The average clearance time was 19·3 working days.

  (c) All claims
  The average clearance time was 20·45 working days.

  Disability
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of potential beneficiaries of the disability working allowance who will be excluded due to the capital limit.

  Mr. Scott
  It is not possible to estimate with confidence how many people will be excluded from receiving disability working allowance due to the capital limit.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Terry Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether the research project, Effect of the Actively Seeking Work Provisions, has been completed; and if he will publish the results.

  Mr. Jack
  The report on the research commissioned by the Department into the effects of the changes to unemployment benefits legislation operative from October 1989, including the introduction of the "actively seeking employment" condition, has not yet been completed. A copy of the report will, in due course, be placed in the Library.

  Community Charge Benefit
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Lambeth have claimed community charge benefit based on claims for reimbursement by his Department.

  Miss Widdecombe
  As at 30 November 1990, 41,199 individual charge payers were receiving community charge benefit in the London borough of Lambeth. This figure is likely to underestimate the true position as the local authority still had to assess a number of unprocessed benefit claims.

  Departmental Achievements
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the principal achievements of his Department since June 1987.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government have continued to commit greater resources than ever before to social security. In 1990–91 total social security spending will have been increased by nearly 41 per cent. in real terms since 1978–79. Specific improvements include extra help for less well-off families and elderly and disabled pensioners. By the end of 1990 over 4 million people had taken out a personal pension and contracted-out of the state earnings-related pension scheme. The new structure of income-related benefits introduced in 1988 enables additional resources to be targeted more effectively than under the old scheme and together with subsequent changes in the tax and national insurance systems has improved work incentives by significantly reducing the worst effects of the poverty and unemployment traps. The recent White Paper "Children Come First" has set out the Government's proposals for a new system of child maintenance in the United Kingdom and the new disability benefits announced in the White Paper "The Way Ahead" are planned to come into operation in April 1992.

  Further increases in benefit rates, including child benefit, from April 1991 will bring total expenditure on social security to well over £60 billion a year, reflecting our firm commitment to protect the value of the national insurance pension and to focus extra help on those most in need, such as the less well-off pensioners and families with children, disabled people and carers.

  The Department of Social Security is well advanced in its programme of establishing executive agencies. The Resettlement Agency and the Information Technology Services Agency are already in place, and the Contributions Agency and the Benefits Agency—the

  581
  largest "next steps" agency—are to be established in April 1991. In early 1993 we expect to launch the Child Support Agency. The DSS computerisation programme—one of the largest in the world—is well advanced.

  Commitment to improve service to the public continues. For example, clearance times for income support are significantly better than those for its predecessor, supplementary benefit. The relocation of benefits work from some London offices to areas where staff recruitment and retention are easier has also improved service to the public. Plans are well advanced to relocate some 800 DSS headquarters' posts from London and the south east to Leeds by 1992, which will play an important part in the Government's inner cities initiative.

  Retired People (Earnings)
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many United Kingdom retired people(a) overall and (b) as a proportion of the total retired population received weekly incomes from all sources above the average of those in work in the last year for which figures are available.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In 1987 approximately half a million (or eight per cent. of) retired pensioner units (ie married couples or singles) are estimated to have an income above the average for all benefit units with at least one working adult. It should be noted that between 1979 and 1987 the incomes of pensioners rose twice as fast as those of the rest of the population.

  Note: Income has been equivalised to allow for differences in family size. Retired pensioner units are those where the head is over state pension age and works less than 16 hours per week. Other (non-retired) pensioner units are included with the benefit units containing at least one working adult. A benefit unit is a family group assessed for benefit ie singles or couples with or without children. The data source is the 1987 Family Expenditure Survey.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will introduce legislation to enable residents of local authority residential homes for the elderly to receive the same amount of benefit as those in private and voluntary sector homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  We have no plans to do so.

  The care in the Community proposals from April 1993 will encourage local authorities to consider making use of the independent sector when placing people in residential homes.

  War Widows
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many war widows are currently receiving children's allowances; and for how many children;
  582
  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that there is no further reduction in the combined value of children's allowances and child benefit for war widows' children;

  (3) what is the annual loss to a war widow with one, or two or three children respectively, resulting from the decision not to maintain the real value of war widows' children's allowances and child benefit since November 1979;

  (4) what was the outcome of his consideration of the issues relating to war widows' children's allowances mentioned in the adjournment debate on child dependency additions on 21 January, Official Report, columns 142–46.

  Mr. Jack
  The disposable income available to war widows and their families has benefited substantially from this Government's policies. Child allowances are only one element in a structure of benefit payments with levels set above those for other widows on pensions.

  Virtually all war widows receiving children's allowances, being "post-1973" war widows are also likely to be receiving children's pensions from the Ministry of Defence under the armed forces pension scheme. This Government have made several significant improvements to the overall position of war widows. The hon. Member will be aware from my reply to him on 28 January 1991 at columns 440–42 that in 1979 war widows' pensions were made tax free; in 1984 a new tier of age allowance was introduced for those over 80; in 1988 the disregard on war pensions for income-related benefits was increased to £5 and to £10 in 1990. In 1990 pre-1973 war widows were awarded special payments of £40 a week. These, too, were tax free and are also totally disregarded for the purpose of calculating entitlement to income-related benefits. Also, in April 1990 war widows' age allowances were increased by more than the rate of inflation. Both war widows' children's allowances and war widows' pensions have consistently been set at preferential rates compared to those applicable to national insurance widows and children.

  We will continue to uprate the basic war widows' children's allowance by the increase in the RPI, deducting any overlapping cash increase in child benefit, using the formula introduced by the last Labour Government in order to safeguard war widows against the loss of tax allowances during the phasing in of child benefit.

  The number of war widows' children's allowance in payment is about 2,500; information on the number of war widows receiving them is not readily available.

  The combined values of war widows' children's allowance and child benefit at current prices and at the values as they would have been had this been uprated in line with movements in the retail prices index are as shown in the tables:
  583

  One child

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  Uprating date1

  Value of child benefit plus children's allowance

  Value if uprated in line with movements in retail prices
  index2

  Difference between A and B(weekly loss)

  Total loss over period between uprating dates3

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  November 1979

  14·00

  —

  —

  —

  November 1980

  15·35

  16·14

  ·79

  41·28

  November 1981

  16·10

  18·08

  1·98

  102·74

  November 1982

  17·10

  19·21

  2·11

  109·54

  November 1983

  17·45

  20·14

  2·69

  139·73

  November 1984

  17·90

  21·13

  3·23

  168·09

  November 1985

  18·55

  22·29

  3·74

  130·79

  July 1986

  18·65

  22·66

  4·01

  140·28

  April 1987

  18·85

  23·65

  4·80

  249·78

  April 1988

  19·25

  24·58

  5·33

  277·31

  April 1989

  19·85

  26·56

  6·71

  348·81

  April 1990

  20·65

  29·07

  8·42

  437·69

  Tow children

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  Uprating date1

  Value of child benefit plus children's allowance

  Value if uprated in line with movements in retail prices
  index2

  Difference between A and B(weekly loss)

  Total loss over period between uprating dates3

  £

  £

  £

  £

  November 1979

  28·00

  —

  —

  —

  November 1980

  30·70

  32·29

  1·59

  82·56

  November 1981

  32·20

  36·15

  3·95

  205·48

  November 1982

  34·20

  38·41

  4·21

  219·08

  November 1983

  34·90

  40·27

  5·37

  279·46

  November 1984

  35·80

  42·27

  6·47

  336·18

  November 1985

  37·10

  44·57

  7·47

  261·58

  July 1986

  37·30

  45·32

  8·02

  280·56

  April 1987

  37·70

  47·31

  9·61

  499·55

  April 1988

  38·50

  49·17

  10·67

  554·61

  April 1989

  39·70

  53·12

  13·42

  697·61

  April 1990

  41·30

  58·13

  16·83

  875·39

  Three children

  A

  B

  C

  D

  E

  Uprating date1

  Value of child benefit plus children's allowance

  Value if uprated in line with movements in retail prices
  index2

  Difference between A and B(weekly loss)

  Total loss over period between uprating dates3

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  November 1979

  42·00

  —

  —

  —

  November 1980

  46·05

  48·43

  2·38

  123·85

  November 1981

  48·30

  54·23

  5·93

  308·21

  November 1982

  51·30

  57·62

  6·32

  328·62

  November 1983

  52·35

  60·41

  8·06

  419·20

  November 1984

  53·70

  63·40

  9·70

  504·27

  November 1985

  55·65

  66·86

  11·21

  392·38

  July 1986

  55·95

  67·97

  12·02

  420·84

  April 1987

  56·55

  70·96

  14·41

  749·33

  April 1988

  57·75

  73·75

  16·00

  831·92

  April 1989

  59·55

  79·67

  20·12

  1,046·42

  April 1990

  61·95

  87·20

  25·25

  1,313·08

  Notes:

  1 Uprating dates refer to the children's allowance. For all but the
  first date they are also the uprating dates for child benefit.

  2 Values of child benefit plus children's allowance as they would
  have been had they been uprated in line with movements in the retail prices index between
  uprating dates.

  3 The period between uprating dates is taken as 52 weeks except for the periods from November 1985 and July 1986 for which the relevant number of weeks is 35.

  584

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the location of points used for the measuring of the temperatures in the United Kingdom for the purposes of triggering special severe weather payments since 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  Temperatures are measured at the national climatological message (MCM) stations. These are listed in the schedules to the Supplementary Benefit (Single Payments) Regulations 1981 and the schedules to the Social Fund Cold Weather Payments (General) Regulations 1988, copies of which are in the Library.

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the total amount paid since 1986 as severe weather payments; and if he will list these by local office.

  Mr. Scott
  The available information is in the table. Details of the payments for each local office for 1986–87 and 1987–88 are in the Library. For 1988–89, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 5 December 1989 at column 157.

  Information for each local office for 1989–90 and 1990–91 is not currently available, but will be placed in the Library in due course.

  £

  Exceptionally cold weather payments

  1986–87

  10,201,860

  1987–88

  496,798

  Social fund cold weather payments

  1988–89

  2,510

  1989–90

  406,481

  Total

  11,107,649

  Mrs. Margaret Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the number of applications refused by each DSS office for payment of severe weather allowances since 1986.

  Mr. Scott
  Details of exceptionally cold weather payments for each local office for the winters of 1986–87 and 1987–88 are in the Library. In 1988–89 Social Fund cold weather payments were made only for the area covered by the Department's local office at Galashiels where 174 claims were refused because the eligibility criteria for the payments were not fulfilled. There were 502 successful claims.

  Information on refusals for each local office for 1989–90 and for 1990–91 is not currently available, but will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make it his policy to advertise the application forms for special cold weather payments in the appropriate local newspapers.

  Mr. Scott
  When a weather station triggers, local offices linked with it have been instructed to place an advertisement in the local press. This advertisement includes a claim form for a cold weather payment.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list all those social security offices which advertised the application forms for special cold weather payments in their appropriate local newspapers.
  586
  Mr. Scott
  All social security offices have been instructed to advertise, and are in the process of doing so.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will instruct all local social security offices to advertise the application forms for special cold weather payments in their appropriate local newspapers.

  Mr. Scott
  On 8 February all social security offices were instructed to place such advertisements in appropriate local newspapers.

  Local Offices, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to formulate and announce plans to alter the provision and location of offices and counter services for social security in the Cardiff area.

  Miss Widdecombe
  In April 1991 the Barry, Cardiff West, Cardiff East and Cardiff Central offices will combine to form the South Glamorgan district and will be managed as a single unit. The senior management team for this project has recently been appointed, and one of their priorities will be to draw up detailed plans to provide the best possible service to local customers. There will be the widest possible consultation with Members of Parliament, and with local statutory and voluntary organisations. There are no plans to close offices in the Cardiff area.

  Bari Harbour
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many appeals have been made to the north west of England pensions appeal tribunal involving cases arising from the Bari harbour mustard gas disaster in 1943; and how many of them have been successful;

  (2) pursuant to his reply of 4 February, Official Report, col. 63–64, what gave rise to the special exercise in 1986–87 to trace cases of casualties caused by the Bari harbour mustard gas disaster in 1943; how this exercise was carried out; how many new cases arose from the exercise; how many of these were successful; and if he has any plans to conduct a similar special exercise;

  (3) pursuant to his reply of 4 February, Official Report, column 63, when the first claim for a war pension arising out of the Bari harbour incident in 1943 was made; and when the last one was made.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The special exercise was undertaken following the exceptional decision to backdate the payment of war disablement pension to an individual who had been exposed to mustard gas whilst serving in the Royal Navy at Bari harbour in 1943. He claimed a war pension in 1983 and contended that he would have claimed earlier had he been aware of the precise nature of the substance with which he had been contaminated.

  The purpose of the special exercise was to identify other casualties of the incident in order to establish whether similar action was appropriate. The names of the casualties of the Bari harbour incident were obtained from Ministry of Defence and Department of Health and Social Security records. A press notice announcing the exercise was issued and as a result of this 87 new claims for war pension were received of which 33 were successful, bringing the total number of claims arising from the incident to 185, of which 106 have been successful. All awards for exposure to mustard gas at Bari harbour were

  587
  reviewed to see whether backdating was appropriate. The exercise confirmed that all but one of those traced were aware at the time of the incident that they had been exposed to mustard gas. Little purpose would therefore be served by conducting a similar exercise.

  The first claim for war pension as a result of the Bari harbour incident was made in 1943. Information is not available regarding the date on which the last claim was made nor on the number of appeals that have been made to the north-west of England pensions appeal tribunal.

  Statutory Sick Pay
  Mr. Grylls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the firms and trade organisations the deregulation unit consulted over their new legislation on statutory sick pay and the outcome of these consultations.

  Mr. Scott
  Following the introduction of the Statutory Sick Pay Bill on 8 November 1990, a copy of the Bill and press release were sent to all employers and organisations represented on the Department's employers panel. Subsequently, Ministers and/or officials have discussed the proposals with the Confederation of British Industry, the National Federation of the Self Employed and Small Businesses, the Forum of Private Businesses and the National Farmers Union. In addition, Ministers have responded to some 200 written representations, mainly from hon. Members on behalf of employers and their organisations.

  The Government have introduced a scheme for small employers' relief to assist small employers with the cost of the statutory sick pay changes.

  Banks
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security whether he will seek to introduce legislation to control bank charges on retail transactions.

  Mr. Maples
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government see no need to introduce legislation to control the level of bank charges. These are commercial decisions for the banks and subject to competition.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will propose legislation to open bank operations to competition and scrutiny by bodies representing consumers' and clients' associations.

  Mr. Maples
  I have been asked to reply.

  Banks are already subject to competition and scrutiny by consumer bodies.

WALES

  Educational Psychologists
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish in the Official Report for each education authority in Wales for the financial year 1991–92 the specific grant to be paid by his Department for each trainee educational psychologist to pursue the postgraduate course enabling them to satisfy the criteria for employment as educational psychologists in local authorities.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Allocations under the grants for educational support and training programme have been 588
  made available as set out in the following table. This covers ongoing commitments for the 1991–92 from the 1990–91 financial year and that part of new initial training activity falling within 1991–92.

  £

  Clwyd

  39,600

  Dyfed

  29,200

  Gwent

  8,000

  Gwynedd

  20,000

  Mid Glamorgan

  52,900

  West Glamorgan

  39,300

  No bids were received from Powys and South Glamorgan local education authorities.

  Employment Training
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many places were offered annually under the employment training scheme since its founding; and how many of these positions have been filled by trainees with special needs.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The number of employment training places offered annually in Wales is as follows:

  Some 22,300 between September 1988 and March 1989.

  Some 15,200 in 1989–90.

  Some 13,400 in 1990–91.

  These figures relate to locally contracted provision only. Figures for nationally contracted places are not available on a regional basis.

  Since the introduction of the programme in Wales, people with disabilities have accounted for 12 per cent. of starts and those requiring literacy and numeracy training 16 per cent. of starts.

  A487, Gwynedd
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the starting date for the construction of the Felinheli bypass on the A487 trunk road in Gwynedd; and if he will list all causes of delay with regard to this scheme since it was first placed in the Welsh trunk roads preparation pool.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Inclusion of a scheme in the trunk road programme indicates that a road improvement is needed—it does not convey any commitment as to timing. This depends on satisfactory completion of engineering design and statutory procedures; and on scheme priorities in relation to the finance available. The Felinheli—Port Dinorwic—bypass is expected to start in period up to April 1994. Objections to supplementary orders published late last year are under consideration and provisional arrangements are being made for a public inquiry in mid-1991.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many places there were in day centres in Wales for mentally ill people in 1989; and what was the corresponding figure for 1979.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There were 935 places in day centres in Wales for mentally ill people at 31 March 1939. The corresponding figure for 31 March 1979 was 393.

  Music (Grants)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much money has been paid out of Welsh Office funds by way of grant or subsidy in Wales during the past 12 months to support(a) orchestral music, (b) opera, (c) choral music, (d) brass bands, (e) folk music and (f) rock music.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Government financial support for the performing arts in Wales is channelled through the Welsh Arts Council which receives its funding from my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts via the Arts Council of Great Britain. There has been no separate Welsh Office support for such activities save for the £842,000 which we announced on 31 January had been transferred from our existing provision to the Office of Arts and Libraries to write off the accumulated deficit of the Welsh National Opera.

  Physiotherapists
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many trained physiotherapists there are currently employed by the national health service in Wales.

  19781

  19881

  Function of home

  Local authority homes

  Voluntary homes

  Private homes

  Local authority homes

  Voluntary homes

  Private homes

  Elderly, younger physically handicapped and blind

  201

  932

  201

  36

  421

  Mentally ill

  37

  1

  5

  53

  4

  19

  Mentally handicapped

  29

  2

  6

  90

  19

  42

  Mixed3

  13

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Alcohol dependence

  4—

  4—

  4—

  0

  3

  0

  1 As at 31 March.

  2 No split available between voluntary and private.

  3 These homes accommodate both mentally ill and mentally handicapped people.

  4 Not available.

  Welsh Language Bill
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he intends to publish his draft Welsh Language Bill;

  (2) when he plans to place legislation before the House to enact a new Welsh Language Bill;

  (3) what is his response to the draft Welsh Language Bill published on 14 February by the Welsh Language Board.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The Welsh Language Board published its proposals for legislation in support of the Welsh language on 11 February. Those proposals will be carefully considered and the Government's response will be announced in due course.

  Coal Industry (Redundancies)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what special measures he plans to take to deal with the consequences of redundancies in the coal industry in Wales.

  Mr. David Hunt
  The Welsh Office and other agencies will respond swiftly to opportunities as they arise.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the redundancies effected and declared
  590
  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  At 30 September 1990 there were 766—a whole-time equivalent of 597·4—trained physiotherapists employed by the NHS in Wales.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many places there were available in Wales in residential homes in 1988; what were the corresponding figures for 1978; and how many were(a) local authority homes, (b) registered homes run by voluntary organisations and (c) registered homes run by private owners.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  There were 17,836 places available in local authority, private and voluntary residential homes for elderly, younger physically handicapped, blind, mentally ill, mentally handicapped and alcohol dependent people at 31 March 1988. The corresponding figure at 31 March 1978 was 10,750. The number of local authority homes, registered homes run by voluntary organisations and registered homes run by private owners is shown in the table:

  in the coal industry in south Wales since 1 January 1990, indicating the measures he has taken to ameliorate their impact upon communities.

  Mr. David Hunt
  Since 1 January 1990 there have been 880 redundancies effected and 705 redundancies announced in the coal industry in south Wales. The Welsh Office, Welsh Development Agency, British Coal Enterprise, other agencies and Government Departments are working together and are responding to opportunities as they arise to offset the effects that the redundancies have on local communities.

  New Crown Buildings
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for utilising the space at the New Crown buildings, Cathays park, after its evacuation by the Export Credit Guarantees Department insurance services group.

  Mr. David Hunt
  It is expected to be some time before the space now occupied by ECGD insurance services group in the new Crown building, Cathays park, becomes vacant. The reletting of this space, which forms part of the Government's civil estate, is ultimately the responsibility
  591
  of the Department of Environment—Property Holdings —but my Department will be keeping in close touch with events.

  Education Department (Location)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has for the future office location of the Education Department of the Welsh Office.

  Mr. David Hunt
  At present, none.

  Leybucht Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his reply of 12 November 1990,Official Report, column 49, when he will place in the Library an authorised English language version of the Advocate-General's opinion on the Leybucht bay case heard at Luxembourg before the European Court of Justice.

  Mr. David Hunt
  An English language version of the Advocate-General's opinion prepared by the court is unlikely to be available for some time. However, I understand that an English language translation prepared by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be available very shortly. I shall be placing a copy of this in the Library of the House.

EMPLOYMENT

  Training
  Mr. Leighton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will outline his policy on setting targets for the numbers of those in training who obtain qualifications; and if he will give the reasons underlying the policy.

  Mr. Jackson
  Targets for the numbers of employment training and youth training trainees who are expected to obtain national vocational qualifications at various levels are negotiated between my Department and individual training and enterprise councils. Targets are influenced by, amongst other things, past performance, expected improvements in performance and local circumstances.

  Action Credit
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what impact the earnings paid to participants in the action credit pilot scheme being run by the employment service will have on their(a) entitlement to housing benefit, (b) entitlement to community charge benefit, and (c) entitlement to income support during (i) the time that they are building up their terminal commission bonus and (ii) when they receive their accumulated bonus at the end of the action credit; and if he will make a statement.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The action credit scheme was recently piloted by the Department of Employment's training, enterprise and education directorate (formerly the Training Agency) for people leaving employment training who are receiving income support.

  Under the scheme, participants who take up part-time work placements receive payments equal to the level of their income support earnings disregard, normally £5 or
  592
  £15 per week. These earnings have no effect on entitlement to income support, housing benefit or community charge benefit.

  The balance of the earnings is accumulated and paid at a later date. Any income support in payment is reduced by the net weekly equivalent of the earnings, after deducting a further earnings disregard, for a forward period equal to the length of the period of employment. Housing benefit and community charge benefit are not affected.

  If income support is not in payment, or is extinguished by the earnings, the accumulated bonus is treated as capital for the purposes of housing benefit and community charge benefit. It will only affect those benefits if the payment takes any existing capital over £3,000, of if the participant's capital is already over that amount.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many persons in the United Kingdom have been unemployed for(a) one year, (b) two years, (c) three years, (d) three to five years and (e) over five years.

  Mr. Jackson
  The information is contained in the following table and can also be obtained from the NOMIS database system in the House of Commons Library.

  Duration

  1Total

  0–1 year

  1,162,879

  1–2 years

  202,631

  2–3 years

  80,374

  3–5 years

  81,304

  5 years or more

  143,432

  1 Unemployment figures by duration are produced quarterly. The figures shown are for October 1990, the latest date available, and are on the unadjusted basis.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what initiatives he is considering in order to reduce long-term unemployment within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  We already have in place a comprehensive package of employment and training measures to help the long-term unemployed back into work. The range of help available for individuals is the widest ever. Next year we shall be providing up to 100,000 additional opportunities through programmes such as jobclub and the job interview guarantee.

  Labour Statistics
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what progress the employment service has made in meeting the numerical targets outlined in its 1990–91 agency agreement; and if he will show the specific targets and achievements for the latest available date in relation to(a) placing unemployed people in jobs, (b) placing the long-term unemployed in jobs and (c) the number of claims not pursued; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Employment service targets for placing people into jobs this financial year are set out in the annual performance agreement published in April 1990. I am informed by the chief executive of the employment service that in the period April to December 1990 the employment service placed 1,088,286 unemployed people into jobs (annual target 1,650,000), of whom 165,400 had been
  593
  claiming benefit for six months or longer (annual target 275,000). Over the same period 320,034 people enquired at local offices of the employment service about entitlement to benefit but did not pursue a claim (reference level 400,000 in 1989–90 financial year). The chief executive will report to the Secretary of State on employment service achievements at the end of the financial year and his report will be published in the summer.

  Annual Performance Agreement
  Ms. Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to place in the Library a copy of the new annual performance agreement agreed with the employment service for 1991–92; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  Discussions on the 1991–92 annual performance agreement are well advanced. I intend to place a copy in the Library by the beginning of April.

  Part-time Work
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to ratify EC directive 1983–90 on part-time work.

  Mr. Forth
  The draft directives on part-time work are still under discussion in the European Council.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many unemployed claimants in each month since 9 October 1989, for each region and for Great Britain as a whole(a) have been issued with a warning letter for not actively seeking work, (b) had their claims referred to an adjudication officer for not actively seeking work, (c) had their claims (i) allowed or (ii) disallowed, (d) have been referred to an adjudication officer for refusing employment; how many of those in (d) have had their benefit (1) disqualified or (2) allowed; how many have been referred to an adjudication officer for neglect to avail oneself of employment; and how many of those have had their benefit (a) disqualified or (b) allowed.

  Mr. Jackson
  Questions on operational matters in the employment service executive agency are the responsibility of Mike Fogden, the agency's chief executive, to whom I have referred this question for reply.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, pursuant to his reply of 5 February,Official Report, column 90, what consultations he has had with the chairman of South Glamorgan TEC concerning the issuing of advertisements to tender for the construction of the new TEC building.

  Mr. Jackson
  I have had no such consultations.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines he has issued to the training and enterprise councils concerning advertising for senior management positions.

  Mr. Jackson
  TECs have been issued with a staffing manual which sets out certain procedures which they are 594
  required to observe. This includes the obligation to advertise openly the post of chief executive should a TEC not wish to appoint an Employment Department group secondee.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what guidelines he has issued to the training and enterprise councils regarding the employment of close relatives of TEC chairmen in senior management positions.

  Mr. Jackson
  No specific guidance has been issued.

DEFENCE

  Transmitter, Scotland
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the plans for an experimental extremely low frequency transmitter in Scotland.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  We have reassessed this project in the light of current defence requirements and have decided not to proceed with the programme to construct an experimental transmitter in Glengarry forest. Accordingly, we shall not be proceeding with the notice of proposed development. We are notifying local authorities to this effect.

  Gulf War
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people from the Paisley, South constituency are currently on military service in the Gulf or engaged in support services in this country.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested could not he provided without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Sillars
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government's war aims encompass the bombing of any non-Iraqi vehicles on the main Iraq-Jordan highway; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. The Government's objectives are those set out in the United Nations Security Council resolutions. The allied intention is to implement these resolutions in the shortest possible time with the minimum casualties. Allied pilots have instructions only to attack military targets which could pose a threat to allied forces or facilities which are supporting Iraq's occupation of Kuwait.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the delay experienced by Mrs. Joan Webb of Leicester in communicating with her son Colin Webb of the Signals Regiment at BFPO 649; what is the length of time now taken to transmit mail to services personnel in the Gulf; and what further measures he is taking to improve the situation.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The hon. Gentleman has been in contact with my office about a delay experienced by Mrs. Joan Wells in communicating with her son in the Gulf. The matter is being investigated, and I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  In general, the transmit time to the Gulf for letters is around five days, and ten days for parcels. These timings may be exceeded for troops in forward positions.
  595
  Transit times are monitored regularly and every effort is made to achieve the earliest possible delivery.

