Sitting of 3 July 1991

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

  COMMERCIAL AND PRIVATE BANK BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time tomorrow.

  HIGHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (HARBOURS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Lords amendments agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRADE AND INDUSTRY

    Foreign-based Companies
    Mr. Burns: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the application of his policy on takeovers by foreign-based, state-owned companies.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Lilley): I restated the Government's policy towards mergers involving state-controlled companies, whether British or foreign, in a speech on competition policy on 12 June. I will continue to refer to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission acquisitions that I consider may lead to distortions in the market. Such distortions are most likely when an acquisition involves a large market share, a high degree of direct state control or evidence of past anti-competitive behaviour.
    Mr. Burns: Does my right hon. Friend think it right to allow foreign nationalised industries to buy up private British companies and then to use their privileged position and access to cheap capital unfairly to compete against British private companies?
    Mr. Lilley: I certainly receive representations from many people in British industry who feel exactly as my hon. Friend does. That is why I shall continue to take the degree of state ownership into account when considering whether referrals should be made to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. That is an important aspect of national interest and improving the competitive market.
    Ms. Mowlam: If the Secretary of State is prepared to make statements about takeovers of foreign-owned and state-owned companies, why is he unwilling to make a statement about ICI? It is no good the Secretary of State saying that it is a European Economic Community issue.
    300
    As I went to Brussels last week, I know that the Community would welcome a statement on the Secretary of State's view on that issue.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady appears to be unaware that there has been no bid. It would be absurd for a Secretary of State to make a statement on a hypothetical bid. Nothing could be more certain to ensure that a Secretary of State has no power to intervene, even in circumstances where, at its discretion, the European Community referred a merger back to the state. If he made a statement and was then ruled by the courts to have fettered his discretion in advance, he would be utterly powerless.

    Compact Discs
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his estimate of the rate of growth in the production of compact discs in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Edward Leigh): Production of compact discs in the United Kingdom rose from 1.1 million in 1985 to 78.5 million in 1990.
    Mr. Coombs: The whole House will wish to congratulate a manufacturing industry of this country which has increased its output to such a remarkable extent in only six years. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity also to congratulate the British manufacturers Nimbus and EMI on the excellence of their technology, and Chandos and Hyperion, not only on their excellent technology but on the fact that they have been pioneer recorders of British music?
    Mr. Leigh: I know that my hon. Friend speaks up effectively for industry and business in his constituency, and he is right to draw attention to the success and growth rate of the compact disc industry. Because the industry is so new, it is meaningless to talk in terms of 135 per cent. compound rate of growth from 1985 to the present day. However, if one bears in mind that between 1989 and 1990 growth was 20 per cent., that shows a very healthy industry.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The CD industry is not so new that it has not worked out how to price goods. Will the Minister examine the pricing structure within the industry, because CDs still cost an unacceptably high amount given the increased volume of manufacture? When he looks at that industry, will he have a word with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury who, I understand, has amassed a vast collection of CDs and is clearly trying to do for the price of CDs what Bunker Hunt did for silver?
    Mr. Leigh: The price of CDs in the United Kingdom—clearly the hon. Gentleman is an expert—is about £.10.99 or £11.99, which compares with about £12 in France, about £13 in Germany and about £12 in Japan. So it is not fair to say that there is overwhelming evidence that CDs are overpriced in this country. If there were evidence of a cartel, the Office of Fair Trading would be interested. It is conducting an informal inquiry into the music industry in general, but in the absence of any firm evidence of a cartel it would be inappropriate for the Department to intervene.

    Investment
    Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of(a)United States and(b)Japanese investment in the EC came to the United Kingdom in the latest available year.
    The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): It is estimated that the United Kingdom has 42 per cent. of United States investment in the European Community as at the end of 1990 and 39 per cent. of Japanese investment as at the end of March 1991.
    Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend will be aware that academic research shows that the tax regime of a country is more important for overseas investors than state handouts. Does not that prove that overseas investors have confidence in the continuation of the British tax regime under this Government and that they have greater confidence in the future of our economy than do Opposition Members?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I absolutely agree. The tax regime is important in encouraging inward investment. Last year's inward investment decisions, of which about 350 are known to my Department, will either guarantee the security of, or create, 60,000 jobs in all regions of the United Kingdom. We would be foolish to put that amount of job creation at risk.
    Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that although we greatly welcome inward investment from Japan and America, it is still important that we retain our centres of innovation and of research and development? Are not they the real levers for determining the future security and direction of the British economy?
    Mr. Sainsbury: Indeed, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that, perhaps as a result of the Government's encouragement of a tax regime for enterprise, industry's own funding of research and development grew by more than 50 per cent. in real terms between 1983 and 1989.
    Mr. John Carlisle: My hon. Friend will be well aware of the large American investment in my constituency town of Luton by General Motors. At a time when the car manufacturing industry is very much on its knees, as evidenced by Ford's slashing prices, will he look sympathetically at any request from GM for any assistance that might be available either through funding in this country or through funding from the European Community?
    Mr. Sainsbury: My hon. Friend will recognise that although demand for cars in this country is down, the car industry is doing outstandingly well in exports. All parts of the industry deserve congratulations on that achievement.

    Recession
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the recession in industry in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Lilley: Growth is set to resume in the second half of this year in response to lower inflation and an upturn in the world economy.
    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Secretary of State aware that since the present Prime Minister took office more than 500,000 people have been made unemployed, manufacturing jobs have been disappearing at a rate of 4,000 a week and nearly 16,000 businesses have collapsed? When will the Government stop making pathetic excuses and implement the obvious package of reform measures required to take this country out of recession, to boost skills, increase investment and reduce unemployment? How many more manufacturing jobs is the Secretary of State prepared to see lost before he stands up for British industry?
    Mr. Lilley: The Government are right to make the defeat of inflation their priority. We are succeeding in defeating inflation. It has fallen from almost 11 per cent. to 5·8 per cent. and it is heading to below 4 per cent. by the end of the year. Interest rates have come down too. That is the best way towards sustained non-inflationary growth. The Opposition have no policies and no strategy to deal with inflation, recession or unemployment.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although times have been difficult in the past few months and years, manufacturing industry in the north of England has combated those difficult times by becoming more aggressive and combative in export markets, and that there are now clear signs that we have reached the bottom of the recession and that confidence is being restored to businesses in the north? Does he agree that we shall see the interesting and, from my point of view as a northern Member, encouraging phenomenon of the end of the recession starting in the north of England and spreading to the south? Will he join me in condemning the Opposition who seem to glorify in wallowing in doom and gloom about industry throughout Britain?
    Mr. Lilley: That was very much the message that I received during my recent visits to Teesside, Tyneside and county Durham. It is greatly to the credit of industry in the north of England, especially in the north-east, that it has diversified so much, has attracted inward investment and is exporting strongly. That is encouraging for the future. Like my hon. Friend, many of those industries say that they expect to come out of the recession ahead of the rest of the economy.
    Mr. Beith: Why does the Secretary of State assume that a firm anti-inflation policy must be accompanied by rising unemployment? He should resist the blandishments of Labour and Conservative Members who believe in devaluation. He could maintain a strict interest rate policy and at the same time promote measures designed to ensure the repair of hospitals and schools, and the building of houses while there are so many people out of work.
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he believes that one can fight inflation while prematurely relaxing fiscal policy.
    Sir Hal Miller: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the performance of the motor industry which on the latest figures is exporting 49 per cent. of production with totally beneficial results for the balance of payments on manufactured goods, about which we hear so much from the Opposition? That trend is likely to improve further when American and Japanese investments come on stream.
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point about an exceedingly important industry which is doing very well. Its output in the past three months was up 6 per cent. on last year, and that has largely been achieved by an excellent record of substantially increasing exports.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: With every major national and international report saying that every region and every sector of industry faces yet another summer of redundancies, closures and bankruptcies, will the Secretary of State tell the House how many more thousands of people will become unemployed, how many more businesses will go under and how much industrial capacity, skill and strength will be destroyed before the Government cut interest rates and improve investment and employment opportunities in all parts of the country?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has played that recorded message endless times in the House. He has no positive policy to get out of a recession, to combat inflation or to solve unemployment. All the Opposition's policies would aggravate those problems. Increased public expenditure to the tune of £35 billion would aggravate inflation and a minimum wage would increase unemployment.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: Would not the surest way to prolong the recession be to relax the grip on inflation and allow prices and public spending to soar, which is what the Opposition advocate, thus making Britain chronically uncompetitive?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that is why industry and the CBI have endorsed our strategy. They recognise that we have our priorities right, and they and many forecasters are confident about growth in the second half of the year.

    Banking
    Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the high street banks to discuss business bankruptcies and banking policy.
    The Minister for Corporate Affairs (Mr. John Redwood): The Chancellor of the Exchequer has met with the chairmen of the leading banks recently. The Treasury is conducting an inquiry into the relationships between banks and businesses and the Department of Trade and Industry has assisted by organising through each regional office a meeting between banks and business men passing on full information from those meetings to the Treasury. We await the Chancellor's conclusions.
    Mr. McFall: In this David and Goliath struggle between small businesses and banks, what does the Secretary of State intend to do to redress the imbalance? How does he view the written contract proposal under which banks could not increase interest rates and charges without due notice? Businesses are collapsing at the rate of 1,000 a week. When, oh when, will the Government do something about small businesses?
    Mr. Redwood: I have seen the Forum of Private Business proposals, to which I believe the hon. Gentleman is referring. They have been passed to the banks for comment, and will be one of the matters on which the Chancellor may touch when he produces his conclusions.
    304
    [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The Chancellor will produce his conclusions as soon as he finishes his review. I am sure that hon. Members will want this to be a good review that takes into account all the evidence that the forum and others have passed to the Treasury. We all await the outcome of those findings with interest. The hon. Gentleman may also have noticed that the Forum of Private Business did not want to see the matter referred to the competition authorities because it thought that that would take too long.
    Sir Robert McCrindle: Irrespective of the lack of sensitivity with which banks have sometimes been prone to deal with their small business customers, does my hon. Friend agree that so far there has been no evidence of a cartel among the banks? Would it not have been on that basis, and that basis alone, that the Government could have been asked to intervene?
    Mr. Redwood: My hon. Friend is right in that, for the competition authorities to intervene, there would have to be evidence of cartel collusion or anti-competitive practices. That is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. He has not completed his review. He made a preliminary statement the other day, in which he said that at that date he did not have sufficient evidence to instigate an inquiry, but his preliminary inquiries are continuing. We have sent him other evidence and we await his findings, which will be made public in some form or other after the Chancellor has presented his conclusions.
    Mrs. Mahon: Given that the Machine Tools Technologies Association recently told a group of Labour Members of Parliament that the industry could be wiped out in the next six or nine months, is not the Minister worried that industry has so little confidence in his Department? The association went further and said that it lacked confidence that the DTI could do anything to help small and medium-sized businesses, and that it was easier to get an audience with the Pope or Gorbachev than with a Minister in his Department. Does not that reflect a complete lack of confidence in what the Government have done for the past 12 years?
    Mr. Redwood: Ministers in the DTI are ready and willing to meet business, and do so regularly. Many such meetings occur, day after day and week after week, with Ministers and officials in the Department because we are interested in and concerned about what the business community is saying, as we are its voice in Whitehall. As for the industry to which the hon. Lady refers, it has reported great success in exporting in recent months and in the past year. The DTI will do all that it can, with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade in the lead, to promote its exports abroad and to work closely with it. I recommend that its representatives get in touch with the Minister for Trade if they are concerned mainly about exports and orders. The Government want to see banks supporting all good, viable businesses and I am sure that banks will listen to that message.

    European Free Trade Association
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the progress of the talks between the members of the European Community and the European Free Trade Association.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Good progress has been made towards the creation of a European economic area in the talks between the Community and the European Free Trade Association.
    Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: By how much have British exports to the Community increased over the past 10 years? Can my hon. Friend give similar figures for our trade with EFTA?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I shall write to my hon. Friend with the details, but he will be aware that our exports to the Community have grown substantially, as have our exports to EFTA. Even in a difficult world trading environment, with a recession in EFTA countries such as Sweden, our exports this year are well ahead of those for last year by volume.
    Mr. Cohen: When will the Minister do something about the rotten COCOM agreement, which is contrary to free trade in Europe? Has he not had correspondence from me and OPT Optical Fibres in my constituency, which wants to export sub-standard fibres to the Soviet Union, but cannot because it is blocked by the agreement and the Government? That is affecting its business, and jobs are going to the wall. Has not the managing director written to the Minister to say that the DTI is letting down British industry in this respect? When will the Minister do something about this rotten agreement instead of living in the cold war?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Gentleman has, as on other occasions, introduced a subject that I find hard to relate to the negotiations between the EEC and EFTA. He will know that the COCOM arrangements are important for the security of our country. Therefore, I hope that he will have due regard to them.
    Mr. Donald Thompson: When my hon. Friend conducts these talks, will he refer to the seemingly endless stream of Chinese textile goods coming through Denmark to be dumped in this country, sometimes as cheap as 17p a pair?
    Mr. Sainsbury: The matter to which my hon. Friend refers is being considered, although it would not be directly affected by the negotiations which are the subject of the original question. However, bringing EFTA countries into a European economic area will improve trading opportunities for British industry throughout Europe.

    West Midlands Manufacturing Output
    Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output in the west midlands.
    Mr. Lilley: Manufacturing output in the west midlands, as elsewhere, will be helped by our policies of fostering a competitive environment, encouraging innovation, restoring incentives and, above all, defeating inflation.
    Mr. Robinson: Is the Secretary of State aware that every answer that we have heard from him today on manufacturing industry shows him to be totally out of touch with the difficult and deteriorating circumstances under which it must operate? Is not he aware that he is embarked no longer on the defeat of inflation but on the annihilation of British industry? Since the Government came to power, we in the west midlands have lost 33 per
    306
    cent. of our capacity and 32,000 jobs in manufacturing and, according to the CBI, 80 per cent. of the plants in the west midlands are working below capacity. In those circumstances, what does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do to dispel the clear impression of total incompetence and suspended inactivity on the part of his Department?
    Mr. Lilley: That is a bit of a cheek from someone who has played his distinguished part in undermining British industry. The fact is that in the west midlands, which is heavily dependent on the motor car industry, the motor car industry has increased production. In the past few months Rover's production has risen by 4 per cent. and Land-Rover's by 8 per cent. They are exporting a record proportion of their output. I recently visited firms in the west midlands, one of which was exporting 95 per cent. and capturing the world market in its areas. The future for the west midlands, which is a great source of entrepreneurship in Britain, is rosy so long as we pursue the policies that the Government advocate and do not return to policies of nationalisation, intervention and high taxation which the hon. Gentleman advocates.
    Mr. Roger King: My right hon. Friend is well known for his open mind in discussing and considering future aspects of policy. Has he heard one single policy from the Opposition which he thinks would help west midlands industry boost its productive capacity?
    Mr. Lilley: I must say, having considered the matter with an open mind, that I have not heard a single proposal that is in any way constructive. Indeed, to hide their intellectual vacuum, the Opposition simply retail bad news with relish.
    Mr. Henderson: With car sales down 25 per cent., truck sales down 40 per cent. and bus sales down 40 per cent., I do not know who the Secretary of State has been talking to when he visits the west midlands and the car industry. Does not he agree with Mr. Colin Hope, the president of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, that the British motor car industry has been seriously damaged by the recession and that it cannot operate sensibly in the boom or bust environment created by the Government?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman exemplifies exactly what I was referring to. He takes an industry which has increased its output and investment and tries to find statistics suggesting its decline. Longbridge in the west midlands has the most advanced manufacturing assembly line in the motor car industry in the world and the highest efficiency in Europe, yet he has nothing but ill to say of it.

    Funeral Services
    Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports on funeral services he has commissioned or received in the course of the last year.
    Mr. Leigh: I have commissioned no such reports. The Director General of Fair Trading published a report on funeral services in January 1989.
    Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that although there is some public concern about the pricing of funerals, there is much greater public concern about the threat to their provision in some Labour areas, such as Liverpool, where politically motivated men see the services of crematoria and cemeteries as fit for their political

    307
    activities? Is it not high time that my hon. Friend talked to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about ways of protecting people at what is, inevitably, a sad time, but which can become a harrowing time as a result of the withdrawal of those services by people who should be providing them for the public?
    Mr. Leigh: Suffice it to say that it is sad that a political climate where such threats can be made should be able to grow up anywhere. Funerals are an intensely personal and sad business for families; I shall therefore forbear to say any more, and will let the public be the judge.
    Mr. Foulkes: What is the Minister doing to encourage all funeral directors to join the National Association of Funeral Directors and to accept the association's code of practice, as do all Co-operative societies throughout the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Leigh: The association has issued a code of practice, in co-operation with the Director General of Fair Trading. That code of practice is now a year old.
    I have given the matter considerable thought. Al though the code requires funeral directors to publish the basic costs of funerals, I feel that it would help the public if the association insisted on itemising those costs. Families are in a uniquely vulnerable position at such times, and I shall approach the association on that ground.

    Inflation
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement about the impact of inflation on the competitiveness of British industry.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Inflation erodes competitiveness and destroys output and jobs.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that succinct reply. Will he also pay tribute, however, to ICI plc for having invested in research and development at a much higher level than the rate of inflation? Should not the company be warmly congratulated on that?
    Hostile approaches to the company might well affect its magnificent performance for many years. It employs some 54,000 people and makes a major contribution to our economy. Surely it should be seen as a national asset and its operations should be recognised as being in the national interest.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I know that my hon. Friend will agree that inflation is one of the most damaging influences on our research and development spending. The increased spending that I mentioned earlier is clearly a response not only to a lower tax regime, but to a lower inflation regime. A return to the taxation and inflation levels that characterised the last Labour Government would have a disastrous effect on British industry's research and development.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: If the Minister is so convinced that inflation damages the competitiveness of British industry, why on earth did the Government allow it to increase in the first place?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman doubts whether inflation is damaging. If so, I am very surprised. If, however, he agrees with me that it is
    308
    damaging, why does he support the policies of nationalisation, high spending, high taxation and high borrowing that are espoused by his party? They would make the present position much worse.
    Mr. Michael Brown: May I hark back to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)? Will my hon. Friend also note that, although inflation over the past three or four years has been higher than we would have wished, SCM Chemicals in my constituency has been extremely competitive? Moreover, it is owned by the Hanson group of companies.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I know that my hon. Friend strongly supports all industry in his constituency. My Department certainly welcomes good news from industry—which we do not hear very often from the doom and gloom experts in the Labour party.

    Regional Policy
    Mr. Ron Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the European Commission to discuss regional policy.
    Mr. Leigh: On 25 April.
    Mr. Brown: Obviously, I am not a fan of the European Commission. Will the Minister tell us, however, when RECHAR funds will be used to help Britain's mining communities? Will those funds provide direct and immediate relief, and will they be separate from any additional grants that may be available from either the EEC or the United Kingdom Government?
    Mr. Leigh: I assure the hon. Gentleman that additionality will apply. What that means, in plain English, is that the funds that we receive make a real difference—that public spending is higher than it would otherwise be.
    It is true that Commissioner Milian wants more transparency in the arrangements. On 25 April, we held a very helpful and constructive dialogue with him. Our officials are proceding on the basis of those discussions, and we hope to reach a final agreement soon.
    Mr. Ian Taylor: Has my hon. Friend noted that all the contributor nations to the European Community budget have said that they would not fund more substantial structural, and therefore regional, funds to other countries in the Community that might need them if there were too rapid a move to a single currency? Although we would not eliminate the possibility that in the long term a single currency might arise, does my hon. Friend agree that that would mean that any party in Britain that advocated increased structural funds would effectively be making an extra expenditure commitment? Therefore, is that not what the Labour party is doing?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon., Friend is tempting me into dangerous territory for a junior Minister when he talks of European monetary union and so on. Being a junior Minister is a little like being a lower order batsman—the wicket is a bit difficult so perhaps I should put a dead ball on this one. However, I cannot resist saying that we give £1,800 million a year in structural funds, we receive about £900 million back in grant and we receive £600 million a year rebate under Fontainebleau. Therefore, on a Europewide basis, we give to the structural funds some

    309
    £300 million a year. When Opposition Members talk in facile terms about moving quickly to a single currency, they should bear it in mind that we already give £300 million a year and that an immediate single currency would result in a substantial increase in what we contribute to structural funds.
    Mr. Pike: When the Minister meets representatives in Europe, how does he explain the fact that the Government have so neglected the manufacturing regions of Britain over the past 12 years that investment, jobs and output in the north-west are, in constant terms, 30 per cent. lower than in 1979?
    Mr. Leigh: I do not know by what extraordinary statistical device the hon. Gentleman reached that result. Over the three-year public expenditure survey round the Government are giving £567 million in regional selective assistance, for which I am responsible. To argue that the Government do not care about the regions when they are giving that much money—probably as much as they would be allowed to give by the Commission—is absurd. The Opposition have to answer the question whether their regional policies would be allowed by the Commission. They would not. Investment, output and productivity are all considerably higher than in 1979.

    Mergers
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what attention he pays to the degree of state control when deciding whether to refer mergers to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.
    Mr. Lilley: I restated the Government's policy towards mergers, as I said earlier, on 12 June.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that, in paying close attention to the degree of state ownership or state control of foreign companies or others making takeover bids, he is seen as exercising entirely proper concern for fair competition and the need to avoid nationalisation by the back door? Will he accept that the British people have no more liking for imported socialism than they have for the home-grown variety?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend puts it very well. Our privatisation programme has proved the superiority of competitive private enterprise over state monopoly ownership. That is why we encourage the private sector and are against the extension of the state sector, whether it be from home or abroad.
    Mr. Salmond: Given the recent announcement, is the Secretary of State prepared to reconsider the case for the referral of British Steel's activities to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Has he discussed such a possibility with the Secretary of State for Scotland? Given that and so many other important questions that need to be asked about the Secretary of State for Scotland's role in the steel industry closures in Scotland, is not it disgraceful that that right hon. Gentleman will not be attending the debate tomorrow because he is too fully occupied having strawberries and cream at Holyrood Palace?
    Mr. Lilley: That was a typically pathetic riposte at the end of the hon. Gentleman's question. The hon. Gentleman would debilitate Scottish industry if he got the chance by subjecting it largely to state ownership. The gist
    310
    of this question is that we should be protected from state ownership where we can. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that state ownership is the answer to all his problems.
    I make the decision about referrals to the MMC after taking advice from the Director General of Fair Trading. On the general well-being of British industry, when it refers to Scotland, I discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and we deal with those matters together.
    Mr. Conway: Will my right hon. Friend remind the House at what level such mergers must be referred to the European Community? Does not the low level that has been set show how much sovereignty has passed from the House to the continent?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is quite correct. We faced a dilemma. Under the treaty of Rome, the Community could intervene after we made monopoly and merger decisions. We therefore faced double jeopardy. We think that it is better for mergers of 5 becu or more to be handled by the Community and for those below that figure to be handled by national Governments. Logically, there is no need for Community interference, as a Europewide monopoly would be a monopoly in at least one member state. As we started from the position written into the treaty of Rome, the present arrangements are very much better than the double jeopardy arrangements and are a satisfactory second best.

    Local Businesses
    Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what schemes his Department has sponsored in the Truro and St. Austell area to aid local business.
    Mr. Leigh: Business in the Truro and St. Austell area can benefit from a wide range of Department of Trade and Industry schemes.
    Mr. Taylor: The Minister will know that I have frequently pressed for the reintroduction of assisted area status for Truro and St. Austell. Many jobs are being lost at both ends of the constituency because of the economic mess that the Government have got themselves into. They have repeatedly said that they will review the boundaries only after a general election. Given that economic mess, and as the Government have postponed the election, may we at least proceed with the review to offer some hope to local businesses?
    Mr. Leigh: Most objective observers recognise that it would be unwise to tamper with the assisted area map before the general election. Some areas could be included on the map and some could be removed from it, and perhaps the St. Austell area should be included. However, it would be unwise to make boundary changes before the general election.
    I recently visited the Indian Queens estate, which is close to St. Austell and is in an assisted area. Businesses on the estate are eligible for regional selective assistance and regional enterprise grants, and a raft of other Department of Trade and Industry schemes are available to the hon. Member's constituents. As the hon. Gentleman knows well from our correspondence on the point, I am discussing with the Department of the Environment

    311
    derelict land grant which would be of considerable benefit to his constituency. I assure him that I am doing everything in my power to help his constituents.
    Mr. Knapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that that typical supplementary question shows why Truro urgently needs a Conservative Member of Parliament? Is not it time that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) realised that free trade and level playing fields are the way to bring prosperity to Truro, St. Austell and everywhere else?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is quite right. Cornwall has led the world in free enterprise. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) is out of tune with his constituents, and I have no doubt that his Conservative opponent, Nick St. Aubyn, who is an excellent man, will be elected at the next election.

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on Britain's recent record in attracting inward investment from the Federal Republic of Germany.
    Mr. Leigh: According to figures just published by the German economics Ministry in Bonn, direct investment in the United Kingdom by German companies in 1990 amounted to £1·9 billion.
    Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that that welcome figure is further proof of the enormous attractiveness of the United Kingdom's business climate, which has been achieved as a result of Government policies? Is that a one-off figure or does it represent a growing trend of inward investment from the Federal Republic? Does he agree that that figure and the performance of this part of the economy would be ruined by the destructive policies of the Labour party?
    Mr. Leigh: Figures compiled since 1952 show that German companies have invested some £7·6 billion in this country. Remarkably, half that investment has been made in the past three years. In 1990, we received no less than 18·6 per cent. of all German foreign investment. If the doom and gloom merchants on the Opposition Benches are so right in saying that the economy is in a mess, why are we the No. 1 location for inward investment in the world and the favoured nation for German investors?
    Mr. Batiste: Is it not clear that German investment in Britain merely reflects a worldwide pattern and that similar trends can be seen in America and Japan? is not the Government's record of creating stable industrial relations and low taxation over the past 11 years the essential ingredient in ensuring that that pattern continues?
    Mr. Leigh: Yes, we are indeed the preferred location for inward investors from Japan and America, and that is a two-way process. Although about £7·8 billion has been invested in this country, we have invested £16·6 billion abroad, which shows the strength of our manufacturing base.
    Mr. Skinner: Is there not another side to the issue? In the past three or four months West Germany has run into balance of payments difficulties because of its takeover of East Germany. Under the system of economic and monetary union of which we are now a part because of the
    312
    Common Market, shall we not end up using British taxpayers' money to bail out the East German mess that the West Germans have taken over?
    Mr. Leigh: I cannot speak for the hon. Gentleman's colleagues, but I have no intention of doing that. I am sorry to disappoint him, but investment from Germany is running at a very good level. That may be disappointing news for the hon. Gentleman, but it is the truth.
    Mr. Favell: Could I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) whom I just failed to beat in the 1979 election? I remind my hon. Friend that in the 1975 manifesto issued by the pro-marketeers, those voting yes were assured that the threat of a movement of the Common Market towards an economic and monetary union had been removed and that that threat, according to the manifesto, would have restricted industrial growth and would have affected jobs. Is not it now clear that fixed exchange rates do exactly that, and it is as true now as it was in 1975?
    Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend knows my views on these matters. I have full confidence in the ability of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to negotiate successfully.

    Tendering
    Mr. Trimble: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has made representations recently to any other EC Governments concerning tendering for supplies to the public service of such Governments.
    Mr. Redwood: The Government are very keen to see compliance with all European directives by all member states. I have not made any representations recently, but the Department of Trade and Industry has a compliance unit which is very willing to help individuals and companies with compliance problems in any of the 12 member states. If the hon. Gentleman has a specific query, we shall of course take it up for him.
    Mr. Trimble: May I draw the Minister's attention to the Irish Republic's Local Authorities (Combined Purchasing) Act 1939 under which the Government of the Irish Republic can insist that all goods supplied to the public service must be manufactured in Ireland and to the notes for tenderers which require the country of origin to be correctly described and even insist that Northern Ireland must not be described as Ireland? Does he agree that that gives suppliers in the Irish Republic an unfair advantage? Would not an appropriate temporary counter measure be to exclude it from tendering for public service contracts in the United Kingdom until it complies?
    Mr. Redwood: Such a course of action would not be right and it would be illegal under the directive that sets out the clear obligations of this country and of all the other member states. If the hon. Gentleman believes that there are cases of discrimination in the Republic of Ireland against good offers by companies from other member states he should bring them to the Government's attention and we shall make any necessary representations on behalf of his constituents or of the companies involved.
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend know that British Reinforced Concrete in my constituency was closed down

    313
    last week because of a massive acquisition of its market share by a German company which also contributed to the closure of and loss of jobs in the Rugby Portland Cement subsidiary? Does he also know that there was a massive £75 million contract available to put security fencing around a Ministry of Defence establishment in Germany and that the Property Services Agency suggested that the British company came to see me because it was quite clear that there was no point in its attempting to get that contract because it had been going to a German company from the beginning? Will he examine that matter, and will the Government please do something to help British industry in that respect?
    Mr. Redwood: Of course I will look into that matter for my hon. Friend. If it is a contract governed by either the works or the supplies directive, the German authorities must comply with it. The Council of Ministers recently agreed compliance directives to enforce the works and supplies directives because of the concerns of my hon. Friend and others. The Government are determined that if it is fair that it is opened up here, it is fair that it is opened up there as well. That is why we have a compliance unit and that is why we will willingly take up any case about which hon. Members have good evidence to help us.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next expects to meet his European counterparts in the EC Industry Council to discuss support for manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Redwood: My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Technology will be attending the meeting of the Industry Council on 18 November. The agenda for this meeting has not yet been fixed.
    Mr. McMaster: Will the Minister explain to his European counterparts why, at this time of huge trade deficit, the Government provide less support to British exporters, especially in terms of export credits, than many other European countries provide for their exporters? Is he prepared to sit back, to watch that happening and to let our trading position get worse and worse, or will he do something to help British exporters?
    Mr. Redwood: As the hon. Gentleman should know, Britain's trade position has been improving over the past year. Exports have been rising and have been at record levels in many sectors in recent months. That is welcome. There is a comprehensive series of services to exporters from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Export Credits Guarantee Department. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade is active in promoting the interests of all our exporters.
    Mr. Forman: In all future meetings with his EC counterparts, will my hon. Friend the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State take steps to ensure that the things that deserve protection in Britain are protected? I am thinking of the valiant stance that has already been taken to safeguard the mile, the acre and the pint.
    Mr. Redwood: Willingly I pledge that. I assure the House that Ministers in the DTI are extremely keen to stand up for British interests in the EC and we do so regularly.
    Dr. Moonie: One subject that does not appear to have exercised the Minister's mind in his discussions with his European counterparts is the Scottish steel industry. Given that he has had the report of the Select Committee for several months, given that he has done nothing in that time and given his refusal to meet hon. Members whose constituencies are affected by the closures, will he tell the House how many lost jobs in the steel industry in Scotland are acceptable to him? What does the "Department of Enterprise" intend to do about it?
    Mr. Redwood: I do not like the loss of any jobs, but I want a competitive and vigorous industry, run by people who know what they are doing—the managers and directors of that business. There will be an opportunity to discuss that issue in the House later this week when I am sure that hon. Members will be able to put their points more clearly.
    Mr. Tim Smith: When my hon. Friend meets his counterparts in the Industry Council, will he make it clear that the support that the French Government have given to their nationalised industries is totally unacceptable? Is not it time that we had an EC directive on privatisation, requiring countries to denationalise companies that have no place in the public sector?
    Mr. Redwood: That is a delightful idea, but there might be a few difficulties in negotiating it with some of our partners. As to subsidies and state involvement in nationalised industries, and the pursuit of anti-competitive practices, of course the Government regularly take up those matters with the Commission. There is an active Commissioner in Brussels who is exercised about those concerns. Indeed, recent cases have raised the issue of French intervention and subsidy for industry. The French Government are finding that some of their practices are not legal under the treaty and are being asked to roll them back.

    Telecommunications
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate has been made of the United Kingdom's share of the European and world telecommunications markets and of the prospects until the end of the decade.
    Mr. Lilley: In 1989, the United Kingdom's share of the western European and world markets for telecommunications equipment was approximately 13 per cent. and 3 per cent. respectively. No specific projections are available for the rest of the decade, but United Kingdom exports have more than doubled over the past five years. That trend should continue.
    Mr. Hain: I am not surprised that the Secretary of State is unable to give any forecasts, because he has effectively given a blank cheque to American-dominated cable television companies to compete on the local loop of the telecommunications network, while denying British Telecom and other United Kingdom telecommunications operators equivalent access to the American network.

    315
    Why is he not insisting on reciprocity, or is he willing to perpetuate that discrimination and allow Britain to fall from the first to the second division of the world telecommunications market?
    Mr.Lilley: I have pressed the American authorities vigorously for complete liberalisation, to allow our companies to bring their skills and expertise to the benefit of the American telecommunications network. Meanwhile, I am not prepared to cut off our nose to spite our face by shutting the door on investment from overseas.
    The hon. Member may be referring to today's announcement by Sir Bryan Carsberg, which I fully support, that he seeks to ensure that new providers of local telephone services will not be impeded by the access deficit contribution, and that the terms of British Telecom's licence will be changed to enable new companies to come in and provide local services—with the extra competition, newer services and lower prices which that has always meant. We entirely reject the Labour party's policy of renationalisation.
    Mr. Wells: After that welcome announcement, can my right hon. Friend tell me how an increase in competition will result from what the Director General of Oftel has told us today?
    Mr. Lilley: Yes. Sir Bryan has said that he will seek a change in BT's licences so that he will have the right to waive the contribution that might otherwise be required from companies competing in the introduction of new telephone services, such as local calls, cable television services, PCN—personal communication network—services, and other mobile services. That will enable companies to build up in the early stages without the adverse effect that the charge might have had. When companies are fully established they will have to pay the charge and the contribution to the existing BT network. This will be widely welcomed by all those who value competition, who want to see choice and who welcome lower prices.

    Footwear and Textiles
    Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on Government assistance to the footwear and textile industries.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Companies in the footwear and textile industries are eligible for, and have received, assistance under a range of Government schemes.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister realise that his answer will give no comfort to those who run our textile and footwear industries, or to those who work in them? Is he aware of the huge job losses that have occurred in those two industries in the past six months, and that cities such as Leicester—and, indeed, the rest of the east midlands—have been badly hit by the recession? Is the Minister aware that many of those job losses are directly due to Government policies—high interest rates, and Government failure to provide the same kind of assistance as is provided by other Governments to their textile and footwear industries? When will the hon. Gentleman get off his hands and start doing something legitimate to protect the interests of those two vital British industries?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I am aware of the job losses to which the hon. Gentleman refers and those are, of course, always a matter for regret. The textile industry, like other industries, has been suffering from recession, but the hon. Gentleman will also be aware that some job losses are attributable to investment in the industry, which is increasing the productivity and competitiveness of the industry and, indeed, has contributed to a successful export record. Exports of textiles and clothing increased by 12 per cent. to £4·6 billion worth in 1990. The industry deserves congratulation on that performance.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) will take that hat off I shall call him.
    Mr. John Browne: Does my hon. Friend accept that the best assistance that he could give to the footwear and textile industry would be to ensure that customers, especially big notorious late paying customers, pay their bills on time? Rather than castigating the banks for not piling up more imprudent debt for British industry, would he not be better advised to call on companies to pay their bills to the footwear and textile industries more promptly?
    Mr. Sainsbury: I hope that all purchasers in British industry, whether large or small, follow good practice and pay their suppliers at least in accordance with the contract conditions.
    Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister tell us what representations he is making to the European Community to ensure that unfair subsidies such as those given to the textile industry in the Prato region of Italy are brought to an end? The problem has lasted for several years. The Government and the EC seem unwilling to tackle those unfair subsidies in other EC countries. The British textile industry is prepared to compete with any country on equal terms, but that is simply not happening. The situation is extremely unfair and is leading directly to job losses in cities such as Bradford, which I represent, where 14,000 jobs are still directly dependent on the textile industry.
    Mr. Sainsbury: I share the hon. Gentleman's view that the British textile industry is well able to compete on that celebrated level playing field. We energetically pursue any allegations of unfair trading practices through the European Community and we are happy to listen to and follow up any submissions from the industry on those grounds. We also hope that, as a result of a successful outcome of the Uruguay round, there will be stricter rules and disciplines in which the textile industry and, indeed, all industries will have to operate.

    Product Safety
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussion he has had with the National Consumer Council about product safety.
    Mr. Leigh: I have met the National Consumer Council and its representatives on several occasions to discuss a wide range of consumer affairs, but product safety has not been raised.
    Mr. Flynn: Is not it curious that some products that are meant to improve health destroy the health of thousands

    317
    of people? Will the Minister convey to the industry our concern at the deaths that occur every year—not only suicides but many accidental deaths among people who take drugs—especially paracetamol—that are inadequately labelled? The labels are often misleading and in microscopic print. Is that a matter which the Minister could take up, in the interests of saving many lives?
    Mr. Leigh: I know of the hon. Gentleman's concern. He did not say, however, that it is an offence to supply unsafe goods and that, after 1992, all members states will be required to apply high standards of safety. I am prepared to discuss the matter with consumer groups and I should add that we fund consumer groups to the tune of about £19 million a year and take their representations very seriously.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: No. I will take it later, after the statements.
    Mr. Winterton: I cannot do it after the statements.
    Mr. Speaker: That is bad luck, I am afraid.
    Mr. Winterton rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman sit down? He is a senior member of the Chairmen's Panel and he knows as well as any hon. Member that points of order are taken after statements. I ask him not to persist.
    Mr. Winterton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: There can be nothing further to it.
    Mr. Winterton rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman please to resume his seat.

Northern Ireland (Talks)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Brooke): The political talks which have been taking place at Parliament buildings, Stormont have been brought to a conclusion. I should like to take this opportunity to explain to the House the background to that decision, to describe what has been achieved during the talks and to set out the Government's hopes for the future.
Hon. Members will recall that my statement to the House on 26 March was accepted as a basis for political talks which would address, as part of the same process, relationships within Northern Ireland, including the relationship between any new institutions there and the Westminster Parliament; relationships among the people of the island of Ireland; and relationships between the two Governments. I announced that talks would take place in three strands corresponding to those three main sets of relationships. To allow an opportunity for the wider political dialogue which the four main constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland and the two Governments envisaged, the two Governments had agreed not to hold a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference between two pre-specified dates, subsequently confirmed as being 26 April and 16 July. This interval, allowing some time at each end for the Anglo-Irish secretariat to complete the business of servicing one conference meeting and to make preparations to service the next, provided 10 clear weeks for substantive political exchanges. The talks began on 30 April.
It became clear that it would not be possible to launch the other strands of the talks and thus to complete the process as a whole before the end of that interval, and that that was beginning to inhibit our ability to make further substantive progress. After consultation with the leaders of the political parties, I concluded that the talks should therefore be brought to an end. I have also been in touch with the Irish Government to recount my conclusion.
I should now like to take stock of what has been achieved during the talks and of the further prospects for securing constructive political development in relation to Northern Ireland. As the House knows, it did not prove possible to move as rapidly as we had hoped to plenary sessions of the first strand of the talks. A range of new procedural issues had to be resolved. A series of bilateral exchanges succeeded in determining the venues for meetings in the second strand of the talks, arrangements for chairing that strand of discussion, the identity of the chairman and the procedural guidelines which would be observed.
Plenary sessions started on 17 June. After my opening statement, the parties presented their initial position papers, after which the papers were discussed, examined and clarified. Subsequently, during a more intensive schedule of meetings, there was a debate on themes that had emerged from the initial presentations.
The commitment and seriousness of purpose shown by all the parties in these talks is a source of encouragement for the future. The plenary sessions provided the forum for some significant and constructive exchanges among the parties and with Her Majesty's Government on a range of fundamental issues. The nature of those exchanges served to confirm the judgment involved in initiating the talks process that the time is ripe for political talks in relation to
320
Northern Ireland that address all the relevant relationships; that the process is of value and has potentially even greater value; that a degree of common ground exists; and that there is a good prospect that a comprehensive political accommodation can be reached. I would like to express my appreciation of the commitment shown by all the participants.
To those who would say, "I told you so—it would never work," I offer the reality of the past few weeks. While I am naturally disappointed at this moment that the current process has to end, foundations have been laid for progress in the future which neither cynics nor the men of violence will be able to undermine.
For myself, I hope that it will prove possible in due course to have further exchanges with the parties, and with the Irish Government, to explore, initially on a bilateral basis, whether we can establish terms on which fresh discussions could be held.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: The whole House will have listened with regret to the statement that the Secretary of State felt that he had to make today. That regret will also be felt by the peoples of these islands and more particularly by the people in Northern Ireland. The only people who will get any sort of consolation from the Secretary of State's statement will be the paramilitaries and, as the Secretary said, the cynics.
I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for the great determination of purpose that he has shown in keeping the talks going in the face of what at times appeared to be insurmountable obstacles. I pay tribute also to the other participants in the talks who were prepared to re-examine cherished positions in order to get the talks going.
At this point the Secretary of State clearly feels that there is little prospect of further progress. Nevertheless, his statement errs on the side of optimism and offers some encouragement for the future. We in the Labour party endorse the Secretary of State's last paragraph.
Despite the optimistic note, the Secretary of State must feel intensely disappointed that, yet again, an opportunity has been lost to secure an internal political settlement in the Province that is acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland and to the British and Irish Governments. I make it clear on behalf of the Labour party that we have supported and will continue to support the three-strand approach to the talks whatever refinements may have to be made to that. Our view is that this represents the best possible avenue for a lasting and peaceful political settlement within the Province. There is an increasing desire and hope among the people of Northern Ireland, not least among many of those to whom I spoke this morning who were saddened by the fact that I was leaving Ireland to come here to hear the statement, that in the not-too-distant future the Northern Ireland politicians will again feel sufficiently confident and able to reach a settlement.
There are a number of specific questions that I should like to ask the Secretary of State. First, will Sir Ninian Stephen, who manfully agreed to chair the second strand, now be stood down or will he be put on hold for a period of time? Secondly, will the Secretary of State give the House an indication of the positive achievements to come out of the talks so far?
Thirdly, what change in circumstances will lead the right hon. Gentleman to reconvene the talks? Fourthly, will he assure the House that the two Governments will

321
maintain the highest possible co-operation in security and other areas in which the two parts of the island of Ireland have a mutual interest and common approach, and that the Anglo-Irish Agreement must still remain the basis of the relationship between the two parts of Ireland, this island and the island of Ireland?
Mr. Brooke: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks and for his remarks about myself and about those colleagues from other parties who participated in the talks and who, as I said when we concluded the talks at Stormont this morning, showed great courage in coming to the talks. The hon. Gentleman referred to the paramilitaries. Throughout the talks, the commitment of all those taking part to carrying forward the talks was noticeable, despite the actions of the paramilitaries.
Although I understand why the hon. Gentleman refers to an opportunity lost, in the time that we eventually had it would not have been possible to do the job with the thoroughness with which everyone would wish to see it done. As I have said, I hope that foundations have been laid for the future.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the three strands. The concept of conducting the talks in three strands has been wholly sustained by the frequency with which, even in the first strand of talks, colleagues wished to raise matters that belonged in the other two.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, Sir Ninian Stephen has, of course, been informed of the course of events. There is no immediate role for him to play in the circumstances that have developed. However, if we were able to make use of his services in the future at some stage, I hope that he would be as willing then to undertake them as he has been so far.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about the achievements of the talks. I have no hesitation in saying that, although exchanges were robust at times, there were also moments when the participants received encouragement from each other's contributions and the manner in which they were made. That was a positive development in terms of looking forward. I do not regard it as appropriate to go into the detail of what was said, not least because it is important to leave the field clear in the hope that these matters might be picked up again in the future. However, I am sure that all the participants would agree that they found good things to take away from some of the discussions.
On the question about reconvening the talks, I have said that I hope that it might be possible for fresh talks to take place, but whether they do so will be a matter for the parties themselves. Of course, I endorse what the hon. Gentleman said about security co-operation.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the Secretary of State aware that even in the last few critical days he has retained the confidence and respect of all who participated in the talks? Does he agree that his efforts have greatly enlarged the capacity of the party leaders in Northern Ireland to get together, as they have many times in the past to deal especially with economic and social issues, and that they have got together and co-operated in a way that could not be matched by other party leaders in the House?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks and accept them on behalf of my
322
hon. Friend the Minister of State who also took part in chairing the meetings. I am also grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about enlarging the capacity of the parties and the party leaders in Northern Ireland to get together and agree that our mutual and collective experience has enlarged that possibility.
Rev. Ian Paisley: As the right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that, in his opinion, the talks have been helpful and a degree of progress has been made, and as he has implied that if they had continued a greater degree of progress could probably have been made, will he now tell the people of Northern Ireland why, when we were making that progress, the date of 16 July suddenly became sacrosanct?
Also, why was the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to give us injury time? In any other game injury time would have been given. If he is suggesting that he can hold successful talks again by trying to suck the Unionist leaders into compliance with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, or build on a foundation that can be sabotaged, as the foundation of these talks was sabotaged by Dublin, the Unionist leaders can have no part in that.
Mr. Brooke: I understand the emotion that underlies the hon. Gentleman's question, but it would be wrong to say that 16 July was suddenly injected into the process as a firm date. The two Governments agreed earlier this year that, to enable the talks to take place, the conference would not meet between two pre-specified dates. Those dates were subsequently specified as 26 April and 16 July, leaving a clear 10 weeks for the talks. The two Governments' commitment to hold a conference on 16 July has been in the public domain since the last conference on 26 April. Therefore, the conference on 16 July is very much part of the agreed framework for the talks, which was settled before the 10-week period began and was clearly stated in my statement of 26 March.
As for what the hon. Gentleman said about injury time —I understand the nature of that question—I do not think that any of us, in the long period in which we were constructing the statement of 26 March, could have identified all the contingencies that could conceivably have arisen during that period. The hon. Gentleman implied that I was seeking to suck the Unionist leaders into a predicament. He knows, from all the contacts that we have had in the past two years, that I respect the Unionist leaders far too much to imagine that they would be misled in any way by me or would do anything other than what was governed by the principles of their party and the Province.
Mr. John Hume: May I, too, express my deep appreciation of the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and their staff for the intense efforts that they have put into these talks. The Social Democratic and Labour party very much regret that the talks have come to an end, but we recognised the inevitability of that once it became clear that certain parties could not proceed in the talks after 9 July. Once that date was set, it was obvious that the process could not be completed and that strand 2, involving the Irish Government, could not even begin. We also regret that the other parties could not accept our proposition for breaking that deadlock, which was that once we accepted one gap in Anglo-Irish Conferences between 25 April and 16 July, we should have another betweeen 16 July and some date in September or October

323
to allow us to continue. I see no change in principle in that. Regrettably, for their own reasons, the other parties could not accept that proposal.
We welcome the exchanges that took place. Many of them were very valuable and differed greatly from exchanges that have taken place in the past. We hope that they can be built on in the future. However, the whole experience has underlined our consistent view that such talks should take place without preconditions of any description because, ultimately, preconditions hang people on hooks.
In the meantime, as the talks have broken down, we must face certain realities. The absence of agreement emphasises the need for both Governments to intensify their co-operation so that there are no vacuums. We wish to express our appreciation to both Governments for all the steps that they have taken to make the talks possible and we hope that they will continue to work together in the same spirit.
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon Gentleman for his remarks about me and about my hon. Friend the Minister of State. In exactly the same way as the two Governments have held to the rules set out in the statement of 26 March, it is also wholly appropriate that any other participant in the talks should honour and subscribe to those rules. If we are to regard those rules as sacrosanct in the process—it is good that they should be—I wholly understand why any party would want to be governed by them.
During the time when we have been engaged in the talks, all who have taken part agree that it has been a sufficiently supple process to enable us to make the progress that we have. I cannot prejudge what people would say if we explored the idea of resuming talks hereafter.
The hon. Gentleman referred to conducting talks without preconditions. The greater the flexibility, the better—but we shall have to deal with that issue when we come to talk to the parties.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his patient and worthy efforts have been much appreciated in all parts of the House? Does he agree that for the immediate future it is best to avoid recrimination and to keep his door open to any possibility of building on this undoubted achievement? Last but not least, will he confirm that the status quo continues and that that status quo includes the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the talks. I wholly agree that the most likely basis for progress will lie in avoiding recrimination and rancour at this stage. My door will be open; and my hon. Friend was correct about the status quo.
Sir David Steel: It must be rare for a Minister of the Crown to come to the Dispatch Box and report a relative failure—at any rate, a relative lack of positive progress—and yet be met with such universal sympathy, because we all recognise his considerable efforts in these endeavours over the past few months. The leader of the Alliance party in the Province told me this afternoon that the talks had had some of the' positive and encouraging features that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined to the House.
As one who watched the proceedings from this side of the Irish sea, may I tell the right hon. Gentleman that the
324
people of Northern Ireland must feel a deep sense of frustration? But they will have the same opportunity as the rest of us some time during the next 12 months to elect representatives to Westminster, and in so doing they will be well advised to look to those who put the urgent quest for peace and prosperity in the Province above the time-wasting and procedural trivia pursued by some.
Mr. Brooke: I very much appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said about the manner in which the talks were conducted and I thank him for the sympathy that he offered. All who have participated in the talks have been struck and impressed by the interest in them and by the good will shown by people in the Province towards the talks.
It would not surprise me if, after this conclusion to the process, there was continuing pressure from the people of Northern Ireland to see that the talks are carried forward. But it would be quite wrong to suggest that the politicians of Northern Ireland have failed the Province thus far. 'We have been somewhat frustrated by circumstances, but I regard the fact that everyone is encouraged by the progress that we have made as a good omen.
Mr. James Kilfedder: May I urge the Ulster people to look to the future with optimism and not to dwell on the past? I agree with the Secretary of State that the talks provide a reasonable basis for future progress in Northern Ireland. Will he, as one who has shown great perseverance, continue with his efforts to bring about a political rapprochement in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Brooke: I am particularly touched by the hon. Gentleman's remarks. He was present when I made my speech in Bangor on 9 January last year. I know that he feels that I have perhaps not kept him quite as fully informed in the ensuing 18 months as I should have done. I am touched by what the hon. Gentleman said and I totally concur with his optimism.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State, as ever, has persevered and I join in the congratulations. The bald fact is that the talks have concluded and, to use the expression of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), they have broken down. To aid those of us watching from this side of the water, will I he Secretary of State tell us about the stumbling blocks that he will have to overcome before there can be fresh talks, rather than a continuation of talks?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he phrased his question, because it enables me to clarify a matter.
I do not think that anybody who engaged in the talks would say that they had broken down. The talks were constructed to take place within a specific time. However, we spent much time on procedural matters relating to strands beyond the first one and that left us with inadequate time to address the matter of substance. The talks ended because we ran out of time, rather than because of frustration amongst the parties.
Sir David Mitchell: Is it not significant that each of the party leaders involved in the talks has today praised the role of the Secretary of State in helping to make them possible and in measuring their

325
achievements? Has the way in which the talks ended left it possible for a further initiative to be taken later this year to see whether further progress can be made?
Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope that what I said earlier makes it clear that any praise about the conduct of the talks applies to all those who participated. My hon. Friend asked whether fresh talks would be possible. It is sensible to wait a few weeks before taking any steps in that direction, but, of course, I shall listen closely for any rustling in the undergrowth.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that there is a statement on Yugoslavia after this one, and there is considerable pressure on the two debates that will follow. I shall take two more questions from each side. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I have to balance the time that I can allow for this statement against other business of the House. [Interruption.] Order. I hope that Ulster Members will understand when I say that, as I have called the leaders of the Northern Ireland parties, I propose to give an opportunity to other Members of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to ask questions.
Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that the good will expressed to him personally does not alter the fact that his announcement is another setback in a long series of attempts to bring peace to Ireland? There has been partition, Stormont, direct rule, power sharing, internment without trial, strip searching, plastic bullets, the Diplock courts, and the Anglo-Irish Agreement, none of which has brought the peace that we were told each one of them would bring. There are 12,000 British troops, 8,000 members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and 12,000 armed policemen in Northern Ireland. We are engaged in a civil war in Ireland. We are about to hear a statement on Yugoslavia. It is time that we learned the lesson that the rest of the world knows, which is that the problem in Northern Ireland is a British one and not an Irish problem in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman recited a litany of past events. In the context of developments in the Province I do not take the right hon. Gentleman's apocalyptic view. Those of us who took part in the talks did not make extravagant claims about what would happen in the context of peace. We were not engaged in a peace conference. The difference between the talks in which we have been engaged and some of the past events about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke is that the parties in Northern Ireland that participated in those talks will, I hope, have been sufficiently encouraged by the course of events to contemplate carrying matters forward at some future stage. I do not regard the conclusion of the talks as a setback in the way that the right hon. Gentleman did. In passing, may I say that he exaggerated the size of the security forces?
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: While I commiserate with my right hon. Friend on what one hopes is a suspension rather than the ending of these talks, may I ask him to confirm that no blame should be imputed to any of the political parties in Northern Ireland? After all, what other country grants to its neighbour the right to meddle
326
in its domestic affairs? Is it not the case that it was within the power of the Irish Republic to lift the obstacles to the continuation of the talks—the 16 July meeting? Why did it not do so?
Mr. Brooke: I certainly concur with what my hon. Friend said about no blame attaching to any of those who participated in the talks. As to the conference on 16 July, that was a clear fixture, which was established in the minds of everybody taking part in the talks, not only when I announced them on 26 March but when I specified the date on 26 April.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Does the Secretary of State accept that if further talks on the future of Northern Ireland are to have any chance of success, it would be better to state honestly at the outset the ultimate objective and the means of achieving it? As the choice is basically between two mutually exclusive objectives—the preservation of the unity of the United Kingdom and the restoration of the unity of Ireland—should not the means of deciding and determining the achievements of the objective be the democratic consent of the people of 32 counties rather than of six counties?
Mr. Brooke: The objective with which all those taking part in the talks were concerned was to address a series of relationships specified in my statement on 26 March. It has consistently been the view of the Government that we need to find workable and durable arrangements and, in particular, ones capable of enjoying widespread support. I have the advantage over the hon. Gentleman in having heard the exchanges among the parties, and I continue to be impressed by them, in that each of the two traditions understood the position of the other.
Mr. Michael Latham: If these talks were so robust and constructive, and made as much progress as my right hon. Friend encouragingly stated, can he explain to the House, because some of us are feeling exasperated as we listen, why the politicians locally just cannot go on talking?
Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend will recall that, when we set out the basis for the talks in my statement of 26 March, we set out the ground rules that had been hammered out among all the parties over a considerable time and which all of them were able to endorse and sustain. I hope that if I approach the parties a little later this year about the possibility of entering talks again, of starting fresh talks, I shall receive the same warm welcome as on the previous occasion. We shall need to renegotiate the basis on which we do so. All those who have taken part in the talks so far think that we may wish to vary some of the elements of procedure.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. 1 remind the House that next Thursday we shall have Northern Ireland questions, and that there may be a further opportunity on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which we shall debate before the recess, for this matter to be raised again.
Statement—Mr. Secretary Hurd.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member was here when I had my altercation with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I shall take points of order later.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Please sit down.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order after the statements. I will not take them now.

Yugoslavia
4.4 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a short statement about the position in Yugoslavia, which remains dangerous. It seemed that this morning events in Slovenia and Croatia were escalating out of control, and the army is no longer under the effective control of the political authorities.
A large number of armoured vehicles left Belgrade early this morning, moving towards Croatia and Slovenia. There can be little doubt that the Yugoslav army, or at least some of its senior commanders, are intent on further military action against Slovenia. This action disregards international opinion and overturns the ceasefire agreement negotiated over the weekend by the two EC troika missions, and it undermines the efforts of the federal authorities themselves.
Yesterday afternoon, the newly appointed President of Yugoslavia, Mr. Mesic, proposed a five-point plan, consisting of an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of the forces on both sides to barracks, the release of prisoners, the establishment of conditions for a long-term ceasefire and the involvement of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe observers. That was accepted by the Slovene authorities.
Since earlier this morning, there has been intense further diplomatic activity to prevent further bloodshed. I have several times today spoken to the German Foreign Minister, who attempted to mediate yesterday, and I have also spoken to the Dutch Foreign Minister who holds the presidency of the EC. I have spoken to the President of Yugoslavia, President Mesic in Zagreb, and the Foreign Minister of Slovenia in Ljubljana, who urged me to mobilise all possible diplomatic pressure to prevent a further military movement against Croatia and Slovenia.
I then telephoned the Yugoslav Foreign Minister, Mr. Loncar, and told him that the use of force would bring disaster on Yugoslavia. He told me that he and the Yugloslav Prime Minister, Mr. Markovic, who are still in Belgrade, were trying to negotiate with the army and the Slovenian authorities to breathe new life into the five-point plan agreed yesterday. I have sent a message to the Yugoslav Defence Minister, calling on the armed forces to exercise restraint. We are in direct touch with the Americans, French and others, including about the possibility of an early meeting of the Security Council. Senior officials of the CSCE are meeting in Prague today to consider further steps, in particular the arrangements which would be needed to underpin a ceasefire and military disengagement, as soon as the situation on the ground permits this.
To sum up, Yugoslavia's problems cannot be resolved by force, and further military action will lead inevitably to widespread bloodshed. The army cannot hold Yugoslavia together in this way. Indeed, it has accelerated its disintegration. The old system is in an advanced state of decay and cannot survive. It may no longer be possible to hold the whole country together, though it is equally hard to see how the dismemberment of Yugoslavia could be brought about by peaceful means. In the end, the peoples of Yugoslavia, not outside powers, will decide on their relationship with one another, but certainly the necessary discussion on the country's future cannot resume until he

329
military return to their barracks and place themselves once again under full civilian control, as in all democratic countries. I appeal to them to desist from a military adventure which is bound in the end to be disastrous.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and welcome the actions that he has been taking to try to help to resolve this serious crisis.
The Opposition welcome the action being taken to ensure the safe departure of United Kingdom holidaymakers and other nationals from Yugoslavia and we ask if the House could be kept informed on those actions.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any solution to the crisis and any long-term solution for the aspirations of the peoples and nationalities of Yugoslavia should be based on negotiation and consent and not on unilateral action on anyone's part? There can be no justification for the Yugoslav army to take action unless in response to a clear and immediate military threat, which plainly does not exist. In any event, the army must always act under the orders of the civilian power, and not unilaterally. Unilateral action amounts to a military putsch, and cannot be labelled a restoration of order. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is essential that the positive proposals of the Yugoslav President, and the efforts of the Prime Minister, be given a chance to work.
I welcomed what the right hon. Gentleman said about the possibility of a meeting of the Security Council. In the light of any such meeting, would the Government consider proposing the invocation of article 34 of the United Nations charter, under which the Security Council
"can investigate a dispute which might lead to international friction … in order to determine whether the continuance of the situation is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security"?
We also hope that continual efforts will be made by the European Community troika, and that something may result from the meeting in Prague today of the officials of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.
This crisis could not only engulf Yugoslavia, but threaten the stability of the Balkans and areas well beyond that. We must stand ready to do all that we can to help to resolve it. Peaceful reform, not violence, must determine the future of Yugoslavia.
Mr. Hurd: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comments. British holidaymakers have now been advised to leave all parts of Yugoslavia; I think that that is in the interests of safety. I re-read article 34 this morning, and, to my untutored eye, it seems apt for the occasion. There is also a possibility that the Yugoslav President himself, Mr. Mesic, might invoke a meeting of the Security Council.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will allow questions on the Foreign Secretary's statement to continue until 4.30; we shall then move on to the next two debates, which are time-limited.
Mr. David Howell: Can my right hon. Friend confirm the truth of a Reuters report that EC Foreign Ministers are considering recognising the
330
independent status of Slovenia and Croatia—or are threatening to do so—unless the Belgrade war machine is halted?
My right hon. Friend speaks of the old system in Yugoslavia not surviving, and of its being full of decay. That is entirely right. It is absolutely vital to ensure, in all the encouragement and support that we give, that the bloodshed is at least limited. We must show that our minds are on the ability of these independent democratic republics to come together in their own freely formed confederation or federation, rather than being ruled by a bankrupt and out-of-date dictatorship.
Mr. Hurd: At the moment—I say, "at the moment" —the two republics do not satisfy our criteria for recognition, but, obviously, we keep an eye on that all the time. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's second point.
Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we are witnessing in Slovenia the same old-style, brutal communist repression that we saw in Budapest, Prague and Berlin? Does he accept that the Minister of State was mistaken when he told me on 22 May, here in the Chamber, that the European Community really had no role in Yugoslavia? Have not both the United Kingdom and the European Community collectively failed properly to work out a democratic and effective response to events in Yugoslavia that were forecast for quite a long time?
Finally, may I take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell)? Does the Foreign Secretary recall that the referendum in Slovenia produced a 90 per cent. figure in favour of independence, and that there was a similar result in Croatia? Will he promise us that he will recommend our EC partners seriously to consider directly recognising the Slovenian and Croatian claims for independence?
Mr. Hurd: I think that the hon. Gentleman has it not quite right. It is not for the European Community to do as he said and devise a political structure for Yugoslavia. It is a European country bordering on the frontiers of the Community and it—or a large part of it—is in danger of being submerged by a military force outside constitutional control. It is also in danger of settling into a period of civil conflict and bloodshed. It is perfectly right and reasonable that, in those circumstances, the European Community should see whether it can help. It has helped. It has brought together the framework of an agreement which all concerned have accepted in principle, although it has not so far worked fully on the ground. However, that is reason not for desisting but for carrying on, while not exaggerating the role that we can play.
Mr. John Biffen: I believe that, throughout the House, there will be widespread applause for the calm and prudent manner with which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is addressing this problem. The applause will be all the greater because we realise what real limitations there are on this country or our Community partners in trying to influence events within Yugoslavia. I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's proposition that it is not within our competence to devise a political structure for that country. However, in the spirit

331
of diplomatic courtesy, will my right hon. Friend leave with the civil and military authorities in Belgrade the time-honoured words of Charles Stewart Parnell:
"No man has a right to fix the boundary of the march of a nation"?
What is sought in equity by Slovenia today will be sought by Croatia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and all those who rebel against the authority of the super-state.
Mr. Hurd: As my right hon. Friend said, I am well aware of the limitations on what we can do. We are all extremely anxious about the immediate situation. I am also anxious about the prospect of Yugoslavia settling into a sort of violent anarchy, with the villages and towns in which different communities live side by side breaking out in spasmodic violence. That future would be grim indeed. Therefore, although we cannot devise a future for Yugoslavia, we can help. We have been asked by Yugoslavia—I was asked again this morning by the President of Yugoslavia—to see what we can do to help create a pause and bring together those who alone can find the answer.
Mr. Ken Maginnis: I was interested in what little content there was in the Secretary of State's statement. Will he clarify whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has now abandoned the shabby and duplicitous policy that he helped to contrive and implement in relation to Northern Ireland when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? Will he clarify whether he now believes in the right of peoples to self-determination and the impropriety of interference from outside countries?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the parallels are particularly close, and I have no more reason to regret the decisions and policies that the Government followed four or five years ago than I have to regret the excellent policies now being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Sir Peter Blaker: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the way in which he is addressing this difficult and dangerous problem? Does he see any role for the Western European Union—for example, in an observer capacity?
Mr. Hurd: One of the things that is being considered is whether, if there were a ceasefire, we could help in observing and thus to maintain it. I do not think that we can ask European observers from the Community or the WEU to go in until there is a ceasefire. Once a ceasefire were agreed, it might be perpetuated with the presence of observers, and I agree that the WEU might be the right place to organise that.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever happens henceforth, human rights are of the utmost importance? He referred to the agreement about the release of prisoners. Who was involved in that agreement, and what are the circumstances, as he knows them, of the prisoners?
Mr. Hurd: The agreement was reached last night in Ljubljana by the President of Yugoslavia, Mr. Mesic, and the Slovenian authorities. One of the points under consideration was the release of prisoners. As a result of skirmishes in the past few days, I imagine that many people from either side are being held.
Mr. William Powell: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his bold decision to talk on the telephone this morning to the Foreign Minister of Slovenia —a state that is not recognised, either de facto or de jure, by this country? Does he recall any precedent for Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs speaking to such an official? In the circumstances, will he continue to keep under review Britain's recognition of Slovenia and Croatia —two provinces that are western, Roman Catholic and Austrian and Venetian in origin?
Mr. Hurd: I have spoken to many interesting and admirable people who are not Foreign Ministers of countries that we recognise. I spoke to Mr. Rupel yesterday and this morning; both were useful conversations. On my hon. Friend's serious point, we keep that under review.
Mr. Ken Livingstone: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the unsympathetic response of western Governments to Slovenia's declaration may have encouraged the Yugoslav military to think that they could proceed without resistance from the west? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of "disaster" if force were used. Is he making it clear to the House that there will be firm and total economic sanctions if the Yugoslav army proceeds into Slovenia and creates the mayhem that we all fear?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can sustain the first point. We have always made it clear that, in our view, the problem cannot be solved by the use of force. Everything that Britain, the United States and other western countries have said has included and stressed that point.
The hon. Gentleman is moving ahead a bit fast in his second point. If the whole of Yugoslavia were to fall into the hands of, shall we say, colonels, that would create a different situation in which the hon. Gentleman's point would have to be considered.
Mr. John Gorst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that much of the problem in Yugoslavia relates to the intransigence of Belgrade? In view of that, will he reconsider the policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on Yugoslavia and regard the federation as an unworkable proposition?
Mr. Hurd: I said in my statement that the present structure has decayed past saving. I am sure that that is true. Equally, I am reluctant to imagine that the only future for the peoples of Yugoslavia is a series of small states quarrelling with each other, trying to invoke others in their quarrels and all depending in one way or another on the west for economic support. There must be some relationship—some effective working relationship—between those peoples, but only they can work it out, and they will have to do so on a quite different basis from the one that is now disintegrating.
Mr. Peter Shore: What part does the Foreign Secretary think that the conference on security and co-operation in Europe can play in this affair? Further, has he had exchanges or contacts with the Soviet Union?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, we have had exchanges at official level with the Soviet Union, which obviously is important in this matter. The CSCE emergency meeting of senior

333
officials in Prague has just finished, but I do not have an account of what occurred. It has given those concerned an opportunity to make their views known to the Yugoslays, who once again were put under the responsibility of explaining what is happening. I do not know what further can be achieved under the CSCE machinery, which is why we are not relying exclusively on it.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: On what terms of reference is the EC troika of Foreign Ministers operating and to whom is it answerable? Is its intervention considered to be an EC foreign policy intervention with the unanimous support of all 12 members, or have individual states the right to express a view contrary to that of the three gentlemen?
Mr. Hurd: It was agreed unanimously on Saturday in Luxembourg by the Heads of State and of Government that the three Foreign Ministers should go. Their remit was set out, discussed and agreed. They have twice achieved a bringing together in principle of the main leaders involved, but the writ or authority of those leaders does not operate fully on the ground. There is no difficulty or doubt about the remit of the EC troika which has our full support in that respect. There is no question of majority voting or of people being outvoted or disgruntled —it is something to which we all set our hands.
Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Yugoslav peoples, on the verge of having killed the devil of Stalinism, are now in danger of discovering the devil in themselves, and that the chief characteristic of that devil is a notoriously violent nationalism? We must be careful that we do not regard Serbian nationalism as somehow entirely different from that of Croatia and Slovenia. We must handle it with extreme care. I am glad that so far the Government have done so, but we must be aware of that characteristic of the Yugoslav area.
Mr. Hurd: We have learnt that one cannot suppress nationalist feeling or force it into a framework against which it revolts. However, we have also learnt the hard way in Europe this century that, if nationalist feeling is let rip and if there is no attempt at conciliation or no attempt to prevent that feeling getting completely out of hand, the result is continuous strife. We have solved that problem in the western part of our continent. Now that communism is out of the way, the great question for eastern and part of central Europe is whether they too can find a way of allowing nationalist feeling without permitting it to destroy societies in the way that it has in the past.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: At this time of crisis, does my right hon. Friend agree that Yugoslavia needs someone to act as a focal point and figurehead? Will he confirm that he has not overlooked the possible future role of Crown Prince Alexander of Yugoslavia?
Mr. Hurd: I do not think that it is for me to look at or to overlook the role of the Crown Prince. That must be a matter for the Yugoslays.
Mr. Jim Siliars: Can we have some honesty for the record? Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the people of Slovenia and Croatia are
334
on the record as saying that there must be a fundamental, structural adjustment in the relationships between the peoples within the present state of Yugoslavia, that they have attempted that adjustment by peaceful reform through the ballot box and that the only reason for the present violence is that the Yugoslav army prefers the bullet? Will the Secretary of State bring that to the attention of the Security Council, if it discusses the matter?
May I raise finally what the Secretary of State said earlier, to the effect that, so far, Slovenia does not accord with the criteria for recognition as an independent state by the United Kingdom? How does it fall short? It cannot be because of a failure to express its view of independence through the ballot box.
Mr. Hurd: The criteria include the effective control of territory and independence in foreign policy but, as I said to earlier questioners, we need to keep the matter under constant review. I agree broadly with the hon. Gentleman's first point. The present concern and the reason why we are considering with our friends recourse to the Security Council is precisely the danger of military action by the Yugoslav army, which my hon. Friend mentioned.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Given the level of violence that has already taken place, is it not about as fruitful to try to reassemble Yugoslavia as it would be to put a soft-boiled egg together when it has been hit on the head with a heavy spoon? If my right hon. Friend wants the two republics to hang together, might it not be better for them to hang together with Austria rather than with Serbia, on which they seem to want to turn their backs at the moment?
Mr. Hurd: As I have said, I believe that the present structure is disintegrating past recall. When we consider that Slovenia is just about the only republic in Yugoslavia which has a relatively small number of non-Slovenes inside its borders, and that every other republic, including Croatia, has very large numbers of Serbs or others inside its frontiers, it is very hard to imagine a tidy repackaging of the type about which I occasionally read in some of our newspapers. Yugoslavia may not hold together in any form. It may be that, after having looked into the abyss, the people will want to work together on a new relationship. We cannot be sure of that or impose it, but perhaps we can help to create the pause in which such thinking and discussion can take place.
Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, however restricted our ability to help in this tragedy, it is right and proper that we should do what little we can to bring an end to this appalling tragedy? Will he accept that both Slovenia and Croatia are part of the constitution of Yugoslavia, and that therein lies the problem? Its constitution cannot be changed without the unanimous support of all the republics that go to make up Yugoslavia. That problem must be overcome before we can bring about constructive change in that fine country.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those thoughts. The immediate point is that, partly under pressure from the EC, the Yugoslavs moved to appoint Mr. Mesic as President in the past few days—something for which we have been pressing for a long time because the interruption of that appointment was one of the difficulties. Now that this President is in touch with us and

335
speaking in his constitutional position as the President of Points of Order Yugoslavia, we have to pay very careful attention to what he says.