  Nulear Test Veterans
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is his current assessment of the effects on British service men present in the vicinity of the second United Kingdom nuclear test at Christmas Island in 1958 of their exposure to radiation;

  (2) what is his current assessment of the effects on ex-service men present in the vicinity of the first United Kingdom nuclear test at Christmas Island in 1958 of their exposure to radiation.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now estimate the number of premature deaths of ex-service men who took part in the Christmas Island tests between 1952 and 1958, including the clean up operations up to 1964.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the National Radiological Protection Board report NRPBR214, "Mortality and Cancer Incidence in UK Participants in UK Atmospheric Nuclear Weapon Tests and Experimental Programmes" published in 1988. In their report, the NRBP did not establish a causal link between any increased incidence of cancer and participation in the test programme.

  The NRPB are now carrying out an analysis of data received up until 1 January 1988 and their further report will be available in 1992.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now reconsider the benefit and compensation claims of nuclear test veterans who took part in the British nuclear test programme from 1952 until 1958, including the clean-up programme up to 1964; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The Government's policy is based on the National Radiological Protection Board's (NRPB) report published in 1988, which found no casual link between participation in the test programme and any increased incidence of cancer. A further follow-up study by the NRPB has been commissioned and it will be necessary to await the conclusions of this before considering what changes, if any, might be appropriate to the Government's current policy.

  Arms Fair, Baghdad
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations Her Majesty's Government received opposing British involvement in the first Baghdad international arms fair held in April 1989.

  Mr. Alan Clark
  A number of hon. Members and members of the public registered their opposition to the participation of United Kingdom companies in the international arms fair held in Baghdad in April 1989

  Gulf Crisis (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his American counterpart concerning the conditions under which United States forces in the allied military alliance deployed in the Gulf region would be permitted to use nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend keeps in regular contact with his American counterpart. The details of these discussions are confidential. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the Government's position on the possible use of United Kingdom nuclear weapons in the Gulf quite clear on 15 January 1991 at col.726.

  Quality Assurance
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current estimate of the cost of moving the Directorate General of Quality Assurance to(a) Stockton-on-Tees and (b) Portland, in Dorset.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  Studies have yet to be completed.

  Forces Personnel
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) Royal Navy, (b) Royal Air Force and (c) Army personnel were (i) absent without leave and (ii) applied for discharge as conscientious objectors between 1 January and the latest available date; what were the figures for the comparable period of 1990; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to the hon. Member.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

M.4 Widening Estimates
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the latest estimate of the cost of widening the M.4 motorway to four lanes between the Chiswick flyover and Junction 12.
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the estimated cost of the schemes for widening the M.4 motorway between Junction 4B, the M.25, and Junction 12 was announced as £130.9 million in the report Trunk Roads. England Into the 1990s, published in February 1990. Consultants appointed by the Department of Transport are evaluating the options for increasing the capacity of the motorway and more precise estimates of cost will be made when that work is completed. The section of M.4 between the Chiswick flyover and the M.25 is included in a study of the M.4 and A.4 corridor with the objective of improving the efficiency of the existing roads.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the Minister for that very informative Answer. I am sure he will agree that a lot of money is involved. Is he aware that the widening of the motor way would serve to attract extra population and additional development to an area which is already over-populated and over-developed? Does he agree, and is he aware, that the nearside lane of this stretch of the M.4, even at peak periods, is often quite empty? Before spending £130.9 million, would it not be better to try to make better use of the existing lanes of the motor way either through additional speed restrictions or by allowing passing on the nearside as well as the offside?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I believe that there is a recognised need for further capacity on this road. At some places along the stretch which the noble Lord identified it is already operating at more than double its design capacity. Therefore, I am not sure that it is necessarily true that additional development in the area would be attracted. As regards lane discipline, we want to see high-volume utilisation and productivity from our existing motorways without compromising safety. The Highway Code makes it quite clear that where possible people should use the nearside lane. The fact is that on this road at certain times all three lanes are fully occupied.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, has thought been given to the effects of congestion on the roads into inner London if four lanes were provided up to but not beyond the Chiswick flyover?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in my original Answer I sought to make clear that there are particular proposals for four lanes which extend only as far as the M.25. The piece of road between the M.25 and the Chiswick flyover is the subject of a separate study to make maximum use of the existing road.
Lord Milky: My Lords, will the Minister consider whether the department can give more publicity to the need for adherence to the Highway Code standards for driving on motorways? There are still people who drive from London to Scotland in the middle lane; they never move from one lane to another. No matter which three-lane motorway one travels on the inner lane is nearly always empty.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. We are commissioning research at the moment which will help us to decide whether changes are needed in our advice to drivers. In the meantime we shall be stressing in our publicity campaigns the importance of good lane discipline on motorways.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, of passing on the inside (that is, the left side) in order to make use of the inner lane, is one of the most dangerous practices to be seen on motorways? Is he aware that many of us who have driven in France, and even more so in Italy, and who have experienced drivers passing on the inside (the right side over there) feel that the practice exposes both drivers to the maximum danger of collision and that it should be heavily prosecuted?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not answer that particular point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. As my noble friend has said, we would have to think extremely carefully before making any decision allowing passing on the nearside.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that what he has just said about passing on the nearside is to be welcomed? I wholly endorse the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. As regards the points raised by my noble friend Lord Stoddart, is the Minister intending that there should be an environmental impact assessment? If so, would that not cover at least some of the points which have been mentioned and perhaps many more?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Certainly, my Lords. All widening options will be assessed in terms of their impact on existing communities: for example, the landscape, agriculture, nature conservation, heritage values and recreation.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, with great deference to those noble Lords who have spoken about passing on the inside lane, traffic in Park Lane in both directions passes on the nearside or in the outside lane according to whether those lanes are empty. Lane hopping does not take place. The traffic appears to flow quite safely.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that is not a motorway. It is not the M.4. I hope that traffic is keeping within the speed limit allowed in Park Lane which I suspect is 30 miles per hour.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, can my noble friend advise whether any consideration has been given to making the Chiswick flyover three lanes? To the best of my knowledge, the flyover is the only dual carriageway between Knightsbridge and the M.4 itself.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I said in my original Answer that between the elevated section of the Chiswick flyover and the M.25 junction, a study is already being carried out into the A.4-M.4 corridor. It is due to be completed in the spring. The aim of the study is to improve the efficiency and safe use of the existing A.4-M.4 by optimisation of traffic routing. Once the study is complete we shall consult the local authorities and the BAA on the results.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, will the noble Lord consider giving instructions to dispatch riders who, both on motorways and in towns, suddenly arrive on the nearside and are therefore invisible in the rear mirror?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, enforcement of the law on roads is a matter for the police. They do not have limitless resources. Where possible they should prosecute when actions of that kind take place.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, have the Government considered whether £130.9 million spent on public transport might be preferable?
Lord Brabazon of Tara; My Lords, record levels of money are being spent on public transport at the moment. However, that will not solve the problem of congestion on our main inter-urban roads. A balanced policy is being pursued which aims to improve all forms of transport including railways, so that each can make a proper contribution towards a safer, more efficient and less environmentally damaging transport system.

The Gulf: Ceasefire Statement
3.10 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they were informed in advance of the United States' intention to state jointly with the Soviet Union, a non-combatant power, the conditions on which the United States would cease fire in the Gulf.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, the US-Soviet joint statement of 29th January reflects what has been our agreed policy for a very long time.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the statement we are talking about is the so-called Baker/Bessmertnykh statement of that date. It says in part that a cessation of hostilities would be possible if Iraq would make an unequivocal commitment to withdraw from Kuwait backed by immediate concrete steps leading to full compliance with the Security Council resolutions. Does the noble Earl agree that it is therefore a constructive, forward-looking and helpful statement? But would it not nevertheless be wise to ensure that the United States consulted us about statements of this importance before they were made in case the next one is less constructive and forward-looking?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there is no need to have prior notice of a statement that is simply a reaffirmation of what is agreed policy.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, as our involvement in the Gulf conflict is expressly authorised by the United Nations, is the noble Earl aware that we warmly welcome the current meeting of the Security Council? Can he indicate what new initiative, if any, the Government will be proposing at this important meeting and whether the point raised by my noble friend Lord Kennet will form part of the discussion which takes place today?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition is right in saying that this is an important meeting of the Security Council. It is equally important that the Security Council should not blur in any way the signal being sent to Iraq that it must abide by the 12 powerful resolutions. That we shall seek to endorse today.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that the White House had some objections to the statement of 29th January? Can the noble Earl say whether or not the Government agree with those objections?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I do not think that is a matter for the Government.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, does the noble Earl seriously say that if there is a disagreement between the White House and the Secretary of State in the United States the British Government have no view on it?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is not what I said.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, will the noble Earl be so good as to tell us what he did say in response to my question? I said that I understood that the White House had repudiated some aspects of the statement of 29th January. I asked whether Her Majesty's Government agreed or disagreed with those reservations.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, that is what he thought. As I understand the situation, the statement did nothing but reaffirm existing policy.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does the Minister agree that at a time of great international complexity the asking of questions designed to illustrate problems among our allies is not in the best interests of the joint effort?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I shall try to answer the questions put by Members of your Lordships' House.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that since we are a belligerent we are at least entitled to have our views taken into account about the objects of the war?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, no one said otherwise.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that relations between the British Government and the President of the United States are close and

213
continuous and that the two are permanently in consultation? There seems to be no rupture or disagreement among them, which is to the credit of both parties.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, my noble friend is partly right. That is the case not only with the President of the United States but with every other member of the Administration.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, when I asked the noble Earl the same question regarding the American/Soviet statement and whether the Government agreed with it, he refused to answer. Do I now understand him to say that that agreement reflects the policy of the British Government? If so, will Her Majesty's Government say categorically and publicly that their policy now is to cease hostilities the moment a commitment to withdraw is given by Saddam Hussein?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I repeat that the statement is simply a reaffirmation of our agreed policy.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a commitment by anyone who consistently breaks his word is valueless?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, that is very true.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that we are now in a very valuable position? If we endorse the statement, we shall not be demanding an actual withdrawal but saying that we shall be satisfied with steps leading to and commitments to withdrawal. That is a substantial advance and the Government are to be congratulated on it.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, there has been absolutely no change in the Government's position which requires the fulfilment of the 12 United Nations Security Council resolutions.

Unemployment: Statistics
3.16 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total number of unemployed at the latest available date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, in January 1991 seasonally adjusted unemployment in the United Kingdom was 1,888,500.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, what kind of economic miracle has produced virtually 2 million unemployed after 12 years of power, particularly—and this is very important—as unemployment is increasing in every region of the country and in every kind of job? Above all, does not the disgraceful figure which I he Minister has given us today and the rate of increase demonstrate that this Government are composed of economic illiterates and that in trying to reduce inflation they are prepared to pay the price of thousands of jobs being sacrificed for many months to
214
come? Will he deny that there are now 70,000 fewer vacancies every month? If he does deny it, what is the figure?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord tries to view this economy as if it is not part of the global picture. All increases in unemployment are regrettable. No one should under-estimate the difficulties which unemployment can cause to the individuals concerned. However, it remains that the United Kingdom still has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the European Community. In 1979 United Kingdom unemployment was broadly similar to the European Community average, but now it is considerably lower. The United Kingdom unemployment rate is lower than that of France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Denmark. In recent months there have been rises in unemployment across the industrialised world in countries such as the United States and Italy and even steeper rises in Canada and Australia.
Lord Elliott of Morpeth: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, and I have shared with others considerable concern over many years for the employment position in the North of England? Is he further aware that the unemployment rate on 31st January 1990 in the northern region was 9 per cent. and that the rate on 31st January this year was 9.6 per cent.? Does he agree that, taking into due account the recession which we know is temporary, this is not an unsatisfactory position?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend illustrates an interesting position. However, I take issue with him on the figures. The figures that I have indicate that the percentage of those unemployed in the northern area is now only 9.2. It is true to say that the increase in the number of unemployed has been less in the North than it has been in the South.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that unemployment in the southern region is steaming on? Is he further aware that the number of vacancies has fallen considerably? There are vacancies not only among industrial workers but among bank managers, accountants and the like? The problem is very serious indeed. Will the Government take urgent action to make real cuts in interest rates, not in months but now?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the rates of unemployment in many of the areas suggested by the noble Lord have historically been very low. Therefore, sometimes a small increase in the number of unemployed in those areas may well result in a relatively large percentage increase in the unemployment rate, but the rate for those areas, again, remains very low. The number of vacancies at jobcentres in January was 143,000 which was an increase of 15,000 since December, although I would not say that that indicated a trend. Of course, only one-third of all vacancies are reported to jobcentres.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, as the unemployment rate looks like increasing still further, are the Government considering introducing any special measures such as temporary work schemes along the lines of the old community programme?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, we have a very full youth training programme. We are spending £750 million this coming year on ET which is still by any standards a considerable programme. However, it has become clear that training is not always the most appropriate solution to the problems faced by the long-term unemployed. Indeed, other forms of help including assistance with job search or securing an interview can often be much more effective.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the global figure which he gave in his reply to my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington shows an increase for last year of 112,000 job losses in the manufacturing sector and that that represents a 550 per cent. decline compared to the year before when the figure was only 20,000? Are we not, therefore, in a position where manufacturing industry in this country is being damaged almost beyond repair? Further, what hope is there of getting some social order, and being able to reduce some of the misery caused by increased unemployment, with a cut of a half per cent. in the bank rate?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to want to write down the manufacturing industry. The current downturn comes after three years in which manufacturing output grew at an average rate of 5.5 per cent. and investment grew at 8.75 per cent. I agree with him that the number of jobs in manufacturing are at the same level as they were in about 1987. However, having said that, the amount of output has grown considerably, as I suggested, as indeed has investment.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, mentioned my name and the northern region, will the Minister comment upon the fact that, although the Government have had 12 years of unrivalled power, the unemployment rate of that area is the highest in the country outside of Northern Ireland?
Viscount Ullswater: Yes, my Lords; I accept that fact.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, we are always grateful when the noble Viscount can accept a fact from the Opposition and we congratulate him for so doing. However, is he aware that manufacturing output is now falling rather sharply and that it is only a matter of time before it falls to the level that it was in 1979? But, leaving aside that aspect which concerned the noble Viscount's previous answer, is he aware that the figure he gave us for the monthly unemployed is the seasonally adjusted one and that the gross figure is 1,959,747? That represents an increase of 109,366 over the month before. Can he tell us how that figure becomes seasonally adjusted down to a 46,000 increase?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord an explanation. Between December and January unemployment would normally increase by about 65,000 because of seasonal influences, irrespective of trend. It is also often the case that the unadjusted figure falls while the seasonally adjusted figure rises. For example, in May of last year the unadjusted
216
unemployment figure fell by 48,000 while seasonally adjusted unemployment increased by 4,000, reflecting the seasonal influences that unemployment usually falls by about 52,000 between April and May.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, when did the Department of Employment last look at its seasonal adjustments?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the figures which have been given on a seasonally adjusted basis have been consistent throughout the period.

Jobcentre Staff: Training
3.24 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they are taking to ensure that jobcentre staff receive training about age discrimination and the problems of older workers.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, jobcentre staff have been given instructions and guidance on challenging age limits on vacancies notified by employers. Jobclub leaders are also aware of the particular problems faced by older people and have been given appropriate guidance.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, is he aware that last year a survey of older workers in the age group with which we are concerned revealed that 80 per cent. of those who had attended interviews but had been refused jobs, even though they had the necessary skills, were of the opinion that this was due to the age factor? If that is the case, will the Government be prepared to consider introducing appropriate legislation, as has been done in other countries?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government's view is that employers must make full use of the talents of older workers, especially as the number of young people declines. We believe that all employers should treat all applicants on merit and abandon the use of arbitrary age limits in recruitment. Older people can often bring valuable qualities of skill, experience and reliability to a job and employers must be prepared to be flexible in their own interests as well as those of the people who apply for the jobs.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most people over the age of 50—that is the age group about which we are talking, not the over-seventies—would prefer to make a contribution to society rather than being classed, as it appeared from yesterday's debate, as being a drain on younger people in the working population? That opportunity must be made available to them because they have the necessary skills and talent.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. In fact, there are more than 4.5 million people in employment aged 50 or over. That figure represents 20 per cent. of the working population.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that the survey mentioned by my noble friend

217
Lord Dean of Beswick pointed out, among other things, that two-thirds of employers are still doing nothing about the projected shortage of skills and labour? Is there not, therefore, a need for legislation to prevent some of the discrimination which still exists in regard to older workers?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government do not believe that legislation is the right way to tackle age discrimination. In certain circumstances, the age of an applicant can have a bearing on his or her suitability for a job. In our view, the employer is in the best position to make a judgment of that nature. Legislation that attempted to take account of that would be difficult to devise and even more difficult to enforce.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are numerous cases on record which show that when jobs are advertised in the press and various other places the age requirement is often stated in the advertisement? Do the Government have an opinion on that practice? Is not that going too far and should not such activity be outlawed?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have with me a copy or the instructions which have been circulated to jobcentres. It would not be appropriate for jobcentres to refuse to accept advertisements for vacancies which stipulate age limits as they are not illegal. However, our instructions state that, even if an employer insists on specifying an age restriction in an advertisement for a vacancy, it should not prevent staff from approaching him on behalf of clients whom they consider to be suitable for the vacancy but who do not fall within the specified age range.
Bareness Phillips: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are two simple pieces of legislation that he can use as specimens—the sex discrimination and race discrimination legislation?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the Government do not believe that age discrimination is on a par with race and sex discrimination from which a person can suffer unfairly at any stage in life.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in the House we accept the principle of the older the better?
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: Hear, hear!
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is right. There are many wise heads on old shoulders.

Child Support Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision for the assessment, collection and enforcement of periodical maintenance payable by certain parents with respect to children of theirs who are not in their care; for the collection and enforcement of certain other kinds of maintenance; and for connected purposes.
218
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Llanelli Borough Council (Dafen Estuary) Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
Torquay Market Bill [H.L.]
Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners.

Business of the House: Debates, 20th February
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Allen of Abbeydale and the Lord Annan set down for 20th February shall each be limited to 2½ hours and that Standing Order 35 and paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates shall apply to each debate.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991
3.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Trumpington) rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 15th January 1991 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, your Lordships may recall that the farm diversification grant scheme, or FDGS, was introduced in 1988 with the purpose of providing pump-priming assistance to farmers who wish to diversify into non-agricultural profit-making enterprises on their farms. Grant is available at 25 per cent. on investments of up to £35,000. So far just over 3,000 applications have been received in the United Kingdom and of those over 2,100 have been approved. That means that the scheme has stimulated over £40 million of planned investment in diversified activities.
We chose with care, and after extensive consultation, the types of enterprise which would blend well with the farm business and fit comfortably in the rural environment. The final choice of activities seems to have been a good one with the whole range of eligible activities being taken up by enterprising farmers. However, there have been some wide variations in the level of uptake between different enterprises. Of course, that is to be expected where the availability of resources, location of the farm and available labour will to some extent dictate the type of enterprise

219
embarked upon. Since the start of the scheme, 45 per cent. of all applications have been in respect of the provision of tourist accommodation. That covers the provision of bed and breakfast accommodation, permanent caravan sites, camping sites, conversion of traditional barns for camping and the restoration and conversion of redundant farm buildings to provide self-catering accommodation in cottages, chalets or flats. The average grant-aidable investment for tourist accommodation is currently £28,000, compared with £26,000 for the scheme as a whole. However, the expected profit of about £3,000 per annum is the lowest rate of return by far for any enterprise covered by the scheme.
These are essentially pump-priming grants but we have to stop priming the pump before we flood the market. That particular form of diversification has proved so popular with farmers that it no longer needs the extra stimulus of grant aid and can now develop in line with market forces. It has been an attractive investment because it is more familiar to many farmers and offers capital appreciation as well as income.
The Government have therefore decided that the scheme should be altered to concentrate the available resources on those types of enterprise which yield better rates of return to farmers. The instrument before us therefore removes, with one exception, all types of tourist accommodation from the list of enterprises eligible for capital grant under the FDGS.
The exception to which I have just referred is that of bunkhouse and camping barns, which are a relatively new concept designed for the hardy walker and cyclist. They are, in effect, stone tents offering protection from the weather, basic cooking, washing and toilet facilities, and nothing else. As their name implies, they are created by the simple, relatively inexpensive conversion of traditional farm buildings, often well away from the farmstead. Because they are usually linked in "chains", with people spending just one night in each, they require a considerable amount of planning and marketing and the overall success depends upon completing all the links in the chain. That, we feel, justifies the continuation of grant-aid for that type of accommodation.
The fact that we shall no longer be offering grant towards capital investment in tourist accommodation does not mean that we do not think it a worthwhile investment. Each farmer must take a commercial decision as to what is the best investment for the circumstances of the particular farm. Because it is important that farmers evaluate their investments and market them properly we are keeping our grants for feasibility studies and marketing on the current range of tourist accommodation. It is our hope that more farmers will take advantage of that admirable aid.
I stress also that all other grants under the scheme will continue to be available. We shall also, of course, be honouring our commitment to pay grant to those farmers whose plans for tourist accommodation have already been approved and to those whose
220
applications were received before this instrument came into force. I commend the instrument to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 15th January 1991 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the order. She confirmed the information already made public in a news release from her ministry on 15th January last. Having read that release, and having listened to what she said this afternoon, I am reminded of part of the old adage, "Thrice blest is he who gets in first", because in another place as recently as 13th February (col. 490) in reply to a Question her ministerial colleague said that, to avoid a deadline rush, there had been no specific consultations with organisations about the changes. The NFU regrets the cut in support, as many farmers say that bed and breakfast accommodation in the farmhouse is the best possible alternative.
The ministry's news release to which I have referred says that the change is designed to concentrate grants upon enterprises yielding the highest returns to farmers. The Minister confirmed that view this afternoon when she said that bed and breakfast (tourism, as it is called) currently yields a return of only 10 per cent., though there is capital appreciation on the converted building. I should like to ask the Minister, first, how those rates of capital return are calculated. For example, 31 per cent. is quoted as being the rate of return on craft shops and 39 per cent. on farm shops. To one whose capital is so very modest, those returns seems fantastic. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell me, or write to me if she cannot reply today, whether the figures quoted in the news release are actual figures or merely notional figures devised by the consultants to whom she referred.
The feasibility study and grants for the employment of marketing agents are to continue for all types of farm tourist accommodation. As the order now restricts grant to simple hostel-type shelters known as camping barns and bunkhouse barns (further defined by the Minister this afternoon), I wonder whether marketing agents in that context are still necessary. If they are necessary, why are the fees to be paid to them under the scheme (which she says is a pump-priming scheme) to continue as generously in the future as they have done in the past?
Can the noble Baroness also say, on the general issue, whether her ministry thinks that, when, on the advice of the tourist promotion bodies in this country, providers of other types of tourist accommodation are nearly all trading up, the bunkhouse will really appeal to any but a small minority of people? In those circumstances, far from priming the pump, we may be witnessing the decline of a scheme which, on the basis of the noble Baroness's own figures, clearly made a material contribution at an important time in helping farmers to diversify. In spite of the remarks I have made and the questions I have asked, we shall not oppose the order this afternoon.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, it was not my intention to intervene but I see that most of my farming friends on these Benches have gone back to their northern fastnesses. They have no doubt done so in order to to lay fresh straw on the floors of their camping barns and bunkhouses.
Today is St. Valentine's Day and many in your Lordships' House who have read the Evening Standard this week will be anxious to know the answer to a very important question: has anybody found a rhyme to go with "Baroness Trumpington"?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I shall answer the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, first. I thank him for his rather lukewarm welcome to the measure. He referred to the rates of return: they are taken from farmers' own forecasts when putting in their plans for investment. The noble Lord may be interested to know that the present total grant commitment within the UK is £11.2 million, of which £5.2 million has so far been paid to farmers.
Nobody has mentioned it this afternoon but this was considered to be an unfair grant when dealing with small hotels because it puts them at a great disadvantage. That was another reason why we took this step. Grant is available under our Farm and Conservation Grant Scheme for the renovation of traditional farm buildings which are and will be retained in agricultural use. In addition, in rural development areas in England grant may also be available from the Rural Development Commission for the renovation of traditional farm buildings. Grant is still also available for buildings in connection with other enterprises under the FDGS.
I believe that we must continue to maintain our feasibility grants, even though, as the noble Lord is aware, the uptake has been poor. I think that farmers are foolish not to take advantage of this facility before embarking on various enterprises. Finally, I look forward to receiving a Valentine from the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, even though it is late in the day!
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, the Minister may not have this information, as it concerns her description of the stone building for which the grant would be permitted. It took me back to when I lived and worked on a farm and my pigs had better accommodation than seems to be suggested for the individuals who wish to spend nights in the barns. For example, what are the facilities for lavatories and washing? One would not be permitted to put up a building of another kind for people staying overnight in a town. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether the accommodation would be suitable in every sense, although it is only for one night.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the bunkhouse and camping barns are a relatively new venture in a different sector of the market. There is a need for more investment in it, to establish chains of suitable night stops which can be marketed as a package to walkers and others on this kind of holiday. It is also a means of preserving old barns—something which is greatly to be sought after.
222
I am not quite sure why the noble Baroness queries the simplicity of the arrangement, since, when one is young and active, walking through the hills and dales in the summer, if one can get a good meal and can wash, one is usually too tired to care about anything else.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1990
3.45 pm
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first order standing in my name on the Order Paper and, with the leave of the House, I shall speak also to the second order for 1991.
First I wish to explain why we are taking two orders on the same subject. The reason is that at a very late stage we detected an omission from the 1990 order. Cumbria had been left out of the definition of the revised north western traffic area, and the 1991 order amends that deficiency in the 1990 order.
The 1990 order is the main order. Subject to the approval of your Lordships' House and with effect from 1st June 1991, this order will reduce the number of traffic areas covering Great Britain from nine to eight. It will establish a new pattern of traffic area boundaries. The changes form part of a reorganisation of work which involves the closure of the traffic area offices in Newcastle, Nottingham and London.
I hope not to detain your Lordships for too long, but I think it would be useful if I described the present composition of the traffic area organisation, before explaining why we wish to reorganise it. The present organisation consists of nine traffic areas and eight traffic commissioners, one of whom is responsible for two areas. There are 11 traffic area offices, one for each area except the north eastern and eastern traffic areas, which have historically been served by two offices.
In June 1989, my department commissioned a review by Mr. John Palmer of the functions of the traffic commissioners and the traffic area offices. We were conscious that a number of legislative and other planned changes would affect the role and workload of the traffic commissioners and their staff. We wanted to ensure that these did not unduly affect the efficiency and standards of performance of the organisation as a whole.
The resulting report—the Palmer Report—found that, although the workload of the traffic commissioners had changed only a little in recent years, the workload of the staff in the traffic area offices was reducing fast, and would reduce even further as statutory and other administrative changes in their functions were implemented.
These changes involved the transfer of a large amount of executive work to some of the department's executive agencies. Examples are the transfer of responsibility for driver test bookings to the Driving