Points of Order
4.32 pm
Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Before I take points of order, I should remind hon. Members that, on 18 June, the House passed a resolution under which the two debates on estimates today would be limited—the first to three hours and the second up to 10 pm. I have had to balance the time given to the two statements against the legitimate interests of hon. Members who wish to participate in the debates about Iraqi refugees and about employment and unemployment. Let that be a balance.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your guidance. As you are aware, many hon. Members from Northern Ireland have spent many long hours at the talks that have now concluded. Today I saw a departure in the House from what we are supposed to do—or what I was instructed to do when I became a Member of Parliament—when a statement is made, which is to ask questions. One of the hon. Members from Northern Ireland read a lengthy statement, but I do not think that there was one question in it. As a result, other Northern Ireland Members were not called. The statement was important for all Northern Ireland Members. We feel that it would be happier for us if we knew the type of allocation that we were going to receive on statements on Northern Ireland so that we could work it accordingly.
Mr. Speaker: Today, I took the decision that the leaders of the parties would speak for their parties. I hope that that was not an unreasonable assumption to make. That is why I did not call other hon. Members from Ulster who were standing.
Mr. Greville Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had a request for a statement about the visit near to the precincts of this House tomorrow of the odious French fascist, Mr. Le Pen, who is due to address a conference of the so-called European technical right at the Queen Elizabeth II centre? Should not someone from the Home Office say whether that person is to be allowed into the country, in view of the problems that could arise under the Public Order Act 1986? As the centre is so close to the precincts of the House—and no doubt carefully chosen for that purpose—would you not think it right to give warning to those people that they should not enter the democratic precincts of the Palace of Westminster?
Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for what goes on in the Queen Elizabeth II centre. The hon. and learned Gentleman should present his questions on entry and who has booked the centre to the Government. It is nothing to do with me.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Very rarely are you ever misguided, and certainly you are never wrong, but surely the issue of Yugoslavia, which touches upon Britain and the rest of Europe, should have been given more time. Sometimes we have an hour for questions on

337
quite trivial matters. Surely we could have spent at least an hour on such an important matter. How can it be right to cast the issue on one side after such a short time?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member would be the very first —indeed, he has been the very first—to complain when not called in debate.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Not at all, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, the hon. Member certainly has done that. I have to balance the desire of those who wish to ask questions against the desire of those who wish to make speeches. It is a difficult decision to take—[Interruption.] Do not argue with me, please, from a sedentary position. It is exceptional to have two statements, as we did today, and I judged that I had an obligation to protect the interests of those who wished to speak in the debates which are time limited.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. Member must not argue with me.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The occupant of the Chair should not impugn an hon. Member's honour.
Mr. Speaker: I do not impugn the hon. Gentleman's honour, but I have his letters.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark: It is quite wrong to do that.
Hon. Members: He is going.
Mr. Speaker: Every Speaker occasionally needs to be deaf, and sometimes blind.
Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This country fought fascism for six years. Can you advise us what steps can be taken to bring the Home Secretary to the House to try to justify a poisonous fascist agitator like Le Pen being allowed into this country? That sort of filth should be kept out.
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Government. It is not a matter for me. The meeting will not take place here.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson rose—
Mr. Speaker: I have called the hon. Gentleman, but I will call him again.
Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I revert to the issue of Northern Ireland? Northern Ireland is one of the few subjects that draws six political parties in the House into its business. When there are two statements, one about part of the United Kingdom —Northern Ireland—and one about Yugoslavia, where we have little involvement, it seems strange that we give equal time to them both. May I suggest—
Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think that the hon. Member may. I have to make these difficult judgments. The hon. Gentleman, too, has complained in the past about not being called to speak in debates.
Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you help me by clarifying your earlier
338
ruling? Were you, as a defender of Back Benchers, saying that you were prepared to call Back Benchers from the Labour and Conservative parties but not from the Northern Ireland parties to ask questions on the Northern Ireland statement?
Mr. Speaker: I did not say that at all. I said, as I hope that the whole House heard, that on this matter I thought it legitimate for the leaders of the Ulster parties to express the views of their respective parties. This is a United Kingdom Parliament, and the breakdown of the talks is a matter not only for Members from Northern Ireland but for the whole House of Commons.
Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your difficulties, but, on the other hand, it is not strange for Members of parties in the House not to see eye to eye with their Front-Bench spokesmen. We all recognise that that happens from time to time. May I ask for your guidance? Earlier, you rather suggested that, during Northern Ireland questions and in the appropriation debate, we could deal with issues arising from the Secretary of State's statement today—which I considered rather limited. Were you suggesting that the Chair will turn a blind eye and a deaf ear if we occasionally wander on those occasions?
Mr. Speaker: I certainly was not saying that, either. The hon. Member will have to ensure that his questions are in order. However, as a Member of considerable sophistication, he has never found difficulty in doing that. Yesterday, I managed to call in defence questions almost all the Members who, because of the pressure of time, were not called in the debate the previous day. I shall do my best during Northern Ireland questions next Thursday.

Points of Order
  BILLS PRESENTED
    CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE (No. 2)
    Mr. Secretary Hunt, supported by Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. David Mellor, Sir Wyn Roberts and Mr. Nicholas Bennett, presented a Bill to provide for the construction by the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation of a barrage across the mouth of Cardiff Bay with an outer harbour and of a tidal lagoon and for related works; to make provision for the acquisition and use of land for the works; to make provision about the operation and management of the barrage, the outer harbour, the water impounded by the barrage and the lagoon; to require provision to be made for dealing with property damage caused by an alteration in groundwater levels occurring in consequence of the construction of the barrage and to enable other protective provisions to be made; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 201.]
    RIGHTS OF ACCESS TO NEIGHBOURING LAND
    Mr. John Ward presented a Bill to make provision for obtaining access to neighbouring land for the purposes of carrying out works; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 5 July and to be printed. [Bill 203.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions on statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY
  That the draft United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (Limit on Borrowing) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES
  That the draft Building Societies Act 1986 (Modifications) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]
  Question agreed to

Constitutional Reform
4.40 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the succession, rights and responsibilities of the Crown; and for connected purposes.
Proposals for constitutional reform regularly appear on the parliamentary agenda—and so they should. During my eight years and more in Parliament there have been proposals for both wide-ranging reform and more narrow proposals to reform the House of Commons or the House of Lords. But not since 1981 has there been a proposal dealing specifically with the constitutional position of the Crown, and it is that part of our constitution which I seek to address in the Bill. I do not pretend that this is necessarily the most important constitutional proposal or the most important matter on which Parliament should legislate. None the less, it seems apropriate that we should discuss it now.
There are two elements to the Bill. One is more radical than the other. One is to change the law; the other is to clarify it. The principal proposal is to change the law—specifically, the law of succession—so that females have the same opportunity as males to ascend the British throne. That would—self-evidently—not be retrospective and should not be controversial either.
My proposal follows a similar proposal in the Succession to the Crown Bill presented to the House in 1981 and supported by six hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd), who is now Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Dame J. Fookes) and the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway).
The Bill would amend the Act of Settlement and the Union with Scotland Act 1706 to deal with this one specific matter. As it happens, it will not affect the succession for the next two generations, so it has no implications for those currently alive and in the current line of succession to the throne. I hope that no hon. Member would, on reflection, oppose the application of the principle of equal opportunities to the top job in the land.
The second, subsidiary proposal is in a way more modest and is certainly less novel, although I accept that it has aroused more interest. It is not a proposal to change the law, only to clarify it. It relates to the liability of the Crown to pay taxes. Because this issue has aroused widespread interest, I shall dwell slightly longer on this proposal, although I stress that it is only the secondary purpose of the Bill.
In 1971, when a Select Committee of the House was examining the royal finances, the Treasury asserted:
"As part of the Royal Prerogative, the Queen is not liable to pay tax unless Parliament says so either explicitly or by inevitable inference. There is no distinction for this purpose between the private and public aspects of the Sovereign."
From a period in the last century, in the reign of Queen Victoria, until earlier this century, the British monarchs paid tax on their personal and private wealth. Progressively, from 1910—as Philip Hall has discovered in his researches and as was explained in the "World in Action" programme last week—a series of exemptions have been negotiated and obtained. The position now is that the monarch—as monarch and as Duke of Lancaster

341
—pays no income tax, no inheritance tax, no capital gains tax, no capital transfer tax and no investment surcharges. The heir to the throne, as Duke of Cornwall, also pays no income tax on duchy income, although duchy income was also subject to tax until earlier this century. My Bill proposes a return to the previous position. It would bring all the private and personal income and assets of the monarch and the heir to the throne within the tax system.
It is no argument against the proposal to say that it is without precedent. It is not. It is, therefore, no argument against the proposal to say that it is unconstitutional. It has long been recognised that it is a constitutional fiction, at most, that taxes in a modern parliamentary democracy such as ours are paid to the Crown. They are decided by, paid to and spent by the Government, and the monarch's income is just as capable of parliamentary regulation as that of anyone else.
I must make it clear that the Bill does not apply to the civil list, which Parliament debates and votes on, or to other moneys granted to the Crown for its public duties —such as the money that Government Departments spend on maintaining the royal palaces, yacht, aeroplanes, train and the rest. They would remain untaxed, just as they are at present. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because they raise different issues, and if we succeed in bringing in the Bill today, we shall be making progress. At another time perhaps we may be able to consider other matters as well.
I have two reasons for wanting to introduce the Bill. The first is the straightforward case for constitutional reform. The second is the desire for social, financial and constitutional justice. As the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey and as an individual, I cannot justify to people who have incomes just above the poverty line, and who pay taxes as they are required to do, the fact that the woman who, by common consent, is the richest woman in the country is exempt.
From the answers to the most precisely worded question in an opinion poll conducted by The Independent on Sunday in February, it would appear that 79 per cent. of the population support that view. I shall cite only two of the many reasons given in support of the proposal from among the letters that I have received. The first letter came from a lady in Coventry who wrote:
342
"I am 78 years of age, a widow, totally disabled, my income is £86 a week pensions, and I have to pay income tax. Why should the Queen be exempt?"
Another lady in West Yorkshire wrote:
"I am not anti-royal, but I feel it is immoral that anyone who owns as much as Her Majesty, or any member of the royal family, should be exempt from paying taxes. If we were all afforded this privilege we would have a much better standard of living."
We can all say amen to that. I agree with the sentiments of the second correspondent and, like her, I am not anti-royal. But in 1991 it seems to me that a review of the position is long overdue—and that we should clarify the law and put the monarch in a private capacity in the same position as her subjects.
The Bill should be considered on its merits and, on its merits, the case for these changes seems to me to be overwhelming.
Today we are testing the parliamentary temperature for the first time in recent years. Some have said that it may be a step into hot water. My reply is that it is entirely proper for Parliament to consider the position of the monarch, as it has regularly considered the constitutional position, rights and duties of the monarch. If Parliament had not done that over the years, we should not have the constitutional democracy that we have today.
The purpose of my Bill is, therefore, to reform and modernise the monarchy, not to remove it. I—and many others who are not republicans and who think that the present monarch has done an exemplary, conscientious and admirable job—believe that none the less, on these issues, the time has come for change.
This is not a Bill motivated by the politics of envy; it is a Bill motivated by the desire for justice and for constitutional reform.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Simon Hughes and Mr. Peter Archer.

Constitutional Reform
  CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM
  Mr. Simon Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the succession, rights and responsibilities of the Crown; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 204.]
  Class II, Vote 5
  [Relevant document: The Second Report from the Foreign Affairs Committee of Session 1990–91 on Aid to Iraqi refugees (House of Commons Paper No. 528).]

  Iraqi Refugees
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That a further sum, not exceeding £910,873,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Overseas Development Administration under the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 on the official UK aid programme; economic assistance to Eastern Europe and the USSR; and global environmental assistance; including financial and technical assistance to governments, institutions, voluntary agencies and individuals; pensions and allowances in respect of overseas service including contributions to pension funds; capital and other subscriptions and contributions, including payments under guarantee, to multilateral development banks and other international and regional bodies; emergency, refugee and other relief assistance; loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation; and running costs, related capital expenditure and other administrative costs including for the Natural Resources Institute (an executive agency).—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]
  Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that the debate will end in three hours, that is, at 7.50 pm. In view of the time element, I ask hon. Members who wish to participate to do so briefly please.
  4.50 pm
  Mr. David Howell: Four months after the end of the Kuwait war, millions of people in Iraq continue to live through a horrific nightmare. The human tragedy in Iraqi Kurdistan has been vividly portrayed and we have witnessed it on our television screens. However, another tragedy that is possibly more appalling has been unfolding in southern Iraq without the benefit of the television cameras. It is, therefore, appropriate that the House should have a short debate this afternoon on the Iraqi refugee issue.
  The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is grateful that time has been made available for a discussion on the brief initial report produced by the Committee following its recent visit to nine middle east countries, including Iraq and Turkey. Some members of the Select Committee visited the Iranian refugee camps for the Shi'ite refugees and the Committee is grateful to everyone who assisted us, including the Iranian authorities, in that visit and in the associated visits in the middle east.
  As the report is merely a short initial report, it seeks to do no more than to make observations and raise questions which we hope will help the House when it examines some of the enormous and awesome issues raised by the Iraqi refugee crisis and associated upheavals in the world.
  Our report makes four main observations. The first is that, until and unless there are effective United Nations forces in both the north and south of Iraq, it would be wrong for the coalition forces which have been
  344
  safeguarding the Iraqi Kurds and the Turkomans in the north to leave. Between the Committee reaching that view and the publication of the document, the American and British Governments have endorsed a similar view.
  We were glad to hear the views and hopes of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who emphasised on 25 June that before there was any withdrawal of coalition forces there should be four conditions: clear United Nations forces on the ground, clear warnings that renewed repression would be met with the severest response, a continuing deterrent military presence in the region and, finally, the maintenance of sanctions against the Iraqi regime. In other words, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister endorsed the view held by many of us, that while the United Nations security guard force is building up—I understand that about 400 men should be in place by mid July, which is not enough—we will have to consider new structures and ways to safeguard those people to prevent another horrific round of retreats to the hills with the associated starvation and deprivation.
  The report's second observation is that the refugee crisis is far from over. The Kurds continue to live in fear. Of course, there is hopeful talk of a deal with Saddam Hussein. However, all of us who have watched that man perform over recent months and years must reach the obvious conclusion about the value of any agreement, dealings or undertakings into which he may enter. We would place a very low value on such undertakings.
  In the south, thousands of Shia are locked in the marshes. They cannot decide where to go and constantly fear harassment from Iraqi troops. We have received reports that 800,000 people are affected, but new information from aerial photographs is that the figure may be considerably less and that perhaps 50,000 or 60,000 people are affected. We simply do not know the correct number. However, tens of thousands of people are locked in the marshes and do not know whether to go forward or back. They are living in trembling fear. It is obvious to the House, was obvious to the Select Committee, and I hope is obvious to the international community, that there will be no lasting solution to the endless fear and terror of those people while Saddam Hussein remains in power.
  Mr. David Winnick: I agree totally with the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that there will be no peace in Iraq while Saddam Hussein remains in power. Does not that mean that we should be somewhat critical of the allies' decision to terminate the war when they did? I recognise the difficulties and the case is not clear cut, but within the Security Council resolutions for peace and security in the area there was undoubtedly a case to do what the allies rightly decided to do with regard to Germany in 1945.
  Mr. Howell: That is very much a matter for debate. My view is rather close to that of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), but I must not anticipate a longer and more substantial report from the Select Committee on the security situation in the middle east following the liberation of Kuwait. I am aware that many people share the hon. Gentleman's view.
  We must bear in mind that whatever arrangements or dispositions we make for troops—be they UN security forces or whatever—to protect the refugees, those arrangements are temporary because those people will live

  345
  in fear whatever we do so long as there is a violent dictator in Baghdad whose habits, character and track record have been to persecute and kill.
  The Select Committee's third observation is that the great refugee crisis has placed a huge strain on the Overseas Development Administration. We have high praise for the way in which the ODA has reacted in trying to meet the crisis. We must recognise, as I am sure the ODA recognises, that the Government Department, in addition to the Iraqi refugee crisis, is meeting four other huge crises of disruption, pressure and potential disaster around the world. Although there have been the horrors of starvation, killing and dying in Iraq, such things are happening on as great a scale, even on a more evil and terrifying scale, as a result of natural forces in the Horn of Africa. There are horrors in Bangladesh, where vast storms caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people.
  Finally, the ODA is the lead Department in coping with developments and in encouraging democratic development throughout eastern Europe. That objective, is by no means yet secure and much work and effort will have to be expended on it. That objective may not be on the same scale as the tragedy of the others, but it is a major task. Let us hope that it does not become a tragedy, as it will if the trouble in the Balkans affects the rest of eastern Europe. The ODA is under enormous strain and we welcome the decision to review the way in which it can meet those huge burdens in future.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) has rightly underlined the huge task facing the ODA. Is there not a case for lifting sanctions, particularly in relation to electricity generating equipment? Until electricity is flowing, it will be impossible to cope with a situation in which, according to Harvard medical school, more than 170,000 children under the age of five will die this year. Whatever one thinks about sanctions, that is the root of the matter.
  Mr. Howell: I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets a chance to develop that thought during the debate because he refers to an important and difficult balance. All humanitarian instincts point us towards doing everything possible to avoid the prospects that he has described, but there is the equally terrible thought that, if Saddam Hussein is let off the hook and is allowed to use his resources, from selling oil, for example, to rearm and re-equip, he will carry on killing. One must balance one against the other. I do not pretend that the Committee has found the answer to the question of how to ensure that humanitarian considerations prevail without also ensuring that new resources fall into the hands of that man, who is still in office and apparently in total control of inner Iraq and ready to spend more money on more weapons to carry out more killings, more persecution and more harassment. That is the difficulty. We must watch the practices and policies of the Government of Iraq—that is the policy of the United Nations—when undertaking any review of the present sanctions and embargo provisions.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the question of our relations with dictators such as Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath regime over many years? After all, the British Government effectively loaned that regime £1 billion over the past 10
  346
  years and a great deal of Saddam Hussein's power and war machine was the product of close western support for his regine.
  Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman is taking us, once again, into the broader area of middle eastern security and to the question of how on earth we can secure any improvements in future, after having failed to produce them in the past. The next report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will look into that. Although we do not claim to have the ultimate wisdom, that will be the opportunity to raise such points.
  The fourth observation of our immediate report on refugees was that the strains which have fallen on the ODA, which has struggled excellently to meet them, have fallen also on the international relief organisations. Our report points to ways in which the burdens and pressures on those organisations have led, despite much dedicated work by the people who work in them, to breakdowns in co-ordination and to a lack of effectiveness. We have outlined a number of suggestions and proposals about how the international relief organisations can be strengthened.
  That leads me finally to the three questions that we raised beyond our observations. First, how can the international relief structures be better organised? A number of agencies are involved, including several United Nations' agencies led by the UN Disaster Relief Office. We questioned whether that agency could perform its task in the way that it should. We welcome the idea that was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in concert with the German Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher, that an individual should be appointed co-ordinator for disaster relief work in the United Nations —a sort of overlord—to begin to bring together the different strands of work that some of my hon. Friends who visited the area found sadly disconnected and, in some places, disordered.
  Our second question is, can the international organisations, especially the United Nations, deliver help on the scale that is required when humanitarian disasters occur, such as the man-made or dictator-caused disaster in Iraq? The difficulty is that the United Nations is now being asked to deliver security as well as supplies, help and succour to refugees on a scale and with a prominence and effectiveness that, in its present form, it is simply not equipped to meet. The time may well have come to rethink the structure of the international relief agencies so that they can co-ordinate their efforts, work more effectively with the different donor nations and meet the now big demands of the international community more effectively.
  The third question is even bigger and leads to the edges of the refugee report and to wider political questions. It is whether it is possible to clarify the powers of the United Nations and its blessed agencies or direct agencies to intervene. That is the question at the edges of this tragic saga. The sticking point or the original base point is chapter 1, article 2, paragraph 7 of the charter of the United Nations, as qualified by chapter 7, which lays down the degree to which, if at all, there can be intervention in the domestic and internal affairs of a nation. Certain derogations are suggested relating to humanitarian aid if there is a threat of genocide or if—this is a loose definition —the peace, security and stability of the surrounding area

  347
  and the international order is threatened. That is not a question that we can consider fully in a report on refugees, but our report concluded:
  "if clearer rules were established"—
  in relation to intervention by the United Nations and its agencies—
  "…not only might grinding, endless and bloody conflicts all over the world be brought to an end but also the refugee relief process could be simplified."
  We hope that our views will be of use to the House. The time has come for a new agenda for looking at the key problems of disaster relief. I am sure that the whole Committee hopes that its short report will start the thinking processes and the answering of the questions, which will lead to a more effective ability to respond both nationally and internationally—despite all that has been done in tremendously difficult circumstances—to the disasters that we must realistically, if pessimistically, admit lie ahead. There have been many disasters in the present global order and it looks as though there will be more. We shall need more vigorous co-ordination and more effective means to meet them.
  5.6 pm
  Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I welcome the clear statement of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that, unless and until a United Nations force can provide effective safeguards for the Kurds and the other persecuted people of north and south Iraq, it would be wrong for the coalition forces to leave them to the mercy of Saddam Hussein. The Select Committee was repeatedly told by refugees that they would not return to their own country until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. I have heard that view on many occasions, and who can criticise those people for expressing that view? Many of us believe that the danger will persist so long as Saddam Hussein continues his evil and brutal tyranny in Iraq and continues to thumb his nose at the United Nations by denying its inspectors access to Iraqi nuclear equipment. He must take the consequences of such actions.
  Evidence of torture and repression is legion. On 27 May The Independent headed Robert Fisk's recent report on his visit to the cells of Iraq's secret police in Dihok:
  "A testimony to brutality written in blood".
  The article stated:
  "The last young women to be imprisoned here died in these fetid cells two months ago. The Peshmerga say they found three of their bodies, naked and with their hands bound, on the floor. One of the girls was 12 years old. Another, older woman had been gang-raped and died later. Anyone who wants to now what propelled the one and a half million Kurds to flee their homes has only to visit Dihok."
  For eight years I have chaired CARDRI, the Campaign Against Repression and for Democratic Rights in Iraq. We have continually exposed the brutality of the Baath regime and have linked up with those in Iraq who are struggling for human and democratic rights in immensely difficult and dangerous conditions. Many have since died. In 1983 an Iraqi mother told us about her son, who was typical of so many thousands of people who have died in Iraq. He was a medical student who went out one day and never returned. Many months later she was told to go to the mortuary and collect his body. She was led to the room where the body was to be found and she said:
  "When I entered and saw what was inside, I could not believe that there are people who could do such things to other human beings. I looked around and saw nine bodies. My son was in a chair. He had blood all over him, his body was eaten away and bleeding. I looked at the others stretchedout
  348
  on the floor … all burnt … one of them had his chest slit with a knife … another's body carried the marks of a hot domestic iron all over his head to his feet … everyone was burnt in a different way. Another one had his legs cut off with an axe. His arms were also axed. One of them had his eyes gouged out and his nose and ears cut off".
  There were so many of those chilling accounts that at times, over the years, I found them difficult to believe. But now, the horrors of Saddam's Iraq will continue to shock and astound the world. The stories of the two Britons, Doug Brand and Patrick Trigg, are yet more evidence that nothing has changed. As in the past, Saddam's policy is to intimidate, persecute and kill.
  It is therefore to the shame of this Government and others throughout the world that, even after Halabja in 1988, Saddam Hussein was still treated as a valued trading partner. The Ministry of Defence allowed the sale to Iraq of a design for a missile testing concrete bunker, even though there was a ban on arms sales to Iraq. That is yet another example of turning a blind eye to the spirit of the regulations. I hope that a valuable lesson has been learnt.
  Mr. Corbyn: Does my hon. Friend recall that she and I worked together for many years in CARDRI in support of the democratic opposition in Iraq? As early as the 1980s we asked the British Government to cease their trading practices with Iraq because they were allowing that brutal regime to develop and to attack the Kurdish people. Does my hon. Friend not think that now is the time to recognise that there must be some sanity in the arms trade and trading matters in general to protect people and human rights from Governments such as the Baath regime in Iraq?
  Mrs. Clwyd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I remember well that in 1988 he, I and others argued in this House that the Government should not double export credit guarantees to Iraq. Our pleas were totally ignored and the Government went ahead and doubled export credit guarantees. Too often, one Government Department has said one thing while another has done precisely the opposite with regard to countries controlled by oppressive tyrants.
  The Select Committee highlights the problems of the refugee crisis. I saw for myself the terrible suffering of the refugees who had fled in their millions to the border between Iran and Iraq. The freezing cold, rain and mud have gone and the heat and dust have taken their place. Thankfully, most refugees now have shelter, food and safety.
  Save the Children Fund gives its observations and experiences in an interesting report on Iraq, and notes that the death rate was high in Turkey, with deaths estimated at 50,000, whereas in Iran the death rate was, by all accounts, slight. While Turkey continued to receive massive support from many Governments, including aircraft, millions of pounds of material supplies and hundreds of medical personnel, Iran—with the bulk of the refugees—received very little. Iran did not receive the assistance that it should have been given to deal with a much larger number of refugees.
  Estimates of the number of refugees who have returned to Iraq vary widely. The Iranians believe that up to 750,000 people will stay behind in Iran even if an agreement between the Kurds and the Iraq Government is reached. The remaining refugee camps now need to be equipped for the winter conditions to come. Aid

  349
  organisations are concerned that the present tent accommodation in the north-west provinces would be totally inadequate for those conditions.
  Displaced Kurdish people in the regions of Iraq bordering the north-east frontier with Iran are reported by many people to be facing dire health and nutritional conditions. It is still not clear how many Shi'ites have been displaced in southern Iraq. Aid agencies are concerned, as is the Select Committee, that between 400,000 and 600,000 people many have taken refuge in the marshes and that they have not received the same humanitarian attention.
  As the Chairman of the Select Committee said, the refugee crisis is far from over. Up to a million refugees are still in Iran and tens of thousands of others are in Iraq. They are in no man's land, camped out on the rubble of the towns destroyed by Saddam Hussein in 1987. They still need medicines and food and it is regrettable that the British Government could not provide safe havens for them because of American opposition.
  Sir Alan Glyn: If the safe areas cannot be protected by United Nations armed forces, it is useless to leave the refugees to their fate at the hands of Saddam Hussein.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here earlier when I said that I thought that it was important for the allies to stay to protect the Kurds and other groups.
  Sir Alan Glyn: The hon. Lady did not mention armed forces.
  Mrs. Clwyd: Indeed I did.
  The refugees who need medicines and food but who are not covered by any of the aid agencies should be dealt with urgently.
  As a Kurdish political leader emphasised when the offer of negotiations was first made by Saddam Hussein, the Kurdish question is not a refugee problem and should not become one. It is a political problem. Although the first stage of the refugee crisis is over, the long-term future of the Kurds and Shi'ites remains to be settled. As the Select Committee says, it leaves
  "the grim prospect of a seemingly unending refugee operation of Palestinian proportions".
  When I first told the House that Saddam Hussein wanted to negotiate with the Kurds, hon. Members laughed. That was the level of scepticism with which Saddam Hussein's words were treated. The Kurdish leaders who had to stand by and watch their people die in their thousands had no option at that time but to take up the offer and the talks have now gone on for several weeks. The agreement that was brought back to Kurdistan from Baghdad demands that the Kurds cut direct ties with the west and unite with Saddam Hussein's Baath party to crush its enemies. The agreement includes the denunciation of the United States, Iran and Zionism, and the Kurds would need the Baath party's permission to contact outside Governments and organisations. Mr. Barzani of the Democratic Party of Kurdistan and Mr. Talibani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, along with the other political leaders in Kurdistan, rightly rejected those conditions as the obligations entailed in such an offer were clearly intolerable.
  Once again, strengthened by the allies' agreement to support the deployment of a rapid reaction force to protect
  350
  the Kurds, the Kurds are spelling out their own conditions. They stipulate that there can be no autonomy for the Kurds without democracy and human rights for Iraq as a whole. They have asked for the next stage of the negotiations to take place in Kurdistan rather than Baghdad. They have no intention of splitting off from the opposition to Saddam Hussein in Iraq because they know full well that they will have no long-term peace and stability unless there is peace and democracy in Iraq as a whole.
  Although many of the issues raised by the Select Committee were debated in the Opposition debate on 14 May I am glad that we were able to share some of its concern—for instance, about the fact that the Overseas Development Administration is strapped for cash. As the Select Committee said, the aid programme contingency reserve has been subjected to severe strain. The Committee continued:
  "this suggests that the ODA will have considerable difficulty in finding new money for further commitments entered into during the year".
  The money that might have been used for long-term development purposes will need to be drawn on for emergency relief before the Treasury will provide new money. The Select Committee might have mentioned also that the overall aid budget has been slashed since 1979. It is still 11 per cent. lower in real terms than it was then. Despite continuing claims by the Government, that budget is stagnant in real terms.
  The ODA lacks not only cash but staff, as we have continually pointed out. Each time we have pressed the Minister in the House we have created new jobs in the ODA's disaster and refugee unit. The numbers have risen from four to six, from six to nine and nine to 12, and I pay tribute to the staff of the unit, who had to deal with three major disasters at the same time.
  We made several suggestions. We dealt with the charges for the relief effort as distributed from the Ministry of Defence to the ODA. We argued that the costs should be shared, as they are in some other countries, to reflect the training value of using the military in civilian disasters. We called for a mobile emergency volunteer force with selection and co-ordination in advance of a disaster. We called for a strengthening of the ODA's disaster unit so that it would have in-house expertise on aspects of disasters apart from rapid procurement.
  We also emphasised the need to encourage a strengthening of the UN agencies most involved in responding to disasters. The UN has been criticised frequently, and often unfairly. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, told us at a meeting at the House yesterday that she accepted some of this criticism, but she emphasised again that the UNagencies involved in emergency operations were neither financed nor staffed to be able to meet large scale crises. She said that for every emergency the UN has to issue a fresh appeal, and pledges from donor nations come in much too slowly. She said:
  "We cannot respond to emergencies on credit, or on shoestring budget living hand to mouth".
  What ought we to do if we want the UN to perform more effectively in the future? First, donors must place at the disposal of the UN a standby financial reserve to pay for a response within hours of a recognised emergency. Stockpiles of basic relief items should be set up in locations easily accessible to air transport. A central databank

  351
  should be set up on a range of goods and services that the UN can offer or mobilise. A pool of international experts is needed to respond immediately to any emergency and could be linked with civil disaster relief groups of member Governments. In other words, we need a system that gives the UN the money, the goods and the people to respond rapidly and effectively to disasters.
  UN agencies, especially the UN disaster relief organisation, already exist. We should strengthen that organisation before inventing new ones or dreaming up new supremos. We should give it the means to perform its proper role. Once the UN agencies are assured of enough cash and clout to operate effectively, it will be worth reviewing their mandates to strengthen their roles. We must ensure they can meet the emergency needs of people displaced in their own countries as well as the needs of refugees who flee across borders into others.
  This debate is about Iraqi refugees, but according to the UN and many other observers all of Iraq is threatened by increasing malnutrition and disease. Unfortunately, it is doubtful whether the ending of sanctions, for which some argue, would much improve the lot of ordinary Iraqis, given the inflation in that country and Saddam Hussein's priorities.
  Humanitarian relief is of course exempt from sanctions, but one of the problems is that the UN does not have enough people on the ground to monitor where the relief is going. A recent example involved 12 food lorries sent into Kurdistan to feed the Kurdish refugees. Six of them ended up feeding Iraqi military personnel and the other six ended up feeding Government supporters. Unless we can guarantee that this sort of relief does not fall into the wrong hands it will be difficult to ensure that humanitarian aid goes to the people for whom it is meant.
  In April, questions were asked in the House about what steps the Government were taking to secure Saddam Hussein's trial under international law on charges of war crimes. The Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) that he was awaiting legal advice in the matter. Earlier, the Foreign Ministers of the European Community had called on the United Nations to consider putting Saddam Hussein and his senior aides on trial before an international court. A similar demand was made by the United States Senate foreign relations committee on 18 April. The United Nations secretary-general promised to refer the request to a special committee before taking a decision. That committee is apparently still deliberating. Why is it taking so long?
  The world still has great expectations of the United Nations as a global institution which can provide the vision and the mechanism for reducing global tensions and promoting peace, for protecting human rights and promoting economic development in the third world. The debate about the future of the United Nations is now focusing around questions about the reform of its charter, the make-up of the Security Council and the role of the secretary-general. The Select Committee rightly asked whether the United Nation's power to intervene in the internal conflicts of nations ought to be clarified, and rightly suggested that if clearer rules were established for such intervention, it would mean that grinding, endless and bloody conflicts all over the world could be brought to an end.
  I doubt whether anyone can argue convincingly any longer against the right of the world body to move in and
  352
  interfere in what used to be regarded as internal national affairs so as to protect the human rights of oppressed minorities. One thing is certain: the world can never again sit on its hands and idly watch brutal dictators killing hundreds of thousands of their own people in cold blood.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I remind the House of Mr. Speaker's injunction that this is a short debate and that short speeches would therefore be appropriate. Sir Michael Jopling.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: I may have misheard you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that day has not yet arrived, so I fear that you have addressed me wrongly.
  Six weeks ago, I visited Iran as a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, with a number of my colleagues —my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), and the hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh). We were able to see for ourselves some of the refugee camps, and we visited two of the Kurdish camps in north-west Iran—near Orumiyeh—and one Shi'ite camp in the south close to the ancient city of Shush.
  I warmly support the Government's reaction to the Iraqi refugee crisis of recent months. I strongly support the Prime Minister's initiative on safe havens, and strongly welcome the recent assurances that coalition troops will not be withdrawn while a risk remains, especially in the north of Iraq.
  The Iranian authorities at the camps warmly supported the United Kingdom's efforts to bring relief to the unfortunate people in the camps. The authorities greatly welcomed the fact that Britain was the third largest donor of assistance. I have no reason to suppose that we are not still the third largest. That aid greatly relieved the agony of the Kurdish and Shi'ite people.
  My impression of the three camps was that things were going reasonably well. The Iranians seemed to be dealing adequately with the massive crisis which confronted them. I did not see obvious signs of starvation or disease. Conditions were primitive, but people seemed to have enough food and we were assured that the refugees in the camps had been vaccinated against the diseases which were thought to present the main dangers.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) spoke about the accommodation. Most people in the camps are housed in tents, and some are housed in disused buildings, some of which had been damaged in the Iran-Iraq war. We shall soon have to think about what will happen to the people in those camps during the winter. One rather good sign from the refugees to whom we spoke was that they were beginning to question the facilities. That showed that the first crisis was over. They rightly complained about the quality of the water and said that the clothes sent by the relief agencies were second-hand. They viewed that as insulting. They also complained about the quality of some of their food, especially the high-protein biscuits. However good those biscuits might have been for them, they did not like their taste.
  At one of the camps, we were delighted to see that the Austrian military had set up what appeared to be an

  353
  efficient tented hospital. Three of my colleagues on that delegation are in their places, and I am sure that they will agree that, as British people, we were received with much enthusiasm in those refugee camps. Perhaps that was because Britain had played a major part in throwing Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. We asked them when they expected to go home to Iraq. The unanimous response from Kurds and Shi'ites alike was that under no circumstances would they return to their homes and villages until Saddam Hussein had been deposed. There was universal distrust and loathing for that man. As long as Saddam Hussein reigns in Iraq, the refugee problem will continue. If he launches an attack on the Shi'ites in the south, up to 800,000 more refugees could make a dash for the border.
  If winter arrives before the refugees are prepared to return to their homes there will be another serious crisis. Urgent action is needed to prepare for winter, because there are many signs that at that time Saddam Hussein may still be in control in Baghdad. I hope that steps are being taken to prepare those camps for a dreadful winter, because people cannot face such weather in tents. Because of the shortage of time, we did not visit refugee camps in Turkey.
  I think that all members of the group share my concern about the way in which such crises are handled. I came away with much admiration for the way in which the people employed by the aid agencies do their best with facilities that are to hand. They often receive a rush of emergency aid from well-wishers all over the world who want to make a contribution regardless of the quality or the need for the equipment and facilities that they send. That presents a serious problem.
  In the face of emergencies, all developed countries ship out the nearest materials, whether they are needed or not. Aid administrators in Teheran told us that, to assuage public opinion, well-wishing developed nations tend to send unsuitable, unnecessary and unwanted equipment and manpower. We saw examples of that in Iraq.
  We were told about a country which had sent military units, I think that it was two sapper units, to build facilities for the refugees. There had not been proper agreement about bringing those troops into Iran, and they sat in buses for two days before being allowed to leave the airport. We were told of a German helicopter fleet which had been reduced by half, I think by 10, by the time we arrived because there was nothing for it to do.
  Those are examples of a lack of co-ordination. The primary need in the three camps that we visited was for specific drugs which were in extremely short supply. We asked for a list which was subsequently passed to our chargé d'affaires in Teheran. I understand that action was taken on that list. There are few ways of going through the necessary motions in the face of a crisis, such as the one faced by the Kurdish and Shi'ite refugees. The first need is to find out properly and accurately what is needed. The second need is to get agreement from the country concerned that it should be brought in, and where and when it should be brought in; the third is for the aid agencies to find whatever it is; and the fourth is to get it delivered into the country where it is needed.
  Having got agreement from the country concerned, the aid agencies are expert in discovering where they can get
  354
  hold of what is required and in shipping it in as quickly as possible. The Committee's report makes suggestions about this which I hope that the Government will note. I also hope that the Minister will treat this as a serious and urgent matter. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to it.
  The technique of getting the necessary and required aid into a country in which a crisis has occurred as speedily as possible is all very well in a country such as Iran, where there is an efficient administration that knows what it wants and can find out what it is likely to want. It is a totally different matter in a country such as Mozambique, which a number of us visited in the latter part of last year. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney was with me on that visit, when we went to the north of the country, to the area controlled by that dreadful guerrilla organisation, RENAMO.
  In that part of Mozambique, there is no administration, but there is abject poverty. We met refugees coming into the towns and villages who were cowed, hungry and impoverished people, dressed only in the bark of trees. I have never before seen such heart-searing examples of poverty. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) here, and he was with us on that occasion. It was a most dreadful experience. Those people were sustained by the good will of the world community, especially the United Nations and other international organisations.
  Here we come to the basic problem, which is mentioned in the report. What should the world community do in such cases? To what extent is it permissible to move into a country without the full support of its Government, however inefficient or non-existent it might be? That is a relatively simple problem in Mozambique, but it does not take much imagination for my colleagues to realise that one could easily have a situation half way between that of Mozambique and that of Iraq. Dreadfully difficult decisions would have to be made and questions would have to be asked about the extent to which we could break article 2·7 of the United Nations charter, which says that it must not intervene in matters that are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned this factor.
  We have to think these problems through carefully, but we must think them through and find a better way to get emergency aid to people who need it, if possible without stepping over that most important line of domestic jurisdiction.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Is it not a bit farcical to worry about intervention in the internal affairs of another nation when we have bombed that nation back into the pre-industrial age?
  Mr. Jopling: I do not remember us bombing anyone in Mozambique when I was there, and I remember no history of us doing so. That point is irrelevant to what I am saying, which is that we have to find better ways to get aid to people who need it in emergencies. This is not easy. The report of the Select Committee deals with it; I hope that the House will discuss it and that the Government will give a great deal of thought to these problems in the months that lie ahead.
  5.45 pm
  Sir David Steel: I congratulate the Select Committee on its report. As I am not a member of the Committee, I can say this to the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) and his colleagues: the report is short, cogent and makes a number of specific references, and I hope that my speech will follow suit.
  I am not among those who argue, with the benefit of hindsight, that the war in Iraq should have been prosecuted further. It was brilliantly conducted and stopped at the right time. However, since the end of the war I have been consistently critical of the stance adopted by the allies in the peace negotiations. I mention two incidents. One was allowing the Iraqi regime to use helicopters, and the other was what happened in the south. I was told by Iraqi eye witnesses that our troops stood by and waved through Saddam Hussein's forces on their way to the reoccupation of Basra.
  I mention those two incidents not to cry over spilt milk, but to emphasise that we have a moral responsibility for the refugees, because they need not have become refugees. There was political misjudgment, particularly by the Americans, in believing that it would be a mistake to allow Shi'ites to gain the upper hand in the south because they would then ally with the old enemy of Iran. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, there is a long history of sad neglect by western Governments of the problems of the Kurds. Despite that, neither the Kurdish nor Shi'ite populations, nor their leaders whom we have met, have ever argued the secessionist case. Instead, they have argued for the creation of a democratic state in Iraq. We were all hoping for that. Because mistakes were made in the peace, the refugee problem is not just of passing concern but the direct responsibility of those nations involved in the allied operation.
  I have four points to make. First, the right hon. Member for Guildford is correct to say that the Government have already responded with a change of heart, as have the Americans, on the question of pulling out troops. It is obvious that the United Nations' forces are not adequate and that there can be no question of withdrawing allied forces until the United Nations can supply an adequate substitute.
  In that connection, I hope that the Government have listened to the recommendations of Tony Parsons, our former ambassador at the United Nations, who has been arguing ever since the war, with increasing conviction, that the United Nations needs to go beyond its tradition of creating special peacekeeping forces at the behest of nation states. His suggestion is that we should be moving on to a post-cold war development, which will give the five permanent members of the Security Council the capacity to oversee the creation of an effective, United Nations, permanent, peacekeeping force, able to act on the authority of the Security Council rather than at the request of a nation state.
  At a time when all of us, including the House of Commons and the eastern powers, are having to grapple with the problem of reduced defence budgets, here is a role for some of those whom I shall call redundant soldiers, both east and west, of the cold war line, who could be allocated to just such a UN, permanent, peace-keeping force.
  356
  Secondly, the report rightly refers to—disorganization is too strong a word, but I forget the word that was used —the fact that so many different UN agencies deal with the refugee problem. The reports that we have received from the Quakers and the Save the Children Fund underline the fact that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been disappointed with the response to her voluntary appeal for funds. My complaint is that it is not right that that office should be dependent on voluntary appeals for funds. I hope that in the review of UN mechanisms some thought will be given to bringing the UNHCR's operations much more directly under the immediate responsibility of the UN machinery.
  Mr. Jim Lester: On that critical point, would it not be a good idea if, as we said in the Select Committee's report, instead of waiting until things happen and then making an appeal, standby credits were automatically available as soon as the Security Council said that such help was necessary? In that way the UNCHR could draw on them without having to embark on the long drawn-out process of asking for funds and then getting only half of what is needed.
  Sir David Steel: The hon. Gentleman has put forward one specific way of doing what I advocate. The begging bowl approach of the UNHCR in Geneva cannot continue.
  Thirdly, I welcome what the Select Committee had to say about the relative financing of ODA funds both by the Ministry of Defence—a point some of us made after the war when the MOD kept sending the ODA bills for its activities, which the Select Committee rightly said should be sorted out—and by the Treasury. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley was correct on that point. Given the decline in the ODA budget during the past 10 years and, at the same time, the increased demands that have been placed on it by a series of international disasters, the Treasury should now be more forthcoming with funds for the ODA. The ODA funding sections of the report are important and we are entitled to press the Minister to give an instant reply to the thoughts of the Select Committee at the end of the debate rather than to take the traditional three months to reply. At any rate I prod him and entice him into doing so.
  I said that I had four points. The fourth does not arise out of the report and the Select Committee's Chairman would no doubt argue that it falls outside the remit of the report. Hon. Members should be alarmed about the resumption of arms sales to the middle east by Britain, the United States, Korea, the Soviet Union—all manner of powers. It is interesting that on 20 June the House of Representatives passed a foreign aid authorisation Bill, unilaterally halting the sale of weapons to middle east countries until and unless some other major arms supplier resumes shipments, or until the recipient countries establish an arms control regime for themselves. That Bill is going to the Senate. It may be objected to by the Administration, but there is something deeply disturbing about the political rhetoric from President Bush, our Prime Minister and everybody that we must learn the lessons of the war and hold off in the arms race, while we have specific examples of arms contracts already being negotiated with different powers in the middle east.
  I notice the strong contrast between the swift reaction of President Bush and his security advisers to the possible concealment of a nuclear capability by Saddam Hussein's

  357
  forces and the threat to engage in pinpoint bombing to destroy it, and the relatively lax approach to the acquisition of ordinary weapons by countries in the middle east. A double standard seems to be developing whereby western powers are prepared to stop the development and acquisition of sophisiticated weaponry by powers in the middle east, but are happy to sell them anything short of weapon systems that could be widely destructive to the rest of the world. That must stop. At a time when our defence industries are shrinking there is surely scope for turning some of those resources to the necessary construction and engineering work associated with the refugee problems.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has made some exceedingly good points on which we can all agree across party lines, particularly his last point about the need for arms control in the region, which the Foreign Affairs Select Committee will address in its forthcoming report which should be before the House in the next two or three weeks before it rises. When we took evidence we were appalled by the speed with which countries in the region are building up their arms. In particular, a number of the countries seem to have Scud C missiles, against which the Patriot missile provides no defence. That is an extraordinary worrying aspect of the problem to which we shall come in due course.
  In the interests of comparative brevity and so as not to be too repetitive of remarks which have already been so excellently made by my colleagues whom I was privileged to be with when we visited the camps in Iran, let me select two points. First, the appalling problem of the Iraqi refugees is the result of the international community's failure to respond adequately to the evil of Saddam Hussein. Yes, of course there was the magnificent response of the United States forces with the British and other members of the coalition to the invasion of Kuwait and the remarkable success of the war aim, and yes, the United Nations—I believe for the first time—provided the cover of lawful authority for the coalition to use force to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait but no further.
  There could hardly have been greater international justification for going to war with Saddam Hussein, and there could hardly have been less sense in starting a war which did not finish him off along with his aggressive capability. Therefore, is there not something wrong with a United Nations process which could authorise a war so limited that the evil aggressor survives, mostly intact, to continue his aggression, to threaten the other nations in the region and to cause fear and terror to the refugees within his own country whom we are now considering?
  If there is one major lesson that must be learnt from the whole tragic episode, it is surely that, if the power to deal with the breakdown of international law and order by the enforcement of its resolutions, particularly when occasioned by the invasion of one country by another in breach of those resolutions, is to remain vested in the United Nations itself, that power must be greatly strengthened. If the United Nations imposes sanctions upon any country for the breach of international laws, it must have at its command the effective power to enforce those laws.
  358
  It is said that the reason why the United Nations resolutions went no further than to authorise the driving of Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait is that, under chapter 1, article 2·7 of the UN charter, that august body is prevented from interfering in the domestic jurisdiction of any state, and that China was too concerned about a precedent for United Nations interference in Tibet and the Soviet Union was too concerned about the precedent for United Nations interference in its problems with the states within the union to allow more to be done.
  In that case, if the United Nations is not to be a paper tiger or a toothless guard dog and thereby encourage aggression, either the UN must give up enforcement authority to NATO or some similar grouping or to action by the United States in a peacekeeping capacity, or it must change its rules to prevent China and the Soviet Union or any other permanent member of the Security Council in the future putting its concerns before the world order or the humanitarian needs of the moment.
  In my view, the United Nations should draw some encouragement from its first hesitant military action in Kuwait, and should go on boldly to develop internal rules to allow intervention to end aggression—both the kind of action that was taken by Saddam Hussein when he invaded a neighbouring country, and the kind represented by his turning on ethnic groupings of his own people. In particular, such intervention should be permitted if genocide would otherwise be likely to occur.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is there not a possible halfway house which would avoid the wholesale breach of the principle of article 2·7? Could not that article be amended to allow the United Nations to interfere in a state's internal affairs if such interference arose from previous authorised actions taken by the Security Council?
  Such an arrangement would have overcome the difficulty in Iraq. It was the intervention of the United Nations—through the authorising resolution, 678—that led to the conflict within the country.
  Mr. Lawrence: That is an interesting suggestion; however, it would not cover circumstances in which a country that had not previously offended against the international rule of law did so for the first time.
  What we are now discussing is precisely how such an extension of the United Nations' effective power can be achieved. It has already been asked in this debate whether a change in article 2·7 is necessary, or whether it is sufficient for the general authority of the United Nations declaration on human rights—which is there among other things to prevent genocide—to prevail over that article. Should any such United Nations involvement proceed by way of separate resolutions, specifying the need to ensure peace and stability in the region concerned? Such a resolution was adopted at the time of the Gulf war.
  Let me state the obvious: in that instance, the use of the resolution did not prevent Saddam Hussein's withdrawal from Kuwait with much of his republican guard and goodness knows how many divisions of his army intact; with hundreds of tanks; with 150 aeroplanes and 500 helicopters; with the capacity for nuclear, chemical and biological warfare; and with 100 Scud missiles.
  Equally disturbing are the impertinent—but none the less deeply worrying—repeated Iraqi declarations of intent to reoccupy Kuwait, Iraq's refusal to allow inspections of its potential nuclear sites and the continuous broadcasts

  359
  on a number of radio stations throughout the region, telling their Arabic audience that the war had really been won by Saddam Hussein and that all declarations to the contrary were merely United States propaganda following that nation's defeat. All those developments have merely followed the adoption of the separate resolution: clearly, it did not solve the problem.
  It would be presumptuous and impertinent of me to suggest at this stage that I had the answers, and I make no such suggestion. Surely, however, we can all agree that the UN's powers must be strengthened, and that this is a good time to do so. When the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs saw UN officials in Washington, we gained the strong impression that they were apologising for the fact that any military support had been necessary.
  At a moment when the UN had just risen like a new born foal standing up for the first time—at a moment when the world should have been looking to that organisation for greater purpose and determination, and a wish to strengthen its approach—we were hearing apologies. We should watch that tendency carefully, and do what we can to strengthen the resolve of whoever succeeds Mr. Perez de Cuellar as UN Secretary-General.
  My second point concerns the plight of more than 2 million refugees—mainly the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south—who have fled in terror from Saddam Hussein. It is time that the international community united to provide a more effective, more efficient and therefore more life-saving system to deal with humanitarian disasters of this kind, and also with national disasters. It was satisfying to hear from the mouths of the Iranians that the quality of the United Kingdom's response had been perceived as good, and also that, in terms of the quantity of emergency relief to Iran, we ranked third in the list of donors. I believe that we have contributed more than £80 million in humanitarian relief alone.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said that the Government's aid contribution had fallen below the gross national product level at which we are aiming. Let me tell the hon. Lady not only that we were thanked and praised for the amount of financial aid that we were providing, but that, throughout our visit, I heard no one say, "If only the British Government could provide more money." As further disasters occur, we may well have to find more money because we have given so much to the Iraqi refugees; but we are here debating aid for those refugees. [Interruption.] Let me assure the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, and any other doubters on the Opposition Front Bench, that no one else has brought to our attention any such complaint.
  There can be little doubt that hundreds—perhaps thousands—of Iraqi lives have been saved by the Prime Minister's initiative in establishing safe havens where Iraqi citizens can be protected from attacks by the military forces, and by the deployment of between 3,000 and 5,000 British troops. Thousands of people, some of them starving, have been brought down from the mountains, fed and sheltered and provided with life-saving medicines.
  Outside those havens, in the Iranian refugee camps, we found great cause for concern. What will happen when the bad weather comes—and, indeed, when boredom strikes, if it has not done so already? Tens of thousands of people are living in impossibly cramped conditions with nothing to do—many of them people of action, former members of the Peshmerga guerrilla group. If confidence does not
  360
  return—sadly, the Select Committee did not think that it would, given the existing circumstances—action will be urgently needed.
  What is needed, if efficiency is to be improved, and what is barely available in the case of the Iraqi refugees, is a United Nations force of sufficient strength to deter an aggressor from further action against his victims. The United States does not want its troops to stay in the Gulf, where they believe that they are not welcome and where they are terrified of developing a long-term commitment of the Vietnam kind. The British and the other coalition forces are similarly unenthusiastic, and feel unable to take on such a commitment. It is possible that the Turkish army, the Syrian army, another army or a combination of all those will have to provide for the protection of ethnic minorities in the region; certainly, a Gulf security system will have to be worked out. The next report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which is due shortly, will address that issue.
  No one can deny that it is regrettable that comparatively few of the intended 500 United Nations field service officers have materialised. There are about 135 United Nations staff in Iraq, plus 70 seconded from Nordic non-governmental organisations and Governments, but there are only 48 field officers, of whom nine have now left.
  That has meant that the coalition forces will have to remain, perhaps indefinitely, to provide reassurance for the Kurds so that they will return to their homes without fear. As we say in our report, it would be wrong for the coalition forces to leave them to the mercy of Saddam Hussein's troops. Something more must be done urgently for the United Nations to get its enforcement powers together.
  The second element required is a far more efficient system of organising and distributing aid. Those of us who saw the Kurdish camps in Ziveh and the Shi'ite camp in Shush were most impressed by the work done by the NGOs to feed, shelter and provide medical treatment for the refugees. However, we heard stories about total lack of co-ordination, some of which have been mentioned in the debate. We hear such stories repeated in disaster after disaster.
  We heard that sometimes the wrong type of tent or the wrong sort of food supplies are sent. Supplies that are surplus to requirements in one camp are sometimes not available in another camp where they are desperately needed. We heard about the duplication of medicines and sometimes the wrong sort of medicine, the sending of a large number of unnecessary helicopters and second-hand unserviceable equipment. We heard of the sending of high-energy biscuits when the need for them had passed and the only use for them was to use the wrappers to provide shelter and warmth.
  We heard of dedicated NGOs duplicating each other's efforts and nearly getting in each other's way. One NGO group—I think that it was a French group—returned home in pique and disgust. We have heard of hesitancy from some sources in providing financial assistance because of uncertainty about the use to which it would be put. We understand that there are pressures against efficiency.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is it not time to let somebody else speak?
  Mr. Lawrence: There will be plenty of time. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) takes up an enormous amount of the House's time by asking all sorts of impenetrable questions. It would be much more helpful if he were to remain silent.
  There is a desire for democratic Parliaments clearly to identify visible aid projects, like so many tonnes of wheat or so many helicopters, and they desire not to have their money disappear into book-keeping or be wasted because the distribution system from the ports is inadequate or wasteful.
  All that points to a desperate need to have somebody or some groups to co-ordinate all the aid activities. It is astonishing that, in this electronic age, there seems not to have existed in this disaster a computerised information system to identify the places of urgent need, the sort of aid on offer and the areas where no offers of the right type of aid have yet been made. Such a system could co-ordinate the offers of aid with the correct areas. It is almost incredible that no computer appears to be planning the routes available for distribution and delivery vehicles.
  We need a blueprint for future responses to international disasters. We need rules about when the Government of the disaster-riven country take control and when they do not. We need rules about who takes control when the Government of the country is incapable. We need a rule book of actions that can speedily bring together, co-ordinate and redirect the substantial aid that is available from the world at times of heartbreaking disaster, whether natural or manmade. It should not be necessary to start from scratch with every new disaster, learning the same lessons again.
  The British Government, in co-operation with the British people, have acquitted themselves well in providing resources, assisting our NGOs, helping to co-ordinate European Community assistance, bringing about safe havens, in getting resolutions past the Security Council, pursuing an initiative with the Germans for the appointment of a senior United Nations co-ordinator and, of course, providing the military assistance necessary to end the instability and anarchy in the region. If the Government could convene a conference in the near future of all those involved in the recent emergency planning and field work to draw up a blueprint for the future, they will have made an outstanding contribution to the cause of humanity.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: Like many of my colleagues who visited the camps, I came away with a number of impressions. Many observations have been made by hon. Members who visited the camps and I do not want to repeat them.
  I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friends and the Minister one or two observations about the position of the refugees before dealing with the broader issue, which is that the Kurdish and Shi'ite refugee problem is not only an aid problem but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, a political problem. It is a problem of international order and political decision.
  We must not let the House forget that the potential for a further huge influx of refugees is considerable. The Iran-Iraq border was heavily fortified during the eight-year war and, ironically, the bombing of all the
  362
  bridges made movement of people across that border almost impossible. That has meant that the refugee problem in the south could be understated.
  It is sickening to realise when one visits the camps that every refugee crisis, even if it is three quarters solved, leaves behind yet another residue of permanent refugees. In one of the camps that we went to see there were many thousands of Kurdish refugees who had been there since 1975. The Iranian authorities reminded us—I had forgotten but I am sure that other hon. Members have not —that they are permanently maintaining under their refugee programme 2·5 million refugees from the Afghan war. We have had many quarrels and differences with the Iranian regime, but we must compliment the Iranian authorities on their work in refugee camps. The Iranian Red Crescent is one of the most efficient and compassionate organisations. Iran opens its borders to large numbers of people.
  It was pointed out to us by people representing United Nations agencies that, curiously, national Governments now feel a desperate need to respond to crises in a macho and virile way. There is almost an aid race in which every Government want to show their electorate that they are responding to the latest crisis. As a consequence, there is often a lack of co-ordination, duplication and considerable waste.
  In an eloquent appeal, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said that we need a form of investment in United Nations agencies so that we can co-ordinate our activities through the United Nations rather than conducting the aid race in a macho and virile way while Governments are attempting to prove that their aid programme is bigger, better and more effective than anybody else's.
  The plight of the Kurds and the Shi'ites represents a broader political issue. We must admit that until we saw on our television screens the plight of the Kurds on the mountains there had been remarkably little interest in their dilemma. They have been a mild embarrassment to the international community for generations because they do not fit into an easy, tidy, nation-state pattern. They have been a special embarrassment to Iranian, Turkish and Iraqi Governments for some time. I must say—I hope that I do not enter a jarring note into a consensual debate—that that attitude was exemplified by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office. When he appeared before the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 30 January, I pressed him on the Government's attitude to autonomy for the Kurds and he could barely conceal his impatience. At the end of our exchange, the Chairman said:
  "I think the Minister is telling us we have enough on our Plate!"
  On 30 January, the Kurdish issue was not of great ministerial concern.
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I do not have a record of our exchange, but I recall that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that we should support a policy of creating an independent Kurdistan.
  Mr. Rowlands: I have the record. I asked the Minister:
  "Is there not a case for championing some particular autonomy which would recognise the very distinctive … characteristics of the Kurdish people?"