223
Standards Agency, which took place in 1989. Responsibility for issuing HGV and PSV drivers' licences is transferring to the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency with effect from 1st April this year.
We agreed with the Palmer Report that there was a need to preserve the efficiency of the traffic area organisation through and beyond this period of change. Thus we looked at a variety of options for altering the structure of the organisation to ensure that it matched its reducing workload.
The department considered a number of options for organisational change. It was eventually concluded that the organisation best suited to meet future needs involved the closure of the traffic area offices in Newcastle and Nottingham and the abolition of a separate metropolitan traffic area; a reduction in the number of traffic areas from nine to eight, and some consequential adjustments to the traffic area boundaries to reflect the redistribution of work among the remaining offices and commissioners, and to bring them fully into line with county boundaries.
These proposals will result in an organisation of fewer but more viable offices, sensibly located in their areas and offering scope for further improvements in efficiency. The organisation is largely self-financing, through licence fees paid by the road transport industries. The new structure will reduce staff numbers by around 8 per cent. and the cost of the organisation by an estimated £600,000 per annum.
The new traffic area boundaries are described in Article 4 and Schedule 1 to the order. The western traffic area will be extended to include the counties of Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. The eastern traffic area will lose Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire to the north western and north eastern areas respectively. But it will be extended south and westwards to include the counties of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Essex. The remainder of the present south eastern traffic area will be combined with the remainder of the present metropolitan traffic area to form a new area comprising London, Sussex, Surrey and Kent.
We have thoroughly consulted the bus and freight industries, local government associations and other professional and judicial organisations with an interest in the work of the traffic areas. We also consulted the trades unions, and in particular the traffic commissioners themselves. The vast majority of those affected recognised that this reorganisation would preserve efficiency and standards of performance.
The traffic commissioners, who are perhaps most directly affected, agree that the new structure will meet the changing needs of the traffic area organisation. They are in particular pleased with the disposition of the new boundaries as they will introduce a greater degree of consistency in their respective workloads.
At this stage perhaps I should offer your Lordships a brief guide to the main provisions of the 1990 order which, as so often, looks rather complex and technical for what I have described as a relatively simple measure. The main operative provision is Article 4.
224
That brings the new boundaries into force on 1st June 1991, and the new boundaries are defined by reference to Schedule 1.
The remaining articles deal with internal matters which are uncompleted on reorganisation date, such as public inquiries about proposed operating centres.
Schedule 2 deals with the treatment of applications for licences that are still to be processed when the boundary changes take effect. These provisions are intended to minimise the disturbance to the road transport industries and have been carefully drafted in consultation with the relevant trade associations.
As I have explained, the 1991 order amends Schedule 1 of the 1990 order so that Cumbria is included in the definition of the revised north western traffic area. This is a modest administrative reform, and I commend both orders to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the orders. I am sure that the good citizens of Cumbria will rejoice in the streets tonight when they discover that the omission has been rectified. I wish to raise a number of points which give rise to some concern. I am sure the Minister will be able to answer those points as I gave him notice of them before the debate.
First, as regards the closure of the traffic area office in Newcastle, the Minister will know that that has been opposed by the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Authority, the Tyne and Wear Passenger Transport Executive and by a number of the metropolitan district councils in that area. To what extent were the views of those bodies taken into account by the department? As I understand it, their anxieties encompass the following points. The matter of prime concern to them is the fact that the new proposals leave some conurbations—for example, those in the North-East—somewhat remote from an area office. How can that situation be expected to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of the operator licensing system, as the previous Minister responsible for roads and traffic asserted would be the case in his press statement of 19th June last?
If divisional offices acting on behalf of the traffic area offices are to go, is it not much more probable that the result will be an inferior service compared with that provided under the previous arrangements? I know that to some degree this is a matter of conjecture, but I should like to hear further comment from the Minister. Will the Minister also indicate whether he has any proposals for divisional offices?
Secondly, there appears to have been a failure on the part of the Department of Transport to take advantage of the restructuring of the area offices so as to increase resources for the traffic commissioners, particularly as regards their responsibility for policing the operation of bus services under the Transport Act 1985. After all, the reorganisation which this order seeks to achieve is part and parcel of the

225
Government's response to the Palmer Report to which the Minister alluded. That report concerns a review of the traffic area organisation.
A number of organisations including the Association of Metropolitan Authorities have expressed concerns—those concerns were noted in the report—that no systematic monitoring of registered bus services was carried out by the commissioners. That is an extremely serious matter. It was manifestly clear from the report that what happens at present is that the traffic commissioners only use their powers, affecting bus operators who fail to operate bus services in accordance with the registration details lodged under the 1985 Act, when serious and substantial complaints of failure to run registered services are brought to their notice. That situation is not good enough. The public are entitled to know that the 1985 Act is being properly and efficiently implemented and enforced. I do not believe that what the Minister said today in that regard is likely to allay those concerns. After all, the spirit of the relevant provisions in Sections 6 and 111 of the 1985 Act is that operators must run bus services in accordance with registered particulars and, furthermore, that it falls to the traffic commissioners to police and enforce that duty.
I wonder whether the Minister is aware that there is a considerable contrast between the operation of the Airports Act 1986 and the Transport Act 1985. The Airports Act provides that the Civil Aviation Authority should act only on complaints that have been received, whereas there is no such provision for the traffic commissioners in the Transport Act 1985. If Parliament had wanted to impose such a restriction it would have done so through legislation. What appears to be happening is that the traffic commissioners are imposing the restriction on themselves. I suggest that the reason is that they do not have adequate resources to carry out their duties as Parliament has deemed appropriate, notwithstanding what the Minister said. I raise the point because although the order makes some attempt to make the traffic commissioners more efficient, the fact is that they simply do not have the resources to enable them to carry out their present responsibilities.
In addition to the questions which I have already put to the Minister, I hope he will say whether he considers that the performance of the traffic commissioners as regards the policing of the operation of bus services under the 1985 Act is satisfactory in the light of the concerns expressed by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and other such bodies. Is the department taking any steps to remedy any deficiencies in their performance?
I conclude by saying that what worries many organisations is, first, that the traffic commissioners will be required to cover larger areas without any commensurate increase in staff. Indeed the reverse will happen. It appears that they will have fewer staff. That could well lead to greater delays on the part of the commissioners in giving information to local authorities regarding bus service registrations. Can the Minister allay those anxieties?
226
Secondly, it appears that the commissioners' resources—for example in monitoring bus services in the light of complaints—will be stretched further than ever. I hope the Minister will reply to those two points as well as to those I made earlier.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I have one question for the Minister and I apologise deeply for the fact that I have not given him notice of it. However, I am sure he knows the answer. In 1947 Mr. Attlee asked me to become a parliamentary secretary at the Ministry of Transport. I was deeply grateful for that appointment. At that time I found myself embroiled in a dispute about appointments to that distinguished body of men, the road traffic commissioners.
I was asked to approve an advertisement which stated that applicants for those posts could not be appointed unless they had reached the minimum required age of 40. As I was not then 40, I asked why such an age was thought to be appropriate. I was told that the duties of a traffic commissioner were much more responsible and onerous than those of a parliamentary secretary at the Ministry of Transport. I am sure the Minister totally disagrees with that view. I made a most vigorous protest and I was promised that further consideration would be given to the matter. Has a reform been introduced?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, for his reception of the order. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, for reminding us of his former distinguished career in the Ministry of Transport. I do not yet know whether I shall be able to answer his question. If not, I undertake to write to the noble Lord. I am sure that we must have done something between 1947 and now but whether it will please the noble Lord I do not know.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the closure of the Newcastle office. All views were taken into account. There have always been large urban areas without traffic area offices. Liverpool is an example. The noble Lord was also concerned about bus services. There is systematic checking of bus operators. Enforcement staff will continue to be available to commissioners for the purposes of regulating public transport requirements, including bus services.
Turning to the question of the commissioners' resources, enforcement in respect of goods and passenger vehicle operators and vehicles is being increased. More vehicles are being inspected and the resources made available for enforcement have matched the requirements of the traffic commissioners. I believe that they are being used more effectively.
As regards voluntary and local bus services, traffic commissioners can call upon the services of traffic examiners to monitor bus services where there is a significant volume of complaints. Following one of the recommendations of the Palmer Report we are considering employing temporary staff to carry out such duties. An experiment along those lines is being

227
set up in the south eastern traffic area. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with that reply; we must hope that the experiment is successful.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, asked about the age limit for traffic commissioner appointments. There is no statutory minimum age limit. We look for people with the necessary aptitude and experience in transport; so obviously something has changed since 1947.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Traffic Areas (Reorganisation) Order 1991
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved that the order laid before the House on 12th February be approved [10th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1991
4.2 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving the order I should like to speak at the same time to the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1991 and Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1991.
The legislation provides that the maximum payable under some of the elements of industrial tribunal awards and redundancy payments must be reviewed each year while others can be reviewed as and when the Secretary of State thinks fit. We think it right to increase all the monetary elements of those awards this year, though by varying amounts.
The first order, the draft Employment Protection (Variation of Limits) Order 1991, has been laid in accordance with Section 148 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The legislation requires the Secretary of State to review in each calendar year the upper limit on the amount of a week's pay for calculating redundancy payments, the basic and additional awards for unfair dismissal, and debts that can be paid under the insolvency provisions of the Act. The legislation also requires the Secretary of State to review the limit on the amount of guarantee pay due to an employee in respect of any day on which he is temporarily laid off.
In carrying out the review the Secretary of State must consider the general level of earnings in Great Britain at the time of the review, the national economic situation as a whole and any other matters he considers relevant. Although there is no statutory obligation on the Government to consult about the
228
limits it has been our practice to do so. This time we have again sought the views of a wide range of organisations. We propose that the limit on the amount of a week's pay should increase from £184 to £198 and the limit on the daily amount of guarantee pay from £12·65 to £13·65.
I turn to the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1991 which has been laid before the House in accordance with Section 75(2) of the 1978 Act. It concerns the limit on the award which compensates successful applicants for the loss of earnings and benefits they suffer as a result of being unfairly dismissed. The limit on this award also applies to compensation payable in certain cases involving unreasonable exclusion or expulsion from a trade union, sex or race discrimination and refusal of employment on grounds of membership or non-membership of a trade union. This limit is not subject to annual review but may be increased from time to time. It was last raised with effect from 1st April 1989 and we consider that a further increase from the current level of £8,925 would be appropriate this year. We are therefore proposing a substantial increase to £10,000.
I turn finally to the draft Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1991. This has been laid before the House in accordance with Section 73(4B) and 75A(7) of the 1978 Act. Again the limits are not subject to annual review but may be reviewed from time to time.
The awards covered by the order apply to dismissal for trade union membership or activities or non-membership of a union. The minimum basic award will be increased from £2,520 to £2,650 and the limits which apply to the calculation of the special award will be increased from £12,550, £25,040 and £18,795 to £13,180, £26,290 and £19,735 respectively. I commend the orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the three orders. I shall not detain the House since we are discussing upgradings. But can the Minister give an indication of what the increases represent in percentage terms? Are they in accordance with the increase in the cost of living index? Having said that, we shall not oppose the orders as they provide for increases.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for having introduced the orders. In reviewing the limits on the amounts payable to employees under the 1978 Act the Secretary of State is obliged to take into account both the general level of earnings and the national economic situation as a whole. In fixing the increases at about 8 per cent. in the case of the first order the Government have acted reasonably. However, I cannot let this moment pass without referring briefly to the circumstances in which the increases are being made.

229
Under the first order the amounts are payable in respect of redundancy, the insolvency of employers and so on. The unemployment figures released today indicate all too clearly how great is the increase in the number of people who now qualify for payment. They are a stark reminder of the way in which the Government's economic policies have failed to protect employment and have thus exacerbated the very problem that the orders are intended to relieve. Having said that, we are willing to accept the orders.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some further explanation of the figures, particularly those in the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order. In one of the other orders that we are discussing—the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order—a quite substantial increase is made, to a round figure of £10,000. That is understandable.
However, if one looks at the order to which I previously referred, the Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order, one sees somewhat finicky increases, if I may be allowed to say so, to not very obvious figures; for example, £2,520 to £2,650; and £25,040 to £26,290. Those figures have an air of precision which I suspect is slightly bogus. Finally, in Article 2(4) there is an increase from £18,795 to £19,735.
Two points arise. Surely, when one increases these figures, which, as my noble friend explained, is not done annually but when Her Majesty's Government believe it to be the due time, it would be sensible to increase them to a round figure and not add to the complexity of administration by adopting these apparently precise and detailed figures involving quite small denominations. Surely, that would be the more sensible: and practical way and would save a certain amount of time on administration.
Secondly, I should be grateful if my noble friend can explain whether the figures to which I referred relate to a particular percentage of increase. I must confess that I am not enough of a mathematician to be able to make the calculation for myself. I rather suspect that the noble Earl may be in the same position However, I see that reinforcements are on the way to him. Perhaps he can say whether the very odd looking figures before us represent exactly the same percentage increase or whether there is any variation in the percentage elements in those increases.
These are important matters for the people concerned. The sums are quite substantial and apply to people who, for one reason or another, face very real personal difficulties. Therefore I think it right that your Lordships' House should pay some attention to them. Although I am sure that the intentions of the Government are wholly admirable—as all the intentions of the present Government are wholly admirable—before your Lordships' House accepts the proposition that is sought, perhaps it ought to be satisfied that the increases are made on a rational and defensible basis and one that will not cause unnecessary administrative delay or expense.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, perhaps I may reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and give him some examples with regard to the first order. The current maximum limit on a week's pay is £184 and, as I said in my opening speech, this will rise to £198. That is an increase of 7.5 per cent. The figure of 7.5 per cent. also refers to redundancy payments and insolvency payments and a basic award for unfair dismissal. However for guarantee payments, as I said, the current maximum is £12.65 which is increasing to f13.65—an increase of 7.9 per cent. I hope that that gives the noble Lord an idea of some of the percentage increases.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, rightly referred to the problem of unemployment and increasing unemployment. It is important that these payments and awards should reflect the real world in terms of cost of living, earnings and the economy in general. Following widespread consultation, we believe that these increases are appropriate.
I shall now attempt to give an answer to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. As he pointed out, he may not be a mathematician; and I certainly am not. The limit payable on a week's pay has been increased regularly and the current proposals represent what we consider to be equitable, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. The proportionate greater increase in the compensatory award reflects the fact that this award was not increased in 1990 while the smaller increase in the basic and special awards recognises that those awards are already high. In general there is no magic formula by which we can arrive at the correct level of increase. It is a matter purely of judgment, balancing various factors and trying to arrive at a sensible compromise.
In the light of what I have said, I hope that noble Lords will be satisfied.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he explain why it was not possible to have rounded figures and why we must have such detailed and small figures which must cause a good deal of unnecessary trouble and perhaps some confusion to the beneficiaries?
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I do not have a specific answer to that point. I refer to what I said earlier; namely, that there is no magic formula by which to arrive at these figures.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Limits of Basic and Special Awards) Order 1991
4.14 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Unfair Dismissal (Increase of Compensation Limit) Order 1991
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th December 1990 be approved [7th Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Food Safety (Northern Ireland) Order 1991
4.15 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead)The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th January 1991 be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to update food safety law in Northern Ireland to allow for greater consumer protection and to provide a sufficiently flexible system to cater for future developments in food technology. The order will do for Northern Ireland what the Food Safety Act 1990 will be doing for Great Britain.
The order will increase consumer protection by providing more effective powers of enforcement and by clarifying certain offences. It provides that it will be an offence to render food injurious to health. This largely re-enacts an existing offence under the Food (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 but it will now additionally apply to food which is in possession for sale.
The order creates a new offence of selling food which does not comply with food safety requirements —this is, food which has been rendered injurious to health, which is unfit for human consumption or which is so contaminated that it would not be reasonable to expect it to be used for human consumption. If enforcement authorities discover that part of a batch of food does not comply with food safety requirements, then the whole of the batch may be presumed not to comply unless the owner of the food proves otherwise. Again, this provision applies to food in possession for sale or in preparation for sale and under Article 8 enforcement authorities will have power to inspect, detain or seize food suspected of not complying with food safety requirements.
Article 9 of the order will introduce a system of legally enforceable improvement notices whereby, if an enforcement officer has reasonable grounds for believing that a food business fails to comply with food hygiene or food processing regulations, he may serve a notice on the proprietor requiring him to take measures to remedy the defects within a given period. Failure to comply with an improvement notice will be an offence.
Following conviction for an offence under food safety law, a court will be empowered to make a prohibition order (under Article 10) to close down
232
food premises which are not sanitary, to prohibit premises from being used for particular kinds of food businesses, to prevent the use of a piece of equipment or a particular process, or to prohibit a person from carrying on or managing any food business, on public health grounds. Where an enforcement officer is satisfied that the carrying on of a business involves a risk of injury to health, he may impose (under Article 11) an emergency prohibition notice stopping the operation of the business in its entirety or prohibiting a particular procedure or the use of a particular piece of equipment. Where an enforcement officer has imposed an emergency prohibition notice, he must apply to a court within three days for the issue of an emergency prohibition order.
Article 12 is a new provision permitting departments to make emergency control orders prohibiting commercial operations in respect of food, food sources or contact materials where it appears that such operations involve imminent risk of danger to health. Up to now, the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland has relied entirely on voluntary arrangements with manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to have a hazardous food withdrawn from sale. One is talking about, for instance, a particular batch of food which because of the inspection procedure might suddenly be discovered to be a great hazard to health. The voluntary procedure involves media coverage to alert the public, and notification to district councils to ensure that the food is withdrawn from sale. I hope very much that those existing voluntary arrangements will continue. However, the power to order a food to be withheld or withdrawn from sale will now be available where co-operation is not forthcoming. There will be power for officials of the Department of Agriculture to issue emergency control orders in respect of foods which have been contaminated and have left an area designated under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1986.
The order re-enacts the offence of selling food not of the nature, quality or substance demanded by the consumer. The provision will apply to actual sales only where the sale is to the purchaser's prejudice. The type of offence covered can be foreign bodies in food, or food which is contaminated but perhaps not so contaminated as to make it unsafe for human consumption. In the case where it is unsafe for human consumption it will be dealt with under the earlier provisions on unsafe food.
Article 14 makes it an offence to label, advertise or present food in a false or misleading way. The existing offence under the current Food (Northern Ireland) Order is limited to the labelling or advertising of food.
The order also introduces wide-ranging and flexible regulation-making powers. These are necessary to provide the detailed controls needed on the composition, labelling and hygiene of food, residues in food, materials and articles in contact with food and to permit and control novel foods and processes.
Under Article 22 regulations will also require that food handlers should undergo compulsory hygiene training. In Article 18 powers will also be given to

233
require the registration or licensing of food businesses. Registration will apply generally and will ensure that district councils are aware of the existence and nature of any food business in their area. Licensing will be limited to businesses where novel foods are produced or novel processes carried out, and to milk producers and dairies. The regulation-making powers are supplemented by provisions to enable any European Community obligation to be implemented.
Certain of the regulation-making powers will, when appropriate, apply to food sources such as live animals. That will permit effective enforcement of provisions on antibiotic residues in animals or pesticide residues in foodstuffs. There is a general provision in Article 15 which puts that into effect. Those are the main provisions on enforcement and consumer protection.
Article 19 of the order also provides for the enforcement authorities—which are the district councils—to bypass the immediate offender and to take action against the real offender. An example would be where defective food might be purchased in a supermarket and the retailer would be the apparent offender and the first point of inquiry. It might become apparent that the manufacturer of the food was the real offender and that it was clearly not the fault of the retailer. Action could then be taken directly against the manufacturer. This "bypass" provision should be read together with a new defence in Article 20 whereby a person charged with an offence may prove that he,
"took all reasonable precautions and exercised all 'due diligence' to avoid committing the offence".
There are circumstances in which a person may satisfy that defence; for instance, where a retailer buys goods under the brand name of the supplier. The retailer can be deemed to comply with the defence if he can prove that the offence was the fault of someone else and that he could not have known that an offence was being committed.
The remaining provisions of the order deal with the analysis of food, the necessary powers of entry and arrangements for prosecutions. It will be an offence under the order to obstruct an enforcement officer.
Enforcement of the order generally will be by authorised officers of district councils. To ensure uniform enforcement, power will be provided for the Department of Health and Social Services to issue codes o practice on the execution and enforcement of the legislation and to issue directions on specific steps to be taken to give effect to codes of practice. District councils will also be required to submit returns to the department.
It is recognised that the additional duties imposed on district councils under the order and the regulations will require greater resources for enforcement. Accordingly arrangements have been made for additional money for the 1991–92 financial year and indeed for future financial years. Additionally, under regulations district councils will be empowered to charge for training of food handlers and for certain enforcement functions. I am convinced
234
that the order will make a very real contribution to the protection of the consumer by ensuring that food is safe to eat. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th January 1991 be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his explanation of the purpose of this important legislation and for piloting the House through its main provisions. I confess that I have had the benefit of advice from my noble friend Lord Gallacher to whom we on these Benches look for guidance on food safety and agricultural matters, since I have no expertise in this field.
The Minister implied that the order mirrors the provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 which operates on the mainland. It is not apparent from the Explanatory Note on page 47 that that is so. It would have been helpful if that signpost had appeared somewhere in the Explanatory Note. However, that is not meant as a criticism.
Some of the issues now before us were on the distant horizon when the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was in charge of agriculture in Northern Ireland. Many of the questions which I then addressed to the Minister are as relevant today as they were at that time. I have about eight questions for the Minister. They seek information; they are not awkward questions.
Will the Minister indicate the breadth of the consultations which have taken place with the trade bodies and the consumer organisations in Northern Ireland on the order? As the order replicates the Food Safety Act 1990 to a considerable extent, we shall be interested to learn what consultations there were in Northern Ireland when the 1990 Act was on the drawing board at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in London. Will the Minister inform us of the position in the years preceding the 1990 Act? Was Northern Ireland adequately consulted?
We welcome Article 22 which authorises the district councils and the Department of Agriculture to provide training courses in food hygiene for food handlers. Are any new arrangements being made by the district councils or the department for the provision of training?
I turn to the timetable for the implementation of the provisions of the order. Is it intended that, broadly speaking, the timetable will follow that of the mainland or is there likely to be a time lag? Whatever the timetable, can the Minister assure the House that it will be given full publicity so that all the Northern Ireland firms which will be affected will know in good time of the impending changes?
The Minister has explained that the order will be supported by codes of practice. I had not appreciated the fact that there will be more than one code. Legislation makes increasingly more use of codes of practice. Will the Minister tell the House what are the principal matters that will be covered by the codes? The question may be more complex than I had originally anticipated because I had thought that there would be only one code of practice.

235
Is the Minister satisfied that when the order and the codes of practice are in place they will be properly enforced in an even-handed way? He referred to the officers who will be required to ensure that enforcement is executed. Are enough trained officers and public analysts available to execute enforcement? Are there shortages of such skills in Northern Ireland?
I was glad to hear the Minister confirm that extra money will be made available to Northern Ireland to enable it to meet the costs of the additional burden of enforcing the order. I understand that when the mainland legislation was passed in 1990 about £30 million of extra money was made available. Can the Minister tell the House how much extra funding will be made available to help Northern Ireland meet the costs of enforcement and the additional training required under Article 22?
Finally, I understand that a major area of controversy under the Food and Safety Act 1990 included enabling powers since used to permit the sale of irradiated food suitably labelled at the point of sale and the licensing of plants permitted to undertake irradiation. Are similar provisions being made for Northern Ireland? From my reading of the order that point is not clear. Given the controversy that arose in this country, we shall be interested to know the response of the consumer organisations in Northern Ireland.
I have no more questions to ask the Minister but I shall listen to his replies with great interest.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the clarity of his exposition of the order. We on these Benches support the laudable aims of consumer protection and the Government's wish to improve food safety. That is a matter of great and legitimate public concern in Northern Ireland as it is on the mainland. We on these Benches do not intend to impede the passage of the order.
I have only one issue that I wish to raise and I hope that it is not awkward. It is close to the interests of Northern Ireland and, I suspect, to your Lordships' House. It is the sale by mail order of smoked salmon. Smoked salmon and other smoked fish is an important and growing industry in Northern Ireland. By reasons of geography a great many of such sales are conducted by mail order, although not all. As a result of the snow last Friday evening I was stuck in Belfast Airport. I spent a happy time purchasing smoked salmon, consuming some of it and repatriating the rest to London. Therefore, the subject is indeed fresh in my mind.
Noble Lords who have read The Times today will have seen a most moving article by Mr. Bernard Levin headed, "Nanny puts her hooks in". It deals with the problem of the sale of smoked fish by mail order. As a result of the wide powers given to the Government under this order, I am uncertain whether it is intended that the prohibition on the sale of smoked salmon by mail order should apply to Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may know that as yet Scotland has been
236
exempted from the provision. There is a good reason for that; smoked salmon is an important industry in Scotland. However, smoked fish in an important and growing industry in Northern Ireland and one which I hope the Government will encourage.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships and to my noble friend for being a few seconds late in entering the Chamber to hear his lucid explanation of the order. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was kind enough to mention that the last time that such an order came before this House I was in the position now held by my noble friend. He has explained the order with commendable brevity. I wish to ask for only one reassurance. Am I correct in believing that all the measures outlined in the order have been cleared with the food technology department of the Department of Agriculture, including the marvellous scientists at New Ford Road? I am sure that everything they put forward about food technology and production has been included in the order. However, I hope that my noble friend can give me that reassurance.
I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that, as regards consumer protection, the Ulster housewife wastes no opportunity in making herself and her views known. However, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Holme, believes that everyone in Northern Ireland, let alone Ministers and my noble friend, spends a lifetime eating smoked salmon. That may appear to be the case but I hasten to assure your Lordships that I spent my time promoting the whole spectrum of food in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I gave the food industry the motto which I understand belongs to the Coldstream Guards: nulli secundus. It does not mean "no second helpings"; it means "second to none". I was keen to promote the industry. Everything that has been said by my noble friend today will assure everyone around the world that Ulster's food and its food industry are leading in the world. I hope that my noble friend can reassure me that other government departments have had input into the order.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful for your Lordships' reception of the order. I shall first reply to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who was kind enough to indicate the questions that he had in mind. First, there were no consultations in Northern Ireland on the Food Safety Act 1990 because it does not extend to Northern Ireland. However, it is right to bear in mind that the explanatory memorandum was being drafted when the Great Britain legislation was going through Parliament. When the proposals were being published, some 250 consultees were contacted in Northern Ireland and, therefore, there was full consultation with local authorities and various organisations.
As regards further consultation, I hope that it will be to the satisfaction of the noble Lord that under Article 47(3) of the order regulations must be subject to full consultation. With the exception of regulations relating to emergency control orders—by definition we should not be able to consult on those—the enforcement of European Community legislation and

237
orders requiring information or samples to be made available, the regulations under Article 47 must be subject to full consultation.
The noble Lord asked me about training arrangements. A consultation document has been issued by the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland and the main aim of the training arrangements will be to build on existing good practice. Therefore, training already provided by firms will almost certainly continue but it will be buttressed by training provided by district councils and further education colleges.
The noble Lord asked me whether there are examples of training which are up and running. I understand that further education colleges either have or have in mind courses which will cost about £30 per person As the consultation document makes clear, we hope to enable businesses to choose from a wide variety of training arrangements at a range of costs and so try to minimise costs for smaller businesses.
The noble Lord asked me about the timetable for the order. It is likely that the main provisions will be brought in two months after the date on which the order is made. The main regulations on registration and hygiene training will be made at the same time as those for Great Britain. The Great Britain legislation first began to come into effect on 1st January of this year but I believe that it is phased according to various provisions. That is why, coincidentally, the provisions will be coming into effect at the same time as those for Great Britain. We very much hope that the regulations under this order will be made towards the end of May.
The noble Lord then asked me about the codes of practice. He is absolutely right that there will be various codes; for example, on inspection procedures in general, including the seizing and detention of unfit food, the sampling and analysis of food and improvement notices. I emphasise that they will be statutory and subject to the proper laying procedures. Of course, they will be subject to Article 47 and, therefore, to proper consultation. We intend that they will march the codes being made in Great Britain in the same way as the order is supposed to match, broadly speaking, the Great Britain legislation. I hope that the codes will be issued by about the end of May.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me about irradiation. The powers for bringing into effect irradiation are Article 15 providing for regulating the process, Schedule 1 providing for licensing the process and Article 18 providing for licensing the premises concerned. The noble Lord had every right to ask me what the opinion on this process was in Northern Ireland. I say quite openly that that is mixed as far as we know from consultations. There are those in favour and those against. Even though this may be familiar ground to the House, perhaps I may make two observations. The two most important points about irradiation are the inspection of premises provided for in the order, which is enormously important; and, secondly, there are the requirements for labelling so that people will be able to choose by consulting the label whether they wish to buy irradiated food.
238
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, asked me an important question about mail order for smoked fish and salmon. I am sorry that, although he enjoyed the smoked salmon which he was eating, it was on occasion when he was delayed for a long time. The noble Lord's question is important. At present that matter is being considered by the Department of Health and Social Security in Northern Ireland in conjunction with the Ministry of Agriculture in London. The issue being looked at is whether the food hygiene regulations in present law apply to smoked salmon. What is not being looked at is the relevance of smoked salmon to this order. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not believe that there is a sinister move to try to draw smoked salmon into the order. At present the existing corpus of law as it relates to mail order smoked salmon is being considered.
Finally, I thank my noble friend Lord Lyell for intervening in this debate. He worked tirelessly for the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland and is well remembered for that. He asked whether all the measures have been cleared with the Department of Agriculture. Under this order certain functions will be for the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland alone; for example, the licensing of milk producers and dairies is to be carried out by DANI. Certain of the regulation making powers relating to residues will be for the Department of Agriculture and not for the Department of Health and Social Security.
I hope that I have answered all the questions put to me. Perhaps I may return to the point at which I started. The intention of this order is to put the law in Northern Ireland on the same footing as that for Great Britain because of the food safety legislation which was enacted in the last Session.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Community Shipping Measures: ECC Report
4.47 p.m.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton Lord Oliver of Aylmerton rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Community Shipping Measures (28th Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 90).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by expressing on behalf of the House as well as myself my gratitude to the members of Sub-Committee E and to the witnesses who gave very useful oral and written evidence on which the Select Committee's report on Community shipping measures is founded.
As noble Lords will, I hope, have seen, the report and the accompanying evidence constitute a fairly lengthy document. I do not believe that it would be appropriate in the time allotted to attempt to summarise either the evidence or the 24 paragraphs of the report which contain the committee's opinions. However, I seek to say a few words about the general background to the Community proposals addressed in the report and then to draw attention to what appear

239
to me to be the five most important and, in some ways perhaps, controversial aspects of the proposed measures.
The United Kingdom has traditionally prided itself on being a maritime nation. The proud boast of the Promenade concerts that "Britannia Rules the Waves" may no longer be even figuratively true; nevertheless, shipping represents not only a vital factor in national planning for defence, particularly at present, but is also an important sector of the national economy. That is so not merely in terms of registered tonnage but also in terms of the invisible contribution made by shipping services, management, chartering, financing, classifications, surveying, insurance and so on. Those activities have been built up and are centred on London.
Yet the past 20 years have witnessed an accelerated decline in the size not only of British but also of Community merchant fleets. Between 1980 and 1988 the tonnage was practically halved. Between 1970 and 1980 the Community share of the world fleet declined by about 3 per cent. to 29.7 per cent. However, in the ensuing eight years it fell to 15.4 per cent. The decline was not only in Community ownership but also in Community registration which, as a proportion of world shipping, slumped by over 28 per cent. in the period from 1981 to 1987. The causes of this have not been difficult to identify. Reduced worldwide demand for shipping services has produced a fall in freight rates. Flagging out of vessels, with the consequent lower wage and social security costs, has enabled ship owners, utilising open and offshore registries, to reduce operating expenses and to sharpen competition with Community registered shipping. At the same time the Community is facing fierce competition from the Far East and from developing countries, and all this has of course most serious consequences within the Community not only because of the effect on the employment and training of seafarers but also because of its impact on the shipbuilding industry and shipping services generally, and the obvious defence and strategic implications of a decline in the size and viability of national merchant fleets.
It is against that background that the European Commission, in September 1989, sent to the council a communication in which it proposed a series of measures which were intended to halt and, indeed, even to reverse the decline. There were proposed three council regulations dealing respectively with the establishment of a community shipping register, the definition of a community shipowner for the purposes of community legislation, and cabotage—that is to say, the provision of marine transport services between different ports within the same member state. In addition the Commission proposed a recommendation on improving the effectiveness of port state control within the Community.
Let me deal first with the concept of a Community shipping register. What has been proposed is a new European registry to be known as EUROS which is intended to confer certain advantages, and which will not supplant but will supplement national shipping registries so that ships taking advantage of it will fly
240
not one but two flags; the EUROS flag and that of the national registry. The great majority of the witnesses who gave evidence to Sub-Committee E's inquiry gave this proposal a fairly lukewarm reception. The central idea was that this should be a parallel registry which would impose certain minimum requirements regarding wages, social security, and employment of community seafarers, but would be accorded certain advantages such as ease of transfer between national registries and preferential rights to carry food relief cargoes.
The view of most of the witnesses was that this was no more than a bit of symbolic window-dressing of no practical utility. An empty box, was how it was described by one witness. The committee's view, which is contained in paragraphs 65 to 67 of the report, is that it displays a rather more serious vice than mere lack of utility. Unhappily we live in a world in which flags of convenience proliferate, and in which ship owners who are minded to do so can reduce not only their costs but their responsibilities by registering their vessels in registries which have no genuine link at all with the nationality of the owners or of the crew, or of the centre of management, and which are selected purely and simply for the financial advantages which can be obtained.
The creation of yet another registry alongside the national registry of each member state is, in the committee's view, no more than the creation of yet another flag of convenience. It holds no attraction at all in the way of safety and operating standards which are not equally available by registration under the national flag. Indeed, it is doubtful how far the Community has or can readily establish machinery for the discharge of the duties of a flag state to ships on its registry. In the event of an incident on board or on the high seas it adds further complexity to an already complex legal situation. Like any other flag of convenience its sole attraction is financial and although, I suppose, it might be said to provide a symbolic assertion of European unity, the committee felt that this was not the way to tackle the very real problems of the Community fleet in meeting competition.
By establishing potentially a common flag the proposal might of course be said to bypass the problems that may arise in transferring ships between registries of member states, and there is indeed much to be said for easing transfer of ships between national registries within the Community. But the committee felt that this was an end that could profitably be pursued quite outside the framework of EUROS, as indeed has now been done at the Council of Transport Ministers last December.
By way of a side note I should perhaps say that there is a serious question here as to whether, and to what extent, such a transfer should be limited by the requirement of a genuine link between a ship and its state of registry, but it is questionable in any event how far that could usefully be debated in advance of the decision of the European Court in the Factortame case, the hearing of which has now, I believe, taken place.
There is also much to be said for encouraging and regulating the mutual recognition of seafarers' qualifications, but the committee again felt that this end was much better pursued on a general basis, and it agreed with the view of the Department of Transport that this would ultimately be best achieved by a specific directive. The committee's final conclusion, therefore, was that the EUROS registry proposal —and in particular the suggestion that it should be backed by a discretionary allocation of food aid cargoes, which runs quite counter to the general principles of the Community texts on tendering for contracts—is misconceived and unhelpful.
Other aspects of the Commission's proposals, however, provide a much more fertile ground for exploration. Let me take first the question of the need to legislate on freedom to provide cabotage services. Noble Lords may be aware that the United Kingdom does not impose any restrictions on the provision of shipping services between United Kingdom ports, so that there is nothing to prevent, for instance, a Greek ship owner from running a ferry service between Liverpool and the Isle of Man if he thought it to his advantage, so long as he complies with local regulations.
Some other member states—in particular the Mediterranean states—exclude nationals and firms of other Community states from cabotage services. The committee would very much welcome the lifting of all cabotage restrictions, but it rejected entirely the concept that this should be a privilege of ships flying the EUROS flag. The freedom to supply such services is a necessary step in the completion of the internal market in its own right, and should not be linked to a requirement of registration in an artificially created EUROS registry.
It has to be recognised that some member states, particularly Greece, with an extensive network of island communities, have special problems which might justify either the imposition of public service obligations as a condition of the exercise of cabotage rights, or the limitation of the trade to vessels of a certain gross registered tonnage. But there should not, in principle, be any restriction on the free exercise of cabotage rights within the Community, except such as may be necessary on a transitional basis or in order to guarantee continuity of service. In its 1986 report on European Maritime Transport Policy the committee expressed the view that the then existing restrictions on freedom to provide shipping services within the Community should be abolished. The picture has not changed, and the committee remains of that view.
Next, in drawing the House's attention to the report, I ought briefly to refer to the information document which accompanied the Commission's proposals and which is contained in Appendix 5 of the report at page 42. Noble Lords will be aware that Article 92 of the treaty proscribes the provision of state aids to particular enterprises, which will have the effect of distorting competition within the Common Market. The ability of countries outside the Community through financial and fiscal measures, or the operation of flags of convenience—or indeed
242
simply through their lower wage structures—to undercut the rates capable of being offered by Community fleets has, almost of necessity, involved member states in providing, through state aids or fiscal reliefs, the means to enable their own domestic fleets to compete in the world market.
The problem is well-illustrated, for example, by reference to crew costs. Evidence given to the committee established that the cost of operating a 15,000 gross registered tonnage container vessel with a third world crew is some 350,000 dollars per annum. If it were to be operated with a Dutch crew it would cost 1,286,000 dollars.
But, of course, the use of fiscal reliefs to bolster national shipping and shipbuilding against competition from the third world may also, because each member state has its own idiosyncratic fiscal measures, have the effect of distorting competition in the internal market from other member states. The committee therefore welcomed the information document to which I have referred, which contains guidelines on the use of fiscal and financial measures, establishing as the criteria that aid measures must not be out of proportion to the aim of restoring a competitive Community fleet—and I emphasise the word "Community"—and that a ceiling should be calculated on the basis of the cost gap between the lowest cost Community flag and a typical flag of convenience.
It would not be appropriate for me to attempt to comment in any detail on the various forms of aid referred to in the document, save to say that the committee was particularly attracted to the provision of assistance for training costs. Evidence given to the committee suggested that the shortage of skilled seafarers was in danger of becoming acute and not easily capable of being reversed.
There was also a very imaginative proposal by the European Parliament to replace taxes levied on shipowners and on the wages of crews by a single tax on vessels linked to age and tonnage. The committee was compelled to the conclusion, however, that this would not be within the powers provided by the treaty. Whether and, if so, what fiscal assistance or relief should be given must be, and remain, a matter for Parliament. The committee did not feel it appropriate to do more than to underline the importance to the United Kingdom of maintaining a strong merchant fleet, from the point of view both of defence and of the economy, and, in the latter context, bearing in mind the desirability of maintaining London as the centre for the numerous ancillary activities connected with shipping.
There are two other aspects of the report to which I should perhaps draw attention. The first concerns the composition of crews on vessels in the Community fleets. Member states have their own individual regulations about this in relation to their own registries, but the EUROS proposal involved a compulsory requirement that all officers and at least half of the crew members should be citizens of a Community state. While the committee recognised the desirability of crewing Community ships so far as

243
possible with Community personnel, it did not think it right that this should be imposed compulsorily by Community legislation.
However, the proposal brought to the fore another problem which was not embraced in the Commission's proposals; that is, the desirability that crew members should have a common language. The committee was very disturbed by evidence concerning the "Scandinavian Star" disaster and the inability of crew members in an emergency to communicate not only with passengers but with each other. This is a problem which all national authorities, including our own, ought to be examining urgently.
Finally, I should like to say just a word about port state control. The Commission's recommendation encourages the ratification of a number of international agreements relating to such things as load lines, pollution, safety and so on, and the implementation of a memorandum of understanding to which all member states are party.
In a climate in which a ship is sailing the high seas without ever visiting its state of registration, because it flies a flag of convenience, the responsibility for enforcing standards of safety must devolve more and more upon the ports which are visited. The memorandum of understanding between European states, to which I have referred, sets a target of inspection of 25 per cent. of foreign ships visiting ports in those states which are parties to the memorandum. But the evidence before the committee of the effectiveness of port inspections was conflicting.
As is stated in paragraph 86 of the report, the committee does not question that the United Kingdom adequately fulfils the requirements of the memorandum. Nevertheless, it expresses concern at the decline in the number of ships inspected by the Department of Transport, which it infers to be due to inadequate resources available to the inspectorate. There was a suggestion in the evidence that small ships in small ports are escaping inspection on a significant scale. If that is so, there is an obvious risk of potential disaster and no doubt the House will welcome some reassurance on that point.
I thought it right to draw attention to those specific points, but of course there are a number of other important matters which are covered by the report; for instance, the importance of clarifying—and this is a matter of considerable economic importance—the position of consortia and inter-modal services under Community rules, and the need for shipbuilding and shipping operations to be taken up by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In the end, however, the report speaks for itself and the committee's recommendations are summarised—I hope helpfully —in paragraphs 88 to 101 in Part IV. I hope that the report commends itself to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Community Shipping Measures (28th Report, 1989–90, HL Paper 90).—(Lord Oliver of Aylmerton.)
5.6 p.m.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow: My Lords, I should like to begin my maiden speech by saying how grateful I am for all the many kindnesses and courtesies which I have already received in the short time that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House. Having been in this place for such a brief time, I had no intention of attempting to speak so soon after my introduction. The debate this afternoon is on the shipping industry and, in my capacity as president of the General Council of British Shipping and chairman of P&O—still, I may say, one of the world's leading shipping companies—some of your Lordships were kind enough to suggest that my views might be of some interest. I hope that your Lordships will bear with my inexperience in debate.
I should first like to congratulate the Select Committee on producing such a cogent and helpful report and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, on his very clear introduction to it. I particularly welcome the Select Committee's report because it focuses on issues raised by the joint government and industry working party on British shipping, chaired by the then Secretary of State for Transport and myself and published last September.
There is a consensus running through the European Commission's proposals on shipping, through the report of the Select Committee and through the UK joint working party report. It is that a strong merchant fleet is essential for Europe but vital for Britain, not only for our international trade but also for our strategic needs. If we are to retain and enhance a strong merchant fleet, government must act now.
It is worth reminding ourselves of the significance of Great Britain being an island. Ninety-five per cent. of our trade in and out is still transported by sea. The Channel Tunnel will not change this significantly. British shipping is one of the biggest contributors to our invisible earnings —£4 billion a year. On top of that is the £1 billion plus earned from the maritime related activities of the City of London. Furthermore, what is vital in all this is that we have a fleet which is British registered, flying the red ensign, because shipping is our fourth arm of defence and has been for some 400 years.
This fact is all too often overlooked, but it is embedded in our history. The Elizabethan fleets, the Crimea, the African wars, both world wars, the defence of the Falklands and now the invasion of Kuwait, all focus on the strategic, military and civil needs for British ships and British seafarers. These are the reasons why the joint working party defined British shipping as, "a vital national asset" —a conclusion reached by five Ministers of State.
In Europe shipping faces strong competition from third world countries. The European Commission has wisely concluded that it is necessary to consider measures to reduce the disparities in operating costs between Community shipping fleets and their foreign competitors. Unfortunately, British shipping does not even have the fiscal advantages already enjoyed by our European Continental competitors. We cannot

245
pretend that the British flag is other than in decline. The joint working party report makes it abundantly clear that we are at the crossroads. Sadly, the rate at which British-owned ships are registering under foreign flags is accelerating. Competition leaves us no choice.
The United Kingdom has pressing and immediate needs: 75 per cent. of our merchant ships will need replacing in this decade. We are building new ships, yet the rate of renewal for UK-owned vessels is virtually the lowest of all Community countries. Very large sums of money are involved. Fifty million pounds is required for a new container ship or a large freight ferry; £150 million to £200 million is required to replace "Canberra". We are building ships today with the very latest technology which will take us straight through to the years 2010 to 2020. The three variables of cost are the flag state's regulatory requirements, capital and crew.
On the regulations, the joint working party recommended a number of changes. The Department of Transport is making good progress in implementing them. The world has changed a great deal since the framework for regulating the industry was laid down by the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. The joint working party recommended a short enabling Bill to place shipping on the same footing as civil aviation. I hope that that can be introduced this year.
There is also the cost of capital. Again, the joint working party studied the impact of national tax arrangements on the capital costs of 15 countries, mainly in Europe. It concluded that British companies were fat worse off than most of their European competitors. It also concluded that the prospects for eliminating support in other countries are not encouraging. As regards the cost of crews, there can be a gap of several hundred thousand pounds per annum between the cost of employing a British crew and a crew of highly competent seafarers from the Far East.
We also have to meet the growing shortage of qualified seafarers which currently exists in developed countries, particularly among officers, and again particularly in Britain. Well-trained and well-motivated seafarers are an absolute essential to a successful shipping enterprise. The Commission has put forward proposals to help address these matters and to a great extent I share the Select Committee's views on the suggestions. Because of the nature of this debate, I have inevitably concentrated on those areas where there are problems and challenges and where action is urgently needed. But I should like to conclude on a positive note.
Today British shipping is more efficient and better managed than for many years past. We are well placed to take advantage of the upturn in world trade which will undoubtedly come. Maintaining the City of London as the maritime centre of the world must be based on a powerful UK-registered fleet. That will meet both our economic and strategic needs. I make no apologies for concentrating in my speech on British shipping because any debate in your Lordships' House
246
about shipping will be entirely academic without a powerful British merchant fleet manned by British seafarers and flying the red duster.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, it is my very pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, on his maiden speech; and I think that I can best do that by saying that I wish that the Benches had been crowded to hear what he had to say about this very vital industry that we are discussing this evening. It is quite certain that the industry has found in the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, and his presidency of the General Council of British Shipping, a most energetic and authoritative voice.
This House now has a most eloquent voice added to it on these matters and I am sure that we shall want to listen to the noble Lord and to his advice, especially on this matter as well as on others. I first became aware of his talents through Motability. He was the chairman and I was a humble member of the committee. I then saw clearly what he would have to offer to any industry in which he found his mark. The shipping industry has certainly been the one in which he has expressed himself. I am very grateful to him, and the nation should be also, for the work that he is doing in that sphere.
I express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and to his committee, for the splendid report which has been produced; not only for its conclusions, but also for the mass of information which has been drawn out from the bodies which the committee asked to produce evidence. All the appendices are worth reading for that reason. I also wish to say with what envy I listened to the noble and learned Lord's lucid and concise summary of the many pages contained in the report. I wish that I could do the same. We are very much in his debt for what he has done.
In the course of his remarks the noble and learned Lord pointed to a number of conclusions which the committee reached. While I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, in some of the things he said, I also wish to say in a sentence or two my reactions to what the noble and learned Lord had to say. It is only respectful that I should do so. He correctly said that the proposed EUROS parallel register had received a lukewarm reception from witnesses. The committee's conclusion was rather harsher than the way it was put by the noble and learned Lord. The committee said that it was misconceived and unhelpful. In that case there is no need for me to say more. I absolutely agree. Although it would no doubt have higher standards than some of the flags of convenience to which he referred, to some extent it is window dressing and evades the real problems that certainly this country has to face in the world of shipping. I shall try to avoid using the phrase "a level field" in talking about shipping and seafaring, though I am sorry to say that it appears in the report. This country has the greatest concern about these matters.
I now turn to the question of cabotage. To one who has had some slight connection with the shipping

247
industry and observed it from afar over many years, I have been astonished and shocked at the manner in which our coastwise trade has declined over the past 40 years. It is absolutely astonishing that a nation like ours should have allowed its coastwise trade to disappear into the hands of others in the way that it has.
I was given a new argument as to why we should not have allowed that to happen. It is an argument that will perhaps appeal to the environmentalists. I am told that one gallon of diesel can move 500 times more freight when used in a ship than in a heavy goods vehicle. That is an astonishing statistic, if it is true. The clever economists work these things out and I dare say that they can prove almost anything; but if that is so then certainly in environmental terms we could conclude a remarkable benefit from that. It is a fact that we have taken rather less care of our coastwise trade than we should have done.
The committee said that it would welcome liberalisation overall, but I am bound to say to the noble and learned Lord that I see little prospect of that happening unless another Chaim Weizmann can be found, of whom it was said that he made the seemingly impossible happen. That is about the fairest summary one can make of that proposition.
On financial and fiscal aids, the committee pointed to the useful document that had been produced. Here I must emphasise to the noble Lord who will reply that while aid measures must not be out of proportion to the objective of restoring competitiveness, as I understand was the conclusion both of the Community and of the committee, nevertheless fiscal and financial aids are a matter for national competence. That point was very clearly established by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, and his committee. It therefore falls to the Treasury to determine what, if any, measure of aid should be applicable to British shipping.
The report drawn up by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, and Mr. Cecil Parkinson when he was Secretary of State is a very valuable document. However, the terms of reference—I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, had to agree to this emasculation as otherwise he would not have got Cecil Parkinson along with him—meant that they had to exclude from the report any consideration of fiscal or financial matters. Therefore, while the report is worth reading and has some useful proposals to make, it is rather like Hamlet without the prince. I do not see any way in which we can hope to prosper unless there is some fiscal or financial aid from the Government.
Those are my reflections. I hope I have paid due respect to the report of the committee. There are one or two other matters on which I should like to comment. In doing so I hope not to overlook all that has been said by the noble and learned Lord. I want to ask the Government quite pointedly about their attitude and policy. They have an opportunity to explain it this evening. Shipping is a cyclical industry which is now at one of the critical points in its development. We go from feast to famine in the
248
shipping industry. Either many new ships are being built or everyone is saying that there is no prospect of building any ships at all. We are now at the point, as the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, reminded us in his report, when over the next decade there is likely to be a substantial shipbuilding programme. How far is Britain to be part of this? I regret that our shipbuilding industry has been wiped out for all practical purposes. We shall have no part in that aspect of what is to take place unless there are dramatic changes.
How much of a future does British shipping have in this changing situation in which, as the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, reminded us, we are engaged? As he rightly said, and indeed as the report states, shipping is a vital national asset. We must get that point through to the Treasury. I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate will take back that message. I am sure it is the view held by everyone who studies the problem and thinks about it. It is a vital asset. It is not just a desirable industry and an occupation that we should keep going; it is a vital asset. That consideration ought to determine where the Government stand on this issue.
I agree that the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, about the dramatic decline in the size of the British fleet rather overstate the picture because of the number of ships "flagged out"; that is to say, placed under flags of convenience while still under British ownership. That defence is used by those who wish to say that much is well with the British shipping industry. I agree that we should take those ships into account; but they are not wholly under our control. In any case, ships that are placed under a flag of convenience lose British jobs, lose British revenue and lose British influence in many ways. There are understandable reasons why they have been flagged out. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, said, it is partly because of the increased costs of running British ships. He quoted one comparison. Another comparison was given in evidence to his committee. It was told that it costs two or three times as much to run a ship under the British flag as it does under a flag of convenience crewed by other nationals.
There is another reason why we should not be complacent about flags of convenience and assume that much is well if we have British ships sailing under other flags. I refer to the defence aspect. Those who follow these matters will have observed that in the Gulf war some foreign crews manning UK vessels have refused to sail to the Gulf. In some cases they have done so because of regard for their personal safety and in other cases because the financial inducements have not been sufficient. Orders may be issued to a British ship. The Ministry of Defence, instead of commercially chartering it, may decide for defence purposes to requisition it. The orders may be issued, but who will come when those orders are given? We cannot be certain what will happen. The defence consideration is another reason why we cannot be complacent about flags of convenience and