  363
  I was not pressing for a Kurdish state; I was questioning whether the Kurds would be a problem. The Minister rightly said that we must maintain territorial integrity and national boundaries, but in January the general attitude was that the Kurds were a problem and an embarrassment. They became a global embarrassment only when we saw their suffering on our television screens.
  Hon. Members have said that the Kurds and Shi'ites represent a new challenge to the way in which we conduct international affairs and to the new international order that may emerge in the wake of the Gulf war, but the United Nations seems to recognise international disorder only when there is an act of aggression by one state against another. Experience of Yugoslavia and Iraq shows that international regional disorder occurs not only when one state attacks another but when the inherent structural problems of the societies on which we base international order—the notion that nation states are inviolate—are not recognised by the international community. As the cement of the empire, in its broadest sense, dissolves at the end of the century, those issues will become increasingly prominent.
  That problem is demonstrated by the disintegration of the Ethiopian empire and the emergence of traditional rivalries. The dissolving of the cement of the Soviet communist empire is causing similar tension and rivalry in traditional relationships. The same is happening in Yugoslavia and will happen in the middle east.
  On our travels, I spent my time on planes reading one of the most authoritative accounts of the origins of Iraq. Everybody knew that we just drew lines on a map. Minutes of memoranda of the great debates on the birth of the artificial state of Iraq disclose chilling prophesies that now seem relevant, despite their being written 40 or 50 years ago. One internal commentator said:
  "You are flying in the face of four milleniums of history if you try to draw a line around Iraq and call it a political entity".
  At the time of the birth of Iraq, the minutes of a Foreign and Commonwealtth Office official said:
  "Almost 2 million Shi'ite Moslems in Mesopotamia would not accept domination by the minority Sunni Moslem community yet no form of government has been envisaged which does not involve Sunni domination."
  He described the nature of that domination as essentially military domination.
  Although I am not saying that we should be trapped by history—50 or 60 years later, events may have made those early judgments wrong—it is chilling to note the assessments that were being made during the artificial creation of a state such as Iraq because, in different ways, they are now manifesting themselves. We must ask ourselves the awkward and painful question whether Saddam Hussein, whom we all detest and believe must go, is not at least partly the creature of the state that was created. If the answer is yes, do we say for ever and a day that a state that was artificially created for a host of wrong motives should be the basis on which we maintain international order? I realise what a dangerous minefield one walks through when one makes such comments, but, given the dissolution of empires in the late 20th century, these issues will crop up time and again.
  I shall complete my brief historic footnote by saying that, curiously, the 1920 treaty of Sevres, which was drafted and approved but never implemented, recognized
  364
  that such issues would arise and tried to write in autonomy for the Kurds, the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis—areas that have now become hot spots.
  A number of hon. Members have asked to what extent the new international order will continue to uphold the principle of non-interference in nation states, especially if they are not necessarily cohesive or do not have sound bases of language, culture and national identities. That problem will not go away.
  The dilemmas of the Kurds and Shi'ites in Iraq, the fact that we have established safe havens and sent rapid deployment forces to defend them and to guarantee the rights of minorities within the inviolate nation state of Iraq point in the long term to a new international order based on, dare I say it, some form of world government. Unless we learn the lessons and realise that, I am afraid that this last episode will be a footnote in the sad history of Kurds rebelling and being betrayed.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Jacques Arnold: I believe that we have two lessons to learn from the Kurdistan refugee crisis: first, the potential effectiveness of the European Community as a powerful forum for initiative in foreign affairs; and, secondly, the key role that is being played by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
  We all watched the events of the Kuwait campaign and the 100 hours to the ceasefire. That ceasefire has left Saddam Hussein in charge, but was due, after only 100 hours, in no small part to the scars of Vietnam on the American nation. We are all aware of the reluctance of the United States to become involved in foreign adventures, and its fears of getting bogged down.
  In Europe, and in Britain in particular, the reaction was very different. The public were concerned. We were all extremely moved by scenes on our televisions of masses of civilian populations who were totally unprepared for their movement into the mountains. Rightly, in Europe there was a wave of humanitarian revulsion at what we were seeing, and a demand for immediate action.
  The initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the European Community summit in Luxembourg on 8 April got the bandwagon going. The agreement between European Community leaders to take action caused the United States to make an active response, which we saw on 16 April with the joint announcement by the United States, France and Britain that they would send troops to northern Iraq to co-ordinate the relief work and to establish safe encampments. We now know that it met with considerable success. Most of the Kurdish civilians have come down from the mountains. Some went into the camps and are still there, but most have been moved back to their original homes in Iraqi Kurdistan. There has also been a European initiative to transport refugees back from Iran.
  The lessons to learn are that we have a Prime Minister who has rapidly gained in international stature to give a lead in effective action on the world stage, and that the European nations, working in concert, carry a mighty diplomatic clout which can precipitate action on a world scale and can influence the United States to change its position.
  However, problems remain. We must somehow maintain the confidence of the Kurds who have returned home and persuade them to stay put in their homes and to

  365
  feel secure. The allied forces in the area are currently providing that security, but there is a real fear of their withdrawal. However, the sending of United Nations guards to the area is no effective solution. That is exemplified by a letter sent by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 30 May to the president of the Security Council.
  The annex to the letter contains descriptions of the deployment of those guards. For example, it states:
  "The number of Guards in the Contingent will be kept under review as further units are dispatched, but will not exceed a total strength of 500."
  When one considers the residual strength of the Iraqi armed forces and the vast size of the Kurdish populations involved, one realises that the number is wholly inadequate.
  The annex to the letter continues:
  "The number of Guards assigned to the various regions will be decided in consultation with the Government authorities concerned"—
  which means mainly Iraq—
  "but would not exceed 150 in any one region."
  Again, that is wholly inadequate in view of the scale of the country.
  It is even more farcical that the annex continues:
  "United Nations Guards will be authorized to carry side-arms (pistols/revolvers), which will be provided by the Iraqi authorities".
  Clearly, the United Nations guards can play only a symbolic role. They are poorly funded even for the limited job that they have been sent to do. I understand that a special fund has been established within the United Nations. It is interesting that the United Kingdom is the largest contributor and is way ahead of others—notably the United States. Will the Minister confirm the leading role that we are also playing in that respect?
  To answer the question why a United Nations force has not been sent and why we are confined to the services of valiant doorkeepers, one has only to read The Economist of 22 June, which summed up the matter neatly:
  "Neither the Soviet Union nor China would approve action"—
  the dispatch of a United Nations force—
  "on the Kurds' behalf in the full glare of the Security Council. They feared the precedent such intervention could set for, say, Tibet or the Baltic republics. Other countries, standing by the clause in the UN charter that bars it from internal disputes, felt the same."
  That highlights the continuing practical limitations of the United Nations, which is, of course, bound up in the various legalities which were dealt with so well by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence). It is tragic that the United Nations did so well with the nation of Kuwait, but is largely paralysed over the internal problems of Iraq, notably those in Kurdistan.
  It is clear that we must maintain a strong military presence until the establishment of an adequate intervention force by the allies. In particular, we must ensure that the airborne capacity is adequate for the task.
  6.36 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: I was also a member of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs which visited the refugee camps on the Iran-lraq border about six weeks ago. We had the opportunity to talk to Kurdish
  366
  refugees from the north and to Shi'ite refugees from the south of Iraq who had been forced to flee from the forces of Saddam Hussein.
  Despite what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said about evidence of inefficiency—and I agree with at least some of what he said—I pay tribute to all the organisations over there— governmental and non-governmental—that are doing their very best to deal with difficult circumstances. I pay a special tribute to the Iranian Government and to the Iranian Red Crescent, because it is largely due to their efforts that what we observed was not nearly as bad as I had feared before I went.
  I have visited refugee camps in other parts of the world with the Select Committee. For example, a few days ago I visited refugee camps on the Sudan-Ethiopia border where the smell of death permeated the atmosphere and where sick, starving and dying children were everywhere to be seen. By contrast, the children whom we saw in the camps in west Azerbaijan and Khuzestan looked, for the most part, healthy and in very good spirits. However, I do not want to underrate the horrific experience that those children and their parents must have undergone. It must have been an ordeal for them, first, to literally run for their lives from the killing machine of Saddam Hussein and then to be faced with the threat of death from starvation on freezing mountain tops.
  When we visited the camps in late May the worst seemed to be over, at least for the time being. I emphasise the latter phrase. The reason why the worst seemed to he over at least for the time being was that the various aid agencies appeared to be getting to grips with the basic needs of the refugees. However, there is no room for complacency—there is much more to be done, bearing in mind that there are about 2·5 million refugees or displaced persons in that part of the world. Winter is approaching and, looking further ahead, we cannot and must not expect those people to live in refugee camps for ever. We must step up our efforts to find a permanent long-term solution, including a political settlement. That means trying our best to find a peaceful and democratic solution to the internal problems which still exist in Iraq and it also means going some way to meeting the legitimate aspirations of the Kurdish people for a degree of self-determination or autonomy.
  The Kurds were suffering atrocities at the hands of Saddam Hussein long before he invaded Kuwait and the Gulf war has, arguably, made things worse instead of better for them. We therefore have a duty to do everything possible to help them in their immediate plight and in the longer term.
  I want to comment on the British contribution to the crisis. By 1 May this year, the Overseas Development Administration had committed a total of £61·5 million, but it is important to point out to the House that only £30 million of that is new money from the Treasury's central reserve. In other words, more than half that money comes from the existing, over-stretched ODA budget. If we take the new money—£30 million—and divide it by the 2·5 million people involved, it works out at the princely sum of £12 a head. It is not a huge amount when considered in those terms.
  It is also worth considering that the ODA was charged by the Ministry of Defence for much of the relief operation carried out by the armed forces. I hope that the Minister will reply in his summing up to the Select Committee

  367
  recommendation that there should be a new arrangement between the ODA and the Ministry of Defence. I should prefer there to be no transfer payment from the aid budget to the defence budget, but if there is, it should take into account the training element for the armed forces in the refugee operations. That is an explicit recommendation in the Select Committee report.
  According to the Government, the Gulf war cost them £2·5 billion. That is probably an underestimate, but the truth will come out at the end of the day. The total ODA commitment of £61·5 million to help Iraqi refugees alone is the equivalent of three Tornado aircraft. Perhaps that brings the matter into perspective. Why are the Government's spending priorities such that they spend so much on a destructive war that cost more than 100,000 lives and yet spend relatively little on trying to help the refugees who are the victims of the aftermath of that war?
  I hope that, as a result of this debate, more priority will be given to helping not just Iraqi refugees, but the many others throughout the world who find themselves the innocent victims of disaster, whether it be famine, flood, earthquake or the ravages of war. For the sake of humanity, we owe help to those people, especially if we have been partly responsible for precipitating the action and thereby partly responsible for causing the desperate situation in which they find themselves.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I shall be brief and truncate my remarks. I found the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) most interesting, although the latter's speech was too long. They addressed the central issue arising from the Gulf conflict of how we deal with the question of article 2·7 which deals with intervention in the internal affairs of nation states. When the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs examines the matter, it should do so from a wide perspective, and it should do a lot of work because it will be making a contribution to the international debate on the matter.
  I refer to the implementation of resolution 688 by the United Nations, especially the section in paragraph 2, which deals with ending the repression. Mr. Talabani and his advisers told me and my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) in Istanbul only a week and a half ago that the Kurdish leadership had had no contact with the United Nations monitors in the field. It was we who had to advise them to make contact. Even when we asked Mrs. Ogata—the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—yesterday whether that contact had been made, she was unable to tell us. Only when that contact is made will evidence of repression be proven to the international community and especially to the Security Council of the United Nations. Only when that evidence has been proven and reported back can any rapid action force deployed in Incerlik in southern Turkey or elsewhere be used. It is the linkage between the reporting back by the United Nations monitors to the Security Council through Mr. Van de Stoehl, the former Dutch Foreign Minister, and the threat of action by the rapid action force based in southern Turkey which will force Saddam Hussein to realise that the major powers mean business in exercising resolution 688, which refers to the need to end repression.
  368
  The second part of resolution 688 which is important to the debate is the part that deals with the need—I think that the word "insist" is used—for the Iraqi regime to give access to the United Nations humanitarian effort wherever in Iraq it is required. Following our meeting with Mrs. Ogata in the House yesterday, it is my view that the resolution is not being implemented. The Iraqi Government are preventing access by United Nations personnel to various parts of Iraq. Furthermore, the United Nations has simply not put in place the number of people necessary to ensure adequate coverage of the whole of Iraq in providing humanitarian relief.
  Significantly, whereas the United States was prepared, acting on the basis of paragraphs 12 and 13 of resolution 687 which deal with nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons technology, to issue the threat of foreign intervention if necessary to secure implementation of those paragraphs, to date it has not been prepared to threaten Iraq on the basis of that country's failure to permit access under paragraph 3 of resolution 688, which deals with the need for Iraq to allow passage to United Nations representatives for the purposes of humanitarian relief. I hope that my comments will be taken on board by Ministers because the debate will turn on both matters in the coming months.
  A number of my hon. Friends asked why, at the end of the war, we did not proceed to block off Saddam Hussein's forces and, as many have argued, go as far as Baghdad. The answer is simple, and the British people should understand that answer. As politicians, as Ministers, or as representatives of the American Government, we all had to give undertakings on British television and in the rest of the British media that the war aims of the coalition were confined to getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait. I remember the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs being interviewed on television and having to make the point that our war aims were restricted. He referred to the possibility of dealing with the matter in a later Select Committee report. I hope that he does not go further than his comments on British television only three months ago. He could not go further. The pressure did not come only from American public opinion, but in the House, when many of my hon. Friends—and, indeed, many Conservative Members—demanded that a restriction be placed on the war aims. Furthermore, we were conscious of the rioting in major capitals throughout the region, such as Cairo and Tangiers. There were objections even in Saudi Arabia to the way the war was going from some Shi'ite groups. In Pakistan and Iran, there were demonstrations in capital cities. There were demonstrations in Syria. People forget that we were circumscribed by international opinion. That is why we did not go further, and that is why we were correct not to go further. People should not change the debate now that the conflict is all but over—apart from these remaining matters.
  Some argue that sanctions should be removed. In my view, they should not be removed; they should stay. It is the responsibility of the United Nations to resolve the problem of humanitarian relief inside Iraq. If the United Nations officers in the field feel that they do not have what Mrs. Ogata described yesterday as "the wherewithal" to deal with the problems, they must report back to the Security Council the needs of Iraq in terms of humanitarian relief. Those arguments should take place in the United Nations. It is not for western Governments unilaterally—or, indeed, for the United Nations—to end

  369
  sanctions. It is for western Governments, through their United Nations relief programmes, to intervene and provide whatever is required.
  6.49 pm
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I am in a little difficulty, as I understood that the Front-Bench speakers wished to begin winding up the debate at 6.50 pm. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) shaking her head, so I shall continue quickly.
  Other hon. Members have spoken about the future possibilities for a new international order. I hope that the day will come when we have that, but it will have to be a genuine new order, with all the nations in the United Nations, not, as we have now, an order dominated by the five permanent members of the Security Council. Some of us would have believed more readily in those countries' intentions concerning the Gulf war if we had not seen the important United Nations nations, at the behest of the United States, standing back and doing little about repression in Cambodia, Palestine and Nicaragua.
  Paragraph 1 of the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs says that the resources to provide aid for Iraqi refugees are "severely stretched". Many of us wonder when the day will come when the nations of the world will spend on anything like the same scale to save lives as they have spent to kill people. The coalition forces spent £100 billion on the war, yet when the United Nations sought relief support for the refugee problem it managed to get only £58 million to help what it then thought would be about 400,000 refugees. In fact, by mid-April there were 400,000 refugees on the Turkish mountains and 400,000 more in Iraq near the Turkish border, 1 million in northern Iran and 70,000 in southern Iran—a total of 1,870,000. The aid was indeed thinly spread.
  If I were to encourage people to rise up against their oppressors—for instance, by encouraging the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein—I should feel some responsibility if they took me at my word, and would have financed that uprising. People were cynically left to rise up and given practically no support. Then they were left in appalling conditions in the mountains.
  It is not true that this Government came hastily to the refugees' aid. They did so only after the British people had seen the refugees' plight on their television screens and kept complaining about the Government's lack of response. The same thing happened when the American people saw the plight of the Kurdish refugees on television. Only then did western Governments start responding to the refugees' plight.
  The huge responsibilities taken on by Iran in caring for the refugees both now and in past years put yesterday's Government statement about refugees coming into this country in a poor light. A paltry few hundred people are arriving here, yet the Government go to great lengths to resist their being allowed in. They say that those people should stop off at the first available safe country instead of heading here. What an ungenerous response in comparison with the responsibilities thrown on to the shoulders of Iraq's neighbouring countries.
  The Government dithered during April and said that they were worried about intervening in the internal affairs of Iraq, although our forces had already bombed Iraq
  370
  back into a pre-industrial age. People are still dying in their hundreds of thousands because of infected water, poor sanitation and lack of medicines. The Government's response was farcical.
  I should be glad if in future people recognised that we have responsibilities to each other as human beings, and did not allow the barriers presented by nation states to stop us coming to people's aid promptly and fully, with a wholehearted response that recognised human need. I should be glad if, for once, we could start working towards a system in which we were willing to spend anything like the same amount of money on saving lives as we have all been spending on destroying lives.
  6.54 pm
  Mr. John McFall: I was recently reminded of the words of David Lloyd George:
  "the most persistent sound which reverberates through men's history is the beating of the war drums. This war, like the next war, is a war to end wars."
  Those words came to mind as, making my way to Kuwait City with the Select Committee on Defence, I flew over the burning oil wells. Someone said then that if hell had a national park that would be it.
  What have we gained from the war? What have been its costs? We have 1·8 million refugees, and we have created a political problem. As paragraph 15 of the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs says, it
  "raises the grim prospect of a seemingly unending refugee operation of Palestinian proportions."
  The Select Committee should be congratulated on giving us a short and cogent report on refugees and aid.
  I have looked at the British Refugee Council's report of its visit to Iran at the beginning of June. Iran was commended for the way in which it has coped with the refugees. The report said that the number of refugees in Iran will exceed 1·3 million, and that in spite of any negotiations between Saddam Hussein and the Kurds 40 per cent. of them will stay behind. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said, it bodes ill when we compare our own treatment of refugees with the way in which Iran has treated the 1·3 million refugees who have come to its borders. The report estimates that 400,000 to 600,000 Shi'ites have been displaced in the southern parts of Iraq.
  The Harvard team of medics referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has estimated some of the costs of the war. It gives chapter and verse on mortality and morbidity, but the factor that stands out is that 170,000 Iraqi children under the age of five will die in the next year if we do not do anything. To those who say that we should not lift sanctions I say, "Think of one of those 170,000 children as being your own son, your own daughter or your own niece or nephew". Could those people then stand up and say that we should not lift sanctions? The team of medics tells us that those children will have a slow and painful death because of the stone age conditions that now exist in Iraq. Those conditions exist because the coalition forces ensured that they would.
  We spent £100 billion prosecuting the war, yet to date we have spent only slightly more than £60 million on prosecuting the peace—less than 1 per cent. of the amount spent on the war. That is not good enough. The humanitarian aid has been welcomed by Iran and the Kurds, and the human effects of the Gulf war are now

  371
  being ameliorated by international aid, but that does not erase the effects already suffered. In many respects the immediate aftermath of the war has improved very little in the intervening four months. In terms of malnutrition and disease control the situation has deteriorated further.
  From a humanitarian point of view, I plead with the Minister to lift sanctions, in the name of humanity if for no other reason. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) explained how Saddam Hussein had been created, and that should be the lesson of the war. What will happen next—we have seen it already, with more arms sales to the middle east—is that we will get another Saddam. There will be Saddam 2 and Saddam 3. The only way to cut his legs off will be to prosecute another $100 billion war, and deliver 2 million more refugees. It is not worth it.
  We see the kernel of the problem when we consider the permanent members of the UN Security Council and the supply of arms to the middle east. That is where the solution should lie. I look forward to the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the issue of arms control measures. We are reminded in the 20 May issue of The House magazine that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council supplied middle eastern nations with $163,200 million worth of material during the four years preceding the arms embargo against Iraq. Baghdad received the largest proportion of that—$52,800,000. Sadly, Saddam Hussein is our creature because we supplied him with those arms.
  The lesson of the war is that we should immediately convene a middle east peace conference encompassing all the issues, so that we do not find ourselves faced with a Saddam 2 or a Saddam 3 and 2 million more refugees.
  7 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), I am in favour of the lifting of sanctions forthwith.
  A fortnight ago I shared a platform with the actress Vanessa Redgrave who had just come back from Iraq. Her report, which I believe was factually accurate, was along similar lines to the Harvard report, from which I must quote:
  "The study team gained the first unsupervised access to Iraq's electrical power plants and finds that Iraq today generates only about 20 per cent. as much electricity as before the Gulf War."
  The Harvard doctors write:
  "There is a link in Iraq between electrical power and public health … Without electricity, water cannot be purified, sewage cannot be treated, water-borne diseases flourish, and hospitals cannot treat curable illness."
  One of the study team's findings, which has been repeated today, was that at least 170,000 under-fives will die this year. The team also found that water purification, sewage disposal and electrical power plants have been incapacitated. Without imported parts one cannot run generators, and without generators there will be no electricity to deal with sewage and water purification.
  I realise that there are problems in lifting sanctions. I refer the Government to Aviation Week and Space Technology of 1 July, which states:
  "Estimates were received that 6 million Iraqis could have died from dispersion of stored anthrax and botulism viruses."
  Can the Minister comment on the leaking of chemicals stored at the Muthanna military complex near Samnarra?
  372
  They may have been badly stored, but apparently they may well be leaking as a result of bombing and poor maintenance.
  What do the Government propose to do about the recommendations of the United Nations inspection team, led by the Australian, Dr. Peter Dunn?
  As I said, I realise that there are difficulties in connection with lifting sanctions. What is the latest information about the nuclear issue, for example, and what were the results of the presentation of classified spy satellite photographs to the United Nations Security Council? Did the Iraqis remove nuclear equipment from Abu Ghurab, north of Baghdad, last Monday? Were the inspectors denied access, and what do Ministers propose to do about their statement that
  "activities which had been observed from a distance during a first visit had ceased and objects that had been seen had been removed"?
  I admit that that is part of the difficulty in lifting sanctions but—but, but, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton says, in humantarian terms, the public health catastrophe that is upon us simply does not bear thinking about.
  7.3 pm
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I welcome the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, although I thought that some Conservative Members who spoke in its favour showed considerable complacency, especially about the role of the Overseas Development Administration.
  On 1 April or thereabouts, we saw on our television screens the desperate situation facing the Kurds, yet even by the end of April very little had been done despite the considerable public response and their desire to assist.
  Throughout April, masses of Kurds starved, froze and died. It was evident that a huge airlift of aid should have been the first priority. The policy of safe havens made sense only if those to be defended could also survive the elements. Organisations such as the Red Cross, Oxfam and the Save The Children Fund did valiant work, given the limits of their resources, and the disaster unit of the ODA, starved of adequate funding and full logistical back up, worked beyond the call of duty.
  Why did not the Cabinet provide the resources needed for Britain to set in motion an equivalent to the Berlin airlift? For weeks, people throughout the country had been collecting blankets, groundsheets, medicines, clothing and so on. The medical goods were sent on the basis of information supplied by the Iranian embassy about the materials required. The public will be aghast to discover that much of the material was not dispatched until more than a month later.
  It is not true that the ODA sent massive assistance to Iran. To 28 April, only four 707s, carrying about 35 tonnes each, went to Iran. That is disgraceful. Later, there was a build-up in the number of aircraft sent, so it looked as though a reasonable number of them had gone, but at the time when it was needed the material was simply not being sent in in anything like the amounts that Conservative Members suggested.
  Bodies emerged in Britain such as British Aid for the Kurds, which had collected huge quantities of material and had access to much-needed supplies from numerous firms. Private truckers such as Track 29 moved their goods

  373
  free of charge, and Iran Air sent in high-capacity 747s to collect the supplies. The 747s can carry up to 100 tonnes, unlike the 707s used by the ODA.
  With the best will in the world, and after superhuman effort, bodies such as British Aid for the Kurds were still left with masses of materials on their hands, which presented warehousing problems, while they desperately searched for more flight opportunities. All that the ODA could do was respond ad hoc, paying for the odd movement or the storage of goods. It was at Cabinet and prime ministerial level that the decision needed to be taken to overcome the logjam and to ensure that the goods were shifted more quickly than Iran Air could shift them on its own. Throughout April, Iran Air was even paying landing charges at Heathrow airport. Only later were some landing charges lifted, but only for special flights coming to Britain —even though standard Iran Air flights were taking out full loads of material.
  I hope that, in producing its next report, the Foreign Affairs Committee will examine what happened in respect of the movement of goods. Bodies such as British Aid to the Kurds collected much-needed material—not the material rubbished by the ODA, referred to in the report. Those bodies did invaluable work, and the British public made a great response. Long before a concert was held to raise money, and long before others—who also did invaluable work—began to move in on the act, ordinary people throughout the country had collected valuable material.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the British public's generosity in giving goods was tremendous, in times of disaster relief, it is more practical to give money? The same goods could have been purchased in Teheran. In fact, three times as much could have been purchased for the value of the goods that were piling up at London airport. It would be in everybody's interests to encourage people to give money and not goods in any future disaster.
  Mr. Barnes: The successor organisation to British Aid for the Kurds is now trying to help in the Horn of Africa and it is collecting money because of the difficulties of shifting the appropriate material. If the ODA could handle the situation properly and could draw on what has been collected in this country, that would be of benefit. After exchange rates and foreign markets are taken into account, the subsequent sum is often less than the amount that was originally collected.
  We should not decry the important work carried out by various organisations to send much-needed material to Iraq. People saw the disaster on their television screens and they knew what materials were likely to be required. They collected that valuable material and the ODA should have been able to distribute it. Organisations like British Aid for the Kurds should not be written out of the record.
  British Aid for the Kurds is a successor to Parcels for the Troops in the Gulf. When it organised those parcels, they were sent out very easily because the Ministry of Defence was sending planes and provisions to the area. The parcels were well packed, and they were sent off easily. The woman who organised those two groups, Lorraine Goodrich, has received her reward from Buckingham palace in connection with her work for Parcels for the
  374
  British Troops in the Gulf. However, her assistance for the Kurds is written out of the record by the ODA. I hope that British Aid for the Kurds will not be written out of the record when the Foreign Affairs Committee considers these matters further.
  7.11 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): The House will agree that few citizens have greater cause to fear their Government than do the Kurds have reason to fear and loathe Saddam Hussein. His policy towards that part of Iraq has been marked by murder, betrayal and a brutal disregard for the obligations that a Government owe to their citizens. Those essential facts explain the chaotic and distressing flight to the mountains that we witnessed earlier this year and which, following the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, led to the massive relief operation and the creation of safe havens that have been the focus of this debate.
  I was in Luxembourg on 8 April when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched his initiative. My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) was right to emphasise that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, by his action and the policies that were pursued thereafter, made a decisive and imaginative contribution to the relief of suffering in that part of Iraq.
  This debate was opened eloquently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) who is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Many of the facts and considerations that are relevant to this debate can be found in the admirably succinct report that was published two days ago. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development very much regrets not being able to be present here today. She will make a full, written report to that document later this year. For that reason, I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not deal in over-great detail with some of the specific recommendations in the Select Committee's report.
  In responding to the debate, I want to reply to particular points made by right hon. and hon. Members, to explain what we have tried to do in Iraq, in particular in north Iraq, to assess the current position in that country and to give the House my view on how policy is likely to unfold.
  The Select Committee's report emphasises the scale of the crisis that confronted the world in March and April of this year. On 10 April, as is stated in the report, there were more than 400,000 refugees camped in the mountains of Turkey. There were about 400,000 refugees in Iraq close to the Turkish border. There were about 1 million in northern Iran and about 70,000 in southern Iran. That was indeed a people in flight. It was a tragedy on a scale that is seldom seen. Since then, as the House is aware, the position has improved substantially—at least in north Iraq.
  All the refugees on the mountains within the allied controlled zone have returned to Iraq. The mountain refugee camps are closed and the transit stations are almost deserted. The towns of Zakho and Dahuk, together with most other towns and villages, are returning to normal. To be more precise, the latest information suggests that of the original 1.8 million refugees who left

  375
  Iraq for Turkey and Iran, 1 million have now returned to their homes with the rest dispersed in camps and United Nations' humanitarian centres.
  The relief operations in the north-east are being led by the International Committee of the Red Cross and by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. The United Nations has established humanitarian centres in Arbil and Sulaymaniyah with sub-offices reporting to it. The ICRC is presently distributing food to 750,000 refugees.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) made an important point about winter shelters. From information that I have been given, I think that sufficient winter shelters are still available in Iraq. That should be sufficient for the kind of problem that my right hon. Friend had in mind. Most certainly in view of what he said, I propose to raise the matter further with the ODA and, if necessary, it will be raised with the United Nations' authorities and agencies.
  Miss Emma Nicholson: I am glad to hear about the winter shelters, but I am very concerned about the Shias in southern Iraq. The safety of the just under 1 million Shias there must be at the heart of our thinking in this debate. In particular we must be concerned about the safety of Grand Ayatollah Abul Kassem A1 Khoei, who is the leader of about 250 million Shias around the world. Will my hon. and learned Friend the Minister ensure that the Government do all they can, albeit from a distance, to ensure the safety of those people in the same way that we are caring for others?
  Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the position in south Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and many other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), also referred to that. The position in south Iraq is extremely worrying. Early reports that up to 500,000 people are sheltering in the marshes are probably wrong, but there are many people there—perhaps between 30,000 and 100,000.
  We have warned the Iraqi Government that repression against those people would lead to the direst consequences. We need to know more about what is happening in south Iraq and we, therefore, greatly welcome the fact that Prince Sadruddin is leading a high-level United Nations' team to Iraq to make an in-depth study of need. That report will be of the greatest value to us. It is essential that we know more about what is happening in south Iraq. I agree with the hon. Members for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and others that the refugee problem in Iraq is not at an end.
  The Select Committee's report states that the quality of the United Kingdom's response to the crisis has been good. That conclusion was affirmed by hon. Members who have personal experience of that part of the world as a result of their visit there. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) made some ungenerous remarks about aid. I suggest that a little more—
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
  Mr. Hogg: No, I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Barnes: Why not?
  Mr. Hogg: Because I am not going to. If the hon. Gentleman studies paragraph 21 of the report more carefully, he may see how unfair and ungenerous his observations were.
  I very much agree with the Select Committee's conclusion that the quality of the United Kingdom's response was good. I pay tribute to all those whose efforts contributed to that result, including the armed forces, the many and various non-governmental organizations, the voluntary groups and the carer teams of volunteers. They all performed vital tasks, providing security; establishing a food distribution system; building shelters and giving health care—in short, reducing suffering and saving lives. I also agree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, which was echoed by Opposition Members, that the work of the Iranian authorities was prompt, full and admirable.
  Britain's financial contribution was prompt and generous. We are the largest single donor to the ICRC Gulf appeal. We have contributed 14 million Swiss francs to that appeal and $16 million to the United Nations' appeal. Since last August we have contributed £81 million to relief in the area, over £61 million of which has been contributed since 4 April. All of that has been done at the same time as playing our part in providing aid to Bangladesh and to alleviating the crisis in Africa.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford made some kind remarks about the functioning of the ODA, but also said—I accept this—that the ODA was placed under considerable strain during that process. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has authorised a review of the handling of disasters and of how we can improve the systems within the ODA. We shall focus on three issues. First, during the crisis we found that the dispatch of assessors and co-ordinators was of great value, so we shall see how we can build on that. Secondly, we need to maintain a store and inventory of basic supplies that can be rapidly dispatched. Thirdly, we need to be able to build on the contribution made by volunteers. All those areas will be the subject of the review.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford rightly referred to the United Nations. As is stated in his report, my right hon. Friend said that the crisis showed the need to improve the systems in the United Nations. We have two things in mind. The first is to appoint a senior figure who will report directly to the Secretary-General, direct all relief efforts in the United Nations and co-ordinate the efforts of agencies and Governments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and others have referred to the somewhat unco-ordinated response of agencies and Governments. That response needs to be co-ordinated. We need a register of all the relevant NGOs and agencies, together with the resources that are available to them.
  I should now like to turn to the future. Operation Haven has achieved its aim of meeting the immediate humanitarian need of the refugees who were originally on the Iraqi-Turkish border; for the most part, they have returned to their homes. We have already withdrawn some forces whose task is now complete. We do not wish those forces which remain to be there longer than necessary. We have always been clear that the deployment was temporary, but it would be pointless to withdraw forces only to have them return in future. We, therefore, wish to see credible measures in place designed to prevent the

  377
  repetition of the events of March. That point was emphasised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford and is the first recommendation in his Committee's report. Those measures were set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 25 June.
  First, we wish to see an effective United Nations presence on the ground. In addition to its humanitarian personnel, the UN has now deployed 234 security guards in Iraq. The UN is confident that some 500 will be in place by the end of July. Their role is to protect UN personnel, assets and operations. They will also monitor the security situation in Iraq and report any incidents to the Secretary-General. It would then be for the Security Council to decide what action to take.
  Secondly, Iraq will be clearly warned that any renewed repression will meet the severest response. The Iraqi Government should be in no doubt about our resolve to prevent a repetition of the events of March.
  Thirdly, in order to give weight to those warnings, we believe that there should be a continuing deterrent military presence in the area. We are discussing with our allies exactly what form that presence might take, but we see it as a multinational force ready to respond quickly to violations.
  Fourthly, we will maintain sanctions against Iraq. Iraq's behaviour over the past days has shown once again that the international community must maintain the pressure on the regime in Baghdad in order to make it comply with its international obligations and implement resolution 687.
  I very much agree with the spirit of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Workington about sanctions. I entirely agree with his explanation about why we could not go further into Iraq. We gave undertakings to the public and to the House that our purpose was limited by the Security Council and that we were operating precisely within the terms of the resolution. Moreover, we could not have held the Arab members of the coalition together if we had gone beyond those repeated public commitments. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for so clearly and precisely stating those facts.
  We have not taken a final decision on the withdrawal of forces, but we are working to ensure that the elements that I have outlined are largely in place before withdrawal takes place. I am grateful for the support that I have received from hon. Members tonight.
  We are also following closely the talks which have been taking place between Baghdad and the Kurdish leadership. I regret that no agreement has yet been concluded, but it must be for the Kurdish leadership to decide if and when the terms reached with Baghdad are acceptable. What we have said for our part is that we are sure that the international community will be prepared to look at any agreement that is reached to see what might be done to underpin it.
  I should now like to answer some of the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the supply of spare parts for electricity generation. He was good enough to mention that he had an engagement that would oblige him to leave earlier than he wished. The Iraqis have established about 25 per cent. of their capacity. Provision is made for the import of
  378
  essential humanitarian supplies, which is covered by article 20 of resolution 687. If the Iraqis wish to import such parts, they can notify the sanctions committee and consideration will then be given to their request. The no-objection procedure agreed by the sanctions committee in March provides for the importation of some equipment, namely, water purification equipment, small generators suitable for hospitals and pumping stations, fuel for those small generators and spare parts for the pumping stations. Therefore, the United Nations has already put in place a range of measures that go some way towards meeting the hon. Gentleman's point.
  The hon. Member for Cynon Valley, supported by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel), raised the important question of Ministry of Defence charges, which also appears in the Select Committee's report. Charges were last reviewed in 1990, when it was agreed that they should be raised only on additional expenditure arising from deployment, for example, supplies or foreign service pay allowances. I see the attraction of their argument and we are bound to review the matter again in the light of what has been said in this debate and in the Select Committee's report.
  Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Minister saying that he will review that matter? When I raised it in the debate on the Navy recently, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said that it was currently the subject of discussion. Is that not the case?
  Mr. Hogg: I am not aware of that. I thought that it was prospective rather than actual. I am grateful for the correction and if I am wrong, I apologise. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman so that there is no room for error.
  The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale made an interesting point about a standing United Nations force. His remarks implied that a standing United Nations force would have powers not only to act under the authority of the permanent five but also to intervene in the internal affairs of a nation. It is an interesting concept, which is bound to be discussed from time to time, but I would be cautious about it for two reasons. First, there are substantial problems in adjusting the charter. The charter would have to be adjusted to give the Security Council the authority to act as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Secondly, the deep-seated prejudices of permanent members of the Security Council would have to be adjusted. Those nations include China as regards Tibet, and the Soviet Union as regards the constituent republics. One cannot overlook those factors.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not this the right time to start those discussions? Although the Minister expresses reservations about the suggestion, should not the British Government take a lead in that area, especially as the Select Committee is about to report on those matters?
  Mr. Hogg: Let us await the Select Committee's report. I see problems arising from an adjustment to the charter which might not benefit this country.
  The coalition forces achieved what they set out to achieve, namely, the relief of suffering and the creation of conditions that have encouraged most of the refugees who fled to the mountains to return to their homes in Iraq. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister played an historic

  379
  part in the introduction and shaping of policies that produced the results that I have just described. Although the coalition forces do not intend to stay in northern Iraq, we shall have a substantial military presence in the region. As Saddam Hussein will know full well from what has already happened, if he fails to comply with any warnings that he may receive, he exposes his force to the risk of vigorous and prompt military action. Our determination has already been tested. Coalition forces have shown a resolution, capacity and readiness to act. As a consequence, Iraqi armies in Kuwait were totally defeated. Saddam and his generals should learn from that experience.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. David Howell: With the leave of the House. I thank hon. Members and my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for the way in which they have received the Committee's report and for the sensible guidance that they have given the Committee for its future work. We shall try to respond as effectively as we can. The debate has been brief but effective, and has helped to begin to reveal some of the monstrous legacies of Saddam Hussein. Those legacies will continue as long as he remains in Baghdad and continues his policy of killing and persecution.
  As the House has recognised, there are millions of refugees not only in Iraq but swirling round the middle east, living in misery and fear due to the actions of Saddam Hussein. How we help those refugees and satisfy humanitarian aims, particularly in Iraq, without helping him to commit more monstrosities and evils, and how we combine the need to keep sanctions on him to bring him to heel while at the same time helping those to whom he has caused so much suffering, are dilemmas that face the House and the policy makers. We may not yet have solved them, but we seek to do so.
  380
  In the meantime, the House will be heartened by my hon. and learned Friend's firm resolve that the coalition forces will remain in place until and unless an effective UN force is developed. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) reminded us so graphically, winter lies ahead for those suffering people, and action will be needed on the aid and relief front.
  I am grateful to the House for responding to the Committee's suggestion that the ODA, which has done extremely well, nevertheless needs to increase the speed and effectiveness of its high quality aid efforts. We also suggested that the role of the UN agencies needs to be rethought, and it is good to hear the proposal that a co-ordinator is now being seriously considered by Ministers here and overseas. I hope that the proposal will come into effect within the next few weeks.
  The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and many others mentioned the fascinating question of when, in the new post-cold-war world, we can expect the UN and its agencies to intervene. How do they override reluctant host Governments when appalling humanitarian tragedies are taking place? Today, the UN is in Iraq in a way that many people thought it would never be. Our coalition forces were also dragged in. Tomorrow, it may be the Balkans—who knows? Those matters are for future debates and deliberations in Committee, and I am grateful to the House for paying attention to our report.
  The debate was concluded, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates).

  Unemployment
  [Relevant documents: Third Report from the Employment Committee of Session 1990–91 on Future Prospects for Levels of Employment and Unemployment, House of Commons Paper No. 228 and European Community Documents Nos. 8369/89 and 8416/90 on mutual recognition of professional education and training and No. 9387190 on employment in Europe.]
  Unemployment

    Class VI, Vote 1
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £1,150,731,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £90,392,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Employment, including expenditure via Training and Enterprise Councils, on training, including the provision of training programmes for young people and adults and initiatives within education; on the promotion of enterprise and the encouragement of self-employment and small firms; on help for unemployed people; the improvement of industrial relations; industrial tribunals; compensation for persons disabled by certain industrial diseases; payments towards expenses of trade union ballots; on residual liabilities and disposal of the remaining assets of the former National Dock Labour Board; on the costs of maintaining and disposing of the former Skills Training Agency; administration, central and miscellaneous services including assistance on employment issues to eastern Europe in co-operation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—[Mr. Jackson.]
    7.38 pm
    Mr. Ron Leighton: The Select Commmittee on Employment wanted to study the prospect of employment and unemployment in the United Kingdom. Although the Government make assumptions about future levels of unemployment for planning public expenditure, they always decline to make a public forecast. Therefore, the Committee decided, according to the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Trades Union Congress, to give evidence on their forecast for future levels of employment and unemployment, the causes of the present situation and the factors that will affect future levels.
    We published the report for the information of the House and to give the House the opportunity to debate a matter of the utmost importance. I intend to introduce the subject, to cite some of the evidence given to us and then to comment on it. Doubtless other members of the Select Committee will do the same.
    Large-scale unemployment represents a failure of policy and of performance. It is not just a waste of resources; every statistic of involuntary idleness is a personal tragedy. Some people can overcome redundancy, but others trapped in long-term unemployment remain stuck in grief, prolonged distress and despair and cannot find an alternative meaning or purpose in life. That in turn leads to ill health and family breakdown.
    Anyone who doubts the grief involved in losing a job might care to read the moving interview in Vanity Fair given by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
    Ministers, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were originally reluctant to use the "R" word. They said that there would be no recession, and when it came they said that it would be short and shallow. Since then they have consistently said that good times—and "vague stirrings"—are just around
    382
    the corner. In March this year we took evidence from the CBI and the Institute of Directors, who told us about the depth, the seriousness and the pain of the recession. The memorandum from the CBI said:
    "Since the middle of last year, output has tumbled across the economy, falling most sharply in manufacturing, as orders have dried up."
    The CBI also told us that its survey suggested that retailers, wholesalers and financial services will, if current trends continue, also shed labour. It told us that because of improvements in productivity disappearing employers had to contain labour costs by shedding staff.
    In answer to a question the CBI said:
    "In manufacturing … business optimism is at its lowest for nearly 10 years"
    and companies have been responding to more difficult circumstances by cutting back on employment for more than a year. By contrast, the CBI told us that there are no signs of an outright recession in the European economy —it is in this country that the disaster is occurring.
    The memorandum from the Institute of Directors stated, without beating about the bush:
    "Since 1984 IOD has done its own bi-monthly survey of member opinion, including asking members what their expectations are about economic developments. The February 1991 results are the worst in the life of the survey."
    Why has this disaster occurred? Who is responsible for it? Mr. Morgan of the IOD, a blunt speaker, said:
    "In the last four years we have had a failure of economic management."
    We shall see later in the debate whether Treasury Ministers express their regret for all this and apologise to the unemployed who are paying for Ministers' failures and mistakes—or whether they repeat that mass unemployment is a price well worth paying. The CBI told us that unemployment would continue to rise this year and next. The recession is going to get far worse in the foreseeable future, certainly until the next election—
    Mr. Tim Janman rose—
    Mr. Leighton: The hon. Gentleman has a bad habit of interrupting my speeches after one or two sentences. This is a short debate and I intend to adopt a self-denying ordinance so that I do not hog too much time. I shall therefore not give way.
    Both the TUC and the CBI said that unemployment would reach at least 2·25 million this year. The TUC said that more pessimistic forecasts predicted that it would rise to 3 million in 1992–93. Since we took that evidence, unemployment has exploded even more devastatingly. It has already reached 2·25 million, although we are only half way through the year. In the six months to November 1990 the average increase in unemployment was 25,400 per month. In the past six months it has averaged 80,200 per month. Unemployment has increased for 14 consecutive months and the trend is accelerating and is set to continue.
    Not only does this cause a huge pool of human misery, but recession is expensive for the public finances. The Select Committee on Treasury and Civil Service has estimated that each additional 100,000 unemployed people cost the Exchequer a further £300 million in benefit payments—and that does not include the taxes forgone. It is no wonder that the Government's books do not balance and they are being forced to borrow billions of pounds this year and even more next year.

    383
    Unemployment is a lagging indicator; it is a considerable time after the economy picks up before employment improves. So when will the recession end? The Government have been claiming to see vague stirrings. They claimed that there would be a recovery in the second half of this year, but we are already in July and it is not happening. The CBI and the IOD pointed out that not only manufacturing suffers; so do clerical jobs, advertising, retailing and financial services. Only this week we learnt that disastrous conditions in the high street forced the Burton group to close 100 shops and sack 1,600 staff after making losses that will amount to £177 million in the year to August. The number of companies that have collapsed in the first half of this year has risen by 66 per cent.
    The IOD told us that the housing market is important. The total number of people living in homes on whose payments they are in arrears is now just under two million —equivalent to a population double the size of Birmingham's. The number of households more than six months in arrears rose from 87,360 in March 1990 to 209,620 in March of this year—it doubled. Property repossessions are outstripping the number of homes being built to meet social needs—primarily homelessness.
    My conclusion is that there is little comfort in prospect in the medium term. As the recession is strong in the service industries, London and the south-east are in its grip and are bearing the brunt. In London there are more than 26 people chasing every notified vacancy, unemployment in London was more than 50 per cent. higher in April this year than it was a year before, and the rate of corporate bankruptcies has tripled. The Evening Standard Investors in Industry survey for April 1991 found that 94 per cent. of companies in the capital are likely to reduce or at best maintain their work force in the coming year. The outlook is bleak and many people will suffer.
    The Committee looked into the exchange rate mechanism—
    Mr. Janman rose—
    Mr. Leighton: We asked each of the witnesses their estimate of the effects on employment of entry into the ERM. We were astonished that none of them had made such an estimate. There was a time when full employment was a national aim and when policies would be evailuated, among other things, for their effect on it. No more, apparently. One TUC witness said that the TUC did not have a forecast of the impact of entry on employment. Later he said:
    "What impact ERM will have on the economy I am afraid I do not know."
    Many might find it surprising that, despite that, the TUC was all in favour of entry, although it believed that we joined at the wrong rate—we should have joined at DM2·70 instead of DM2·95.
    Neither the CBI nor the IOD had calculated the effects of entry on employment. Although the IOD had not been in favour of entry, however, it had studied its baneful effects on Ireland and France. Our report states:
    "We believe that the full implications on employment levels of joining the ERM were not sufficiently discussed or understood before entry, and even now are not widely recognised."
    The Department of Employment does not make estimates of the effects of ERM either, but we asked the Department whether it had made any studies of ERM's effect on France and Italy. We received a letter from the
    384
    Secretary of State in which he quoted a memorandum from the director general of the National Economic Development Council and the November 1990 issue of the National Institute Economic Review. That was worrying because it told us that ERM membership had cost France 700,000 jobs and Italy a million jobs.
    The March issue of CBI News included an article by Professor Douglas McWilliams, the CBI's chief economic adviser. Speaking of the effect on the French economy, he said:
    "How has the French economy performed since the start of serious EMF membership of 1983? The initial effect was slow growth. French GNP rose by below trend for five consecutive years from 1983–87 with a cumulative shortfall of 4·5 per cent. of growth compared with productive potential. The main feature of this recession was that output was depressed for an unusually long period".
    The article went on to say that wages were reduced. It continued:
    "Nevertheless, reducing inflation still required rather slow growth associated with rising unemployment"
    a rise in the number of jobs lost of approximately half a million. His last paragraph is extremely revealing and worrying. He says that
    "the French experience suggests that if British membership of the ERM is successful in reducing inflation it is likely that unemployment will rise to about 500,000 above its 1990 level at some time before 1994. And if Britain is unsuccessful the rise in unemployment could be substantially more than this —perhaps as many as a million or more."
    If the French experience is anything to go by, membership of the ERM could add an extra million to the dole queue, unemployment could be very much higher over the period of the next Parliament and economic growth would be slower. That is worrying because the parties seek to finance their programmes from economic growth.
    After speaking about the DTI's 1992 awareness campaign, Mr. Morgan of the IOD said:
    "The ERM situation poses a bigger problem than 1992 did, in terms of adjustments required and the awareness required."
    Why have we not had an explanation or a debate about the matter. On the day when we interviewed the CBI, on 13 March, an article in the Financial Times said that ERM entry meant that we had
    "to change our whole way of life."
    If that is to happen, there should be an explanation. Commenting on the French experience the CBI said:
    "The French economy has been slow in responding to the discipline that ERM membership brought to French firms."
    Can we be any quicker, and what exactly is it that we have to do?
    The normal way for divergent economies to adjust to each other is by changes in their exchange rates. If that is ruled out by the ERM, the IOD told us that if Britain's inflation was higher our competitive position would deteriorate from the day after we joined. It said that British companies
    "had to start at high speed to make up for any lack of investment, and any lack of training and skill, if they are to control their unit labour costs, and stay competitive in the traded sector".
    Tying the pound to the deutschmark means that Germany is the benchmark country. If our inflation is higher than that of Germany, as it is, if our productivity is lower, as it is, if our costs rise faster, as they do, we lose competitiveness from day one and cause higher unemployment. To survive we would need, at double quick speed, German levels of inflation, investment, productivity and unit costs.

    385
    What is happening in the real world? Everyone says that investment, the seed corn, is vital, but investment is in reverse. In his Budget statement the Chancellor said that investment across the whole economy would fall by 10 per cent. In the key manufacturing centre it fell 20 per cent. between the first quarter of 1990 and the first quarter of 1991. All our witnesses said that productivity was the crucial deciding factor—but it is in reverse. The Department of Employment figures show that output per head in March was 1·9 per cent., nearly 2 percentage points down on the previous year and the largest decline since 1981. While we were going backwards, German productivity rose by 4·5 per cent. in the same period.
    What about wage costs? The June issue of the Employment Gazette reported that wages and salaries in the three months to March 1991 were 11 per cent. higher than in the same period last year. Average earnings in manufacturing during the same period were 9 per cent. higher than last year. It is fair enough to have a rise of 9 per cent. when productivity is rising by the same percentage, but it went down by 2 per cent. That means a unit wage cost rise of 11 per cent. How does that compare with our competitors? The CBI told us:
    "Our unit labour costs at the moment are going up … probably twice as fast as the best of our European competitors. That is not sustainable."
    Not sustainable means that British firms lose market share, factories close down, more workers are thrown on the dole, and Britain is blighted and becomes a depressed area with chronic mass unemployment. It also means that the pound cannot be maintained at DM2·95. The high interest rates required by the vain attempt to keep it there further reinforce the recession and push investment and productivity into a downward spiral. Pressure on the pound then leads to a sterling crisis which blows the pound out of its unrealistic ERM parity—but only after great damage has been caused to British industry.
    A successful ERM would mean some sort of speedy structural revolution in the British labour market, a major change in the behaviour of wage bargainers. It would also mean a cut in the real wages of British workers. According to the TUC spokesman, that is unlikely because he said that that would be,
    "unrealistic, not to say immoral."
    The pattern in Britian is for wages to shadow and compensate for the previous year's inflation. To be competitive in the ERM, however, wages would have to be linked to German—not British—inflation. That means that the real wages of British workers would have to come down. Do they know that? Have they been told? Do they agree? The future is likely to contain a great deal of industrial conflict as the attempt is made to force British wages down. We shall see many more incidents such as that at Rolls-Royce with employers unilaterally seeking to enforce a pay freeze.
    What sort of lead are British workers receiving? I asked the IOD whether it thought that the spirit on a ship was the responsibility of those on the upper deck and it said yes. I asked whether it thought that directors should set an example and again it said yes. What kind of example is being set by those at the top? We are currently witnessing a wave of blatant corporate greed with those at the top agreeing to pay each other in telephone numbers with increases of 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80 or more per cent.
    386
    —one of them even gave himself a rise of 160 per cent. Those who run the privatised monopolies are leading the way.
    This week we heard about Robert Evans, the chairman of British Gas. He is not content with a 66 per cent. pay increase because in his £500,000 four-bathroom house he has had installed £28,000 worth of gas fittings, showers, dishwashers, gas fires, kitchen appliances and gas street lights, and all for free. Apparently he is testing them. Everyone would like to conduct tests like that. What is sauce for the plutocratic goose must be sauce for the low-paid gander. If the captains of industry can help themselves and fill their pockets with gold, how can they argue that their foot soldiers should take pay cuts? It is likely that those at the bottom will want to take their lead from those at the top.
    It is plain that the baneful effect of the ERM is to deepen and lengthen the recession. All the domestic arguments and the requirements of our economy cry out for a cut in interest rates and all our witnesses asked for that. The Institute of Directors wanted a 4 per cent. cut this year. However, membership of the ERM means that interest rates can no longer be used for the benefit of the domestic economy. As the Chancellor said, the overriding purpose of interest rates is to secure the pound in its ERM band. That means that interest rates stay higher than would otherwise be the case, the recession is deepened and prolonged and the unemployed pay the price.
    Since we joined the ERM in October, unemployment has risen by well over 600,000. Fixed parities can work only if economic convergence comes first. A strong currency is the reward for economic success and performance. That cannot be achieved by fiat or passing a resolution.
    The Institute of Directors drew our attention to monetary union and the introduction of a single currency before convergence in Germany. That led to the shutdown of the east German economy and the creation of mass unemployment. The same pressure, in a more modified form, would operate here.
    All the witnesses agreed that skills and training were the key to success. The CBI said:
    "We cannot get away from the fact that the UK produces fewer 16 year old school leavers with sensible qualifications, we keep fewer of our school children on beyond the age of 16 than most of our industrial competitors, we produce fewer engineers and vocationally qualified people at graduate level than most of our competitor nations. It is that sort of skills revolution which we have to make work this time before we try anything else."
    The Institute of Directors likewise said that it
    "believed that skills and training are the key factors in determining prosperity."
    The nation has to invest in its human capital. There is no representative body at national level to set targets for vocational qualifications and to oversee and monitor progress in their implementation. Here, the Committee makes a major recommendation. We believe that, in consultation with the training and enterprise councils, the local enterprise companies in Scotland, and other relevant bodies, the Government of the day should set national targets for improvements in levels of skill and qualifications. We hope that the Government will accept that recommendation and that responsibility on behalf of the nation.
    I thank hon. Members for listening so patiently and I commend our report to the House.
    8.1 pm
    Mr. Andrew Rowe: I hesitate to follow the economic guru, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), in the more arcane arguments on the economic basis of the present situation, because I do not have anything like his expertise in the subject. However, when he claimed that we were looking for a change in our way of life, 1 could not help feeling, as he piled gloom on gloom, that we were listening to an east London way of death. I thought that he claimed that there was no serious recession on the continent. Whether that is true or not, a number of countries on the mainland of Europe have unemployment rates that are not only a great deal higher than ours but have remained consistently higher over a number of years. France is a notable example.
    When we are talking about new ways to change our attitudes, it is encouraging to hear such a spirited defence of keeping wages and inflation under control. I will leave it to those of my hon. Friends who I know wish to follow me in the debate, and who are better qualified than Ito do so, to explore further the likely impact of the proposals for a minimum wage linked to the average wage. That fits uneasily with the hon. Gentleman's argument that we should keep wages under strict control.
    I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the Institute of Directors was looking for a 4 per cent. reduction in interest rates in a year. It is still July, and since October our interest rates have come down by 3·5 per cent., so I am not discouraged.
    Mr. Leighton: That includes last year.
    Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is correcting me. Apparently the Institute of Directors wants interest rates to come down by 4 per cent. this year. I view with some reserve this headlong rush to cut interest rates—a policy which I know is much beloved by Labour Members. Most of our present troubles stem from the over-cutting of interest rates that we went into because we were afraid of a worldwide recession. I vividly remember that the Labour party clamoured for a much bigger cut in interest rates. If we had followed that siren voice, we would be even further on the rocks than we are now.
    We are at the beginning, but far enough along the path to see that it is a solid beginning, of a serious change of climate. In 1979, there was a strong belief that training was something that one did only in the employer's time, only at the employer's expense and, best of all, if the employer could persuade the Government to pay for it. That attitude has changed for the better. We now have an understanding that training is a shared responsibility. Few people in employment today believe that what they know now will be sufficient for what they have to do for the rest of their employed life. They are aware of the need to retrain several times during their working life. They see it as a shared responsibility between the individual, the employer and the Government.
    The Government have been imaginative in, for example, the introduction of training credits. Nothing makes it clearer for an individual that he shall have control over the sort of training that he wants and the quality for which he is looking than the knowledge that he has in his hand the finance to pay for the training that he needs. I hope that, as the CBI said to the Select Committee, a will
    388
    be possible to enlarge the scheme rapidly. It is a good scheme which I should like to see tested, although not for so long that it cannot be expanded if it shows promise.
    The Government have been extremely imaginative in their policy of allowing people access to courses and other forms of higher and further education at a much later stage than simply that of leaving school. I share the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East. Too many youngsters still leave school inadequately educated to go straight into a job. I derive great comfort from the fact that many of them rapidly realise that they are banging their heads on a ceiling of inadequate qualifications, and take the advantage that we have provided of going into further and higher education at a later stage.
    There is a marked change of climate within universities and colleges. They are now far more entrepreneurial because they realise that if they are to survive, they will have to sell a product that students want. When I taught at a university, we taught what we were interested in and if the students did not bother to come, we went on teaching it nevertheless. Now, if the students do not come, the department closes, so departments are becoming more aware of the need to tailor what they teach to what the students want. I can give an example from my area. Few students at Kent university do not learn a foreign language at some stage, because they realise how vital that will be in the European Community.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-East and his Committee were anxious about quality control in training. That is another aspiration which I share with the Committee, but I should not like the hon. Gentleman to underestimate the crucial significance of the national vocational qualification. As that operation spreads its net and becomes more widely used and known, it will make it much easier for individuals who may not have had a formal education to get credit for what they can do practically. Furthermore, it will show them when they get to a certain level that they have the same access to higher education that they would have had through the more traditional book learning that used to be the only way in. That is enormously important and we should not underestimate it.
    Anything that my hon. Friend the Minister can do to diminish the bureaucracy of those national vocational qualifications would be welcome. I have seen some of those NVQ demands and they extend to many pages. They have been refined and re-refined for the highest possible motives, but they do not half make it difficult for people to extract the best that they can from the system.
    There is a growing understanding among employers. The Select Committee's report suggests that employers now reckon to provide £20 billion worth of training. To give an example from my county, in Thanet the Kent training and enterprise council has helped to put together the Thanet skills initiative whereby more than 20 employers are coming together to try to influence the training that is available locally so that they get what they need rather than what the training institutions choose to provide.
    Employers are showing far more interest in anticipating needs. For example, in Dover the district council, the training and enterprise council, the chamber of commerce and other local groups are coming together to make it possible for the 2,000 or so international freight forwarders who will become redundant as a result of the

    389
    1992 single market to discuss and work out the sort of training that they need. We have achieved an enormous amount. The Government are right to try to create the climate and to improve the information system. They have put forward a whole range of imaginative programmes.
    I conclude by making one plea to my hon. Friend the Minister. There is a mass of evidence, which I shall be happy to provide him with if he has not already seen it, that employers are completely lunatic about the age requirement that they attach to various jobs. For example, they expect secretaries to be under 30. They are extremely reluctant to employ older people. They frequently will not even give an older person an interview. They will put up all kinds of smokescreens, the commonest one being that older people are not a good investment because they do not stay long. All the evidence that I have seen suggests that older men and women stay longer in employment than their younger counterparts. They say that older men and women are too inflexible to learn. That is rubbish and it can be demonstrated again and again.
    I know that my hon. Friend and our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State believe that to some extent the market will take care of that. The market may do so up to a point but, as in many markets when there is an information gap, the Government need to take an initiative, along with employers' organisations and trade unions, to break down the walls of prejudice against the employment of the older worker. If we do not do that, how in heaven's name will older people be able to finance the 30, 40 or, in some cases, 50 years that they will have outside the labour market? That will become an enormous charge on our children and our grandchildren.
    I commend the Government for a number of imaginative initiatives. I detect a major change in Britain in the climate towards employment training and I ask the Government to take a serious look at the obstacles against the employment of older people.
    8.14 pm
    Mr. James Wallace: Once again, the House is indebted to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and his Select Committee for producing a report which I am sure will give rise to some interesting debate. However, if I may be allowed to introduce a note of disappointment, the report is in some respects inconclusive. It has done the House a service in bringing together clearly the views of different bodies from which the Committee took evidence, but it is clear that it had some difficulties in coming to conclusions and making recommendations. That is no doubt because, as the hon. Gentleman said, this is an issue which gives rise to considerably heated debate and passions on both sides of the argument.
    Few if any of those who gave evidence to the Committee, and, I think, few in the House, would dispute that unemployment is rising. The Government for some time took solace from or hid behind the figleaf of the fact that the rate of unemployment in the United Kingdom was much less than that of a number of our European competitors. But they can no longer deny that the rate of increase in unemployment in Britain is faster than most, if not all, of our European competitors.
    390
    It is important that we regularly return to address this matter. When we hear the statistics and the monthly unemployment figures, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with people and families who are suffering the frustrations and, people often feel, the indignity of unemployment. In addition, there are those who have the threat of unemployment hanging over them, not knowing whether next week their job or the job of a member of their family will be on the line.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-East spent some time dealing with the impact of the exchange rate mechanism on employment levels. He drew attention to the fact that there had been few if any studies of what the impact would be in the United Kingdom. It is important to remember that the current trend of increase in unemployment in Britain long pre-dates Britain's entry into the ERM. In April last year, the tables were turned and we no longer had reports of monthly decreases in unemployment but, sadly, monthly increases. That was some six months before our entry into the ERM.
    If we are looking for the causes of the current rise in unemployment to unacceptable rates, we should look to the unsustainable boom that was created by the Government not only just before the previous election but after it. Had we joined the ERM much earlier, when my right hon. and hon. Friends were advocating entry, we would not have had the high interest rates that were ultimately necessary to contain the boom created by the Government, and the problems created by that boom would have been tackled earlier within the discipline of the ERM.
    Mr. Janman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the main reason for interest rates being low during 1987–88 was the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was tracking the pound to the deutschmark because of his predilection, shared by the hon. Gentleman, to join the ERM sooner rather than later? It was, therefore, a desire to peg sterling to the deutschmark—a quasi-ERM environment—that caused interest rates to be reduced and the inflation which the hon. Gentleman has accepted in his analysis.
    Mr. Wallace: I could not wholly accept that argument. An important reason for the high interest rates was that the Government, through a number of measures, not least those introduced in the 1988 Budget, brought about a huge expansion in credit which they simply could not sustain. Therefore, they had to have high interest rates to bring that under control. Had we joined the ERM much earlier, in the mid-1980s, I doubt whether we would have got into the position from which we are now trying to pick up the pieces.
    What would happen if we were to leave the ERM and allow the pound to devalue? I have no doubt that initially there might well be a small boost to exports, although I fear that that would soon be eaten up by subsequent inflation. Ultimately, interest rates would go up rather than down, because the markets would have no faith in the Government's willingness to tackle inflation and maintain the value of the currency. Investors would require higher interest rates to reflect the increase in the perceived risk involved in holding sterling. I am not sure that I understood the implications of what was said by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East; I believe, however,

    391
    that if we came out of the exchange rate mechanism, economic policy would lose credibility and unemployment would continue to rise rather than fall.
    Politicians can no longer choose the soft option. Companies will have to face up to disciplines that will not allow the politicians to go on pretending that miracles can be worked through no more than a change in the currency. I doubt whether such pretences were effective in the past, over the long term; they are even less likely to succeed now, when economies are so closely integrated on an international basis.
    If Britain sticks by its ERM commitments—if, as the Prime Minister suggested in a recent answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), there is a move to enter the narrow currency band and to make the Bank of England independent—investors, companies and employees will know that the Government mean business. Once that is understood we shall be able to embark on a path of sustainable growth, with greater economic stability, and to generate circumstances in which unemployment can not only fall but, with any luck, remain at a lower level.
    Not surprisingly, the Select Committee was unable to reach a conclusion on the subject of the statutory minimum wage. As its report states, the TUC advocated such a system, but conceded that it was not
    "'the perfect and only answer' to the problem of low pay".
    It is also not surprising that the Institute of Directors opposed the idea. My party, too, is on record as opposing it: we do not consider that it is the right way to tackle the problem of low pay.
    In trying to rubbish the arguments for a minimum wage, the Secretary of State for Employment has said that 2 million people would lose their jobs. As can be seen from recent newspaper analysis—not least in the columns of The Independent—his figure is based on a series of flawed hypotheses. By "hyping up" the true position, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to some extent destroyed what should have been a serious debate.
    The issue between the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) and me—and, I assume, between the Opposition and the Government—is not whether people should be condemned to low wages; we all accept that a high-wage, high-productivity economy brings benefits. The issue is the way in which that is to be achieved. My party strongly believes that the statutory minimum wage, by introducing a degree of "leap-frogging", could destroy jobs and, thus, lose the second or third income of a household, if not the first. Households could be pushed into poverty, while the objective is to free them from it.
    By all means let us strengthen the wages councils in areas of employment where there is not much international competition. Let us also, however, embark on a process of integrating the tax and benefit systems, to produce a national minimum income for households. That, surely, is a much better way of targeting the problem of poverty. I fear that, if the statutory minimum wage were introduced, thousands would lose their jobs; and, tragically, unemployment is one of the main causes of domestic poverty.
    The Select Committee agreed about the importance of skills and training. As has often been pointed out, 38 per cent. of the United Kingdom's industrial work force has received some skilled vocational training, compared with 67 per cent. in the Lander that make up what was formerly West Germany. The figure is 79 per cent. in Italy, and 80
    392
    per cent. in France. There is an obvious gulf between us and the countries that we shall shortly join in a single market, and with which we shall soon compete even more keenly.
    Over the years, successive Governments and employers have placed us at a competitive disadvantage by not taking training seriously enough. The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) thinks that the climate may be changing, but I feel that the Government have their own role to play. Even after last month's announcement by the Secretary of State of further measures to promote training, including increased funding, the Government—as the Secretary of State did not deny on that occasion—are spending less on training than they were when unemployment stood at 2 million and was falling. Now it stands at 2·25 million, and is rising. That strikes me as unbelievably shortsighted.
    Earlier today, my party published its proposals for tackling unemployment. Those proposals do not shrink from the need to provide additional funding for employment training—so that we can improve quality as well as increasing the number of places—and to ensure that those who find themselves unemployed are given an opportunity to retrain and to learn new skills. We also want to give women a chance to return to work and to make a worthwhile contribution.
    We are talking about an investment in people—an investment to which the present Government have not been prepared to commit themselves wholeheartedly. The Minister says, "Tut, tut", but he knows full well that the Government's contribution is declining when it should be increasing. I know that he has a brief from which to argue, but surely, in his heart of hearts, he knows that at a time of rising unemployment the Government should be spending far more on training.
    Much, if not all, of the youth training system is now administered through training and local enterprise councils—TECs and LECs. May I give an example from my constituency? A young girl there, who was about to embark on a training course arranged through the Training Agency in Inverness, now finds that she cannot do so because the LEC that is now responsible claims that it cannot afford to pay. On further examination, I discovered that the previous arrangements for the Training Agency involved swings and roundabouts.
    In my constituency, as the Minister will appreciate, the cost of board and lodging for a young person going away to train can be considerable; the circumstances are different when the training takes place virtually on the person's doorstep. Given the geographical character of LECs, which operate in areas that are remote from the national training centres, they are bound to incur a heavy burden in funding board and lodging.
    I hope that the Minister will appreciate the difficulties in these early days. When training is provided on a national and regional basis the costs can be equalised, but that will not always be possible with LECs. The Minister may not be able to give me an answer immediately, but. I trust that he will look into the matter, because it may recur increasingly as the TECs and the LECs bed down.
    We should not merely bemoan unemployment. There seems little point in comparing the numbers who are unemployed in the various constituencies with the Conservative majorities there unless we are also prepared to say what we are going to do about the problem. My hon. Friends and I have tried to do something. I do not

    393
    pretend that ours is the complete answer; indeed, we believe that the recession is too deep for it to be possible to wave a magic wand overnight and achieve full employment. We believe, however, that the Government have a duty to make an effort.
    We have identified, for instance, the capital funds that are locked up in local authority bank accounts as a result of council house sales. We believe that those accounts could be unlocked to fund a housing programme involving not only new build but renovation. School buildings could also be improved. I am sure that many of us have been asked why a local school has a leaking roof when people are on the dole. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East cited the company bankruptcy ligures; they show that, in recent months, the construction industry above all has suffered, and needs a boost.
    We have also targeted energy efficiency. We believe that that is worthwhile because it leads to proper stewardship of resources. Also, if people improve the efficiency and insulation of their houses, there will be lower fuel bills which will particularly help those on lower incomes. That sort of work tends to be job intensive and more emphasis and resources should be devoted to an energy efficiency scheme.
    We also believe that more should be done to try to stimulate small businesses. Nine out of 10 businesses going out of business employ fewer than 100 people. It is always the large redundancies that hit the headlines on "News at Ten", but the cumulative effect comes from small businesses which have to make people redundant as they go to the wall.
    The 10·9 per cent. increase in the uniform business rate this year—the maximum by which the Government could have increased it—was a criminal blow to small businesses. The Chancellor did some things in his Budget to help small businesses, but those things have been swamped by the additional revenue that businesses up and down the country will have to pay in UBR. We propose more help with the administrative costs of setting up new ventures. We should try to devise ways in which to bridge the traditional gap that has been identified in this country between those with good ideas and those who convert them into further development and production. Assistance should be given through seedcorn enterprise initiatives. We want to help businesses that suffer from the late payment of debts. That would be done by a statutory right to charge interest on outstanding debt.
    Some six weeks ago, the Chancellor said that rising unemployment was a price worth paying. I do not accept that and neither do the British people. There is a high cost of unemployment in terms of people's income, homes—there is an increased number of repossessions—and health and well-being. That is certainly not a price worth paying. The Government have to pay a crude price in terms of increased benefit. It is estimated that it costs £300 million for every 100,000 extra unemployed. There is a duty on the Government to try to do more than they have done up to now to reduce the impact of the recession. Mass unemployment is not inevitable. Other economies such as Japan, the United States, France and Germany have succeeded in having lower unemployment and lower inflation. The Government lack the political will to achieve a similar end.
    8.32 pm
    Mr. Tim Janman: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said that Germany has had lower unemployment than Britain. For much of the past few years Germany has had higher unemployment than Britain and the new united Germany has considerably higher unemployent. Because of the existence of minimum wages in some parts of the German economy —there is not an across-the-board national minimum wage as the Labour party tries to suggest—there is a particularly acute problem with youth unemployment in Germany, which is far worse than in Britain. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland should do his homework before making gauche statements about German employment.
    We are debating future levels of employment and unemployment. I do not wish to discuss in great detail what was said in the Select Committee because many of those in the Chamber are members of the Select Committee and it would be somewhat incestuous to go over what we have already debated. If we are to make assessments about the future level of employment and unemployment, we must look at the factors that will affect the statistics. We have to ask who will be in government, what will be their monetary policy and will we stay in the exchange rate mechanism?
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) and I are such good companions on the Select Committee that I nearly called him my hon. Friend. The fact that he would not give way to me earlier was a break in a great custom. I think that the hon. Member for Newham, North-East was exaggerating slightly when he talked about ERM membership in that—he said as much later in his speech—to all intents and purposes the die is cast for unemployment trends in the next 12 months. Membership of the ERM may mean that unemployment is slightly higher than it would otherwise have been because the Government lose a degree of economic and political freedom in how they manage the squeezing of inflation out of the system.
    The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland did not really contradict my intervention during his speech because the credit boom that he mentioned was due to the low interest rates, which were in turn due to the desire of the then Chancellor to peg the pound to the deutschmark. He had to lower interest rates to keep the 3:1 ratio. He wanted to take us into the ERM sooner rather than later.
    I agree with the hon. Member for Newham, North-East that membership of the ERM will probably mean that for the time between entry and the next year or so unemployment will be higher than it would otherwise have been. However, I do not think that it will be much higher. It is a matter of degree and I do not think that it will make any fundamental difference to the general trend that we shall see.
    The important issue is what sort of Government we will have in the future, what monetary policy they will pursue, what the consequent level of inflation will be, and how much intervention and renationalisation of industries will occur. Will we have a Government, such as that we have now, who are making the right decisions about the fundamental structural issues in the economy and who have implemented the correct policies and philosophies over the past 10 years, or will we have a Government who go back to the bad old habits of saying that politicians and

    395
    bureaucrats know best and know more about how to run businesses than business men or more about running industry than industrialists? We would inevitably return to that scenario if there were a Labour Government after the next election. We would then see the distortion of resource allocation in the economy that we saw in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time one man's job may have been lost in order to keep somebody else in a job which, in any real economy, would have disappeared because of technological change or because such over-manning would not be allowed.
    What will happen in the future about the attitudes and activities of trade unions? To some extent, that will depend upon the Government. Will we return to the good old corporatist days of the 1960s and 1970s? I am not making a purely party political point because, even when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was running the country, we had the corporatist beer and sandwiches at No. 10 just as we did under a Labour Government. We do not want to return to that, but I fear that under a Labour Government we would.
    As I have said, the crucial questions involve who will be in power, what will be their monetary policy, whether they will be determined to get inflation down and keep it down and whether they will be prepared to discipline themselves not to intervene in the economy to distort where resources go. It all boils down to whether we will have stability.
    The speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-East was one of unmitigated gloom. At least the speech of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland contained one optimistic phrase. I think that he understands the need to achieve, in the near future, the important objective of stability. I believe that we are well on the way to achieving that with a halving of inflation during the past six months. Then, with the discipline of the ERM or the self-imposed discipline from the Bank of England and Treasury, if we keep our monetary policy tight and ensure that people pay themselves only in line with what is being produced and keep unit labour costs competitive with Germany, the United States, Japan and our other main competitors, we will see a golden decade for Britain in manufacturing and service industries. That is how we shall return to rising employment and growth.
    Before returning to those fundamentals, a word about unemployment in my constituency. In July 1986, unemployment in the Thurrock constituency was 5,723. In June 1987, it had fallen to 4,965. In May this year, it had fallen to 3,879—21·9 per cent less than in June 1987. That is the biggest fall since June 1987 in any Essex constituency, and the 17th biggest fall among the 182 constituencies in London and the south-east. I do not pretend that things are not difficult and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that that is so, but I want him to know that business in my constituency is bearing up well.
    There are several reasons for that. Two or three years ago, the then Secretary of State for Employment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), took the imaginative and courageous step of abolishing the dock labour scheme. Would a future Labour Government return to the bad old days of the dock labour scheme? My Labour opponent is always going on about bringing back the scheme, but I have not noticed the same enthusiasm among Labour's employment spokesmen. Perhaps he was trying to persuade my constituents to vote for him by making false promises.
    396
    The dock labour scheme has gone, and good riddance to it. The port of Tilbury is now competitive and in the latest financial year made a profit of £3 million. It is attracting new business and even surprises itself by continually breaking productivity records. Once the ports legislation being considered by the other place is given Royal Assent it will become a plc and more real jobs will be created.
    Lakeside shopping centre, which attracted a third of a billion pounds of private sector investment, has been completed and is the largest retail shopping centre in Europe. Once it is up and running—it takes four or five years for turnover to reach its peak in such enterprises —it will provide about 5,000 jobs.
    I say that it will provide 5,000 jobs, but that will depend who is governing the country. If a socialist Government enact phase two of their minimum wage proposals, whereby the minimum wage will be 66 per cent. of average wages, I suspect that considerably fewer than 5,000 jobs will be created. Many industrial sectors, particularly the retail sector, will employ fewer people because of the minimum wage. I see the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) squirming, so I will return to that subject later.
    The Government set only the overall environment For employment, but local authorities can make a difference to employment. Grays, which is the biggest town in my constituency, is only 23 miles from London and three miles from the M25. Sadly, unlike many other south-east councils, the local council has been in the grip of socialist control for much of the past 20 years. It has not had the imagination and vision to attract the private sector office development that many other south-east towns have been able to attract. Employment is affected not only by what is going on nationally but by what is going on locally.
    Only recently, the local council, in its wisdom, turned down planning permission for a Hilton hotel, which would have created 150 jobs. I am supporting the appeal against that decision to the Secretary of State for the Environment in order to secure those jobs.
    What will happen if the national environment changes? Every Labour Government since the mid-1920s have increased unemployment. I see no evidence to convince me, the House or the public that the track record of a future Labour Government would do any better than their predecessors. Why should a future Labour Government be different, especially as in its policy documents the Labour party of 1991 has proposed a minimum wage, which was wisely discarded in 1969 by the former Labour Secretary of State, Barbara Castle? She described a report of an inter-departmental working party on the national minimum wage as essential reading. Page 43 of the report concluded:
    "The greater cost to the national minimum, the greater the consequent adjustment in the level of employment is likely to be. Any consequential unemployment would tend to affect development areas in particular."
    The Labour party's proposals for a minimum wage are madness; it is an economic cloud cuckoo land. I have some sympathy with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that an increase in unemployment of 2 million is an exaggeration, but it is not clear that it is definitely an exaggeration. The consequences of phase two of the Labour party's proposals, which would impose a national minimum wage not at 50 per cent. but at two thirds of the median wage, are clear. It is clear from the

    397
    comments of the TUC's general economic committee and of trade unionists such as Gavin Laird, Eric Hammond and Bill Jordan—I do not have time to give the many quotes to support what I am saying, but we all accept that it is true—that, all other things being equal and constant, phase two of its proposals and the full restoration of differentials would lead to a large increase in unemployment. One million jobs, 2 million jobs or more may be lost, but whatever the figure, a heck of a lot of jobs will be lost and a heck of a lot of lives will be affected and inconvenienced by the dogmatic and ideological policies of the Labour party.
    The trends for unemployment and employment in the next 12 to 18 months are already set. We have seen the unfortunate incursion of inflation into our economy, but the Government are successfully squeezing it out. We hope that that process will be over as soon as possible and that it will be as effective as possible so that we can get our economy back on an even keel and can begin to achieve the growth that we enjoyed in the mid-1980s. I believe that once the economy is stabilised, the increase in unemployment will reach a plateau and will then decrease. It is important that we have zero inflation and that unit labour costs can compete with those of our competitors. If we can achieve that—as I believe that the Government will after they are re-elected—we shall have a fine future.
    The alternative is the same as that which the electorate dismissed at the previous three general elections—a party whose polices are wholly contradictory and which involve high taxation, high public spending, high borrowing, or all three. It is a party that cannot resist the temptation to intervene, to meddle in industry and to cause resources to be wasted. It is a party that cannot resist giving in to and being governed by its paymasters, the trade unions. Its policies are a recipe for very high unemployment for a very long time.
    8.50 pm
    Mr. Ray Powell: I have sat in the Chamber on many occasions to listen to debates about employment and employment training. I listened to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) who is a member of a party which since 1979 has created the highest recorded level of unemployment. I wonder whether we should be allowed —in parliamentary terms—to call members of that party the names that we should like to call them instead of having to talk to the press as happened a week or so ago when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) called the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) a liar. We are not allowed to say such things in the Chamber without being challenged, but we can say them outside. The people to whom I refer are strangers to the truth and they throw around their statistics in their replies to questions and in their arguments. Perhaps those people should sit back and listen for a little while and I shall tell them what has happened in my constituency.
    The facts are impressed on my mind because they affect my constituents who have been thrown out of work. If one reads the book by Nye Bevan called "In Place of Fear" —and I recommend that Conservative Members read it —one learns that he was blacklisted by employers in his constituency of Ebbw Vale because of his stammering and
    398
    because of his actions as a mineworkers' leader. He had to roam the mountains because he could not get a job. One of Nye's ideas was that if as politicians we do only one thing, it should be to ensure that everyone has a job.
    Before you call me to order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall refer to the supply estimates and the Department of Employment. I thought that I had better check some of the Department's figures to see whether their suggestions given in replies to questions are correct. However, page 1 of the document entitled "Supply Estimates 1991–92" states blatantly that the Government will reduce the amount of funding by more than £400 million. Therefore, when talking about employment it is no good their arguing that they will try to get us out of the present grim situation —they have no intention of doing so, as their own figures show.
    I said that I would mention my constituency and what has happened to it since 1979 because that is relevant to the debate. In 1979, my constituency had an unemployment rate of 3·7 per cent. When that figure was analysed, the Department of Employment informed me that 2 per cent. of those registered were unemployable because they were silicotic or pneumoconiotic. At that time, my constituency contained seven collieries and there were 6,500 miners. It also had 12,000 steelworkers, but within two years the Government had decided to de-man the steelworks on the ground that they were not making a profit. However, only last week we found that they are not making a profit now, despite all the cuts that the Government have made. Because of the 12,000 redundant and unemployed steelworkers and the 6,500 unemployed miners, the unemployment rate in my constituency increased within those two years to 35 per cent. Therefore, in an electorate of about 83,000, 30 per cent. became unemployed.
    As a result, some members of the Trades Union Congress in Mid Glamorgan and officers of my constituency party decided to accept the Government's proposals for unemployment training or, as it was at that time, the community programme, and to introduce an employment training scheme. We did so and it was very successful. During its 10 years, it trained 4,000 people. In fact, it not only trained them but got them jobs. However, overnight the Government decided that they would revoke employment training and introduce the training and enterprise councils. That was the biggest disaster that has ever happened in Mid Glamorgan and especially in my constituency.
    I mention that for the benefit of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench who will deal with employment when we have the next Labour Government—that will probably be in November if the Prime Minister so decides, or perhaps in June. However, the next Labour Government will in all probability also have to deal with the contentious issue of how to get people back to work. I am sure that their efforts will be sincere and that they will be directed towards getting the people who are currently out of work back into employment.
    We have listened to ex-Ministers telling people to get on their bikes. If my constituents had done so in 1981 and if they had come to the east coast, they might have found a job. They could now get on their bikes or their roller skates or start to walk—I doubt whether they would be able to afford roller skates because of the cuts in unemployment benefit. If they came on their roller skates or by foot to the east coast, there would be no chance of their finding a job.

    399
    I have made an effort as the chairman of an organisation called Cato—community activities and training in Ogmore. Despite the arguments used by my colleagues in the Labour party and in the trade unions, we decided to set up an organisation to train people. We not only trained people, but combined with that training a programme of community enterprise in Ogmore to ensure that we were doing something of benefit for the area. We provided training in catering and at the same time provided meals on wheels, which had been axed because of Government cuts in funding to local government. We provided a service and trained people at the same time. That went on for 10 years. However, overnight we found out that the TEC in Mid Glamorgan had decided to cut our programme, and told us that our contract would not be renewed in March. That meant immediate unemployment for 45 qualified and experienced trainers who had given 10 years of service to an organisation whose aim was to train people desperate for a job. In addition, 210 trainees were immediately put out of a training programme. They were promised that they would have a programme and a job, but 12 months after the TEC's decision to close down Cato, those trainees are still looking for a place in Ogmore in which to be trained.
    Two hours and 22 minutes is not a lot of time for the House to debate the contentious issue of unemployment. I do not want continually to bandy statistics with Conservative Members. However, I am sure that people who may be listening or who may read the report of this unemployment debate are not especially interested in statistics if they are unemployed. If one tells anyone in my constituency that more than 2 million people are unemployed, he is not especially concerned or interested —people are interested in the fact that they are unemployed and that there is no chance of a job for them. There is no mine for them to go to now. People only went down the mine in desperation, and not through choice.
    My father was a miner. The last thing he said to me was, "Whatever you do, don't go down the mine." If there were no jobs or if a person was not qualified, there was no alternative but to go down the mine. As the seven mines in my constituency have been closed, there is now no chance of a mining job. If the Government had decided to provide factories or to help the existing factories in my constituency, that might have been a help, but they did not. A number of us had to persuade foreign companies to come to the Ogmore constituency. Sony provided us with 3,000 jobs and we persuaded the Ford engine plant in Bridgend to expand its programme so that more people could be employed.
    In my constituency, and in Mid Glamorgan in general, there has been a considerable reduction in employment. With the advent of unemployment in my constituency, I decided to introduce a ten-minute Bill about the TEC in Mid Glamorgan. Having read the document that was sent to all TEC chairmen on 12 December 1990 about the first internal audit of training and enterprise councils, and as we are dealing with billions of pounds of public money, it may be of interest again to put this important matter on the record.
    The permanent secretary at the Department of Employment—Sir Geoffrey Holland KCB—sent a letter to all chairmen of the TECs asking them to ensure that they had an internal audit. One of the paragraphs of that letter explained:
    400
    "I do so because of the weaknesses in financial management they reveal, and the disquieting overall picture
    The Public Accounts Committee would not regard such a situation as satisfactory. I write primarily because I am anxious that you should be able to defend yourself before the Public Accounts Committee should they call you at any time."
    Sir Geoffrey continued on the subject of the weaknesses discovered by the audit in some TECs at that time:

    "(a) Claims made by the council which could not be supported by adequate documetary evidence.

    (b) Claims overstated by the inclusion of expenditure which was outside the terms of the contract.

    (c) Attendance records not being properly maintained by training providers.

    (d) Financial appraisal and monitoring of providers not being carried out, and

    (e) Excessive working capital loans and substantial cash balances being held.

    It is very probable that these same issues are occurring at other operational councils which have not yet received a visit from my internal auditors."
    Needless to say, my first action was to ask for an internal audit of the Mid Glamorgan TECs. I am still waiting for a reply from the Secretary of State for Wales on when he will have an internal audit conducted.
    I have here the Secretary of State's answers to the numerous parliamentary questions that I have tabled. There is plenty of documentary evidence, but I have been told not to speak for too long. Some Conservative Members may wish to speak, so I shall not refer to all the documents that I have, but I would have liked to have the opportunity to support my case even more thoroughly. In his replies to my questions about how many places have been cut in Mid Glamorgan, the Secretary of State says that the information is not available. When I ask why, I am given to understand that it is because the Mid Glamorgan TEC is now a public limited company and we cannot get the information direct. It is high time that that was changed. When we table questions we should be able to find out the information that we require.
    I have a lot to say, but I shall conclude by referring to the TEC operating agreement—a document of great importance to my constituents and myself in explaining to 45 trainers, some 200 trainees and some 350 people on a youth scheme why the TEC decided not to continue our agreement.
    Our agreement was concluded in a single month. The Government say that training organisations have to accept a contract with such terms before they can be registered and operate as trainers. However, the operating agreement between the Secretary of State for Employment and a training and enterprise council affords a TEC the opportunity of affecting the agreement. If the Government wish to withdraw from an agreement with a TEC six months notice must be given, yet they compel training organisations to sign contracts specifying only one month's notice.
    I have been told by the Whip that it is time to finish my speech. I am a Whip myself, so I shall do so, but I should like to have been given the opportunity to continue for some time, because I have been trying to explain to the House how the country is being deluded into accepting some of the statistics that the Government portray as representing the level of unemployment. They should have a look at the real world. They should come down to my surgery on a Saturday and speak to people who have no chance of a job and who are trying to exist on their meagre

    401
    unemployment benefits. They find that their houses are to be repossessed because they cannot make their mortgage payments, that they cannot continue payments on their car and that they cannot furnish their tables as they furnished them when they were in full employment. Yet we are told that the Government are making every effort to ensure that people are back in work. All I can say is that that is not happening in Ogwr, in Mid Glamorgan or in Wales generally. I do not know what is happening elsewhere, but in any case it is high time that the Government were thrown out of office to enable a Labour Government to take control and try to remedy the situation. Such a remedy is long overdue.
    9.11 pm
    Mr. Chris Butler: People come to my surgeries, too. One of them, Mrs. Lynne Fleming, came along to say that, although she was happy with her status as a self-employed secretary, as were her clients and the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security had intervened to classify her as employed on the basis that she did not carry her heavy word processing equipment around from job to job. As a result, she lost her clients because they were not prepared to pay the costs of her full-time employment, and she had to close her business.
    Further investigation revealed that both the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security were reclassifying as employed whole groups of people previously classified as self-employed on the basis of absurd and biased tests to determine their relative status. I have written evidence from many accountants that numerous people have lost their jobs as a result. One accountant writes:
    "I have countless examples in my files of the Revenue using dubious requirements to force people out of business."
    When their businesses close, we as taxpayers face a hefty bill for their state benefits—all for the sake of identifying amounts of back tax and advancing the careers of some income tax inspectors.
    I accept that, under this Government, self-employment has grown by 65 per cent., but I contend that the figure would be higher still, and that unemployment would be lower, if we revised these absurd tests, perhaps moving to some kind of self-certification system for the self-employed. That really would be the mark of a radical, free-enterprise Government.
    In the arcane jargon of the Civil Service, employment budgets are based not on forecasts of unemployment but on Treasury "assumptions" of unemployment. In the autumn statement, £305 million was cut from the employment training budget. That cut was based on the Treasury's assumption that unemployment would be at 1·75 million throughout this year—a flat figure to apply right through the year. Flatly, that was wrong.
    Unemployment began rising in April 1990 and the trend in our economy and in unemployment should have been clear by the time of the autumn statement. We entered the exchange rate mechanism in October 1990 and, as hon. Members have shown, it must have been known by then that entry would have a significant upward effect on unemployment.
    The response from the Department of Employment—in February 1991—was to put £120 million back into the employment training budget. In March 1991, the
    402
    Department put £38 million back in to expanding job clubs, and in June 1991 it put a further £35 million into employment training. It appears that unrealistic assumptions were made about unemployment, and that there was an apparent disregard for the effect of our membership of the ERM. I am arguing for the process of reaction to trends in unemployment to be telescoped so that we can avoid the nonsense of increasing expenditure on unemployment when it is falling and decreasing expenditure when it is rising.
    In the 1980s, it gradually became accepted among the chattering classes and the major political parties that we should join the exchange rate mechanism "when the time was right". That last phrase, which was consensual and diplomatic, even managed to keep some of the doubters on board on the basis that perhaps the time never would be right. However, no one publicised in advance the likely effects on unemployment of joining the ERM.
    The Confederation of British Industry and the TUC were great enthusiasts of the idea, but they sheepishly had to admit to us that they had made no calculations. If the major political parties knew the cost, they were not saying. It is possible that, somewhere in the bowels of the Treasury, some Gollum-like civil servant egested some gloomy predictions, but he and his figures, in advance of our joining the ERM, were not allowed to see the light of day.
    It is strange that the major organisations representing the employers and the employees could be all atwitter about the particular policies without considering the fundamental consequences. The Secretary of State for Employment made no prediction about the effect on unemployment of our joining the ERM. However, it is clear from the National Institute Economic Review that unemployment rose by 700,000 in France and by 1 million in Italy as a result of their joining the ERM.
    The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) has already referred to the evidence of the chief economic adviser to the CBI, which was published rather late in the day in March 1991. That showed that Britain would probably suffer an extra 500,000 unemployed as a result of the ERM membership—if it works.
    I am not necessarily attacking the ERM. I voted for it as an experiment. However, at least we now know the price tag involved. In addition, some people would argue that, with the monetary indicators as they are and with unemployment as it is, we would have been able to reduce interest rates rather more quickly and more easily than we have done in the ERM. That may be the other part of the price tag.
    What is scandalous, and what beggars belief, is that the Government, the Opposition and the so-called social partners could all be gung-ho about a particular policy without telling the public about its likely effects. If we embark on other European adventures, I trust that we will have the common sense to look at the downside as well as the upside of those policies, and that we will have the guts to be open about them.
    Although I may be wrong, it appears to me that there has been a conspiracy of silence enrobing us as we have drifted gently towards the holy grail of ever closer European monetary union. But now I think at least one person may jerk us back to reality, much as that may annoy the nodding boatmen.
    9.17 pm
    Mr. Ron Brown: Let us be clear about unemployment. It is not an act of God. It does not just happen; it is made to happen. In fact, it is a direct result of the so-called market economy—in other words, of the capitalist system.1 am not talking about Adam Smith's capitalism; I am talking about monopoly capitalism and the capitalism of big business represented by the Conservative party. The Government must accept responsibility for the present situation. They must accept the blame for the fact that so many people have lost out in this country.
    Of course, the Government will no doubt protest their innocence and say, "Judge us on our overall record." I suppose that that is fair enough. Let us consider what has happened in our constituencies as plants have closed down. In my constituency, we have lost Robbs shipyard, Raimes Clark manufacturing chemists, Motherwell Bridge, the Victoria Rubber Company and, more recently, Caledonia Flour Mills and SAI. SA1 was closed down deliberately because the Government were opposed to its takeover by Kemira. Why? Because Kemira is a Finnish state-owned organisation. The Government speak about market forces, yet they allowed blind party dogma to interfere with those forces.
    There are also problems at other plants in the Leith area. Although Ferranti and NEI are still producing goods, their work forces have been much reduced. People have been paid off thanks to the so-called "recession" which the Government claim is now about to be resolved and will quickly disappear. I doubt that. Too often, people in Britain have been told to get on their bikes and to look for another job. I suppose that that explains what one sees in various parts of London. There are many Scots around Victoria. Indeed, many people from my constituency are living in cardboard city because they have nowhere else to go. They came here believing that they would get a job in this great city of London, but they could not. This country has economic refugees. They are the people who have lost because of the Government. In the past, Scotland had the highland clearances; today we have the lowland clearances, as my hon. Friends could testify.
    Unemployment is not unique to Britain, but it is rising fast here. By next year, it is estimated that 3 million people or more will be unemployed. However, that is only part of the story, because many other people will be on short time. It is estimated that 5 million people will be working part-time. In the past, the excuse always used to be, "It is the unions' fault." That was the message given out by the Conservatives. However, that is a bogus argument, because there have been very few disputes in recent years, and, sadly, union membership has declined.
    The other reason the Tories gave for things going wrong was that wage rates were too high. They do not say that to Sir Ian MacLaurin of Tesco, who gets £1·5 million a year, or to the other bigwigs, such as the judges, the generals, the police chiefs and the bosses. But that is what they say to the young lasses and laddies who work for Tesco and who receive only £5,000 per year instead of the huge sums of money that their bosses get from the exploitation of both young and older workers.
    The Tories always argued in the past that one could price oneself into or out of a job. The Tories are strong on the law, but they have ignored the wages councils. There have been repeated cases of both young and older workers
    404
    being underpaid simply because the number of wages council inspectors has been reduced. In 1978, there were 171 inspectors, but today there are only 71 inspectors to check on the Scrooge employers. That explains why, although the Low Pay Unit has made it clear that one third of the firms checked underpaid their employees—that is just the tip of the iceberg—there have been very few prosecutions. In 1988, only 10 firms were prosecuted, but more than 5,000 were breaking the law. That explains a lot about the Government. It explains that they are a Government of low wages and cheap labour. Their youth training scheme conscripted young workers to do menial tasks for little money. Training schemes indeed!
    If the Government could justify low wages by proving that the economy would take off, they might be acceptable, but India has not become a booming economy on the basis of low wages. Low wages are not a panacea. Unemployemnt is rising because Britain has not invested in new equipment, ideas or technology. Part of the cause is the exchange rate mechanism and the overvalued pound. Anyone who looks back to the 1920s when Britain was on the gold standard will understand the lessons of that period. We must invest in new machines, people, training, skills and education, and we can afford to do so. Despite the Government's mismanagement of the economy, we have many resources, including the talents of the people and oil. It is simply a question of using our talents and wealth to good effect. That is why we speak of a citizens' charter.
    We also need a workers' charter which will guarantee real jobs—jobs with a future, jobs that will sort out the economic mess, and jobs that will provide homes, hospitals and roads and rebuild and regenerate the economy. We need a statutory minimum wage, a 35-hour week and equal pay for equal work. However, we shall not get those unless we have a Labour Government. We need socialist policies, which will extend democracy and give power to the people who produce our wealth. The sooner we have a general election the better, because the people back home are desperate for one.
    9.27 pm
    Mr. Henry McLeish: I am not sure whether I can rise to the expectations of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) but I shall try to deal with the key issues that have emerged this evening. I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee on Employment on the report that his Committee has prepared. Although its conclusions may not have led us to a definitive debate, the issues are important and have formed the backdrop to our debate.
    It is important to appreciate that we are debating this issue against the background of some sombre forecasts which have been made in Europe and this country. The report of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development suggests that our investment possibilities in the next year are extremely gloomy. We have the worst forecast for business investment next year compared with the United States at 6·4 per cent., Japan at 4·4 per cent., Germany at 4·8 per cent.—the United Kingdom rate is forecast at only 0·6 per cent. No other EC country is likely to do so badly. That is important to the long-term aspirations of the next Labour Government and it is extremely depressing that the present Government will leave such a legacy to us.

    405
    The City and academic institutions have forecast the levels of unemployment that lie ahead in 1992. It is clear from those forecasts that the much hoped for reduction in unemployment will simply not emerge next year. The forecasts are extremely gloomy and range from more than 3 million to 2·3 million. The Select Committee report states in paragraph 4 that the CBI
    "expected the turning point in unemployment to arise between six and 12 months after the turning point in economic activity."
    It is salutary to remember that unemployment in that last Conservative recession started to rise in November 1979 and did not stop rising until July 1986—it rose for nearly seven years. It would be complacent to think that a short-term consumer boom such as the one being devised by the Government will have any immediate impact on rising unemployment.
    This debate is essentially about the Government's economic record—about 12 years of wasted opportunity for millions of people. It is about the Government's failure to deal with the deep-seated structural problems that were with us in 1979 and are still with us in 1991. It is also about the Government's failure to deal with unemployment as a serious economic issue. In Britain there are 2·2 million unemployed but they also have 1·8 million dependants, so unemployment is blighting the lives of almost 4 million men, women and children. That is a sad reflection on a Government who are supposed to have engineered economic miracles.
    The statistics of Government failure are stark and worth repeating. A further 10,000 people have been added to the dole queue every month since 1979—and the Government talk about economic success and lecture the Labour party about policies designed to bring down unemployment. Great claims are made about jobs. The most serious claim made by Ministers is that 1·3 million more people are in work now than in 1979. That is just not true; 460,000 of them are people with extra jobs, not more people in jobs; 411,000 training places are described as jobs. So after 12 years of Conservative Government 165,000 full-time jobs have been created—the worst employment record in Europe. That is the reality behind the rhetoric.
    Conservative Members representing the north-west must ask the Secretary of State for Employment why fewer people there and in the north are in jobs in 1991 than in June 1979. For them, the economic miracle does not stand up to objective scrutiny.
    Vacancies are also a key indicator. In January 1980, when statistics were first compiled, 193,400 vacancies were recorded at job centres, a number that slumped to 106,000 in May this year.
    Skills are another key labour market indicator. Every objective criterion shows that the skills crisis is deepening and that the skills gap between Britain and its major competitors is widening.
    If we want evidence about unemployment we need look no further than the Government's record. They have failed on the four key labour market indicators. I challenge the Minister to wish away this doubling of unemployment, this almost complete failure to create jobs, this skills crisis and this slump in vacancies.
    The labour market is singularly ill equipped to deal with the problems that lie ahead, partly because of de-skilling,
    406
    partly because of massive de-regulation and partly because of the destabilisation caused by so many people looking for a job. Jobs are still the fulcrum of our culture, but people are denied the chance to have one.
    I charge the Government with three accusations. First, they are the party of mass unemployment and have been instrumental in its creation by using it as a weapon of economic management. They have been indifferent to its effects and they have been instinctively unable to take unemployment seriously or to provide the positive action that the unemployed and the nation require.
    Secondly, the Tories are exacting a high price from individuals, the economy and, in particular, from taxpayers for the high level of unemployment. The Chancellor said that it was a price well worth paying. That is certainly true if the Government want to waste taxpayers' money and lives, and remove skills and capacity from an economy that badly needs them.
    Thirdly, it is quite clear that the Government knew that unemployment would rise sharply, and I shall provide evidence about that. Even though the Government were aware of that, they failed to take positive action.
    Mr. Timothy Wood: Nonsense.
    Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman says nonsense, but the only action was a statement a few weeks ago by the Secretary of State for Employment in which he introduced more job clubs and some employment action. I shall deal with that later.
    I shall start unfolding this shabby tale by looking at a key minute which has been raised in the House before but which is worth mentioning again. It is a memorandum dated 15 May of a meeting between the G10 chairman and Sir Geoffrey Holland. For the first time there is documented evidence of a Government prediction about employment in the following year. It states:
    "In both London and Sheffield the forecast for the period October 90 to October 91 was for a 50 per cent. rise in the levels of unemployment. Any arguments that the Treasury therefore had for a reduction in funding were now completely eroded and in fact there was a demonstrable justification for further funds."
    Was that a minute of what the permanent secretary in the Department said at the meeting or was it the G10 chairman making a forecast that had emanated from Sheffield and London? It is clear that the Government were able to forecast in October 1990 that employment would rise by 50 per cent.—an increase of 860,000 in 12 months.
    Why was there no action in January, February, March, April or May? In June, the Secretary of State for Employment made a statement in which he unfolded some new initiatives to tackle a problem that was evident in March last year when unemployment started to rise and which was crystal clear by October when forecasts were made. Do 2·2 million people have to be unemployed before the Government find it sensible and prudent to act?
    History has a habit of repeating itself. I shall quote from a press notice dated 3 February 1983 issued by the then Secretary of State for Employment, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Dealing with rising unemployment, the press notice stated:
    "In the meantime the Government is already helping about 650,000 people avoid unemployment through a range of special measures costing about £1,500,000".
    That shows that unemployment is not a new issue for the Government. They must be masters at dealing with it,

    407
    although the outcome of their actions does not confirm that judgment. It is interesting to compare that press notice with the statement by the Secretary of State for Employment on 19 June this year. He said:
    "The Government is already providing a wide range of employment and training programmes helping 650,000 unemployed people this year".
    In both 1983 and 1991, 650,000 people were being helped and unemployment was over 2 million. If the country had done so well, why have the unemployed done so badly? Why is it that, after nearly a decade of booms and busts, we are back to the position that existed in 1983?
    Mr. Janman: Given that a future Labour Government would not take us out of the exchange rate mechanism, and that the Shadow Chancellor has said that the only public spending priorities of a future Labour Government would be child benefit and pensions because that would not create a false boom, what difference would a Labour Government make, and what would they do to change the situation?
    Mr. McLeish: I wish that I had more time to address the serious issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The Government do not want to give us more time to discuss unemployment because of the difficulties that they are in, but it is an important subject. If the Government persist in creating another consumer boom that is not investment led, we shall end up with the same problems that we have endured for the past 12 years. The Government have not addressed the important agenda of regional policy, industrial strategy and the supply side initiative. However, a Labour Government will address it, with resulting benefits.
    In their statement on 19 June, the Government said that they wanted to address a particular problem. It is instructive to look briefly at their response after unemployment hit 2·2 million. First, we shall have an unemployment action programme to create 30,000 jobs this year and 30,000 next year, so that by the end of next year 60,000 will have been created. The problem is that this will serve in this financial year only 30,000 people so it is a pity that the 960,000 people who have been unemployed for more than six months will not benefit. Some would describe that as a drop in the ocean, but I shall not be so uncharitable. That means that 50 people in each constituency may be helped by this dramatic new measure to tackle rising unemployment.
    Secondly, the Secretary of State now wants to give 15,000 places back to the employment training programme. It is unfortunate that he took away 80,000 places. We have heard hon. Members talk about the cuts of £360 million earlier this year. Some £120 million has been reinstated, and now those 15,000 jobs will be reinstated at a cost of £34·9 million. However, we are not back to the level of funding that we had before the cuts were instigated.
    Thirdly, we now have the greatest innovation in the Department of Employment since Lord Young of Graffham introduced Restart—executive job clubs. The Government have realised that it is not just Scotland, the north and the north-west which suffer from unemployment, and that the executive masses in the south-east are also suffering. I do not know what an executive job club will be, but I hope that it is more successful than job clubs have so far proved.
    408
    If there were one single issue that should excite those on the Government Benches, it is the cost of unemployment. The public know full well that the Government are not interested in unemployment as a social or regional issue, nor in its dramatic impact on the individual. This is supposed to be the Government of economic competence and sound money. If that is the case, why are they willing to spend £16·5 billion supporting unemployment? There is no dispute about the fact that £7 billion is paid out in benefits because we know it from the Government's sources and £9·5 billion is the cost of lost national insurance, income tax and indirect taxes. Are the Government seriously telling the country that they are willing to sustain 2·2 million people out of work at a cost of £16·5 billion? If they are, then they are obviously willing to play havoc with the public sector borrowing requirement as well.
    The other tragedy is that in one year the Government added £4·7 billion to the cost of keeping people out of work. And that is the party of sound money—the economically competent party which threatens Britain by saying that if a Labour Government came in jobs would be lost, unemployment would be rife and employment growth would be affected. It is stunning hypocrisy that the Government can make such comments against their own record of abject failure on every key economic issue.
    I want to give the Minister, whom I see smiling at me across the Dispatch Box, his allotted 15 minutes, so I will finish on this point. There is a yawning gap between the scale of the unemployment crisis facing Britain and the Government's pathetic response to it. When we win the next general election, we shall act; until then, it is time that the Government took unemployment seriously. If they did that, they would get more support in the country and some support in the House.
    9.44 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Jackson): I join the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) in the congratulations that he offered to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton), the Chairman of the Select Committee, on the way in which he introduced the report. It is always a pleasure to respond to the hon. Gentleman. He is always well informed and constructive, even when he is in a critical vein, as he was tonight.
    I particularly agree with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) about the importance of training in the formation of skills. That is why the Government have increased spending on training and enterprise councils threefold in real terms during the past 10 years. We believe in training and we have been putting our money where our mouth is with our commitment.
    On behalf of the Select Committee the hon. Member for Newham, North-East challenged the Government on the question of training targets, one of the three principal recommendations of the report. The Government believe in targets. It would be fair to say that we were responsible for the introduction of targets as an important managerial tool within Government. It is important to quantify the objectives of the organisations which work for the Government and within the Government.
    But we do not believe in targets simply as a matter of gesture politics, to feel good by saying the right thing. We

    409
    take targets seriously. We believe that they must reflect a real commitment and responsibility, that they should be capable of being attained, and that the people for whom the targets are being set can attain them and will have the commitment to deliver them.
    That means that the targets must be set by those who have a responsibility for fulfilling them. That causes a problem for the Government when it comes to setting targets for training. As the hon. Gentleman will know, most of the training done in Britain is not done by the Government, as is true in other countries. Employers are, generally speaking, the main sponsors of training. Therefore, it is employers rather than the Government who must take the responsibility for fulfilling training targets.
    The Government welcome the fact that the CBI has taken that point. It has been looking at the question of targets and is making an effort to set realistic, attainable but stretching targets on behalf of employers which employers will be able to take responsibility for meeting. We await what the CBI has to say and what targets it sets, but the Government are pleased that, on behalf of employers, the CBI has responded to that challenge. The debate is not yet concluded, so I say to the hon. Gentleman —watch this space.
    The hon. Gentleman talked about the report's second recommendation on the exchange rate mechanism. He was pessimistic about the implications of the ERM for unemployment and he was joined in that by my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) and for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler). As the hon. Member for Newham, North-East noted—in passing, it must be said— there is agreement between all the parties about the desirability of our membership of the ERM. It is supported by the trade unions and by business. That support includes the parity—if we are to understand accurately what has been said by the shadow Chancellor —of £1 to DM2·95.
    Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends are perfectly entitled to reflect on the possible consequences of the policy for unemployment. It may enjoy a sustainable consensus, but it may still have consequences to which my right hon. Friends are right to refer and to be concerned about. This is a large subject, so let me simply offer a few thoughts about the experience of France, to which the hon. Member for Newham, North-East particularly referred.
    I do not necessarily agree with the basis of the hon. Gentleman's pessimism—the idea that Britain's experience of the exchange rate mechanism will parallel that of France. When we joined the ERM, inflation was lower, both in absolute terms and relative to that in the rest of Europe, than it was in France when that country joined in the early 1980s. Besides, our supply-side reforms and the labour market legislation that we have introduced have made our economy a great deal more flexible than France's economy was then.
    Moreover, in the early 1980s France had devalued its currency several times to maintain competitiveness; or, at least, that was its intention. When it committed itself to the ERM, no one believed that devaluation had been ruled out, which increased the cost of getting inflation down.
    410
    There is a moral in that. We must maintain the credibility of our commitment to the ERM, with the parity that we have chosen. In that regard, I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace).
    I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent about the importance of training. He described very well the growing recognition that a sea change has taken place in that important part of our national life. One of the signs is the success of the training and enterprise councils. A huge voluntary commitment has been made by thousands of business people all over the country.
    Over the decade, the Government have substantially increased the resources devoted to training; even more important, so have employers. As I have said, they are very much in the lead in that regard. The Government should also take credit for clarifying the system of qualifications, through the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent pointed out, a large amount of bumf seems to be inseparable from each of our education and training reforms. I shall refer what he said to the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. I think that the House will agree, however, that there has been an important breakthrough, and that we now have a coherent vocational framework—not before time.
    There have also been substantial policy innovations. I was pleased to hear what my hon. Friend said about training credits, an important development for which, again, the Government should take credit. My hon. Friend asked us to commit ourselves to spreading the system more widely across the country. I remind him that, in the White Paper that we published only a few weeks ago, we committed ourselves to the principle of a national extension of training credits from April 1993, and to completing the process during the next Parliament. We must, of course, learn from pilot schemes, but we consider that principle sound. In our view, it has already proved itself.
    Mr. Leighton: Many weeks ago, I told the Minister that hundreds of young people in the borough of Newham had no jobs or places on youth training schemes. Initially, the Minister said that I was ill informed; having re-examined the position, I discovered that I was not. Then the Minister promised to write to me. I am still waiting for his reply. When will I receive it? Why on earth does he not answer? Is it because he was embarrassed to find that what I had said was correct, and that I was not ill informed after all?
    Mr. Jackson: I am not sure that I said that the hon. Gentleman was not well informed, but, if I did, let me not compound my error.
    It is difficult to establish the position relating to a youth training guarantee in a particular part of London. I signed a letter to the hon. Gentleman today, but I do not want to arouse false expectations: it does not solve the problem. Guarantees can be delivered by a number of providers, not necessarily located in the borough of Newham. However, we are taking the hon. Gentleman's point seriously, as he would expect us to. I can give him the basic assurance that he seeks: we are entirely committed to the youth training guarantee.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock was right to argue against the establishment of a minimum wage. He was right to say that a minimum wage would not be an

    411
    effective weapon against poverty and that it would destroy jobs. The hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is being tutored in verbosity by the Leader of the Opposition. In his latest euphemism he has conceded:
    "econometric models indicate a potential jobs impact."
    We shall continue pressing the hon. Member for Sedgefield about his "econometric models" until he comes clean with the truth to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was right to refer.
    If the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland gets in touch with me about the constituency case involving the young lady in Inverness, I shall look at it with him and do my best to help sort it out.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock was right to remind the House of what euphemisms such as econometric models having a jobs impact might mean for job opportunities in his constituency.
    I congratulate the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on his willingness to make suggestions about how to handle the problem of unemployment. That is something we look for in these debates. His ideas about more spending on housing construction, education construction and energy efficiency are all worthy causes, but they all have substantial implications for public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman should consider the relationship between those proposals and his commitment to the stabilisation of exchange rates in the exchange rate mechanism. There is a tension there which I fear that the hon. Gentleman was not addressing. I draw his attention to the package of measures announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State—an additional £110 million this year and £230 million next year. That is a substantial addition to public expenditure to deaf with unemployment. It is in the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. He must recognise that there are constraints on what we can do.
    Mr. Wallace rose—
    Mr. Jackson: I shall not give way because I want to continue to answer the debate.
    I was concerned by what the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) had to say about the training provider organisation in his constituency with which he is associated and the decision that has been made by Mid Glamorgan TEC. The local TEC is much better placed than either I or my officials in Whitehall to make judgments about value for money and quality of different training providers. The hon. Gentleman must accept that. He implied that trainees who had been displaced from that provider were not being found alternatives. I shall take that seriously and I should like to discuss it with him afterwards. We must try to ensure that that does not happen.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South spoke about the rules defining self-employment. I have had similar experiences in my constituency and I share his concern. However, it is a matter for our honourable colleagues in the Treasury and I shall draw their attention to his remarks.
    Unemployment is serious. It is serious for the country and the individuals concerned and there is no dispute about that between the Opposition and ourselves. We are equally concerned. However, the hon. Member for Fife, Central should not be allowed to get away with exaggerating. He said—I took down his words—that we have the worst employment record in Europe. That is not
    412
    true. In May unemployment in Britain was 7·9 per cent. In Spain it is 15·8 per cent., in Ireland it is 15·5 per cent., in Canada it is 10·1 per cent., in Italy it is 10 per cent., in Australia it is 9·8 per cent. and in socialist France it is 9·3 per cent. Our record on unemployment is not as bad as others in the Community and the hon. Member for Fife, Central should recognise that.
    The rhetoric of the hon. Member for Fife, Central was admirably punctured by an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock who asked him a simple and straightforward question. He asked what the Labour party would do about unemployment within the parameters of the policies that it has promulgated on the exchange rate and public expenditure. The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric is bankrupt. I see that the hon.
    Member for Orkney and Shetland is nodding in agreement, but the same stricture applies to him, because he, too, must live within the parameters of his policy.
    There is general recognition in the House that there are no miracle cures for unemployment. We did not even hear a miracle cure from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown), who gave us a mantra about socialism. No miracle cures were suggested in the report of the Select Committee and none has been advanced in the debate.
    There is much agreement between the parties that inflation must be reduced, but we must recognise that the implication of doing that is a slow down in economic activity, which can translate into rising unemployment if wages are not flexible and if they do not reflect the decline in inflation. Our problem has been that wage settlements continue to run ahead of inflation.
    It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER interrupted the proceedings, and the Question necessary to dispose of the proceedings was deferred, pursuant to paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).
    MR. SPEAKER, pursuant to paragraph 5 of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of Estimates), put the deferred Questions on Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1991–92 (Class II, Vote 5 and Class VI, Vote 1) and the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the other estimate appointed for consideration this day.

    CLASS II, VOTE 5
    Resolved
    That a further sum, not exceeding £910,873,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Overseas Development Administration under the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 on the official UK aid programme; economic assistance to Eastern Europe and the USSR; and global environmental assistance; including financial and technical assistance to governments, institutions, voluntary agencies and individuals; pensions and allowances in respect of overseas service including contributions to pensions funds; capital and other subscriptions and contributions, including payments under guarantee, to multilateral development banks and other international and regional bodies; emergency, refugee and other relief assistance; loans to the Commonwealth Development Corporation; and running costs, related capital expenditure and other administrative costs including for the Natural Resources Institute (an executive agency).—[Mr. Boswell.]

    Class VI, Vote 1
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £1,150,731,000 and including a Supplementary Sum of £90,392,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the

    413
    charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Department of Employment, including expenditure via Training and Enterprise Councils, on training, including the provision of training programmes for young people and adults and initiatives within education; on the promotion of enterprise and the encouragement of self-employment and small firms; on help for unemployed people; the improvement of industrial relations; industrial tribunals; compensation for persons disabled by certain industrial diseases; payments towards expenses of trade union ballots; on residual liabilities and disposal of the remaining assets of the former National Dock Labour Board; on the costs of maintaining and disposing of the former Skills Training Agency; administration, central and miscellaneous services including assistance on employment issues to eastern Europe in co-operation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.—[Mr. Boswell.]

    Class VI, Vote 2
    Resolved,
    That a further sum, not exceeding £276,560,000, and including a Supplementary Sum of £17,514,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges that will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1992 for expenditure by the Employment Service of the Department of Employment on help for unemployed people, support for people with disabilities, assistance on employment issues to eastern Europe in co-operation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on research, publicity and on administration.—[Mr. Boswell.]

  Kirklees Council
  10.1 pm
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I beg leave to present a petition that has been signed by more than 3,000 constituents. It asks the Secretary of State for the Environment to introduce legislation to replace Kirklees metropolitan council with at least two smaller district councils to administer the Greater Huddersfield area and Batley, Dewsbury and Spen valley.
  Many of my constituents believe that Kirklees council is remote and that it ignores their needs. They also believe that Kirklees council neglects to invest in Batley and Spen. This is the first phase of what I suggest will be a larger petition.
  To lie upon the Table

  Textile Industry (Kilmarnock)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boswell]
  10.2 pm
  Mr. William McKelvey: My promotion to the Front Bench follows a military-style coup by Ayrshire Members, but it is temporary. Nevertheless, I welcome the opportunity to discuss an issue that is important not only for Kilmarnock but for Scotland and beyond.
  The Minister is probably aware that Kilmarnock and Loudoun has the second highest number of textile and clothing employees of any constituency in Scotland. Therefore, you, Mr. Speaker, and the Minister will understand my deep concern for the industry's future and for the well-being not only of my constituents but of those in Scotland who work in the textile and knitwear industry and associated industries. Their futures have prompted the debate. As Kilmarnock is often described as a microcosm of Scottish industry, its case is indeed Scotland's case. I hope that the Minister will understand and accept that.
  If the Minister has done his homework—I am sure that he has—he will know that the multi-fibre arrangement ends on 31 July. That date was chosen when talks commenced on the Uruguay round of the GATT negotiations in 1986. Those negotiations were expected to be successfully concluded by Christmas 1990 and, sensibly, a seven-month overlap was allowed for Governments to change their practices in line with GATT.
  Inevitably, as the Minister will understand, problems arose and the Uruguay round of talks was halted. Those problems have now been overcome, and talks recommenced last month. However, the negotiations are months behind, and for that reason it is essential that the multi-fibre arrangement is extended for a further 17 months or until the results of the Uruguay round are ready to be implemented.
  Our—and by that I mean Scotland's—lace, textile knitwear and clothing manufacture is of a high quality; I do not think that anyone in the House would dispute that. Therefore, it could easily hold its own in the world markets if the way were clear for it to do so and if the playing field were level. Even with the multi-fibre arrangement, there are many distortions which make fair competition extremely difficult—distortions such as South Korea's latest £2·5 billion subsidy scheme for its textile and clothing industry. 0 that the Minister were able to give one tenth of that to Kilmarnock and one half to Scotland.
  Subsidies are also given by the Turkish, Belgian, French, Spanish and Italian Governments. Other countries employ other means to protect their homegrown textile industries, including excessive tariff rates, excessive import duties and even the prohibition of imports of textiles and clothing if similar goods are produced domestically. There is even a fraud facilitated by countries such as Taiwan and Japan to allow the registration of brand names, falsely implying a United Kingdom origin.
  That list is by no means comprehensive, because we have only a short time to debate it, but it is a taster of the difficulties faced by the Scottish and, indeed, the British textile, lace and knitwear industries.
  The hope of the industry, of my constituents and, I trust, of the Minister—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart)indicated assent.
  Mr. McKelvey: —is that the Uruguay round of talks will remove the distortions which have led to many job losses and to many closures not only in my constituency, but in others in Scotland and in the United Kingdom as a whole.
  Those losses and closures are evident from the fact that, in 1978, there were about 1,300 manual jobs in Kilmarnock's textile industry. In March this year, there were about 800. If one adds to those figures the clerical and external support and management jobs, hon. Members will understand why the industry believes that it has at best been ignored by the Government and at worst decimated by their inactivity.
  Recently, two textile companies in my constituency closed with a loss of 200 jobs. We often hear of a mega-loss of jobs, so hon. Members might wonder why we should be concerned about the loss of 200 jobs. I am talking about small townships, where the loss of 100 or 200 jobs can decimate the economy because there are no alternative jobs. In some parts of my constituency, the loss of 100 or 200 jobs is equal to the mega-loss of jobs in other constituencies. Therefore, it is not surprising that the industry and its workers are highly nervous about the ending of the multi-fibre arrangement, the further distortions and frauds which could be unleashed and the subsequent effects in job losses.
  The Minister for Trade has agreed to argue for a 17-month extension of the multi-fibre arrangement. I welcome that, and applaud his decision. However, it is feared that there could be a relaxation of the present arrangements, and I ask the Minister to use his good offices for such a good cause and to ensure that there is no relaxation. I invite the Minister to restate, if he can, the Government's commitment to the extension of the multi-fibre arrangement for either a further 17 months, as he has stated, or until the results of the Uruguay round are ready for implementation, whichever is the longer.
  I also invite the Minister to support the current multi-fibre arrangement and to assure my constituents, the people of Scotland and the British textile industry as a whole that our negotiations will not allow any relaxation of the present arrangements. Furthermore, I would be pleased to hear the Minister's commitment to the extension of bilateral agreements with the European Community for a further 12 months after their current term has finished. I know that the Minister does not have responsibility for negotiating that, but his commitment to act from the Scottish Office on our behalf would be much welcomed by the Scottish people.
  The existence of so many inequalities—despite the multi-fibre arrangement, which all of us support and which we so desperately require—has led to many job losses in my constituency. The manufacturers, the unions and the district council have tried for some time to seek interim solutions. Almost exactly one year ago, on 4 July 1990, I met the Secretary of State for Scotland. I was accompanied by Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council's economic development officer, Miss Jaqueline Cullen, the provost, Jim Mills, and Mr. McChristie, an officer of the General, Municipal and Boilermakers Union.
  The Secretary of State said that a survey by the Scottish Development Agency was under way, and, although there had been some delay, he assured us that he would
  416
  investigate to see whether the survey had taken place and that he would report back to us soon. I know that that is not the responsibility of the Minister, but the previous incumbent of the job said that he would report back to us.
  However, in one year we have heard not a cheep about the seriousness of the situation in Kilmarnock, about the fact that the SDA was supposed to undertake that survey, or about what has happened since then. All we have heard about, through the auspices of Enterprise Ayrshire, was the recent launch of the Scottish lace brand logo. The lace industry's manufacturers got together to form themselves into an association. That is to be welcomed, but it involves a restricted group of people.
  Since that time, my constituents in the industry have not stood still. Tom Smith, the managing director of the Loudoun Valley Manufacturing Company, said to me only today:
  "As one of the principal manufacturers of the local valley for the past 30 years, I have never known trade to be so bad. The apparent lack of understanding shown by the present Government in not giving assistance and also the fact that cheap imports are coming into Britain is destroying the textile trade."
  Mr. George Foulkes: I endorse every word that my hon. Friend has said so far. As he knows, my constituency used to be principally a mining constituency, but the largest sector of employment is now textiles, knitwear and clothing. That includes Kyle Knitwear and Cumnock Knitwear, which makes knitwear cards, Glenafton Textiles, which makes socks, Saracen, which makes nightdresses and other similar things, and Falmers, which makes the well-known jeans.
  They are being squeezed by the MFA and unfair competition, with socks from countries such as Turkey, which is not an underdeveloped country, and knitwear from Korea and similar countries. They are also being squeezed by the recession, which is dampening down demand in the high street.
  Would my hon. Friend urge the Minister, as well as dealing with Kilmarnock in his reply, to deal with Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and the problems of the knitwear and textile industry there, as he has been briefed to do? It would be useful if he could include that in his reply.
  Mr. McKelvey: As usual, I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for a helpful intervention. What he has said is correct. I have already told the Minister that I am not speaking only on behalf of Kilmarnock and all nny colleagues from Ayrshire, including the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger). In reality, the debate not only extends to Scotland, but affects the textile industry throughout the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Smith said that this was a trade that had existed in the Irvine valley throughout Kilmarnock for well over 100 years. He concluded:
  "If there is not some help or assistance given in the very near future there could be no textile industry in this district."
  We are now about the only manufacturers of lace in the United Kingdom, and we would not under any circumstances want to lose part of our somewhat recent heritage. The heritage of the knitwear industry in Scotland goes back rather further. We could afford to lose neither our heritage, nor the jobs, nor that part of the income of our economy.

  417
  Kilmarnock and Loudoun district council is now setting up a textile forum in my constituency, at my request. It will comprise representatives of textile industry management, trade union officers, representative councillors and council officers. The forum's aim is to seek some defence for the future of that worthwhile industry. It has already invited the European Commissioner for regional policy, Bruce Milan, to a meeting to discuss the problems and to ask if there is any possibility of European help either now, in the short term, or perhaps in the long term —in 1993, when the regulations change. It is hoped that some EC funds will be available to provide short-term pump priming for an industry that needs and deserves it.
  If that were achieved, consumers would be able to compare like with like, and I have no doubt that the quality of the textiles, lace and knitwear not only from Kilmarnock but from the whole of Ayrshire, to Scotland and beyond, will secure the jobs and perhaps even allow the industry to expand and to gain back its lost jobs and its market position.
  I hope that the Minister will support the initiative. I do not want promises such as those I received from his predecessor. To give someone a promise and then sit back and do nothing for a year is not acceptable. In fairness to the Minister, I have not encountered in my recent dealings with him such a laissez-faire attitude. I hope that he understands the seriousness of the problem. I shall look for total and enthusiastic support not only from the Minister but from his right hon. and hon. Friends in government, and an insistence on ensuring the survival of the textile, lace and knitwear industry not only in Kilmarnock, Ayrshire and the rest of Scotland, but throughout the United Kingdom.
  We in Kilmarnock have set the ball rolling. The Minister has the ball at his feet. I want him to imagine a Hampden scenario. Will he seize the initiative? Will he rise to the challenge for which all Scotland is waiting? It is Scotland versus the rest of the world and the Minister has the ball at his feet. Will he take it in control? Will he swerve past the midfield, nutmeg the centre half, draw the goalie and slam the ball into the net to score the winning goal for Scotland? Will he bring the textile championship back where it belongs—north of the border? If he does that, he will have the support not only of my colleagues and myself, but perhaps of the whole of Scotland.
  10.18 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): Seldom have I received a more alluring invitation than that extended to me by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey). I hope that I shall not completely disappoint him.
  I offer my genuine congratulations to him on securing this Adjournment debate and on making an extremely well-informed speech. The fact that it was well informed came as no surprise to anyone who knows of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the textile industry in his constituency.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, too, on his temporary elevation to the Front Bench. I am sure that my fellow Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the
  418
  Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), will agree with me that we in the Scottish Office have never seen such a formidable Opposition Front Bench team as we see in the House this evening.
  I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)—
  Mr. Foulkes: On the Back Benches.
  Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is on the Back Benches on this occasion, although not always. His interest in and knowledge of the industry are well established.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was right to begin by recognising the importance of the industry not just for Ayrshire but for Scotland as a whole. It is one of our longest established manufacturing industries. The hon. Gentleman was also right to refer to its importance in terms of employment and output. According to the latest estimates available to me, its total work force is about 27,000 people and it represents about 5 per cent. of the value of the total output of Scottish manufacturing industry.
  Many people do not realise the industry's importance as a major exporter ranking sixth, by value, in the league table of Scotland's export-oriented industries. The hon. Gentleman rightly told the House that the industry is as long established in Ayrshire as anywhere else—including Dundee—and it remains the most important manufacturing industry in the whole area. Approximately 16 per cent. of all manufacturing jobs in Ayrshire are in the textile industry. The figure is higher in some localities—in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, for instance, it is about 33 per cent.
  As all Ayrshire Members frequently remind the House, Ayrshire is a large and varied area, and the textile industry is almost as diverse as the area. It comprises a multifarious group of industries engaged in the manufacture of lace, knitwear and hosiery, warp knitted goods, woollen and worsted goods and carpets, and in textile finishing and the manufacture of clothing. Diverse though it is, the textile industry in Ayrshire is characterised by two general features. The first is its success in exporting, to which I have already referred, and the second, to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun rightly referred, is the high quality of its products.
  I recognise that there has been some contraction and loss of employment, but Ayrshire has not suffered so badly as most other textile manufacturing areas. I would go further—there are some real success stories in the Ayrshire textile industry, as I am sure Opposition Members would be the first to acknowledge. One of them is the Unitex company, a garment maker and manufacturer of knitted fabric which opened a factory in Irvine in 1989 and is about to occupy a second factory. It is a far eastern company whose decision to come to Ayrshire was influenced by an offer of Government assistance made through Locate in Scotland.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was right to emphasise the fact that, among the long-established indigenous companies, the Ayrshire lace manufacturers deserve a special mention. The industry has managed to achieve a significant increase in output and employement over the past five years, and the recent formation of the Scottish Lace Guild augurs well for the future of the industry. It was initially funded and

  419
  supported by Enterprise Ayrshire, and was launched on 21 May. If the hon. Gentleman looks carefully at my tie, he will see that the Scottish Lace label bears a thistle and a Celtic-style cross. [Interruption.] I can inform the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) that when I launched Scottish Lace I was given a tie but not a matching shirt. It is a significant and important initiative.
  In that context, I will reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun about what happened following his meeting last July with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, then Minister of State. I have a copy of the letter which was sent to the hon. Gentleman on 8 August as a follow-up to the meeting, explaining the position on the surveys to which he referred. If that letter has gone astray, as seems to be the case, I will of course let the hon. Gentleman have a copy for his record of the response following the meeting.
  Mr. McKelvey: So that there is no mystery about this, if there was to be a survey and it was undertaken, what would happen to it? That is the mystery.
  Mr. Stewart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has recognised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State responded to the point about the survey. Inevitably, the survey was substantially of a commercially confidential nature and was therefore discussed with the Scottish Development Agency. Discussions with the companies concerned led to the formation of the Scottish Lace Guild, to which I have referred.
  With regard to assistance to the industry, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun will be aware that Ayrshire is an assisted area. Twenty four Ayrshire textile companies have received offers of grant totalling £2·6 million over the past five years. Ayrshire companies can of course also apply for help through the enterprise initiative consultancies, through a number of other Government-run schemes and through the Scottish exports office which is another ready source of advice.
  I want to respond to the hon. Gentleman's questions about the work of Scottish Enterprise and Enterprise Ayrshire in the textiles sector. Scottish Enterprise has a team of people addressing the needs of the textile industry in Scotland. They are currently undertaking a review of the industry in association with all the local enterprise companies. It is hoped that the review will lead to a strategy that will help Scottish Enterprise to make the Scottish textiles industry more aware of the demands of the market, more design conscious, more adaptable to changes in fashion, and better trained. For its part, Enterprise Ayrshire is giving a high priority to helping the Ayrshire textiles industry in technology, marketing,
  420
  training and environmental improvement. On the marketing front, Enterprise Ayrshire has already earned praise by helping to establish the Scottish Lace Guild to which I referred earlier.
  The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun was right to refer to the important question of the international trade in textiles. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade will study very carefully the detailed points that the hon. Gentleman made tonight. There are currently two main issues to be decided multilaterally. The first is the negotiation to turn the textiles trade to normal GATT rules as part of the wider Uruguay round.
  It is worth recording that that sector has enjoyed protection for many years. In the case of the United Kingdom, the 1989 study by Professor Silberston commissioned by the Department of Trade and Industry estimated that that cost consumers about £1 billion every year. All parties in the negotiation are agreed on the need to phase out the multi-fibre arrangement and we were close to agreement, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, last December on the terms for doing that over about 10 years.
  Rightly, however, hon. Members and industry representatives lay much stress on the other side of the coin —that is, the need to strengthen GATT rules and disciplines and to improve market access to provide, among other things, fairer conditions for trade in textiles. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise that point. I can assure him that Britain and the European Community have consistently made it clear that all countries must accept adequate commitments in those areas.
  That is a compelling reason for seeking to achieve the liberalisation of trade and textiles as part of a successful overall conclusion to the Uruguay round. Such an outcome would provide for improved access to others' markets, more satisfactory rules governing unfair trade practices, such as dumping and subsidies, and improved intellectual property protection. A satisfactory settlement was beginning to emerge last December.
  The second issue follows directly from the failure to conclude the Uruguay round last year—that is, the need to extend the MFA for an interim period when it expires at the end of this month. I confirm that the European Community has proposed an extension until the end of 1992—the 17 months to which the hon. Gentleman referred—which would give our industry, our importers and our retailers the certainty that they seek. Agreement has not been reached on that, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the absolute assurance that the Government share his and the industry's desire that that issue should be settled as soon as possible.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Drink Driving
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the proportion of(a) male drivers and (b) younger male drivers who were killed who were over the legal alcohol limit for each year since 1979.

  Mr. Chope
  The information requested is in the table.

  Fatally injured male drivers and riders: estimated percentage over legal blood alcohol limit by age: Great Britain: 1979 to 1989

  Aged up to 21

  All ages

  1979

  32

  32

  1980

  29

  32

  1981

  23

  30

  1982

  28

  34

  1983

  24

  28

  1984

  27

  27

  1983

  21

  25

  1986

  26

  25

  1987

  22

  27

  1988

  21

  22

  1989

  17

  20

  Motorways
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which methods of assessing the extent of mitigation of the M40's environmental impact(a) have and (b) have not, been applied to the MI1 link road; and for those in (a) what relative values have been applied.

  Mr. Chope
  The environmental impact of the M40 extension, which runs for 59 miles through largely agricultural land, cannot be directly compared with an urban scheme such as the A 12 Hackney Wick to M I 1 link road. The Department's methodology for environmental appraisal is applied to all road proposals, but the measures required to mitigate the adverse effects are dependent on the individual nature of each project. In the case of the M 11 link road, a significant amount of the cost of the scheme is for measures to mitigate the adverse effects of the road including the construction of three sections of tunnel.

  Ministerial Correspondence
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons Ministers in his Department have not complied with the prime ministerial guideline that all Ministers should accompany their replies to Members' letters with a copy of that reply.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  It is, and always has been, the practice of the ministerial correspondence unit in the Department of Transport, to enclose a copy of letters from Ministers to Members, along with the original—and any enclosures, for example, press notices—of any replies dealing with constituents' correspondence.
  140
  If, however, a subject has been raised by a Member, and no specific constituent is involved, only the original of the reply is sent.

  The ministerial correspondence unit is particularly aware of the importance of enclosing a copy of replies involving constituents during recesses, when Members are dealing with correspondence from their homes.

  Airline Employees
  Mr. Snape
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what steps were taken to secure the terms and conditions of employment of the TWA. United Kingdom-based employees being transferred to American' Airlines as a result of his decision to allow American Airlines to take over the TWA Heathrow routes;

  (2) if he will make it his policy, when he agrees to the transfer of airline routes from one foreign airline to another, to take steps to ensure the protection of employment terms and conditions of United Kingdom employees concerned.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  These arrangements are matters for the companies concerned and their employees, subject to any relevant rules regarding employment protection and transfer. They are not matters in which I intervene arid I have no plans to change my policy in this respect.

  Shipping
  Mr. Douglas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the current level of investment by British shipowners in new capacity and the tonnage to be built.

  Mr. McLoughlin
  In 1989, United Kingdom shipowners placed orders for 29 new vessels and took delivery of a further 34 second-hand vessels at an estimated total cost of £462 million. Comparable figures for 1990 are in preparation. I will write to the hon. Member with this information as soon as it becomes available.

  Disability Manifesto
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the recommendations of the "Disability Manifesto: An Agenda for the 1990s", a copy of which has been sent to him, which relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has a strong and continuing policy commitment to improve transport facilities for disabled people.

  A summary of recent developments and current priorities is contained in the annual report for 1990 'from my Department's disability unit, a copy of which is in the library.

  Severn Bridge (Gantry Accident)
  Mr. Grist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is able to announce the outcome of the investigations he commissioned into the accident to a maintenance gantry on the Severn bridge on 4 September 1990.

  Mr. Chope
  I am publishing the report of the investigations today and am placing a copy in the Library. I accept the broad thrust of all the recommendations in the
  141
  report. As the report itself recognises, further work will be necessary before deciding exactly how certain of the recommendations are to be pursued; this work is already under way.

ENVIRONMENT

  Toxic Waste
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a table to show the amounts of(a) hazardous and (b) toxic wastes imported into Great Britain from (i) Northern Ireland and (ii) the Irish Republic in each of the past five years for incineration.

  Mr. Baldry
  Information on the importation of waste into Great Britain has been available only since the introduction of the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations in October 1988. No distinction is made in the regulations between hazardous and toxic waste.

  From 1 October 1988 to 31 March 1989, a total of 29·4 tonnes of hazardous waste for incineration were imported through English ports from the Irish Republic. The equivalent figure for 1989–90 is 89·1 tonnes. Final figures for 1990–91 are not yet available.

  The provision of information for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland respectively. Information on trade within the United Kingdom is not held centrally.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has on the quantity of toxic and hazardous wastes arising from the operations of the Du Pont company in Northern Ireland which is transferred to the incinerators of the Cleanaway and Raychem plants in Great Britain each year.

  Mr. Trippier
  None. Monitoring the movement of hazardous waste within the United Kingdom is the responsibility of local waste disposal authorities.

  Housing Grant
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will produce a table showing(a) the level of grant made by the Housing Corporation to housing associations within each one of the five West Yorkshire local authorities in each of the past five years, (b) the housing needs index for each authority in each year, (c) the excess or shortfall of grant over or below housing needs index for each authority in each year and (d) the total excess or shortfall for each authority over the five-year period; and if he will outline the criteria used by the Housing Corporation which would cause the grant made to housing associations within each local authority being either above or below that authority's housing needs index.

  Mr. Yeo
  The distribution of resources among local authority areas is a matter for the Housing Corporation. I have, therefore, asked the corporation to reply direct to my hon. Friend with the information he has requested. A copy of the reply will be placed in the Libraries of the House. It should be noted, however, that although the housing needs indicator is the best means available for allocating resources to Housing Corporation regions, for 142
  statistical reasons it is less reliable at local level. In determining priorities within the regions, therefore, the corporation's regional offices also use their own assessment of need, informed by discussions with local authorities in their enabling role.

  Ministerial Conference, Czechoslovakia
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representation the United Kingdom had at the ministerial conference for environment in Europe held in Drobis, Czechoslovakia on 22–23 June; and what decisions were taken at the conference.

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: I attended the "Environment for Europe" ministerial conference held in Drobis last week where we discussed ways for further strengthening co-operation to protect and improve the environment, long-term strategies towards a European protection and restoration system and an environmental programme for Europe. The conclusions of the conference have been made available in the Library.

  Valuation Rules
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidance which has been issued to valuation officers on the interpretation of Statutory Instrument 474/91; and whether this guidance makes reference to the presence of en suite bathrooms or of tea-making facilities as relevant to assessing whether a householder is excluded from the business rate concession.

  Mr. Maples
  I have been asked to reply.

  It is not our practice to disclose instructions which are issued for the confidential guidance of staff, but when deciding whether a household is to be excluded from non-domestic rating valuation officers will have regard to all the facilities provided and the intensity of business use. No particular facility will be considered in isolation, but only in relation to all the circumstances of the case.

DEFENCE

  Mr. William Douglas-Home
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, further to his answer to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) of 17 June,Official Report, column 65, if he will publish the decision reached in the review of the case of the hon. William Douglas-Home, and the reasons for it.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  No. This is a private matter between the Ministry of Defence and the hon. William Douglas-Home.

  Anti-personnel Minefields
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the countries where United Kingdom forces are helping to discover and disarm anti-personnel minefields.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Royal Engineers are currently deployed in Colombia, the Falkland islands and Kuwait. In Colombia they are providing bomb search and disposal
  143
  training as part of the Government's package of anti-drugs assistance. In the Falkland islands the explosive ordnance disposal detachment of the garrison field squadron is responsible for monitoring the minefields left behind by the Argentine invasion forces in 1982. In Kuwait, in the aftermath of hostilities, Royal Engineers co-ordinated the multinational effort of marking Iraqi-laid minefields. The current activities of the Royal Engineers in Kuwait do not include specific tasking on the search for and disarming of anti-personnel mines, but concentrate on the disposal of unexploded ordnance.

  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Mr. George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of the future of Ministry of Defence police currently involved in policing of Royal Ordnance plc sites at Chorley, Radway Green, Nottingham, Bridgewater and Glascoed.

  Mr. Kenneth Carlisle
  The number of Ministry of Defence police officers to be based at each factory remains the subject of negotiations between the Ministry of Defence and Royal Ordnance plc.

  Operation Granby
  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current number of service personnel being treated for anxiety disorders or other psychiatric problems resulting either wholly or partially from Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  Seventy-nine service personnel are at present receiving treatment within service facilities for anxiety disorders or other psychiatric problems resulting wholly or partially from Operation Granby.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have had some form of treatment for anxiety disorders or other psychiatric problems resulting either wholly or partially from Operation Granby.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy towards the treatment of(a) service personnel suffering from anxiety disorders or other psychiatric problems resulting either wholly or partially from Operation Granby and (b) their families.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The services aim to identify and treat service personnel and their families suffering from anxiety disorders or other psychiatric problems at the earliest possible time. Service personnel would be treated within their community at service facilities and their dependents would be treated in both service and NHS facilities according to location.

  Mr. O'Neill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been issued to unit commanders involved in Operation Granby regarding service personnel suffering from anxiety disorders or other psychiatric problems resulting either wholly or partially from Operation Granby; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The policy for the early identification and treatment of anxiety disorders and other 144
  psychiatric problems is well established within the services. Personnel at all levels have been briefed on the need for continued support in the aftermath of Operation Granby.

  Dartmoor National Park
  Mr. Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the licence agreement for military training in the Dartmoor national park has been renewed.

  Mr. Archie Hamilton
  The use of Dartmoor will remain crucial for effective military training, as it is the only primary training area in the south-west of England. The requirement for Duchy of Cornwall land on Dartmoor for military training purposes therefore continues to be in the national interest.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Records
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many accesses were made to each index of the police national computer over the past year; and whether he will include in these statistics an indication of the number of access requests that could search more than one index.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The Royal Ulster Constabulary does not have direct access to the police national computer but can indirectly obtain information from the computer by arrangement with police forces in Great Britain. Statistics are not maintained by the RUC on the number of inquiries made each year, but I understand from the chief constable that useage of this facility is infrequent.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about next steps agencies in his Department.

  Mr. Brooke
  I am pleased to announce three new candidates for executive agency status. These are:The vehicle inspection and driving test centres in the Department of the Environment;
  The child support agency in the Department of Health and Social Services; and
  Criminal compensation in the Northern Ireland Office.

  Further details on the timing of the launch of these agencies will be announced in due course.

  Railways
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what conclusions he has reached on the report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on railway services provided by Northern Ireland Railways; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Brooke
  I have placed today in the Library of the House the initial response produced by the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, in consultation with the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company and Northern Ireland Railways, to the report submitted by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in December 1990.

  I am grateful to the commission for the comprehensive review it carried out. While commending NIR's

  145
  management for its dedication and resilience in maintaining services despite terrorist disruption and confirming that the company did not operate against the public interest, the commission found that there was scope for improving efficiency and reducing costs. The commission identified the principal challenges facing the company as the need to modernise a railway heavily dependent on subsidy, the rationalisation of its complex pay system, sharp competition from bus and car, and the effect of terrorist disruption on the passenger base.

  The report made 34 recommendations and all have been accepted. Some are already being implemented. Others require further consideration about the manner of implementation. The outcome should be a significant improvement of services to the public and the management of the company.

  The Department continues to be in dialogue with the Transport holding company and Northern Ireland Railways about the implementation of the recommendations and I shall report on progress to the House in due course.

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the topics of each television advertising campaign to be carried out by his Department and any other publicity campaign costing more than £100,000.

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 1 July 1991]: The information until 31 December 1991 is as follows:
  Crime Prevention Public Awareness Campaign—multi media
  Environmental Awareness and Energy Efficiency—multi media
  Job Training Programme—multi media
  Pedestrian Safety—television

WALES

  Conwy Tunnel
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what arrangements were made in his Department for the financial and technical screening of sub-contractors working on the Conwy tunnel;

  (2) how many sub-contractors have been used on the construction of the Conwy tunnel; and how many of these have gone into liquidation.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In selecting main contractors invited to tender for all motorway and trunk road projects, the Department satisfied itself on the financial and technical ability of the chosen companies. In accordance with the Department's standard conditions of contract, the main contractor is fully responsible for the acts, defaults and neglects of any sub-contractor, his agents, servants or workmen. As such, the Department is not required to screen sub-contractors. Similarly the Department would not need to be made aware of any sub-contractor who may have gone into liquidation. The Conwy tunnel project has been subject to these normal procedures. The number of sub-contractors used to date on the project is in excess of 60.
  146
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the efficiency of the construction of the Conwy tunnel compared with that of similar projects elsewhere.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  In selecting main contractors invited to tender for all motorway and trunk road projects, the Department satisfies itself on the financial and technical capability of such contractors. In accordance with the Department's standard conditions of contracts, contractors have an obligation to meet the requirements of the contract both in terms of timescale and standard. The Department appoints agents or consultant engineers for each project to watch and supervise the construction of the works. The Conwy tunnel project is subject to these normal procedures.

  NHS Administrators
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to cut back the number of NHS administrators in Wales to 1979 levels.

  Mr. Nicholas Bennett
  Responsibility for the number of administrative staff employed in the NHS in Wales is a matter for the appropriate health authority. The NHS reforms will deliver a better-managed and more responsive service in which resources follow patients and manpower requirements reflect local service needs. Provision of health care is now governed by district contracts in which quality and costs are continually scrutinised. In the year to March 1990—the latest period for which figures are available—management, administrative and clerical staff costs accounted for approximately 10.2 per cent. of the salary budget for district health authorities, including the Welsh Health Common Services Authority as opposed to 12.2 per cent. in the year to March 1979.

  Sport in Schools
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the average number of hours allocated to compulsory sport in Wales generally and in each local education authority area for secondary schools in each year between 1979 and 1990.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  Sport is not a compulsory activity in maintained schools. Physical education, which includes such sporting activities as team games, swimming and athletics, has been included as a national curriculum subject in schools for pupils aged five to 14 since autumn 1990 under the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988. It will shortly become a national curriculum subject for pupils aged 14 to 16.

  Information is not maintained centrally on time spent in secondary schools on sporting activities as part of PE.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what is the average amount of playing area in hectares and acres in(a) primary schools in Wales, (b) secondary schools in Wales and (c) all schools; and what was the equivalent figure in 1976, 1979 and 1984;

  (2) what percentage of Welsh schools have (a) a swimming pool, (b) a sports hall and (c) a gymnasium; and what were the equivalent percentages in 1979, 1984 and 1989.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  The information requested is not held centrally.
  147
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Wales; and how many primary and secondary schools have (i) no designated playing fields or (ii) no designated playgrounds.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  On 1 January 1991 there were 1,717 primary and 230 secondary schools in Wales. The Education (Schools Premises) Regulations 1981 lay down minimum standards for the provision of recreation areas and playing fields in schools. Local education authorities are responsible for applying those standards, and information on these matters is not collected centrally.