249
why ships should be brought not only under British ownership but under the British flag as soon as possible.
At Question Time yesterday I asked a supplementary question about what was happening regarding the strategic maritime review. The review arose out of the joint working party's report, which was prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, and Mr. Parkinson when he was the Secretary of State. Paragraph 2.18 of the report states:
"The extent to which the country's strategic defence requirements will continue to be met"—
that is, by UK registered shipping—
"does not form part of our review and is subject to separate study by the Government".
I thought it perfectly reasonable to ask the noble Earl, Lord Arran, who, after all, answers in this House for the Ministry of Defence, about that review. I was slightly surprised when he said that he really did not know and that perhaps he could write to me about it. I do not know what value or importance is being attached to the review but it does strike me as slightly surprising if the Minister who answers in this House for the department is not even aware of what is taking place. Perhaps we can have an answer today as the noble Earl promised in a most courteous way to write to me.
To be fair, the Government have taken some action, with the passage of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, to assist the industry. However, their policy and attitude need much clearer definition. The evidence given to the committee by the Department of Transport was, with respect to the Minister, fairly complacent and out of this world. Page 61 of the department's evidence deals with the Government's policy. It states:
"The Government is concerned to see an efficient, entrepreneurial Community fleet. It believes this will best be achieved in a free market, without subsidy".
I should like to believe in Father Christmas too. That is certainly not a policy. It may be an aspiration—it must be a hope, I suppose—but it does not represent what the Government should be doing. Our American friends would no doubt say that it is like a belief in the virtues of motherhood and apple pie. It has no more relevance to the world in which we live than that. I was surprised that the Department of Transport said that that was its approach to the whole question of shipping. However, it has done a little better by recognising the fact that there is not the remotest prospect of a free market without some kind of financial aid for shipping; and steps have been taken to achieve that aim.
I believe that the steps taken by the Government thus far are inadequate. They will have to do much more, particularly in regard to their financial role. Two objectives are quite clear. The first is to ensure that shipping companies have the finance to maintain an up-to-date fleet and to rebuild it now that it is becoming older. Secondly, incentives must be offered to encourage more of our young men and women to become seafarers because at present the competition is not equal.
I now concentrate on a few important matters. The Government have assisted in training. They have met
250
part of the cost, but it is part of the cost of training officers and not the cost of training ratings. We need skilled ratings almost as much as we need skilled officers. I do not understand why, just because the Treasury has its fingers in the matter, the Government refuse to meet any part of the cost of training ratings and will only meet the cost of training officers. Ratings also need a career and they will not go to sea unless they feel that there is sufficient incentive in the form of advancement. Next, there is repatriation. The Government have also assisted in that respect by meeting 40 per cent. of the cost of flying a crew home. That is indeed a help; but it is not sufficient to meet the real problems.
I turn now to the most important point of taxation. The Budget is upon us. It is within our national competence to give relief and it is needed as a matter of urgency. Let us consider the position of seafarers. As regards the rules for relief I understand—my Inland Revenue knowledge is a little rusty—that to avoid taxation a seaman has to be at sea, or abroad, for 270 out of 365 days. That provision cannot cover the coast-wise or short-sea trades. According to one figure put forward by the General Council of British Shipping only 1 per cent. of our seafarers qualify. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, is indicating his assent. However, if that is so, it is an absurd concession if only 1 per cent. of our seafarers can benefit in that way. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, will consider the matter energetically to ensure that at least our people are treated on the same basis as those in the Scandinavian countries. We could learn some lessons from them as regards the manner in which they treat the taxation of their seafarers, including those who work on the ferries. Their system enables them to develop a pool of seafarers, whether abroad or at home, from which reserves can be drawn. We need trained seamen and we need them badly.
I turn now to the question of national insurance. In its recent submission the General Council of British Shipping put forward detailed proposals for better treatment and, again, makes comparisons with the Danish system. The Scandinavian countries have achieved a great deal more than we have in this area, but at the same time they have kept within the requirements of the Community and international obligations. In my view, it is our task to do the same. The council even went so far as to say that if its proposals were adopted it would mean a 25 per cent. cut in the wages bill. If that could be achieved, it would be the biggest incentive of all to flagging. I urge the Minister to press the Treasury on those matters.
There is also the question of the poll tax. The local authorities have had some discretion in this connection. The Department of the Environment issued a practice note suggesting how local authorities should deal with the matter. It was suggested that seafarers could be exempt if they spent more than six months continuously at sea. However, voyage agreements do not operate in that way. Such agreements are usually of three or four months' duration. The result is that most of these people have been excluded from the exemption. Moreover, and

251
even worse, is the implication of a case about which I heard today, though I have not had the opportunity to check the matter. It appears that a judgment was given today in the High Court which reverses the modest concession which has so far existed. A seaman in Bradford had been given some kind of exemption by a local tribunal because of the time he was away from home. Bradford City Council took the matter to the High Court and it seems that the relief decision has been reversed; so everything is back in the melting pot.
There are two further points I wish to make; and I apologise to your Lordships for taking so long with my speech. I shall deal first with the inspection of foreign ships. Norway is far more rigid in its inspection of foreign ships than we are. There is clear evidence—and I believe that members of the committee felt this also, though they expressed it in a rather more gentlemanly way—that international agreements for the minimum standards to be maintained are not being observed by many countries. If we are anxious to build up our merchant fleet, as we must be, and if we want to keep within the rules then let us enforce the safety requirements and other provisions as regards the ships that enter our ports, as do the Norwegians and the other Scandinavian countries. If ships do not observe the rules we should pin an Admiralty notice on the mast and not allow them to leave until they have put right the deficiencies. In other words, let us be much tougher in this respect than we have been and see what can be done.
I have a final structural point. I do not want to build bureaucracies, but I have felt for a long time that shipping policy in government circles is fragmented. That is exemplified to some extent by the composition of the committee with the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, and Mr. Parkinson. Half a dozen departments were represented on it. Frankly, with due respect, the Ministry of Transport—and I speak as one who has great affection for that ministry—does not carry a powerful enough voice. When I had some responsibility in the matter, I asked Lord Peart, who will be remembered by some noble Lords, to take the chair of an inter-departmental standing committee to keep under constant review the position of British shipping and to reconcile the conflicting policies of some of the departments; thus ensuring that we were not losing out in what was an extremely competitive field where, undoubtedly, we were falling behind.
I do not know what the fate of the joint working party will be. It seems to me that it is an embryo which could be turned into an inter-departmental committee chaired by a senior Minister and set up for the purpose of monitoring continuously what is happening in the international field of shipping. It could ensure that we all move forward together in order to make certain that this vital national asset is maintained and that we do nothing, by our neglect, to fail to ensure that we maintain the highest possible standards. We must build up this fleet which, unless we take the appropriate action, will wither even further than it has thus far.
5.37 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan of Cardiff, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sterling of Plaistow, on his maiden speech on the subject about which he speaks with high authority and a wealth of experience. We all look forward to hearing his future contributions to our debates.
Your Lordships' committee's report on Community shipping measures arises from the second package of proposals within the past five years from the Commission to halt the decline in the merchant fleets of the member states. Both in absolute tonnage and in their share of world shipping the decline has been steep, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, explained. The tonnage was nearly halved between 1980 and 1988. The share of the world's fleet fell from 1970–80 to 30 per cent., but that share had declined again to 15 per cent. by 1988. In terms of both ownership and registration in Community member states, the Community share of world shipping had declined further between 1981 and 1987 by about 28 per cent. The fall has been especially severe in the UK fleet. But, even so, Community ship owners represent in ownership about one quarter of the world's tonnage and are regarded, perhaps optimistically, by the Department of Transport as still major players in world shipping, and they are present in all sectors of shipping.
However there is, as the General Council of British Shipping told the committee, a pressing need for worldwide fleet renewal in the 1990s. Between 1986 and August 1989, when the new proposals appeared, the world fleet had aged inexorably. The point has been reached, according to the general council, when that represents the major problem now confronting ship owners. That applies to all Community fleets, but above all to the United Kingdom.
The present United Kingdom-owned fleet is now older than the world average. The current order rate in the United Kingdom is well under half that required to maintain the present fleet size and efficiency. Although rates of return have begun to improve in some sectors, they still do not justify reinvestment in ships by comparison with investor expectations in other business sectors or in other countries. Those circumstances, together with the losses from flagging-out, will have significant effects in the United Kingdom which, according to the United Kingdom Centre for Maritime Policy Studies in evidence to the committee, derives large earnings from related maritime service businesses, including ship management, insurance, chartering, finance, classification and surveying. All of those were built up in England because we had a strong domestic registered fleet. All its functions were carried on here. It is much more difficult, says the general council laconically, to maintain such businesses if one has no home-based fleet. It is vital for our economy that the shipping industry and its ancillary services should be given a competitive environment in which they can best thrive.
One further consideration stressed by several witnesses and by those of your Lordships who have

253
spoken, of which we have had a sharp, recent reminder, is the importance of merchant shipping, skilled seamen and highly-trained officers for defence and to be available in emergencies. Accordingly, the committee accepted without qualification that there is a strong case for Community measures, although it was not persuaded that the Commission had given a convincing answer to the central question: should the Community strive to keep alight the beacon of its own free market principles, or should it descend into the protectionist battle?
The reality, as the committee sees it, is that the Community has limited possibilities of building effective barriers around "Fortress Europe" within which it can police state aids to shipbuilders and operators so as to guarantee application of free market principles internally while excluding competition. Ship owners and shippers have to operate in the world of state-subsidised shipbuilders, flags of convenience, erratic standards of port state control and crews on third world wages with no social security. Accordingly, the committee concluded:
"Neither the Community nor its Member States are in a position to remedy the unsatisfactory system of flags of convenience on their own. But they should avoid compounding the mischief'.
In its view, the proposed Community register (EUROS) and flag would become a new kind of flag of convenience. The flag would denote not the acceptance of legal responsibilities to enforce norms and standards but the availability of economic privileges. The Community's response to a system under which ship owners choose a flag for their ships not by reference to their own national or economic links, or those of its prospective crew, but by reference to the cost entailed, should not be to set up a new flag whose main attraction would be financial. The committee added:
"Community law has not yet reached the point where the authorities of the Community can properly discharge the duties of a flag State towards ships on its registries".
The committee accept that a single Community flag could have symbolic value, but regards emphasis upon such a concept as a distraction from the real problems of shipping. Although the committee rejected the Commission's proposal for a Community register and European flag, it welcomed many of the other proposals contained in the package. They included a call for the abolition of the remaining restrictions on freedom to provide cabotage services throughout the Community. Such freedom is obviously a prerequisite of completing the internal market. The British shippers' council, with nearly all other witnesses before the Committee, laid strong emphasis upon that point. The committee observed:
"It remains quite wrong in principle that cabotage rights between ports in Northern Member States should be open to all while in Mediterranean States, nationals and firms from other Community Member States are excluded".
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House what further steps the Government have in mind on that issue.
Another concern of the committee stemmed from the "Scandinavian Star" disaster which revealed that the crew was unable to communicate effectively among one another or with passengers because they
254
had no common language. Mr. David Tomlinson, director of the United Kingdom Centre for Maritime Policy Studies, told the committee:
"the ability to communicate in a common language with each other among the crews—it does not matter whether it is a Community or a non-Community crew—… is absolutely essential. It is a point we would emphasise that with 2,000 passengers on a cross-Channel ferry, the seafarer crew is probably about 18 people and you do not see them. There is then an auxiliary crew—catering staff and the duty-free shop staff—who are the people the passengers see—and the passengers have to communicate with somebody in an emergency, so we think they are very important. Our proposal would be that the ship's safe manning certificate would say what was the language of the ship. In other words, it would be a German language ship or an English language ship or whatever. That should be appropriate for the service on which it was operating, and is something that the port states, under port state control, could probably implement with some additional legal provision. One other point is that the language requirement should cover the signs and the safety instructions to ensure that they were all printed in the language of the ship. We do not want a ferry with English and Norwegians on with all the signs in German and that is perfectly possible at the moment".
It is improbable that the EUROS proposal could be the vehicle for change in order to achieve such objectives. The committee therefore urged national authorities to examine whether the requirements imposed in the context of issuing safe manning certificates are adequate to protect the lives of passengers and crews in an emergency. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House an assurance that the Government are seized of the public anxiety about the safety of ferries and will act at least in respect of the language requirements to relieve it.
I conclude by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton, for his masterly comment on the committee's deliberations. Speaking as one of the small number of members of his committee not learned in law, I thank him for the patience and clarity with which he inducts the laity into its mysteries.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, I too wish to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Oliver of Aylmerton for his excellent report and the concise way in which he dealt with it this afternoon. I also wish to add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, for his excellent maiden speech. We look forward to hearing him often on this subject in the future. Without wishing to make a pun, I believe that he has done a sterling job in promoting the interests of the British merchant fleet through his presidency of the GCBS. In particular, he has made the shipping industry more aware of its own importance. He has brought a little—I might even use the word—pride back into the shipping community, which was necessary.
We still have a long way to go, but the Government are now much more aware than they were of the problems facing the shipping industry. But the public are still largely ignorant of the fact that we have a merchant fleet. Much work must be done in education, and I am happy to see that a start has been made in this, sponsored by the GCBS. We must return

255
to the old days so that the average person in the country knows that we need ships and cries out for us to have the ships we need.
In his introductory remarks my noble friend mentioned the problems facing the shipping industry, particularly in Europe, and the decline over the past approximately 10 years. He also mentioned the rise of the eastern fleets. It is worth noting that the Japanese are wasting no time in buying European shipping companies, especially in the car transportation business and also recently in the container business, in order to gain an entrée to the market when it arrives in 1993.
Other noble Lords have said all that is necessary on the points raised in the report. I shall embellish one or two without taking too long. I am delighted that the committee gave the thumbs down to the EUROS register. I believe that would it have been just another flag of convenience but I hazard the guess that it would have been a heavy handed one, to boot. We are well out of that line of approach.
Cabotage has been mentioned by all noble Lords who have spoken. In a perfect world we should like to see all restrictions on cabotage trading removed, but it must be recognised that there is a special case with the Greek islands and also possibly the Italian coast. In regard to the latter, I understand that the Italians are planning an imaginative roll-on, roll-off service down their coast which it is hoped will take 30 per cent. of the road traffic off the Italian roads. This is a most desirable social end and the Italians would rightly be distressed if another country came in and undercut the ships being built for this specific run.
The question will have to be considered further. Perhaps there should be a hold for the time being—I do not suggest it should be too long—on the Italian and Greek problems. I often wonder what the position might be if the Greeks, who are quite entitled to do so, were to send a ship to our waters in competition with MacBrayne's on the western islands services. I cannot help feeling that the whole system would grind to a halt very quickly.
To give another similar example, I understand that a few years ago someone on the Thames chartered two German tugs to provide a tug service on the river. The tugs were quickly blockaded by one of our own tug companies and were not allowed to carry out the job for which they were chartered. There could be no end to such an activity. Even with totally free cabotage I cannot help feeling that the high subsidies paid for island services—and the Greeks certainly pay them —would mean that anyone else wishing to enter the trade would find it difficult without a subsidy.
The desirability of training more crews has been mentioned, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. We in this country and in Europe must pursue the matter much more vigorously. Perhaps I may quote two paragraphs from a document produced by Drewry Shipping Consultants called Ship Costs: Their Structure and Significance":
"The outlook is for an end to cheaply-acquired and cheaply-run ships, as both the market place and environmental concerns exert potentially irresistible pressures ‖ The
256
emergence of a seemingly endless stream of new registers has facilitated the pruning of indirect costs, while increased use of automated equipment has led to cuts in crew numbers, but it appears that the end of the line has now been reached. Crews —quality or otherwise—will be an increasingly scarce resource".
This is a worldwide problem which we must address. The Government have gone some way towards assisting in the training of crews and in repatriation costs, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan. However, we must somehow work together to produce a proper scheme that will ensure that enough UK crews are available to meet our future needs.
It is not just our future needs: a situation has arisen relating to the Gulf crisis. The owners of some of the foreign ships chartered by the Ministry of Defence have been falling over themselves to try to recruit British crews to replace third world crews who have refused to sail into the war zone. If such a situation were to arise in future, we should make sure that we have the requisite number of British crews to perform such tasks.
Port state control has also been mentioned. I reinforce the call made by my noble friend for the Government to restore to its former high level the number of inspections carried out in this country. That is most important. Our record has been better than that of a lot of other European countries. I hope the Minister can give us some more information on the number of inspections being carried out in other EC countries, in particular in Spain where I understand hardly anything has been done at all.
The port state control system is a good way of getting rid of old and potentially hazardous tonnage. However, I suggest that insurers also have a part to play here. We cannot continue to cut insurance rates forever. A halt must be made and insurers must get together to improve their policies to ensure that these potentially dangerous ships, and the use of rather dubious registers, are excluded in future.
Before I leave the question of safety, I should add that the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, touched on the matter of ferry safety in particular. I hope the Government will not proceed down the unilateral road with their new ferry regulations. In the past the Government have always been against unilateral lines. I hope they will reconsider this matter and perhaps wait for the International Maritime Organisation to sort the matter out in due course.
I shall conclude on a rather lighter note. I could not help noting that the General Council of British Shipping has appointed for the first time as its new director general a retired admiral. I also note that he is a deputy managing director of Eurotunnel. I sincerely hope that I am not reading anything too ominous into that appointment. Perhaps it merely has something to do with the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, has recently been promoted to the position of honorary captain in the Royal Naval Reserve. I wish the gallant admiral well in his new task and I sincerely hope that he will have a few ships to look after. That will not be the case if the Chancellor does not respond in his next Budget to the many calls

257
—including the most powerful plea just made by the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan—for fiscal help to halt once and for all the decline in our vital merchant navy.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, in his most helpful introduction to this valuable report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to the Commission's information document on financial and fiscal measures. Paragraph 1 of that document sets out succinctly the objectives of the Community's shipping policy as the,
"maintenance of ships under Community flags and the employment, to the highest possible proportion, of Community seafarers on board such ships".
The arguments for maintaining a UK merchant fleet are the same as the arguments for maintaining a Community fleet. The latter arguments are set out in that document. However, the arguments in the UK's case are even more powerful. The United Kingdom has few areas of comparative advantage in Europe or in the world. However, our merchant navy is one such area and it is outstanding. We possess a wealth of experience and expertise, not least in the quality of our seafarer. That has been mentioned several times this afternoon. We also possess particular experience and expertise in the quality of our officers.
I may be accused of prejudice in so far as I am a trustee director of the National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers. However, if that is the case, I am in very good company. When evidence was given to the committee the point I have just mentioned was made again and again by the General Council of British Shipping, and again this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling. I welcomed his positive and distinguished contribution this afternoon. His remarks were doubly welcome coming from the other side of the House. I agreed with most of the noble Lord's analysis and with many of his proposals. I disagreed with the noble Lord on details rather than on objectives.
Previous speakers have documented the decline in the Community fleet. We should remember the context in which that decline has taken place. The Community's external trade accounts for 40 per cent. of world trade. The Community's external trade is greater than that of Japan and the United States put together. What has happened in the UK is not unique, but it has been worse than the experience of other countries. Figures have been given this afternoon, but I hope may add a further figure. In 1990 we lost another 26 ships comprising 1 million dead weight tonnes. That means that our fleet now comprises less than 4 million tonnes. It is the big ships that are going. But deep sea tonnage is critical if we are to train officers and seafarers.
If we want a monument to what happens when shipping is left to the operation of free market forces we should look around our ports. What we are discussing today is whether that situation matters. The British Shippers' Council in the evidence it gave to the committee made it clear that it considers it does not matter. It stated:
"Commercial patriotism is simply not a relevant factor in the decision-making process".
258
For too long the Government have appeared to share that attitude. The results can be seen all around us and they have been mentioned this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Callaghan referred to the chartering of ships for the Gulf. For far too long the Government have argued that we can bring back flagged-out ships. That is easier said than done. But even if we could bring them back, we could not man them given the drastic decline in British manpower.
I have a final statistic to give to the House. In the past 10 years we have lost 20,000 officers from the merchant fleet. We are not replacing them. The report documents the intake, or rather the lack of intake, of cadets. In 1980 the rather low figure of 1,200 cadets was recruited. By 1987 the figure was down to 160 cadets. Something was done about that position and by 1989 the figure had risen to 400, and I believe it is now a little higher than that. However, that is not nearly enough. We are facing a severe prospective shortage of manpower. Is the answer to man our fleet with Polish or Filipino officers? I am not sure whether I detected a comment on that matter in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sterling. We are facing a worldwide shortage of manpower. BIMCO has forecast a worldwide shortage of nearly 400,000 officers and 400,000 ratings by the year 2000. We still have an opportunity to redress that situation. However, as my noble friend Lord Callaghan has said, the situation is critical. I believe the word "critical" was a moderate word to use in this situation.
We need to do two things: we need to rebuild our fleet and we need to train and retrain officers and ratings. The noble Lord, Lord Sterling, spoke of the fiscal and financial measures which should be taken to rebuild the fleet. I wholly agree with the proposals that he and the General Council of British Shipping have made. But more to the point, the Commission agrees with those proposals, as Mr. Erdmenger made clear in his evidence to the committee. I hope that the Minister will not even be tempted to deliver yet another lecture on the theoretical advantages of free competition. I address his attention to Mr. Erdmenger's words when he said:
"Ideally, it is true, the best situation would be not to have world wide any subsidy to the shipping industry, but we are not there yet".
It is dangerous to put our heads in the sand. It is suicidal to put our heads under water and keep them there.
Reference has been made in the report and in the debate to comparative labour costs. One of the main reasons given for flagging out—which has been hinted at this afternoon—is that it reduces labour costs. The unions, NUMAST in particular, have constantly emphasised that labour costs are not just a matter of wages. On the one hand, to say that they are ignores the side of the equation relating to the effective use of manpower. We have seen enormous improvements in productivity. However, I emphasise that the really big gains from new technology come from the new ships. But we are not replacing our ships; the average age of our fleet is 13 years old. That is well above the rest of Europe.

259
On the other hand, as the unions have consistently argued, it is essential to look at the whole range of what the Commission calls employment costs, not just wages. Here I found a notable ally—none other than Sir Frederick Bolton, the president of the UK Centre for Maritime Policy Studies and formerly president of the General Council of British Shipping, who said in reply to question 75 (on page 20 of the report):
"When we talk about cost competitiveness in terms of wage costs we are not nearly so worried about the actual amount of wages that are paid to our own or European seafarers vis-à-vis the rest of the world as we are with the total package including the fiscal aspects … If we could eliminate the fiscal disadvantages we could live with the pure wage cost disadvantages".
The Government have acknowledged in principle the need for special tax treatment of British seafarers, and I welcome that. The report documents admirably the way in which British seafarers, and therefore the merchant fleet, are still disadvantaged. My noble friend Lord Callaghan made an unanswerable case for removing income tax and national insurance liabilities for each night spent on board ship. As he said, that would cut 25 per cent. off the employment bill at a relatively small cost to the Exchequer.
I echo also what my noble friend said about the community charge. I share his surprise and horror at the court decision today in relation to relief for seafarers from the community charge. I urge the Government to introduce relief for periods of three months and more spent outside the UK.
Such measures would help indirectly to stop the haemorrhage of manpower. We also need direct action on crewing requirements. I fear that the committee is less than wholehearted in its approach to the crewing of Community vessels by Community nationals, which is the Commission's aim. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, referred to the Commission's objective for the crewing of Community vessels under which all officers and at least 50 per cent. of the crew should be Community nationals. The report throws doubt on that objective. That may take some time to achieve, but why do we not set it as our objective and establish a timetable to achieve it? We should set it co-operatively between Community countries as distinct from linking it to EUROS.
On that question I suspect that I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, who in the joint working party report to which he referred seemed to argue for the removal of all nationality requirements for officers. The current requirements can by no means be regarded as satisfactory. At present a ship has to carry only a master, a chief officer and chief engineer who are British nationals. It is not merely a question of their being British; if they are of any Commonwealth nationality they meet the requirement. That places an enormous strain on the master of the ship which is in addition to those imposed by the Merchant Shipping Act, and it also makes no provision for the proper training of junior officers who are tomorrow's masters.
260
There is a strong case for the establishment of the objective to which I referred. That is related to language requirements, to which many references have been made this afternoon. Here the committee might have been more positive in its recommendations. The need was clear even before the "Scandinavian Star" incident. There should be a language test. That should not apply merely to passenger vessels; it should apply to all vessels. It should be enforced by port state control.
In conclusion, I believe that the committee is absolutely right to oppose making the improvements dependent on the establishment of EUROS. I would not necessarily rule out action in the long run to establish a Community register, but one very compelling argument against it in the present circumstances is that it would almost certainly delay action which is manifestly needed most urgently now. I join others in urging the Government to recognise that and to take action in the Budget and by other means to give merchant navy officers and ratings confidence that the British shipping industry has a future.
6.17 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I join with others in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and members of his Select Committee on a work of remarkable analysis of the Commission's proposals and for their observations on the British scene.
I also join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, on a remarkable maiden speech and also for bringing to this House his great expertise. He speaks from a pivotal and authoritative position as president of the GCBS and chairman of P&O. As president of the GCBS he has taken a lead which, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, ought to have been taken by others long ago.
All of the speeches that have been made in this debate have been backed by considerable expertise in the field of shipping. I was particularly encouraged by the speech of my noble friend Lord Callaghan, in whose government I was very privileged to serve. It was refreshing to hear him eschew so publicly the phrase "a level playing field" which seems to mark every speech about the internal market these days.
In the report Challenges and Opportunities shipping was described as a vital national asset. It is tragic that it has taken this Government more than 11 years to recognise that fact—apart from the palliatives applied in the 1988 Act. In that time it has presided over the most dramatic decline in the merchant fleet. But as a number of noble Lords said, merchant shipping is also a significant European Community asset, critical in terms of the Community's overall transport policy. It is a major international activity which the largest trading bloc in the world ignores or fails to nourish at its peril.
Dependence on others to transport our cargoes and our people, about which regrettably shippers—my noble friend Lord Murray adverted to this point—seem to be wholly unconcerned provided that they can

261
procure the lowest prices regardless of how they are achieved, would be an extremely dangerous situation for the 320 million people of the Community. We need a fleet to serve those people. We need to have a voice in international shipping affairs, to exemplify high standards of seafaring and safety and to show respect for the maritime environment. Not least we need an effective merchant fleet for our defence strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, adverted to that point, as indeed I have done on many previous occasions.
Whatever excuses the Government may now offer, the relatively impoverished contribution that we are able to make in terms of merchant shipping in the current Gulf crisis is eloquent testimony to the failure that has occurred in merchant shipping. Whatever criticisms there may be of the Commission's communication to the council and the draft regulations which were annexed, the overriding purpose of the Commission has been:
"to maintain and develop an efficient and competitive shipping industry and to secure competitive sea transport services in the interests of Community trade".
I was Commissioner for Transport in the previous Commission and, together with my services, I was largely responsible at least for the analysis of the current document and for some of the positive proposals. In that analysis the Commission described the dramatic decline of the fleet since 1980. It set out the causes of the decline and attributed it to lower taxation, lower social security and lower wage costs which, together with a rather more permissive attitude about international regulations, have been the prime attractions of flagging out. The analysis describes the serious reduction in employment of European Community seafarers, the ageing of the fleet—the British fleet has appeared to be the most vulnerable of all to that process - and many other factors which have led to the decline. The Commission highlighted the national measures that have been taken to try to remedy the position which equally have distorted competition between member states.
So the real question that we are addressing today about the Commission's communication and its proposals is how effective are the solutions likely to be. I turn immediately therefore to the question of EUROS—the European Community ship register and flag. I must plead guilty to having advanced the concept while I was a member of the Commission. I still believe, as does my noble friend Lord Murray, that it is an idea which needs to be developed, despite the strictures contained in the Select Committee's report. For EUROS to succeed it has to be attractive to ship owners and at least as attractive as flagging out. Patently that is not the case at present. But on the assumption that it can be further developed, so as to provide real incentives for its use, it could be a means whereby national measures could converge so as to avoid harmful distortions of competition. It could be a useful administrative expedient to control certain facilities attached to the register. It could be a benchmark for defining new objectives for European Community shipping policy, including the availability, training and competence of European Community seafarers.
262
Those were the kind of aims which I had very much in mind when I launched the idea in London some three or four years ago. But, as I indicated when I made that speech, massive political and legal complexities undoubtedly stood in the way of advancing the idea with any hope of speedy implementation. What I sought to do at the time was to initiate a debate about what is clearly an important issue for the future of European shipping.
In my own draft communication to my colleagues in the Commission on the positive measures, which regrettably was not adopted by the Commission in 1988, I deliberately refused to link the concept of EUROS to the positive measures for four compelling reasons. First, I thought that the concept required further elaboration and that efforts were needed to be able to persuade member states about the principles involved before embarking on the specifics. Secondly, the fact remained that at that time, and even up to the present, the legal and political complexities had not been sufficiently resolved. Thirdly, I concluded that it was therefore premature to introduce legislative proposals to that effect. Fourthly, I decided that to attempt to do so would inevitably distract attention from the urgency of the need to introduce positive measures to deal with Europe's waning fleets. Therefore, I make no apology for having done what I did in relation to that document. I believed that it was important that it should have bruited afresh the idea of EUROS so that it could be seen, so to speak, in Green Paper or even White Paper terms.
Like the Select Committee I believe that advancing the cause of EUROS at this stage has tended to deflect attention from more urgent problems. Consequently, I think it is vital that we should focus on the positive measures proposed, detaching them from the EUROS concept for the time being. We can concentrate on that once the immediate crisis has passed. I certainly do not accept the idea that the concept of a European flag has been discredited.
Before I move on to the specific recommendations of the Select Committee, I want to refer to one comment made in paragraph 89 of the report. I believe that it is profoundly wrong—it has been repeated this evening—to assert that the European ship register has ever been or should be perceived as a flag of convenience. I agree with the Select Committee when it concludes generally that flags of convenience have been and in general terms at least are inimical to the interests of the exercise of proper responsibilities on the part of a state for the safety of its ships and those who sail in them.
It is true that when some flags of convenience have tended to become more responsible, such as the Liberian flag, they have become inversely less attractive to ship owners. The fact is that the mischief of flags of convenience has been compounded over the years by collusion between ship owners, shippers and indeed governments. It is one thing to say, in my view correctly, that the benefits of EUROS have not been sufficiently demonstrated to encourage ship owners to choose that option compared with others which might

263
be open to them; it is quite another thing to assert, mistakenly in my view, that EUROS is a flag of convenience.
I make that remark with particular regard to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, for the following reasons. First, registration in EUROS would not affect the legal responsibility of the flag state towards the vessel or the responsibility for the enforcement of international standards and rules. Secondly, where national requirements —for example, those relating to European Community nationality of the crews—are more stringent than those specified in the EUROS regulation, they will continue to apply. Thirdly, I reject proposals such as those contained in the report by the rapporteur to the European Parliament, Mr. Sarlis, to accept lower safety standards for seafarers on non-passenger ships than are considered necessary for passenger ships. That is profoundly wrong. Nor am I happy about the possibilities which may excuse the employment of sub-standard "crews of convenience" receiving cut price wages and being generally exploited. I want to assure the House that if EUROS had begun to resemble a flag of convenience I should never have advanced it as a viable proposition.
Paragraph 89 asserts that deep sea shipping transport is international business. It goes on to say that it is not susceptible to control by European Community rules or to the erection of barriers to exclude outside competition. With very great respect, that is belied by the evidence. The evidence is that the package of measures agreed in December 1986 was adopted by all 12 member states. Those measures received parliamentary approval some time ago.
Regulation 4056/86, which deals with unfair competition—the dumping of freight rates—has been successfully invoked in the European Court of Justice in the Hyundai case. The regulation was aimed at, and in my view would also catch, low safety standards and state subsidies. That was the nature of the discussion that I had in the Commission at the time. I submit that those facts refute the assertion that paragraph 89 contains.
I turn to the other recommendations. I shall comment only on those where I have certain reservations or disagreements. Otherwise it may be accepted that I agree with them. On paragraph 91, I understand that discussions on facilitating transfers of ships between registries are now close to agreement in the council—a point likely to be included at the next council. Paragraph 92 relates to the harmonisation of seafarers' qualifications. That is certainly a matter to be encouraged providing that we do not accept it as a basis for agreeing the lowest common denominator. The essential criteria should be high standards and best practice.
On paragraph 93, with regard to food aid, the Select Committee considers that,
"the most economically advantageous tender should in general be selected".
264
That is fine if we talk about fair competition between European Community member state shipping. However, if we consider the issue more broadly to include unfair competition from flags of convenience and others, then it flies in the face of the Select Committee's own recommendations elsewhere. It is often utterly impossible for the flags of European member states to submit lower tenders against low-cost, low-standard, or state subsidised flags. Such regimes should not be supported since that would, to use the Select Committee's own language,
"compound the mischief of flags of convenience",
and, one might also add, state subsidised shipping.
The issue of cabotage is referred to in paragraph 94. It is a matter about which my noble friend Lord Callaghan spoke eloquently and with great justification. I believe that the conclusions reached by the Select Committee are right. Current restrictions, subject to qualifications about matters such as public service obligations, in relation to island services, and the qualifications referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, clearly conflict with the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. They should be ended. The Commission has tried mightily to end them. But member states have stood in the way, obstructing the purpose. When will the Government stop simply threatening action and posturing about it and do something, perhaps, as the working party suggested, by invoking a test case, or helping a test case to be invoked before the European Court of Justice if substantive progress is not achieved very shortly. The argument has continued for years. It is a threat to the completion of the internal market.
On paragraph 95, I welcome the views expressed about the Commission's principal criteria for the assessment of state aids and support for the costs of training seafarers and the need for such policies to apply more broadly than at present in the United Kingdom. However, I am not convinced that the adoption of maritime and fiscal measures which have been urged by the European Parliament are necessarily outside the terms of the treaty.
In paragraph 97, the Select Committee concluded that European Community vessels should,
"as far as possible be crewed by European Community nationals".
I wholeheartedly agree with that proposition. However, one has to be careful about multinational crewing on safety grounds. I strongly support the assertion of the need for common language requirements to be examined urgently by maritime authorities for safety reasons. That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. There could be no more vivid example than the tragedy of the "Scandinavian Star" disaster in which no less than 160 seafarers perished in April 1990. The vessel sailed under the Bahamian flag. Eighty per cent. of the crew had joined only the week before. The Danish court of inquiry was informed that there were enormous difficulties of communication between Norwegian officers and the Portuguese crew. Quite apart from that, it appears that the alarm system had not been tested. There had been no fire drills; and five out of the

265
15 fire doors had been closed. That is a devastating example not only of lack of communication but of the dangers associated with ineffective registers.
How does all that square with the Select Committee's endorsement of the argument adduced by the ship owners that they,
"should be able to adopt arrangements which are competitive in the markets where they are operating"?
It is the same free market philosophy which has contributed so much to the employment of sub-standard crews of convenience.
The employment of European Community nationals can best be promoted by constructing advanced ships requiring skilful operation. That proposition tacitly supports the view that higher standards of seafaring are deployed in ships flying under most European Community flags including the British flag. It goes a long way towards contradicting the contentions of the ship owners.
Port state control should never be regarded as a substitute for flag state control. The two should be regarded as complementary. I was most interested to hear the proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, on the role of insurance. Too often, governments have complacently accepted the adequacy of existing port state control. I readily agree that it has been a significant defence against sub-standard ships.
However, there are disturbing matters which need to be tackled. The target of inspection of 25 per cent. of foreign ships visiting Community ports has not been achieved in all ports. I have never been satisfied that the inspections are always comparable. It is inimical to the system if there is a substantial variation of standards—if one therefore encourages "ports of convenience". It is important for port surveyors to inspect ships, safety apparatus and so on. But what about the provisions of ILO Convention 147 which deals with conditions on board and proper certification, and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, about language? We are often told that surveyors have insufficient expertise. Is that still the position? If so, when will it be remedied? Those matters are critical to safety.
The Select Committee expressed concern at the decline in the number of ships inspected by the department. How are the Government responding to that criticism? What is the present situation? I understand that there has been some improvement. How will more inspectors be recruited? Is it right that "small ships in small ports" are avoiding supervision? What about ferries?
In paragraph 99 the committee asserts that a definition of a European Community ship owner is not required. I caution the need to be able to exclude dubious "brass plates" shipping companies. Therefore, a suitable definition is required. I believe that that would present no problems for bona fide companies which are owned overseas.
In concluding my remarks on the Select Committee report, perhaps I may repeat that we do not have time to await the conclusion of a long, complex debate about EUROS. It makes sense therefore to detach that, at least for the time being, from the other
266
proposals for positive measures which are certainly needed if the European Community is to have fleets worthy of its name.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the United Kingdom scene, and "challenges and opportunities". I believe that while it was good to have a joint working party report, it is a pity that it was confined to government and the General Council of British Shipping. There are others with enormous expertise not confined to domestic issues such as training. I refer to the seafaring unions, NUMAST and the NUS, as well as individuals who might have been recruited to present an objective view.
It is noteworthy, perhaps even sinister, that the Treasury opted only for observer status. Presumably the recommendations are supported by the Department of Transport but where stands the Treasury? That is the key question. The report stated that shipping was a vital national asset; and so it is. But against the backcloth of this Government having presided over a catastrophic decline in British shipping one has to ask whether this is mere windy rhetoric, complacency, or a sudden revelation of the truth. Why has it taken so long for the Department of Transport to reach this conclusion? Again, does the Treasury concur?
A number of noble Lords have rehearsed the facts of the appalling decline and I need not go over them. The decline also affects and will continue to affect the contribution that shipping makes to the balance of payments and the financial services attributable to the City of London. Together they are worth about £5 billion a year in invisible earnings.
My noble friend Lord Murray referred to the ageing of the fleet. He pointed out that 30 per cent. is more than 15 years old and that the average British ship is 13.7 years old compared with the world average of 12.7 years. Those facts were eloquently rehearsed by the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, in his maiden speech. Against those facts how can the report reasonably conclude that the industry is lean and fit? It would be more accurate to say "malnourished and geriatric". To engage in such language is to invite a complacent approach. It is grotesquely misleading and ought not to have appeared.
Moreover, the report takes a view that, despite the fact that shipping worldwide is emerging from its deep recession, Britain will find it immensely difficult to respond due to the shortage of seafarers and the failure to attract new investment so as to modernise the fleet and take advantage of the benefits of newer, more efficient, more technically advanced ships which are also more competitive.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, for having encouraged the Minister at least to undertake a joint session with him. Some valuable suggestions were made. The noble Lord and others have stated them. However, I am worried about the phrase "more flexibility" as regards recruitment rules. I fear that it may mean lower standards and the avoidance of the measures about which so many noble Lords have

267
spoken today especially in relation to safety standards, and for the recruitment and training of British crews.
My main criticism of the report is that it avoids the real measures that are needed to reverse this decade of decline. They are the kind of measures which my noble friend Lord Callaghan and other noble Lords, in addition to the GCBS and the unions, have markedly emphasised. They include training provision for seafarers as well as for officers; the reinstatement of 100 per cent. ship allowance for five years to act as a real incentive for investment, particularly in new but also in good second-hand ships; the removal of income tax and national insurance liabilities for British seafarers; and the issue of the poll tax which has absurdly come to the fore of our considerations today as a result of the judgment. It was right that Mr. Anderton should have taken his case to the courts; the trouble was the decision. That is a matter that the Government can correct and I hope that they will take urgent steps to deal with it in their so-called poll tax review.
I suspect that the Department of Transport will wish to see such changes made. The question is: how strongly is the department prepared to press those matters with the Treasury where the power for improvement truly lies?
6.44 p.m
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate this afternoon. I wish to thank your Lordships' Select Committee, and in particular the chairman of the sub-committee on law and institutions, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver of Aylmerton. It has produced a clear and detailed report on Community shipping measures and has given us the opportunity to debate the subject today. I, too, join other noble Lords in welcoming my noble friend Lord Sterling to this House. I congratulate him on his contribution to this afternoon's debate. We are particularly fortunate to have him with us today, given his close involvement in the issues currently before us. Not only is he the chairman of one of the world's leading shipping lines but he is also president of the General Council of British Shipping and joint chairman, with my right honourable friend, the then Secretary of State for Transport, of the joint working party on British shipping.
The committee's report thoroughly examines the Commission's proposals for the second stage of Community shipping policy. The committee's analysis of the issues, its conclusions and the extensive evidence which it heard from interested parties will prove very useful to the Government in the negotiations to come in Brussels.
I shall first deal with the subject of EUROS. The Government entirely agree with the views expressed by the committee on the Commission's package. While the Commission has put forward a number of useful proposals we do not consider it at all helpful or useful to seek to bind the whole package together with the creation of a Community ship register—EUROS.
268
The committee sum this up very well when it describes a single Community flag as a "distraction from the real problems". We are concerned that EUROS would not meet the Commission's objectives of improving the competitiveness of EC fleets and harmonising operating conditions. The proposed manning conditions would in fact increase the cost of running ships and reduce operational flexibility. In addition, any measures that the Community can devise to help its shipping industry should apply to all EC shipping and not just to vessels registered on EUROS. I welcome the preparedness of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, to see elements of the positive measures package pursued independently of EUROS.
The majority of member states share our concerns about EUROS. In fact, some benefits originally intended to be limited to EUROS have already been broadened to cover all EC-registered vessels: Ministers agreed last December to the text of a regulation facilitating the transfer of vessels from one EC register to another, although the Commission had originally proposed that this benefit should be limited to vessels on EUROS. The council has also asked the Commission to produce proposals which provide for the mutual recognition of seafarers' certificates on all EC-registered vessels rather than confining this benefit to EUROS.
The committee in its report also comments on the European Parliament's proposed amendments to the Commission's proposal for EUROS. The Government agree with the committee that the European Parliament's proposal for a special taxation regime for EUROS-registered vessels does raise serious competence problems. It would also raise substantial practical problems. The proposal as it stands would allow ship owners to opt for the national taxation regime or the special EUROS tax based on age, tonnage and trade of vessel. This would lead to a highly complicated taxation regime for shipping which would be difficult to enforce, especially in relation to those companies where shipping forms only one part of their business.
The Commission has not yet indicated whether or not it is likely to accept these proposed amendments. We would prefer the commission to concentrate its efforts instead on the reduction of state aids to shipping in order to ensure that the UK fleet is operating in a fair competitive framework. Like the committee, the Government welcome the general principles outlined by the Commission in its paper on state aids to shipping. We would like to see the Commission building on this basis so that all member states' state aids to shipping are made transparent and open to careful scrutiny. Any attempt to justify state aids granted to vessels on EUROS must undermine this process.
I now turn to the subject of cabotage. We are also concerned that the proposal for a Community ship register is delaying progress in other areas which the Government consider to be of the highest priority. The Government are firmly committed to opening to free and fair competition the restricted cabotage trades of the Mediterranean member states. The UK coast is open to vessels in all trades regardless of flag.

269
UK vessels should have the same opportunities throughout the Community. The Commission's proposed draft council regulation liberalising cabotage is hedged around with restrictions including the requirement for vessels in cabotage trades to be registered on EUROS.
The UK has been pressing for progress for many years and we are beginning to see the light at the end of the tunnel. The date for completion of the single market is drawing ever nearer and there is now a greater will to reach agreement. I hope that the prospects are much better than the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, fears. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, reported useful progress from last December's transport council. The majority of Ministers were able to agree on the principle of a two stage approach to liberalisation with the first stage to be completed during 1993 and leaving the sensitive issue of island services, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, referred, to the second stage.
The prospects for making progress by negotiation are considerably improved following the December transport council but we have not lost sight of the power which we have under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 to introduce a test of establishment for vessels trading in UK coastal waters or the offshore trades. However, we would rather not retreat into this sort of defensive measure unless absolutely necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, also raised the possibility of the Government mounting a test case to the European Court of Justice. That is certainly an option which we shall continue to keep in the forefront of our minds.
We hope therefore that the second stage of Community shipping policy will provide new opportunities in Community cabotage trades and a fairer financial framework for Community shipping. We also want to see a fair competitive framework for Community shipping. The special position of shipping conferences has already been recognised in Community legislation, but we agree with the committee that the position of consortia and multi-modal services should be clarified urgently. The Commission has produced a general proposal for a block exemption from the competition rules for shipping consortia and we are concerned that the conditions to be attached to such a block exemption should strike a fair balance between the interests of shippers and ship owners.
On safety issues and port state control, the Government agree with the committee's support for the Commission's recommendation on improving the effectiveness of port state control within the Community. The committee recommends that the Government should restore its high level of port state inspection. The UK has, of course, consistently exceeded the recommended target of 25 per cent. of inspections. However, I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oliver, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that we recognise the need for port state control inspections to cover small ships in remote ports.
While the percentage of inspections varies from year to year, I am pleased to be able to inform the
270
House that the figure for last year, which post dates the committee's report, shows an increase in the inspection rate to 34.4 per cent. However, there has been a change in emphasis over the past three years with more attention given to the quality and thoroughness of inspections rather than quantity. That new emphasis has led to an increase in the number of foreign ships detained in recent years as a result of the inspections. I was disturbed when the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, said that he believed that Norway had far stricter inspections than we do. I hope that that is not the case and that I can confirm that to him.
Lord Callaghan of Cardiff: My Lords, I am sure that we are all very glad to hear that the number as well as the depth of inspections has increased. However, I hope that the noble Lord will not overlook the fact that although the number varies from year to year, the figure used to be around 40 per cent. or even greater. Therefore, there is still some way to go before we get back to the point at which we used to be and, in order to do so, we shall probably need more inspectors.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, a moment ago I referred to the need for inspections of small ships in remote ports which is very important. Of course, that takes one inspector a lot longer than it would to inspect a number of ships in a large port. Therefore, it is important that that should be covered even though it may use extra resources.
It is true to say that, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, some member states have difficulty in reaching the 25 per cent. inspection rate let alone matching our figures which are, as I say, among the best.
The committee urged member states and the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) to examine whether common language requirements for crew members are adequate for safety. Along with the noble Lords, Lord McGregor of Durris and Lord Clinton-Davis, I agree that this is a vitally important issue. The IMO has already developed a standard marine navigational vocabulary to standardise the language used for communication at sea and is now looking further at the question of common language proficiency. As part of this process, the UK has submitted proposals for the development of a bilingual approach to safety training. This and other related issues are being considered by the IMO but it will of course take time to reach international agreement.
I hope that I have covered the Government's main objectives for Community shipping policy. Many of the Commission's proposals are constructive and worthwhile but we share the committee's view that these elements should be pursued separately from the proposal for a Community ship register.
I would like to assure noble Lords that the Government share their desire to see a strong, competitive British shipping industry. We will continue to work to that goal both in the Community and in our domestic policy. My noble friend Lord Sterling has already referred to the conclusions

271
reached by the joint working party which he chaired jointly with my right honourable friend, the then Secretary of State for Transport. We are pressing ahead with the recommendations in this report in order to encourage investment in the Brtitish flag so that it is well placed to take the opportunities available to it and to win profitable business.
A number of noble Lords, notably the noble Lords, Lord Callaghan, Lord Greenway and Lord Murray, referred to the need for British crews. We recognised the importance of training British seafarers, both officers and ratings. The industry has made a commitment to identifying its future recruitment needs and is taking action to ensure that those are met. The measures introduced under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 have proved successful. As the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said, the scheme came into operation only in 1988. The intake for 1987 was as low as 162. The noble Lord will be pleased to know that since the scheme became operational, 1,238 officers have started training and the figure by the end of this financial year is expected to be more than 500.
The other measure brought in with that Act to assist industry with crew relief costs has also proved successful, is working well and 48 companies are now taking part.
The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, wondered why the working party did not include strategic requirements within its remit. Work on that has been taken forward separately. I assure the noble Lord that that work is now nearly complete.
I believe that all noble Lords and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, asked about financial aid, fiscal measures and tax relief for the industry. Those are matters for my right honourable friend the Chancellor and were deliberately excluded from the working party's remit for that reason. As the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan said, the Budget is nearly upon us. He will know better than I that I should not wish to comment on what may or may not be in my right honourable friend's Budget Statement even if I knew, which I do not. My noble friend Lord Sterling, on behalf of the GCBS, and other maritime organisations have made budget submissions to my right honourable friend and we must wait to see what they bring about.
I only add that they will have been armed with a copy of the joint working party's report which in its very first sentence describes British shipping as a vital national asset. I cannot say more than that on that subject. Noble Lords must be patient for only a short while now.
I conclude by welcoming the committee's report on Community shipping measures and the full and interesting debate which we have had on the issue this afternoon.
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: My Lords, we have had what I hope is a useful, informative and at any rate to me an enjoyable debate, and I do not wish in winding up to detain the House for very long. I begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, whose
272
speech I listened to with great pleasure, for use of the expression "a level playing field" in the maritime context. Perhaps I may excuse it by adverting to the difficulty of finding any other suitable metaphor. The sea, in my experience, is seldom level, and it is of course a fact of life that water does not flow up hill.
The general welcome accorded to the report and the criticisms made by the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Clinton-Davis, are a great encouragement to those of us who worked on the preparation of the report. It is an encouragement to us to find that, despite the persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, the Minister shares our view that EUROS is no more than the fifth wheel of the coach.
On the response generally I would just say that the Minister referred to the difficulties inherent in the Commission's proposals for a special fiscal regime. This is a view that coincides with that of the committee. I hope, however, that speaking as I do from the Cross-Benches I shall not be thought to be carping if I say that one might feel a little disappointed at the absence of any concrete fiscal proposals for halting the decline of the shipping industry, or at least an assurance that they are under active consideration, although for the reasons given we readily understand the reason for the Minister's reticence in this regard.
I have deliberately left until last adding to those of the other speakers my own congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, on his penetrating informative and to me moving maiden speech. It was indeed a pleasure to listen to him. It was less pleasurable to hear what he had to say from his unique experience. On the down side we have had a depressing picture of the competitive disadvantages from which British ship owners suffer—an ageing fleet which is being replaced at the lowest rate in Europe. On the up side we have the assurance that the British merchant fleet is efficient, well managed and able, if only the support is forthcoming, to take advantage of the opportunities which will occur with an upturn in world trade.
But what is clear, not only from what the noble Lord told us but from everything that has been said in this debate, is that we as a nation are in danger. We are losing ships, we are losing seafarers and we are losing shipbuilding capacity. There is an urgent need to look at fiscal measures. There is an urgent need to look at the training and, as important, the retaining of officers and seamen. There is an urgent need for measures to halt the decline of shipbuilding. If nothing is done, the United Kingdom is in danger of losing not only a vital financial and strategic asset but a skilled working force both of seafarers and shipbuilders. It would be a pity if the industry became reduced to a number of small, no doubt highly efficient and skilled, yards building small vessels for sport or pleasure.
In conclusion, may I draw from another Oliver. I would just paraphrase Oliver Goldsmith's lines from The Deserted Village:
"Princes and lords may flourish, or may fade,
A breath can make them, as a breath has made;
But a bold merchant fleet, its country's pride,
When once destroyed, can never be supplied".
On Question, Motion agreed to.