  Fallen Animals
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of livestock carcases dumped on(a) council refuse tips, (b) road side verges, (c) forests and woodlands and (d) rivers and lakes in Wales in each year from 1985 to 1990.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy to set up a network of disposal centres for dead livestock in Wales; arid how much has been spent by his Department during each of the past five years on developing incinerators and digesters for dead livestock in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  It is essentially the responsibility of the livestock sector to find ways of handling its waste within the framework of environmental and health restrictions. Under the farm and conservation grant scheme, on-farm grants are available to assist with waste disposal, and for on-farm anaerobic digesters for animal waste, including carcase waste. Grant aid for incinerators or disposal pits could be made only at the expense of the areas already covered.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many specific places on employment training the Government plan should be made available for adults with learning difficulties in 1992 in Wales.

  Sir Wyn Roberts
  This information is not available.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fire Regulations
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary cif State for the Home Department (1) whether he was consulted by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee on its new proposals regarding fire regulations;

  (2) what response he will make to the new proposals on fire regulations in the Building Regulations Advisory Committee report published on 26 June.

  Mr. John Patten
  The Building Regulations Advisory Committee (BRAC) advises the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales on matters concerning the building regulations. My understanding is that the committee held a meeting on 26 June, but its proceedings are confidential and no public report or statement has been 148
  made about the outcome of that meeting. There is no reason for the committee to consult Ministers or for Ministers to respond publicly to its reports. The Home Office has an observer on the committee and is represented on the committee's fire advisory panel and its stage 2 review committee which have been advising the committee on the fire safety aspects of its proposals. In addition, Home Office officials are in regular contact with officials of the Department of the Environment to ensure that there is no disagreement on the fire safety aspects of any proposed changes to the regulations.

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from chief fire officers with regard to the Building Regulations Advisory Committee proposals to change fire regulations for buildings in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. John Patten
  No such representations have been received, but I understand that chief fire officers have made their views known to the Department of the Environment both in a written submission from the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association in response to the public consultation document which was issued by the Department in March 1990 and orally at a meeting.

  Prisoners (Drug Dosage)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons information on the number of doses of drugs administered to inmates of penal establishments became unavailable between the answers to the hon. Member for Warrington, South on 20 January 1988,Official Report, columns 706–8 and on 26 June, Official Report, column 475.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  Statistics relating to the number of doses of medicines administered to prisoners in all establishments in England and Wales were last published in the Report on the Work of the Prison Department 1985/86 (Cm. 11) They were partly estimated because some prisons were unable to furnish the required information. Since corresponding information for 1986–87 was given to my hon. Friend in 1988 in respect of certain establishments an increasing number of prison pharmacies have failed to provide local statistics owing to staffing difficulties.

  A further factor has been the increasing diversity in prison medicine regimes. This development has led us to reassess the value of the statistics for management purposes and to accept the view expressed by the Social Services Committee in 1986—third report from the Social Services Committee, Session 1985–86: "Prison Medical Service"—that their publication serves no useful purpose.

  In the light of these factors central collection of these statistics has been discontinued.

  Racist Incidents
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racially motivated incidents were reported to each police force in England and Wales in 1988, 1989 and 1990; what was the nature of the incidents reported; and what was the outcome.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  The publication of the number of racial incidents reported to forces is a matter for chief
  149
  officers. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary collects forces' figures centrally—the totals for 1988, 1989 and 1990, including figures from the Metropolitan police, are as follows:

  Number

  1988

  4,383

  1989

  5,044

  1990

  6,359

  The nature of these incidents varies greatly and is not centrally recorded. Their common factor is that, in each case, a racial motivation was perceived by the victim, the investigating officer or a third party. The outcome of each reported incident is a matter for chief officers, but Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary monitors as a priority the response of forces to Home Office guidance on tackling racial attacks and harassment.

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the chief constable of West Yorkshire about attacks on Muslim graves in Bradford and Leeds; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  We have every confidence that the force is responding to these attacks promptly and effectively. I understand that attacks in Bradford in May led to several arrests, and that two people are on bail pending charges. An attack in Leeds last week is under investigation. The police have kept in close contact with leaders of the Muslim community throughout.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many racial attacks were reported to the police during 1990.

  Mr. Peter Lloyd
  [pursuant to his reply, 20 May 1991, c. 346]: Six thousand three hundred and fifty-nine racially motivated incidents were reported to police forces in England and Wales during 1990.

  Disability Manifesto
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards the recommendations of the "Disability Manifesto: An Agenda for the 1990s", a copy of which has been sent to him, which relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  My Department does not have the major responsibility for any of the matters on which the manifesto makes recommendations. But we shall continue to work towards enabling people with disabilities, including, where applicable, our own staff, to maximise their potential and to contribute fully to all aspects of the life of the community.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a table to show for each magistrates court area, for the year ended 31 March 1990, the number of(a) summonses for domestic rates arrears, (b) defendants present, (c) defendants not present, (d) committals and (e) hours each court sat.
  150
  Mr. John Patten
  The information requested is not available from central records, and to the extent that it could be obtained at all could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Custody Time Limits
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the further extension of custody time limits.

  Mr. Kenneth Baker
  I intend to lay regulations which will, with effect from 1 October, extend custody time limits to London, Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey and Sussex. In Birmingham, the time limit to committal will be reduced from 84 to 70 days.

  Sunday Trading
  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now advise local authorities how they can enforce the law on Sunday trading.

  Mrs. Rumbold
  [holding answer 2 July 1991]: As I indicated in my reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Porter) on 17 June at columns 27–28, we do not consider it either appropriate or necessary to issue guidance about the enforcement of the law on Sunday trading to local authorities; and no development since then causes us to alter that judgment. Responsibility for enforcing the provisions about Sunday trading in the Shops Act 1950 was given by Parliament to local authorities. The authorities have power to enforce those provisions whether by way of a prosecution or a civil action seeking an injunction. Decisions on the means by which to fulfil their responsibility are a matter for the authorities, in consultation with their legal advisers.

  Sexual and Physical Violence
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what practical assistance is offered by Her Majesty's Government to women victims of sexual and physical abuse in relation to the provision of refuges;

  (2) what plans he has to extend financial support beyond the National Women's Aid Federation to other groups that are affiliated to this federation.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Practical assistance and funding for individual refuges are local matters, and there are no plans to change this. However, many residents in women's refuges are entitled to and receive social security benefits, and individual refuges receive practical advice and support from the Women's Aid Federation (England) Ltd. which is grant-aided by the Department.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Ex-service Men and Women
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to introducing a more comprehensive system of support with his Department to deal with problems faced by ex-service men and women.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The social security system treats ex-service men and women in the same way as other
  151
  customers. In addition, under the war pensions scheme administered by the Department, war pensions and allowances are payable where disablement or death occurs as a result of service in the armed forces; the war pensioners welfare service also provides advice to war pensioners and war widows on war pension matters and help and support with general welfare problems. The war pensions welfare service works closely with other Government Departments and agencies, including war pension committees and voluntary organisations representing ex-service men and women.

  Attendance Allowance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what arrangements are in place for notifying the terminally ill of successful applications for attendance allowance; if he has any plans to review these; arid if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  People awarded attendance allowance under the terminal illness provisions are notified that they qualify under the special rules. The special rules are not defined in the award notice. The standard leaflet—DS 668—issued with the notice explains the conditions for the allowance and the rules for review and appeal, and gives information on other benefits and help available. It also describes the terminal illness criteria, but does not link them to the special rules.

  The arrangements for the terminal illness provisions are kept continually under review. We have no specific plans to amend the arrangements for the notification of awards.

  Disability Manifesto
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy towards the recommendations of the "Disability Manifesto: An Agenda for the 1990s", a copy of which has been sent to him, which relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Scott
  Our strategy on benefits for people with disabilities, was set out in "The Way Ahead"—Cm 917. The strategy provides a more comprehensive and coherent system of benefits for people with disabilities than ever before, laying firm foundations for the future. The changes set out in "The Way Ahead" concentrate new help where it is needed most—on people with moderate to severe disabilities who just fail to qualify for attendance allowance or mobility allowance, on those disabled from birth or in their early years who have lost the opportunity to earn and save, and on those who would like to work but are prevented by disincentives in the benefit system.

  The cornerstone of the strategy is the introduction of two new benefits. Disability living allowance for people disabled under age 65, replaces and extends the help currently available through attendance allowance and mobility allowance, bringing new help with extra costs to nearly 300,000 disabled people. Disability working allowance will offer around 50,000 disabled people who are capable of some work a new choice of earnings topped up by benefit. These two new benefits plus other important initiatives announced in "The Way Ahead" will bring extra help to an estimated 850,000 disabled people and their carers.

  Direct Payment of Benefits
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, further to his reply of 7 December,Official Report, column 232, regarding payment to claimants' bank accounts, if he has now issued the guidance; and if he will send a copy to the hon. Member for Oldham, West.

  Miss Widdecombe
  The issue of guidance to local offices is a matter for Mr. Michael Bichard, the chief executive of the benefits agency. He will write to the hon. Member and copies will be placed in the Library and the Public Information Office.

  Pensions Ombudsman
  Mr. Stevens
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to publish the first report of the pensions ombudsman.

  Mr. Newton
  The pensions ombudsman, Mr. Michael Platt, has submitted to me his first report in accordance with section 59B(6) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. The report covers the period from Mr. Platt's appointment on 2 January 1991 to 31 March 1991, and describes the setting up of his offices and other aspects of the establishment of the service. I have today arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

ENERGY

  Piper Alpha Inquiry
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Energy whether he has received Lord Cullen's direction under regulation 9(2) of the Offshore Installations (Public Inquiries) Regulations 1974; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Moynihan
  Lord Cullen's direction was received by my Department on 12 June 1991. He directed that four fifths of the costs of part 1 of the Piper Alpha inquiry shall be paid by Occidental Petroleum (Caledonia) Ltd. A copy of Lord Cullen's direction and notes have been placed in the Library of the House.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

  Violence Against Women
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to include education on violence against women in the national curriculum.

  Mr. Fallon
  The National Curriculum Council's guidance to schools on health and citizenship education contains advice relevant to such education across the whole curriculum.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make it his policy to encourage education on violence against women in courses studied in institutions of higher and further education.

  Mr. Eggar
  It is for the academic authorities in each institution to decide on the content of the education provision made by the institution, subject to the requirements of any validating body.

  Women Teachers
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what the proportion of women among primary school teachers was for the years 1979, 1985 and 1990.

  Mr. Fallon
  Figures for women teachers as a percentage of qualified teachers in maintained nursery and primary schools in England for the years requested are as follows:

  Year

  Percent

  1979

  78

  1985

  79

  1990

  82

  Disability Manifesto
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his policy towards the recommendations of the "Disability Manifesto: An Agenda for the 1990s", a copy of which has been sent to him, which relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Fallon
  My right hon. and learned Friend will give careful consideration to the education recommendations in the manifesto. His general view is that the position of pupils with special educational needs is adequately protected by the Education Act 1981 which requires that wherever possible such children should be taught in ordinary schools. The Department is not aware of any widespread failure by LEAs to meet their various obligations under the Act.

  Veterinary Schools
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) of 5 February,Official Report, column 131, what information he has on the capital and current funds allocated by the Universities Funding Council for 1991–92 for the upgrading of animal accommodation in veterinary schools.

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The UFC circular letter 7/91 of 25 February, a copy of which is in the Library, indicated that the council intends to contribute nearly £70 million over three years for building works and equipment to assist universities in meeting the requirements of the code of practice under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. In 1991–92, £35 million is being assigned, of which some £10 million is from capital grant.

  Braille
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what budget his Department has for the production of materials in braille.

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department has no budget for the production of materials in braille. The GCSE examining groups and the GCE A and AS-level examining boards cover the cost of brailling examination papers by making a small addition to the examination entry fees of all candidates. In the case of candidates from maintained schools, those fees are met by the local education authorities.

EMPLOYMENT

  Working Hours
  Mr. Blair
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will publish his Department's working papers in support of the figure claimed for the cost of the EC directive on working hours.

  Mr. Forth
  A memorandum prepared by my Department on the costs of the social action programme to the United Kingdom and the methods used to derive these cost estimates has already been published in the report by the House of Lords Select Committee on European Communities on "Part time and temporary employment—Session 1990–91, 2nd report, pp 33–45.

  The European Commission has meanwhile published a revised version of the draft working time directive taking account of amendments proposed by the European Parliament. Using the same method as in the original calculation, my Department estimates that the direct costs to employers of implementing the directive as amended would be increased by over £500 million to at least £2.5 billion.

  Occupational Health Nurses
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when Her Majesty's Government intend to ratify the International Labour Organisation convention 161 on occupational health nurses.

  Mr. Forth
  The Government expect to receive advice from the Health and Safety Commission next year on ILO convention 161, in the light of which they will give further consideration to whether to ratify the convention in question.

  Enterprise Agencies
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many enterprise agencies there are; how many there were in 1989; what was the cost to the public funds in each case; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Forth
  I know of 421 local enterprise agencies operating in the United Kingdom. Of these, 408 are approved by my Department under the statutory provisions which allow for tax relief on donations to them. In 1989, the total number of approved agencies was 396.

  Government funding of local enterprise agencies in England has been primarily through my Department's local enterprise agency grant and project schemes—LEAGS and LEAPS. During 1989–90 total funding under LEAGS and LEAPS was £1,879, 562 and during 1990–91, the final year of the schemes, it was £1,932,714.

  Disability Manifesto
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy towards the recommendations of the "Disability Manifesto: An Agenda for the 1990s", a copy of which has been sent to him, which relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Jackson
  The Department is committed to giving people with disabilities the opportunity to participate fully in training and employment. We therefore provide a wide
  155
  range of specialist schemes and services to help them gain and keep employment and develop within it. People with disabilities also have access to the full range of non-specialist employment and training services, which will include the new work experience programme that my right hon. and learned Friend announced recently, employment action. In many cases access to non-specialist provision allows for reduced eligibility or length of stay rules and special help for people with disabilities.

  We are already giving careful consideration to ways of improving the effectiveness of this provision for people with disabilities. Last year the Department issued two consultative documents that considered all the employment and training services we provide for people with disabilities and put forward many proposals for improvement. We received responses from a wide range of organisations and individuals, including almost all of the organisations that produced the disability manifesto. Responses are still being considered on some issues, but we have announced our first decisions. These concerned improvements in the specialist services provided by the Employment Service and in our local and national advisory machinery. We will announce other decisions as soon as they are reached, including any changes to the legislative framework.

  My right hon. and learned Friend also launched the new symbol that is currently being successfully promoted by the Employment Service to encourage and help employers to commit themselves publicly on a voluntary basis to good policies and practices in employing people with disabilities.

  In addition, from April this year we have given unemployed people with disabilities priority access to four of our main employment and training programmes. They are now one of the key groups for entry onto employment training, the enterprise allowance scheme, job clubs and the job interview guarantee scheme. Training and enterprise councils and the Employment Service will ensure that people with disabilities who are unemployed will he given this priority recognition. My right hon. And learned Friend has written to TEC chairmen about this priority and special guidance has been issued about people with special training needs, including people with disabilities, so as to help TECs plan and implement their strategies for taking action. The increased priority will help strengthen the opportunity for people with disabilities to participate in the labour market.

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many specific places on employment training he plans to make available for adults with learning difficulties in 1992.

  Mr. Jackson
  This information is not available, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to his question on 2 July, at column 108.

NATIONAL FINANCE

  Investment (Information)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Government statistics on investment in United Kingdom industry differentiate between domestic investment and investment into the United Kingdom from other countries.

  Mr. Maples
  The annual census of production provides data on capital expenditure by manufacturing businesses located in the United Kingdom analysed by the country of incorporation of the enterprise. These data are published in Central Statistical Office Business Monitor PA 1002, available in the Library.

  No information is however available on the country from which such expenditure is financed. Data on direct investment capital flows are published in CSO bulletin 33/91 also available in the Library. It should be noted that these relate to international flows between related companies and not to investment in capital goods.

  "This Common Inheritance"
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 1 March,Official Report, columns 648–49, on his Department's environmental policies, if he will list the policies which have been subject to the arrangements for considering environmental implications since the publication of "This Common Inheritance", Cm. 1200.

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  As I explained in my reply on 1 March at columns 648–49, I consider all departmental policies with possible environmental implications. For example, I considered the environmental effects of the changes in the tax system announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement, in particular the further increase in the differential in between rates of excise duty charged on leaded and unleaded petrol and the increased rates of excise duties on hydrocarbon oils. My predecessor also reviewed the regulations governing the civil service mileage allowances.

  I have also kept under review the implications for Treasury policies of international discussions on climate change.

  Commemorative Crown
  Sir John Wheeler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government have any plans to issue a new United Kingdom commemorative crown.

  Mr. Norman Lamont
  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that a new commemorative crown be issued in 1993 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the coronation.

  Disability Manifesto
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy toward the recommendations of the "Disability Manifesto: An Agenda for the 1990s", a copy of which has been sent to him, which relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement.
  157
  Mr. Norman Lamont
  The Treasury has an equal opportunity policy discussed with the departmental trade union side, kept under continuous review and published in a guide issued to staff. One of the guiding principles is that disability is no bar to recruitment or to advancement within the Department. Additional computer and office furniture have been provided to assist disabled staff. Where possible parking spaces are made available. All Treasury offices have wheelchair access.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

  Asia (Refugees)
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance he plans to provide for refugees in Asia.

  Mrs. Chalker
  I have approved an allocation of £8 million from this year's humanitarian aid budget, more than £6 million of which will be provided to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Committee of the Red Cross and to non-governmental organisations for their work with Afghan refugees. This is in recognition of the very serious continuing problems of the 5 million or so Afghans living in exile in Pakistan and Iran.

  Assistance will also be made available for the work of UNHCR in Sri Lanka, the UN Border Relief Organisation (UNBRO) and NGOs working on the Thai-Cambodia border and with Vietnamese boat people.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the level of activity in the telecommunications industry since 1986.

  Mr. Lilley
  Telecommunications is one of the most dynamic industries in the United Kingdom. Over the past five years the market has grown rapidly, stimulated by the Government's commitment to competition and increased customer choice. In mobile telephony we have the two largest cellular networks in the world, with 10 times as many customers as in 1986. In March my right hon. Friend announced that we would be ending the duopoly in the fixed telephony market, and allowing new companies to enter the market. We have already received five formal applications for new licences and over 20 strong expressions of interest. This is good for the industry, and good for consumers.

  Manufacturing Output
  Mr. Ted Garrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further plans he has to encourage an increase in manufacturing output.

  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to boost manufacturing output.

  Mr. Lilley
  Manufacturing output will be helped by our policies of fostering and extending a competitive environment, encouraging innovation, improving incentives and, above all, defeating inflation.

  Industrial Competitiveness
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans his Department has to increase public expenditure in order to help British industry become more competitive.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  A competitive market provides the best stimulus to efficiency. Government policies are designed to encourage competition.

  Takeovers
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the number of companies acquired by other companies within the United Kingdom in each year from 1979 to 1990.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information that is available is as follows.

  Acquisitions and mergers by industrial and commercial companies within the United Kingdom:

  Year

  Companies acquired

  1979

  534

  1980

  469

  1981

  452

  1982

  463

  1983

  447

  1984

  56S

  1985

  474

  1986

  842

  1987

  1,528

  1988

  1,499

  1989

  1,337

  1990

  776

  Source: Central Statistical Office Bulletin 29/91 dated 14 May 1991.

  Exporters
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the various measures for the assistance of United Kingdom exporters which are currently available to them.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  The effectiveness of the range of export services available to United Kingdom companies through the DTI-FCO overseas trade services operation is monitored through a quality management system. Overall satisfaction rates exceed 70 per cent. for nearly all services, and 90 per cent. of our customers say that they will use our services again.

  Aid to Industry
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met representatives of the European Commission to discuss aid to industry.

  Mr. Leigh
  My Department and I meet representatives of the European Commission on a regular basis to discuss various matters including aid to industry.

  Japanese Investment
  Mr. Jacques Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the current level of inward investment from Japan.
  159
  Mr. Leigh
  Latest figures from the Central Statistical Office show that Japanese investment represents 4–1 per cent. of total foreign direct investment in the United Kingdom. The DTI knows of 158 Japanese companies manufacturing in the United Kingdom. According to Japanese Ministry of Finance statistics, 41 per cent. by value of all Japanese, manufacturing and non-manufacturing, investment in the EC at end of financial year 1990–91, came to the United Kingdom.

  Nationalisation
  Mr. Riddick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has received any representations requesting him to consider nationalising certain industries.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have received a copy of the Labour party's document, "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change", which calls for a programme of nationalisation including British Telecom, the water industry and the national grid.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Darling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the United Kingdom's current balance of trade in information technology.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  Information on trade in electronics and information technology products—defined as divisions 75 and 76 of the standard international trade classification —may be obtained from the monthly business monitor MM20 (Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom) copies of which are in the Library.

  Shipbuilding and Marine Engines
  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the future of the shipbuilding and marine engine building industries in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Leigh
  The futures of the United Kingdom's shipbuilding and marine engine building industries will depend on their respective abilities to win orders in the face of international competition.

  Regional Assistance
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals he has for increasing the percentage levels of regional assistance available in development areas.

  Mr. Leigh
  None.

  Recession
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the British Chamber of Commerce to discuss the recession of industry.

  Mr. Lilley
  Officials of my Department keep in touch with the Association of British Chambers of Commerce on a wide range of business matters. I last met representatives of the ABCC on 5 June 1991.

  Language Schools
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has on the change in turnover of language schools in London for each of the past three years for which figures are available.

  Mr. Leigh
  No such information is available.

  Accountancy Bodies
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry further to his reply to the hon. Member forr Great Grimsby on 23 May,Official Report, column 627, (1) if he will publish a list showing the dates on which the Institute of Chartered Accountants or the joint disciplinary scheme informed him of the result of their inquiries;

  (2) if he will list the dates on which the reports were given to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales.

  Mr. Redwood
  The information requested is as follows:

  Name of Company

  Report sent

  Decision notified

  1 Milbury plc

  26 October 1988

  —

  Westminster Property Group Limited

  2 Minet Holdings plc

  13 August 1990

  —

  WMD Underwriting Agencies Limited

  3 Alexander Howden Holdings plc

  13 August 1990

  —

  4 The Greenbank Trust plc

  19 June 1990

  11 June 1991

  5 Aldermanbury Trust plc

  31 January 1991

  —

  6 Sound Diffusion plc

  15 March 1991

  —

  7 The Animal Defence Society Limited

  14 March 1991

  —

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has any plans to propose legislation under which partners from the auditing firms implicated in money laundering will be barred for life from practising.

  Mr. Redwood
  Under part II of the Companies Act 1989 the recognised supervisory bodies must ensure that only fit and proper persons are eligible for appointment as company auditors. Paragraph 6(2)(c) of schedule 11 to the Act makes relevant provision in respect of partnerships.

  Manufacturers (Exports)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policies of support and encouragement for the exporting of United Kingdom manufactures.

  Mr. Sainsbury
  My Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office provide, through oveseas trade services, a wide range of help, advice and support to exporters at each stage of the export process, from researching opportunities through to contacting and visiting markets. These services are described in "Export
  161
  Inititive—a pocket guide" a copy of which is in the Library. Some 2,000 staff in the two Departments are engaged, worldwide, in helping exporters.

  The services we offer are available to those exporting both goods and services. In particular, we aim to help small and inexperienced exporters who, without Government encouragement, might never consider selling overseas; experienced exporters who are new to a particular market; and those pursuing project business, where Government influence is often not only helpful but vital when contracts are to be clinched.

  Together with the FCO we have instituted regular independent monitoring of our services and the way in which they are delivered. The feedback received from industry shows overall satisfaction rates among our business customers exceeding 70 per cent. for nearly all services, and 90 per cent. of those monitored say they would use our services again.

  It is encouraging to note the steady rise in the level of exports of manufactured goods in recent months. The efforts of those concerned are to be applauded.

  Disability Manifesto
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy towards the recommendations of the "Disability Manifesto: An Agenda for the 1990s", a copy of which has been sent to him, which relate to his Department; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Leigh
  New technologies have improved the opportunities for participation of people with disabilities in the life of the community. This Department contributed as part of the information technology awareness campaign to a better understanding of possible applications of information technology and telecommunications products and services to benefit the disabled. Current policies and programmes to stimulate innovation in industry will lead to further developments, not only important to national economic growth but, in some cases, of particular value in the lives of those with disabilities.

  Post Office
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will place in the Library copies of the report he commissioned on the Post Office by the consultants Ernst and Young.

  Mr. Leigh
  No, since I have commissioned no reports on the Post Office from the consultants Ernst and Young.

  Captive birds imported total

  Number dead on arrival

  (Percentage of total)

  Number dead in quarantine

  (Percentage of total)

  1987

  163,699

  3,480

  (2·13)

  13,521

  (8·26)

  1988

  184,577

  4,732

  (2·56)

  20,619

  (11·17)

  1989

  184,601

  4,015

  (2·17)

  19,471

  (10·55)

  Source: Return of Proceedings under the Animal Health Act 1981 for the year 1987; Importation of Birds Mortality Statistics from Quarantine Returns for the years 1988 and 1989. The figures exclude importations of performing doves, racing pigeons and exotic poultry.

  CBI
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he next plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss the condition of industry in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Lilley
  Ministers and officials of my Department keep in touch with the CBI on a wide range of business matters. I last met representatives of the CBI on 14 June 1991.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sheep Dipping
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure the continuation of the compulsory national sheep dipping scheme for the foreseeable future;

  (2) if he will make it his policy to ensure that sheep scab remains a notifiable disease and that dipping be imposed on flocks in which scab is confirmed and on contiguous flocks.

  Mr. Maclean
  The future of compulsory dipping will depend on an assessment of the effectiveness of the existing arrangements, including the degree of commitment to them shown by the sheep industry. Changes in the arrangements for dealing with infected flocks were announced last year and will be implemented shortly.

  Birds
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take to reduce the number of sea birds drowned in monofilament nets; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Curry
  A number of regulations and byelaws are concerned with the use of fishing nets. There is little evidence to suggest that these nets are threatening the survival of any species in our waters.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the number of wild-caught birds which were imported into the United Kingdom in 1987, 1988 and 1989 and indicate, for each year, the estimated proportion which died(a) in transit, (b) during the first 15 days of quarantine and (c) during the last 20 days of quarantine.

  Mr. Maclean
  The totals of captive birds imported into Great Britain, together with totals of mortalities on arrival and during quarantine are set out below. The figures do not distinguish wild-caught from captive-bred but most of the birds are considered to have been wild-caught. Information about the proportion of birds dying during particular periods of quarantine could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Blue Ear Pig Disease
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give details of restrictions imposed on premises with suspected or confirmed cases of blue ear disease in the past 24 hours; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Gummer
  No new suspected or confirmed cases of blue ear pig disease were reported within the 24 hours at 3.30 pm on 3 July 1991.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will place each day in the Library an updated report of the number of cases of blue ear disease and premises restricted, including the number of premises and their locations; and if he will also make a copy of this available to the hon. Member for South Shields at the same time.

  Mr. Gummer
  I have taken care to inform the House and the public at large of all significant developments in the current disease outbreak. I am arranging for the Library to receive a copy of the weekly returns made to the European Commission detailing the parishes in which one or more cases of the disease have been confirmed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Immigration (Islamabad)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of visas granted and the number of refusals, arising from interviews undertaken in Islamabad for entry into Britain on 22 April.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The number of visas granted and refused in Islamabad on 22 April was as follows:

  Number

  Granted

  190

  Refused

  74

  India
  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information his Department has on the number of detentions without trial, the number of disappeared suspects and the number of deaths in detention in the Punjab in the current year.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  In January, the Indian Government announced that the number of detentions in the Punjab were 145 in 1988, 35 in 1989 and 16 in January-October 1990 under the National Security Act, and 3,685 in 1988, 2,146 in 1989 and 982 in January-September 1990 under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act. No more recent figures are available. We have no official information on numbers of disappeared suspects or of deaths occurring in Indian prisons.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of India on the level of human rights violations and abuse of the law in the Punjab in the current year; and if he will make a statement.
  164
  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The Indian Government are well aware of our concerns about human rights abuses, from our regular contacts with them. We have encouraged them to exercise maximum restraint in dealing with the serious terrorist violence they face as exemplified by the appalling massacre of train passengers by Sikh terrorists on 12 June.

  Mr. Nellist
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will obtain for his departmental library a copy of the report by Amnesty International on the Punjab, dated 10 May.

  Mr. Lennox-Boyd
  The FCO library has already received this report.

  Eire
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make inquiries of the appropriate authorities in Eire to ascertain why three students from Shipley college, two Pakistani nationals the other a Bangladeshi national, all settled in the United Kingdom, were refused visas to enter Eire on 18 June; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Hurd
  It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to intervene on behalf of foreign nationals who have been refused visas by independent sovereign states.

  Diplomats
  Dr. Hampson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the training of diplomats from central and eastern Europe.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Following a recent competitive tender I am happy to announce that in the autumn the institute of international studies at Leeds university under the guiding hands of Professor David Dilks and Dr. John Hemery, will run a course to improve the skills of over 50 diplomats from a number of central and eastern European countries. This is a further aspect of the know-how fund programme to help the process of radical change in the civil services of those newly democratised countries.

HEALTH

  General Practice Budgets
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will give the names and addresses of the general practices that will be budget holders in Northumberland from 1 April.

  Mr. Dorrell
  I understand from the chairman of the Northern regional health authority that there are eight general practices within the Northumberland family health services authority participating in the first wave of fundholding. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. Peter Carr, the chairman of the Northern regional health authority for details.

  Expenditure, North Staffordshire
  Mr. Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by how much expenditure on the national health service has increased in North Staffordshire in(a) real and (b) cash terms since May 1979.
  165
  Mr. Dorrell
  The North Staffordshire health authority was established on I April 1982. The annual accounts of the authority record total revenue expenditure of £71·2 million cash for 1982–83 and £124·0 million cash for 1989–90—the latest year available. Those figures represent increases of 74·2 per cent. in cash terms and 20·7 per cent. in real terms, measured at 1989–90 prices.

  Prior to 1 April 1982 the authority's predecessor health district formed part of the larger Staffordshire area health authority. The annual accounts of the health authorities responsible for services in Staffordshire as a whole record total expenditure of £68·3 million cash for 1978–79 and £234·9 million cash for 1989–90. Those figures represent increases of 244 per cent. in cash terms and 47 per cent. in real terms, measured at 1989–90 prices.

  HIV
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action his Department is taking to identify the level of HIV infection in the United Kingdom and the consequential cost to the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The surveillance of HIV infection and AIDS is based on voluntary confidential reporting by clinicians of AIDS cases, monitoring of named HIV-1 tests through laboratory reports, a collaborative study in selected laboratories of named HIV tests, and the unlinked anonymous HIV prevalence monitoring programme. In England and Wales this surveillance effort is co-ordinated by the public health laboratory services AIDS centre which is part of the PHLS communicable disease surveillance centre. For the period April 1990 to March 1991 the PH LS AIDS centre received £415,000 to conduct AIDS surveillance and named HIV test monitoring and a further £678,000 was awarded to the PHLS by the Medical Research Council to conduct unlinked anonymous HIV prevalence monitoring.

  Brook Hospital
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the Brook hospital defence campaign and from the Greenwich "Hands off the NHS" group.

  Mr. Dorrell
  We have received a letter from one right hon. Member on behalf of the "Hands off the NHS" group. No representations have been received from the Brook hospital defence campaign.

  Project 2000
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has any plans to establish a formal mechanism for the annual review of the level of bursaries paid to nursing students pursuing Project 2000 courses.

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  No. Bursary levels will continue to be kept under review in the light of all relevant circumstances, in particular recruitment and retention.

  Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive results for work on polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from(a) the laboratory of the
  166
  Government Chemist and (b) the London school of Tropical Hygiene, referred to in his answer of 12 June, Official Report, column 558.

  Mr. Dorrell
  This Department has received a pre-publication copy of the report of the results of the study, by the laboratory of the Government Chemist, of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons present in cigarette smoke and they are included in a paper, "Yields of tar and other smoke components from UK cigarettes", which has been accepted for publication in the journal "Food and Chemical Toxicology", July 1991 issue, expected to appear late August. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  The results of the investigation by the small area health statistics unit at the London school of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine into incidences of cancer and mortality rates around incinerators is expected this autumn. The results of its coking work investigations may take longer and it is not possible to give an expected date yet. The reports of both studies will be made public.

SCOTLAND

  Water Boreholes
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what change has taken place over the past 10 years in the proportion of water extracted from boreholes rather than directly from watercourses; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  In the 10 years to 1989, the water available for public supply from boreholes in Scotland increased from 0.4 to 1.6 per cent. of the available yield from all public sources. Surface water sources provide for over 96 per cent. of all Scottish public water supplies, the remainder coming from boreholes or springs.

  River Purification Boards
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from the river purification boards on the application of control orders under the conditions of the Spray Irrigation Act (Scotland) 1964; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Environment Department has long been aware that the river purification boards consider the arrangements for control orders under the Spray Irrigation (Scotland) Act 1964 inadequate. In particular, the procedures to be followed to obtain an order are seen as too bureaucratic.

  New provisions are, therefore, included in the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 to simplify these procedures and to extend control to all abstractions for irrigation purposes.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to bring forward amending legislation to give Scottish river purification boards the same powers as the National Rivers Authority in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have no plans to make further amendments to the powers of the seven Scottish river purification boards. Scotland has enjoyed independent protection for the water environment since the 1950s
  167
  and the powers of the boards to prevent and control pollution have been progressively strengthened during this period.

  Investment, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investment plans there are for the Foxbar Rivers area of Paisley; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  For 1991–92 Renfrew district council has been allocated resources of £23·761 million to support capital investment in its own housing stock and private sector housing in Renfrew district. Apart from £0·757 million of this sum which is earmarked to fund innovative housing projects in the Ferguslie Park urban partnership area, it is a matter for the council to determine how best to deploy these considerable resources to meet local housing needs including those of the Foxbar Rivers area of Paisley if this area is considered a priority. The council's future investment plans for the Foxbar Rivers area should be included in the capital programme which the council is due to submit to the Scottish Office later this year.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much the Scottish Office currently spends to tackle homelessness in Scotland; how many applicants were permanently housed last year; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The statutory responsibility for assisting homeless people lies with local authorities.

  Housing capital allocation issued to local authorities for 1991–92 are £452·504 million for housing revenue account expenditure and £111·097 million for non-housing revenue account expenditure, and include £3·5 million for homelessness projects in eight local authorities. Apart from the £3·5 million, the resources are not specifically identified to deal with homelessness, but local authorities may use general allocations for homelessness where this is seen as a local priority.

  Almost all of Scottish Homes planned capital programme for 1991–92 of £312 million will contribute in some way to tackling homelessness; and in particular, over the past two years Scottish Homes has funded more than 1,000 units which specifically cater for the homeless.

  In addition, revenue exxpenditure of £1·425 million has been made available through housing support grant to fund the estimated deficits on the provison of hostels by local authority housing departments.

  Other funding has been made available as follows:
  revenue grant assistance of £47,568 has been made available by my right hon. Friend to the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless;
  a grant of £50,000 has been made to the Centre for Housing Research at Glasgow University for on-going research into the prevention and management of homelessness;
  a total of £50,000 for each of the financial years 1991–92 to 1993–94 has been made available for the establishment of projects by voluntary organisations for single roofless young people;
  funding of some £305,000 capital and £625,000 revenue was provided under the urban programme for homelessness related projects in 1990–91.
  168
  In 1989–90, the last year for which figures are available, 7,525 applicants who were assessed as homeless were found permanent accommodation and 4,681 of those assessed as potentially homeless.

  External Funding
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much Scottish Office external funding was applied to(a) the city of Glasgow district council, (b) the city of Dundee district council, (c) the city of Aberdeen district council, (d) Renfrew district council, (e) Bearsden and Milngavie district council and (f) Eastwood district council in (i) total and (ii) per capita terms in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information is set out in the table. Prior to 1990–91, Government support to local authorities for general fund expenditure comprised rate or revenue support grant, and, in the case of district authorities, very small amounts of specific grant. For 1990–91 and 1991–92, aggregate external finance also included non-domestic rate income following the central determination of rate poundages.

  Total Central Government support and per capita support Glasgow

  Total Government support £million

  Government support per capita £

  1979–80

  34·223

  41

  1980–81

  41·886

  51

  1981–82

  38·195

  48

  1982–83

  43·610

  55

  1983–84

  44·578

  58

  1984–85

  40·753

  53

  1985–86

  42·673

  57

  1986–87

  38·396

  52

  1987–88

  40·894

  56

  1988–89

  47·179

  65

  1989–90

  56·736

  79

  1990–91

  132·331

  188

  1991–92

  148·921

  216

  Dundee

  Total Government support £ million

  Government support per capita £

  1979–80

  4·795

  25

  1980–81

  4·941

  26

  1981–82

  4·595

  24

  1982–83

  5·314

  28

  1983–84

  5·805

  31

  1984–85

  5·550

  30

  1985–86

  6·501

  36

  1986–87

  6·399

  36

  1987–88

  6·934

  39

  1988–89

  7·812

  44

  1989–90

  7·807

  44

  1990–91

  19·571

  112

  1991–92

  26·784

  155

  Aberdeen

  Total Government support £ million

  Government support per capita £

  1979–80

  3·911

  19

  1980–81

  4·968

  24

  1981–82

  5·358

  25

  169

  Total Government support £ million

  Government support per capita £

  1982–83

  4·916

  23

  1983–84

  5·414

  25

  1984–85

  5·539

  26

  1985–86

  3·510

  16

  1986–87

  2·734

  13

  1987–88

  2·441

  11

  1988–89

  4·348

  20

  1989–90

  4·460

  21

  1990–91

  23·628

  112

  1991–92

  30·367

  144

  Renfrew

  Total Government support £ million

  Government support per capita £

  1979–80

  6,079

  29

  1980–81

  7,722

  36

  1981–82

  7,643

  36

  1982–83

  8,221

  39

  1983–84

  8,476

  40

  1984–85

  8,452

  40

  1985–86

  7,079

  34

  1986–87

  7,764

  38

  1987–88

  7,042

  35

  1988–89

  7,891

  39

  1989–90

  7,287

  36

  1990–91

  19,221

  96

  1991–92

  26,018

  129

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  Total Government support £ million

  Government support per capita £

  1979–80

  1·164

  30

  1980–81

  1·368

  35

  1981–82

  1·333

  34

  1982–83

  1·427

  36

  1983–84

  1·456

  37

  1984–85

  1·339

  34

  1985–86

  0·673

  17

  1986–87

  0·610

  15

  1987–88

  0·548

  14

  1988–89

  0·634

  16

  1989–90

  1·177

  29

  1990–91

  3·093

  77

  1991–92

  4·343

  106

  Eastwood

  Total Government support £ million

  Government support per capita £

  1979–80

  1·229

  24

  1980–81

  1·438

  28

  1981–82

  1·456

  28

  1982–83

  1·750

  33

  1983–84

  1·705

  32

  1984–85

  1·428

  26

  1985–86

  0·923

  17

  1986–87

  0·901

  16

  1987–88

  0·821

  15

  1988–89

  0·974

  17

  1989–90

  1·592

  28

  1990–91

  3·599

  61

  1991–92

  5·526

  91

  170
  Notes:

  1. Total government support comprises Revenue Support Grants for the years 1979–80 to 1989–90. For 1990–91 and 1991–92 external finance comprises RSG plus Specific Grants and estimated non-domestic rate income and in 1991–92 community charge grant is also included. Specific Grants were also paid in earlier years but figures are not readily available and therefore have been excluded.

  2. Transactions on the Housing Revenue Account are excluded.

  3. The per capita figures were calculated using the mid-year population estimates relevant to each year in question.

  Race Relations
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many racially motivated incidents were reported to each police force in Scotland in 1988, 1989 and 1990; what was the nature of the incidents reported; and what was the outcome.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The numbers of apparently racially motivated incidents reported to each police force in Scotland in the years in question are set out in the table.

  Number of incidents

  Police force

  1988

  1989

  1990

  Central Scotland police

  9

  18

  45

  Dumfries and Galloway constabulary

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Fife constabulary

  1

  1

  3

  Grampian police

  4

  4

  9

  Lothian and Borders police

  89

  91

  178

  Northern constabulary

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Strathclyde police

  197

  236

  300

  Tayside police

  1

  227

  101

  1 Not available.

  2 Since August 1989.

  The majority of the incidents reported related to verbal abuse, breach of the peace, vandalism and assault. Forces have different methods of categorising outcomes; Strathclyde police reported a 90 per cent. detection rate in 1990 as regards the incidents in question.

  House Construction
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average cost of constructing a(a) two-apartment, (b) three-apartment and (c) four-apartment house by (i) local authorities in Scotland and (ii) Scottish Homes; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The latest available information was published in October 1989 in Scottish Development Department statistical bulletin HSU No. 10, a copy of which is in the Library. Updated information will be published later this year.

  Green Belts
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any plans to review policies relating to green belts in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The policy relating to green belts in Scotland is set out in the Scottish Development Department's circular 24/1985. All planning guidance is to be reviewed following a commitment contained in the White Paper on the environment "This Common Inheritance"—Cm. 1200—and a consultation paper on the scope of the review will be issued over the summer.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing(a) the level of community charge and (h) the per capita contribution from the Scottish Office, for each district council in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Allan Stewart
  The information for 1991–92 is set out in the table.

  Column 1 Community charge 1991–92 £

  Column 2 Total government support per capita 1991–92 £

  Berwickshire

  9

  99·98

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  23

  102·93

  Roxburgh

  20

  111·45

  Tweeddale

  16

  102·78

  Clackmannan

  90

  127·49

  Falkirk

  21

  113·56

  Stirling

  85

  138·93

  Annandale and Eskdale

  40

  91·42

  Nithsdale

  40

  95·93

  Stewartry

  21

  91·14

  Wigtown

  33

  105·79

  Dunfermline

  46

  110·03

  Kirkcaldy

  47

  105·28

  North East Fife

  56

  113·96

  Aberdeen City

  91

  143·86

  Banff and Buchan

  40

  104·67

  Gordon

  23

  101·49

  Kincardine and Deeside

  4

  94·27

  Moray

  16

  105·14

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  10

  108·24

  Caithness

  5

  108·15

  Inverness

  5

  99·87

  Lochaber

  35

  139·51

  Nairn

  8

  97·32

  Ross and Cromarty

  32

  138·83

  Skye and Lochalsh

  13

  166·14

  Sutherland

  17

  137·15

  East Lothian

  66

  122·55

  Edinburgh City

  108

  157·21

  Midlothian

  54

  107·48

  West Lothian

  33

  106·17

  Argyll and Bute

  65

  177·39

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  53

  106·20

  Clydebank

  100

  166·31

  Clydesdale

  69

  117·44

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  38

  101·82

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  41

  118·24

  Cunninghame

  80

  126·69

  Dumbarton

  118

  112·51

  East Kilbride

  88

  88·28

  Eastwood

  19

  90·59

  Glasgow City

  93

  216·08

  Hamilton

  75

  118·66

  172

  Column 1 Community charge 1991–92 £

  Column 2 Total government support per capita 1991–92 £

  Inverclyde

  59

  135·81

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  51

  109·32

  Kyle and Carrick

  89·5

  115·25

  Monklands

  76

  143·32

  Motherwell

  54

  128·60

  Renfrew

  89

  129·43

  Strathkelvin

  77

  117·13

  Angus

  30

  104·55

  Dundee City

  80

  154·95

  Perth and Kinross

  38

  114·60

  Notes:

  1. The figures in Column I take account of the Community Charge (General Reduction) Act 1991.

  2. Total government support includes revenue support grant, community charge grant, estimated non-domestic rate income and estimated specific grants for each authority.

  3. The figures in Column 2 were calculated using the population figures at June 1990.

  Public Flood Warning Systems
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory requirements are in operation to provide advance public warning of flooding around the Scottish coast; if he will list those places which have a standard advance public flood warning system in operation; what form these systems take; what Government assistance is provided for this purpose; and if he will make a statement.

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 July 1991]: River purification boards and islands councils have powers to provide and operate flood warning systems for their areas under the Agriculture Act 1970 as amended by the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982. However, there is no statutory requirement to provide advance warning of flooding. At present, flood warning systems, which depend on information from critical parts of the catchment, are in operation for several major rivers in Scotland. There are none specifically for coastal flooding.

  The capital cost of providing flood warning systems is included in the capital expenditure allocations made to river purification boards and islands authorities. Operating costs are part of their normal revenue expenditure.

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

Baroness O'Cathain
Detta O'Cathain, OBE, Mrs. Bishop, having been created Baroness O'Cathain, of The Barbican in the City of London, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Elles and the Lord Fitt.

Schools Outreach: Funding
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne Lord Ashbourne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the funding commitment for Schools Outreach which they announced on 29th February 1988 (H.C. Deb., cols. 797 and 798) has not yet been fulfilled.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the funding to which my noble friend refers was offered to Schools Outreach to support a specific and substantial project, subject to that organisation securing complementary funding from a local education authority. Since that condition was not met, the department could not provide funding for the project.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that carefully worded reply. Observing that Schools Outreach was originally offered over a three-year period £150,000, which has never been received, and considering that the DES is currently being asked to match the commitment, which totals less than £100,000 over four years, made by the Berkshire local authority, will she now tell the House when the Government intend to honour their promise and match pound for pound the current commitment from the Berkshire local authority?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the application for funds to support the Berkshire project is with my department and is being considered at this time. The figure of £150,000 mentioned by my noble friend was subject to three conditions, which were not met. The offer therefore remains on the table until those conditions are met.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Baroness do her very best to ensure that her department deals quickly with the Berkshire Outreach application? Voluntary organisations suffer all the time from delay by the Government in dealing with commitments. Is she aware that it makes it extremely difficult when there are cash flow problems of that order?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that we are very impressed with the work of that organisation. I myself am on record as saying that I
980
am impressed with the organisation. The matter is being pressed in the department and I understand that a decision will shortly be made. In addition, the department has put up money for a proper evaluation of all the work of the organisation called Outreach.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House what are the three conditions that have not been met?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, they are that the project was conducted in one single LEA; that the LEA would guarantee to make a financial commitment to the project for three years, given that it is work which complements work going on in the LEA; and that following that and subject only to a favourable assessment the LEA would continue to fund the project for a further three years at the level previously supported by the DES.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that research has shown that non-attendance at school in this country—which anyway is illegal—is very high and that it is very difficult for the social service departments and education welfare officers to combat it, whereas Schools Outreach helps to meet that need? Would it be possible to expedite the grant given to that organisation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The work is very much geared toward helping young people who for one reason or another do not go to school. But that is very much to the benefit of the local education authority. If the local education authorities would become involved in these projects—as indeed Berkshire has done, which is being considered—they would find it enormously beneficial to enter jointly into a project with Outreach.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this is an extremely worthwhile project and that it is a great pity that there has been such delay in getting it under way? Does she also agree that the problem for local education authorities arises from a combination of cuts in education expenditure imposed by the Government and the need for financial delegation to schools? Is she aware that that makes it extremely difficult for local authorities to support this kind of project, however worth while it may be?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have already entered into arrangements with Outreach. We have been working on a project in Birmingham, for example, with Outreach. We now have the application for Berkshire. In the past we have also offered moneys to Outreach conditional upon local education authorities becoming involved. It is possible for LEAs, which are spending money in many other ways, to address the problem.
The Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair: My Lords, through Schools Outreach potential trouble-makers are at school. Looking to the future, such funding could save this country vast sums of money and perhaps reduce the prison population. Therefore why is the funding not provided at once when a solution to the problem is urgently needed.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may repeat something that I said. Many LEAs spend vast sums of money in helping young people to remain at school and to be better adjusted while at school. If LEAs would come together with Schools Outreach and the Department of Education and Science there is no reason why some of these projects should not be considered for funding.

Water Supply Quality
2.59 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the measures taken so far by water companies to improve the quality of the water supply.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Drinking Water Inspectorate is satisfied that all companies are making good progress with virtually all the schemes within their existing compliance programmes. The inspectorate is reviewing the undertakings given by companies in relation to pesticides and later in the year will commence a review of their other undertakings in order to see whether these continue to be appropriate.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is the noble Baroness aware that the latest Digest of Environment Protection and Water Statistics indicates that, since 1988, 90 water authorities carry an overload of nitrates in the drinking water? That represents an increase of 20 per cent. Salaries for people in charge of the water authorities have increased by between 50 per cent and 100 per cent. Charges to the consumer have increased by an average of 15 per cent. to 17 per cent. Does the Minister consider that the consumer now has a fair deal from privatisation? Is privatisation working in the way that Government intended?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, with regard to nitrates, most suppliers already comply with the standards. Companies are taking steps to bring other supplies into compliance by 1995. We are already operating to levels well below the World Health Organisation limits. The water companies are doing their best to ensure that those which are above the level are well within the safety level and are bringing their standards within the limits set by the European Commission.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, will the Minister inform the House whether or not the Severn Trent Water authority has stopped adding substances to its water supply as a deterrent against Iraqi terrorism as they were widely reported to have done.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not taking that comment seriously. It is a comment that has been picked up in the papers and is pure speculation. The noble Lord refers to "substances". I ask him: what substances?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, perhaps I may raise a matter based on personal evidence. If water is spilled
982
in London on a smooth surface and allowed to evaporate naturally, it leaves behind a heavy chemical deposit. If such water is ingested, does it leave similar heavy chemical deposits inside the human body?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I can say that the water in this country is safe to drink. Where some of the companies do not comply with the standards, it is on mainly aesthetic grounds as opposed to standards of health and safety.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, the whole country is grateful to hear that water is fit to drink. Will the Minister accept that the improvement of the water supplies and reduction in price is rather more important than an increase in dividends and huge increases in salaries in this now private monopoly?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, I do not agree with the noble Lord. Because the water companies have become more profitable, their investment is up by 50 per cent. They plan, and will achieve, an investment of £28 billion over the next 10 years. I do not believe that increases in salaries represent a detraction from what I consider to be a hugely successful story.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, while the main Question on the Order Paper is objective, the first and last supplementary questions are examples of the blanket opposition that is expressed on any operation that has been privatised?
With regard to a possible lack of quality of water, that did not occur overnight. Time has to be given before the problems of the past can be rectified.
Baroness Blatch;My Lords, my noble friend again makes an interesting point. I wonder whether noble Lords opposite will turn the clock back to when the water industry was sadly neglected, not simply by the present Government but by previous governments too. We have put in place a Water Inspectorate, the National Rivers Authority, and a Director General of Water. They are concerned with effectiveness of service and service to the customer. Those measures were not in place when noble Lords opposite were in power.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is the "polluter pays" principle part of the measures applied by the new water companies? If so, which of the polluters will pay? Will it be the chemical companies which produce the offending chemicals or the user who allows them to get into the water source? Is it not unfair that water consumers should have to pay while the profits of both those areas of exercise remain untouched?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in all cases where limits are not met the Secretary of State must satisfy himself that everything that can practicably be done is being done; and he will accept an undertaking that the company is working towards meeting the limits and will achieve the objectives. Those undertakings are accepted only when all possible means of achieving the limits are being pursued by the water company. The principle that the polluter pays is right but where an undertaking has been agreed it is only where the

983
company is doing its best to conform with the standards. The standards are safe; we are talking about aesthetic standards and meeting the new rigorous standards on pesticides.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, the Minister has given detailed answers and has herself gone a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Is she aware that this morning Welsh Water announced an increase of 88 per cent. in the salary of its chairman? That announcement comes after the consumers in Wales have had to meet an increase of 32 per cent. Can the Minister guarantee that the improvement in the quality of the water supply in Wales will be commensurate with that appalling increase that has been levied on consumers to pay for high salaries?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have nothing to add on the subject of salary increases for employees of the water company in Wales. However, I repeat the important point that the profitability of water companies has allowed a 50 per cent. increased investment in infrastructure for the water industry and a promised intention to spend £28 billion during the next 10 years. I believe that promise will be kept. That would not be achieved by any other means. The noble Lord would turn the clock back so that the money would not be available to improve the water supplies in this country.

Welsh Infantry Regiments: Future
3.1 p.m.
Lord Chalfont Lord Chalfont asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a decision has yet been made on the future of Welsh infantry regiments as a result of the defence review known as Options for Change.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in another place on 4th June, consultations are now taking place within the Army on its future structure. Final decisions have yet to be taken.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. I understand why he cannot go much further at this stage. Can he confirm the proposal that the Prince of Wales' Division should be reduced from nine battalions to six and, therefore, that the contribution of Wales to the British infantry will be reduced to two battalions, which is roughly the same as the contribution of the Kingdom of Nepal? Can he further confirm that as part of the re-organisation it is proposed that the Royal Welch Fusiliers should amalgamate with the Cheshire Regiment, which must be one of the most bizarre military adventures conceived since the Charge of the Light Brigade?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I appreciate the strength of feeling that my noble friend has put into his Question. Equally, I ask him to understand that whatever he hears or sees in the media is entirely speculation. No decision has been taken about the
984
future of any particular regiment. As soon as a decision is made my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence will announce it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I derive a certain amount of comfort from the Minister's reply. Nevertheless, is he aware that there is profound disquiet in Wales about the reports that have appeared in the press and on television; namely, that the Welsh Army is to be reduced by three battalions compared with Scotland, which is to lose two? The population of Wales is nearly two-thirds that of Scotland and such a reduction would be totally inequitable and unacceptable. I do not say that that is the Government's plan, but it has appeared in the press and is causing great anxiety in the Principality. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Welsh regiments will be treated equitably and that there will be no step towards amalgamating any Welsh regiment with any English regiment?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I hope that I have made clear the fact that at present I can give no assurance. However, I can say that the Army will work out these painful decisions with fairness, logic, good sense and total understanding.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Army do so on the clear understanding that Wales is a nation, as are England and Scotland?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am sure that will be taken into consideration. Indeed, when I see the battalions of Welsh troops on the Benches opposite I sometimes wonder whether I should go to my bunker.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say when the promised White Paper will appear? Will it appear in time to be debated before the Summer Recess?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, it is hoped that a decision and an announcement will be made before the Summer Recess.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, while in no way underestimating the difficulties of the Sectary of State for Defence in making the economies made possible by the end of the cold war, and while appreciating that there is a fierce loyalty towards every regiment in Her Majesty's defence forces, will the Minister bear in mind that the Royal Welch Fusiliers is a special case because it draws recruits from both north and south Wales and that most of those recruited from the north speak Welsh? Is the Minister aware that we are as proud to be Welsh as the right honourable gentleman the Secretary of State is entitled to be proud of what he is, and that we are proud of the rest of the United Kingdom? Will the Minister convey to his right honourable friend that in respect of this matter it is a rare occasion when all Wales is united?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, "Nec aspera terrent" is the regimental motto of the Royal Welch Fusiliers; that is, "Nor do difficulties deter". Once again I take the point made by the noble Viscount. I know that my

985
right honourable friend the Secretary of State is fully aware of the passion felt in your Lordships' House about this matter.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, will my noble friend take note of the wise advice given by the former Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. George Younger, that the only way to approach the issue is to go for the areas that, year in year out, have the best recruitment and retention levels? Is my noble friend aware that on that basis Wales should continue to have three regiments and that it would make no sense to merge the two regiments in the Prince of Wales' Division, which have the best recruitment records. Will the Minister take my advice that there can be no more certain way of destroying the unique spirit of the Royal Welch Fusiliers and its outstanding recruitment record, which springs from its Welshness and involvement in the community, than to merge it with an English regiment?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I note the passion that also comes from my own Benches. Noble Lords will appreciate the fact that we are receiving a great deal of advice from all quarters. Approximately 8 per cent. of the infantry's recruits come from Wales.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is widespread unease in Scotland, in Wales and possibly in England? English regiments have always been very proud and thrilled to recruit Welsh and Scotsmen to their ranks. This morning there was a poignant ceremony celebrating the 70th anniversary of the Royal British Legion. I am proud to be the metropolitan area president of the Royal British Legion and this matter was discussed this morning among the Welsh and the Scots. I shall be happy to tell them that no firm decision has been taken. Why are the Conservatives so opposed to Welsh and Scottish regiments? I cannot understand that. Let that go on the record. May I say to those people that no firm decision has been taken? Does the noble Earl realise that when the initial paybook was introduced over 90 years ago it was in the name of a Royal Welch Fusilier who actually existed—Tommy Atkins.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I understand the point which the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, makes but it rather wanders into the tramlines.
Viscount Tenby: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to convey the very deep anxieties and, indeed, anger which have emerged on this issue from all quarters of the House? If by any chance the rumours which have been spread about are proved to be founded, will he also undertake to save the Army from itself and to ensure in future that its bullets are fired on the Queen's enemies and not at its own feet?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, as I said on several occasions previously, painful choices and difficult decisions must be made. I am sure that everybody in your Lordships' House admires the pride and loyalty of all regiments in this country. We hope that their future will be satisfactorily concluded shortly.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Waddington): My Lords, this is one of those rare occasions when there is adequate time for the last Question. In those circumstances, it is only fair that my noble friend should be allowed to ask her question.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader of the House for that. Is the noble Earl aware that I was at the Royal British Legion service at Westminster Abbey this morning and that the former Dean of Windsor made a very powerful plea for the retention of the whole British Army including the Welsh and Scottish regiments at their present levels?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I was not aware that my noble friend was at that service this morning but I take particular note of her comments.

UK Pensioners in EC: Medical Costs
3.13 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why citizens of the United Kingdom who retire and settle in a European Community country before they reach the statutory retirement age are unable to obtain publicly funded medical treatment anywhere within the European Community, including the United Kingdom, until they reach retirement age.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Henley): My Lords, under the NHS Acts my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has no power to pay for the costs of medical treatment abroad. United Kingdom citizens living elsewhere in the Community may, like other EC nationals, receive emergency treatment, the need for which arose during a visit to the United Kingdom free of charge.
The UK does meet the costs of those living elsewhere in the EC if they have reached state retirement age. The costs of UK citizens retiring abroad before that age can be covered for a period of up to two-and-three-quarter years depending on their record of national insurance contributions.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. No doubt he will realise that I already knew the answer. Does he consider it reasonable that, for example, if a French citizen retires in this country, because he is regarded as being domiciled here he is entitled to full National Health Service facilities and yet if a British person is domiciled in France, he is not accepted either by his own system or by the French system? Are there any proposals to negotiate a satisfactory reciprocal arrangement between the British and the Continental systems so that those people can be treated without having to take out private insurance?
Lard Henley: My Lords, basically we are ahead of the field in this matter in that we are unusual because we have a residence-based test rather than a test based on insurance. In the case which the noble Baroness gave—that is, a British person going to France—such a person could join in the voluntary insurance scheme and pay to be part of the insurance-based scheme which exists in France. We have no plans to extend our scheme to people going abroad. Even if my right honourable friend wished to do that, there would be considerable cost implications and there are many other competing priorities.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Lord said that we are ahead in this field. Will he accept that that remark will not be very well received by retired pensioners in Canada, Australia and New Zealand? It will certainly not be as well received there as it will be by pensioners in France, Spain, the Bahamas, America, Russia, Yugoslavia, Greece and so on. How does he justify being ahead in the field when thousands of British retired people in Commonwealth countries are excluded?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I know well the noble Lord's views on the position of pensioners in Canada and Australia. However, I believe that the noble Lord will accept that that is wide of the Question.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, as regards the European Community, is there not a strong case to be made for having reciprocal arrangements with all those countries within the Community?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thought I had explained why we cannot go down that road. Some countries have insurance-based schemes and it is possible to enter those schemes through paying voluntary contributions. In some countries—for example, Denmark and Ireland—there are residence-based schemes. Therefore, residents in those countries can make use of he health service. As I said, there are cost implications and there are more serious competing priorities.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I appreciate that the UK system is better than the Continental systems. Is the noble Lord aware that unless one is working in France, one cannot join the contribution system? Therefore, those people are left high and dry. If they take out private insurance, by the time they have reached the age of 60 there are pre-existing conditions which are not covered by private insurance, and yet, they are taken back into our system once they become state pensioners when they reach the age of 65. It seems ridiculous that they cannot be covered for the intervening period.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Countess is correct. I understand—and I shall write to the noble Countess if I am wrong—that in France, as in Germany and Italy, one can voluntarily join the scheme whether or not one is working.

Business
3.16 p.m.
Lord Hesketh: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.45 p.m. my noble friend Lord Belstead will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Northern Ireland political talks.

Foreign Corporations Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to this Bill and, in particular, for the contributions made by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce and by the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Kennet. I am also grateful to the Law Society for the interest it has shown in the Bill and its support for it.
I should like to say a few words about the question of the recognition of states, which was raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. He suggested that because the Bill, explicitly or implicitly, requires a territory to have a legislature, an executive and a judicature, that is tantamount to the recognition of that territory as a state. However, the accepted international criteria in accordance with which Her Majesty's Government recognise states also include a settled population and a defined territory, as well as some prospect of permanence of all these indices. The territories to which the Bill applies are not recognised states, because not all of these criteria are met, and the Bill does not alter that.
In cases where recognition as a state is withheld, the rule traditionally followed by our courts—although the law cannot be said to be clear—is that, because of that withholding of recognition, they will not give effect to the creation or dissolution of corporations in the unrecognised territory. What the Bill does is to enable our courts to determine the status of corporations in accordance with commercial realities, instead of making them dependent upon unconnected issues of foreign policy.
Our foreign policy is unaffected by the Bill. I must make it quite clear that the Bill does not accord any form of recognition of any territory as a state and should not be read as doing so. It is simply concerned with the legal personality of corporations which come here and how we are to regard them under our law. We need to determine that and to clarify the present position.
I should also mention briefly two matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce, and which have now been resolved following helpful discussions with the Law Society. First, it was suggested that the phrase used in subsection (1)(a) of Clause 1,
"the laws of a territory",
was inadequate to deal with a situation where two conflicting systems claimed that their laws were the

989
laws of a specific territory. I am satisfied that when the subsection is read as a whole it achieves its purpose and that no amendment is necessary.
Secondly, it was suggested that the test laid down by the Bill that there must be a settled court system in a territory at the time when a specific question arises should also be satisfied if there had been a settled court system at an earlier time. In my view we should not legislate so as to require our courts to answer a question as though a previous state of affairs remained true. The Bill cannot offer absolute certainty in relation to the future, whatever changes in circumstances arise.
The Bill is necessary to settle the law as to the status of certain foreign corporations and it does so by adopting an approach which is consistent with commercial reality.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mishcon I apologise for his absence abroad. He asked me to thank the noble and learned Lord for the clarification he has given of the points raised by my noble friend during the debates on this important Bill. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, in relation to the other question on recognition, the House is most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the clarifications he has been able to put on record this afternoon. If it were to come about that cases were brought in our courts and use was made of the Act, as it will be, the Polly Peck case, because of the non-recognition of the illegal regime in North Cyprus, might be the first test of the distinction between, on the one hand, our courts hearing a company registered in a territory we do not recognise and, on the other hand, the continued non-recognition of that territory.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I express my appreciation of what has just fallen from the lips of the noble and learned Lord and of his courtesy in replying to a suggestion which I ventured to make after the Committee stage and which I hoped would simplify the Bill. I appreciate that the noble and learned Lord is not able to accede to the suggestion, which, although possibly defective, at least clarified the Bill. Though comprehensive, the Bill remains somewhat obscure. It has to deal with a variety of cases—namely, split states, federal states and places like Taiwan which are not recognised states—all in one phraseology. That may be too ambitious an attempt.
I indicated to the noble and learned Lord that I did not intend to pursue my suggestion. All we can do is to leave the matter with confidence to the judiciary.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend and to the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Cledwyn, the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry that it has not proved possible to hold this Third Reading on a date when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, could be present. I understand
990
that, with his usual generosity, he agreed that the Bill should proceed, having regard to the fact that we have reached an understanding on the matter.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Statute Law Revision (Isle of Man) Bill [H.L.]
3.24 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Badgers Bill
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. There has been widespread interest in the Bill in your Lordships' House and elsewhere. I crave just two minutes to record my appreciation of the work that has been done.
The Badgers Bill came from the Commons better than anything we have received before. But we have improved on it. It goes back better than anything that has gone back before. That was made possible by a unique combination of interest and individuals in your Lordships' House which in the past have been incompatible, or even in conflict. They have been brought together to produce what is almost a totally agreed Bill. It is quite an achievement for your Lordships' House to be party to it. Such controversial matters as we encountered in the past which obstructed progress on the passage of the Bill have now been resolved.
I thank all who have worked behind the scenes assiduously and in a good spirit to produce a Bill which will be more severe against the digger and the baiter, yet tolerant to those in the countryside and those who want reasonable opportunities to exercise their rights and activities. Overall it offers better protection for the badger.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who has been my partner in this work, used his influence on one side. I, as best I could, used my influence on the other. With the skilful presiding Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, we have produced the best Bill yet on badgers.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Houghton of Sowerby.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Badgers (Further Protection) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.28 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments and reasons be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments and reasons is be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AMENDMENTS AND MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO CERTAIN OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS, COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO THE WORDS SO RESTORED TO THE BILL AND A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[Page and line references are to Bill 33 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
Sentence for murder
(" . No court shall be required to sentence a person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
1A because the mandatory life sentence is necessary to mark the uniquely heinous crime of murder.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.
In asking your Lordships to accede to the wishes of another place in regard to the mandatory life sentence, I am conscious that I am asking your Lordships not to press a proposal which came from a most distinguished Select Committee of the House. I can assure the House that it was only after the most careful consideration of your Lordships' views that the Government decided that they could not recommend to another place that the mandatory life sentence should go. No purpose would be served by my merely repeating the arguments I advanced before. But the debate, has moved on somewhat because of the decision in another place.
I am certainly not saying baldly to your Lordships that another place has spoken and your Lordships must agree. I am well aware of how often your Lordships have helped shape public opinion and attitudes, and I would not be surprised if at some future date policy on this matter changes as a result of a change in public opinion which this House influenced. I am simply saying that I wonder whether the time for change is now.
The criminal law has always reflected public attitudes. After all we were all rather proud when the law reflected changed public attitudes to the treatment of women and rape in marriage. I believe that the
992
public in general feel that a mandatory life sentence is appropriate to mark out the heinous crime of murder from all other crimes and that public opinion has to be listened to. What I personally believe is not important in itself, but I wonder whether this is not an area where the undoubted experience and expertise of your Lordships can necessarily have the last word.
I hope with all due deference that your Lordships will accept that the feeling in another place has to be given due weight. After all, Members of another place face public opinion every day and I would argue that it is for them to take the burden of deciding what should happen in this area at present having, as they have, taken full account of your Lordships' view, because it is on them that the weight of public disapproval can and will fall if they have got it wrong.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 1A.—(Lord Waddington.)
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this grouping of amendments revolves around Lords Amendment No. 1 and Commons disagreement numbered 1A. Lords Amendment No. 2, relating to a court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment, falls within the next grouping and was originally cast as an adjunct to Lords Amendment No. 1. This amendment could also stand independently if your Lordships were not to accept the Commons disagreement. What is to be done? It is suggested in The Times newspaper today that we should insist on our Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and return them to another place; that the issue is constitutional—politicians versus the judges; that financial privilege is not involved; and that there is no manifesto commitment to involve the self-denying ordinance of the Salisbury convention. Even so, to what end shall we stir the embers of this Parliament to provoke a lost Bill knowing that when those amendments are returned to us, as is inevitable, it is unlikely that we shall yet again insist, at all events, on Amendment No. 1?
It is one thing to play ping-pong but quite another to call a bluff hand at the poker table. This Bill, as revised by your Lordships and accepted by another place, is an excellent reform Bill of monumental value and importance. Unless there is agreement between the Houses by the end of this Session it will be lost as another place has not ensured its entitlement to the Bill under the Parliament Acts.
The Government have not ensured its entitlement to this Bill. The Government cannot have their Bill without our assent. On a Bill of this order, in the circumstances which now obtain, unless restraint is exercised the responsibility for a lost Bill will be laid at the door of your Lordships' House. I entertain no doubt that the reason for disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 1 is simply not reasoned, having regard to the speeches in your Lordships' House and in particular to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane. No reason whatever is given for disagreement to Lords Amendment No. 2. It is suggested in The Times that the real reason is that the Government do not trust the judges. I find that

993
difficult to accept even in the wake of conflict generated during the proceedings on the Courts and Legal Services Bill. As to the suggestion in The Times today that we should be braver, there are perhaps times when discretion is the better part of valour. Speaking for myself, it is with sad reluctance that, as a matter of judgment to save the Bill and contrary to my own settled conviction on the merits of these amendments, I propose to exercise restraint. Together with my noble friend the Leader of the House I believe that in time the dissensions of today shall dissolve in some amicable resolution.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, lest it be thought that, sub silentio, I was necessarily agreeing with my noble friend the Leader of the House, I wish to say very briefly why I agree with the speech that has just fallen from the lips of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway.
The reason given by the Commons is frankly, and intellectually, ridiculous. It can only be described in that way. Murder is not the most heinous offence in the calendar. It is an offence because it has to be successfully carried out for quite a variety of different motives. If, for instance, as the Lord Chancellor entered the Chamber I took a pistol and shot at him, hit him and killed him, I should be guilty of treason—under the Treason Act 1351. That might be said to be a uniquely heinous crime. If I missed him and hit his attendant I should be guilty of murder, rather a serious murder. If either of them survived for a year and two days it would be neither murder nor treason, so far as I can say. This is nonsense, and let us record nonsense by its proper name. However, I wholly agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway that we should be wrong if we sought to follow the advice given us by the leading article in The Times today. There is the danger that the Bill might be torpedoed over what is, after all, relatively speaking a side issue. Next, there is the fact that what we are really asked to do if we pass the Motion proposed by the Leader of the House is to keep the status quo. One day people will see sense, even in another place, and the hairy heel of populism which they have followed will ultimately disappear. In the meantime, there is no grave crisis if the status quo is preserved. We should allow the other place to have its silly way for once and not try to follow the perfectly rational view we took over the War Crimes Bill.
There is another reason; that is, there are amendments on the Marshalled List which would not really be useful if we were to insist on our original amendment. Some of them will do more good than harm. I hope for that reason alone we shall not insist upon our view, though we may retain our opinions.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I agree with the conclusion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. For a number of reasons I do not intend to repeat the speech I made on the last occasion, most of the points having been made by the noble and learned Lord. I regard the Commons reason as absurd. Most of us who took part in the last debate recognise that it is an absurdity. The fact of the matter is that there
994
are other amendments on the Marshalled List which deal with very important aspects of this situation. It would be more profitable for the House to move on from this particular issue to those amendments in order to deal with a number of matters of public policy which otherwise might not be dealt with satisfactorily.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I really cannot let this matter trickle by without saying something on behalf of these Benches. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that the reasons that have been given by the House of Commons for rejecting this amendment are, frankly, nonsense. We know it is nonsense and I suspect most Members of the other place know it is nonsense. Therefore, one has to ask oneself the question: "Why on earth are we in this position?". I do not want to be overtly political because if ever there was an issue which should not be the subject of party politics it seems to me that this is one of them. This is one of those issues in the life of the country where governments should listen to informed opinion. Opinion on this issue has been more informed in this House than it conceivably could have been in another place. There it is. I very much regret that we are not persisting in our previous view. It was right that we took the view that we did. Indeed I think it would be right today were we to take that view. It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with the leading article in The Times but I am bound to say that I felt a certain sympathy with the thrust of it today.
I cannot avoid commenting on the speech of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. He used three arguments. First, he said that what we have proposed will come at some stage. I suppose that that is a confession that Parliament's position is that we should wait until the time is ripe, whatever that means, or until the time is appropriate, whatever that means. I suspect that what will happen is that the European Court will deliver another judgment in the not too distant future. Then the Government, if indeed the same Government are still in power, will say, "We don't like what the European Court has said. It is all these terrible people in Europe. Nevertheless, we have to do it".
The second argument used by the Leader of the House was that the law must reflect public attitudes. Of course it must, but it must also on occasions lead public attitudes. I am not convinced for a moment that public attitudes on this issue are necessarily the attitudes of the Government. Most of the people I have spoken to on this issue regard as arrant nonsense the present position where a domestic murder is treated in exactly the same way as what would be the most heinous of crimes—a deliberate intentional killing—and think that the law which treats those crimes as being wholly similar is somewhat of an ass. We have heard the argument that on this issue the law must reflect public attitudes. With great respect to the Leader of the House, I believe that public attitudes at the moment are somewhat in advance of the Government's position.
The third argument used by the noble Lord was that feeling in another place has to be given due weight. Of course it does. I entirely accept that.

995
However, I am bound to say to the Leader of the House that if the half loaf brigade, if I may respectfully call them that, had not entirely had their way today, I should have been perfectly prepared for feeling in this House to be given its due weight and for the House of Commons to be told so.
Lord Monson: My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, I find it depressing that so many Members of another place evidently grossly underestimate the intelligence of those who voted them into office. I would guess that at a very minimum 80 per cent.—perhaps nearer 90 per cent.—of the electorate are very well aware that life hardly ever means life; therefore your Lordships' amendment would not mean that those guilty of the most heinous forms of murder spent a shorter time behind bars than would be the case under the law as it stands at present. On the contrary, the reverse might very well be the case. However, I am sure that we must follow the wise advice given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and others.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I shall have the temerity to disagree with my own side—it is getting used to that—and with the noble and learned Lord. I do so for a simple reason—it is the reason the Commons have put forward:
"because the mandatory life sentence is necessary to mark the uniquely heinous crime of murder".
We have already heard about the domestic crime of murder. The person is dead. How easy it is to plead that the dead man or woman has caused someone to commit murder. If someone is dead he cannot speak in his own defence. It is easy to say that we are moving into different times. Sadly, yes, we are moving into times of more, not less, crime. One must ask oneself why. Is it because we are too easy in the courts? If one destroys another human being's life one has to give a reason why. We have the charge of manslaughter and other charges are often used. We all know that the life sentence does not mean anything anyway. Someone will be in prison for only 10 years. Everyone will then be sorry for him. All kinds of things will be arranged for him. He will not have to worry. However, the innocent, the victims and the average person who will never commit a crime feel differently.
Noble Lords have referred to the people to whom they have spoken. The people I talk to do not take the same view. They are anxious about the life sentences imposed. I speak on behalf of the victims. I should like to say that on this occasion we agree with the Commons. What I have had to say will obviously not be very popular in some parts of your Lordships' House but that does not worry me in the least. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that if he wants the Labour Party to get rid of the Lords, he is handing it reasons every time. It did not like our attitude on the War Crimes Bill. I found that totally illogical. I find the attitude on this matter equally illogical. I think that the Commons have it right and that we would be very sensible for once to agree with them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned my name. The distinction is quite simple. In relation to the War Crimes Bill there was no
996
question of a lost Bill. The House of Commons had ensured its entitlement to the Bill by invoking the Parliament Act. In this case there is every prospect of a lost Bill; and it is a Bill of monumental value and importance. That is the distinction.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I had the privilege of proposing the amendments which are the subject of this discussion. I also have the honour to be the chairman of the Select Committee on whose report the proposals were based. I thought it might be right for me to say that I do not think that we should press this amendment. There is no purpose at this stage in reviewing all the arguments which were so amply put forward in your Lordships' House and so overwhelmingly agreed in it. I believe that that would be unwise for the following reason.
I very much welcome the fact that the Commons amendments have come forward and I hope to put before your Lordships reasoned amendments to improve the Commons amendments. I very much hope that those amendments will commend themselves to the House and will receive the consideration, as I know they will, of another place. If we start by getting into a state of confrontation with another place on the matter raised by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I believe that the atmosphere in which these Commons amendments, which I regard as a constructive proposition, are discussed will be quite hopeless. I have read the leading article in The Times which is headed "Mr Major's Lapdog". It was suggested to me that I was the lapdog and that the Prime Minister's health was in grave danger.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I think that it is the wish of the House to move on and therefore I shall be very brief indeed. I respect greatly the views expressed by noble Lords. In the subsequent debate we shall be able to discuss the implications of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne and Others. I need not deal with that now.
I said that Parliament has to take account of public attitudes and that the law has to reflect public attitudes. The matter was weighed up by another place. It came to a conclusion which is apparently different from the conclusion reached by certain noble Lords. But there is no doubt that another place reached that conclusion. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. I believe that the crime of murder is unique. It is unique because of its appalling finality. I seem to remember that those who disagreed with me and were so violently opposed to capital punishment were usually violently opposed to capital punishment because they could see the awful finality of the judicial killing. If that was their view on the matter of capital punishment I think that there is an awful finality in the crime of murder, as is recognised by most people. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to agree with another place in its amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland: Political Talks
3.40 p.m.
The Paymaster General (Lord Belstead): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:
"The political talks which have been taking place at Parliament Buildings, Stormont, have been brought to a conclusion. I should like to take this opportunity to explain to the House the background to this decision, to describe what has been achieved during those talks and to set out the Government's hopes for the future.
"Honourable members will recall that my Statement to the House on 26th March was accepted as a basis for political talks which would address, as part of the same process, relationships within Northern Ireland, including the relationship between any new institutions there and the Westminster Parliament; among the people of the island of Ireland; and between the two governments. I announced that talks would take place in three strands corresponding to those three main sets of relationships. To allow an opportunity for the wider political dialogue which the four main constitutional political parties in Northern Ireland and the two governments envisaged, the two governments had agreed not to hold a meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference between two pre-specified dates, subsequently confirmed as being 26th April and 16th July. This interval, allowing some time at either end for the Anglo-Irish secretariat to complete the business of servicing one conference and to make preparations to service the next, provided 10 clear weeks for substantive political exchanges. The talks began on 30th April.
"It has become clear that it would not be possible to launch the other strands of the talks and thus to complete the process as a whole before the end of this interval, and that this was beginning to inhibit our ability to make further substantive progress. After consultation with the leaders of the political parties, I concluded that the talks should therefore be brought to an end. I have also been in touch with the Irish Government to recount my conclusion. I should now like to take stock of what has been achieved during the talks and of the further prospects for securing constructive political development in relation to Northern Ireland.
"As the House knows, it did not prove possible to move as rapidly as we had hoped to plenary sessions of the first strand of the talks. A range of new procedural issues had to be resolved. A series of bilateral exchanges succeeded in determining the venues for meetings in the second strand of the talks, arrangements for chairing that strand of discussion, the identity of the chairman and the procedural guidelines which would be observed.
"Plenary sessions started on 17th June. After my opening statement the parties presented their initial position papers, after which the papers were
998
discussed, examined and clarified. Subsequently, during a more intensive schedule of meetings, there was a debate on themes which had emerged from the initial presentations.
"The commitment and seriousness of purpose shown by all the parties in these talks is a source of encouragement for the future. The plenary sessions provided the forum for some significant and constructive exchanges among the parties and with Her Majesty's Government on a range of fundamental issues. The nature of those exchanges served to confirm the judgment involved in initiating the talks process that the time is ripe for political talks in relation to Northern Ireland which address all the relevant relationships; that the process is of value and has potentially even greater value; that a degree of common ground exists; and that there is a good prospect that a comprehensive political accommodation can be reached. I should like to express my appreciation of the commitment shown by all the participants.
"To those who would say 'I told you so—it would never work', I offer the reality of the past few weeks. While I am naturally disappointed at this moment that the current process has to end, foundations have been laid for progress in the future which neither cynics nor the men of violence will be able to undermine.
"For myself, I hope that it will prove possible in due course to have further exchanges with the parties, and with the Irish Government, to explore, initially on a bilateral basis, whether we can establish terms on which fresh discussions could be held."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating the Statement which was made in another place. Although the Statement is not a despondent one and although it is not entirely unexpected, it is a cause of sadness for all the people who have longed for peace and reconciliation in the Province. Therefore, one very much regrets that it was necessary for the Secretary of State to bring the political talks to a conclusion. I am sure that there are many lessons to be learnt from the experience of the past 18 months in Northern Ireland, apart from those which are mentioned in the Statement. However, in our view, it would not be helpful today to seek to apportion blame. We have to view the Statement as constructively as we can.
The Statement refers to the Secretary of State having brought the talks to a conclusion. However, no where in the Statement does the Secretary of State use the word "failure". That word carries with it a certain finality, but that is not used in the Statement; indeed, the Statement brings together a number of affirmatives and this has been a source of encouragement for the Secretary of State.
We understand that the talks were terminated because the timetable was too tight, and not because of the nature of the agenda which was presented to the negotiators at the talks. But while we understand the

999
Unionist position on the timetable issue and also fully appreciate the Government's firm commitment to the Anglo-Irish Conference, we would have thought, given the grievous losses suffered in Northern Ireland over the past two decades, that the parties had very little to loose by showing some degree of flexibility and understanding. The fact that it proved impossible to find a formula which would accommodate the two conflicting positions on that issue is most worrying. It suggests that there are still limitations, and possibly mistrust, which have yet to be overcome.
The Statement implies that new bilateral talks will be possible in due course, although there is no promise of such talks. That must depend upon the attitude of the other parties. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government consider that there is a possibility, or a chance, that talks about talks will be resumed this side of the general election?
The Statement, especially in the last paragraph, makes it abundantly clear that the Government are not in the process of abandoning the search for a political solution. We welcome that determination. Perhaps the Minister can also confirm to the House that the events of the past 18 months will strengthen the resolve of both governments to continue to work together to achieve a solution and to safeguard and enhance the interests of Northern Ireland.
The Statement speaks of achievements. Of course, it was a considerable achievement in itself that the leader; of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland were persuaded to come to a conference to discuss the three sets of relationships to which the Minister referred. The Labour Party has made it clear that this is an agenda to which a future Labour Government would be firmly committed.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that we were not in the business of apportioning blame: instead, I want to express our appreciation of the immense efforts which have been made by the present Secretary of State over the past 18 months to reach a settlement and of the many fine qualities which he has brought to the affairs in Northern Ireland. Those factors will be appreciated by people all over the world. At the same time, I wish to congratulate the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland who have shown courage in declaring their willingness to embark upon talks which would embrace all three sets of relationships to which the Minister referred.
It appears to us that the Secretary of State and the leaders of the political parties of Northern Ireland have established a valuable precedent upon which others can build in the future.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State. There is no concealing that this is a major step backwards. It must be deeply disappointing to the Secretary of State after all his efforts, upon which I, like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, should like to express the warmest appreciation from these Benches. It is disappointing for everyone throughout Great Britain and the Irish Republic, but it is especially disappointing for the people of Northern Ireland because they are the losers from the breakdown in the talks.
1000
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that this is not the time for apportioning blame, but there are clearly some Northern Ireland political leaders who are more responsive to their most zealous supporters than they are to the great bulk of public opinion in Northern Ireland. I hope that over the next few weeks the citizens of Northern Ireland, most of whom sincerely want peace and progress and are prepared for power sharing in a devolved government, can make themselves heard and act as a source of pressure, and bring the politicians and parties back to the negotiating table in Northern Ireland. If that could be achieved, the breakdown in the talks, could be used as a constructive pause rather than a disheartening ending of hope.
It took a long time for substantive discussions to get under way because of the delicate negotiations over the process, but it appears from the Statement and reports that, once the parties were engaged in discussions, those discussions were serious and substantive. A basis exists upon which to build. We all know that this is a time of year in Northern Ireland when thoughts of the future tend to be displaced by memories of the past; but the autumn will come, and timing is everything in politics. The times may be out of joint now, but they will not be so for ever, and we must hope that they will not be so for too long.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is a disappointment to make the Statement today, but I make it clear that my right honourable friend believes that the process has confirmed his view that there is sufficient common ground among the parties to bring a comprehensive political accommodation within reach. We are therefore naturally looking to the future with some hope. The timetable was mentioned by both noble Lords. While the experience of the last three weeks has shown how much progress can be made in a short time, unfortunately it proved necessary to use much of the 10 weeks discussing the important procedural issues. That was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Holme.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, was right when he said that we must face the fact that there are important and fundamental issues still to be hammered out. Again, I make it clear to the House that the talks have reaffirmed that all the Northern Ireland parties wish to discuss matters that can he resolved only in talks involving the three strands. Strands Two and Three of course involve, in turn, the Irish Government.
The noble Lord asked whether it would be possible for the talks to be renewed before the general election. While I do not wish in any way to speculate upon when that day may come, at the end of the Statement it is made clear that my right honourable friend believes that he will be able to explore, initially bilaterally, whether terms can be established upon which fresh discussions could be held. That would not be talks about talks, but would be returning to talks. He also asked whether the resolve of both governments to continue to work together in these matters remains firm. My answer to that is yes.
The noble Lord, Lord Holme, made one or two points that had the same thrust as those raised by the

1001
noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. He said that public opinion, especially public opinion in Northern Ireland, should be a vital factor in ensuring that we go further down this road. I feel that I can make clear, because I work there, that the widespread support for this process that exists in Northern Ireland has been a very significant factor. That applies to Northern Ireland, the United Kingdom and overseas. Both noble Lords generously paid tribute to my right honourable friend, and I believe that that is the feeling in Northern Ireland. We now have to see whether public opinion can have the effect that the noble Lord, Lord Holme, wishes.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is there any way in which the Government can persuade the media to be a little more reticent when they anticipate what they believe will happen in these sensitive matters? The description given by many of the media as to what today's Statement would contain bears no relationship to the Statement itself. It is not helpful to create an atmosphere in which it appears that one side is winning and another is losing. The Statement clearly indicates that this is not, and need not be, the end of the matter; and that some progress has been made. One would not gain that impression from reading many of the reports, and that can be damaging. Could the media be persuaded on the odd occasion to wait for the Statement and not to anticipate it and use their own words to describe what it contains?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has asked that question. An agreed draft press statement has been put out by my right honourable friend. It was agreed by the parties to the talks. The last sentence reads:
"The Secretary of State made clear his own wish in due course to explore the possibility of finding terms on which fresh discussions could be held".
That was a valuable agreed press statement.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am sorry to hear of the stoppage of the talks. The Secretary of State's patience and diplomacy deserve a successful outcome. He must be praised for his diligence and sterling efforts. The major obstacles to making political progress between North and South remain. The first is the deeply held opposition of the major political parties in the North to the Anglo-Irish agreement, which in their opinion sacrificed to the Republic of Ireland some of the United Kingdom's sovereign rights. The second is their understandable attitude and opposition to the Irish constitution, which lays claim to govern their Province of Northern Ireland.
With that background, your Lordships will no doubt remember that a Statement was made on 26th March in which three conditions were laid down. The first was that we should all seek an alternative to and replacement for the Anglo-Irish agreement. The second was that the Anglo-Irish conference should not meet while the negotiations were going on. Those were two clear conditions. Were not those conditions agreed by all the parties to the negotiations before the
1002
Statement of 26th March? If that is so, does the Minister agree that making the Anglo-Irish agreement and its next meeting appear so sacrosanct undoubtedly played a part in halting the talks and suggests that Her Majesty's Government believe the continuation of the Anglo-Irish agreement and the meetings to be more important than the talks that the Secretary of State started?
Although the Secretary of State says that the talks are concluded, I am pleased to note that he is not disappointed; is encouraged to continue in due course; and believes that he has laid some foundations for progress. However, as he well knows, he is coming up against the buffers of a general election, and I believe that that will frustrate further progress.
Finally, these were not peace talks. The Provisional Sinn Fein, the Provisional IRA and the Ulster Volunteer Force were not involved. Any constitutional changes that are agreed by all parties will not halt the Provisional IRA's campaign of terror. Its objective is the smashing of all democratic institutions in the north and, if it succeeds, in the south as well. We must not lead all those people in Northern Ireland or Great Britain into a false sense of hope and security. The terrorists of the Ulster Volunteer Force and particularly of the Provisional IRA still have to be defeated and we must not take our eyes off that objective.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, perhaps I may make absolutely clear the position concerning the meeting on 16th July, the next meeting of the intergovernmental conference. Her Majesty's Government entered into a commitment with the Irish Government to hold a meeting on that date. The decision was announced after the last intergovernmental conference on 26th April and all the participants in the talks understood that it marked the end of the agreed gap during which the talks would take place. The gap was referred to in the Statement in the House on 26th March to which the noble Lord referred. The meeting on 16th July is therefore part of the framework within which it was agreed back in April that the talks should be held. The Government are under an obligation to honour that decision.
I was grateful to the noble Lord for his final remarks. It is a disappointment to have to make this Statement today. The disappointment is for all law abiding people both within and outside Northern Ireland. The key point to hear in mind is the determination of the British Government and the people of Northern Ireland to resist the activities of the terrorists. That determination is as strong now as it has ever been.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I join noble Lords who have thanked the Minister for making the Statement. I very much share the tone and tenor in which the noble Lords, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Holme, presented constructive points concerning reconciliation which looked with some hope to the future.
During the course of the talks, discussions took place on other matters which arose when the question of the talks came before the House. I was pleased and welcomed the non-partisan approach of the House to

1003
reason and the constructive points being made that would help and encourage the Secretary of State, Mr. Brooke, and the Minister in what they attempted to achieve.
In this House we all realise, like many in Northern Ireland, the tremendous task that has been undertaken there. The result today is disappointing. It was without surprise that we heard that this announcement was imminent but I am pleased that the Minister has rounded off the report in the Statement today with a message of hope. I totally agree with him that the talks have not been in vain. They have aroused tremendous interest in Northern Ireland as to the basis upon which trust, faith, confidence and accommodation can be formed. Those possibilities will be explored.
There is a general reaction perhaps not always apparent among people in Northern Ireland, and here I agree with the Minister. This is not the time for making a statement apportioning blame or making any similar comment. I believe that I heard the Minister correctly and that he said that all peaceable people. in Northern Ireland would be disappointed and consider themselves the losers in their disappointment and loss after the cessation of the talks. However, I am sure that they will appreciate the end of the Statement which looks forward to talks being resurrected and put on the agenda again with a positive construction.
I end by repeating that like other Members of the House I appreciate the efforts of the Minister. I and other noble Lords know that behind the scenes he has worked in equal partnership with Mr. Brooke in the talks and we warmly appreciate his efforts.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said and particularly for confirming that the Statement of my right honourable friend ends with a message of hope. We now anticipate picking up the threads in due course.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for repeating the Statement and the information that a small degree of progress has been achieved. Does he agree that well before the talks began Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien publicly forecast that because of certain historical and political realities, both north and south of the Border, it was extremely unlikely that the talks would get very far? Once again, he has been proved right. One would never for a moment claim that Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien was infallible, but does the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, agree that Her Majesty's Government would save themselves an enormous amount of time, trouble and expense if they paid rather more attention to his analysis of the Irish situation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the fact of the matter is that Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien does not have to face the absolutely fundamental problem that the way in which Northern Ireland is administered is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory to have direct rule. From that flowed the attempt by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to try to do something about it. He took soundings of the political parties in
1004
Northern Ireland to see whether there was a basis for talks and found that there was. It is fair to say that that judgment has proved to be right.
Without detaining the House unnecessarily, I feel that we have come away with a confirmation that the time is right for political talks in relation to Northern Ireland which address all the relevant relationships. The process is of value and could potentially be of even greater value. A degree of common ground exists.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Statement makes clear that my right honourable friend has achieved a balance among the four political parties which has not broken down. However, it was impossible to further it in the light of another conference under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. We all heard what the noble Lord, Lord Mason, had to say. I hope that it is clearly understood that the United Kingdom believes in obeying both the spirit and the letter of international treaties. A break of 10 weeks in conference meetings was negotiated; that was all the time that was available for talks unless agreement was secured to run them in parallel. That turned out to be impossible.
We have all praised and recognised the achievements of my right honourable friend today. I hope that he will now be able to turn his attention to using the next few conferences as a means of engineering another break so that the constitutional talks in Northern Ireland can be reconvened to the advantage of all people in Northern Ireland. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Blease, said. I hope that my noble friend can give me some comfort in that direction.
Further, like almost all noble Lords who have spoken, both the Minister and my right honourable friend will work to see that no one seeks to cast blame for what I regard as an interregnum. I believe that the last contribution to the short debate was not helpful in that direction.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, my noble friend asked whether my right honourable friend will sieze the opportunity for meetings under the Anglo-Irish Agreement intergovernmental conferences to talk about recommencing the talks. I wish to make it clear that the circumstances surrounding any fresh talks would have to be a matter for discussion with all the interested parties. Having said that, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, one could easily be tempted to express sentiments on this occasion which would meet with the overwhelming approval of people in this House who have been desperately seeking a solution to the Northern Ireland problem. However, one must speak with honesty and that is what I intend to do within the next few minutes.
The talks have ended; now we wait for recriminations. Never for a single second did I believe that these talks could be successful. I invite all noble Lords present to read what I said during the course of the debate on the Anglo-Irish Agreement in 1985. I said then that the terms and conditions and the way that agreement was constructed made it impossible for

1005
any Unionist to take part in talks. The existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement over these past five years has made it impossible for the Protestant Unionist community to speak in any way to the Catholic community.
These talks began because the representatives of the Protestant Unionist community so detested every single sentence in the Anglo-Irish Agreement that they were prepared to enter into talks which would do away with the agreement, and whip it off the statute book. On the other hand, the SDLP, the Nationalists, and the Irish Government, entered into those talks with the intention of consolidating and reinforcing the existing Anglo-Irish Agreement. So there you have the irresistible force and the immovable object. There was no way that a meeting of minds could take place. One wanted to continue the Anglo-Irish Agreement and one wanted to make certain that it was dead. I have read every single Irish newspaper every day since these talks began and I must say that from the Nationalist point of view there was a great deal of triumphalism —"we have got the Unionists with their backs to the wall". Indeed, an editorial in the Irish Times said: "the Unionists agree with us but we have got the Anglo-Irish Agreement; it is very acceptable to the Government in the Republic, and it is very pleasing to the SDLP in the North." That was the sort of language which inflamed opinions on different sides of the political fence.
The talks have failed. I agree with the sentiments that have been expressed: it is not the end of the road and probably in due course some new path will be taken. Of course, we have all heard of "in due course", and we all know what it means; it means absolutely nothing. No further talks will take place this side of a general election. A statement has been cobbled together which will in some way seek to canonise those who were seeking peace in Northern Ireland. But the fact is that these talks have failed, and no further talks will succeed with the Anglo-Irish Agreement in existence in its present form. While that is there, and while Articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constitution are in existence, there will be no talk of bringing together the two communities in Northern Ireland. Everyone has been giving credit to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland; but the luckiest man in this whole process has been the fellow from Australia, Sir Ninian Stephen, who must be thanking God that he has not had to go there.
I have said that the talks are not going to be resurrected this side of a general election. But whatever government is in power after the next election, the Anglo-Irish Agreement in its present form will ensure that there is going to be a continuous divide between the two communities in Northern Ireland.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, with whom I must say I normally agree—and, no matter whether I agree with him or not, I certainly always respect what he is saying—began his remarks by saying that the talks were pointless. I must point out to the noble Lord that the agreed press statement which was put out this morning says that
1006
"The Secretary of State and the party leaders agreed that the talks had been valuable and had produced genuine dialogue."
The noble Lord then went on to say that anyway the talks had no possible chance of success. He knows better than I that where there are problems which go back for many, many years what is needed, if there is to be a hope of success in beginning to solve them, is perseverance. We must now see whether the political parties who have been involved in the talks are prepared to persevere.
Finally, perhaps I may say this. When the noble Lord referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and to Articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of the south, I apprehend that these are matters which did not form part of the discussions in the first strand because they would have been discussed in the subsequent strands. We have a situation where we have concluded the talks with the first strand still unfinished. The Statement made by my right honourable friend today makes one thing crystal clear: he believes that there is the possibility of a political accommodation if we persevere, and I am sure that the noble Lord wants that as much as Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, may I put one short point to my noble friend? It is this. He will perhaps remember that I was not uncritical of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in its present form for precisely the reasons that have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. But for the first time in our history as a nation, we are faced with a land frontier which is difficult to police and which is threatened on both sides with terrorism. Would he not therefore agree that some form of agreement by which we can mitigate the results of that is inevitable with the South? That is something which ought to be universally accepted both on this side of the water and on the other side.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am most grateful for the intervention from my noble and learned friend. This would have been a matter which we could have come to, and still can come to, if there can be perseverance. One of the major features of the talks that have taken place has been the resilience in the face of terrorist attacks, together with determination by the parties not to be diverted from a dialogue.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I am sorry, but the 20 minutes is up.

Criminal Justice Bill
4.27 p.m.
Consideration of Commons Reasons and amendments resumed.

LORDS AMENDMENT
2 After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment
(" .—(1) Where a court sentences a person to imprisonment for life it shall state in open court—

(a) its reasons for passing that sentence; and

1007

(b) the sentence of imprisonment the court would have passed ("the penal term") if it had not been open to it to pass a sentence of imprisonment for life and it had not taken into account the risk of serious harm to the public if the offender were to be released after a determinate number of years' imprisonment.

(2) The penal term shall be subject to appeal against sentence in the same manner as the sentence of imprisonment for life actually passed on the offender.").
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments in lieu thereof:
2A After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
Duty to release discretionary life prisoners
'.—(1) A life prisoner is a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part if—

(a) his sentence was imposed for a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law; and

(b) the court by which he was sentenced for that offence ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the order.

(2) A part of a sentence so specified shall be such part as the court considers appropriate taking into account—

(a) the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it; and

(b) the provisions of this section as compared with those of section 27(2) above and section 28(1) below.

(3) As soon as, in the case of a discretionary life prisoner—

(a) he has served the part of his sentence specified in the order ("the relevant part"); and

(b) the Board has directed his release under this section,

it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (7) below, to release him on licence.
(4) The Board shall not give a direction under subsection (3) above with respect to a discretionary life prisoner unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has referred the prisoner's case to the Board; and

(b) the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.

(5) A discretionary life prisoner may require the Secretary of State to refer his case to the Board any time—

(a) after he has served the relevant part of his sentence; and

(b) where there has been a previous reference of his case to the Board, after the end of the period of two years beginning with the disposal of that reference; and

(c) where he is also serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term, after he has served one-half of that sentence;

and in this subsection "previous reference" means a reference under subsection (4) above or section 32(4) below made after the prisoner had served the relevant part of his sentence.
(6) In determining for the purpose of subsection (3) or (5) above whether a discretionary life prisoner has served the relevant part of his sentence, no account shall be taken of any time during which he was unlawfully at large within the meaning of section 49 of the Prison Act 1952 ("the 1952 Act").
(7) The Secretary of State may defer a prisoner's release under this section for a period not exceeding six months if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify such a deferment in the public interest.
(8) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving one or more sentences of life imprisonment; but—

(a) a person serving two or more such sentences shall not he treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and

(b) subsections (3) and (5) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A in lieu
1008
thereof. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 2AA to 2AG, 2AJ, 2B, 2BA to 2BC, 2C to 2H, 2HA, 2J, 2JA, 2K to 2P, 2PA, 2Q to 2V, 2VA to 2VC, 3, 3A, 4, 4A, 5, 5A to 5C, 6AA, 8, 8A, 9, 9A, 10, 10A, 13, and 13A.
The other place did not find it possible to go along with your Lordships' proposals that there should be a review procedure in murder cases and I believe that, having accepted the continuance of the mandatory life sentence for murder, it would also be right to accept that the question of a murderer's release should be left in the hands of the Home Secretary as part of his responsibility for the protection of the public and the maintenance of the Queen's peace. In an earlier debate I made the point that at the time of the abolition of capital punishment, Parliament not only thought it right to mark the unique nature of the crime of murder by a special punishment but made it clear that the murderer, because he had taken another life, would surrender his own in a very important respect.
He might not spend the rest of his days inside prison but the sentence would last for life and he would not be released without the consent of the Home Secretary, who would be answerable to Parliament if things went wrong. I think that that is still the right approach to adopt. The approach is, we believe, consistent with the decisions by the European Court.
In so far as non-murder cases are concerned, however, I indicated during the Report stage of the Bill that the Government would be happy to respond to your Lordships' views, and we have been as good as our word.
The amendments which have been proposed in lieu of Amendment No. 2, and to the words restored by disagreement to Amendment No. 5, introduce a new system for the administration of discretionary life sentences. This new system, which the government believe will bring our domestic practice fully into line with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights, is in its essentials quite similar to that proposed in your Lordships' amendments—though it does not of course apply to mandatory life sentence prisoners.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I briefly outline the main features of the amendments in lieu, with particular reference to the points where they differ from those proposed by your Lordships. It may also be convenient if, in doing so, I refer to the further amendments which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and others.
First, provision is made, in Amendment No. 2A, subsection (2), for the trial judge to announce in open court the term within a discretionary life sentence which reflects the seriousness of the offence. This corresponds with subsection (1) (b) of Lords Amendment No. 2, but in a form which I hope is rather easier to understand. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who said that the language of Amendment No. 2 was incomprehensible. I think it is now clear in our amendment.
The term stated by the trial judge will be an order made as part of a sentence and so will be open to appeal in the normal way. Once that term had been

1009
served, the prisoner's detention thereafter would be based on the risk he posed to the public rather than the seriousness of the offence.
It would, under the Government's proposals, be open to the trial judge, exceptionally, not to set a term. This would be an indication that the crime which had been committed was so wicked that detention for life was justified according to the seriousness of the offence alone, irrespective of the risk to the public. Such a life sentence prisoner would therefore be in the same position as a mandatory life sentence prisoner. The question of his eventual release would be a matter for the Secretary of State.
At this point, perhaps I could refer to Amendments Nos. 2AA and 2AB which have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord Richard and my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. They not only seek to apply the new procedures which I have just mentioned to mandatory as well as discretionary cases, but also remove the discretion which the Commons amendments give the sentencing judge not to specify a term if he considers it inappropriate to do so. I want to make it plain why that provision was inserted by the other place.
I think it would be helpful to take as our starting point the remarks of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell. The court drew a clear distinction between the mandatory life sentence and the discretionary sentence; based on the reasoning which it found in the relevant judgments of the Court of Appeal. If I may quote from the European Court judgment, the court said:
"the principles underlying such sentences [i.e. discretionary sentences], unlike mandatory life sentences, have developed in the sense that they are composed of a punitive element and subsequently of a security element designed to confer on the Secretary of State the responsibility for determining when the public interest permits the prisoner's release."
The passing of a discretionary life sentence would therefore normally indicate that there was present an element of mental instability and dangerousness in the offender which were, by their nature, susceptible of change with the passage of time. The court concluded that the lawfulness of the prisoner's indefinite detention in a discretionary case could not therefore be determined at the outset by the act of passing sentence, and that the discretionary life sentence prisoners concerned were therefore entitled, under the convention, and I quote again,
"to take proceedings to have the lawfulness of their continued detention decided by a court at reasonable intervals and to have the lawfulness of any re-detention determined by a court".
It is this reasoning which is reflected in the Government's amendments. First, the procedures set out in the Government's amendments do not apply to mandatory life sentence prisoners. The mandatory life sentence is given not (to use the court's words) in order to provide first a punitive element in the sentence and subsequently a security element. The justification for the mandatory life sentence for murder is the heinousness of the offence alone, whether or not the offender is also judged to present a future risk to the public. It has to be imposed whether or not the
1010
offender presents a future risk. That is the nature of the mandatory life sentence, the continuance of which has now been accepted by this House.
The mandatory life sentence passed for murder does not therefore divide up into punishment and security elements in the same way as a discretionary sentence, and it follows, I think, that one cannot have a similar procedure by which the trial judge announces in open court a period relating to the punishment element of the sentence. It also follows that there is no point in time in the sentence at which its justification switches from being punishment to being the protection of the public, and at which the lawfulness of the prisoner's continued detention must be reviewed by a body having the powers of a court for ECHR purposes.
So I believe that it would actually be incompatible with the reasoning adopted by the European Court of Human Rights to apply the procedure set out in the government amendments to mandatory life sentence cases, as the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and others seek to do.
Lord Nathan's amendments also seek to remove the discretion which the Commons amendments allow for the trial judge exceptionally not to announce in open court a period related to the punishment of the offence in a discretionary life sentence case. But again this discretion—and I should emphasise that it is not more than a discretion which the trial judge can use or not as he sees fit—is based on the reasoning adopted by the European court.
A discretionary life sentence will nearly always be imposed because there is some element of mental instability which makes it impossible to know at the time of sentencing when it will he safe to release the prisoner. In these cases, clearly the new procedures should apply. But there may very exceptionally be a discretionary life sentence which is imposed purely because of the seriousness of the offence.
I do not need to give more than one simple example; namely, that of a terrorist who sets out to blow up a jumbo jet and by merciful providence the bomb is discovered just before the plane takes off and therefore no crime of murder is committed. It is perfectly possible to imagine a set of circumstances in which a judge would come to the conclusion that the crime committed was in itself so ghastly, and the seriousness of the offence was so grave, that a life sentence should be passed, not because there was any danger of the person at some point in the sentence then becoming a danger to the public again, but because life imprisonment was necessary to mark the full horror of the offence that had been committed —the attempted murder of hundreds of people by a terrorist act.
Under the proposals in the Commons amendments, in every discretionary life sentence case in which the judge had stated a term at the time of sentencing, the prisoner would be entitled to have his continued detention after the term reviewed by an independent body having the status of a court for the purposes of the European Convention on Human Rights. We propose that that body should be the Parole Board. We thought it right to entrust the task to the Parole

1011
Board rather than some completely new body because the members of the board have great expertise and know ledge in matters relevant to assessing the early release of prisoners. We think that there would be considerable benefit in bringing their expertise and knowledge to bear on the release of discretionary life sentence prisoners.
However, in order to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights' requirement that those cases should be considered by a body having the powers and status of a court, the Parole Board will have to operate under special procedures in those cases. First, and crucially, the board's decision on release will be binding on the Secretary of State, not just advisory. More detailed procedural matters will he laid down in rules made by the Secretary of State under clause 26(5) of the Bill. The panel of the Parole Board, which will consider discretionary life sentence cases, would be chaired by a judicial member of the board and one of its members would be a psychiatrist. The prisoner would be entitled to appear before the panel and to be legally represented. He would be eligible to receive legal aid. We are confident that the procedures concerned will satisfy the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights and that it is not necessary for them to be spelt out in the Bill for that purpose. We shall come to Amendment No. 2AH, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, later.
If the panel concluded that the prisoner's continued detention was no longer necessary to protect the public, the Parole Board would direct the Secretary of State to release him. The Secretary of State would then be obliged to release the prisoner on licence, subject only to a power, exceptionally, to delay release for up to six months if it was in the public interest to do so.
I can understand why some of your Lordships will be concerned about that power, and that concern is reflected in Amendment No. 2AG, but there is good reason for it. The European Court recognised in its judgment that a limited power to delay release might in some circumstances be justified on the grounds of what it termed "expediency".
We believe that it may be necessary on very rare occasions for the Home Secretary to delay a life sentence prisoner's release when there are compelling reasons, such as the prospect that release at the particular time in question would cause public outrage and public danger. Again, I can give a simple example which I am sure will bring home to the House how necessary it is to have that power. The release of a terrorist at the time when a particular anniversary of the tragedy caused by his actions is being marked by a public meeting might turn a peaceful demonstration into a public riot. The Home Secretary should be able to pre vent that by delaying release for a short period, but he would use the power only in the most exceptional circumstances and he would of course be accountable to Parliament for any decisions to use that power.
The prisoner's release would be on licence and, under the Government's proposals, licences would, as now, last until the offender's death, unless he was recalled to prison in the meantime. Amendment No. 2AC, on the other hand, proposes that in
1012
discretionary cases there should be an option of waiving the licence after a certain period rather than having it continue in force until the offender's death. I cannot recommend that to your Lordships. It seems to me that that would undermine the concept that a life sentence is a sentence for life, even though a proportion of it will be spent on release on licence rather than in custody.
Furthermore, bearing in mind that the offender will have been given a life sentence in the first place because of some element of instability which makes it impossible at the time of sentencing to predict when it will be safe to release him, it seems odd not to guard against a situation in which, for instance, a sex offender, after apparent rehabilitation, shows signs of once again wanting to molest children. So long as the life licence remains in force, the offender can be supervised, additional conditions can be attached if necessary to keep him out of contact with potential victims, and ultimately the offender can be returned to prison. We would fail in our duty to protect the public from offenders of that kind if we did not retain that ability to supervise their activities and prevent their committing further offences for the rest of their days.
In conclusion, I should point out that, unlike the amendments introduced in your Lordships' House, the amendments proposed by the other place include transitional provisions for prisoners who are already serving discretionary life sentences. They will become eligible for review by the Parole Board in its new capacity once their existing tariffs have been served. The prisoners whose cases were the subject of the ECHR judgment will therefore benefit from the new arrangements. The amendments proposed by the other place also cover a number of other cases not dealt with in your Lordships' amendments, including prisoners sentenced concurrently to more than one life or determinate sentence, and prisoners transferred from other jurisdictions to serve their sentences in England and Wales.
Your Lordships will see from that explanation that the Government and the other place have accepted the wisdom of your Lordships' view that the opportunity should be taken in this Bill to bring our law and practice on discretionary life sentences into conformity of the requirements of the ECHR. That in itself is a notable achievement for your Lordships' House. The Bill, and our law and practice hereafter, will be the better for those changes which have been made at your Lordships' behest. By accepting the amendments made in the other place and not insisting on your Lordships' amendments on the mandatory life sentence and on life sentence procedures, your Lordships can ensure that the Bill becomes law without delay, so that those and the other important changes introduced by the Bill may be implemented as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2A in lieu thereof.—(Lord Waddington.)
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Strabolgi): My Lords, I must now call Amendment No. 2AA as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A.
4.45 p.m.
AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2A
2AA Line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert:—
("(1) This Part applies to a person sentenced to—

(a) life imprisonment, whether or not for an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law; or

(b) during Her Majesty's pleasure or for life under section 53 of the 1933 Act; or

(c) custody for life under section 8 of the 1982 Act.

where the Court by which he was sentenced ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the Order.").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2AA. My Amendment No. 2AA stands in the names of myself, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Campbell of Alloway. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 2AB, 2AC and 2AG. There are therefore four substantive amendments to which I shall speak. They have been grouped together for convenience of debate, but I should make it clear that none of them is dependent on another and each therefore can stand on its own feet. I shall therefore move them separately in due course. The remainder of the long list of amendments that have been grouped together are consequential and I need not refer to them further at this stage.
I preface my remarks by saying that it will certainly come as a disappointment to many of your Lordships as well as to myself that the amendments to the Bill, adopted so overwhelmingly by your Lordships' House, have been rejected by another place. It is rare, if not unique, for a substantive amendment to be introduced after Third Reading in both Houses, especially when the subject has for long been known and under discussion. However, I draw comfort from the Commons amendment that is now before us. It is designed to bring the law and practice of this country into conformity with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights on discretionary life sentences in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell. It embodies provisions for the court to determine the penal term and for an independent tribunal (the board) to determine questions relating to release.
My purpose in moving these reasoned amendments is to invoke the support of your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber —which, after all, is one of its main functions—to improve the drafting and to ensure compliance with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. The amendments also include provisions to extend their application to all life sentences for similar reasons, to which I shall refer later.
I turn first to Amendment No. 2AG which would delete subsection (7) of the Commons Amendment No. 2A. Subsection (7) provides that:
"The Secretary of State may defer a prisoner's release … for a period not exceeding six months"
after the board has directed that he be released. A key feature of the decision in the Thynne case is that
1014
questions of release of discretionary life prisoners shall be determined by a court or a court-like body which is independent of the Executive.
The problems which can be confronted and to which the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred —problems about riots and so forth on release of a prisoner—apply not only to those who are sentenced to life imprisonment. They could well apply to others also. If that argument were to prevail, it must be applied across the board to the release of all prisoners and not just to life prisoners or, indeed, discretionary life prisoners. The existence of a power for the Secretary of State to defer for six months a release ordered by the board would, in the opinion of many who are well qualified to speak, be a direct contravention of the Court's ruling. Amendment No. 2AG is designed to rectify that situation.
Secondly, I refer to subsection (3) of Commons Amendment No. 2A, which provides that any release of a discretionary life prisoner shall be on licence. The judgment in the Thynne case makes it clear that in the case of a discretionary life prisoner (which was the subject of the decision) a court—or in this case the board—must have power to bring the licence to an end. That is the background to the amended paragraph (3) (b) contained in Amendment No. 2AC. Noble Lords will note that under Amendment No. 2AC the revised subsection (3) (a) provides that in the case of any other prisoner—that is to say, a mandatory life prisoner—the licence shall continue until death. So the distinction is clearly made there.
I come now to Commons Amendment No. 2A subsections (1) and (2) which adopt the principle that the trial judge shall determine the period during which the life prisoner shall remain in custody as punishment. The function of Amendment No. 2AB is to clarify that and to ensure that it applies in all cases. It seems to me that if the point made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House were to be pressed forward, then the court should determine that it was not to be a fixed period during which the prisoner was to be held in prison but indeed for the remainder of his life. That would be preferable to inserting a provision which, on the face of it, looks as though the court has an option whether or not to exercise the power and to make the order. If the court had that option (which, on the face of the clause as I read it, it has), the criteria according to which it should exercise that option would have to be clearly defined.
Finally, I refer to Amendment No. 2AA, which would make the Commons amendment, subject to the other amendments to which I referred, apply not only to discretionary lifers but also to those awarded a mandatory life sentence. The reasons for proposing Amendment No. 2AA are principally two. First, although the Thynne case related to discretionary life sentences, it is widely felt that when the case of a mandatory life sentence comes before the European Court of Human Rights it will apply the same principle that it has established for discretionary life sentences.
The United Kingdom played a significant part in creating the European Convention on Human Rights and therefore the establishment of the court. The

1015
convention reflects much which lies at the foundation of English law. England has been regarded over the centuries as the cradle and indeed the bastion of the rule of law. It is therefore particularly distressing—I know that this view is shared in all quarters of your Lordships' House—when this country is condemned for failure to maintain its heritage. That was the situation in which we found ourselves: condemned in the Thynne case and indeed the Weeks case before it. It is surely appropriate that every step should be taken now to ensure that the condemnation in Thynne does not recur when the case of a mandatory life sentence comes before the court, as I am advised that it shortly will.
There is a further point of great significance. Your Lordships' House considered at an earlier stage of the Bill the very wide range of offences, and the circumstances in which they may be committed, in which a life sentence, be it discretionary or mandatory, may be awarded. Under the Commons amendment the provisions relating to the term of imprisonment as punishment and for release apply —for instance, in the case of a convicted rapist sentenced in the discretion of the court—to life imprisonment. On the other hand, under the Commons amendment it is clear that in the pathetic case of a husband who kills his wife at her request when she is suffering from some terminal and painful disease, and is therefore guilty of murder, will not come within those provisions. He will be dealt with as at present by decisions made in secret by the Home Secretary or, more frequently, by a junior Minister; decisions which were so strongly condemned by your Lordships at an earlier stage of the Bill.
Approving our amendments in your Lordships' House will enable them to be considered by another place. To do so does not create conflict or confrontation but would, I hope and believe, promote the substantial step forward represented by the Commons amendment. It is in that spirit that I put them before noble Lords and hope that they will commend themselves to your Lordships in all quarters of the House. At the appropriate time I shall move as required each of the amendments which has been grouped with this one. For the present I confine myself to Amendment No. 2AA. I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2AA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
Lord Richard: My Lords, I rise to support this amendment. I shall do so very briefly indeed. There is a veil of secrecy which governments like to try to maintain in as faintly transparent a form as possible about the way in which Ministers approach the very difficult It instances of people sentenced to life imprisonment. The veil has been lifted a little—I am not sure to what degree intentionally—within the past few years and some figures have been given to the Select Committee.
The fact of the matter is that in most cases Home Office Ministers required prisoners to serve longer minimum periods than trial judges considered appropriate. As the House knows, the present procedure is that when someone is sentenced to life
1016
imprisonment for murder the trial judge makes a recommendation as to how long the person should serve. That recommendation goes to the Lord Chief Justice, who considers it and makes his own recommendation. It is then forwarded to the Home Office. There is therefore some kind of judicial action —or at least, judicial thought—given to the appropriate time during which an individual sentenced to life imprisonment for murder should stay in prison.
If the position is, as these figures seem to show (perhaps I may give them in a moment) that Ministers required prisoners to serve longer minimum periods than trial judges considered appropriate, then I am bound to say that I find it an extraordinary and disturbing position and one which the House should not lightly accept.
Between 1st April and 30th September 1988 minimum periods were set for 106 persons sentenced to life imprisonment for murder. In 63 of those cases Home Office Ministers laid down longer minimum periods than the trial judge recommended. In 34 cases they accepted the trial judge's recommendation. In only nine cases out of 106 they set lower minimum periods than the trial judge. More recently published figures indicate that of 274 mandatory life sentences considered in 1990 Ministers set a longer period than that recommended by the trial judge in 90 cases and a shorter period in 43 cases.
The point is simple and can be made briefly. It is wrong in principle for Ministers to lengthen sentences by Executive decree in this manner. Unlike a judge, the Minister makes his decision without having heard the evidence in court. The effect of the decision is that it is a sentencing decision. It is a decision taken by the Executive in the absence of any great knowledge of the case. The Executive has not been present and heard the evidence. It is a decision taken behind closed doors as to how long someone should spend in prison. That decision having been taken behind closed doors, the prisoner cannot appeal against it. Frequently he does not know about it until he tries to apply for parole. Then, by some strange process of mathematical calculation, he may be able to work out when he is likely to be released.
Similarly, decisions for or against the eventual release of life sentence prisoners and on the recall of such prisoners on licence can result in further lengthy periods of imprisonment; yet those decisions also are taken by an executive process whereby the parole board makes recommendations to Ministers. The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, ensures that decisions on the release and the recall of life sentence prisoners will be made by a process which, unlike the current system, will satisfy the requirements of natural justice. I hope that we all agree that those of our fellow citizens who are sentenced to life imprisonment for murder are entitled to treatment firmly based and clearly seen to be based upon the principles and requirements of natural justice. In my view, the present position is not so based. The half-way house that the Government propose is not so based.

1017
The noble Lord the Leader of the House sought to erect an edifice to justify the present position based upon an argument that murder is the most heinous of crimes and therefore demands different treatment. That, frankly, is nonsense. I shall not go through the arguments again. Many of us have practised in courts or have sat as a judge. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, has practised in the courts at some stage of his political and legal career. He knows as well as any of us that one cannot simply say murder is murder and is therefore the most heinous of offences. Sometimes it is not. Sometimes it is a pathetic offence committed for humanitarian motives. To treat all murderers in a similar category and to give a discretion to the Home Secretary to decide when they should be released is something which I find offensive. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and others goes some way towards rectifying that situation.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I also support the amendment. Superimposed on the text of the Bill is a four-tier drafting process which tends to obscure the nature of the essence of the disagreement as it now arises between the two Houses. There are the Lords amendments; there are the Commons proposed amendments and new clauses; there are the Lords proposed amendments and the Commons proposed new clauses; and there is a Lords amendment to a Lords proposed amendment, Amendment No. 2AH. That interesting, if somewhat perplexing process of law making, is worthy of the pen of A. P. Herbert and the satirical revelries of the honourable Mr. Justice Cocklecarrot.
However, we have to get right away from the misconception that the release of life prisoners be left to the will of the Home Secretary, because he is answerable to Parliament. That is a total misconception. Surely we have to accept that the question of release is a judicial function and not an Executive function. We have to set our face against the lengthening of sentences by Executive decree behind closed doors, to which the noble Lord, Lord Richard, referred. It is simply no longer acceptable.
I shall return to the argument of my noble friend the Leader of the House in one moment. The broad principle is no longer open to question in view of the reasoning of the Court of Human Rights. It should not be open to question anyway, apart from the reasoning of the Court of Human Rights, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
What is the essence of the disagreement as it now arises? It is not in the same context as it arose before between the two Houses. I mention that to clear the air. First, another place wishes to confine the machinery for early release of life prisoners to discretionary life sentences, whereas the Lords proposed amendments apply to all life sentences. Surely it is wrong in principle and unacceptable in practice that in our country we should have a disparate regime on release of life prisoners as between the mandatory sentences or sentences where the term is not set, on the one hand, and the discretionary sentences on the other. It makes no sense. I join issue
1018
—respectfully of course, but totally—with my noble friend the Leader of the House on his interpretation of that Court of Human Rights decision. If we maintain this nonsensical disparity, assuredly, as I read the decision—I am open to correction of course—Her Majesty's Government will find themselves again in the pillory in the Court of Human Rights as regards mandatory sentences with a case which is on its way at present.
The second essence of disagreement—I have time only to deal with the essence—is that another place proposes that the machinery for release shall be the parole board, an advisory institute, with power in the Secretary of State to defer release for six months after the board directs release; whereas the Lords proposed Amendment No. 2AH (to which we shall come in a moment; it is relevant to the essence of disagreement) requires the board when exercising those functions to consist of a High Court judge as chairman with two other members, and to act as a judicial tribunal independently of the Secretary of State. Amendment No. 2AG, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, removes the power of the Secretary of State to defer release for six months.
I found the concepts of public outrage and public riot a little dramatic and rather far fetched. I do not accept that questions of release should be left entirely to the will of the Secretary of State. If the Parole Board is to discharge its functions in accordance with the reasoning of the Court of Human Rights, surely it is utterly essential not only that it should act but that it should be seen to have acted judicially and independently of the Secretary of State and the Executive. That requirement should appear on the face of the statute.
Apart from wishing to forestall criticism of the Government, whom I support in other contexts, at the Court of Human Rights, I believe that if the amendments which I support were carried into the Bill it would tend to mitigate one of the most serious causes of unrest in our prisons according not only to the findings of your Lordships' Select Committee but to an express finding in the Woolf Report. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, there is no hint of confrontation with another place; no insistence on any Lords amendments that have been disagreed by another place; no question of any lost Bill; and no question of any pressure. All that we ask is fair consideration by another place of these amendments in the new context in which they arise in the light of your Lordships' debate today. Surely, that is a reasonable stand to take, so that we may afford before Royal Assent a uniform, simple, intelligible procedure for the release of life prisoners consistent in all respects with the reasoning, as I understand it, of the Court of Human Rights. It is a procedure which is seen as fair, not only by your Lordships but also by the general public, to the victim, and, according to the evidence that we have received, to the prisoner.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I too support the amendments. That will come as no surprise to your Lordships as I am a member of the Select Committee.

1019
I wish to ask two questions. As I understand the Commons amendment, the present procedure for life sentences for murder remains as it is and the new procedure applies only to the discretionary life sentence. I speak as a Scottish judge and not as an English judge. I understand that the English judge will write a recommendation in secret as regards the mandatory life sentence but under these provisions will make a recommendation in public as regards the discretionary life sentence. Is there logic in telling a prisoner receiving a discretionary life sentence, who will probably be mentally disturbed, what the punitive period is but keeping it secret from the person who everyone in the court knows is never likely to commit that offence again? Why is it necessary to keep the punitive element secret from the person convicted of murder? That appears to be one question totally unanswered in the Commons amendment.
The second question is covered neither by the Commons amendments nor by the amendments proposed to them. It is: is there to be a right of appeal against the punitive element in a life sentence?
Lord Ackner: My Lords, the reason why murder is not the most heinous of crimes is that unlike many other countries we have no categories of murder. That fact only has to be stated to make one realise that murder covers a wide range. On the other hand, the Government are intent on taking this uncategorised crime and putting it into, so to speak, a hermetically sealed compartment. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said with almost the nostalgic ring of an advocate, 'Consider the ultimate finality of the crime". That is known in the profession as a good jury point but when analysed it is not over full of substance.
There is a terrible finality in relation to the victim who is killed by reckless driving. There is a terrible and equal finality to the victim of manslaughter. In the case of manslaughter the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm will be identical in many cases. The only reason why murder is not the right category is that the offender has managed to set up provocation or diminished responsibility. Therefore, the justification for this categorisation is totally wanting.
As a member of the judiciary I am anxious that the quality of the administration of justice in our country is not laughed at. There is now to be a new regime, not because the Government have seen the light, which necessitates according little more than the principles of natural justice to a prisoner, but because the Court of Human Rights has said so. That is quite rightly so. The new regime will give the discretionary life sentence prisoner the right to hear how long the penal element is and, I imagine, a right to appeal. That was proposed by the Lord Chief Justice. It will also give him the right to make an application to be released when that period has ended, to be represented and to have legal aid. All those aspects are most sensible. However, that regime is not to be accorded to the subject of a mandatory life sentence. Why on earth not? It is a sound, sensible, straightforward process that takes the art of sentencing away from the Executive where it should never be and entrusts it, together with all other sentences, to the judiciary.
1020
Thinking back, I feel a deep sympathy for whoever is retained on behalf of the Government to argue their case before the Court of Human Rights. He must justify that absurdity. No doubt it will be pointed out that there are examples other than those provided by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I was going to instance the unsuccessful terrorist. But the Government wish them to be put into a separate category although the life sentence imposed upon the terrorist is clearly imposed because he remains, at least for many years, a continuing danger.
Let us take the case of an arsonist who has managed to burn down several houses, just avoiding, by chance, killing a number of people. He will be the subject matter of a discretionary life sentence. He will be accorded all those privileges wrung out of an unenthusiastic government and only forced into this Bill by your Lordships' initiative. Let us compare him with an elderly gentleman who, because he must live in an urban area where the prospect of being mugged is very high, unlawfully but I think understandably, carries with him a swordstick—and there has been a recent case. He is attacked by a very large but unarmed assailant. He unsheathes his swordstick, runs his assailant through and kills him.
I ask your Lordships to accept that in the circumstances that is using more force in the operation of self defence than is reasonable and that that, in law, however wrong it may be, is murder. Therefore, that man goes down for murder. He is not to be told how long is the penal period and he is not to have any right of appeal in that regard. He is not to be able to apply to any judicial body to be released. He can have no representation. He is in the hands of the bureaucrats and the politicians.
That is why I rise to speak to your Lordships. I believe that that is an insult to the quality of justice which we are here to administer in this country.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, any resistance to the House of Commons raises the question of whether a matter of principle is involved. I find that there is a very serious issue of principle involved with regard to this amendment. I do not say that a question of conscience is involved in whether a life sentence or a determinate sentence should be passed for murder. However, as to whether we treat those serving mandatory life sentences humanely involves a very deep question of principle.
I recognise that the Government and Members of the House generally have a very high regard for the protection of the public. However, there is also the question of whether an individual should be treated humanely in accordance with the ethics of a Christian country or even a humanist country, if such a country came into existence. Therefore, I believe that it would be monstrous, for reasons already adequately set out, to say that those serving discretionary sentences should be able to go before a tribunal, be represented and so on, but that the same treatment should not be accorded a different category of life prisoner.
I suppose that there are other Members of this House who, like me, are in contact with life prisoners. I shall not dwell on that at great length. The other day I was asked whether I felt anything in common with

1021
one of those gentlemen who had committed terrible crimes. I said, "I have everything in common with him. He is a member of the human race". That is true of all your Lordships.
That is how I see the matter. One must think not only of the public but also of the treatment of the individual. Hardly anyone is in favour of flogging the individual although that may be a far less severe penalty than keeping him in prison for many years. However, there are those who are ready to lock up people indefinitely. To put it crudely, I believe that that is wicked.
Let us take the immediate issue before us. I know of one prisoner who has served 25 years for two rapes. He has never had access to a tribunal and has never been given any reason for the length of his sentence. Under the new beneficent proposals of the Government, possibly improved as they should be, he should come before a tribunal, be given representation and so on. That is the case of the man serving 25 years for rape.
I know another man who has been in prison for 25 years for murder. Equally, that prisoner has had no opportunity of putting his case before a tribunal. None of those minimum conditions of humanity is observed and if the Government have their way that will continue. It will continue to be a hole in the corner decision reached, almost certainly in this case, on political grounds.
I regard this as an issue of principle and conscience. I shall certainly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, the Government have made a definite advance in the amendment which my noble friend has proposed. To some extent we can give ourselves the credit for that because the amendment would never have been proposed if we had not taken the line that we did about mandatory life sentences. That very definite advance is due to the action of this House. The House of Commons has made a considerable advance in proposing the amendment to us as an alternative to our original view.
Having said that, I wish that I could persuade my noble friend and the Government to take a more sensible view about mandatory life sentences and the unique heinousness of murder. Perhaps I may give one or two reasons for saying that. Many have been rehearsed and I do not wish to take up too much time. First, let us reflect upon the fact that the laws of Scotland and of England with regard to homicide are not identical. Let us then consider that neither the laws of America nor those of most of Europe are identical with our own law of murder. Either everybody else is out of step and we alone are in step or murder is not a uniquely heinous offence. There is no escape from that dilemma.
I shall give one or two examples. Before doing so I wish to deal with the European Court, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. It is quite true, as my noble friend said, that the European Court has distinctly not yet decided upon the separate question of mandatory as distinct from discretionary
1022
life sentences. However, for the life of me I cannot believe but that the European Court will be asked to decide that very point in the near future. If I were a betting man, which I am not, I should wager at least 20 to 1 that the court will decide that the same principles apply to the mandatory life sentence as apply to the discretionary life sentence. In that case, this country will once again be put in the humiliating position of having to legislate because it has broken the European Convention on Human Rights.
My noble friend is entitled to his opinion that I am wrong about that. It is a matter of opinion and it will remain so. However, I wonder whether it is worth yet another humiliation, even if there is a respectable risk of it. I thought I heard my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner rather share that view.
Let us consider a few cases because there is a grey area surrounding murder. First, let us consider the defence of necessity in the case of Dudley and Stephens, regarding the edible cabin boy. That was decided in the middle of the 19th Century. It was ultimately decided that the defence of necessity was not available in cases of murder. And, although that was the period of the heyday of capital punishment, the two accused were only made to serve either six or 18 months. That is the uniquely heinous offence we are asked to accept as a matter of principle. I cannot do it. It seems to me to be nonsense.
Let us consider the cases of duress. Lynch in the House of Lords was decided in the last decade. Duress was allowed on a charge of being an accessory before the fact in a terrorism case where a man was forced, under threat of a pointed gun, to drive the murderers to the place where the deed was actually committed. It was followed by the case of Abbott in the Privy Council, which decided that duress was not available to the perpetrator of the murder. Lynch, in its turn, was overruled by this House in its appellate capacity in the case of Howe and Bannister. It decided that duress was not available in cases of murder at all and that Lynch was wrongly decided.
It may be that we are all fools. I am quite prepared to accept that as a logical possibility. The only other conclusion is that murder is not a uniquely heinous offence. Enormous grey areas exist—which I shall not paint in; they were referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner and others—in cases involving, for instance, provocation. The grey areas between manslaughter and murder are almost infinite. In all gentleness I say this to my noble friend: either as a judge or as counsel I have probably been involved in not less than 50 murder cases at some time or other in my misspent life. I have prosecuted and defended in cases where the charge was murder but it was agreed on all sides that it was proper for the prosecution to accept a plea of manslaughter, which does not carry a mandatory life sentence, and in which the person concerned was sentenced to a period of imprisonment which did not amount to more than a few years.
I remember a case I defended in which a man was charged with murder. In the end the prosecution accepted a plea of manslaughter. I made the following plea in mitigation, "My Lord, if this case had been tried by the magistrates, as it ought to have been, there

1023
would have been a very small fine imposed and that would have been an end of the matter". The judge let the man off and placed him on probation.
When we are dealing with an area such as this, to say that we are dealing with a uniquely heinous offence is absolute rubbish. I do not want to torpedo this Bill and I do not know what the results of the voting will be. But the idea that a mandatory life sentence should be excluded from the ambit of the, in many ways, excellent advance made by the Commons in the first series of its amendments on the Marshalled List, is one that cannot for a moment be entertained. Murder is not a uniquely heinous offence and there is no rigid distinction between murder and manslaughter which can be set up on that basis.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: My Lords, it is with heartfelt relief that I heard this afternoon of the retention of the mandatory life sentence by your Lordships' House for the crime of murder. I am sure that that is the right decision. We now come to the consideration of Commons Amendment No. 2A, and Amendments Nos. 2AA to 2AJ and many others subsequently being proposed by Members of this House as amendments to Amendment No. 2A. I am not a lawyer and I find the language of the amendments on pages two and three difficult to elucidate. I thank my noble friend for his clarification.
My understanding, as far as it goes, is that the other place, in its Amendment No. 2A, is allowing that in the case of a discretionary life prisoner the part of the sentence decided by the judge at the time of trial to deal with retribution and to act as a deterrent should be stated in open court and be subject to appeal. I welcome that Commons amendment wholeheartedly. I believe it is referred to as the "relevant part". However, I do not believe that that is defined.
When that part of the sentence allowing for remission and parole has been served, the board will assess the risk to the public in terms of possible future violent offences and decide the terms of release or further detention to protect the public. I welcome that wholeheartedly. It is good practice because, having suffered his punishment, the prisoner is encouraged to reform to prove that he is no longer a risk to the public in order to obtain release, whether under supervision or on licence. It is therefore a positive incentive to good behaviour. If taken seriously it could result in a reduction of the prison population while continuing to safeguard the public, which everybody welcomes.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, and others, take the provision a step further in that they make it applicable also to those sentenced for murder under the provision of the mandatory life sentence. That is logical. Once again it would be a positive incentive to reform and the safeguard to the public would continue. If the risk remained and the prisoner was still of a violent turn of mind at the end of the "relevant part" of his sentence, he would not be released. If he were released and it was felt that he might commit another violent offence after release, either under supervision or on licence, he
1024
could be recalled to prison by the Home Secretary at any time during his life. That is the real protection to the public of a life sentence.
I have doubts about some of the detailed amendments, particularly Amendments Nos. 2AC(b), 2AG and 2AH, or indeed if the Home Secretary continues to be accountable to Parliament for the prisoner's release. But I ask my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal to look at the general gist of these amendments; that those receiving a mandatory life sentence, like those receiving a discretionary life sentence, should be sentenced in open court, such sentence to include a statement of the minimum period for retribution and deterrence, which should be subject to appeal. That is the most important part of the amendments before the House this afternoon.
After that "relevant period" has been served, with remission, the decision as to whether or not the prisoner constitutes a risk to the public and can be released under supervision or later on licence should be made based on the prisoner's subsequent behaviour. That would place all lifers on a par, which seems to be fair and logical, and would give the prisoner a positive incentive to reform and cease his violent behaviour. If the prisoner did not reform, he could only look forward to a long period in prison in order to protect the public; for some, that could mean literally imprisonment for life. I hope that my noble friend will seriously reconsider his views on the incompatibility of this amendment as I feel that it would result in a much more just situation in the future, when this important Bill is enacted.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to point out that cases have been quoted during the course of this debate, but as a mere lay magistrate I have always understood that it is very dangerous to quote examples. However, I suppose if noble and learned Lords do so, that is different. I always feel that they have a doubled-edged sword; they can come here and make comments on the laws which they will administer. Other Members of your Lordships' House are not in quite the same situation. It is rather like the grocer deciding the parliamentary rules that will go with his particular profession—but that is by the way.
So far as I am aware, I do not know any murderers. Sadly, I did know two victims. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, used the case of the husband who killed his wife at her request. Since she is dead we cannot actually check that. That is my first point. I did once ask the opinion of my son-in-law who has been a general practitioner for many years. He said: "During a long time in practice I have known many people who ask for poor old auntie, poor old mother, or poor old father to be put out of their agony, but I have never known a patient to ask me to put them out of life". I respect what he said. He was not making that up. He has nothing to gain. He also said, "In any case, why should I commit murder three times a week to please the state?". Therefore, we must be very careful.
It is very easy to plead in court that the victim was violent. The victim is dead. Then we come to the case quoted from my own locality. I do not know which noble Lord referred to that case, but he did not seem to know the end of it. In fact, that person was not