An Ageing Population
7.4 p.m.
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what inter-departmental discussions have taken place about the demographic trend towards an increasing proportion of elderly people in society, and the implications of this.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper seeks to convince the Government of the need for an inter-departmental committee to discuss the question of the demographic trend towards an ageing population. This is not the first time that the demographic issue has been raised or discussed. The trend has been discussed for the past 30 years, but always the tendency has been to deal with one single aspect of the problem. There is a need to extend the debate. There is need for an inter-departmental committee to take a broader look, as I hope that we shall be able to convince the Minister.
Current overall demographic trends have received much publicity and are fairly widely known. In 1988 the population of the United Kingdom was 57,066,000. Of this figure 18.2 per cent.—that is 10,412,000 —were over pensionable age; 3,852,000 aged 75 or over, and 796,000 over 85 years of age.
Between 1987 and 2006 the total population of Great Britain is expected to have increased by 4 per cent. The projected increase in the number of people aged 65 or over is 8 per cent., and the number of people aged 85 and over is expected to increase by 74 per cent. Those figures represent an enormous projected growth in the numbers of very elderly people. We are saying that by 2006 48 per cent. of people of pensionable age will be 75 or over, and 13 per cent. will be aged 85 or over.
The increase in the number of older people is generally considered with some trepidation. Older people are seen largely in terms of a burden on health, welfare, and social security systems. The Government refer responsibility for "pensioners' affairs" to the DSS. People in the media and some in high government office talk about the "demographic time bomb" and view the future with apprehension. But no comprehensive analysis has been made of the precise implications of a changing population structure on society and on the economy as a whole.
With 58 per cent. of people of pensionable age looking to the state for at least three-quarters of their income, policies emanating from the Department of Social Security have a profound effect on people's lives. There have been projections about the cost of paying an increased number of social security pensions from a decreasing number of national insurance contributions. Again, there is the cost emphasis—the focus always on the "economic burden" of the elderly. That is of course important. But there are other factors affecting the economy as a whole to be considered.
An increasing number of older people have an additional income from occupational and personal
274
pensions, and a considerable number now own their own homes. Therefore, many older people contribute to the economy as consumers, as workers and as voluntary or part-time carers and helpers. The real value of this contribution, the ways in which it is changing, and the full potential of our older population—that is, the positive aspects—have never been fully assessed. It is essential to the future economic prosperity of the country that the likely impact of a more extreme change in the population structure is now assessed.
We know from parliamentary answers in another place—and I quote a former Prime Minister that,
"Elderly people, like all other groups in society, are affected by the policies of many different Government Departments."—[Official Report, Commons, 9/11/1989; col. 726.]
A Parliamentary Under-Secretary said that Ministers and officials from different departments consult each other from time to time but that,
"Meetings are not held regularly but as and when necessary and in order to consider issues which arise."— [Official Report, Commons, 5/12/1989; col. 142.]
That is a kind of management by crisis; the daily expediency approach. It is no longer good enough in my view.
I want briefly to look at the need for developing a co-ordinated and deliberate approach to policy on ageing. Other speakers will develop different aspects of the subject. I want first to examine community care. Scope for effective community care has in the past been diminished by policies relating to energy, to home insulation, to heating, to transport, and to social security because of lack of co-ordination among different departments. The service has been diminished. Housing is another area that springs to mind. The needs of older people are not always reflected in planning and design or the location of houses. Again, more co-ordination might prevent older people being shunted off into ghettoes, cut off from younger people or from the interest of living in a mixed community.
Another aspect of housing which concerns me is the question of home income plans. On a number of occasions the Government have suggested that older home owners should use the value of their home to raise money. Ministers have suggested that older people could use the money to pay for such things as heating or private health insurance. As the number of older home owners increases, the Government may in the future urge people to unlock capital tied up in their homes, perhaps to fund repairs, domiciliary care or long-term health care costs.
It is clear that government spokesmen making these statements have had little or no knowledge of how difficult it can be to raise money from one's home safely. In the last two years, and very recently, we have read about substantial numbers of older people who have taken up very dangerous schemes and who are now in danger of losing their homes. An inter-departmental committee could help ensure that statements, such as those imploring older people to

275
raise money from their home, would not be made without reference to other departments under whose remit such schemes came.
We touched briefly today in a Parliamentary Question on the current situation of employment. The Government have recognised the need to encourage older workers to stay in or return to the workforce. Practices and attitudes, however, continue to discriminate against older people at work. The experience and skills of older people are often undervalued by employers. They can be regarded as less capable or less adaptable than younger colleagues.
What we need is a long-term strategic view of employment and consideration by the workforce of part-time, job-share and voluntary work. As the workforce and employment practices change, it will be necessary for attitudes towards full-time permanent work to change, and for it to become more acceptable for people to combine two or more part-time paid jobs, possibly with voluntary work. Access to training and retraining are important to ensure that people gain new skills throughout their working life.
Policies such as the abolition of the earnings rule are very welcome for encouraging older people to carry on working. But there needs to be an inter-departmental view of such policies, in order to assess the impact that they will have on pension structures and the relationship between retirement and pensions.
Older people are as diverse as any other group in the population, but to a greater or lesser extent they are all consumers. It has been estimated that people over 50 control more than £100 billion annually in the spending market. Yet older people's rights as consumers are often overlooked and marketing campaigns are rarely targeted at them. Older people are often denied credit, for no other reason than that they have reached an arbitrary age. Our stereotyped images of older people somehow make them invisible to marketeers.
There are a number of areas of health policy where poor co-ordination between departments in the past has had an adverse effect on policy and where an inter-departmental view of the situation could help to ensure that all factors are taken into consideration and that the best possible service is available for older people.
The development of policies for the long-term care of older people, in particular, needs to take many different factors into account, apart from simple projections of the likely numbers of older people who will need such care in the future. First, it is necessary to look at patterns of migration and the areas in which long-term care facilities need to be developed. Many older people move to be near their family or retire to the country or seaside. The funding of residential and nursing home care is an issue currently causing considerable concern to many older people and their families, and to those of us who take an interest in these affairs. The patterns and trends in pensioners' incomes; the growth in home ownership and in
276
occupational and personal pensions; and the level of social security benefits available must all be taken into account.
Policies for the development and funding of care in homes must also take into account trends in hospital long-term care and policies affecting local authorities which provide long-term care, such as, for example, the community charge.
These few examples illustrate the need for a long-term inter-departmental strategic view of health policies for an ageing population. Planning for an effective health policy could involve not just the Department of Health, but also the Department of Social Security, the Department of Transport, the Department of the Environment and the Treasury, at the very least.
We know, too, that the older population perform more than their fair share of caring and voluntary help. The commitment and contribution of informal carers to community care is increasingly being recognised. It is estimated that the saving to central and local government made by informal carers is £24 billion a year. The Government stated in the White Paper Caring for People:
"Their [carers'] total input was greater than the combined inputs financed from central and local government".
A large proportion of carers are themselves older people. Already, in 1985, among carers who devoted at least 20 hours a week to caring, 43 per cent. were aged 46 to 64 and 26 per cent. were aged over 65. The fit "young elderly", particularly women, provide services as carers both for the very old, often their own parents, and for people in work, looking after children or grandchildren.
I have tried to outline some of the advantages of, and the need for, an inter-departmental approach. Many voluntary organisations which have written to me agree with the proposal. Age Concern has made several representations to government on the subject. I know that the all-party group for pensioners in another place also supports the idea. There already exist a small number of inter-departmental committees; for example, the ministerial group on women's issues. There are similar inter-departmental groupings in other administrations. In the United States, there are a number of committees, and the Netherlands has an inter-departmental ministerial group to discuss such issues.
It is an accepted fact that demographic changes will have an impact on all sections of society. Effective policies to meet that challenge must be based on a clear understanding of the implications for the economy as a whole. The formation of an inter-departmental ministerial committee, to consider the impact of ageing on society and the economy, would help develop a long-term strategic response to ageing. The pattern of change should be looked on as an opportunity and not simply as a problem.
7.17 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I should like to express my very strong support for the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in what he has said. That

277
remarkable and wise man, the late Lord Seebohm, first argued for a generic approach to social work in his 1968 report on local authority and allied personal social services. In 1988, while agreeing broadly with the Griffiths Report on community care, he contended that care in the community would lead to an increase, not a decrease, in costs and argued strongly, looking to the future, for more forward planning and joint funding in the fields of housing, education, health and welfare, both locally and at central government level. Only thus, it seems to me, can we turn a liability into an asset.
The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has told us that 25 per cent. of the population will be aged between 50 and 75 in the year 2000—only nine years off—and that by the year 2006, 48 per cent. of people of pensionable age v, ill be 75 or over and 13 per cent. will be 85 or over. That means that a lot of carers will be needed. It also means that a lot of people will be available in the earlier age groups to do more work.
The trend already appears to be for earlier retirement to be required by employers, often by 50 or 55, and for those who retire to go into part-time work, just as many married women graduate returners re-entering the labour market are taking job sharing appointments in the Civil Service or in teaching. Dame Anne Mueller once told me that job sharing is working extremely well in the Civil Service. It is absolutely essential that action should be taken early to turn all these part-timers, and those who retire generally into a positive asset for society, not a charge upon it beyond their proper due as pensioners. People will need 10 work and society will need them to do so.
One of the surest guarantees of good health and good heart, mental and moral, is to be needed and valued. The present well-meaning arrangement for those over 60—that is to say, sheltered housing in which they are turned in on themselves and are no longer part of an active community or even sometimes a family, where the whole intention seems to be simply to keep them alive and safe—is not what most of us would choose, nor would we flourish there. I should much prefer to see more housing designed to keep grandfathers, grandmothers and aunts as part of the family and the community, there to sustain the children and sometimes to help to free married women, help single parents and indeed to work on their own account. The babushka in Russia is the vital ingredient in Russian family life. I myself was brought up from the age of 11 by a grandmother and two great aunts and I flourished on it. A generation gap is an excellent thing for both parties. I should like to see many more children able to enjoy it.
I return to my argument. Retired men and women can also work for themselves. Modern technology has made work infinitely more accessible and flexible. The work can come to the worker nowadays. The late Professor Wroth, a valued friend and formerly Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oxford, once told me that he had been much put out to learn that two of the best members of his research group would be withdrawing temporarily because they each expected a baby. But then he realised that the
278
computer had changed the world. Both of them worked from home using modern technology, and both did, if anything, even better work than before because they were able, in thoroughly favourable circumstances, to combine meeting the needs of the child and the family with those of their work.
This pattern of part-time work at home could make an increasingly valuable contribution to the improvement of family life as well as to the needs of the country. If people over 50 are to do gainful work they must of course be employable. That will mean in many cases re-education and retraining. The Government have wisely abolished the earnings rule: now a strategy must be devised to match the special labour force to the needs and demands of the labour market. Thus a major potential employer, industry and the CBI must be closely involved in any planning, as must the trade unions.
How many permanent long-term jobs will there be? How many part-time, and where will they be in the country? What housing changes are needed? What are the implications for education both in schools and continuing education in the polytechnics and in retraining? What special part could the Open University play? Not least, can we afford not to have a co-ordinated strategy before we have to harmonise all this with what is planned in Europe, where the Council of Europe, I understand, recently agreed a policy for older people?
For all these reasons I strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, in urging that any interdepartmental body which the Government might contemplate setting up, as I hope they will, will include not only representatives of the Treasury, the DSS, the departments of housing, education and the environment and, above all, the DTI but also the private sector. It would be a fatal mistake and a terrible waste if all those departments addressed the issue separately, the more so because resources must necessarily be limited and should not be demand-led.
What are the country's chief aims for the 21st century? One of them must be to use our human resources wisely. That means for most of us to have the chance to be valued and needed for as long as possible in our lives. In concentrating as I have on the prospects for paid work outside the home in a formal structure, I do not forget the silent army of carers; namely, the mothers with young children, those who look after the frail, the sick, the disabled and the old, day in and day out, often without relief. My mother was one of those looking after the great aunts and she herself was partly blind. I know how unremitting that work is and how little of it is recognised and helped despite the best efforts of a series of governments. One of the worst features of that life is the absolute loneliness it often entails.
One of the tasks of that committee must also be to take a unified and, one hopes, a bipartisan approach to the whole question of care, since we are talking of strategy, in terms of housing, welfare and the needs of the family. That will save money in the end. It will also save lives.
7.25 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for introducing this discussion on the significance of an inquiry into our present demographic situation. He hinged his proposal on the position of the elderly and therefore I shall follow him along that line. Age specific death rates have declined: each successive cohort is less likely to die in infancy, childhood, adolescence, early adulthood and in middle and early old age. It has long been a commonplace of demographic history that this is not the result of the magic of medicine practised at the patient's bedside but has stemmed from the labours of dustmen and sanitary engineers and from improvements in the national diet.
Nevertheless marked social class inequalities in morbidity and mortality still exist. The latest estimates of life expectancy at birth for the United Kingdom are almost 72 years for men and nearly 78 for women, though these are significantly below those for many other countries. But in all countries most of the survivors from the early 70s onwards are women. The gloomy predictions about the burden imposed by the greying of the population have been overdone. Today the United Kingdom has 2.2 million people over 80. In 20 years' time their number will have increased by no more than ½ million. I here follow the convincing analysis of Professor Margot Jeffereys in the indispensable collection of essays under the title of Aspects of Ageing recently published by the department of social science at Bedford College.
She points out that there will be a shift from the young-old to old-old. In 1981 there were 11 individuals per 1,000 over the age of 85. In 10 years' time there will be 17 individuals over that age. Not everyone over the age of 85 needs looking after all the time. Many manage to look after themselves perfectly well. The so-called productive age group of 16 to 64 will not diminish significantly until the end of the century. Indeed the dependency burden, as it is sometimes called, in terms of the ratio of 16 to 64 year-olds to those under or over those ages will not alter significantly until the second decade of the next century.
The very concept of the dependency burden contains too many false quantities to be useful. Dependency no longer ceases at 16 and there has been a considerable decline, as a result of trade union pressure, in the once extensive employment of people aged 60 to 65. The dependency ratio does not allow for the increase in productivity and it assumes dependency among the retired. But it is the retired who sustain day-to-day life and emotional stability through caring for children, the sick, the disabled and many homes. "If this performance were costed", remarks Professor Jeffereys, "the assumption that the retirement pension is not earned but an unreciprocated gift from the employed to the non-employed, would be found untenable".
The demographic evidence points to the general view for new directions of social policy and departmental discussion. For example, let us have regard for the amount of care given today, as it has
280
been throughout this century, by the family. That institution looks after some 1.5 million people, mostly women. Let us remember that community care in this society means family care and family care means care by women.
I wholly accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that demographic analysis is a prerequisite for the shaping of social policy which is relevant to the solution or palliation of the problems with which it deals. I shall cite one example in the form of a newly published paper by Melanie Henwood of the King's Fund Institute. She has undertaken a demographic analysis of excess winter mortality. Deaths from hypothermia are the most extreme manifestation of the effects of cold, but they are relatively rare. Much more common are the extra deaths which occur during the winter months, typically from respiratory and bronchial conditions, and among the old from poor diet. Even during the relatively mild winters of recent years considerably more deaths occurred during the winter compared with the summer months. Indeed, between 1983 and 1990 the excess of winter over summer deaths in England averaged some 40,000.
The argument that it is natural and inevitable that more people of this order will die in winter than in summer simply cannot be sustained. Dr. Henwood examined the mortality experience in winter and summer months across a number of other countries over a nine-year period from 1976 to 1984, the last eight years for which data were available. She reached the following conclusions. In all the months she examined there were 26 when deaths were at least 20 per cent. above the monthly average. Of those 26 months, 17 occurred in Britain. In the other countries such an extreme excess was exceptional; Germany and Italy experienced one such month in nine years, while the United States, Switzerland and the Netherlands experienced it only twice.
This demonstrates in terms immediately relevant to social policy our incapacity to cope with extreme weather. It also demonstrates that our preparations for the extreme weather that we do experience are hopelessly inadequate in terms of building standards, heating and insulation in the home, diet and the like. That is one specific and tiny example of pointers to social policy that can come from demographic work.
My mind goes back to the great importance in a very large number of areas of our national life of the seminal report of the Royal Commission on Population of 1947. That report promoted research and it resulted in the permanent establishment of the Population Investigation Committee under the chairmanship of the late Professor David Glass. The report destroyed on a large scale myths relating to contraception, childbirth and the like and substituted knowledge for opinion in very important areas. That knowledge became the basis of new policies with which we are now so familiar and which have become so much a part of our normal national life that we have forgotten altogether about the work of the commission.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, that we need now an authoritative analysis which will deal with the demographic situation of women and will

281
look at the relation between demographic trends and what is happening in the labour market and all the circumstances to which the noble Baroness, Lady Park, drew attention. I do not think that anyone can regard the muddle, confusion and administrative waste of our present social policies without seeing the need for bringing them into relation with a new central theme. The most appropriate central theme for policies in those areas would be demographic. I do not care what kind of body is charged with this work. I should prefer another Royal Commission, but provided the work is done it does not matter whether it is done by a departmental committee or a working party. However, the work is now indispensable and I hope that the Minister will be persuaded of the value of the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, we have listened to three eloquent speeches from members of what I hope I can call, without offence, the "younger generation". I do not think that any of them have reached the allotted span and I am sure that they will not mind if some rather more decrepit or, at any rate, older Peers such as myself, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, and above all our senior prefect the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, as octogenarians and nonagenarians, look upon them as promising youngsters and offer our thoughts on the subject of elderly people.
The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, was kind enough to say that some old people, who have reached the age of 85, like myself, are capable of looking after after themselves.
Lord McGregor of Durris: I think that I said "many".
The Earl of Longford: I do not know what proportion "many" represents. I suppose, therefore, that many are not so capable. I would have to declare an interest if I claimed that I was one of those who could or who could not do so. At any rate, I can assure the no ole Lord that many people over the age of 85 spend most of their time looking after people of his age; indeed, a large part of their time is spent in that way.
I should like to look at the matter before us in rather wider perspective. The two books best known to me concerning old age are Cicero's De Senectute and Simone de Beauvoir's Old Age. Incidentally, both books arrive at totally opposite conclusions. Simone de Beauvoir sarcastically quotes Cicero's eulogy of old age as follows:
"'Old age,' said Cicero, 'is far from being deprived of good council, authority and wise maturity. On the contrary it has these qualities in the highest degree"'.
I am sure we can agree in this House that as Cicero was only 83 years old when he wrote those words, anyone who is a little older than that may feel that he is speaking for them. The qualities of "good council, authority and wise maturity" were held in the highest degree by Cicero. Simone de Beauvoir was very sarcastic about that. Cicero went on to say:
282
"That senile decay which is commonly called second childhood is not to be seen in all old men" —
and, presumably in old ladies—
"but only in those whose mind is naturally weak".
Simone de Beauvoir poured great scorn on all of that, pointing out that Cicero was talking about a small class and really arguing the case for the dominance of the Senate which, I suppose, in a loose way could be compared to our own Chamber of mature people. She went on to quote Cicero as saying:
"It is impossible for old age to be borne in extreme poverty".
She then proceeded to say that the lot of most old people was extremely hard and that it was quite ridiculous to say that as a group they were having a good time. Today, I find myself somewhere between the two views, although my feelings are somewhat closer to those of Simone de Beauvoir. She concluded that a total change of society was necessary if most old people were to have a bearable existence although I do not know how far she wanted to go in that direction.
A totally new approach is necessary to solve the problems of old age. That was implicit in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Stallard, but I should like to summarise my view briefly in my own words. I worked for Sir William Beveridge for three years when he was drawing up his plans for a social security system. Undoubtedly the well-being of the elderly was in the minds of William Beveridge and those who worked with him. However, since that time, Western countries have become so much richer that we cannot compare the provision now made for the elderly with that contemplated by Beveridge during the war. We have gone a long way but we must go much further in order to provide what I would call "social security". Yet, however generous the contribution to social security becomes, we are still left with the question of whether it will be enough. For example, Simone de Beauvoir said:
"Once we have understood what the state of the aged really is we cannot satisfy ourselves with calling for a more generous old age policy, higher pensions, decent housing and organised leisure. It is the whole system".
She means that the whole social system has to be reorganised. Therefore, I do not think that the approach indicated by my noble friend Lord Stallard —although that is not all that is in his mind—takes the matter far enough.
As a Member of this House I have made it a rule always to speak in any debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Stallard. I usually adopt an obsequious attitude. However, I am not so grovelling tonight as is usually the case. I believe that his approach is on the timid side. If we are to consider the future of the elderly, I can sum the matter up in one sentence. We must not think of the policy as being one of security for the old; we must think of it as being an opportunity for the old. That is a very difficult concept to put into effect because the elderly arc people of all different kinds. Some want to work and continue to do so for years, while people like myself are somewhat fanatical in the way they stick to some kind of activity which passes itself off as work. Other people want to

283
put their feet up when they retire from the Civil Service at the age of 60. So there are tremendous variations. A policy of opportunity for the elderly would require a great deal of imagination and a great deal of hard work.
I should like to take the matter further than my noble friend Lord Stallard. I view inter-departmental committees with little enthusiasm. I believe that they can do a good job. Let us take for example one particular area about which I have spoken recently. I refer to mental offenders. In that connection, I believe that you can co-ordinate the work of the Home Office and that of the Department of Health with beneficial results. Both have good ideas; at present, however they are at cross purposes. That is the kind of area in which an inter-departmental committee could produce great benefits.
However, the realisation of a completely new vision will not be achieved by inter-departmental committees. Such a committee will not produce a whole new philosophy. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, referred to the inquiry into population. That, incidentally, has always interested me. It was thought at one time that the population was disappearing; later, it was claimed that precisely the opposite was taking place. Those undertaking the inquiry therefore had a very interesting experience. Indeed, during the course of the inquiry one of the members of the committee, my friend Peggie Jay, gave birth to twins. That was indeed a memorable occasion. Nevertheless, the committee did a good job.
We had visions from the Robbins Committee, the Wolfenden Committee and from the Warnock Committee, though I add the latter with some hesitation and equivocation because I did not actually like its conclusions. However, no one will deny that it advanced the discussion on the whole subject. I do not believe that the matter should be left to officials; it would not get us very much further. It would tie up a few loose ends, but we must have something bolder. In my view there is no alternative except the kind of committee to which I and the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, have referred. Therefore, in a way, I agree with the noble Lord. The precise machinery involved does not matter. But the chairman of such a committee must be fully aware of the concept of a new world of opportunity for old people. Tremendous benefits could flow from the setting up of such a committee. Without such a bold lead nothing will happen.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I am happy to be able to join my noble friend Lord Stallard in the debate on his Unstarred Question and to be able to give him my support. When batting at number five one finds that the previous players have laid the foundations and one is free to roam in a way that would not be possible in the early stages of the debate. In any case, the previous speaker has given me a chance to raise tile question of whether interdepartmental committees, Royal Commissions or some other body are the best way to deal with the
284
matter. I do not know. I have known of departmental committees that have made recommendations. Some have been acted on and others have not. I have also known of Royal Commissions that have made recommendations, many of which have not been acted upon. I am not sure which machinery is better.
We should look at the issue seriously. Human beings are a resource. The demographic changes mean that people are living longer. We should therefore decide how society can make best use of that resource. We are talking about people who have lived for 70 or 75 years, although it is said that the first five years are not relevant. That 70 years' experience should be used. I am 77, and some people of my age are often merely waiting for the end. There are other people who can envisage a further 20 years of life, and they act accordingly. We have good examples here of the latter. My noble friends Lord Longford, Lord Houghton and Lord Jenkins are good examples. One of the reasons why they are as they are is that they have this place. A useful, stimulating occupation plays an important part in making use of the elderly, experienced people who are living longer than previously.
I should like a commission or an interdepartmental committee to study the whole question of how the community can make the best possible use of such people. I was pleased to hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. In the society in which I was brought up elderly people are the bosses. They are the people to whom we go for advice. I remember that on New Year's Day I had to go on my knees to my grandmother. She would lecture me. I had to promise that in the new year I would be better and do all kinds of things that I had not done the previous year and abstain from doing things that I should not have done. My grandmother died at the age of 98. I had a great aunt who lived to 105. I have an aunt in the United States at the moment who is in her 90s. I am certain that the fact that they lived in a family with children and grandchildren played a big part in their longevity. My grandmother was a matriarch and we all looked up to her. She ordered us around, decided what should be done and how the household should run.
I do not suggest that that can happen in society now. I merely give that as an example. We need to study how people of the age of my noble friends whom I have mentioned can be made maximum use of in society. All people, regardless of age, require food, clothing and shelter. We need to think about the income and housing policy which will enable them to have such things. They also need a great deal more. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government are thinking about those issues.
We must deal with the situation imaginatively. We cannot merely say, as many people say to me, "I do not know what we will do. So few people will be working to support a great many other people who cannot work". That is nonsense. People should be able to work for much longer. As I said, I am 77 and I still work. We should not say that people must stay in paid

285
work, and work from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., until they are 75. On the other hand, we should make it possible for them to work until they are 90 if they want to do so.
We shall not find a solution to the problem unless we sit down with a group of knowledgeable people to draw up a programme. The Government need a programme. Whether they accept an inter-departmental committee or some other body, I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government are willing to move in the direction that we suggest.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, this is not the environment that I should choose to discuss matters relating to the last 30 years of the lives of our citizens, because that is what we are talking about. Here vie are: the shrouds go on the television cameras; the lights go down; and the draughts that kill outside enter the Chamber. One feels the mausoleum is almost complete. We only want some gigantic doors to open beyond the Throne and someone to push this gigantic coffin into the furnace of history—because that is where it belongs if we cannot do better than this.
Much has already been said to show what a profoundly important subject my noble friend has raised. We all have an interest to declare. Every noble Lord speaking in the debate has to declare that he or she is an elderly member of society. Why of society? We are elderly members of all there is including the activities of life, enjoyment, happiness and the community. If we are becoming a little tired of old age, we ourselves are probably partly to blame. We have taken undue care, we have been temperate, thrifty, and we have denied ourselves. We have had a sense of public duty and trudged on in the hope that we shall get satisfaction out of life, as well as making a contribution to the well-being of society.
From time to time we hear conventional remarks. My own Member of Parliament, Sir Geoffrey Howe, recently announced that he would retire at the next election; he had reached the age of 64 and felt it was time to make way for a younger man. What rubbish! I have made way on two occasions for a younger man; both men are dead. Only Harold Wilson ever said that he would make way for an older man, which he did. That man is still alive.
The groove of ritualistic thinking and attitudes towards the advancing years of life is deplorable. We shall le retired for longer than we were at school or university. The phases of life change but they blend imperceptibly into each other. I should like to get rid of the word "pension". I should certainly get rid of any concept of the old age pension. My father was a cynical radical and he said, "The old age pension has created more old people than the Lord God Almighty". There is something in that.
We then went to retirement pensions. We receive them, even though we do not retire. Why retire? From what and to do what? We are probably leaving one vocation or career for another. I have had three careers and I have three pensions. Ridiculous! They are all intended to provide for my old age. They are annuities which ought to be blended into the progress
286
of life in a different way—reinvested, if you like. Pensions and retirement gratuities are only part of the economics and finances of employment intended to provide for certain stages in life for which pensions seem to be appropriate.
I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Pitt and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on opportunities for health, training and education. A wealth of talent and experience in this country could be converted into activities. We are drooling away in conventional grooves of thought about life and what life is about. I am old enough to remember the earlier concept of a working class life. People left school early or were forced out of school because the leaving age was probably as low as 13. It was put at that age so that people could become part-timers. They worked as long as they could with the shadow of the workhouse staring at them as they became older.
Now we have an entirely different society. My noble friend referred to avenues in Australia. I was talking to an Australian at a business management meeting the other night. As an Englishman he went out to Australia 23 years ago to go into insurance broking. When he gave up his appointment in an insurance corporation he founded a co-operative for other professional men in a similar position who could offer their services temporarily and who were willing to take on short-term assignments or to undertake certain projects. He said that the co-operative had a turnover of well over 3 million Australian dollars; they are all happy and they all share. There is a small full-time staff to carry out the mechanics of the business.
I have probably overlooked one or two other interests that I ought to declare. One is that I have been a vice-president of the pre-retirement or preparation for retirement association for many years. I am happy to say that the Government support the association to prepare people for what is coming. When one sees a person taking his hat off the peg, saying, "This is the last time I shall be going home because I retire tomorrow" one wonders what on earth he will do.
When Lord Woolton was Minister of Food during the war he gave evidence to a Civil Service training committee of which I was a member under the chairmanship of the late Ralph Assheton, Lord Clitheroe. He said, "In all these institutions where people have an expectation of life tenure, I would put them on short-term contracts at the age of 50. I would make sure that they had toes to stand on for the last 10 years of their careers". It is pathetic when so many references are made to retirement such as "I am only three years off retirement", or "I would retire next year if I could get promotion between now and then; it would add to my pension". This country cannot stand the prevalence of such thoughts among people who hope to see Britain into the future. We shall be left behind.
I hope that noble Lords who were not present at the recent debate on the economy will read the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield. I am sure he is right that attitudes in this country must change before we

287
are fit for the world in which we shall live. That change will take more than governments, reinvestment, interest rates, and so on, to achieve.