1025
convicted of murder; he was convicted of manslaughter and I think he was finally put on probation because it was proved that he had acted in his own defence. Therefore, in quoting cases and when making laws we must be very careful to be accurate.
It is my view that murder is not difficult to decide. As I understand it, the question is: was it premeditated? That should not be very difficult to decide. My noble friend Lord Richard nods his head. Obviously the Law Lords have found something else to bring in. When I listen to their explanations I can see how, as a magistrate, I become confused. That is what they are paid to do. I knew at the beginning what the crimes were, but after I had listened to a defence for an hour I was not quite sure. Therefore, they achieved their object.
Murder is a very serious offence. It is an offence in which the victim cannot have anything to say. Therefore, we have to treat it differently. I can only say that both the cases that have been quoted do not seem to be very valid when called in aid to vote against the amendments of the House of Commons. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will say that he did know such a case. I am merely saying that if a person is dead it is very easy to say that he or she wanted to die. Most people do not want to die; they will hang on until the very last moment, even if they are in great pain. It is sad, but it is often easier for the person who is looking after them to say, "Poor thing. She wanted to die". I have a brain surgeon in my family and I am keeping out of his way. If I am admitted to his hospital I shall have all my organs removed, no doubt for the benefit of mankind.
However, to be serious, it should not be difficult to determine murder. It is much more difficult to determine some other crimes. But surely in this day and age, this crime should have much more straightforward implications that we can call in aid. I see that my noble friend Lord Richard is nodding his head. He has obviously had to defend quite a number of murderers. Perhaps he will tell us how he did that.
I believe that the Commons amendments meet the case and that it would be foolish to prolong the debate on such a point.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, I should like to enter into this debate on one point, and one point only, and to do so briefly. We have been discussing the great principles of justice. We have been discussing the principles which will ensure that those who receive the most serious sentence known in our calendar are treated with openness, fairness, judicially, according to principle and not secretly, unfairly, bureaucratically and politically according to the whim of some Minister.
The whole of this debate rests on one case—that of Thynne and Others—which has been referred to by most speakers. Thynne is not just a case; Thynne is, in fact, a human being. Thynne is a man who has been in prison for 16 years on a discretionary life sentence —and not for murder. He is a man whom no one can
1026
describe as mentally disturbed or a danger to the public. It is equivalent to a determinate sentence of 24 years.
A number of us have been for years fighting for the justice of his case. Having been blocked by our courts and the Home Office we have had to go to the European Court of Human Rights with the greatest difficulty and at a great length of time. Eventually, in October last, as your Lordships know, Thynne was vindicated. The case had been made over and over again that he should be entitled to have this unending sentence reviewed judicially, in public, and reviewed in circumstances in which he could make his case and know why he was being kept for this inordinate time. That court said, "Yes, you were right all along".
One can imagine the effect of that decision on Mr. Thynne. After all these years he had, through his lawyers, triumphed. What is the reaction of the Home Office to that situation? Its reaction to that defeat is set out in a letter from the noble Lord's previous department, the Home Office, four months after that decision. The Home Office stated:
"This judgment does not have any immediate effect on Mr. Thynne's case. In the meantime, his case will continue to be dealt with under the existing arrangements. It has been decided that his case should be referred to the local review committee at his local prison in February 1992 as the first stage towards a further review by the Parole Board".
Another two, three, or four years is the result of this man going to the European Court of Human Rights. That looks very much like a bunch of sour grapes.
I do not know what the House thinks of that reaction. It is—is it not?—a reflection of the small-mindedness and of the inflexible determination of the Home Office to cling on to its own decisions and its own procedures. I suggest that it underlines the importance of voting for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House, when he replies to this debate, to tell the House whether the Home Office will now, immediately, release this man, Mr. Thynne, about whom we have heard so much in this debate.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall try to be brief. I speak as a former chairman of the Parole Board and not as a person who has had any experience in the courts. I very much agree with the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Platt. She and I, and indeed the rest of the Select Committee, did not agree on mandatory life sentences but I am glad to say that we now find ourselves on the same side of this argument.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, dealt with the rather unhappy situation which he will face, assuming we are unsuccessful this afternoon. Counsel for the British Government in the case that will come before the European Court of Human Rights will have to explain why there are two wholly different release procedures—one for people sentenced to mandatory terms and one for those who have received a discretionary term. I do not know how counsel will begin his argument. Will he use the "murder is a heinous offence" argument? I do not think he will get very far with that.
Perhaps I may put the problem to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in terms of how the Government's position will be perceived by those both in this country

1027
and outside it who follow matters of this kind with care and attention. At the beginning of his speech the noble Lord. Lord Waddington, said, in respect of the discretionary life sentence case, that one of the issues that will have to be dealt with by the tribunal which is to be set up—the word "tribunal" is not used in the government amendment but in reality there will be a tribunal within the Parole Board—concerns the risk that will be posed to the public by the release of that man or woman. That is precisely the issue that will come before the tribunal.
But what does the noble Lord believe happens at the moment when issues are being discussed by the Parole Board in regard to mandatory life sentence cases? It is precisely that issue. The Parole Board does not spend its time arguing about what is the appropriate length of the penal term. It discusses exclusively, in regard to mandatory life sentence cases, the risk that would be involved to the public were that man to come out of prison. I do not begin to understand—with great respect, the noble Lord the Leader of the House did not satisfy me or, I suspect, many other noble Lords—how one can possibly differentiate between those two groups of offenders. The concern is precisely the same.
In fact the position is even worse than that. Speaking on the basis of my own experience as chairman of the Parole Board, I can say that in a number of murder cases the character of the crimes was truly appalling; in other cases people who had been convicted of murder had committed offences of a kind which would create a degree of public understanding as to why the offence had been committed. However, when one considered the case of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility one was often considering some of the most dangerous people in custody. What I do not understand is how one can possibly justify having a tribunal for the most dangerous people in custody but allow Ministers to deal with all the other cases. There seems to be no logical or rational basis for such an argument. Accordingly, I very much hope that the House will agree with the amendment which we are now debating.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not know whether it was some diabolical plot on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, which persuaded him to start off with what many might think his worst rather than his best point. I urge the House to think carefully about these arguments concerning deferment of release.
On one point we can all agree—in its judgment the European Court of Human Rights said that in certain circumstances release could be delayed. It said that release could be delayed on grounds of expediency. What precisely is meant by expediency is a very difficult question to answer, but no one will argue that the European Court of Human Rights did not say that release could be deferred in certain cases on grounds of expediency. I merely pointed out that it seems only sensible to recognise the danger that could occur if a person's release coincided with some demonstration or the like. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway thinks that that is entirely fanciful. I should
1028
have thought that it was a commonsensical illustration of what could occur. With the greatest respect to your Lordships, it hardly seems to be a very good argument to say that, because a person who has a determinate sentence cannot have his release deferred, therefore one should not defer the release of a lifer. That is like saying, "We are in an awful mess with regard to people who have determinate sentences which is leading us into great difficulty; we shall make quite sure that we get ourselves into precisely the same difficulty in the case of lifers". I cannot see much force in that kind of argument.
It was then argued by the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, that it was wrong that the court should have power to bring the licence to an end in order to satisfy the European Court of Human Rights. I have taken certain advice on that. The Home Office does not think that there is anything in the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights which can be interpreted in that way. The issue before the court was the lawfulness of the prisoner's continued detention. The court at no time examined or even commented on the question of how long licences for released prisoners should last. If my advice is correct I do not think that the noble Lord can sustain the argument that the amendment carried in another place is faulty for that reason.
Then one comes to the crucial amendment, Amendment No. 2AA. It is said that the European Court of Human Rights will eventually apply to mandatory life cases the same principles which it has applied to discretionary life cases. All I can do is repeat what I said in my opening speech. That was certainly not the argument advanced by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment. The European Court of Human Rights said precisely the opposite. The court said that the principles underlying discretionary life sentences, unlike mandatory life sentences, have developed in the sense that they are composed of a punitive element and subsequently of a security element designed to confer on the Secretary of State the responsibility for determining when the public interest permits the prisoner's release. The court drew a clear distinction between the mandatory life sentence, when the term was decided at the time of the sentence, and the non-mandatory life sentence, when it was recognised that a life sentence had to be passed because it was impossible to assess at that stage what should be the length of time for which the person should remain in custody because of mental instability or some other defect in his character.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, said that the Home Secretary had required people to stay in prison longer than had been recommended by the judges in their cases. The reason for that—there is no secret about it —is that Ministers take into account other factors in setting the tariffs in murder cases. One of the reasons for departing from judicial advice in particular cases is to discharge a policy which has been stated quite plainly to Parliament. I think, for instance, of the policy announced by one of my predecessors as Home Secretary, Sir Leon Brittan, in 1983, when he said that certain categories of murderer, including those who commit terrorist murders, murders of police or prison

1029
officers or sexual or sadistic murders of children, should serve at least 20 years in custody. I do not see that there is anything wrong in a Home Secretary coming to Parliament and saying, "I believe that sadistic murderers of that sort and people who murder police officers must expect to remain in prison for 20 years". That is a policy decision made by the Home Secretary. It may differ from the tariff which has been recommended to the Home Secretary by the trial judge.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, wishes to intervene. I am happy for him to do so.
6 p.m.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Minister. Does he not realise that, if the Government decide that sort of issue as a matter of policy, their proper course should be to present a Bill before Parliament and put it through the legislative branch of our system? They should not do so by trying to influence judges to pass sentences which judges themselves would not pass; or, alternatively, trying to produce the same result by executive action.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I do not know whether the view just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, was one expressed by the party to which he belongs at the time the announcement was made in 1983 by the Home Secretary of the day. I cannot recall that that announcement was greeted by great dismay, shock, horror and cries that it was unconstitutional and usurping the powers of the judges. I know certainly that it was widely welcomed by the public, who felt very strongly at the time that a clear marker should be put down that people who murder police officers should remain in prison for a very long time; indeed, for a minimum of 20 years.
I see that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway wishes to intervene. I give way.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. I think that it would be most unfortunate if this, which is essentially a non-political problem of very great consequence, should be put into the field of politics. My noble friend the Leader of the House appears to have misunderstood the whole essence of the argument which has been advanced in support of these amendments.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, in my own defence, I must point out to my noble friend that I was replying to an intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. I think that I was entitled to say that I did not believe there was much substance in his criticism of a decision taken by a former Home Secretary in 1983. It was a peripheral point and one which I would not have raised. It arose as a result of the noble Lord's intervention.
It has been said that there is no justification for the difference between the mandatory and the discretionary life sentence. But of course there is justification for the difference. It is inherent in the mandatory life sentence. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that murder was not a uniquely heinous offence
1030
and that to say so was rubbish. However, with respect to my noble and learned friend, he was really arguing the case against the earlier amendment. Parliament has marked murder as a heinous offence and a uniquely heinous offence by the mandatory life sentence which has now been agreed to by this House. Therefore, my noble and learned friend mounted a very strong argument against the mandatory life sentence—one which has been rejected—but no argument against the government amendment which recognises the fact that Parliament has drawn the sharpest possible distinction between murder cases and other cases and has said that it believes that murder is a unique offence. That is why there must be a unique penalty; namely, the mandatory life sentence.
I shall deal now with one of the lesser points raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. He said that in his belief there ought to be a High Court judge at the head of the tribunal or court which was dealing with these review matters. I have discussed the matter with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He feels strongly that very experienced people—for example, judges—on the Parole Board can carry out that function. He believes that he would find it very difficult to operate the system if it had to be operated entirely by High Court judges.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wishes to intervene. I will gladly allow him to do so.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that, from the very beginning when the Parole Board was set up in 1967 and throughout the time that I was its first chairman, the board always chose High Court judges—and I am looking at my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill for confirmation—to deal with life sentences in an advisory way. Surely that applies even more strongly when a tribunal which has executive powers is to be created within the board.
I should like also to remind my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill that, within a matter of months of the board being set up, we found a pretty scandalous state of affairs in the Home Office. We found a great pile of dossiers relating to forgotten men in the room of the then under-secretary. It was two High Court judges—indeed, the only two whom we had on the board—who cleared the backlog. In 1972 it was, of course, a High Court judge, no less, who, with other members of the board and under the chairmanship of the chairman of the Parole Board, formed a joint committee with the Home Office.
Lord Roskill: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has mentioned my name, perhaps I may add to his remarks. Under his chairmanship of the board in 1967, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, appointed me the first vice chairman and the first High Court judge to sit on the Parole Board. The other was the late Lord Justice James. Every single case of life sentence which came before the Parole Board was, I think I can say without exception, always dealt with by a panel of which a High Court judge was a member. Moreover, if the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was not able

1031
to be present, either Lord Justice James or myself would be in the chair. I believe that I am right in saying that that process has continued throughout.
Perhaps I may also refer to a point which I intended to make but which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, took out of my mouth. We never considered at any stage whether we were dealing with a mandatory life sentence or a discretionary life sentence. The question was, subject to the issue of the penal element: "Is it safe to release this person?" I am most flattered that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recalled the mess that the Home Office was in and the work which had to be carried out by the judges, and others, to clear the arrears.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I have to tell your Lord ships that we are not now considering whether or not there was a mess in the Home Office some years ago; we are deciding a very narrow point as to whether Crown Court judges should be able to preside over the courts which are reviewing these cases. I am advised by try noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that there will be a great deal of work to do and many reviews to be undertaken. That is the essence of the matter. If that is so, it will put an intolerable burden on the High Court judges if they are the only ones to carry out the work. I must point out to the House that Crown Court judges now sit on Parole Board lifer panels. That seems to be a perfectly good reason for them to carry out this work.
The noble and noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, talked about judges writing in secret in mandatory life sentence cases. That is certainly a very good question; indeed, why should such a recommendation be kept secret? However, with the greatest respect to him, that is not the matter we are discussing today. What is at issue is whether in a mandatory life sentence case a judge should make to the Home Secretary a recommendation which the Home Secretary would then be able to take into account, but not necessarily follow; or, alternatively, whether there should be the complete review procedure. That is the issue we are discussing today.
The noble and learned Lord also asked whether there is a right of appeal. The answer is that under our scheme—that is, under the amendments carried in another place—there will be a right of appeal because it will be an order of the court.
I turn now to the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. He did not like my jury point. I certainly do not blame him for that. However, it is still correct to say that there is a terrible finality about murder. Obviously, there is a terrible finality about any death including one caused by an accident or a natural death. But murder is different because the person brought about that terrible finality as a result of an intentional act.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but will he not say I hat there is the same finality in a bad case of manslaughter?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, of course there is, but again Parliament has recognised the distinction
1032
between the two offences. If the House wishes to bring forward recommendations to redefine the crime of murder, which of course was something considered by your Lordships' Select Committee as a possibility, that is one matter. We might get out of many of these difficulties if some day we were to address the problem of the definition of murder. With the greatest of respect to my noble and learned friend, it hardly seems to be a good argument against these amendments that we do not have the right definition of murder. Sometimes it is not entirely easy to justify why one person is convicted of manslaughter and another is convicted of murder.
I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who said that individuals had to be treated humanely. That is so, but the Home Secretary has the final responsibility for the protection of the public, and that is why, in mandatory life sentence cases, he has to decide whether a person is released or not, and he is responsible to Parliament for that decision.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham said that the Government have made a definite advance by producing the amendments which would set up a review procedure in non mandatory life sentence cases. I am grateful to him for having said that. It is right that at the outset we made it plain that we had to react and change our law to bring it into conformity with the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. Your Lordships put a spur behind the Government and made the Government act more quickly than they otherwise might have done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is not in her place. She, by my lights, was again on the side of the angels. I am grateful to her for her contribution. She made a good point: we are too keen to talk sympathetically about mercy killings when the relaxation of our attitudes might cause danger to vulnerable people. That is something we should bear in mind in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, talked about the case of Thynne. What the court said was, not that he should be released or that he had served too long, but that his case should be reviewed and that there should be a system for that review other than that which is at present in existence. It is important to make that point. Stories have gone around that that man is somehow being illegally detained and kept in longer than is justified by the gravity of the offence that he committed. That remains to be seen. So far, the Parole Board has taken the view that he has not been kept in longer than is justified by the gravity of the offence that he has committed, but it may well be that when he comes under the new system a different view will be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that a case involving a mandatory life sentence prisoner was due to come before the European Court of Human Rights. I know nothing about that case. I have had no details of it from the Home Office. I merely repeat what I said before—that in the case of Thynne and Others the European Court of Human Rights drew the clear distinction between mandatory life sentence cases and other life sentence cases. In those circumstances, I ask your Lordships to take the

1033
view that we have made a great advance with these amendments in another place. A good scheme for the review of discretionary life sentence cases is presented to your Lordships. That good scheme provides, as the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights allows for there to be, in special circumstances, a short delay before a person is released. I do not believe that there has been any criticism by noble Lords today that the scheme put forward in another place does not meet your Lordships' concerns in that respect.
The only concern left for your Lordships is whether the review procedure should apply to mandatory life sentence cases as it does to non-mandatory life sentence cases. Those arguments have been rehearsed and rehearsed again. No purpose would be served by my re-emphasising that Parliament has said that murder is a unique offence and that it is right that there should be a different way of dealing with such cases from cases where a life sentence is passed, not to mark the heinous nature of the offence but because the judge cannot make up his mind at the time of sentencing whether it will he safe to release the person into the community in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years or whatever the period may be.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I am happy to endorse what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said, and which I said when I opened my remarks; namely, that I very much welcome the Commons Amendment, and that the reasoned amendments that I tabled were designed to improve the amendment put before us. I have no doubt that that is a step forward.
The noble Lord referred to what he thought was my weakest point. I do not believe that it was my weakest point. I thought that it was my simplest point, and that it would be better to start with something simple, because, despite what the noble Lord has said, if an order is made, and it will be an order, that a person serving a discretionary life sentence be released, as the situation presently stands with the Commons Amendment, it is extraordinary that by Executive action, the Home Secretary, or perhaps a junior Minister as has occurred previously, should defer that release for a period. That is not compatible with the position which I believe is basic to English law: that when, for instance, a person has served his determinant sentence, no Secretary of State or Minister in the Home Office, can say, "Oh no, you shall not be let out for another six months".
Reference has been made to the possibility—if I may put it this way—of hell and damnation being let loose by reason of the release of a person at a particular time. I cannot see that that is applicable, as is suggested, in the case of a discretionary life sentence any more than it would be in the case of a terrorist or other person who created a great disturbance who was sentenced to some determinant sentence. I put forward that proposition, first, because I thought that was a simple one and because that argument did not seem to make much sense. It seemed to be a desire to hang onto power by one's teeth. It was not a sensible thing to provide for. Secondly, there seems to be a
1034
difference of view about whether, in the case of a discretionary life sentence, it is requisite, under the decision in the Thynne case of the European Court of Human Rights, that there should be a provision under which the licence upon which such a prisoner may be released could be terminated so that he was free thereafter.
My reading of the case is that such a provision is necessary, because Article 5(4), which is in such classic terms as representing the provisions of English law that it might have been—perhaps it was—drafted in the Lord Chancellor's office here, says that a representation may be made to the tribunal to be created—in this case the Board —for termination of the sentence, or rather, in this case, termination of the licence. That was the ground upon which I put the proposal forward.
I turn to the questions which have been most canvassed, and rightly so, because they impinge on real questions of principle upon which we all feel strongly on one side or the other. It is interesting that in this debate, as in others on this difficult subject, a distinction has been drawn between a discretionary life sentence and a mandatory life sentence. The truth is that a life sentence is a life sentence. In the discretionary case, it is awarded in the discretion of the judge. In the mandatory case, the law prescribes that he shall sentence a person to life imprisonment. The relevance is that, as I am informed by those who are knowledgeable on the subject, when questions of release of people sentenced to life imprisonment come before the life panel, whether the life sentence is mandatory or discretionary is not under consideration. The crime as a result of which the prisoner is sentenced to life, and his release after coming before the Parole Board, are the matters in question. In the discussion which has taken place, there has been a tendency to regard the mandatory life sentence as a special creature, but I do not think it is.
I do not intend to review the powerful and interesting speeches that we have heard. It is not my place, nor have I the capacity to do so. One point that is very much in my mind is that Parliament resolved and decided that in the case of murder there should be a mandatory life sentence. That decision was made in 1965. So far as I am aware, Parliament has never, except by implication, decided upon the process by which the term of imprisonment should be determined, nor on how the release should be effected. As I understand it, these practices have grown over the years like Topsy and only came into the open in about 1983 when Sir Leon Brittan, as he is now, was at the Home Office.
Regretfully but firmly I agree with the Commons and with the noble Lord the Leader of the House that we should not press our amendment concerning the abolition of the mandatory life sentence. However, I do not believe that the other two elements are by any means so sacrosanct. The Commons have taken a great step forward by introducing their amendment and I have no doubt about that. However, its effect is limited. We always seem to be creeping forward as slowly as we can—as some say, being dragged screaming into the 21st century. We can never take the

1035
bold step, the big view of what is the right course, taking account of the case of Thynne, but also of what is right and appropriate.
It is particularly significant to me, as the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, knows, that she should support the views that are being expressed on the penal term and release. As a member of the Select Committee, she expressed her views clearly and strongly in favour of retention of the mandatory life sentence. She expressed those views today and I recognise the sincerity and genuineness of her views. It is significant that she should feel as she does. It is unfortunate that we should move so slowly in this direction. Past history is that we have lost a succession of cases. We have been dragged down, and this is a sorry sight for us.
I speak now only to Amendment No. 2AA, concerning the decision to be taken. A vote in favour does not torpedo the Bill. If it is approved by your Lordships it will present the Commons with the opportunity of considering these amendments. If they so decide, they can reject some or all of them. This is not a matter of confrontation, it is this House exercising its proper function as a revising Chamber. I believe that the time has come to take the opinion of the House.
6.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 2AA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2A, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 134; Not-Contents, 83.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Galpern, L.

Addington, L.

Gisborough, L.

Airedale, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Banks, L.

Glasgow, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Birk, E.

Blease, L.

Greenway, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Grey, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Bottomley, L.

Brain, L.

Halsbury, E.

Brightman, L.

Hampton, L.

Bristol, Bp.

Hamwee, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hanworth, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Carnock, L.

Havers, L.

Carter, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Cobbold, L.

Holderness, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

David, B.

Hooson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Desai, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hunt, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Ennals, L.

Hylton, L.

Erroll, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Jauncey of Tullichettle, L.

Ezra, L.

Jay, L.

Faithfull, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

John-Mackie, L.

Fortescue, E.

Judd, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Kitchener, E.

Gallacher, L.

Lawrence, L.

1036

Layton, L.

Rochester, L.

Listowel, E.

Roskill, L.

Lockwood, B.

Russell, E.

Longford, E.

St. Albans, Bp.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Seear, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Serota, B.

McNair, L.

Shackleton, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Shannon, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Sharples, B.

Merrivale, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Monkswell, L.

Shepherd, L.

Monson, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Morris, L.

Stedman, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stockton, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Munster, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Nathan, L. [Teller.]

Templeman, L.

Newall, L.

Thurso, V.

Nicol, B.

Tordoff, L.

Pender, L.

Underhill, L.

Perth, E.

Varley, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wharton, B.

Platt of Writtle, B.

White, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Raglan, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rea, L.

Willis, L.

Redesdale, L.

Winstanley, L.

Richard, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killearn, L.

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Astor, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Belstead, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Blake, L.

Mancroft, L.

Blatch, B.

Marlesford, L.

Boardman, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Nelson, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Norrie, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Caithness, E.

Orkney, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cockfield, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Reay, L.

Colwyn, L.

Renton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Renwick, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L.

Romney, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dudley, E.

Savile, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Selborne, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Ferrers, E.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gainford, L.

Sudeley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Tranmire, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harvington, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Waddington, L.

Hives, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

L. Hooper, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Howe, E.

Wise, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Wrenbury, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 2AA agreed to accordingly.
6.33 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2A
2AB Line 14 at end insert:
("(2A) A court shall make an order under subsection (1) above whenever it passes a sentence of imprisonment for life.").
Lord Nathan Lord Nathan My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 2AB, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A. This amendment, as we have discussed, requires that the court shall make an order under subsection (1) of the Commons amendment, as amended by the amendment which your Lordships have just approved. This means that the court will not have the option whether it shall do so or not. I beg to move.
Moved, that Amendment No. 2AB, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, be agreed to.—[Lord Nathan.]
6.35 p.m.
On Question, whether Amendment No. 2AB, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2A, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 110; Not-Contents, 73.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Addington, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Airedale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Banks, L.

Hooson, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Hunt, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hylton, L.

Brain, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brightman, L.

Jay, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Carnock, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Listowel, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Desai, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ennals, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Erroll, E.

Merrivale, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Monkswell, L.

Ezra, L.

Monson, L.

Faithfull, B.

Morris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Fortescue, E.

Morton of Shuna, L. [Teller.]

Gainsborough, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Gallacher, L.

Munster, E.

Galpern, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Gisborough, L.

Nathan, L.

Glasgow, E.

Newall, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nicol, B.

Pender, L.

Greenway, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rea, L.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Richard, L.

Hampton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hamwee, B.

Rochester, L.

Hanworth, V.

Roskill, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Russell, E.

Havers, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

1038

Seear, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Serota, B.

Templeman, L.

Shannon, E.

Tordoff, L.

Sharples, B.

Underhill, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Varley, L.

Stedman, B.

Wharton, B.

Stockton, E.

White, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Swinfen, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kimball, L.

Arran, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Astor, V.

Long, V.

Bellwin, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bessborough, E.

Mancroft, L.

Blake, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blatch, B.

Mottistone, L.

Boardman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Nelson, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Norrie, L.

Caithness, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Orkney, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Cockfield, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colwyn, L.

Reay, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Renton, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rodney, L.

Denham, L.

Romney, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Dudley, E.

Savile, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Selborne, E.

Ferrers, E.

Shrewsbury, E.

Flather, B.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Harvington, L.

Ullswater, V.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Waddington, L.

Hives, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hooper, B.

Wedgwood, L.

Howe, E.

Wise, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No. 2AB agreed to accordingly.
6.43 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2A
2AC Line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
("(3) As soon as a life prisoner has served the part of his sentence specified in the order ("the relevant part") and the Board has directed his release under this section it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to release him.

(a) on licence, which shall remain in place until his death, in the case of a life prisoner convicted of an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law; and

(b) in any other case, on licence, which shall remain in force for such period as the Board shall direct.").

Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, Amendment No. 2AC.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2AC, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I know that this has been spoken to but, as a layman, I should like to find

1039
out what is going on. So far as I can make out, on the first amendment your Lordships' House voted fairly considerably in favour of the principle of putting discretionary and mandatory sentences on the same footing for review. If we are amending the Commons amendment we have to do so consistently, so the word "discretionary" will have to be removed throughout the amendment.
Is the noble Lord the Leader of the House intending to divide us on every one of these amendments, or is he just trying to mess up our proceedings so that we leave the word in somewhere and he can then say, "I warned your Lordships that if you started tinkering you would get yourselves into a mess? What is going on?
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I can assure the noble Earl that there is no such trickery afoot. This is an entirely different issue, and I am sure that noble Lords will recognise that it has nothing whatever to do with the arguments that have been advanced about mandatory and non-discretionary life sentences. It is a completely odd suggestion that there should even be a review procedure, as it were, before you can keep a chap on licence.
6.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 2AC, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2A, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not-Contents, 77.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Hanworth, V.

Addington, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Airedale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Banks, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Birk, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Blease, L.

Hooson, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bottomley, L.

Hunt, L.

Brain, L.

Hylton, L.

Brightman, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Carnock, L.

Judd, L.

Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lawrence, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Listowel, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Longford, E.

Desai, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ennals, L.

Merrivale, L,

Erroll, E.

Monkswell, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Monson, L.

Ezra, L.

Morris, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Gallacher, L.

Munster, E.

Galpern, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Nathan, L.

Nicol, B.

Greenway, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Grey, E.

Rea, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Redesdale, L.

Richard, L.

Halsbury, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hamwee, B.

Russell, E.

1040

St. Albans, Bp.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Templeman, L.

Serota, B.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

Shannon, E.

Underhill, L.

Sharpies, B.

Varley, L.

Stedman, B.

Wharton, B.

Stockton, E.

White, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Astor, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bessborough, E.

Mancroft, L.

Blake, L.

Marlesford, L.

Blatch, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Boardman, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Mountevans, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Caithness, E.

Nelson, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Norrie, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Orkney, E.

Cockfield, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Pender, L.

Colwyn, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Reay, L.

Dudley, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Romney, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Savile, L.

Flather, B.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Joseph, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Kimball, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No.2AC agreed to accordingly
6.50 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2A
2AD Line 22, leave out ("discretionary").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2AD.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2AD, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
Lord Waddington: My Lords, clearly Amendments Nos. 2AD, 2AE and 2AF are all consequential. We have to come to Amendment No. 2AG before a separate issue is raised. That is the issue of whether there should be the power to delay release for six months.
On Question, Amendment No. 2AD agreed to.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2A
2AE Line 27, leave out ("discretionary").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2AE.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2AE, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment No. 2AE agreed to.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2A
2AF Line 39, leave out ("discretionary"),
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2AF.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2AF, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
On Question, Amendment No. 2AF agreed to.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT NO. 2AG.
2AG Line 43, leave out subsection (7).
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2AG.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2AG, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
Lord Monson: My Lords, on this amendment I have a certain sympathy with the Government's position as set out by the Leader of the House earlier this afternoon, but I ask him to explain why the period needs to be as long as six months. Surely six weeks would be more than adequate.
Lord Waddington: My Lords—
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, perhaps I may dare to intervene at this stage. There has been considerable debate on this subject and we are now at a stage at which we should put the matter to the vote rather than reopen the debate.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I was about to say the same thing. Although I would like to say something, we debated the matter earlier and therefore it would not be right to reply.
6.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 2AG, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2A, shall be agreed to
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 91; Not-Contents, 74.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Brain, L.

Addington, L.

Brightman, L.

Airedale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Banks, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Birk, B.

Carnock, L.

Blease, L.

Carter, L.

Bonham-Carter, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Bottomley, L.

Craigmyle, L.

1042

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Desai, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Munster, E.

Ennals, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nathan, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Newall, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Pender, L.

Galpern, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Redesdale, L.

Greenway, L.

Richard, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Rochester, L.

Halsbury, E.

Russell, E.

Hampton, L.

Seear, B.

Hamwee, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hanworth, V.

Serota, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shannon, E.

Hilton, B.

Sharples, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Stedman, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Stockton, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Templeman, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Tordoff, L. [Teller.]

John-Mackie, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Judd, L.

Underhill, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Varley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Wharton, B.

Listowel, E.

White, B.

Lockwood, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Longford, E.

Williams of Elvel, L.

McNair, L.

Winstanley, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Monkswell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Arran, E.

Kimball, L.

Astor, V.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blake, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Blatch, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boardman, L.

Mancroft, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Cockfield, L.

Nelson, E.

Colnbrook, L.

Norrie, L.

Colwyn, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Platt of Writtle, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Dudley, E.

Reay, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Renton, L.

Erroll, E.

Romney, E.

Faithfull, B.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Ferrers, E.

Savile, L.

Flather, B.

Selborne, E.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Gainford, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Harvington, L.

Sudeley, L.

Henley, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hooper, B.

Waddington, L.

Howe, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Joseph, L.

Wedgwood, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment No.2AG agreed to accordingly.
7.3 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2A
2AH Line 46, at end insert:
("(7A) When the Board exercises its functions under this section it shall consist of —

(a) a judge of the High Court, who shall be the Chairman;

(b) a registered medical practitioner who is a psychiatrist; and

(c) a chief probation officer

and shall act as a judicial tribunal independently of the Secretary of State.").
Lard Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2AH. We are in a somewhat confusing situation in that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has already replied to the amendment although in fact I have not yet spoken to it. I now propose to do so.
This is a matter of considerable importance. It arises directly from a recommendation of your Lordships' Select Committee on Murder and Life Imprisonment and relates to the character of the tribunal. In my view "tribunal" is the way to describe the group of members of the Parole Board who will now have to make executive decisions in relation to whether life sentenced prisoners should be released into the community. The question therefore is who should be members of that tribunal.
The view of your Lordships' Select Committee was that there should be a high court judge, a consultant psychiatrist and a chief probation officer. I believe that that is right. Since the earliest days of the Parole Board, as my noble friend Lord Hunt pointed out and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, confirmed, High Court judges have been members of panels which advised the Home Secretary whether to release a life sentenced prisoner. In my view it would be an extraordinary situation were a High Court judge not to be chairman of the tribunal. If there is a High Court judge as a member of the committee or board, which makes an affirmative recommendation—and recommendation only—to the Home Secretary, it would be very strange indeed were we not to say that when the board has executive responsibilities it should not include on it a High Court judge.
Putting the mandatory life sentence on one side, I should like to speak for a few minutes about the discretionary life sentence case. Here one is dealing with some of the most difficult prisoners in custody. Highly sensitive and extremely difficult decisions will have to be reached and, in order to maintain public confidence in the arrangements, it is in my view essential that a High Court judge should be in the chair.
The only other issue that I want to raise with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—I gave notice of this question to his officials—is whether the new tribunal will be overseen by the Council on Tribunals. It is a matter of considerable importance. The Council on Tribunals was established for just such a purpose and I should be reassured, as I am sure would other noble Lords, were we to be told that the Council on Tribunals is to be asked to take on the responsibility.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2AH, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, be agreed to. —(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I have every sympathy with this amendment but I thought I understood my noble and learned friend or perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench at some stage to say that there were logistical difficulties about providing a High Court judge for this work. I myself would be perfectly content, in spite of the importance of the work, to have in the chair an Old Bailey judge, a retired High Court judge, a circuit judge or even one who is qualified to sit as a deputy High Court judge. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack would comment on that matter before we reach a decision on the amendment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, there is a point which I wish to raise on this amendment. It relates to the words in the last line:
"and shall act as a judicial tribunal independently of the Secretary of State".
This is a matter of the Parole Board's function. The Parole Board is appointed by the Secretary of State and, I understand, is answerable to him. I wonder why we need those words there; what would be their constitutional significance; and do we really need to include them?
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I support this amendment. Perhaps I may take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. The reason is that the Parole Board is not wholly independent of the Secretary of State. The independence of this tribunal has to be demonstrated. I believe that that is the reason. It is for the European court to be satisfied that the tribunal taking the decision is totally separate from the Executive. That is the reason for the word "independently".
My membership of the Select Committee is not the only reason why I support the proposition that the judicial member should be a judge of the High Court. It is a tribunal that will have to have the fullest confidence of the public. It would therefore be appropriate for the judicial member to be a High Court judge rather than a Crown Court judge, a retired judge or a deputy judge.
When I was very new to the House in 1985, I had the temerity to suggest in debate on the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate might consider having temporary judges in Scotland as they had in England, whereupon the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, stated that we should do no such thing—we have of course done such a thing since, but that is by the way—because of great trouble caused to the Bar in England through the use of too many deputies and retired judges and too few appointments for High Court judges. If there is a shortage of High Court judges, I am sure that there is no shortage of people qualified to be High Court judges. The answer is fairly simple. It costs nothing like the annual salary of people within some major companies to appoint a High Court judge.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. I shall be brief. In answer to my noble friend Lord Renton, it is because the Secretary of State appoints the Parole Board, and because the Parole Board is answerable to the Secretary of State, that the last line of the amendment has to be inserted in order to satisfy the firm requirements of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. With respect there can be no answer to that.
I spoke on the other matter previously. I support the argument that a judge of the High Court should be chairman. I pray in aid everything said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roskill, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, earlier in the debate. Those were totally convincing reasons why someone with the status of a High Court judge should be appointed. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morton. Old retired judges, recorders, or circuit judges, who are brought back, do not have the same status or quality. If they had, they would be High Court judges.
Lord Renton: My Lords, what about Law Lords?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Renton asks, "What about Law Lords?". It would be impertinent for me publicly to reply to that question. I have my own views, some of which are reflected in what I have said.
I am firmly in support of the recommendation of the Select Committee that the tribunal should be chaired by a judge of High Court status, no more and no less. If there are not enough High Court judges, for heaven's sake let us appoint more. I understand that there are about 200 cases in the pipeline at the moment which warrant consideration. If there are not enough judges, let us have more. There is no reason why not. We are not totally governed by the Treasury. In support of the amendment, I can say no more.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I support the amendment. There is a great tendency nowadays to downgrade judicial work. We have a mass of work being sent from the High Court to the county court to be dealt with by circuit judges. Of course if the present volume of work increases, as it is bound to do, the High Court judges' strength of numbers at present is quite inadequate. The strength of the High Court is quite inadequate to deal with its present workload. That has been the result of a consistent Treasury refusal to make up the required number of High Court judges. It is a scandal that at least one-third of High Court judges' work is done by deputy or circuit judges.
The size of the Bar has increased more than threefold since I was called to the Bar. The size of the High Court Bench has increased nothing like that. We, in the Appellate Committee, have the privilege of hearing a fairly extensive number of silks. There must be over 600 silks at the Bar. The only resistance to their appointment is not ability, but the fact that the Treasury will not agree.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it has been suggested by my noble and learned friend that I comment on the matter. My noble friend the Leader of the House is agreeable to that.
High Court judges have a very considerable workload, and I must do my best to make use of their skill and expertise to the best possible advantage. It may well be appropriate for a judge of the High Court to be chairman of such a tribunal. I should have thought that it may also be appropriate for a particular circuit judge to be chairman. After all, particular circuit judges try cases of murder. If they are able to try cases of murder, I should have thought that it would be perfectly appropriate that they chair such a tribunal.
If your Lordships were to pass the amendment in this form, it would be impossible to use the services in this connection of a circuit judge, however highly qualified and however many murder cases he had tried. I suggest that that is an unnecessary restriction on the flexibility that is required if we are appropriately to use the resource of High Court judge talent.
The suggestion is readily made that all we need to do is to appoint a few more. However, there are difficulties. There is such a thing as competition for resources in the various matters that count in public expenditure terms. I do not believe that it would be appropriate for me to enter further into detail in what I am sure has been a considerable debate already.
I suggest to your Lordships that a circuit judge might well be qualified suitably to chair a tribunal in these circumstances and that it would therefore be unnecessary to restrict the judicial chairman in the way that the amendment proposes. I have so advised the Leader of the House in discussions.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, do I infer from what he says that on behalf of the Government he gives an undertaking that the chairman should be a judge?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there is no question in my mind but that the chairman should be a judge. The only question is whether the chairman should necessarily be a High Court judge or, for example, whether a circuit judge approved to try murder cases might be perfectly suitable. Perhaps I may elaborate a little. One has to remember that the nature of the work which High Court judges have to undertake these days can involve a great variety of different types of case. A circuit judge approved to try a murder case may well have as much experience of dealing with murder cases in court as some of the High Court judges.
All I suggest to your Lordships is that it would be wise to allow a reasonable flexibility in the matter in order that the status of judicial officer, as between a High Court judge and a circuit judge, should be left open.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down, will he agree that there is all the difference in the world between the function of a

1047
judge presiding in the trial of a murder case—not, usually, the most difficult of cases—where the decision is made by the jury, and that of the judge presiding over such a tribunal where he must take a leading part in making what may often be a difficult decision?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I appreciate that there is a difference between a judge charging a jury in a murder case and a judge presiding over a tribunal of this kind. However, I believe that circuit judges qualified to try murder cases would be qualified to preside over such a tribunal. I agree that the situations are different but I do not so denigrate the talent of the circuit Bench as to believe that a circuit judge of that character would not be appropriate for the purpose. I am not saying that necessarily the appointment should be of such a person; merely that it would be right for your Lordships to leave the issue open as a matter of qualification. In other words, the qualification for being, the chairman should be a judge of the High Court or a circuit judge.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, Amendment No. 2AH seeks to set out on the face of the Bill the composition of the panel that will consider the case of discretionary life sentence prisoners and to declare that it will be an independent tribunal. My advice is that the final words of the amendment add nothing. The question is whether such a body so composed would be a court within the meaning of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. I said earlier that the tribunal would be headed by a judge; that the right of appearance would be given to the person detained; that there would be the right of representation; and that the person would have the right to apply for legal aid. Therefore, the body would be headed by a judge and would have all the hallmarks of a court. Accordingly, I see no reason whatever to believe that the scheme put forward by amendment in another place, suggested by the Government, would not meet the needs of the situation.
The matter has been dealt with to a large extent by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is right to say that the judge concerned can be a circuit judge who has had wide experience of trying serious cases of crime. It is certainly the case that the judge will have been a member of the Parole Board. Surely in those circumstances there is no reason why after making such decisions as a member of the Parole Board he should not be capable of carrying out this particular function. It is not for me to add to the arguments advanced by my noble and learned friend about the possible practical problems, bearing in mind the considerable burden of work that might be involved.
The panel that we propose will, in addition to the judge, include a medical member with a psychiatric qualification. The third member might well be a chief probation officer. However, it is not desirable to make an inflexible rule about that because many wise and distinguished members of the Parole Board are not chief probation officers and they may be equally suitable to undertake these duties. I should not like to rule them out.
1048
I am satisfied that taken together the provisions set out in the Commons amendments will ensure that the European Court of Human Rights will regard the Parole Board as a court in Strasbourg terms. The European Court will not be concerned about whether provisions appear in the Bill, in the rules, or in a mixture of both; it will look at the substance of our arrangements. The Government have no doubt that it will find our arrangements adequate.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, asked whether the Parole Board will be supervised by the Council on Tribunals. We have not made statutory provisions for that but we shall explore the possibility of the council providing advice on an informal basis about the procedures which the Parole Board will adopt in discretionary life sentence cases. I also give an undertaking that we shall consult the council on the draft rules to be made for that purpose under Clause 26(5). In those circumstances, I ask your Lordships to reject Amendment No. 2AH and accept that the scheme put forward by the Government meets the needs of the moment, meets the requirements of the European court and will provide a workable and proper system for carrying out these reviews.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said about the Council on Tribunals. However, he will be aware that the council looks into other matters. For instance, mental health tribunals have responsibilities similar to those of the new organisation and in their annual report they criticise the substantial delays which occur in hearing cases. I remind the noble Lord that criticisms of precisely that character have been made in respect of the parole system. Therefore, it is highly desirable that the Council on Tribunals has the right to look into the matter. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would write to me because I recognise that the issue is wide of the amendment.
I do not wish to rehearse the arguments again. The fact of the matter is simple. Since the creation of the Parole Board a High Court judge has been a member of the panel in all life sentence cases. He has been that notwithstanding the fact that in that capacity he is acting as an adviser to the Secretary of State. The new tribunal will be an executive body and not an advisory body to the Secretary of State. It will have executive responsibilities. As I pointed out earlier, in addition to other cases the tribunal will be dealing with cases of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. Such cases are some of the most difficult ever considered by the Parole Board because there is a real risk of a repetition of a serious criminal offence. In the light of that and for the need to maintain public confidence in the new procedures I believe that it is desirable to have a High Court judge in the chair. I commend the amendment to the House.
7.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether Amendment No. 2AH, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 73.

Division No. 5

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Lawrence, L.

Addington, L.

Listowel, E.

Airedale, L.

Longford, E.

Banks, L.

McNair, L.

Brain, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Monson, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Morris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Desai, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Nathan, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Nicol, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rea, L.

Galpern, L.

Redesdale, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Richard, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Greenway, L.

Rochester, L.

Halsbury, E.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hamwee, B.

Stedman, B.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hilton, B.

Templeman, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Tordoff, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wharton, B.

John-Mackie, L.

White, B.

Judd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Winstanley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arran, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Astor, V.

Kimball, L.

Belstead, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Blake, L.

Long, V.

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Boardman, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mancroft, L.

Brentford, V.

Marlesford, L.

Caithness, E.

Mottistone, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Mountevans, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Nelson, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V. [Teller.]

Norrie, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Orkney, E.

Dudley, E.

Oxford and Asquith, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Erroll, E.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Faithfull, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Flather, B.

Reay, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Renton, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Rodney, L.

Gisborough, L.

Romney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Savile, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharples, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harvington, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Henley, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Hesketh, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Ullswater, V.

Hooper, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Howe, E.

Waddington, L.

Hylton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Joseph, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment No. 2AH disagreed to accordingly.
7.35 p.m.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2A
2AJ Line 50, leave out ("discretionary").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2AJ, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
Amendment No. 2AJ, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2A, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 2A, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2B After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
Life prisoners transferred to England and Wales
'.—(1) This section applies where, in the case of a transferred life prisoner, the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, certifies his opinion that, if—

(a) he had been sentenced for his offence in England and Wales after the commencement of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above; and

(b) the reference in subsection (1) (a) of that section to a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law were a reference to any offence the sentence for which is not so fixed,

the court by which he was so sentenced would have ordered that that section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the certificate.
(2) In a case to which this section applies, this Part except section 28(2) above shall apply as if—

(a) the transferred life prisoner were a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part; and

(b) the relevant part of his sentence within the meaning of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act were the part specified in the certificate.

(3) In this section "transferred life prisoner" means a person—

(a) on whom a court in a country or territory outside England and Wales has imposed one or more sentences of imprisonment or detention for an indeterminate period; and

(b) who has been transferred to England and Wales, in pursuance of—

(i) an order made by the Secretary of State under section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 or section 2 of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884; or

(ii) a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984,

there to serve his sentence or sentences or the remainder of his sentence or sentences.
(4) A person who is required so to serve the whole or part of two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and subsections (3) and (5) of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2B.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2B. —(Lord Waddington.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2B
2BA Line 7, leave out from ("above") to end of line 10.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2BA.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2BA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2B, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
Amendment No. 2BA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2B, agreed to.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2B
2BB Line 16, leave out ("discretionary").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment. No. 2BB.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2BB, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2B, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
Amendment No. 2BB, as an amendment to Amendment. No. 2B, agreed to.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2B
2BC Line 34, leave out ("discretionary").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment. No. 2BC.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2BC, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2B, be agreed to.
Amendment No. 2BC, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2B, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 2B, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2C Page 20, line 10, leave out 'discharges functions' and insert 'makes recommendations'.
2D Page 20, line 14, leave out '(4)' and insert 'and'.
2E Page 20, line 17, at end insert:
'(4) The Board shall deal with cases as respects which it gives directions under this Part on consideration of all such evidence as may be adduced before it.'.
2F Page 20, line 24, leave out 'making any recommendations' and insert 'discharging any functions'.
2G Page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (7).
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2C to 2G en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2C to 2G en bloc.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2H Page 22, line 6, leave out subsection (5) and insert:
'(5) The Secretary of State shall not include on release, or subsequently insert, a condition in the licence of a long-term or life prisoner, or vary or cancel any such condition, except—

(a) in the case of the inclusion of a condition in the licence of a discretionary life prisoner, in accordance with recommendations of the Board; and

(b) in any other case, after consultation with the Board.'.

Lord Waddington; My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2H.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2H.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2H
2HA Line 6, leave out ("discretionary").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2HA.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2HA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2H, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
Amendment No. 2HA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2H, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 2H, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2J Page 23, line 5, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 7 and insert 'on a reference under subsection (4) above the Board—

(a) directs in the case of a discretionary life prisoner; or

(b) recommends in the case of any other person,

his immediate release on licence under this section, the Secretary of State shall give effect to the direction or recommendation.'.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2J.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2J—(Lord Waddington.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2J
2JA Line 3, leave out ("discretionary").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2JA.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2JA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2J, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
Amendment No. 2JA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2J, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 2J, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2K Page 24, line 14, leave out 'the Prison Act 1952'.
2L Page 25, line 15, leave out 'directed' and insert 'ordered'.
2M Page 25, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
2N Page 27, line 11, leave out from 'above' to end of line 19 and insert 'in subsection (5) (a) after the wordy "in the case of there shall be inserted the words "the licence of a long-term prisoner or", and subsection (6) shall be omitted.'.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2K to 2N en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2K to 2N.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Amendments Nos. 2K to 2N agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2P Page 27, line 26, at end insert:
"'discretionary life prisoner" has the meaning given by section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above (as extended by section 36(2) above);'.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2P.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2P.—(Lord Waddington.)

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2P
2PA Line 2, leave out ("discretionary").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2PA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2P, be agreed to. —(Lord Nathan.)
Amendment No. 2PA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2P, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 2P, as amended, agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
2Q Page 27, line 27, leave out '28(4)' and insert '(Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) (8)'.
2R Page 27, line 35, at end insert:
"'sexual offence" and "violent offence" have the same meanings as in Part I of this Act.'
2S Page 27, line 39, at end insert:
'(3) Nothing in this Part shall require the Secretary of State to release a person who is serving—

(a) a sentence of imprisonment for a term; and

(b) one or more sentences of imprisonment for life,

unless and until he is entitled under this Part to he released in respect of each of those sentences.'.
2T Page 27, line 39, at end insert:
'(4) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 25 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this Part as they apply for the purposes of Part I of this Act.'.
2U Page 90, line 26, at end insert:
'Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c.47)
.—(1) In section 2 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (transfer of prisoners Out of United Kingdom), in subsection (4) (h), for sub-paragraph (i) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—
"(i) released on licence under section 27(1) (b) or (2), (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) (3) or 28(1) or (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;".
(2) In section 3 of that Act (transfer of prisoners into United Kingdom), after subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(9) The provisions contained by virtue of subsection (1) (c) above in a warrant under this Act shall, in the case of a prisoner to whom section (Life prisoners transferred to England and Wales) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (discretionary life prisoners transferred to England and Wales) applies, include provision specifying the relevant part of his sentence within the meaning of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of that Act (duty of Secretary of State to release discretionary life prisoners)."
(3) In paragraph 2 of the Schedule to that Act (operation of certain enactments in relation to prisoners transferred into United Kingdom) —
1054

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words from "section 60" to "of that section" there shall be substituted the words "section 27(1) (b) or (2), (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) (3) or (5) or 28(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 whether the prisoner has at any time served a particular proportion or part of his sentence specified in that provision,"; and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words "one third" there shall be substituted the words "ant' particular proportion or part".

(4) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule, for the words "section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967" there shall be substituted the words "section 28(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991".'.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2Q to 2U en bloc.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2Q to 2U. —(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2V Page 93, line 13, at end insert:
'6A.—(1) This paragraph applies where, in the case of an existing life prisoner, the Secretary of State certifies his opinion that, if—

(a) section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act had been in force at the time when he was sentenced; and

(b) the reference in subsection (1)(a) of that section to a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law were a reference to any offence the sentence for which is not so fixed,

the court by which he was sentenced would have ordered that that section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the certificate.
(2) In a case to which this paragraph applies, Part II of this Act except section 28(2) shall apply as if—

(a) the existing life prisoner vivre a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of that Part; and

(b) the relevant part of his sentence within the meaning of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act were the part specified in the certificate.

(3) In this paragraph "existing life prisoner" means a person who, at the commencement of Part II of this Act, is serving one or more of the following sentences, namely—

(a) a sentence of life imprisonment;

(b) a sentence of detention during her Majesty's pleasure or for life under section 53 of the 1933 Act; or

(c) a sentence of custody for life under section 8 of the 1982 Act.

(4) A person serving two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of Part II of this Act unless the requirements of sub-paragraph (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and subsections (3) and (5) of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2V.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2V.—(Lord Waddington.)

AS AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2V
2VA Line 5, leave out from ("sentenced") to end of line 8.
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2VB, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2V, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
Amendment No. 2VA, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2V, agreed to.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2V
2VB Line 14, leave out ("discretionary").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2VB, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2V, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
Amendment No. 2VB, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2V, agreed to.

AS AN AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT No. 2V
2VC Line 27, leave out ("discretionary").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Amendment No. 2VC, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2V, be agreed to.—(Lord Nathan.)
Amendment No. 2VC, as an amendment to Commons Amendment No. 2V, agreed to.
On Question, Amendment No. 2V, as amended, agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
3After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
The Life Sentences Review Tribunal
(".—(1) There shall be a tribunal, to be known as the Life Sentences Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it by this Part of this Act.
(2) Schedule (Life Sentences Review Tribunal) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Tribunal.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
3A because it would involve a charge on the public revenue and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 3A.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
4After Clause 25, insert the following new clause:
Review of life sentences by Tribunal
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall refer the case of every life prisoner to the Tribunal for review not later than two years before the expiry of the penal term applicable to his case.
(2) The Tribunal may direct—

(a) the release on licence of a life prisoner convicted of murder;

(b) the release of a life prisoner convicted of an offence other than murder—

(i) on licence; or

(ii) unconditionally.

(3) In determining whether to direct release the Tribunal shall have regard to the risk of the life prisoner's committing further serious offences and the need to protect the public against that risk.
(4) The Secretary of State may revoke the licence of any life prisoner whose release on licence has been directed by the Tribunal and recall him to prison if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient in the public interest to do so and shall in that event refer the case of the prisoner so recalled to the Tribunal for further consideration so soon as practicable.
(5) A life prisoner whose case is referred to the Tribunal under this section shall have the right—

(a) to make representations to the Tribunal either orally or in writing;

(b) to be legally represented before the Tribunal; and

(c) to call witnesses on his behalf,

and shall be given such information about his case and about the matters under consideration by the Tribunal as will enable him effectively to exercise those rights.
Provided that the Tribunal may direct that there shall be no disclosure of any material which the Tribunal considers that it would not be in the public interest to disclose.
(6) If the Tribunal determines not to direct the release of a life prisoner (whether convicted of murder or of some lesser offence) the Secretary of State shall refer his case to the Tribunal for further consideration within such period (not being longer than three years from the date of the previous determination) as the Tribunal may direct.
(7) Where the Tribunal directs the release of a life prisoner other than one convicted of murder it may also direct the length of time for which the licence is to remain in force.
(8) If the Tribunal gives no direction as to the length of a licence under subsection (7) above, it shall review the licence—

(a) within three years from the date of the Tribunal's decision to release the offender on licence; and

(b) before the expiry of any subsequent period of three years,

and shall on any such review either terminate the licence or direct the length of time for which it is to remain in force.
(9) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give effect to any directions given by the Tribunal in regard to a life prisoner whose case is referred to it under this section.
(10) In this section "penal term" means the sentence of imprisonment which the court is required by section (Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment) to state in open court as being the sentence it would have passed had it not passed a sentence of imprisonment for life and it had not taken into account the risk of serious harm to the public if the offender were to be released after a determined number of years' imprisonment.
(11) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
4A because it would be incompatible with the amendments proposed by the Commons in lieu of Lords Amendment No. 2.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 4A—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
7.45 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Clause 28, page 21, line 20, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendments to the words so restored to the Bill:
5A Page 21, line 21, leave out 'and' and insert 'together'.
5B Page 21, line 22, leave out 'a life prisoner on licence' and insert 'on licence a life prisoner who is not a discretionary life prisoner'.
5C Page 21, line 26, leave out subsection (4).
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5A to 5C en bloc as amendments to the words so restored to the Bill.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, but agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5A to 5C en bloc as amendments to the words so restored in the Bill.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
6 Clause 30, page 21, line 44, after ("life prisoner") insert ("who has been convicted of murder").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
6A because it is an amendment consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.

MOTION MOVED ON CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS REASON
Lord Nathan 6AA Lord Nathan to move, That this House do not insist on their Amendment No.6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6A but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof:
Page 21, line 45, leave out ("until his death") and insert ("in accordance with subsection (3) of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above.").
Lord Nathan: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6AA.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 6A, but propose Amendment No. 6AA in lieu thereof. —(Lord Nathan)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
7Clause 32, page 22, line 35, leave out ("or life").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
7A because it is an amendment consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 7A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 7A.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
8 Clause 41, page 27, line 6, leave out ("in subsection (1)").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
8A because it is an amendment consequential on Lords Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 8 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 8A.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
9Clause 41, page 27, line 8, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
9A because it is an amendment consequential on Lords Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 9A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 9 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 9A.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
10 Clause 42, page 27, line 27, leave out ("28(4)") and insert ("(Review of life sentences by Tribunal)(11)").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
10A because it is an amendment consequential on Lords Amendment No. 4 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 10A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 10A.—(Lord Waddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
11 Clause 47, page 33, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) For the purpose of facilitating the attendance in court of parents or guardians, the youth court in each area shall hold at least one sitting fortnightly outside the times at which the court normally sits if in the opinion of the court this is justified by the number of cases where to require a parent or guardian to attend court at the times at which the court normally sits would jeopardise the employment of the parent or guardian or would be undesirable for any other reason.").
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
11A because it is impractical and unnecessary to make provision by statute as to times at which youth courts are to sit.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 11 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 11 A.
Your Lordships will recall that Amendment No. 11 was inserted in the Bill at Third Reading on 4th June, having been moved by my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I know that my noble friend will be disappointed that another place disagreed with her amendment and that I am inviting your Lordships not to insist upon it. But I would ask her to accept that this is not because we disagree with the principle which is embodied in the amendment, which is that, within the resources available to them, courts should be as flexible as possible in scheduling their sittings so that those who have to attend court are not unnecessarily inconvenienced.
The question is simply whether a statutory provision on the lines put forward by my noble friend is the light way to go about this. As I explained in our debate on 4th June, I fear that the effect of the amendment would, in fact, be to impose a rigid requirement on the courts to make all sorts of unnecessary inquiries. They would have to contact all parenis who were due to come to court on any day of the week in order to ascertain whether such a date was convenient to them. If it was not, and if there were enough other parents of defendants in a similar position, then the court would be obliged to hold a weekend or evening sitting, irrespective of whether or not that would be convenient to the other parties to the case—the witnesses and the victims. The court would have no discretion.
Therefore, the amendment would require inquiries to be made and judgments to be made on the number of cases in which parents could not attend at the normal time; whether the reasons, which the parents put forward, were genuine; whether there were enough such cases to require a special sitting and, if so, when that special sitting should be held —at the weekend or in the evening, and all that without reference to the convenience of the other parties.
That would elevate the interests of the parents of a young offender above those of all the other parties to the case; that is, the victim and the witnesses. It might well suit the parents of a young offender to attend in the evening, for example, rather than during the day, but that might well not be so convenient for other witnesses. The victim of, say, a mugging offence might also be caused additional anxiety by being made to come out after dark to give evidence.
I do not put this forward as the main reason, but the amendment would also involve considerable additional expense, to the tune of £7 million at a prudent estimate. When courts are going to be cash limited, that sum will have to be saved from other court work, and other court cases may be unnecessarily delayed.
The existing arrangements allow the court staff to respond to any serious problems which may be drawn to their attention not just by the parents but by the witnesses or the defendants as well. And the present arrangements permit the courts to sit in the evenings or at weekends when that is considered desirable. It is
1060
one thing to have a procedure which enables difficulties which arise to be taken into account. It is quite another to require the authorities to ascertain in each and every case whether in fact there are such difficulties.
In our earlier debate I said that I would certainly draw to the attention of the justices' clerks and magistrates the views which have been expressed in your Lordships' House on this subject, and I said that I would give active consideration to the possibility of giving further guidance on this point. Those undertakings still stand, and I hope that in the light of them your Lordships will not insist upon Amendment No. 11.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 11 A.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I shall not oppose the Commons amendment, but I do that in sorrow. I believe that the Commons are misguided in not accepting the amendment. I am puzzled by the reasons given by my noble friend as to why neither the Government nor the Commons could accept the amendment; they were muddled. First, the amendment does not suggest that every case should be given the opportunity to be heard in an evening court.
With regard to the work that would be involved in ascertaining whether every parent should be informed, it is quite possible when serving a notice on parents to put at the bottom, "If you are not able to attend will you please reply and let me know why you cannot attend". It does not mean that an inquiry has to be made into every case. As regards the question of not coming out in the dark; first, in the summer it is not dark and, secondly, hearings could be on a Saturday morning when presumably it is light. Therefore, that is not a very good argument. From the point of view of the children it is very unfortunate that the provisions of the Children Act 1989 and of this Bill conflict with one another. Part I of the Children Act 1989, which comes into force on 14th October this year, lays a responsibility on parents. How are they to be responsible for their children if they cannot come to court? One must remember that with the present rate of unemployment people are very loathe to miss a day's work and perhaps a day's pay.
The main reason given in another place for turning down this amendment was the cost, but that was not mentioned the first time we debated this amendment. The Commons have thought up the figure of £7 million to £10 million. If we are to accept the Commons amendment we shall want to know, very understandably, how that £7 million to £10 million was made up. The amendment does not say that every court should sit every fortnight during an evening or on a Saturday; it simply says where the case demands it. There are an enormous number of courts in this country where it would not be demanded and it would not be necessary; for instance, such places as Devon and Cornwall. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he can say how the Treasury arrived at the figure of £7 million to £10 million. On what basis did the Treasury work that out? What was the

1061
formula? How did the Treasury manage to arrive at that figure between the time we last debated the Bill, during its time in the House of Commons, and now?
While not agreeing with the Commons in their amendment I shall not oppose it. However, I should mention to my noble friend the Minister that this amendment has been agreed by the Police Federation, the Magistrates' Association and by the Justices' Clerks' Society. In this day and age, when we are supposed to be considering the consumer, we should think of those who are appearing before the courts.
I have two more points to make. First, I have spoken individually to a number of magistrates. Many of them are working and have jobs but they do not want to give up being magistrates. They would be very happy to come in during an evening or on a Saturday when required. Therefore, the magistrates are fully in approval of this amendment. Secondly, having said all that, I shall not oppose the Commons. However, in not opposing the Commons I consider we have a right to know how that decision was reached.
Lord Richard: My Lords, may I say how much we appreciate the intervention of the noble Earl in our debate. We missed him yesterday when we were debating the four-day limit for people held in police custody. I am glad to see that he is fully recovered from what I understand was his excessive exposure yesterday to the storms of Wimbledon. We welcome him back. We heard with interest what he had to say.
Perhaps I may put one point to the noble Earl. In our previous debates he has from time to time said that he would consider issuing guidance. The Government may not like the amendment that was put down in the House of Lords and have therefore come back with the one now proposed by the Commons. If the noble Earl can say—perhaps with a greater degree of firmness than he has in the past—that guidance will be issued to the courts so that they might take this point on board (a perfectly valid point, in my view) the situation might be somewhat improved.
Finally, since I am being pleasant to the noble Earl tonight perhaps I may say how much I enjoy the ingenuity of his department. I am bound to say that some of the arguments that he produced tonight against the principle of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, were ingenious and novel. Certainly they were arguments that during the three months of discussion on the Criminal Justice Bill we have not heard before.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in welcoming the noble Earl to our proceedings today. I do not know whether I should congratulate him on the quality of his maiden speech. Unhappily, he did not wholly satisfy us on the substance of the matter for a number of reasons, one of which has just been drawn to our attention by the noble Lord, Lord Richard; namely, some of these remarkably new arguments which have suddenly appeared.
I was particularly interested in the £7 million to £10 million calculation, as was the noble Baroness, Lady
1062
Faithfull. How did the Government arrive at the figure of £7 million to £10 million? The noble Baroness asked an interesting question. What is the basis of that assumption? How many courts is it assumed will take advantage of this provision in the Bill? Clearly an assumption must have been made, otherwise the figures of £7 million to £10 million could not have been arrived at.
My second point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, in regard to guidance. We heard about guidance on the last occasion we discussed this matter. We have spent a fair amount of time considering whether or not the Government could give guidance. Eventually we concluded—on the basis of what had happened in the past—that they could indeed give guidance.
The noble Earl has this evening repeated, in almost precisely the same terms, the point about guidance. It would give many of us pleasure if he could indicate in rather firmer terms than he has done so far that he will give guidance to the courts. As the noble Baroness rightly says, it does affect a substantial number of offenders. The other point I make, in terms of the hours of darkness, is that a Scottish winter is more severe than an English winter; there are fewer hours of daylight in Scotland. Curiously enough, the Scots can cope with that but apparently we cannot. It is rather puzzling.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, your Lordships are always particularly courteous and I am grateful for the touching way in which the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Harris of Greenwich, welcomed me to this debate. I did not take part in earlier proceedings because that particular subject matter of the Criminal Justice Bill was taken originally by the Leader of the House and we thought that as a matter of propriety it would be better if my noble friend concluded that responsibility, even though it had hazardous consequences for the Government this evening. That is why my noble friend dealt with those matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Richard, welcomed me back from the hazards of the elements, and that was very kind of him. However, he will of course know that I have a certain responsibility for police matters and periodically one has to go out to the country to see how the police are getting on. That particular part of London is quite difficult at this time of year. I thought your Lordships would understand if I acquired a little first-hand experience of traffic conditions. It was fairly congested. I would not have done that if I had not had total confidence that the matter with which I was concerned was in capable hands—which indeed it was. Therefore, I am grateful to your Lordships for that welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, really is the most impossibly difficult person to satisfy on any matter. He comes along and says, "Well, here we are this evening. The Government are introducing a whole lot of new arguments that we have never heard before. It is really quite extraordinary how the Home Office digs up these arguments". Then he says that I repeated exactly the same words on guidance that I gave before. If I produce new words the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is dissatisfied. If I use the same words

1063
he is dissatisfied. I can only assume that despite his convivial and jovial face he really is a disgruntled gentleman who one can never satisfy.
I come to another difficulty. My noble friend Lady Faithfull said that she did not intend to oppose this amendment. I thought that was extremely helpful. I commend that spirit to her to continue. That spirit was noticeably not prevalent at the earlier part of the debates on the Bill. My noble friend referred to muddled reasoning. I do not think that this is a muddled reasoning at all. I tried to explain to her that we agreed totally with the idea that she had in mind, but that we thought it was much better to leave the matter to the courts which have the power to require these weekend and evening sittings, as at present, without putting this statutory obligation upon them. My noble friend said that the amendment does not require that an inquiry should be made in each and every case. However, the court would have to do its homework properly. The amendment states:
"For the purpose of facilitating the attendance in court of parents or guardian, the youth court in each area shall hold at least one sitting fortnightly outside the times at which the court normally sits if in the opinion of the court this is justified by the number of cases where to require a parent or guardian to attend court at the times at which the court normally sits would jeopardise the employment of the parent or guardian".
How will the court ascertain that information unless it takes active steps to do so? That is why I suggest to my noble friend that this would be an extravagant demand to place upon the courts.
My noble friend then asked me to elaborate a little on the costs. She asked where the figure of £10 million comes from, as did the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Harris of Greenwich, the inference being that the Home Office had plucked the figure out of the air—
Baroness Faithfull: Yes, quite.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, my noble friend has a lovely habit of interjecting in the most delightful way and saying, "Yes, quite"; but in fact that was not so.
The figure is achieved by a simple mathematical calculation except in one respect. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Richard, where the figure of £10 million came from. In another place my right honourable friend Mr. Patten used the figure of £7 million. That was elaborated by the Opposition to £7 million to £10 million The figure of £10 million is the responsibility of colleagues in another place of the noble Lord, Lord Richard. The figure of £7 million is a straightforward calculation. We assumed that there would be one additional sitting required per fortnight in each petty sessions area—not in each court house but in each petty sessions area—and that each sitting would last for two-and-a-half hours.
The increased costs would be incurred by the police, gaolers, social workers, probation officers, court staff, by legal aid and by heating and lighting. In total, those are estimated at £12,156 per petty sessions area. There are 550 petty sessions areas and £12,156 times 550 equals £6.6 million. Nothing has been plucked out of the air there. That is a straightforward calculation. The additional costs to the Crown
1064
Prosecution Service are estimated at £0.4 million. That gives a total cost of £7 million. That is how the figures have been arrived at.
In suggesting that my noble friend does not insist on her amendment I said that we did not look upon the cost as a major factor but that it was nevertheless a relevant factor. For all those reasons I hope that my noble friend will be, as my noble friend Lord Waddington said earlier, on the side of the angels this time and will agree to support the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8 p.m.

LORDS AMENDMENT
12 Clause 86, page 54, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("also") in line 32 and insert ("The following provisions of this Act, namely—

(a) this section;

(b) sections (Reciprocal enforcement of certain orders), 15(1) and (2), 21, (Sentence for murder), (Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment) and 23(3) and (4); and

(c)Schedule (Reciprocal enforcement of certain orders), paragraph 6 of Schedule 5, paragraph 5 of Schedule 7, paragraph 15A of Schedule 10 to this Act and, so far as relating to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, Schedule 12").

The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment:
12A Line 5, leave out from ("21") to first ("and") in line 6.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with Commons Amendment No. 12A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 12. This amendment has already been spoken to.
Moved, That the House do agree with Commons Amendment No. 12A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 12.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
13 Before Schedule 4, insert the following new schedule:
("SCHEDULE LIFE SENTENCES REVIEW TRIBUNAL
1. The Tribunal shall consist of—

(a) a judge of the High Court, who shall be the chairman;

(b) a registered medical practitioner who is a psychiatrist;

(c) a chief probation officer.

2.The chairman shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and the other members by the Secretary of State.
3.A person appointed to be the chairman or other member of the Tribunal shall hold and vacate office under the terms of the instrument by which he is appointed, but may at any time resign his office, and a person who ceases to hold office as a member of the Tribunal shall be eligible for reappointment.
4.In Part II of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (Bodies of which all members are disqualified) there shall be inserted at the appropriate place the following entry—
"The Life Sentences Review Tribunal constituted under section (Life Sentence Review Tribunal) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991."
5.There shall be paid to the members of the Tribunal other than the chairman such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury determine.
6.The expenses of the Tribunal under paragraph 5 above and any other expenses incurred by the Tribunal in the discharge of its functions shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.
7.The Tribunal shall as soon as practicable after the end of each year make to the Secretary of State a report on the performance of its functions during that year; and the Secretary of State shall lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
8.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may make rules with respect to the procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in cases referred to it under section (Review of life sentences by Tribunal).
(2)Rules under this paragraph may in particular make provision—

(a) for making available to the person whose case is under consideration by the Tribunal copies of any documents relevant to his case and a copy of any relevant oral information supplied to the Tribunal except where it considers that it would not be in the public interest to disclose such documents or information;

(b) for requiring the Tribunal to furnish reasons for any decision given by it in such circumstances as may be prescribed;

(c) for enabling any matters preliminary or incidental to a review to be dealt with by any member of the Tribunal designated by the chairman.

(3)The power to make rules under this paragraph shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
13A because it would involve a charge on the public revenue and the Commons do not offer any further reason trusting that the above reason may be deemed sufficient.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 13 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 13A.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
14 Schedule 12, page 95, line 15, at end insert—

("1965 c. 71.

The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965.

In section 1 in subsection (1), the words from "and" to the end of the subsection; subsection (2); in subsection (4), the words from "in each of the said sections 70" to the end of the subsection; in subsection (5), the words from "but in lieu thereof to the end of the subsection.").