I am rather proud that, taking a leaf from the Unilever magazine of many years ago, I started the idea of a retirement fellowship in the Civil Service. It was a break from the concept of the Civil Service Benevolent Fund. It is now the most thriving fellowship of retired people from the public service in the country. The fellowship keeps people together. They hold conferences and seminars, pay visits, and deal with matters of interest. Those activities keep them alive, with a common interest in their earlier vocations. All that is of profound importance.
We shall have to do much for ourselves to make life better when certain stages of our lives have passed. There is no central place where problems of the latter 30 years of life can be studied. We want industry to examine them. Many occupations probably require rejuvenation as they are arduous or unpleasant. However, the cycle of employment—leaving employment and going to other employment—must offer areas in which people with previous experience, possibly not in the same line of country, would be useful.
In the past, the unions have stood in the way of much that could be done in this field. They were in favour of sticking to the earnings rule because someone who retired under the national insurance scheme could be competitive in the jobs market. He would be able to work at a cheaper rate than a younger worker given the fact that he had a little pension in his pocket. Such practices have hung about over the years for a long time.
We should try to get used to something less continuous than the normal working week and the normal set of hours. There is nothing wrong in principle with part-time employment. Who said man had to work so many hours a week in a particular job for so many years in his life before he was fit to take a rest or to try something else? We need to change our attitudes.
I am sure much more will be said on this subject before we have finished, and if I stay alive I shall join in. I am sure we are all much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for raising this matter. I appeal for another opportunity to consider these demographic trends. We need to undertake a demographic study to get the lie of the land. However, I shall conclude now as I have occupied as much time as I feel is justified.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I recall attending a party meeting which was due to come to an end while the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, who was also present, was speaking. The noble Lord sat down about one minute before the end of the meeting. I wished to say a few words but there was no time left. Therefore I simply rose and said that the only thing there was time for me to say was that I disagreed with every word he had said. I am sure the noble Lord will
288
recall the occasion. However, that is far from being the case this evening. I am not sure that I can go to the opposite extreme and say that I agree with every word that he said, but I am bound to say that, as is normal, the noble Lord's contribution was well worth listening to. I am sure all of us will give considerable thought to what he has said.
I too wish to thank my noble friend Lord Stallard for introducing this important subject. Before I commence my few remarks, I should say that at this time last night I was taking part in an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House. I said at col. 198 of Hansard:
"the Government did not intend the consequences of their own actions",
but this is par for the course. However, it was reported in Hansard that I stated:
"this is part of the crux".
That seemed to me to be such an inspired translation that I shall not try to alter it for the bound volume. I do not know whether the Government's reply to the debate this evening will be par for the course or part of the crux. However, whichever it is, I am sure we shall all await it with great interest.
My noble friend Lord Stallard gave a comprehensive introduction to the subject we are dealing with tonight. He made us aware of the nature of the problem, and at the end of his speech—this is not always the case with every speaker—he suggested the course of action that he thought we should take. I am sure most of us will agree that it is desirable that some kind of organisation, whether it be an interdepartmental committee or another institution, should obtain the demographic facts in a reliable and informed manner so that informed decisions may be taken in the future.
I once sat on a committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Strauss. He and I were Members of another place at the time. The committee was a joint parliamentary committee of both Houses. Members of the committee were drawn from both Houses. That kind of committee rarely occurs. That committee recommended, on an almost unanimous basis, the abolition of the pre-censorship which used to exist for plays in the theatre. The occasion when that was decided was rather remarkable as the Lord Great Chamberlain who exercised the censorship was so fed up with it that he recommended his own abolition. That fact probably led to the unanimous vote in favour of abolition. However, it occurs to me that a joint parliamentary committee drawn from both Houses could be a good vehicle for examining this matter. Senior members of the committee could be drawn from this House while less senior members could be drawn from another place. In that way a fresh examination could be made of the subject. I put that idea forward as a possibility.
In my more skittish moments I sometimes think it is a great pity that our local government arrangements do not provide for senates all over the country. Perhaps Labour's constitutional proposals should revive the alderperson and second chambers, with limited powers in all municipalities, counties and regions. I believe that that measure would provide the same kind of facility as exists in our own Chamber.

289
The House of Lords is the country's finest geriatric institution, as it provides a useful occupation for those who are too old to survive the rigours of the House of Commons. Above all, it provides the great essential which no other institution does—that is, the illusion, and sometimes even the actuality, of usefulness. That function is not often available to people of the age that some of us have already attained. That possibly counts, at least in part, for the longevity which is a fortunate characteristic of Members of this House. I had better not insist on that point as I might become self-congratulatory. I fear that is one of the less fortunate characteristics of this Chamber.
Inmates of this establishment do not live in it. It is available only to a small minority of the population. However, perhaps it can teach us that older people do not really want to retire or to be put on the shelf. They want to be translated into a sphere where they can be usefully and gainfully occupied within their declining range and according to their abilities. We have not approached that concept. The kind of committee I have in mind would take that larger view, as well as a democratic view, of what kind of lives people of declining years wish to live. Do people really look forward to retirement? In some cases they do. Those of us in this Chamber who live relatively pleasant lives are rather inclined to ignore the fact that perhaps the majority of jobs—I may be exaggerating—in an industrial society are unpleasant and are jobs that people are glad to get rid of.
When people retire they usually want to devote themselves to their hobbies. In many cases people's interests derive not from their jobs but from their hobbies. That is not the case with noble Lords, but we are the exceptions. Therefore in many cases people are glad to retire and devote themselves to their hobbies. However, if those hobbies could be conducted in association with other people rather than on a solitary basis that could be a good development.
An inter-departmental committee has been proposed. I agree with my noble friend who opened the debate that such a committee should take a strategic look at the level of pensions held by an increasing number of pensioners among the population. We should consider the level of income that those people receive. The committee should try to adopt a co-ordinated policy and approach and it should attempt to make the most of the contribution that older people can make to society as a valuable resource. The committee should also try to plan ahead for the support and care needs of those who remain dependent on benefits.
Our society is changing. Before long almost half of the population will be in the old age bracket—made up of a combination of young old and the old old. That means that we have to look again at our society. It means inevitably that those who are employed will have to contribute a more substantial part of their income to sustain that section of the population. If we make use of the resources of the old instead of putting them on the shelf they will also be able to contribute.
This has been a useful debate. The Government's reply will perhaps be part of the crux rather than par
290
for the course and we shall be left with the thought that some progress will be made as a result of what we have said here tonight.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, there has been an exceptional degree of unanimity both on the value of the debate tonight and in the content of the speeches. That may be because all those who have spoken so far have first-hand knowledge of what it is to be old. I notice that the two speakers who will follow me are comparative juveniles. Their contribution, therefore, may be of a quite different kind.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, although I would not put it as grandly. He said that he wanted a change in the whole system. I do not believe in changing whole systems. The changes rarely happen and to the extent that they do it is usually in a direction which is not desired. However, a change in attitude is undoubtedly the first requirement for achieving anything like the right solution to the problem.
I disagree to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins. We must stop talking about people who are beyond a certain age as if they were all alike. The old: there is no such thing. People below the age of 60 are as varied as they possibly could be. I say 60 because for some extraordinary reason women are supposed to be old at 60 and men at 65, although we go on and on in a way that our male counterparts do not. It always seems rather queer that we should be regarded as old earlier than they are when we are so much better at sustaining old age. It is the diversity of people in every age group which is important. That diversity continues from the cradle to the grave. Therefore, if we stopped talking about "the old" that would be a very good start.
I should like to have one more crack at that horrible expression "senior citizen". At a pinch I will accept being called an old women—there is a certain validity in that —but I am damned if I will be called a senior citizen, if noble Lords will forgive the unparliamentary language.
Having said that, there are two or three major points that I should like to make. Among people who are older there are a proportion who are in need of help. It may be financial help or physical help. That does not apply only to older people; some young people may be in need of far more help than any of us who are older require. We need to consider those who need help and what can best be done for them.
I should like to make two points about those who are genuinely in need of help. Will the Government get on with the proper organisation of community care? I shall not embark on a long speech on that subject. I have made all too many, all too fruitlessly, in your Lordships' House in the past. We know that 6 million people are providing informal care. With the demographic changes, there will be a need for more rather than less care and that will cost money. It is now accepted that good community care will not be cheaper than institutional care. It will be more

291
expensive. But it needs to be properly organised. The delay in implementing the plans for community care has been disastrous and deeply disappointing.
The second point concerns money. The question of finance for old people is a very complex one. At present 80 per cent. of the people over pensionable age are 80 per cent. dependent on their basic pension. If you are dependent for 80 per cent. of your income on your state pension you are very hard up indeed. A considerable proportion of those people have nothing but their state pension. Mercifully that percentage is falling all the time because of the increase in occupational pensions, but a great many of the people today who have something over and above the state pension have very little more than the state pension.
My party has put forward a proposal which I should like the Government to consider very seriously. It is probably too late for this Budget but the Government are always renewing social security regulations and this could form the basis of another one. The basic state pension should be exempt from taxation. That would mean that the people who have a little income in addition to the state pension would not have to pay tax on that very small amount above the state pension. There could be an adjustment higher up the scale in order for the measure to be neutral in terms of the cost to the Exchequer.
There are an increasing number of people who have a little more than the state pension but they are still in a very poor financial position. For that amount to be diminished by tax is very hard indeed. If that money were free of tax it would make a great deal of difference.
The financial position of old people who are in need and the need for care are two very important areas which should be considered. However, there are increasing numbers of people above retirement age who are not in need. Some of them will be very nicely off indeed. The people who will have the good fortune to inherit property in London, for example, from parents or maiden aunts and who already have accommodation elsewhere will be very nicely off indeed, especially if there are only one or two of them in the family and they receive the full value. Some of those people will want to go on working and some will not.
A very interesting study by the Institute of Personnel Management has shown the attitudes of people with such expectations towards retirement and the type of financial support that they want. That needs to be considered very carefully. On the one hand, as many speakers have said, as people get older they do not want to work full-time up to retirement and then suddenly stop and do nothing. Flexibility is the key to dealing with retirement and continuing employment.
It is clear from the Institute of Personnel Management survey that a very large number of people who know that they will be relatively financially secure, with occupational pensions on the one hand and inherited property on the other, want
292
the opportunity to move into part-time employment—perhaps two kinds of part-time employment or a mixture of part-time employment and voluntary work— and they may want to be able to carry on almost indefinitely.
I see that kind of pattern emerging in the future and it should be encouraged. We need these people. It is not just nice for them to have the opportunity to work. Particularly if they are people with skills, competences or knowledge, we need them. This country is short of people with competences, knowledge and skills. We want to keep them to produce the wealth of the country for as long as possible.
All the studies that have been carried out and everything that has been said tonight bring out the point that we must get rid of the rigidity that has characterised our approach towards the problems of retirement and old age in the past and recognise the infinite variety of people and people's needs. That is characterised, if it can be characterised, by one word: flexibility. There is a need for great flexibility in approach and flexibility of opportunity for people in that group.
Those are the points that I want to contribute to the debate. In dealing with the question of people moving into retirement age the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said that we want an inter-departmental committee to look into the matter. I come down very strongly indeed on the side of those who say that we need a total, thorough professional inquiry but not an interdepartmental committee. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor, with his Bedford College background, I with my LSE background and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, with his experience of working with Lord Beveridge, realise the tremendous difference between an inter-departmental committee and a commission or inquiry headed by someone such as Lord Beveridge, with people who are professionals or experts who spend their lives doing such studies and have the objectivity and diversity of knowledge which they can bring to bear on the problem.
I take this opportunity to say that I am deeply suspicious of the Green Papers that we receive in comparison with the papers that we used to get from Royal Commissions. On a Royal Commission people are nominated because of their professional reputations and their diverse knowledge and points of view. They have reputations to lose. They publish over their own names. They call people who are experts and they know whom to call. Those witnesses give verbal and written evidence over their own names and they too have reputations to lose. Therefore, one can obtain objective advice. With Green Papers we do not know who has written them or their qualifications. We know that they have been pulled out of the Civil Service. Inevitably the Civil Service is involved in the problems of day-to-day administration. I do not believe that people who are involved in the problems of day-to-day administration can be objective enough or professional enough to stand back and look at the problems involved in an issue of this kind. I beg your Lordships to consider a Royal Commission type of inquiry and not have an inter-departmental committee.
8.33 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I rise with some diffidence to speak in this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is quite correct. With the exception of the Minister, who has, one might say, arrived here by the fast track route, a quick reference to Dod reveals that I am the youngest participant in the debate by some years. I listened with very great interest to a group of people who I quite sincerely believe are my elders and betters.
The House will want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, for drawing its attention to what is perhaps the most serious problem in social policy that will face us over the next 20 years. The numbers involved are well known and have already been mentioned. We have a population which is ageing rapidly, with all that that means for health, social security and pensions, as well as for the relationship between the working and retired population.
It is natural to see the problem primarily in terms of economics, to over-simplify the problem by seeing the numbers in work being unable to support the retired population at a proper level of retirement income. That may be wrong. Although we know the numbers, none of us knows how the situation will develop. We have an inventive and resilient society. I should not be at all surprised to find that we can accommodate the problem without enormous difficulty. It has been pointed out that in the 20 years from 1961 to 1981 the population over 65 years increased by one third. We managed to accommodate that change without great difficulty. In the next 16 years the projected growth in the numbers over 65 is 8 per cent. and not one third.
There are a number of issues that we must examine in formulating policy. There is the possibility of having a decade of retirement instead of fixed retirement ages. That is an idea which has been floated as part of Labour Party policy. One may consider the deliberate recruitment of older people as the supply of younger people reduces or the implementation of different work patterns—a point that was brought out by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, and my noble friend Lord Pitt. We all agree that there is need for a proper strategic overview of the problem, perhaps with an inter-departmental initiative, as mentioned in my noble friend's Question, perhaps through some more direct departmental response or—the route that seems to find the most favour—the demographic inquiry mentioned by a number of noble Lords.
That is the broad sweep of policy. I make no apology for moving now from the long-term strategic problem to a most immediate and practical problem. In fact I told the Minister that I would raise this matter. It is a very simple question which has an immediate and practical relevance for many old people today. What is the Government's policy on cold weather payments? That is a highly relevant question this week, which is borne out by the alarming statistics that were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. We became used to the previous Prime Minister making her policy on the hoof without attempting to inform her Cabinet colleagues of it. It appears that the habit is catching. On Monday this
294
week, Mr. Nicholas Scott, the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, said in another place that the changes that had been made were only for that week and as from now the normal rules would apply. On Tuesday during Question Time the Prime Minister said:
"Given the continuation of severe weather since then, we shall once again be waiving the seven-day period".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/2/91; col. 728.]
That is welcome. However, will the Minister tell the House exactly what is the Government's policy on cold weather payments—or perhaps I should ask: what is the Government's policy today? Do we revert to the previous system once there is a thaw? What happens if we have only six days of cold weather instead of seven? I understand that a number of old people are not only very cold but are also certainly very confused at the moment.
Noble Lords may ask what this has to do with the Question on the Order Paper that we are discussing. I have introduced this deliberately as an exact example of the sort of problem that we shall increasingly face in the future as the number of old people rises. Will the Minister confirm that the only pensioners who are eligible for cold weather payments are those on income support with savings of less than £1,000? How many pensioners are eligible?
We are all aware that some pensioners have income problems. Fifty-eight per cent. of pensioners derive three-quarters of their income from social security benefits. We have a pension system, both public and private, which tends to mirror many of the inequalities in society, with tax reliefs that are carefully designed to ensure that the richest receive the most. It is interesting to speculate just how much we spend in total on pensions and how that sum is arrived at. There are the contributions to private pension schemes from both employer and employee and the tax reliefs on those contributions, the amount expended to provide the state pension, the cost of index-linking pensions in the public sector, the cost of the inducement to leave SERPS, and so on. If all those resources were put, together as a global figure and used to fund a pay-as-you-go pension on a fairly equal basis to all those of retirement age, the pension per head would be a very generous figure indeed.
However, as we know, our pension policy is skewed. A chairman of a public company retires with a pension of hundreds of thousands of pounds. Others are entirely reliant on the state pension and social security benefits. I refer to the self-employed. I have had a letter from my accountant only this week which advises me of the amount that I have to put into a pension plan before 5th April to ensure that my tax bill is kept to the very minimum.
The pension policy is skewed but it has considerable relevance to the matters that we are discussing. Time does not allow a full examination of the problem in depth. There are considerable implications with regard to health, social security, housing and transport policies. There is also the possibility of a backlash, which I believe is already occurring in America. The younger generation—

295
which for all of us is defined as everyone younger than we are—is reacting adversely and vigorously to ageism. It is beginning to refer to the burden that the aged place on the working generation, implying that older people should have looked after themselves by buying enough pension provision when they were working so that the present working generation would not have to pay so much in taxation to provide pensions.
Some interesting work indicates that there is such a backlash in America and in some European countries. Occasionally similar arguments have been put forward in this country. They tend to ignore the fact that for most of our pensioners there was no opportunity to build up substantial pension rights.
It is a very big subject and one to which we shall have to return many times in the future, with its implications for our social policy. We thank my noble friend Lord Stallard for giving us the chance to debate it this evening.
8.41 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that this is a very big subject. I join with the noble Lord in feeling some trepidation in speaking in this debate of veritable Nestors. My calculations seem to indicate that the ages of the noble Lord and myself added together only scarcely exceed that of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton.
This is a very important subject. The debate instituted by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has been a very useful contribution to the issue that an increasingly elderly population—which we have to accept there will be—might create problems or opportunities for both society and individuals.
I agree with virtually everyone who spoke that we should not see the more elderly as a burden on society. The contributions that this House makes to parliamentary life and parliamentary democracy are a proper example of the contributions that many people older than myself can make to society.
The noble Lord asked what departmental discussions have taken place about the demographic trend. He asked for a departmental committee to be set up to consider the problem. The noble Lord hoped to convince me of the need for that committee. I am glad that I received some support from the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who seemed to consider that a departmental committee was the wrong way forward. The noble Baroness and her noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, asked for a Royal Commission, or some similar body to consider the issue. I would be fairly cynical about the idea of a Royal Commission. It might look as though the matter was being shelved. I have a sneaking suspicion that all of us, even myself, might be dead before the Royal Commission reported.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, also suggested that a joint parliamentary committee, in particular drawing on the experience of this House, might be the
296
way forward. That is not a matter for me to answer. It must be a matter for the authorities in both Houses as to whether they wish to take on board such a parliamentary committee.
I return to the subject of an interdepartmental ministerial committee. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, will no doubt be aware that in 1989 three Members of another place, from all three parties—Andrew Bowden, George Foulkes and Archy Kirkwood—wrote to my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister suggesting the setting up of an interdepartmental committee on ageing. I quote an extract from my right honourable friend's reply in 1989 since it sums up well the Government's current position. My right honourable friend said:
"I am still not convinced that such a group would provide the best mechanism to ensure that the needs of the elderly are met … I remain … sceptical of the value of what is in effect a standing "co-ordination" committee—whether of Ministers or officials. Such committees … have to be serviced by a secretariat; that would create an extra layer of bureaucracy and more paperwork. In short, I suspect that such a committee would create far more work than would justify its existence".
Last year, the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, asked whether an inter-departmental ministerial committee should be set up to look at these aspects. I undertook to look again at the idea. Having considered the point, my ministerial colleagues and I still do not think that this will take the Government any further forward.
I stress what I stressed earlier—that we should not see the elderly as a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, also said that. I agree with my noble friend Lady Park that the elderly are an asset. We remain of the opinion that the needs of the elderly, which are common to people of all ages, cover the range of government activities. Consequently, official contacts are made daily between all departments. It is of course essential that Ministers and officials discuss specific issues that span departmental responsibilities. That happens on a number of issues affecting elderly people whenever it is sensible to do so. However, that does not necessarily mean that an inter-departmental ministerial committee would necessarily add anything.
I provide a couple of recent examples of inter-departmental consultation on policies which are designed to take account of growing numbers of elderly people.
Recently, the European Commission put forward a proposal for a decision on Community actions for the elderly, inlcuding a recommendation to designate 1993 as the European year of the elderly and solidarity between generations. The Commission has in view a three-year action programme aimed at helping to integrate elderly people into the economic and social life of the Community countries. Each member state will take action appropriate to its own circumstances, but will be assisted by an exchange of information at Community level.
The Government will be deciding this year on the activities and priorities that they wish to be included. This will inevitably involve interdepartmental contact and discussions between the Department of Health—which is taking the lead in this matter—the Department of Social Security (which I have the

297
honour to represent), and the Department of Employment, as well as others, where appropriate. We hope to work closely with Age Concern, which as many noble Lords know, plays a very active role in community affairs to make the action programme a success.
Another example of recent pan-departmental co-operation arises in the area of community care which, as everyone will agree, affects the elderly as much as any other group in society. The House will be aware that the Government remain fully committed to carrying through the plans for community care. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we are fully committed to carrying through those plans. I agree with the noble Baroness that now is not the time to discuss them in detail. However, I give her that assurance. Obviously, because of those plans, officials in both the Department of Social Security (which I represent), the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment have met to discuss the various issues involved and take forward the timetable of the introduction of various plans.
I now wish to deal with some of the more general issues raised during the debate. As was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, this is a wide subject and I do not intend to cover all the issues. However, it is right that I should deal with some of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me to state the Government's position on cold weather payments. On 7th February my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that payments would be increased from £5 to £6 for every period of cold weather occurring after 1st February 1991. He also announced that the whole of the United Kingdom would be deemed to have triggered the periods 1st to 7th February 1991 and 8th to 14th February 1991. Our primary concern has been to ensure that the most vulnerable groups in society keep their heating on during the cold spell which has hit the whole country. My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Social Security and Disabled People has also announced that he will continue to monitor the present cold spell and the operation of the scheme once the winter is over.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, then turned to the number of people who benefit from cold weather payments. He rightly said that the payments are available only to those who are in receipt of income support. It is worth noting the reduction in the number of pensioners in receipt of income support. Now barely one seventh of all pensioners are in receipt of income support compared with 12 years ago, when one fifth of all pensioners were in receipt of supplementary benefit. The position is that the payments are available to those pensioners now in receipt of income support and whose capital is less than £1,000. Last year that figure was raised from £500. It is estimated that 1.25 million pensioners are eligible for cold weather payments; that is 78 per cent. of the pensioner-income support caseload.
I wish to comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, about excess winter
298
morbidity. There has been a steady decrease in winter morbidity during the past 35 years. From 1951 to 1955 it was 68 per cent. but from 1986 to 1939 it was 24 per cent. Medically speaking the causes of the increase in morbidity—mortality—are extremely complex. In order to increase our understanding the Department of Health has asked the Medical Research Council to investigate winter morbidity. The project will look at seasonal variations in relation to a number of factors, including diet, smoking and so forth. The project began in January 1990 and will take two years. I do not necessarily accept the international comparisons put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor. One must remember the different climates in different countries. The mere fact that other countries are much colder need not necessarily lead them to have a higher morbidity rate in the winter, because the traditions of a colder climate can lead to their being better able to deal with such conditions.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, the countries were chosen in order to provide a grouping of winter and summer temperatures above and below our own. They were taken over a period of years long enough to smooth out variations of temperature from year to year.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord has not quite grasped the point that I was making. Our climate is different from that of many Continental countries. While their climate is more extreme, ours is milder and wetter. I was expressing cynicism about whether, however careful one is, one can obtain a true comparison between the figures. No doubt it is a matter for research, and the Department of Health is investigating morbidity in winter.
I turn to the subject of employment and the elderly raised by various noble Lords, in particular by my noble friend Lady Park. It is often referred to as ageism in employment. For some time Ministers in the Department of Employment have urged employers to abandon arbitrary age limits in recruitment. Only last month my noble friend Lord Ullswater launched the Institute of Personnel Management's new statement on age and employment. It is designed to help employers to avoid such arbitrary criteria. We believe that, in general, retirement ages must be agreed between employer and employee according to their individual needs, priorities and circumstances. Obviously the position of the Government as employer is important and we believe that we are setting a good example. In 1990 the last centrally imposed age limit on recruitment to service by grades was abolished.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the limits may have been abolished, but what has been the practical effect? From experience one knows only too well that such changes can be made, but internal forces leave the practices of yesteryear to continue for a long time. Has there been any evidence of recruiting older people and, if so, to what extent?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot answer the noble Baroness off the cuff from the Dispatch Box. It is a matter of attitude. The Government are hoping to set a good example and it is hoped that others will follow.

299
One also hopes that the publicity of a debate such as this, with contributions from the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, will have an effect on employers throughout the country.
We are all agreed that what is needed is a fundamental re-evaluation of the role of the elderly in our society. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has chaired meetings of the all-party group on ageing at which many important aspects of the topic were covered. I am pleased to say that he invited my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to attend a meeting. My right honourable friend discussed a number of issues with the group and he found its first annual report of great interest. The group has already considered the useful role of older people in the labour market of the 1990s when then and into the next century there will be fewer people available for work.
300
A key factor for the next century will be the extent to which employers are prepared to recognise the contribution which older workers can make to their firms and indirectly to the economy as a whole. Again, such an attitudinal response will pay dividends only if it is accompanied by positive, practical measure such as ensuring sufficiently flexible working conditions.
I hope that I have been able to show that the Government are fully aware of the role that they must play in bringing about this transformation. Indeed, we have sought to change institutions and policies in line with the needs and aspirations of those we serve. I suspect that the noble Lord and I might agree on the methods by which we may seek to do that, in that the noble Lord seeks a ministerial committee, and I hope that he will agree that we have the same long-term interests at heart.
House adjourned at one minute before nine o'clock.

  VIETNAM: AID
  VIETNAM: AID
  VIETNAM: QUANG NINH AND HAIPHONG PROJECTS
  VIETNAM: QUANG NINH AND HAIPHONG PROJECTS
  THE GULF WAR: CONTRIBUTIONS TO UK COSTS
  THE GULF WAR: CONTRIBUTIONS TO UK COSTS
  THE GULF WAR: CONTRIBUTIONS TO US COSTS
  THE GULF WAR: CONTRIBUTIONS TO US COSTS
  THE GULF WAR: EC CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING
  THE GULF WAR: EC CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING
  GULF CRISIS FINANCIAL CO-ORDINATION GROUP
  GULF CRISIS FINANCIAL CO-ORDINATION GROUP
  USSR: RESTRICTIONS ON NEWS AND BROADCASTING ORGANISATIONS
  USSR: RESTRICTIONS ON NEWS AND BROADCASTING ORGANISATIONS
  ERITREA: RELIEF SHIPPED THROUGH MASSAWA
  ERITREA: RELIEF SHIPPED THROUGH MASSAWA
  ERITREA: PEACE INITIATIVES
  ERITREA: PEACE INITIATIVES
  THORP NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING PLANT
  THORP NUCLEAR FUEL REPROCESSING PLANT
  PRISON POPULATION, 2nd JANUARY 1991
  PRISON POPULATION, 2nd JANUARY 1991
  PURCHASING POWER COMPARISONS
  PURCHASING POWER COMPARISONS
  SINGLE CURRENCIES: TRANSFER OF FUNDS
  SINGLE CURRENCIES: TRANSFER OF FUNDS
  FORESTRY COMMISSION WOODLAND: PUBLIC ACCESS AFTER SALE
  FORESTRY COMMISSION WOODLAND: PUBLIC ACCESS AFTER SALE
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND
  EUROPEAN SOCIAL FUND
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS: ADVICE ON DISCHARGE
  HOSPITAL PATIENTS: ADVICE ON DISCHARGE
  FOREST ESTABLISHMENT PROJECTS
  FOREST ESTABLISHMENT PROJECTS
  HOMELESSNESS: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  HOMELESSNESS: GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY BODIES
  US SERVICEMEN: COMMUNITY CHARGE GRANTS TO PARISHES
  US SERVICEMEN: COMMUNITY CHARGE GRANTS TO PARISHES