The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason:
14A because it is an amendment consequential on Lords Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 14A.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 14 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 14A.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Severn Bridges Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.

Social Security (Contributions) Bill
8.4 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Class 1A contributions]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 3 at end insert;
("(aa) for the tax year beginning with 6th April 1991 in calculating the cash equivalent of the benefit of a car or fuel for the purposes only of determining Class 1A contributions under this section the car shall be treated as being unavailable by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 for the purposes of section 158(5) of that Act and paragraphs 2, 3(2) or 5(2) of that Schedule, for each day of the period from 6th April 1991 to the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent but this provision shall be without prejudice to the application of section 158(5), or paragraphs 2, 3(2) or 5(2) of that Schedule to any other periods in that tax year for which the car was unavailable for use.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that changes in the Bill are not retrospective. It seeks to achieve what was set out by my noble friend Lord Cockfield in Committee on Amendment No. 5 which was put forward by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. He said that it was normally the right course to prevent retrospection in taxes. The amendment seeks to do that.
There is a great deal of reason behind the amendment. I shall not bore your Lordships with every detail as time has rattled on. However, I should like to make one or two points which I do not think were made at earlier stages of the Bill. The Bill will generate an income of more than £600 million for the National Insurance Fund. No one can dismiss that as petty cash. Even after one allows for off-set savings, the proposal amounts to a 2.25 per cent. surcharge on the employers' contribution to the National Insurance Fund.
This Government, unlike their predecessor, have always recognised that national insurance surcharges of that order destroy jobs. Indeed, they have said so in the past. That must be a particular danger in time of recession. Nor is it a burden which falls evenly. Where the business car is an essential tool of the trade for marketing or managing distant sites, more employees have them. In those cases, meeting this national insurance surcharge will be like finding the best part of an extra week's pay for every employee involved. No Minister in this Government would think of suggesting that an extra 1 or 2 per cent. on pay could

1067
do anything other than push up costs in a way which would damage competitiveness. Yet that is precisely what the impact of the Bill will be where the business car is in widespread use.
A second concern about the Bill is the damage that it threatens to our domestic car industry. Clearly, it will depress company car purchases. That will particularly hit our domestic car industry which wins a Lang share of this most demanding market and does so primarily on merit.
Finally, there is the question of practicality. The proposed legislation would be retrospective. It is that which in my amendment I seek to avoid. For many of us here, that is bad in principle. When we come to look at its impact on industry we can see that retrospection would also be bad in practice.
My noble friend the Minister has been consulting on practical arrangements, yet whatever he decides will apply from the date of the last Budget. That is a cause of particular unease because companies not only face new demands from the Department of Social Security but demands which will vary according to something they do not measure with precision now and cannot see how to do so objectively —the precise mileage done by an employee on company business. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will be able to devise a suitable scheme. But how are employers to apply it retrospectively when they do not know what it is? My amendment effectively means that the national insurance liability could flow only from the date when the Bill is enacted, by which time my noble friend the Minister will have had time to sort out the administrative details. That would remove the objectionable question of retrospection and all the worries about arbitrary regulation that go with it, and because national insurance liability would not start until the Bill became law it would reduce significantly the extra charges in respect of company cars that businesses will face next year as they struggle through to the recovery. The National Insurance Fund would clearly still be the net gainer and the Minister would have moved to a more equal treatment in respect of cash and perk cars, but the cost to industry of the charge would be reduced by perhaps £150 million. That could be of vital help at a crucial moment in the upturn of the country's economy. I beg to move.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone explained, the purpose of this amendment is to take out the retrospective character of the charge. As my noble friend the Minister will recall, we had some discussion about this in Committee. I should like now to make it clear to him that, as the Bill stands at present, this is a retrospective provision. In Committee my noble friend disputed that fact. He said that the Bill did not breach any principle of retrospection and that,
"it is a Budget measure". [Official Report, 25/6/91; col. 509.]
He went on to say that Budget measures usually come into force immediately. Of course, my noble friend is perfectly right to say that the intention to introduce such a charge was mentioned in the Budget speech. However, with the greatest respect, that does not make it a Budget measure. Indeed, there is nothing in either of the resolutions or in the Finance Bill which
1068
would impose the charge. If there had been, there would be no necessity for this Bill. Moreover, what are we doing with the Bill if it was a Budget measure put into effect by the Budget?
What happened was that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of the Budget speech, indicated, perfectly properly, that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce such a proposal. I noticed that fact with regret because I do not think that social security contributions should be dealt with by the Treasury. On the contrary, I believe that they should be dealt with, as is this Bill, by the Department of Social Security.
The point that I ask my noble friend the Minister to understand is that the mention in the Budget speech has no effect at all on the imposition of the charge. The charge will only become lawful if and when this Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that my noble friend now accepts that fact. If he will allow me to say so, I believe that he has perhaps been a little misled by his ignorance of the Budget procedures. It is perfectly true that under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act many changes in taxation made by the Budget operate from Budget Day; that is, generally, from six o'clock on Budget Day. Budget resolutions are carried and, under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, those taxes are lawfully levied for the rest of the summer until about 5th August generally when the Finance Bill becomes enacted. In fact, if one looks at the Budget it will be seen that there are many such provisions.
My noble friend is also wrong in saying that all Budget provisions normally operate from Budget Day. If he were to look into the matter, he would find out that many taxation changes of a capital nature operate only from about 5th August when the Bill becomes law. I hope noble Lords will forgive my stressing the point. I do not wish to appear repetitive. But, as my noble friend did not appear to understand on the last occasion, I feel it incumbent upon me to spell it out closely. The fact remains that mention by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of such an intention has no effect whatever in imposing the charge. The charge is imposed by the Bill which is before us tonight and which has not yet become law.
At present, the Bill says that the liability will run from the beginning of this financial year which is now nearly three months old, or perhaps a little more. Therefore, the effect must be retrospective because liability will be piling up from Budget Day which was in March. All this is to take place under a Bill which will certainly not receive Royal Assent until the current month of July.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will accept first that this is indeed retrospective. If he accepts that fact, I ask him to consider that retrospective taxation has always been regarded as contrary to proper policy and administration. I must confess that it is not unusual to admit retrospection in favour of the taxpayer. But it is very unusual, and has always been regarded as oppressive, to impose retrospective taxation on the taxpayer for the benefit of the state.
The amendment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone will remedy the situation. If accepted, it

1069
will ensure that the liability to pay this charge will arise from Royal Assent, whenever that may be. That is important from the point of view of principle. Moreover, from a practical point of view, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, it will also have considerable advantages. The effect of the Bill, as was made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, is to impose an additional charge on industry. At the very moment when the Government are, very properly, urging industry to keep costs down they are seeking to impose this provision. If the amendment is accepted, at least industry will be broken in gently. It will not have been accumulating a liability over the past three or four months: the liability will arise only from Royal Assent. I ask my noble friend seriously to consider whether that is the proper way to proceed.
My noble friend received due warning that this point would be raised because it was mentioned during the previous two stages of the Bill. I hope that he took advantage of the opportunity to consult with his right honourable friend, and indeed with the Treasury, on the matter. Knowing the position of a junior Minister, I realised that it would be very difficult for him to accept this amendment without reference to his seniors in the department. I trust that my noble friend will be able to tell us that, because of the desirability of softening the immediate effect of this imposition on industry and in deference to the principle that retrospective taxation is a bad thing, the Government will accept the amendment.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, when the Bill was before this Chamber both in Committee and on Second Reading, we made it clear that our main concern in relation to it was the difficulty which we saw in making a distinction between those who had a car as a perk and those who needed to use a car as a part of the tool of their trade. Indeed, I mentioned sales representatives and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned district nurses, health visitors, and so on.
Of course we were a little concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, pointed out on Second Reading that it looked as though the Bill provided for retrospective legislation. We share the view that that is not a very good principle. However, the Minister claims that it is not retrospective. I shall listen with interest to his reply. I must stress that we on this side of the House welcome attempts to increase the money available in the National Insurance Fund. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, decides to press the amendment to a Division, I do not think that we shall be able to support it, even though we understand all the arguments which have been advanced by him and by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, as to the undesirability of the retrospective effect of this legislation.
Having once accepted the principle that we should like to see more money going into the National Insurance Fund, if the provision were to be adopted it would mean that this time round—that is, this year —there would be rather less money than would
1070
otherwise have been available. With those few words, I have to say that, although I have much sympathy with the amendment, we on this side of the House would not be able to support it if it were pressed to a Division.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I support the amendment for three reasons. The first is the retrospective nature of the Bill. My period as Chief Secretary in the Treasury was much briefer and less distinguished than that of my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but I am familiar with the procedure and endorse what he said. I believe that this legislation is retrospective. I shall be interested to hear what my noble friend the Minister has to say about it.
My second point was also made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. It relates to the burden that is placed upon companies and employers at a time when they wish to minimise their costs. They will not have prepared for this imposition which, although not payable until next year, must be accumulated in their accounts and provided for in their costs today. This is the one time when every action possible should be taken by the Government to minimise the burdens falling upon industry and commerce.
My third point is a minor one, but for practical purposes it is important. It relates to the administrative troubles that will be created in calculating back what has been happening over the past three months, or whatever it may be. For all those reasons I hope that my noble friend will be able to accept the amendment.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said, and, failing some explanation from the Minister, it appears to me that there is a retrospective aspect to the Bill. To that extent, I support the amendment. I agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, that we do not like to see retrospective legislation and should like to see the end of it if possible.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the arguments in favour of the amendment have been so well deployed that there is no point in my trying to add much. I should like to reconcile two conflicting factors that have arisen. One understands the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, when she says that she would like to see the charge on the National Insurance Fund reduced. That is a laudable aim but, on the other hand, in trying to establish the revival of our economy we should be trying to avoid placing extra burdens on industry. As has been said, this charge is a considerable extra burden.
At this stage anything which increases industrial costs should be avoided. If it adds to those costs retrospectively and in a way which, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, is, in an elementary sense, contrary to our legal principles— namely, by a Minister merely declaring an intention in the Budget Statement, with nothing happening until the Bill was introduced—that in itself is an unsatisfactory way to add to the burdens on industry.

1071
We are now on Report. I do not believe that my noble friend wishes to divide the House on this tonight. The arguments are strongly in favour of asking the Government to think again. They could think again about this proposal between now and Third Reading. If they thought again, it would not involve a heavy cost on the Exchequer. By thinking again in the way proposed, the placing of a heavy burden on industry could be avoided.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Boyd-carpenter have founded their case for delaying the start of the Bill on the rules which apply to Finance Bills. They suggest that Budget measures are introduced by Budget resolutions which give them legal status until the Finance Bill has received Royal Assent, and that under that procedure it is acceptable for proposals to be announced in the Budget Statement to take immediate effect once the relevant resolution has been passed. But since that procedure does not apply to this Bill they argue that it would be retrospective taxation for the new charge to apply from 6th April, in advance of Royal Assent.
Following the Committee stage, I looked carefully at, and have been advised carefully about, the arguments advanced by my noble friends. As one who has never been a Member of another place, I say with all due respect to two former Treasury Ministers that my advice is that their arguments are based on a misunderstanding of the procedures used for Finance Bills. As I shall explain, the arrangements proposed in the Bill for Class 1A contributions mirror exactly the arrangements adopted for the introduction of new taxes.
The Finance Bill is brought in on resolutions. The resolutions merely determine the scope of the Bill. They cover every provision in the Bill, including those not due to come into effect until after Royal Assent. But, the important point is that those resolutions give no statutory effect whatever.
However, there is a different set of resolutions which does give temporary statutory effect. Those are resolutions under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. They are necessary where it is intended to collect the tax or implement the change before Royal Assent, such as the increased duty on whisky which my noble friend mentioned in Committee. Once passed, and subject to the various conditions which are specified in the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, such a resolution gives a particular measure legal status on a temporary basis until Royal Assent.
However, a Provisional Collection of Taxes Act resolution is unnecessary for those provisions where it is not intended to take any action to collect the tax until after Royal Assent. They become law only when the Finance Bill receives Royal Assent. But it is accepted practice—indeed common practice—that they can take effect from the beginning of the tax year. If my noble friends examine Finance Acts carefully they will find many examples of provisions increasing liability which take effect from 6th April, which were not introduced under a Provisional Collection of
1072
Taxes Act resolution and which therefore did not become law until Royal Assent at the end of July or the beginning of August.
One example from this year's Budget is the proposal to charge capital gains tax on non-resident trusts. If the Finance Bill is passed, the charge will have effect from Budget day but no Provisional Collection of Taxes Act resolution was required because no collection of the tax will be made until well after Royal Assent. Another, perhaps even better, example is the new charge in respect of mobile telephones. Again, no resolution granting temporary statutory effect was passed by the House of Commons.
To show that the comparison with what is proposed in the Bill is even closer, I should like to describe the introduction of the then new capital gains tax. When that was introduced in the 1965 Budget, it was covered by a general Budget resolution which was passed by the other place. That was not a Provisional Collection of Taxes Act resolution because that Act did not, and in fact still does not, apply to capital gains tax. Nevertheless, the proposal was to introduce the new charge on disposal of assets on or after 6th April 1965. The new tax did not become law until the Finance Bill 1965 received Royal Assent in the summer. Once the Bill became law, the new charge, legally and properly, ran from 6th April 1965. Like the proposals in the Bill, the introduction of the capital gains tax from 6th April had been announced in the preceding Budget, alerting people to the need to maintain appropriate records for it.
As I have already made clear, the Social Security Bill is not a Finance Bill and is not subject to Finance Bill procedures. But the arrangements proposed in this Bill for bringing the new contributions into effect are exactly the same as those which would apply to a new tax and which commonly apply every year to other Finance Bill measures increasing liability.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? Would he care to give examples of cases where provisions which have nothing to do with finance or a Finance Bill but which were wholly separate measures dealing, according to their title, with social security were applied months before they received Royal Assent?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not wish to give a precedent of that kind, as I have been trying to make clear. I have stated that the Social Security (Contributions) Bill is not a Finance Bill but the procedures in this case are analogous and they are the best ones to follow. We are doing nothing that has not been done in similar Finance Acts.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am sorry, but is my noble friend really saying that this Bill is equivalent to a finance Bill?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not saying that it is a finance Bill. I am saying that it is analogous to a finance Bill and therefore it is perfectly proper to follow the same procedures and to make the

1073
announcement in the Budget that this charge will be introduced and then, subsequently, to bring in the legislation. That is what we have done.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, will my noble friend permit me to intervene? Can he give an illustration of a case where a Bill other than a finance Bill has raised taxes retrospectively?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has already asked that question. I said that I was unable to give such an example. I said that this is not a finance Bill; I accepted that. I said that it was a social security Bill relating to contributions to the National Insurance Fund. However, I feel that the procedure followed by the finance Bills is the correct procedure to follow in this case. It is entirely analogous.
I should like to turn to the question put by all four of my noble friends on the additional charges on business. As I said in Committee, and I have just repeated it—and I have no shame in repeating it—one must see these measures as part of the overall Budget package. I stress the word "package" because at Committee stage my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter misheard me and thought that I was trying to suggest that it was part of the finance Act. It is part of the overall Budget package. It is accepted that there will be an extra £400 million charge to business as a result of these measures.
However, at the same time as that was announced, other changes were announced in the Budget. The main ones which were beneficial to business as a whole were as follows. The main rate of corporation tax was reduced to 34 per cent. for 1990–91 and 33 per cent. for 1991–92. Companies were allowed to carry back trading losses for three years instead of one. The waiting period for bad debt relief was reduced from two years to one year and for small businesses the corporation tax threshold and limit for marginal relief were both increased by 25 per cent. Small firms were allowed to make PAYE and national insurance contribution payments quarterly rather than monthly.
The value to industry of all those changes will be £750 million in 1991–92 and well over £1 billion in 1992–93. I believe that the additional cost of £400 million net as a result of charging national insurance contributions on cars should be seen in that light. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend Lord Mottistone will not feel it necessary to press the amendment to a Division.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he really arguing that a mere statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or any other Minister in a Budget speech or in the Budget debate has authority for imposing taxation?
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend answers that question, will he say what the statement was in the Budget? Did it in any way forecast the very complex provisions of the six clauses of the Bill covering five and a half pages?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I never said that the Budget statement had legislative authority. I said that following the Budget certain resolutions have to be passed in another place for the increases in tax which come into effect immediately. We cited the example of spirits and such items. However, if my noble friend had been listening to me he would have heard that there are many other matters relating to taxation which are not covered by the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act resolutions and do not need to be. I cited capital taxes as one example and also the case in this year's Budget of the proposal to charge capital gains tax on non-resident trusts.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am afraid that I am very disappointed indeed. Although I took the trouble to tell my noble friend what I was going to say, he did not take the trouble to answer what I said at all. I am also unhappy that he was not given examples of Bills that are not finance Bills which have been made retrospective in this way. He only quoted examples that were finance Bill matters.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pressed the Minister on this point and he has still not come up with an example—perhaps because there is none. That may be why my noble friend is unable to give us any example of a retrospective non-finance Bill. Perhaps this is a new ploy that is being tried. I am sorry that noble Lords opposite will not support us if we go any further because it is a matter of importance which transcends the case in question. I think that we are being fiddled and I do not believe that my noble friend gave us a good example which matched the case we have here.
I hope that we shall receive an answer. I shall seek to obtain one as I do not believe it is entirely right that your Lordships' House should not be given a clear-cut example which matches the circumstances which we are tackling. It might have helped—but my noble friend said nothing about it—if he had suggested how businesses could be aided if the Bill goes through as it is at the moment and my amendment is not included in it. For example, he could have given an undertaking —which he more or less gave at an earlier stage of the Bill—to ease industry's concern over the retrospection by giving an assurance that in complying with their obligations under the Act and the 1975 Act, employers themselves need keep no mileage records other than a written statement from each relevant employee of his business mileage and that reliance on good faith in such statements would not result in penalties or imposts on the employer.
Employers fear that this little bit of legislation is the thin end of the wedge to make them responsible for collecting records from their employees. That often happens in other respects, but the Bill itself does not say that. I am surprised that my noble friend had nothing to say on the point. Perhaps he has something to say now.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I follow my noble friend. Obviously employers will have to pay the money; it is a charge on employers. We are charging national insurance contributions on employers providing a benefit for their employees.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the point is that at the moment employers do not have to keep any close records. The employees are expected to keep a close record of when they use their cars for business purposes. That is what I do and what most noble Lords do in order to claim on the House. However, there is no close record of such movements held by companies; they do not have to do so. What companies are fearful of is that they will somehow be made responsible for telling the Government the detail of the business claims that are made by their employees.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we have never said that detailed records need to be kept. Obviously the employer will have to seek information from the employee, because the employee will have details about his business mileage during the year. However, it is not detailed information that the employer will need. The nature of the business itself will sometimes give an indication as to whether they will come in the band below 2,500 or above 18,000. It will be up to the employer to get that information from the employee and obviously, before using the information to calculate his liability, the employer will have to satisfy himself that it is reasonable and consistent with the nature: of his employee's responsibility. That is common sense, and is no different from the kind of safeguard which a responsible employer would take on other matters.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, yes, indeed that is true but one wants to be sure that, having said all that— and of course good employers do that automatically —somehow this rather nasty little Bill will not mean that some official somewhere will call upon the employers to keep more detailed records than they find it necessary in order to perform the functions about which my noble friend has just been talking. If I could be reassured on that I should be a great deal happier.
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I would hope that officials would not behave in that manner. I have said before that we shall be holding consultations and I repeat that assurance. We shall be publishing detailed guidance later this year following our consultations with employers. We hope that the right solution can be found so that employers, and obviously our own inspectors, will be satisfied.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, with that tiny reassurance, and the fact that noble Lords opposite are not prepared to go steaming into the Lobbies with me on this amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 25 at end insert:
("(d) so far as the figure of 18,000 miles wherever mentioned in this Act or in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 is relevant to the application of this Act but for no other purpose, there shall be substituted for that figure the figure of 10,000 miles").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has been specially phrased to take care of the points made by my noble friend Lord Henley in his
1076
comments made at col. 497 during our Committee stage on my Amendment No. 1. What this amendment seeks to do is to put into the Bill and into the Income and Corporation Taxes Act of 1988 the more accurate figure in equivalent places, of 10,000 miles.
The amendment deals with two concerns. The first is that there is too little distinction made between the business car and the "perk" car. The business car is supplied because it is a real tool of the trade. As the Bill is currently framed, a company car is only regarded as a business car in these terms if its annual business mileage exceeds 18,000 miles. This is not only arbitrary; it is unfair. Many company cars are provided to salesmen and sales support staff, who simply cannot deal with customers without such vehicles. A salesman based in, say, East Anglia, will easily cover 18,000 miles in contacting his quota of customers but his colleague in south London could drive all day, every working day, at metropolitan speeds and never clock up such a mileage, yet his need to keep in touch with customers is just as great.
Similarly, a site manager on a major construction project may not clock up 18,000 miles but without his car he would have no means of moving around and doing his job. All figures in this area will be arbitrary, but 10,000 miles at least has the merit of reflecting the average mileage of a business car user, as indicated in the Ministry of Transport's survey a decade or so ago in 1975–76.
The second concern is cost. Savings here would be less than if retrospection were to be avoided, and they will not be in excess of £100 million. That is what I am advised, and that would be a very welcome relief to those businesses facing this charge at a time when funds will be tight and cost competitiveness will be at a premium across the emerging single market.
What I said in relation to the pressure on companies at the moment in relation to the earlier amendment applies very much again to this one. My noble friend did not take up that point on the earlier amendment. He did not say that he realised—perhaps he does not realise—that businesses at this moment are in a period of recession when everything matters and every little penny counts. He did not take up that point and as I agreed not to press the earlier amendment I think the very least he can do to show that he understands the problem of business is to accept this one. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister will take the good advice he has just been given by my noble friend Lord Mottistone. The point is of course that 18,000 miles is a very high figure in respect of certain people operating company cars: that is to say, people operating them in metropolitan or built-up areas. As my noble friend said, people in East Anglia, or in country areas, will probably very easily come up to 18,000, but a car is just as necessary for many people in business, many people representing companies and many people securing sales in urban areas, where you would find it extremely difficult even if you drove like mad all day, to build up 10,000 miles. Therefore it is

1077
not only a severe imposition but also an extremely unfair one and one which, if he will allow me to say so, reflects very little credit on the Government.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, this of course follows on from what we said when this matter was debated in Committee. Again it is the issue of the sales representative who works in London, who clearly would have great difficulty in clocking up 18,000 miles a year—in fact it would be absolutely impossible—but who still needs his car for business purposes. Even if he uses it all the time so that he has no time left for private use of the car, he would still find it very difficult to reach the figure of 18,000.
Then of course there are people who are employed as district nurses in urban areas or, as my own stepdaughter is, employed as a health visitor in an urban area, who find it very difficult to achieve a total of 18,000 miles a year. It seems to me that what has been suggested is extremely sensible. I understand that when we discussed this in Committee it was felt that the amendment then moved was in some way flawed. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will have taken advice on that, and this time round I hope that the Minister may find it possible to accept the amendment.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I have only one brief point to add in relation to this amendment, and that is, if you calculate 18,000 miles on a daily working day basis, it means something like 80 or 90 miles a day, if my arithmetic is right. To contemplate doing that in an industrial, built-up area, such as in the suburbs of London or in central London, would show how impossible it would be for anyone doing that mileage at the same time to have any time to use the car for recreational or other purposes. I support the amendment.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I also support this amendment. When we discussed this matter on Second Reading I said that I felt the figure of 18,000 was too high. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has explained that the figure of 10,000 was found—a few years ago certainly—to be the average at that time. No doubt it still is, and therefore it seems a much more appropriate figure to have than 18,000. I support the amendment.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Mottistone has explained why in his view the threshold for treating cars as tools of the trade is too high and should be reduced. He has supported his arguments by citing 10,000 as being the average business use. I have to say, and would go on to argue this, that I do not think the average business use is necessarily the relevant figure we should be looking at on this occasion. First, my noble friend will remember that at Committee stage his amendment on these lines was defective. He comes forward on this occasion with an amendment which, I am advised, so far as we have been able to make out in the brief time that we have had it, is not defective. However, it would have the effect of disaligning the national insurance and income tax rules in this case. Obviously, the 18,000 would still
1078
exist for income tax charges on the employee. I do not think that my noble friend would agree that disaligning the two rules would be attractive to employers at this stage.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter; My Lords, if that is a worry, then the Finance Bill is going through another place at the moment. Would it not be simple for the Government to introduce an amendment into that Bill to apply the income tax?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend makes a point. I was just saying that on this Bill, we would not wish to disalign national insurance contributions. I would go on to say why we think that the figure of 18,000 is the right one, and therefore that it would be wrong for this Bill to take national insurance levels down to 10,000 miles when the income tax figure was 18,000.
The second and most important reason why the figure of 10,000 average business miles is irrelevant is that the charge on company cars will arise because of their availability for private use. The employer will be paying a contribution in respect of the benefits enjoyed by the employee just as if he had paid him in cash rather than making a car available. We know from the 1988–90 national travel survey statistics that on average the level of private motoring is not affected all that much by the extent of business use. But the discount for high business mileage in the income tax scale charge system was introduced to recognise the argument that where business mileage is exceptionally heavy there may be—and I stress may be—some effect on the availability of the car for private purposes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said that people might be so busy driving business miles that they did not have time to do any private miles. If there is no private use, as we have heard again and again, obviously there would be no national insurance liability because the car would be solely available for business use. The point simply does not arise.
The 18,000 business mile threshold is intended to reflect, therefore, this exceptional category of cars. The threshold proposed by my noble friend is far too low. It would apply to nearly half of all company cars and would not simply deal with the exceptional case. On the contrary, it would move the break right into the middle ground—close to the average business mileage, as my noble friend said.
The system would become anomalous with a big reduction in employers' contributions for cars whose business mileage is just above the average, and no reduction for those just below. The level of the threshold is, of course, a matter for judgment, but I hope that the House will accept that we have it about right. Lowering it to 10,000 would mean that the essential link between the employer's contribution liability and the value of the private benefit enjoyed by the employee would be lost.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and others argued that it was unfair to employers in urban areas. I accept that in some parts of the country employees are less likely to cover 18,000 business miles a year even though they are in their cars for as long as, or for a longer time than, employees operating in rural areas.

1079
Perhaps the noble Lord and the noble Baroness would like to have different rates for urban and rural areas, but there are a number of other relatively minor points of that kind which arise from the scale charge system. We have to recognise that the scale charge system is a simple method of assessing the value of benefits and for seeing that its application is fair in the vast majority of cases; and that it avoids the necessity for employers to maintain the comprehensive mileage record s that my noble friend Lord Mottistone would have feared m every case.
The argument advanced for a much lower rate because of the problems of people in urban areas could not justify a reduction in the 18,000 mile threshold for all company car users irrespective of where they were. It would be extremely complicated for employers, employees and the department to reflect within the system the different travel conditions both in urban and rural areas. I believe that the case for using the income tax scale charge structure and the supporting provisions of the Bill as drafted are strong. I hope therefore that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his full explanation as to why he thinks the 18,000 figure is more correct. There may be scope for study to see if we agree with it—it is quite impossible for me to disagree with it at this moment—and see whether the CBI, who advise me on these matters, consider my noble friend's reply useful in working out how to secure an alteration in the future.
I was sorry that my noble friend had nothing to say about the plight of industry. It could be that the Department of Social Security, and perhaps the Treasury, deliberately hide under the carpet their understanding—if they have one—that all their moneys come from successful industry. Perhaps my noble friend will note that point.
It is not sensible for these major government departments to ignore the fact that companies are under strain at this moment and need to be helped. If they want to bring in legislation of the sort we are dealing with now, they would have done better to put it off for a year rather than try to do it at this moment. It is sad that the total picture of how the country is kept together by successful business is ignored by these juggernaut departments. They have plans, and they do not stop to think whether those plans will be a disaster this year. It appears from what my noble friend failed to say that they do not stop to think about that. However, I shall try to use the information in the future with regard to this amendment. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [National health service allocation]:
Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the Second Reading debate I made it clear that we supported the principle behind the Bill. However, I raised the position of district nurses or community nurses under the Bill. I suggested that they should either no longer
1080
have contracts which oblige them to have company cars, or else they should be exempt from car tax and employees' national insurance contributions.
In his reply on 7th June the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said at col. 861:
"The noble Lord, Lord Banks, made a point in regard to district nurses. I confirm that there is no tax or national insurance contribution if there is no private usage."
I felt on reflection that this reply was not entirely satisfactory. It seemed to require further probing. I am advised that it is not possible to amend the Bill to secure this point, so I decided to raise it further by seeking to remove Clause 4, the part of the Bill that deals with the health service.
After all, there is private usage in this case. As I mentioned on Second Reading, the district or community nurses pay a contribution to the health authority, their employers, which is held to be a payment in respect of private usage. Would the district or community nurses be able to claim that there had been no private usage in these circumstances? As I understand it they cannot do so at the moment.
The amount that the nurses pay for private use is deducted from the "cash equivalent' which their car is judged to have for the purposes of income tax. The effect is that any tax nurses pay on their car is therefore purely for the business use of the vehicle. Having already made a payment in respect of any private use of the vehicle, community nurses are being taxed to do their jobs.
As if tax on their cars were not enough, many community nurses lose out on petrol costs. Under Whitley Council regulations, nurses are reimbursed petrol expenditure according to manufacturers' published urban cycle miles per gallon rates. However, because the nature of their work demands it, they have continued stops and starts as they carry out the various house calls that they have to make. As a result, most community nurses manage fewer miles per gallon than manufacturers claim. As a result, nurses end up out of pocket. Community nurses already pay for the private use of their cars. Therefore any tax that they pay on their vehicles is solely for the business use. The tax is a personal surcharge on the head of every nurse delivering care in the community. If they were excluded from car tax and employers' national insurance contributions, that surcharge would be lifted. That would appear to be in line with the Prime Minister's stated view while he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury when he said in another place on 9th May 1989:
"there will always be room for some carefully considered and limited tax incentives to meet particular needs".
9 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has raised an interesting point. The proposal to drop Clause 4 gives one a chance of illustrating the extent to which the Bill is simply an instrument of taxation. As I said earlier, it is misnamed the "Social Security (Contributions) Bill" because here we have a clause under which part of the takings—I use that word deliberately—to be raised will go to the National Health Service. I have no complaints about that. The National Health Service

1081
requires a great deal of financial support, but it is a rather revealing aspect of the Bill that it is thought necessary to provide in it that some share of the takings shall be diverted from social security to the National Health Service.
As this is the final amendment, perhaps my noble friend will also answer a question that has intrigued me for some time. Perhaps he can tell your Lordships whether the provisions of the Bill apply to ministerial cars.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if my noble friend had taken the trouble to read the Second Reading debate in another place, he would know that that question was put by a Member of another place to my right honourable friend Mr. Scott. My right honourable friend answered it by saying that it did not apply to ministerial cars as they are not provided to individual Ministers but come from a pool, which is somewhat different.
Before I deal with the substance of the amendment, perhaps I may refer to some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Mottistone when he wound up the debate on the previous amendment. I did not answer then because I felt that it was wrong for me to intervene again at Report stage. My noble friend said yet again that I and my department were not aware of the plight of business. I stress that the measure is part of the Budget measures. The overall package has been a good package for business and has brought about quite a dramatic reduction in the burdens on business. I quoted some concessions amounting to £750 million this year, and well over £1 billion next year, which more than takes up the £400 million net that the Bill will take from employers.
Perhaps I may now turn to the amendment itself. I must confess to being completely puzzled as to why the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has tabled an amendment to remove the clause which simply allows a certain percentage of the takings from the new class 1 A contributions to go to the National Health Service. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter suggested that this was an indication that this was yet another taxation Bill in that the money was going not to the fund but to the National Health Service. My noble friend, who is an old hand, will remember that that has always been the case with the National Insurance Fund. From the earliest days in 1948 through to the days when my noble friend was Minister for Pensions, a certain percentage of the National Insurance Fund has always gone to the health service. That has always been the case. As my noble friend will know from Question Time this afternoon, although the use of the health service is not dependent upon contributions —it is dependent purely on residence—it has always been the case that a certain percentage of the fund goes to the health service. This clause merely mirrors what happens as regards the rest of the fund. There is nothing new about that. I should have thought that my noble friend would be able to remember his days as Minister for Pensions.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his kindly reminder of a matter of
1082
which I was perfectly well aware, as he knows. However, I was making the point, which he has not answered, that the fact that some of the proceeds of the Bill will be diverted to the National Health Service indicates, first, that the Bill is misnamed because the contributions go beyond social security, and, secondly, the nakedness of the argument that it is other than taxation, and retrospective taxation at that.
Lord Henley: My Lords, if I accepted what my noble friend said, that would be true of all social security Bills that raised or changed charges on national insurance contributions, including those that were piloted by my noble friend through another place many years ago.
Perhaps I may now address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, particularly in relation to district nurses. I reiterate the assurance that I gave both on Second Reading and earlier this evening that there are no tax or national insurance liabilities if there is no private usage. The noble Lord mentioned the case of district nurses who often pay a certain amount for private use. Any tax or national insurance liability will be reduced pound for pound for each pound that they pay for their private usage. So if they pay for the full value of their private usage, there will be no liability whatever. However, if they are paying less than that, their liability will be reduced by that amount only. I hope that that assurance satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for the attention that he has given to the points that I raised. I still believe that the community or district nurses are in an unfortunate position. It is true that, over and above the amount that is deducted as the figure which is set out in the regulations, they pay tax on the amount that represents money that they have spent because of the work done.
I am not happy with that answer. The Minister said that he was puzzled as to why I decided to move this amendment. I explained at the beginning of my remarks that I was moving it because this was the only way to raise the point again at this stage of the Bill. As I mentioned earlier, I am not altogether happy with what he said. I do not consider that he has answered the point that I raised. However I certainly do not want to delay the passage of the Bill any further. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1991
9.9 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved [21st Report from the Joint Committee].
The. noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1991 be approved.
In his Budget Statement on 19th March, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that from 7th October child benefit is to rise by £1 a week for the eldest eligible child (that is from £8.25 to £9.25), with an increase to £7.50 for all other children in the family. These draft regulations lay the foundations for those increases, and are the first part of a process which will ensure that every family in the country will gain from the extra money. That will include those on income support, family credit and other income-related benefits and also those in receipt of national insurance benefits with child dependency increases. This will bring our total expenditure on child benefit this year to £5.3 billion.
These increases are on top of the extra £1 a week that each family has been receiving in child benefit since April and, together with our undertaking to index- ink from next April, confirm the Government's commitment to child benefit and underline our pledge that child benefit is, and will remain, a strong element in our policies for family support.
It rimy help to put these proposed increases in context if I remind the House that there are two strands to the Government's support for children through social security. Child benefit goes to all families with children as a recognition of the fact that at all levels of income they face greater expenditure than other families. For those families who need it, this universal provision is supplemented by extra help through income-related benefits.
This recognition of the needs of less well-off families was carried through into our 1988 social security reforms. Against a background of rapidly rising earnings and reductions in income tax and national insurance contributions which the majority of families were enjoying, we recognised that there were some who, through no fault of their own, were not sharing in the country's increasing prosperity. The Government decided that extra help for the least well-off families—those on income-related benefits —should be one of their priorities. Therefore, instead of increasing child benefit, we made substantial extra help available to these families—help over and above the annual increases to maintain the value of their benefits. From October the value of that real terms extra help since 1987–88 will be some £½ billion in a full year. These families are now better off than they would have been had we simply uprated child benefit instead. October's increases will mean that in a full year our total social security spending on families with children will be greater than if we had simply increased child benefit each year in line with inflation.
But our concern for families has not been restricted to families with children. We have also recognised that there are other types of families with needs—families with perhaps an elderly member or with someone who is sick or disabled—and we have taken their needs into account in making our decisions about the best use for the available resources. The House will recall that in
1084
1989, for example, we made an extra £200 million available for older and disabled pensioners and an extra £80 million for 65 to 74 year-olds from April.
This year, after careful consideration, we decided that the time was right to look at families with children generally. Attaching the extra payment to the eldest eligible child in the family, as we have done since April, means that we have been able to give a worthwhile acknowledgement of the additional costs all families incur in having children. It has the advantage too of being transferable to the next child once the original qualifying child is too old for child benefit, so that families will continue to have this additional recognition of the extra expenditure they face so long as they have a child who qualifies for child benefit.
The October increases provided for in these draft regulations build on the April improvements, but we have decided that in fairness the least well off families should benefit as well from these out of course increases, irrespective of any other benefits which might be in payment to them. As I have indicated, we shall therefore be bringing forward regulations to carry the increases through into the benefits system. These further regulations, which will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, are consequential on the regulations we are discussing this evening and can therefore be made and laid only after the present regulations have been approved and made.
The Government's record in providing help for families with children is one of which we can all be proud. I know the concern that has been expressed on previous occasions but I hope that the increases I have outlined amply demonstrate our commitment to child benefit. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved [21st Report front the Joint Committee].—(Lord Henley.)
9.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, in her unavoidable absence, my noble friend Lady Turner of Camden has asked me to say that from these Benches we support the increases, modest though they are. I have listened to what the Minister said. He acknowledges, as I do, that they are modest. However, he has explained that they form part of the Government's overall policy in respect of child support. I am not in a position—as my colleague might have been—to take issue with the Minister. I know from experience that in general families who benefit will be well pleased. However, the Minister will also be aware that many families who live in wretched circumstances could do with a great deal more money than they will receive. Some families will receive an increase in child benefit of £1 a week in the same week as many well-heeled gentlemen and their families will receive thousands of pounds extra a week by virtue of the position that they hold in previously publicly owned companies. It is that grotesque disparity between the two ends of the spectrum which make my colleagues on this side of the House ask that more beneficial treatment be given to those poorer families.

1085
The Minister has taken care to point out the context in which the increase has been given. On this side of the House, we welcome what he said.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's welcome of these regulations. I am rather pleased that his noble friend was unable to be present to give me a slightly tougher grilling on them. I commend the regulations to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1991
9.16 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne rose to move, That the scheme laid before the House on 10th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, unless any noble Lords object, I intend to speak to all four instruments in my name on the Order Paper and will move the remaining three Motions formally at the end of the debate.
Your Lordships may recall that in July 1990, the farm and conservation grant scheme (or F&CGS) was amended in response to a package of structural measures which had been agreed by the European Council of Ministers in December 1989. This required us to make a number of minor adjustments to the scheme in order to reflect changes in the EC rules. One feature of the "structures package" not implemented last summer, was the addition of farm diversification works to the categories of investment eligible for aid under the terms of EC Regulation 797/85. To take advantage of EC aid, the farm diversification grant scheme (or FDGS) has to be brought into line with EC requirements. The Government decided that the best way to achieve that was to combine the FDGS with the part of the F&CGS which already complied with EC requirements. In order to avoid a major upheaval of grant arrangements so early in the life of the schemes, it was agreed to defer this change until the summer of 1991.
The principal aim of the instruments before the House today is therefore to merge the part EC funded improvement plan side of the F&CGS with the FDGS. We have also taken the opportunity to make other minor changes to grant arrangements including an amendment to the farm woodland scheme.
Before I explain the functions of each instrument I should like to describe briefly the current capital grant arrangements so that the changes may be seen in perspective. The F&CGS, which was introduced in February 1989, consists of two parts: an improvement plan side which attracts 25 per cent. reimbursement from Brussels; and a nationally funded non-plan side for ad hoc investments. The FDGS was introduced in January 1988 and, as I have said, is nationally funded.
The instruments before the House today will implement the following changes. The Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1991 extend the improvement plan side of the F&CGS to include
1086
grants currently covered by the FDGS. The maximum amount of investment on which grant can be paid over any six year period will be increased from£74,000 to £85,000. Diversification work may account for up to £40,000 of this limit. The recent extension of the less-favoured areas is implemented, enabling farmers in newly designated areas to claim some grants at higher rates and obtain some diversification grants which are not available elsewhere. The rule which currently prevents pig farmers with more than 800 pig places from obtaining grant is dropped. Finally, the regulations allow producers of beneficial organisms to qualify for glasshouse grants. Perhaps I may explain this final point. Beneficial organisms are insects reared for the purposes of biological pest control and I am pleased that this worthy initiative will now qualify for help.
The second instrument before the House today is the Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991. I am delighted to say that this instrument abolishes the prior notification rule which currently applies to grants for farm waste and traditional buildings under the non-plan side of the F&CGS. This means that farmers who in their eagerness to address farm waste problems bought equipment or started work before their notifications had been acknowledged, thus disqualifying themselves from obtaining grant, will be able to submit fresh claims for consideration without the application of this rule. We very much hope that they will. The instrument also implements the LFA extension, the raised investment ceilings and incorporates beneficial organisms as described for the regulations.
The third instrument, the Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1991, closes the FDGS to new applications and implements the LFA extension. This may benefit current planholders in newly designated areas who wish to vary their plans to include items aidable in LFAs only.
Finally, the Farm Woodland (Variation) Scheme 1991 simply implements the LFA extension. This change will not affect current participants in the farm woodland scheme. Farmers in newly designated areas who enter the scheme in the future will be eligible to receive payments at the lower LFA rates for improved land but will be able to apply for unimproved land for which grant is payable in LFAs only.
The four instruments that I have described will come into force on 18th July. Your Lordships will have gathered that the overall scope of the current grant schemes will change very little as a result of the amendments. The emphasis will continue to be on targeting aid at anti-pollution measures, enhancement of the rural environment and encouraging farmers to seek alternative sources of income through diversification. I am sure that your Lordships will welcome, as I do, the simplification of creating one scheme to cover both farm and conservation and diversification grants. This should ease paperwork for farmers while increasing awareness of the opportunities offered by diversification. I commend the regulations to the House.
Moved, That the Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1991 laid before the House

1087
on 10th June be approved [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
9.23 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for introducing the four regulations and speaking to them together. I shall deal with them individually because that is the basis on which I have prepared my comments. I hope that I shall deal with them in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper.
In general we welcome the regulations and are sensitive of the purpose underlying them. My comments are restricted mainly to the explanatory notes which the regulations carry. Many people such as myself rarely have the time or the inclination to plough through the details and, provided that the explanatory notes give the gist of what we are asked to agree to, that is normally sufficient for our purposes. It is therefore about the explanatory notes that I shall speak briefly this evening.
As regards the Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1991, my query is about the bringing forward of the closing date for applications from 30th November 1994 to 17th July 1991. No doubt the noble Earl will tell me that that is to make the whole scheme uniform. Nevertheless, in view of the change of date, will there be any disadvantage to certain applicants?
We welcome also the extension in this order of areas which qualify for grant and the addition of a grant for the ancillary business of the provision of horses and ponies for hire. We know that that is a growth industry, much to the chagrin of motorists. Nevertheless, it represents a useful form of diversification for farmers and the fact that it now qualifies for grant will no doubt please them.
The only query I have is on the vexed question of planning applications for change of use of, for example, an existing farm building to stabling or whatever in order that advantage can be taken of this extension of grant. I know that that is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture and that in a number of instances local authorities have been somewhat wary of sanctioning changes of use. I wonder whether the Department of the Environment knows of the change and will encourage local authorities to be as sympathetic as possible when applications for change of use are made.
Turning to the second measure, again we welcome the grant which the noble Earl described for producing beneficial organisms for pest control. I thank him, too, for the explanation he gave as to what those beneficial organisms can be. I am sure that horticulturists will be pleased that they will have the opportunity of applying for the grant if they have the capacity so to do.
The extension of land areas included in the measure is also welcome as is the easement in respect of prior notification of certain works. The increase in maxim um grants is also, I am sure, useful at this time and will be accepted with considerable pleasure by farmers.
1088
To restrict the expenditure on dairy cows, which appears in paragraph (b), to the applicants' quota, seems to me to be an unavoidable limitation. However, since it now has an official place in a measure, we are entitled to ask whether that means that dairy quotas are here to stay. I should be grateful if the Minister would give us his view as to whether or not that is likely to be the position.
Also, there is reference to a change of term as regards qualification; namely, the term "ancillary farmer business" is now to be known as a qualifying business. I wonder whether that is purely terminological or whether it is of greater significance. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell us which it is.
As regards the third measure—the big brother of the four —looking at the very extensive explanatory notes which are attached to the measure—and I shall refer to them briefly by paragraph numbers—it is clear from the first paragraph that European Community regulations and directives now control the whole of our agricultural destiny. That is a fact which needs to be emphasised from time to time because speeches are still made as though, in agricultural terms, we are in charge of our own destinies. That is not so. I am one of those who would transfer the Ministry of Agriculture to Brussels and maintain a branch office in London. In terms of efficiency and economy, that would be a very wise decision to make.
We welcome especially the high rates of diversification grant promised to young farmers and partnerships including young farmers. That is a forward-looking move at this time, particularly when we understand that Commissioner MacSharry is thinking in terms of early pensions for farmers of the age of 55 and above.
The reference in paragraph 3 to grant aid is somewhat complex and I regard it, having read it most carefully, as a statement of intent. If it be so, I hope that it will be sympathetically interpreted. For example, the rather ominous statement that in order to qualify the plan must bring about a lasting improvement of that situation is very noble, very worthwhile and no doubt justified on the grounds of cost. Nevertheless, it applies a standard of assessment which could, if adversely interpreted, be of some disadvantage to certain applicants in certain circumstances.
Paragraphs 4(a) to (j) of the regulations are specific to an almost frightening degree in my experience. Having read them carefully, I ask myself whether the small farmer will be able to cope unaided with all those qualifications if he wished to make application. We are in danger of delivering the small farmer into the hands of professional advisers. If that be so it means that the advice he receives will have to be paid for. The value of his funding will be diminished to the extent that he incurs professional charges in order to take advantage of the new scheme. That prompts the thought that it may be that the Agricultural Training Board, which performs useful work across the whole spectrum, may consider a distance learning course for farmers so that they, like me, may more easily understand the regulations that are now stemming from Brussels.

1089
The final paragraph in the order again includes an extension of eligible land areas, which we welcome. The improved maximum limits of expenditure under the Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations are also welcome. A query again arises whether the earlier closing date of 17th July for the receipt of applications is not disadvantageous to certain applicants.
Turning finally to the fourth order, the Farm Woodland (Variation) Scheme, we give a welcome to the extension of areas of land to be treated as disadvantaged or severely disadvantaged. That said, should the noble Earl choose to reply to my remarks this evening, perhaps he will consider à propos farm woodlands in general—I emphasise farm woodlands —that there might be merit at some time in your Lordships' House being given the opportunity for a short debate on the future of farm woodland schemes and possible changes to build on the results achieved by farm woodland schemes to date.
All that said, we support the four orders.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, for what he has said. He asked me a number of questions, to which I shall attempt a reply. Should I not give the noble Lord satisfactory answers I shall certainly endeavour to write to him.
The noble Lord began under the Farm Diversification Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme asking whether the new closing date would disadvantage anyone. The answer is no, with one minor exception; that is. grants for letting. All the grant available under the FDGS will he available under the Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations. The latter scheme opens as the FDGS closes. Therefore continuity is ensured. Farmers already holding approved plans under the FDGS are unaffected.
The noble Lord asked also whether the instrument would affect planning prospects for equine hire. I happen to know that that is of some interest to a number of noble Lords in this House. The only change with regard to grant in connection with horses for hire is the extension of the less favoured areas. The grant is only available to farmers in less favoured areas. Planning issues are not affected by that instrument.
I move on to the next scheme. The noble Lord asked whether dairy quotas are here to stay. The existing quota system ends on 31st March 1992. It is overwhelmingly likely that the EC Council will extend it for a further period.
The next point raised by the noble Lord related to ancillary farm business, as opposed to qualifying farm business, and the differences between those two terms. Ancillary business was changed to qualifying business because of the introduction of diversification grants into the Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations. Ancillary business covers the range of diversification activities which attract grant. Qualifying business is a wider definition which includes non-aidable activities. That definition is used in the eligibility test and its wider scope enables more farmers to meet the
1090
eligibility requirements of the regulations. That is mirrored for the scheme but only applies to farmers who wish to obtain grant on traditional farm buildings.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, brought up the subject of whether grants would be sympathetically administered. If a farmer qualifies he will be paid a grant; if he does not, he will not.
The noble Lord referred to rules A to J, which are complicated. He asked whether the Agricultural Training Board would be able to give guidance about the regulations. I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the restrictions of payment of grant in Regulation 6. Most of these rules are EC requirements. They are explained in the explanatory leaflets about the scheme which were issued to farmers. If farmers do not understand them they can ask for help from their local Ministry office. The ATB has no role in this particular issue.
The noble Lord also raised a point on planning. The DoE is familiar with diversification grants. There is no change here as far as concerns planning. The noble Lord asked about pensions. Again, there is no change to grants to young farmers. Young farmers already get higher grants under the existing schemes. Finally, the noble Lord asked about a debate in your Lordships' House on the farm woodland scheme. I can only say—I think he will expect me to say—that this can only be arranged through the usual channels.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that the instruments before the House today represent a welcome rationalisation of capital grant arrangements. The creation of a single scheme to cover both farm and conservation and diversification grants will present to the farmer a simpler method of obtaining aid together with the opportunity of including both types of work under a single improvement plan. This move will also ease administration of these grants and, of course, will enable us to claim reimbursement from Brussels on future plans which include diversification work. I hope that I have answered all the noble Lord's points. I commend these instruments to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm and Conservation Grant (Variation) Scheme 1991
9.36 p.m.
The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the scheme laid before the House on 10th June be approved. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm and Conservation Grant Regulations 1991
The. Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 10th June be approved. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Farm Woodland (Variation) Scheme 1991
TN Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft scheme laid before the House on 12th June be approved. [22nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Ms. Champers Tamgh
9.38 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their intention to deport Ms. Champers Tamgh, who has been in England since 1985, i n view of circumstances calling for compassion.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, one of the prime functions of Parliament is the redress of grievances. Tonight I wish to explain the grievances and the grounds for compassion surrounding the case of one domes tic worker in London who came originally from Nepal. I shall leave it for the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and other speakers if they so wish, to explore the urgent need for protection and for prevention of abuses among overseas domestic workers generally following the not entirely satisfactory Government reply to the short debate that I initiated on 28th November 1990.
The case of Ms. Champers Tamgh was brought to my attention by her solicitor in the North Kensington Law Centre in early March. Since then I have corresponded at some length with the honourable gentle man M r. Peter Lloyd, the Home Office Minister responsible for immigration. In spite of that, Ms. Tamgh still faces the possibility of deportation.
Her history is as follows. She came from Nepal but worked, married and had children in New Delhi. In 1985 she was recruited to work in London for an Indian couple, Mr. and Mrs. Tanden, who lived in Highgate. She was, and still is, illiterate and in 1985 could only speak Nepali and Hindi, though in the past few years she has acquired a reasonable command of English. She travelled from Delhi to London by air in the company of Mr. Ashuk Kapoor, a friend of her employer.
Ms. Tamgh had no knowledge whatever of British immigration law. As far as I know she was not seen by British officials in India and on arrival in London was asked no questions by immigration officers. It is probable that her passport was stamped as a visitor to
1092
this country. She was not to know that, since her passport had been retained by Mr. Tanden and she only received it back again several years later.
Ms. Tamgh never had a written contract or conditions of employment either with the original employer or with two subsequent ones. With Mr. Tanden she received £84 a month, paid in Indian rupees, plus board and lodging. Her food was mainly rice and dhal, never eggs, butter, meat or fish—and seldom fruit. She was required to work from 6 a.m. to midnight, seven days a week and was paid about 17p per hour. She suffered constant personal abuse and threats and her private letters were regularly opened. Her employers told her on arrival never to leave the house and garden, and there was a security guard physically to prevent her leaving.
In November 1986, after living under such intolerable conditions for nearly a year, Ms. Tamgh's health was failing. She was suspected of having tuberculosis. For this reason the employers saw fit to imprison her alone in a flat on the fifth floor of Water Gardens in the Edgware Road. After a month she was allowed to go to hospital, from where she succeeded in escaping from her employers.
Wages were unpaid for some four months. These were recovered through an action in 1987 in the Bloomsbury County Court—Case No. 8722081. False imprisonment and personal damages were also claimed, but the case was settled by agreement. The wages were thus eventually paid, but only a nominal sum of £17 was received in respect of the other two heads of claim.
The legal system has therefore afforded limited protection to Ms. Tamgh. It was not able to prevent her suffering financial exploitation at the hands of three separate employers, nor could it protect her against serious health damage. Tuberculosis was confirmed and an operation was done to remove certain neck glands. Goitre was also diagnosed. Following the operation, Ms. Tamgh attended the pain clinic at the Central Middlesex Hospital and was for a time fitted with a transcutaneous nerol stimulator. Her general practitioner, Dr. Jasani, suspected a neuroma formation following the first operation, but Mr. Birch, a senior orthopaedic consultant at St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, has since advised that a second operation to remove two lymph nodes would be too dangerous.
It will be clear from the details already given that deportation to India would be highly undesirable and unsatisfactory on medical grounds. Ms. Tamgh has herself told me that in India she would not be able to afford the tablets she still has to take in London, let alone other expensive forms of treatment that may become necessary. In my view it would be quite wrong to remove her from the possibility of aftercare by the doctors and surgeons who have looked after her so well in this country.
Here I must comment on a statement contained in letters to me dated 10th May and 18th June 1991 from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Lloyd, to the effect that Ms. Tamgh was not entitled under immigration rules to free treatment by the National Health Service. That seems a remarkable

1093
comment in relation to someone who has worked here for a large part of the past six years. Has she not contributed to the British economy? Has she not helped to make possible the residence in London of wealthy expatriates who employ security guards as well as other domestics? In any case, I think it is most probable that Ms. Tamgh is covered by the exemption provided in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the National Health Service (Charges to Overseas Visitors) Regulations (S.I. 306 of 1989).
I turn now to Ms. Tamgh's work record since 1987. She worked for five months for an Indian family in east Acton, earning £35 per week for a 10-hour day, and later for two years for an Iraqi family in Knightsbridge earning £20 per week, where she was on call from 6.30 a.m. until 1 a.m. the following day. Both jobs were residential. The families treated her correctly, even though they exploited her financially. It is worthy of note that the rates of pay compare very badly with those for au pairs, whose hours of work are strictly limited by official regulations. I have met Ms. Tamgh's present part-time employer, who warmly recommends her as honest, conscientious and reliable. She has cared for his two children, now aged 5 and 7 years.
More important, however, than the work record and the medical history and outlook are Ms. Tamgh's family circumstances. I must emphasise that these have not so far been brought into the correspondence with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary. That is because they have only recently became known to me. Therefore, I urge him and his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to give them the most careful consideration.
The facts, as I understand them, are that Ms. Tamgh's husband in Delhi is an invalid, having been completely paralysed for the past two years. Their two children are cared for by an aunt who is herself a single parent, maintaining her own three dependent children. Thus a total of five children and two adults survive only as a result of money sent to them by Ms. Tamgh from London. Without her earnings, the whole family would soon become destitute. It is clear that her pay in London, even at rates that we believe to be unfair and unjust here, will exceed any remuneration she is likely to receive in India. The welfare and well-being of the whole family is, therefore, at stake in the event of deportation.
I ask Her Majesty's Government to do two things before reaching a final decision. First, I ask them to arrange for Ms. Tamgh to be interviewed in London, as there has been no direct contact so far in this case, only correspondence via solicitors and other intermediaries. Secondly, I believe that the British Embassy in Delhi should verify the circumstances of the family members who live in Delhi, who are in fact as I have described them. I have the aunt's address and can make it available.
Your Lordships will know that in asylum cases, many people who do not qualify as refugees under the 1951 United Nations Convention are granted "Exceptional Leave to Remain" in Britain. The Home Secretary has a discretion just as wide in immigration
1094
cases. Everything that I have seen and heard about this case persuades me that that discretion should be exercised in respect of Ms. Tamgh. I earnestly trust that the combination of past ill-treatment and exploitation, with the present medical condition and family circumstances, will be sufficient to persuade Her Majesty's Government to reconsider the matter, with or without the verifications which I have already suggested.
9.48 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, someone whose name escapes me was once asked to follow the great orator Edmund Burke and could think of nothing to say except, "Ditto to Mr. Burke". I find myself in the same position and can only say "Ditto" to what was so eloquently explained by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I shall not detain the House very long this evening, but I shall do so for rather longer than I did last night. According to the Official Report of yesterday's proceedings, I rose to speak at 7.28 p.m. and finished my speech at 7.25 p.m.; in other words, I spoke for minus three minutes. That was quite an achievement. Perhaps it should be copied by some noble Lords.
The story which has been explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is a terrible one. In fact, when one thinks of all these horrors, it brings to mind difficult and wider issues. For example, who is to decide the matter? I do not envy the Minister. Here he is with the best will in the world. We have all been junior Ministers in our time, at least many of us have. He comes to the House with a brief of some sort which he must read. However, I am not quite sure whether that will satisfy him tonight when he goes to say his prayers. Indeed, perhaps he would like to feel that he had done a little better than that and that he had actually held out a ray of hope.
Therefore, let us see whether the Minister can prove that he has initiative and independence of mind—without jeopardising his career, which none of us would wish him to do—by saying that the matter will at least be considered. A flat, negative response would, frankly speaking, be disappointing.
The minimum response should be that demanded by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. He was asking for an interview. Who will interview this lady? Why not the Minister? We cannot expect the senior Minister to find time to do so with all his other preoccupations, but I suggest that the Minister might ask leave to see the lady and to go into the case. His officials are bureaucrats. They thrive on paper. This is a case that cannot be settled on paper. Someone should see this lady. Perhaps the Minister can answer this question: who will see this lady? He should be the one to see her. In a general sense, I always support any case that the noble Lord raises. This is a terrible story. I do not say that anyone is to blame. It is a tragedy that could be put right with a little kindness and imagination, and I hope for that from the Minister.
9.50 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who has yet again brought to the attention of the House a case which demands a response based on humanitarian grounds. He has described in great detail the tragic case of an Indian woman who was virtually imprisoned by her employers and treated with a total lack of humanity. He also gave details of the intolerable conditions in which she lived and the deterioration in her health which resulted. He has advanced a strong case for a decision to be based on humanitarian grounds.
We should also be grateful to the noble Lord for having championed the cause of this small vulnerable group of overseas domestic workers. They find themselves here for a variety of reasons but are not protected within any kind of framework. For that reason they are open to discrimination and abuse. They should be accorded greater protection under the law.
As my noble friend Lord Longford said, there is nothing we can add to the background of Ms. Tamgh, her present situation, the unspeakable conditions to which she was subjected by her employer, and the predicament in which she now finds herself. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has asked the Minister to consider her case carefully, and to change the present intention to deport her. We look forward to his response with hope.
The noble Lord has advanced a good case for special consideration to be given. It is probable that when the lady first arrived she had no knowledge of British immigration laws. As the noble Lord said, she left India in 1985. Due to virtual imprisonment by her employer, she would have been unaware of her employment conditions on reaching London. Nor would she have been in a position to know what her immigration status here was. I was interested to hear from the noble Lord that the honourable gentleman Mr. Lloyd had told him that Ms. Tamgh is not eligible to receive health care in this country. Will the Minister comment on that point? I do not know why she is ineligible to receive health care in this country. I did not know that there was anyone who would be ineligible for health care.
Although the precise circumstances surrounding each overseas domestic worker in this country obviously differ, I believe that the case of Ms. Tamgh reflects the unsatisfactory and uncertain legal position in which workers can find themselves. In order to help him with the background to the debate, the noble Viscount will no doubt have read the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in November last year which examined the difficulties encountered by overseas domestic workers in general. The noble Lord was not putting forward a specific case; this evening, he is. 1 am sure that the noble Viscount will have noted the total unanimity of view expressed by all those taking part that the problem surrounding overseas domestic workers was real and needed solving. He will also have noted that the reply by his noble friend Lord Reay in no way satisfied the House.
1096
It is to be welcomed that information leaflets are issued to employers and employees which set out the legal rights of domestic workers and the protection available to them. This was announced by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in the debate. However, the problem is that those domestic workers who are already here will not have received such leaflets. Therefore, they will remain unaware of their rights. That would certainly have been the case with Ms. Tamgh and perhaps the Minister will say that the Government are considering issuing leaflets to those overseas domestic workers who were here prior to the date of their first issue. Some questions put in that debate need answers from the Government before we can have any confidence that domestic workers from overseas are sure of being treated with humanity and justice in this country.
I am examining the wider issue: the Minister may not choose to do so. But this is an opportunity to point out the various courses that the Government could take in order to overcome the problem that we encounter with domestic workers who do not have work permits and who do not enter the country under immigration laws but under Home Office concessions. Some courses were put forward by my noble friend Lord Richard in the debate in November. They probably need consideration. My noble friend felt that such people should be treated as though they had a work permit and should be allowed to move around within the same area of work, enabling them to escape from bad employers. Then, after four years, they should be allowed to claim residence if they so wished.
The other approach suggested by my noble friend was that domestic workers should not be admitted on a concessionary basis but on a more regular basis in their own right. That would avoid the problem of their coming to Britain and being bonded to one particular family and in some cases, such as that of Ms. Tamgh, bonded to a very bad employer. They would then have independent legal status before coming here.
Those are ways of solving the dilemma. I do not expect the Minister to give an answer tonight, but I remind him of the wider context of the problem we are considering tonight. We hope that the Government will decide to make a change which will safeguard a small but, as I said, highly vulnerable group of people in this country. In the meantime, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is asking the Government to remember the particular case of Ms. Tamgh. Again, I remind the noble Viscount of what his noble friend Lord Reay said when summing up the debate in November, when talking about guarantees to domestic workers:
"Each case will be considered carefully and compassionately before any enforcement action is taken."—[Official Report, 28/11/90; col. 1055.]
I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is asking the Government to do tonight. He has put forward some very strong evidence and there is an extremely good case, which should be considered on compassionate grounds and also as a particular case. I hope very much that the noble Viscount will be able to tell us that that is what the Government will do.
10.4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as the House will have heard, there are without doubt compassionate features in this case to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has drawn attention. I fully recognise the noble Lord's concern for the wellbeing of Ms. Tamgh, as does my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office with whom the noble Lord has been in correspondence. It is this Government's policy to maintain a firm but fair immigration control and it is against this background that Ms. Tamgh's wish to remain in this country has been fully, carefully and sympathetically considered, having regard to all the facts of her case.
If I may, I should like to review this rather complicated case. Ms. Tamgh entered the United Kingdom on 16th November 1985. Her passport was endorsed to limit her stay to six months and with a condition which prohibited employment. She immediately took up employment without authority as a domestic servant. Indeed by her own admission she was recruited in India and came to this country for that specific purpose. Subsequently, when her six months' stay expired she neither left this country nor sought an extension of stay. Noble Lords will have heard that Ms. Tamgh claims to have been maltreated during her unauthorised employment, alleging that she was poorly fed and imprisoned in her employer's homes. These allegations were the subject of an investigation by the police who referred the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service to consider whether there were sufficient grounds to justify the institution of criminal proceedings against Ms. Tamgh for overstaying and her employer for false imprisonment and other immigration offences, but it was decided to take no further action against any party.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt? Was it really decided whether she had been maltreated? The fact that nobody was prosecuted does not dispose of that allegation.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the matter of prosecution is obviously something for the Crown Prosecution Service and not something upon which I can comment. However, the story goes on. On 13th September 1989, the North Kensington law centre, acting as Ms. Tamgh's representative, applied to the Immigration and Nationality Department for Ms. Tamgh to be allowed to remain in the country to receive medical treatment. It is a requirement of the immigration rules that a person who wishes to remain in the United Kingdom for such treatment must pay for that treatment privately and an application for an extension of stay is to be refused if there is reason to believe that the treatment will be at public expense or that the applicant does not intend to leave the United Kingdom at the end of the treatment. Inquiries established that Ms. Tamgh was receiving medical treatment from the National Health Service since she was not in a position to pay for such treatment herself. Notwithstanding this, her application was referred to the medical adviser at the Department of Health who, after consulting Ms. Tamgh's own doctor, advised the
1098
Immigration and Nationality Department that treatment for her medical condition was available in India and that she was fit to travel. In view of this, and only after fully being satisfied that Ms. Tamgh would not suffer by returning to India and that there were no other special features to her case to justify taking the exceptional step of the grant of leave to remain outside the immigration rules, her application was refused.
Under Section 14(1) of the Immigration Act 1971 an entitlement to appeal against a refusal to vary a limited leave is conferred only on a person whose limited leave to enter or remain has not expired at the time of their application. Ms. Tamgh's leave to enter had long expired on 16th May 1986. She had therefore no right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities and was advised, via the North Kensington law centre on 10th May 1990, to make arrangements to leave the United Kingdom.
On 24th May 1990 the North Kensington law centre applied again on Ms. Tamgh's behalf for leave to remain exceptionally outside the immigration rules on compassionate grounds in the light of her medical condition and because the medical treatment she was receiving was not believed to be available in India. Her case was once again referred to the medical adviser at the Department of Health, who, after obtaining new medical evidence from Ms. Tamgh's doctor, again indicated that appropriate facilities for the treatment of her condition were available in India and that she was fit to travel. In reaching a decision on the application, full regard was given to the difficulties of Ms. Tamgh's position and the strain which a prolonged period of ill health must have placed upon her. But it would have been wrong not to have had regard to the public interest. Ms. Tamgh was an overstayer who had no basis of stay in this country and medical advice indicated that her well-being would not suffer if she were to return to India. Her application was thus refused and on 4th February this year she was advised, via the North Kensington law centre, that she might be liable to prosecution and deportation if she did not make arrangements to leave the United Kingdom.
My Lords, before I can sum up on the case I have to say that the anxieties that the noble Baroness has on issues relating to domestic servants are well known to this House, but the matters that have been raised are not relevant to Ms. Tamgh's wish to remain in this country. She has made two applications to the Immigration and Nationality Department to remain here. Both of these were to enable her to continue medical treatment.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in recent correspondence with my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, drew attention to a change in Ms. Tamgh's medical condition. While we are not persuaded that this is sufficient to reverse the decision, we have looked again at this case, and, in the light of what the noble Lord has just told the House, we will certainly give full consideration to any further evidence or medical evidence sent to the Home Office. It would be in everyone's interest if this could be received promptly: otherwise my right honourable friend the Home

1099
Secretary will want to consider whether he should enforce Ms. Tamgh's departure. But I can say to the noble Lord that, if this information is received promptly, no action will be taken in the meantime to remove Ms. Tamgh.
Perhaps I may answer just a couple of points that were raised by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. One was a request that we should interview Ms. Tamgh. Staff conduct an interview when they consider it is likely to help to resolve a case. Ms. Tamgh is applying to the state for medical treatment. This is something on which expert advice has to be obtained from doctors. At this stage an interview with Ms. Tamgh would not help her case. It is the medical evidence that is required.
The noble Lord asked me if the High Commission should visit her home in Delhi. Again Ms. Tamgh is applying to stay for medical treatment. What is relevant is whether the treatment is available back home in India, and we are assured that it is. Her domestic circumstances are not relevant to the application and a visit by the High Commission staff would not help her case at this stage.
Two other points were raised. I have to say again that the immigration rules approved by this House require that anyone who wants to remain for medical treatment must pay for such treatment. The noble
1100
Baroness also asked about leaflets for domestic servants. Leaflets are only provided to those who actually apply to stay as a domestic worker. Ms. Tamgh has never applied to stay as one.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Viscount finally sits down, I should like to say that he has made some helpful remarks, which I appreciate very much, on the medical side of the matter. Would he go just an inch further and be kind enough to pass on as strongly as he can to his honourable and right honourable friends the family and compassionate aspects of the matter, which, so far as I know, are new to the consideration of the case?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office to this debate. I must repeat to the noble Lord that further evidence, if it can be sent to the Home Office as promptly as possible, will be looked at.

British Waterways Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with amendments, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House adjourned at ten minutes past ten o'clock.

  BRITISH RAIL: SEVERE WEATHER IMPROVEMENTS
  BRITISH RAIL: SEVERE WEATHER IMPROVEMENTS
  DoT MARINE DIRECTORATE
  DoT MARINE DIRECTORATE
  ST. MARK'S HOSPITAL, LONDON
  ST. MARK'S HOSPITAL, LONDON
  WANDSWORTH: COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
  WANDSWORTH: COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES
  DEFENCE WHITE PAPER PUBLICATION DATE
  DEFENCE WHITE PAPER PUBLICATION DATE
  GULF WAR COSTS: CONTRIBUTIONS
  GULF WAR COSTS: CONTRIBUTIONS
  IRAQ/KUWAIT BOUNDARY DISPUTE
  IRAQ/KUWAIT BOUNDARY DISPUTE
  IRAQ: WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
  IRAQ: WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
  CUSTODY TIME LIMITS
  CUSTODY TIME LIMITS
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS, 8th MAY—26th JUNE
  PRISONERS HELD IN POLICE CELLS, 8th MAY—26th JUNE